A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

[T. A. Gardner]

And here I show you how a Pz III could have had a bigger turret ring while sporting sloped side plates. An upgrade easily to implement that leads to a bigger turret ring, a bigger turret and a bigger gun.
Reverse sloped sides were common in SdKfz 221, 222, 231 etc. It can be seen on the turret of Pz IV, too. This would not have been rocket science.

The chassis of Pz IV is far from perfect. Especially the early versions are geometrically complicated. Pz III is much cleaner and therefore easier to produce. No fancy upper structure, no weird looking back.
With the reverse sloped sides, a Pz III can have a bigger turret than a Pz IV with usual sloped sides. So things have turned: Now Pz IV has to have the smaller turret and can't be upgraded properly.

Pz III has torsion bars while Pz IV has bogie wheels.

Basically, we can do the same 'family tree' we see above with a Pz III chassis.

---------------
I'm wondering if the autoloading 75mm aircraft Pak 40 would make it possible to get by without a loader and thus reduce the crew to four (or three in a Stug). Maybe increase the magazine from 12 to 20 or 24 rounds, so the gunner or radio guy does not have to reload the magazine in battle. Later fit the 75mm L70 KwK 42 with this magazine mechanism. Ergonomics would be better and new reverse slope sided Pz III could have a bigger turret anyways.

Russians stuffed a 85mm gun into their T-34 and a 100mm in their T-34 based Su100. Germans put a 105mm Howitzer in a Stug and called it Sturmhaubitze. So what about the 88mm KWK 36 in a Stug? However, it would be too much for a turreted P III/IV, I guess.

Questions you need to resolve in all that:

How much does all that new, extra armor weigh compared to the original armor?

Does the turret ring size change? If so, how and can a turret basket for the crew to stand / sit in still be used? It the turret ring overhangs the lower hull sides, then you are still limited in recoil length and the size of the turret basket. How does that effect the design?

How does maintenance of things like the transmission occur? This, if the transmission has to come out, how do you do that?

With the autoloader, is the type of ammunition selectable? After all, having armor piercing shot loaded when you need HE doesn't do much good...

How is the autoloader reloaded, particularly in combat?

Does the autoloading system require power?

What is the weight of all these different guns and how does that effect the design?

How are you changing the assembly of the upper and lower hull? On the original Pz III and IV the two are separate assemblies and bolted together.

I doubt that the BK 7.5 cm gun and magazine as designed would fit in the Pz III in any case



The gun is gigantic in terms of the added autoloader, and the ammunition carousel adds considerable length to the whole assembly.

[PunctuationHorror]

And here I show you how a Pz III could have had a bigger turret ring while sporting sloped side plates. An upgrade easily to implement that leads to a bigger turret ring, a bigger turret and a bigger gun.
Reverse sloped sides were common in SdKfz 221, 222, 231 etc. It can be seen on the turret of Pz IV, too. This would not have been rocket science.

The chassis of Pz IV is far from perfect. Especially the early versions are geometrically complicated. Pz III is much cleaner and therefore easier to produce. No fancy upper structure, no weird looking back.
With the reverse sloped sides, a Pz III can have a bigger turret than a Pz IV with usual sloped sides. So things have turned: Now Pz IV has to have the smaller turret and can't be upgraded properly.

Pz III has torsion bars while Pz IV has bogie wheels.

Basically, we can do the same 'family tree' we see above with a Pz III chassis.

---------------
I'm wondering if the autoloading 75mm aircraft Pak 40 would make it possible to get by without a loader and thus reduce the crew to four (or three in a Stug). Maybe increase the magazine from 12 to 20 or 24 rounds, so the gunner or radio guy does not have to reload the magazine in battle. Later fit the 75mm L70 KwK 42 with this magazine mechanism. Ergonomics would be better and new reverse slope sided Pz III could have a bigger turret anyways.

Russians stuffed a 85mm gun into their T-34 and a 100mm in their T-34 based Su100. Germans put a 105mm Howitzer in a Stug and called it Sturmhaubitze. So what about the 88mm KWK 36 in a Stug? However, it would be too much for a turreted P III/IV, I guess.

Questions you need to resolve in all that:

How much does all that new, extra armor weigh compared to the original armor?

Does the turret ring size change? If so, how and can a turret basket for the crew to stand / sit in still be used? It the turret ring overhangs the lower hull sides, then you are still limited in recoil length and the size of the turret basket. How does that effect the design?

How does maintenance of things like the transmission occur? This, if the transmission has to come out, how do you do that?

With the autoloader, is the type of ammunition selectable? After all, having armor piercing shot loaded when you need HE doesn't do much good...

How is the autoloader reloaded, particularly in combat?

Does the autoloading system require power?

What is the weight of all these different guns and how does that effect the design?

How are you changing the assembly of the upper and lower hull? On the original Pz III and IV the two are separate assemblies and bolted together.

I doubt that the BK 7.5 cm gun and magazine as designed would fit in the Pz III in any case



The gun is gigantic in terms of the added autoloader, and the ammunition carousel adds considerable length to the whole assembly.

Weight:
- Mass of proposed sloped sides is a trivial (ok, let's be honest, pen and paper trivial) matter of trigonometry. If the angle is chosen correctly there would be no additional mass with the same horizontal line of sight armor thickness. However, this 'sweet spot' angle is a bit unpleasant to fit in, so a different angle is needed and the rather small sloped side plate would increase its mass by 1.2 : 1 compared to the old one.
- Turret mass depends on the turret. No further statement possible.
- KwK 40 had a mass of ~ 750kg, compared to ~1000kg of KwK 42. With a bigger turret ring and turret, KWK 42 should be no problem.
- Frontal sloped armor will add some mass if the armor is increased. Else, it's a draw.

Gun recoil: Goes in the turret, not in the hull or turret ring.

Transmission change: The whole upper front plate would be removed. Pz 3 already had a removable lower frontal plate to get access to the transmission. No intention to change that.

Upper structure could still be bolted on.

Turret basket: Pz 3 had no turret basket , seats and foot rests were connected to the rotating turret. Pz 4 had a rotating turret floor, no basket, and seats and foot rests were like in Pz 3.

--------
Yes, the autoloader and magazine makes the 75mm aircraft gun very large, probably prohibitively large. Thanks for the picture with scale. Will check dimensions and possibilities later. Combined with the problem of ammo selection a human loader is probably the better solution.

But the 5cm autocannon is still in the race.

[Destroyer500]

Hello All :

Mr. Destroyer 500 posted :

I am not really sure and i would like your opinion on this.I believe that
since my design would become the standart for AAs,SPGs,TDs and a medium all
around tank that it would over time become cheaper since manufacturing would
be easier

Mr. Destroyer500, I am now going to attempt to hijack your thread, I hope you don't mind.

You initially asked the question, " What if the Germans only had the Pzkw III chassis ? "


Here is MY ' What-If ' : What If the Germans built ONLY the Pzkw IV Chassis ?

This had the same engine, the same transmission, used appx. the same amount of raw materials,
and had appx the same cost ( about 7.5 % more ) and had roughly the same range, speed and
mobility.

The Pzkw IV chassis had the large turret ring, and slightly more armor, so it could take ANY weapon
that was fitted on the Pzkw III chassis, and, if Germany had started the war with a homogenous
force of Pzkw IV chassis'ed tanks, some fitted with high velocity AT guns, the other fitted with
low velocity HE 'bunker buster' weapons, they would have had significant advantages in terms of
parts and spares supplies and maintenance support, in addition to training and production
advantages.

In addition, if the Heer had forced ALL the contractors to either produce the Pxkw IV chassis, or
subcontract for parts and sub-assemblies, they could have had the same advantages of scale that
the Luftwaffe had when they spread out the manufacture of the Bf-109.

It is a fundamental truism that increasing the scale of production invariably results in a lower
cost-per-unit of the article being manufactured. I find it highly likely that the Germans could
have reduced both the cost per unit of the Pzkw IV chassis, as well as streamlined production
and increased output if they had standardized on one, single chassis.

I attach these illustrations to show what the Germans might have done if they had standardized,
in the late 1930s, on a single chassis, which we could call the Pzkw III-IV Chassis :



Pzkw III-IV Page 1.jpg


Pzkw III-IV Page 2.jpg


Pzkw III-IV Page 3.jpg


You will note how, in the 1944-45 time frame, I have extended and widened the hull, and added another
set of suspension units, which, with increased horsepower, could have allowed an enlarged tank using
the same components to carry heavier armament in larger turrets with more armor. ( Anyone who
doubts that this could have been done need merely look at the U.S. tanks, which, adding another
set of suspension units on each side, were able to be scaled up into both heavy tanks ( M-6 ) as well
a number of SP artillery guns such as 155 and 200 mm pieces. )

In other words, the advantages of an ' All Pzkw IV ' force far ouweigh any disadvantages.


Please let me know your thoughts

Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

Hey there mr hijacker Paul R.Ward.Nice pictures ! They look like good designs but i dont like the not slopped frontal armor of the chassis.The only difference to what i propose is that you choose a pz4 instead of a 3.Your design propably has the ability to incorporate bigger guns but with modifications on the other hand mine follows the same path so I dont know man i just preffered the panzer 3 due to it being a bit sorter.I believe that the perfect middle ground between what you propose and what i propose is a vk16.02 but a bit wider and longer when it comes to the chassis,not to the point were it reaches the panther size but definetly bigger.We can work with the small,standart,version too but that design can in no way get a 75mm l70 without either a big redesign.I know im talking constantly about the vk16.02 leopard but i just cant get over how good it would be.

[Destroyer500]

And here I show you how a Pz III could have had a bigger turret ring while sporting sloped side plates. An upgrade easily to implement that leads to a bigger turret ring, a bigger turret and a bigger gun.
Reverse sloped sides were common in SdKfz 221, 222, 231 etc. It can be seen on the turret of Pz IV, too. This would not have been rocket science.

The chassis of Pz IV is far from perfect. Especially the early versions are geometrically complicated. Pz III is much cleaner and therefore easier to produce. No fancy upper structure, no weird looking back.
With the reverse sloped sides, a Pz III can have a bigger turret than a Pz IV with usual sloped sides. So things have turned: Now Pz IV has to have the smaller turret and can't be upgraded properly.

Pz III has torsion bars while Pz IV has bogie wheels.

Basically, we can do the same 'family tree' we see above with a Pz III chassis.

---------------
I'm wondering if the autoloading 75mm aircraft Pak 40 would make it possible to get by without a loader and thus reduce the crew to four (or three in a Stug). Maybe increase the magazine from 12 to 20 or 24 rounds, so the gunner or radio guy does not have to reload the magazine in battle. Later fit the 75mm L70 KwK 42 with this magazine mechanism. Ergonomics would be better and new reverse slope sided Pz III could have a bigger turret anyways.

Russians stuffed a 85mm gun into their T-34 and a 100mm in their T-34 based Su100. Germans put a 105mm Howitzer in a Stug and called it Sturmhaubitze. So what about the 88mm KWK 36 in a Stug? However, it would be too much for a turreted P III/IV, I guess.

There would be a need for a bit of widening if we chose to add something as big as the 75 L70 not only for crew ergonomics but for the purpose of adding more space to the tank for the amunition because it wouldnt make sense if we only had the ability to carry 20 shells

[Destroyer500]

And here I show you how a Pz III could have had a bigger turret ring while sporting sloped side plates. An upgrade easily to implement that leads to a bigger turret ring, a bigger turret and a bigger gun.
Reverse sloped sides were common in SdKfz 221, 222, 231 etc. It can be seen on the turret of Pz IV, too. This would not have been rocket science.

The chassis of Pz IV is far from perfect. Especially the early versions are geometrically complicated. Pz III is much cleaner and therefore easier to produce. No fancy upper structure, no weird looking back.
With the reverse sloped sides, a Pz III can have a bigger turret than a Pz IV with usual sloped sides. So things have turned: Now Pz IV has to have the smaller turret and can't be upgraded properly.

Pz III has torsion bars while Pz IV has bogie wheels.

Basically, we can do the same 'family tree' we see above with a Pz III chassis.

---------------
I'm wondering if the autoloading 75mm aircraft Pak 40 would make it possible to get by without a loader and thus reduce the crew to four (or three in a Stug). Maybe increase the magazine from 12 to 20 or 24 rounds, so the gunner or radio guy does not have to reload the magazine in battle. Later fit the 75mm L70 KwK 42 with this magazine mechanism. Ergonomics would be better and new reverse slope sided Pz III could have a bigger turret anyways.

Russians stuffed a 85mm gun into their T-34 and a 100mm in their T-34 based Su100. Germans put a 105mm Howitzer in a Stug and called it Sturmhaubitze. So what about the 88mm KWK 36 in a Stug? However, it would be too much for a turreted P III/IV, I guess.

Questions you need to resolve in all that:

How much does all that new, extra armor weigh compared to the original armor?

Does the turret ring size change? If so, how and can a turret basket for the crew to stand / sit in still be used? It the turret ring overhangs the lower hull sides, then you are still limited in recoil length and the size of the turret basket. How does that effect the design?

How does maintenance of things like the transmission occur? This, if the transmission has to come out, how do you do that?

With the autoloader, is the type of ammunition selectable? After all, having armor piercing shot loaded when you need HE doesn't do much good...

How is the autoloader reloaded, particularly in combat?

Does the autoloading system require power?

What is the weight of all these different guns and how does that effect the design?

How are you changing the assembly of the upper and lower hull? On the original Pz III and IV the two are separate assemblies and bolted together.

I doubt that the BK 7.5 cm gun and magazine as designed would fit in the Pz III in any case



The gun is gigantic in terms of the added autoloader, and the ammunition carousel adds considerable length to the whole assembly.

The gun with the autoloader is massive but if the autoloader is removed we can fit the gun on a,but modified,panzer 3 turret withough much of a problem.

[Richard Anderson]

Mr. Destroyer500, I am now going to attempt to hijack your thread, I hope you don't mind.

You initially asked the question, " What if the Germans only had the Pzkw III chassis ? "


Here is MY ' What-If ' : What If the Germans built ONLY the Pzkw IV Chassis ?

Hey there mr hijacker Paul R.Ward.

Here are some even better questions.

Why would the Germans ONLY build the Panzerkampfwagen IV chassis?
Would the Germans retool all the factories preparing to build the Panzerkampfwagen III chassis or just some of them?
When would the Germans decide to do this?
How do the Germans compensate Daimler-Benz for the loss of the prime contract for the Panzerkampfwagen III chassis?
What does Henschel do?

[paulrward]

Hello All :

Mr. Anderson posted :

Here are some even better questions.

Why would the Germans ONLY build the Panzerkampfwagen IV chassis?

Would the Germans retool all the factories preparing to build the
Panzerkampfwagen III chassis or just some of them?

When would the Germans decide to do this?

How do the Germans compensate Daimler-Benz for the loss of the prime
contract for the Panzerkampfwagen III chassis?

What does Henschel do?

Wow ! These are such ....HARD Questions ! I will have to think for at least five minutes to come
up with answers for them all !

1. Why build only the Pzkw IV chassis ? Because only an Idiot or an Employee of a Military Think Tank
would decide to build two competing chassis, using the same amount of materials, costing appx the same
amount of deutchmarks and man-hours, and using the same engine and transmission. Anyone with a salt
spoon worth of brains would, in 1936, have realized that the -IV chassis could do EVERYTHING that the -III
chassis could do. And, with a larger turret ring, it had more growth potential.


2. Would the Germans retool all the factories...? Of course ! Anything else would be STOOOOPID !


3. When would the Germans decide to do this ? Well....Let's see..... How about 1936 !!
The Heer does a competitive test of both the Pzkw IV chassis, already in production, and the Pzkw III chassis,
not yet geared up, and decides that they DON'T NEED two DIFFERENT 20 ton tanks !
They go with the better one, which, fortuitously, is already in production !

And, Historically, this is exactly what happened ! Except it didn't take place until 1943 ! The only thing that
needs to happen in this alternate ' What If ' is that a couple of senior officers in the Heer get their buttocks out
of their swivel chairs long enough to pull their heads out of their rectums, and make a smart decision !


4. How do the Germans compensate Daimler-Benz ...? The same way you compensate any loser in a
military contract competition: You give them a contract to make the winning item under license, and pay them
a lot of money for each Pzkw IV that comes off their production line ! And, you offer them bonuses if they
can reduce the cost of manufacture, and improve production speed, quality, and reduce material consumption.
This isn't Rocket Science, but even if it was, Well, shit! We're the Germans ! We have LOTS of Rocket Scientists !


5. What does Henschell do ? Make lots of Pzkw IVs under license, and lots of Turrets, and lots of
Attack Bombers, and other cool war toys to keep the Third Reich in the game.


And people wonder why we lost the war in Viet Nam.....



Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

[paulrward]

Hello All ;

To Mr. Destroyer500 :

you posted:

.........what i propose is a vk16.02 but a bit wider and longer when it
comes to the chassis,......

I agree, the VK16.02 was better. Was it in existence in 1936, ready to be produced in quantity ?
I mean , if the Luftwaffe had skipped the Bf109 and the FW190, and gone right to the ME 262
in the summer of 1936, they would have won the war in a walk. Except that they wouldnt have
had any jet engines ..... Whooops....

If you want to start the War in September of 1939, you have to be in full production by the summer
of 1937 - and that means the chassis you have are the Pzkw II, Pzkw III , Pxkw IV, and the Czech
T 35 and T 38. Yes, you could try to improve them slightly, but only as long as it doesn't interfere
with production - and even then, you would have to cope with two different generations of tank
suspensions in service at one time, with all the attendant issues of parts, spares, and training.

Remember: Sloped Armour wasn't a thing until the Russians showed the Germans how much of
a thing it really was !

The real advantage of going with the Pzkw IV from the start is that, when it came time to up-gun
the tanks with PaK40s, instead to being confined to the existing portion of the force that could
take the larger turret, ALL the tanks could be upgraded. Which means that you could go into
production of LOTS of turrets, and then set up forward depots and, as older tanks came in for
service or repair, they could be upgraded with new turrets. You might have a situation where, by
the end of 1942, EVERY German tank and tank destroyer would have the L42 gun - which wouldn't
make Zhukov very happy.....


The most important part of Alternate History is that it must be the History of the Possible -
in other words, you can't give Robert E. Lee machine guns, but, if he just told Dick Ewell,

" Your orders are to attack the new Federal position on Cemetery Hill, and TAKE THAT HILL !
Take it against All Odds, Disregard any Hazards or Difficulties, Ignore your Fears, and Pay No
Heed to your Losses ! TAKE THAT HILL ! "

Then the history of the United States might have turned out differently, and, as a friend of mine whose
Surname was ' Jackson ' , and who grew up in Virginia, once commented, he " might still own Michael and
Jesse...... "


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

[Peter89]

I agree, the VK16.02 was better. Was it in existence in 1936, ready to be produced in quantity ?
I mean , if the Luftwaffe had skipped the Bf109 and the FW190, and gone right to the ME 262
in the summer of 1936, they would have won the war in a walk. Except that they wouldnt have
had any jet engines ..... Whooops....

Hello Paul,
If Germany skips Me 109 and FW 190 and starts to produce the Me 262 instead, the German fighter arm would disappear from the skies above the Heer's advances.

The Me 262 was impossible to be utilized in places like North Africa.

[Destroyer500]

Hello All ;

To Mr. Destroyer500 :

you posted:

.........what i propose is a vk16.02 but a bit wider and longer when it
comes to the chassis,......

I agree, the VK16.02 was better. Was it in existence in 1936, ready to be produced in quantity ?
I mean , if the Luftwaffe had skipped the Bf109 and the FW190, and gone right to the ME 262
in the summer of 1936, they would have won the war in a walk. Except that they wouldnt have
had any jet engines ..... Whooops....

If you want to start the War in September of 1939, you have to be in full production by the summer
of 1937 - and that means the chassis you have are the Pzkw II, Pzkw III , Pxkw IV, and the Czech
T 35 and T 38. Yes, you could try to improve them slightly, but only as long as it doesn't interfere
with production - and even then, you would have to cope with two different generations of tank
suspensions in service at one time, with all the attendant issues of parts, spares, and training.

Remember: Sloped Armour wasn't a thing until the Russians showed the Germans how much of
a thing it really was !

The real advantage of going with the Pzkw IV from the start is that, when it came time to up-gun
the tanks with PaK40s, instead to being confined to the existing portion of the force that could
take the larger turret, ALL the tanks could be upgraded. Which means that you could go into
production of LOTS of turrets, and then set up forward depots and, as older tanks came in for
service or repair, they could be upgraded with new turrets. You might have a situation where, by
the end of 1942, EVERY German tank and tank destroyer would have the L42 gun - which wouldn't
make Zhukov very happy.....


The most important part of Alternate History is that it must be the History of the Possible -
in other words, you can't give Robert E. Lee machine guns, but, if he just told Dick Ewell,

" Your orders are to attack the new Federal position on Cemetery Hill, and TAKE THAT HILL !
Take it against All Odds, Disregard any Hazards or Difficulties, Ignore your Fears, and Pay No
Heed to your Losses ! TAKE THAT HILL ! "

Then the history of the United States might have turned out differently, and, as a friend of mine whose
Surname was ' Jackson ' , and who grew up in Virginia, once commented, he " might still own Michael and
Jesse...... "


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

For the sake of defending my panzer 3 debate i will say the following;if we take into consideration that when the 2 tanks were designed the panzer 4 was only chosen for the fact it had the short 7.5cm that was latter fitted in the panzer 3 then we can say that had they tried to fit the short 7.5cm on the 3 the 4 would never really even be designed.The panzer 3 is longer and a bit thinner while the panzer 4 is shorter but wider.The 4 is only wider due to the sides of the chassis extending "over" and above the tracks.The only reason the 4 took the place of the 3 was due to the gun,i demonstrated an aircraft variant of the 7.5cm that without the autoloader can easily fit on a tank like the panzer 3 and had the 4 not been around the need for a "fittable" to the panzer 3 long 7.5cm come much earlier.We must also not forget that with a good enough 5cm or 5.5 cm gun we can achieve the long range penetration capabilities of the long 7.5cm gun and with srapnel rounds have good anti infantry capabilities.If the need arose we need not really go for bigger guns but better shells like they do in modern times and for example instead of an L70 75mm develop apds shells for the L50 ones or for the 5.5cm ones.What i understand though is that its ww2 so we can in hindsight talk about an ideal design and just like Paul Ward said we should have in our minds a what if scenario that is plausible.The 5.5cm,the L70-L80-L100 5cm,or the aircraft 7.5cm gun are some existing weapons that had the panzer 4 not even been created due to reasons i mentioned would most propably be fitted on the panzer 3.For the panzer 3 to go up to standarts of the 1940s when it comes to armor they would have,at the very least,to slope the turret and chassis armor.They could make a t34 like hatch for both the driver and the radio operator on the sloped front or just give it a giant hatch like the american m24(that im not sure its really a hatch)which will also help with maintenance.For the panzer 3 there would only be a need for widening,are we going to add an L70 gun and a respectable turret to fit it,since its already long enough.I unfortunaly dont have pictures for a 3 variant that has been widened but i will to draw a variant of it since i do draw a lot.

Now that i think about it developing better shells would not really be something they would not think about since by late 1944 they were already developing apds rounds for guns like 128mm and creating better rounds was something the British did a lot.In general the caliber of all weapon systems was going down after ww2 and to be fair it was already too big for their era.You dont need a 7.92mauser bullet to kill a guy wearing a bunch of clothes,in modern times with armored plates and kevlar and all that yes but in ww2 its just overkill.You have to make the mistake to realize its there and that happens most of the times only after you implement your ideas and designs.

With this panzer 3 been the standart tank the leopard doesnt really need to exist but some could be made and if the circumstances allowed be produced in large numbers just because i really like that small fella

[T. A. Gardner]

For the sake of defending my panzer 3 debate i will say the following;if we take into consideration that when the 2 tanks were designed the panzer 4 was only chosen for the fact it had the short 7.5cm that was latter fitted in the panzer 3 then we can say that had they tried to fit the short 7.5cm on the 3 the 4 would never really even be designed.The panzer 3 is longer and a bit thinner while the panzer 4 is shorter but wider.The 4 is only wider due to the sides of the chassis extending "over" and above the tracks.The only reason the 4 took the place of the 3 was due to the gun,i demonstrated an aircraft variant of the 7.5cm that without the autoloader can easily fit on a tank like the panzer 3 and had the 4 not been around the need for a "fittable" to the panzer 3 long 7.5cm come much earlier.We must also not forget that with a good enough 5cm or 5.5 cm gun we can achieve the long range penetration capabilities of the long 7.5cm gun and with srapnel rounds have good anti infantry capabilities.If the need arose we need not really go for bigger guns but better shells like they do in modern times and for example instead of an L70 75mm develop apds shells for the L50 ones or for the 5.5cm ones.What i understand though is that its ww2 so we can in hindsight talk about an ideal design and just like Paul Ward said we should have in our minds a what if scenario that is plausible.The 5.5cm,the L70-L80-L100 5cm,or the aircraft 7.5cm gun are some existing weapons that had the panzer 4 not even been created due to reasons i mentioned would most propably be fitted on the panzer 3.For the panzer 3 to go up to standarts of the 1940s when it comes to armor they would have,at the very least,to slope the turret and chassis armor.They could make a t34 like hatch for both the driver and the radio operator on the sloped front or just give it a giant hatch like the american m24(that im not sure its really a hatch)which will also help with maintenance.For the panzer 3 there would only be a need for widening,are we going to add an L70 gun and a respectable turret to fit it,since its already long enough.I unfortunaly dont have pictures for a 3 variant that has been widened but i will to draw a variant of it since i do draw a lot.

Now that i think about it developing better shells would not really be something they would not think about since by late 1944 they were already developing apds rounds for guns like 128mm and creating better rounds was something the British did a lot.In general the caliber of all weapon systems was going down after ww2 and to be fair it was already too big for their era.You dont need a 7.92mauser bullet to kill a guy wearing a bunch of clothes,in modern times with armored plates and kevlar and all that yes but in ww2 its just overkill.You have to make the mistake to realize its there and that happens most of the times only after you implement your ideas and designs.

With this panzer 3 been the standart tank the leopard doesnt really need to exist but some could be made and if the circumstances allowed be produced in large numbers just because i really like that small fella

This all focuses on the status quo and one purpose AFV for the most part. That is it focuses on tank killing. That isn't all that a tank needs to be designed to do. The Pz IV was larger not just to take the 7.5cm gun, but to take additional radios, and give more space to the crew to do command and control tasks. It was intended as a Bataillonführerwagen and for commanders to use to control subordinate tanks in combat.

You could argue that the L24, or other lower velocity guns would have been perfectly adequate in the antitank role if supplied with a good HEAT round instead of a higher velocity AP round of some sort. After all, such a gun and round were quite viable up to the invention of Cobbham armor. The French in particular saw the HEAT round fired from a moderate velocity 105mm as a good tank killer. Most Western tank producing nations saw this sort of round as a viable long-range tank killer.

Of course, this gets back to the Me 262 analogy. In the late 30's hollow charge weapons as armor piercing ones were almost entirely unknown and their mechanism for effectiveness poorly understood. So, this requires quite the stretch of engineering knowledge to bring about having an effective one put in service.

[historygeek2021]

The panzer 3 is longer and a bit thinner while the panzer 4 is shorter but wider.

This is backwards. The Panzer IV is longer. You can tell because it has 8 road wheels and 4 return rollers while the Panzer III only has 6 road wheels and 3 return rollers.

[Destroyer500]

This all focuses on the status quo and one purpose AFV for the most part. That is it focuses on tank killing. That isn't all that a tank needs to be designed to do. The Pz IV was larger not just to take the 7.5cm gun, but to take additional radios, and give more space to the crew to do command and control tasks. It was intended as a Bataillonführerwagen and for commanders to use to control subordinate tanks in combat.

You could argue that the L24, or other lower velocity guns would have been perfectly adequate in the antitank role if supplied with a good HEAT round instead of a higher velocity AP round of some sort. After all, such a gun and round were quite viable up to the invention of Cobbham armor. The French in particular saw the HEAT round fired from a moderate velocity 105mm as a good tank killer. Most Western tank producing nations saw this sort of round as a viable long-range tank killer.

Of course, this gets back to the Me 262 analogy. In the late 30's hollow charge weapons as armor piercing ones were almost entirely unknown and their mechanism for effectiveness poorly understood. So, this requires quite the stretch of engineering knowledge to bring about having an effective one put in service.

1)If the pz3s front is angled you automaticaly have more space because that space has been taken from the box design 2)you have the survivability bonus of the pz4,when you decide to angle it,which is the chassis hatches t34,i proposed,that you can add to the front or you can add one like that on the american m24 3)a slight widening shall the need arise is possible but i dont think it will be up until later on and if the widening cannot for some reason be done make the turret a bit taller 3)i dont know how many times do i have to say it but every gun i proposed is either "full auto" or-and big enough to carry a good HE round or some of a shrapnel round and im not even going to mention the fact that i proposed the same long gun the pz4s had but a bit modified to fit on smaller turrets

[Destroyer500]

The panzer 3 is longer and a bit thinner while the panzer 4 is shorter but wider.

This is backwards. The Panzer IV is longer. You can tell because it has 8 road wheels and 4 return rollers while the Panzer III only has 6 road wheels and 3 return rollers.

I just checked their dimensions and the 3 is indeed a bit smaller on everything,its a very small diference.The biggest one is on the width and thats because the 4 has that "extra chassis" on the sides.Im still not sure though as to why i remember one being a bit longer.I will recheck it later

[T. A. Gardner]

1)If the pz3s front is angled you automaticaly have more space because that space has been taken from the box design 2)you have the survivability bonus of the pz4,when you decide to angle it,which is the chassis hatches t34,i proposed,that you can add to the front or you can add one like that on the american m24 3)a slight widening shall the need arise is possible but i dont think it will be up until later on and if the widening cannot for some reason be done make the turret a bit taller 3)i dont know how many times do i have to say it but every gun i proposed is either "full auto" or-and big enough to carry a good HE round or some of a shrapnel round and im not even going to mention the fact that i proposed the same long gun the pz4s had but a bit modified to fit on smaller turrets

Not true either. Just because the front is now angled doesn't equate to room to place additional radio equipment. The radios of the period are large, and have to be accessible to the operator both for operation and repair so they can't just be shoved in some oddly shaped space.
The front hatch on the T34 was quickly seen by the Russians as a weak point that needed elimination. The only reason it wasn't is there wasn't an easy way to provide an alternative in design. By 1944, the T34's successors like the T44 or T54 had it removed in favor of a hatch in the top of the hull. The Germans did the same thing, for the same reason with the Panther, getting rid of the early version's front vision hatch in favor of a large, rotating, periscope.

By WW 2, nobody is still using a "shrapnel" (aka case) round. A viable HE round was found to be 75mm and up in size.

The full auto loading isn't going to happen. It takes too much space and is difficult to reload once you shoot off whatever is held in the loader. That certainly isn't happening internally in the vehicle. I posted pictures of the BK 7.5 cm system earlier. The amount of space that takes up is massive.