This is what happens when you start listening to ignorant blather. No, the "panzer 4 was" NOT "only chosen for the fact it had the short 7.5cm". That twists the reality. Krupp received the prime contract for the Panzer I, with DB and others acting as subs. DB got the prime contract for the Panzer II, with Krupp and others acting as subs. The Panzer III was developed DB as the prime contractor and others as subs. The Panzer IV was developed by Krupp with others as subs.Destroyer500 wrote: ↑24 Apr 2022 14:51For 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.
Do you notice a pattern? Much of the largess from the Nazis in armaments was to curry favor from the industrialists. Sharing the trough was good for the Nazi Party. That was the point of the question regarding compensation to DB.
Nor were the Panzer III and IV developed simultaneously because "Because only an Idiot or an Employee of a Military Think Tank would decide to build two competing chassis". That in fact requires an idiot to think that it might be an actual reason.
The two were developed because the Germans perceived a tactical need for them due to the technological limitations they had to work with. The Maybach HL108TR engine, which was the cutting edge then of German engine development, was capable of 250 HP. There is a reason the Panzer III and IV are both considered medium tanks, but the Heer classified the III organizationally as leichte and the IV as mittlere. To achieve a tank with a 75mm gun and the desired ammunition stowage, it had to weigh more. The Panzer IV Ausf A weighed 17.3 tons and every iteration from there kept getting heavier. The Panzer III Ausf A weighed 15.4 tons and also kept getting bigger. To get the Ausf N fitted with the 7.5cm KwK meant it went up to 23 tons. The Germans simply were not interested in or consider it necessary to fit a 7.5cm gun in the Panzer III initially. They also did not want only a 7.5cm HE thrower, they wanted a hole-puncher, the 5cm initially, but got the 3.7cm, and that is a different story.
Adding weight adds stress to suspension systems, increasing ground pressure, adds stress to the engine, transmission, and brakes, most of which were barely capable of handling the initial weight of the vehicles. The German solution was two designs, a leichte tank primarily to combat enemy tanks, and a mittlere tank primarily to fire HE at enemy AT guns, infantry, and soft targets.
They also weren't the only ones with the problem. The British tried to create a support tank on the same cruiser chassis, which failed miserably. The Americans chose to stay with the 37mm gun and rely on lots of machine guns instead of an HE thrower, until engine development improved to the point they could experiment with a 75mm gun...in a sponson initially because they did not have the capability of cutting the larger turret ring.
The French tried to put both a hole puncher and an HE thrower in the same chassis which also failed miserably, mostly due to the overworked crew, but more crew means more weight, and the Char B was a heavy tank anyway.
All this also requires multiple decision points, which was the point of the factory retooling question. Of course they could retool, STOOOOPID is thinking that is the issue and that waving a magic wand changes it. Going to the VK16 in either iteration means radically changing Panzer production in December 1939, when the VK16 wasn't even ready for testing, or later, when multiple companies were frantically trying to finish the backlog of Panzer III orders. So retool them all and accept a six to nine month delay when none of them are producing tanks, just as the war was heating up? How does the France 1940 campaign work when the Germans only have Panzer I and II in quantity and some Panzer 35(t) and 38(t)?
The situation was basically the same that faced them in 1943 when the decision was made to build Panther. And why would the Heer decide to do a "competitive test" between the Panzer III and Panzer IV in 1936 when they were not in competition? Since they weren't actually developing two DIFFERENT 20 ton tanks, why would they decide they DON'T NEED two DIFFERENT 20 ton tanks? Nor, Historically, is this exactly what happened and, no, it didn't take place until 1943...that is an almost hysterically funny and bizarrely wrong-headed reading of the history that may have come out of a comic book.
I'm afraid you need to pay attention to data already posted instead of letting your imagination get away from you. The Panzer III was not "small" or "nimble" It was 54cm shorter and 24cm lower, but 8cm wider than the Panzer IV and weighed about two tons less.The panzer 3 is longer and a bit thinner while the panzer 4 is shorter but wider.