Ok, I have given you an opprortunity to ask, now it's time to get answers. Since Doyle's replies are rahter detailed, I am going to break them into issues. Here is the first one and expect more to come in future. Doyle's replies are bolded (just in case)
1. Have you heard of
World of Tanks? Do you play it?
World of Tanks has been well known to me for
the past couple of years. I have watched
gamers playing and have been very impressed by the graphics and ideas behind
the game. In March 2012 I was delighted
to be invited by “Chieftain” to take part, with other reputable authors, in
Operation-Think-Tank which was hosted by World of Tanks at the MVTF in
California, USA.
But unfortunately, I do not have time to play
World of Tanks, as each year I and my co-author Tom Jentz publish four Panzer
Tracts books (we now have a total of over 50 Panzer Tracts covering most of the
Panzers and special vehicles used by the Germans). With Panzer Tracts we take
an academic approach and present the results of more than forty years research of
primary source documents created by those who designed, produced and employed
the Panzers. Our ongoing research, which allows us to give the definitive
history of Panzers, takes a great deal of time.
In addition I prepare CAD drawings that accurately represent the Panzers
“as built”. It takes hundreds of hours to
locate and measure surviving vehicles and components, find original blueprints,
for this task.
2. Would you trust
Soviets who had family members killed by Germans in WW2 to impartially make a
game about WW2?
What unites us all is our interest in the
technical, historical, tactical and strategic aspects of past conflicts. In over forty years research I have met
participants from many nations, none were motivated by the sad aspects of their
past history. So I am certain that our
common interest allows us to rise above those personal experiences.
3. The spaced/skirt armour
of the Panzer IV and StuG III, Did it have much effect on the battlefield?
Schuerzen plates were a response to a
particular threat encountered by the Germans in Russia. Russian infantry were well equipped with 14.5mm
anti-tank rifles. When Panzers, to
achieve an objective, moved ahead of their protecting infantry they were often subjected
to side attack from concealed infantry with these antitank rifles. The medium Panzers: Pz.Kpfw.III, IV and StuG all
had 30mm side armour that was vulnerable to multiple 14.5mm antitank rifles
hits which could result in mechanical damage and injury to the crews. Initially it was thought that the side armour
would need to be increased but this would have had significant weight
consequences and take time to introduce. German designers discovered that 5mm
steel plates set at some distance from the side armour was more than enough to dissipate
the energy of the anti-tank rifle round before it reached the side armour plate
so Schuerzen (Apron) plates were born.
4. Is it possible to
assess observed /expected performance of the Panther / Panther II on the battlefield?
The Panther II started as a response to the
threat of Russian infantry equipped with anti-tank rifles referred to in
Question 3. The primary request was for
heavier side armour. Of course, once a
new design commenced it provided an opportunity for addition new technical
ideas to be incorporated. One of these
ideas was to attempt to standardise on components that could be shared with the
Tiger II, such as a Maybach Olvar transmission, suspension, wheels etc. The Panther II was longer and heavier than a
normal Panther I. Although several turret
designs were offered no turret was ever mounted on the Versuchsfahrzeuge (test
vehicle).
With the invention of the Schuerzen the gap
between the road wheels and the sloped Aufbau (superstructure) of the Panther I
could be covered by Schuerzen plates and there was no need for the heavier
Panther II. Despite the cancellation of the Panther II project a Panther II
Versuchsfahrzeuge (Prototype) was constructed from mild steel and used for
research purposes.
This Panther II Versuchsfahrzeuge was taken
from the M.A.N factory by the Americans at the end of the war. It was on
display at the Fort Knox Museum until 2010.
During a “restoration” in the Seventies a normal Panther Ausf.G turret
was mounted for exhibition purposes.
5. In the
"battle" between Henschel and Porsche, did the best designs actually
win, or were there other political factors at play and what affect does he
think this had on the tanks that emerged?
The different industrial firms always competed
to win lucrative design and assembly contracts. Porsche was an engineer developing innovative solutions
and was much admired by the Politicians.
Henschel had an advantage in the competition for what eventually became
the Tiger because since late thirties they had been responsible for several
heavy tank design projects leading to a trial production series of eight V.K.30.01
(H). The V.K.30.01 (H) was cancelled as
a result of the experience in France in 1940 and intelligence reports which indicated
even more powerful tanks would be required by 1942.
Besides the eight V.K.30.01 (H) tanks,
components were used to construct a two trial 12.8cm auf Selbstfahrlafette V.
(One of these unique vehicles has been preserved for all to see at the Kubinka Tank Museum
near Moscow)
The next iteration by Henschel designers was
the V.K.36.01 (H). This had had much
improved suspension with wider tracks. But
this project was in turn abandoned after one Versuchsfahrzeuge was built because
the hull was not wide enough to mount the turret ring needed for a turret with
an 8.8cm Gun that was now demanded. The next
version was the V.K.45.01 (H) has many of the features of the V.K.36.01 but
with wider superstructure – this became the Tiger I.
Porsche’s first attempt at designing a Panzer
was the V.K.30.01 (P). This had many
novel features including: horizontal torsion bar suspension designed to free up
space inside the hull and allow for easier replacement, an electric drive train
and a new air-cooled engine. Again this
project was cancelled because the superstructure was too narrow to mount a
turret with the 8.8cm gun. Porsche rapidly
evolve his design to the V.K.45.01 (P).
One hundred of the Porsche Tiger were ordered but problems with the new
air-cooled engine could not be resolved in time. So the Henschel Tiger entered
production. The turrets constructed for the Porsche Tiger were mounted on
Henschel Tigers. The Tiger I on display
at the Bovington Tank Museum in England has a turret originally intended for a
Porsche Tiger
90 of the chassis built for the Porsche Tiger
were redesigned to become the basis of the Ferdinand. Fitted with two standard
Maybach HL 120 motors the electric drive proved very flexible. The Ferdinand had the highest kill ratio of
all Panzers.
6. I'd like to know
whether you preferred Henschel or Porsches designs for things like the eventual Tiger.
During my career as a Tank author I have been
fascinated by the technical design and development of the various vehicles. I cannot really say I prefer one over
another. Every design represents the
thinking at a particular point in time.
Technically the Porsche Tiger was very interesting and was very
successful when adopted as the Ferdinand.
7. Assuming the
basic problems could be overcome - how would the 7002 DB have fared in battled?
There was an endless list of proposed ideas to
match each and every discussion. The various Panzer design companies were quick
to say “of course we can do that” in the hope that contracts would follow. At the next discussion sketches were often
presented. But few of these ideas really
progressed until a requirement was formulated.
8. What could be further improvements of Jagdpanther?
When the Germans were developing rigid mounted
guns for the Jagdpanzer 38t Starr, it was proposed to mount a rigid version of
the 8.8cm in a Jagdpanther. The benefits
compared to a normal Jagdpanther would have been the reduced size of gun mount,
mantlet and opening in the front plate.
Weight reduction would have improved performance.
9. I would like to
ask about tank destroyer on E-100 chassis. Were there any plans of such vehicle
or it was just an idea to do somewhere in future tank destroyer on this
chassis, but no plans and specifications? In other words, how much true is
popular in the internet Jagdpanther-like model E-100 Krokodil?
The E-100 evolved from a suggestion to Krupp that
an alternative to the Porsche Maus might be worthwhile give the problems being
encountered in the development of the Porsche Tiger. (See my answer to Question
5). While I might have doubts about the requirement for such a heavy Panzer in
fact the Porsche Maus proved technically quite successful. To the annoyance of
Krupp the E-100 design was turned over to Adler just to continue it as an
experimental vehicle. We have found no
documentation to that suggests the E-100 chassis was considered for other
purposes.
I have found original drawings for the gun
mount and cast mantlet for a 15cm Sturmgeschuetz L/67. There is indication as to what chassis might
have been contemplated for this weapon and the outline of the frontal armour
does not fit any of the known designs. I hope to include this drawing in future
Panzer Tracts on “Paper Panzers”
10. What was Germans
biggest mistake in tanks development and what was their biggest success?
The Germans were slow recognise that
suspension with track wider than 400mm would be needed and one of their more
powerful (longer) guns should have been mounted earlier. It must be remembered that narrow track is
efficient on paved roads and the Germans were reluctant to have long guns that
projecting over the side of their vehicle in built up areas.
The biggest success was the Panther. It was an excellent all around battle tank
with good performance and excellent gun.
The last model Panther Ausf.F which was entering production at the end
of the war had a new Schmalturm (Narrow turret) that eliminated shot trap
weaknesses of earlier versions. With
experienced well trained crews the Panther was outstanding.