_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: What If?
For those who like to build hypothetical or alternate history versions of armor/AFVs.
Hosted by Darren Baker
M4E13 Panther F
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 07:33 AM UTC
Premise:

The atom bomb test failed, and Stalinist traitors inside the Manhattan Project informed Stalin he had nothing to worry about. He decided to attack into western Germany on March 1st, 1947. Goal, destruction of the Western Army, and then the conquest of western Europe. The bulk of the Stalinist armored forces will be the T-34 85, supported by the IS series heavy tanks, with the new T-44 tanks available in limited numbers.

Western Army forces are the US M4 75mm, 76mm and 105mm tanks. The M26 and M26E4 Pershing series, and the new British Centurion

Challenge:

What could be done to turn an early M4 series tank into a T34 killing machine before spring 1947?

The Western Army has 18 months, all the spare resources in the US, all the resources of the Ruhr industrial complex, access to all the guns, munitions and spare parts left over from the US and German war efforts.


About 26,000 M4, M4A1, M4A2 and M4A4 small drivers hatch tanks were built. Suppose that around 1/3, or 8,600 are available:

M4 2,200

M4A1 2,000

M4A2 2,000

M4A4 2,400

Here is what I came up with. 90% completed, a What the Hey! What If. I was going to wait until I had the turret wrapped up, but I needed to get some parts, so opted to post the nearly finished model.


m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 07:41 AM UTC
Thoughts:

The narrow VVSS suspension has got to go. Since M4 production was stopped, and only the M26 series is in production, there will be no new HVSS to retro-fit the VVSS M4’s. There is the spaced out suspension, but the tracks are still a problem. Extended end connectors on both sides of the tracks work, but are a band-aide, not a solution. Torsion bar suspension is well developed in Germany and is one option, as is the M26 series suspension.

What gun can be installed? T-23 turret tanks could be re-armed with the US 90mm making US 76mm guns available, but there would not be enough to re-arm all the 75mm gun tanks. We know the Panther 75mm can be adapted to the 75mm turret. Rumor has is that Skoda developed a short recoil 75mm for the Panther F small turret. Such a gun would be ideal.

Armor should be up-graded to the M4A3E2 level on all welded hull tanks. Cast nose M4's and M4A1’s should be used only in supporting roles.

The M4, M4A2 and M4A4 are underpowered, and a more powerful engine is required after all the upgrades. All tanks might be re-fitted to the M4A3 engine, or, what else is available?




The pics got switched. The bottom picture shows the first layout of the engine deck, the top picture shows the raised deck. My seconds try at the turret bustle, and the tracks being test fitted to see it my idea would actually work. An M4A2 was tested with torsion bar suspension, and there is plenty of room inside the hull. I used the arms and wheels from the DML Panther F 100 on this one. If I had a second chance, I would get the other Panther F. Both sprocket and idlers were narrowed and spaced out to the tracks.

Edited for typos.
SSGToms
Visit this Community
Connecticut, United States
Joined: April 02, 2005
KitMaker: 3,608 posts
Armorama: 3,092 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 08:19 AM UTC
Nice kitbashing and scratchbuilding Randall! That's damn cool! Good backstory too.
JPTRR
Staff MemberManaging Editor
RAILROAD MODELING
#051
Visit this Community
Tennessee, United States
Joined: December 21, 2002
KitMaker: 7,772 posts
Armorama: 2,447 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 08:43 AM UTC
Randall,

This is too cool! Great idea. I like it.
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 09:21 AM UTC
Gentlemen, thank you.

I had to do some creative work for the suspension, but I wanted to make it look like it would work. I put the limiting springs too high, good thing you can't see in there.

It is a long stretch to think that Panther tracks would work properly. However, the 'E8 T-66 tracks had a similar pitch.

So, should I use US tools, or the German set? I plan on using the lights from the M4, so probably will use the US tool kit.

Plans are for a Panther cupola from Panzer Art, and a pop up swivel loaders hatch using the spare round hatch from the Panther F kit.

On a personal note, I think the Panther F looks cooler than the Panther II, but I have both kits.

Does anyone have the DML steel wheeled Panther G, and the Panther F? I'm wondering if I can swap out the wheels I'm using for a steel set from the Panther G.

urumomo
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 09:25 AM UTC
Really , really really short torsion bars ?
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 09:47 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Really , really really short torsion bars ?


Yes! Maybe that's why the test on the M4A2 had so many problems.

I imagine they are using the dual bar set up from the Panther. If I offset the arms enough.
Cantstopbuyingkits
Visit this Community
European Union
Joined: January 28, 2015
KitMaker: 2,099 posts
Armorama: 1,920 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 02:01 PM UTC
Wouldn't adding torsion bars require them to increase the already great night of the M4 even further?
Bonaparte84
Visit this Community
Hessen, Germany
Joined: July 17, 2013
KitMaker: 338 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 02:26 PM UTC
Love the idea and background story. How about some telescopic range finders, since they would have been a prominent feature in the German post war tank designs, including the Panther F?
Also, I think a German gun "deserves" a German aiming device...
Chuck4
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 04:15 PM UTC
Would one trade Sherman track, suspension and engine, generally good for several thousand miles, for Panther tracks, suspension and engine, which are only good for a few hundred miles?

Also, the circular radiators on the panther deck requires air intakes on both sides. I don't think the arrangement of two of them next to each other, with rectangular intake grills on only one side of each, would work.
urumomo
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 05:56 PM UTC

Quoted Text



Also, the circular radiators on the panther deck requires air intakes on both sides. I don't think the arrangement of two of them next to each other, with rectangular intake grills on only one side of each, would work.


That's to service two radiators . There would evidently be only one radiator ( + oil coolers ? ) on each side
DG0542
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: March 04, 2015
KitMaker: 125 posts
Armorama: 125 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 07:21 PM UTC
Beautiful Design and work, first off.

Second off, just a question, why use the Maybach engine? The Ford GAA was already in production, and had production facilities that were secure and still close to a war time footing.

Third Off, why not just ramp up production of M26 Turrets and rebuild the US Depot bound Shermans with M26 Turrets? Already proven to work, was not put into production because it was a wash between M26 and 90mm M4.
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 08:22 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Beautiful Design and work, first off.

Second off, just a question, why use the Maybach engine? The Ford GAA was already in production, and had production facilities that were secure and still close to a war time footing.

Third Off, why not just ramp up production of M26 Turrets and rebuild the US Depot bound Shermans with M26 Turrets? Already proven to work, was not put into production because it was a wash between M26 and 90mm M4.


The GAA engine was rated at 500 hp, the Maybach is 750 hp. Other than that, the GAA makes much more sense.

I thought about using the M26 turrets. I decided that if there were spare turrets after going with full scale production of the M26, they would be put on the M4A3's. I'm saving the 90mm for another build idea.

Torsion suspension was tested as the M4E4. Ground clearance stayed the same as the standard M4.

The turret is still in process. I am planning on a telescopic sight for the gunner and a co-ax 30 cal. I didn't think the F type range finder would work, but I'll think about it again.

Yes, the Panther wheels and tracks did have a shorter life span, but they also provided a more stable gun platform. A somewhat lighter tank might put less stress on the wheels.

I leveled the engine deck and raised the fans to allow more room for the radiators, and the fan drive shafts. Cooling that big engine would be a problem.

Thanks for the replies, and I'm open to suggestions.
DG0542
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: March 04, 2015
KitMaker: 125 posts
Armorama: 125 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 10:32 PM UTC
Still a beautiful design, but the Engineering Work to Production to Forces is more than likely outside your 18 month window.
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 11:18 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Still a beautiful design, but the Engineering Work to Production to Forces is more than likely outside your 18 month window.


I thought the same thing, but the voices in my head are convinced we are wrong!
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 09:18 AM UTC
More work has been done on the turret. I added a direct sight for the gunner, and a hole for the co-ax. Most of the welds are on, and I am in process with the loaders hatch. I decided against the F type gunners sight. Too much of the turret front would have to be modified.

Reflecting on the build I think I should have gone with the 'E8 suspension and the 'A3 engine. Maybe next time.


saurkrautwerfer
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: March 28, 2016
KitMaker: 44 posts
Armorama: 44 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 10:30 AM UTC
Think it's a tough call, if you're trying to capture the "Pantherness," if it had E8 suspension and a A3 type rear deck it'd lose a lot of that.

It would be entirely more likely though given the suspension was apparently fitted to a wide variety of surplus M4Awhatevers to help fill out various European military forces post war in reality.

I mean if we're going super-realism, the US did crank out M4A#E4/E6s which were 75 MM/105 MM armed Shermans that had been retrofitted with 76 MM guns, and many of those did have the HVSS. So again if we're going super-realism, that was likely the sort of answer we'd see for generating a lot of better tanks quickly. But that wouldn't be nearly as cool.

Another interesting twist might be some more modest conversions, the UK for instance conducted limited production runs out of captured factories in real life of some panzerjager models for testing/keep the locals busy purposes. It's not hard to imagine something like a Panzerjager IV with British trimmings and paint job if it really came down to making armor in a post war Europe to fight the Soviets.
Chuck4
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 04:44 PM UTC
German tank guns are designed for the loader to stand on the right side of the gun, and ram with his left hand. So the loader hatch and commanders copula should be reversed compared to normal Sherman turret unless the gun is installed upside down.
mmeier
Visit this Community
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: October 22, 2008
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,015 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 05:43 PM UTC
The problem with the Panther final drives/gear box actually had a solution but that would have delayed the tank past the planned date for Kursk-Orel. It is actually simple - use the one build for the Tiger I.

As (according to military-urban legend?) the French learned post WW2 the Panther "Schachtellaufwerk" was only used due to lack of rubber. The germans would have preferred a more conventional layout like the one in the Leopard 1. Still the running gear, combined with a stabilised sight (Stereosopic as planned for the Panther F) is a rather stable platform.

The late HL230s are relatively rugged engines with good horsepower and a relatively short build. Unless the engines developed for the M46 upgrade fit in a Sherman they might be an interesting upgrade.

The Skoda gun IIRC transfered the recoil directly to the vehicle. Rather hard on the tank and maybe a bit to much for the lighter M4.
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 05:57 PM UTC

Quoted Text

German tank guns are designed for the loader to stand on the right side of the gun, and ram with his left hand. So the loader hatch and commanders copula should be reversed compared to normal Sherman turret unless the gun is installed upside down.


On the IDF M50's the gun had been modified for right side loading. I decided to borrow, and apply that knowledge. It does make it difficult to use German weapons on US vehicles.
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 06:05 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The problem with the Panther final drives/gear box actually had a solution but that would have delayed the tank past the planned date for Kursk-Orel. It is actually simple - use the one build for the Tiger I.

As (according to military-urban legend?) the French learned post WW2 the Panther "Schachtellaufwerk" was only used due to lack of rubber. The germans would have preferred a more conventional layout like the one in the Leopard 1. Still the running gear, combined with a stabilised sight (Stereosopic as planned for the Panther F) is a rather stable platform.

The late HL230s are relatively rugged engines with good horsepower and a relatively short build. Unless the engines developed for the M46 upgrade fit in a Sherman they might be an interesting upgrade.

The Skoda gun IIRC transfered the recoil directly to the vehicle. Rather hard on the tank and maybe a bit to much for the lighter M4.


If tested by US Ordnance, the production Panther A's would have failed and never been built!

I understand about the wheels. In my 1947 idea, the US probably would have provided the rubber needed.

The Maybach is a very compact engine, but would still fill up the hull on the M4. The M4 lower hull is some 8 to 10 inches narrower than the Panther lower hull. Length wise it is perfect. The engine from the M46 is too large, and too many years in the future.
Cantstopbuyingkits
Visit this Community
European Union
Joined: January 28, 2015
KitMaker: 2,099 posts
Armorama: 1,920 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 06:32 PM UTC
It was my belief the US army tested out a recoil system that transferred recoil from the M1 gun to the tank, the chassis could take it with a few bolts [which could easily replaced with stronger parts], being damaged by the force.
DG0542
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: March 04, 2015
KitMaker: 125 posts
Armorama: 125 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 07:35 PM UTC
All great ideas, and it's a great build.

Here are somethings that I would have issues with that might not be worked out in the timeline provided.

Was the Maybach Factory still able to produce the quantity of engines need for the conversion? If so who would do the engineering work to convert the drive line of the Sherman from the Radials, Diesels, and Fords to the Maybach? Where would the work be done? Also if Stalin came across the inter-German Border would the factory be secure?

Now the suspension change goes from Bogies to torso bar. The South Africans did this with their Centurions and I believe it came out they just built new hulls. Bogies (VVSS and HVSS) are external and Torso bars have to be in the hull. The M4A2E4's were special built and not conversions.

A more austere version would just be the turret work, which can be done on a few war stock, on depot level, and get the bugs worked out and not affect the line units as much.

Just some thoughts, but he is doing a great build!

Derek
Chuck4
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 07:51 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The problem with the Panther final drives/gear box actually had a solution but that would have delayed the tank past the planned date for Kursk-Orel. It is actually simple - use the one build for the Tiger I.

As (according to military-urban legend?) the French learned post WW2 the Panther "Schachtellaufwerk" was only used due to lack of rubber. The germans would have preferred a more conventional layout like the one in the Leopard 1. Still the running gear, combined with a stabilised sight (Stereosopic as planned for the Panther F) is a rather stable platform.

The late HL230s are relatively rugged engines with good horsepower and a relatively short build. Unless the engines developed for the M46 upgrade fit in a Sherman they might be an interesting upgrade.

The Skoda gun IIRC transfered the recoil directly to the vehicle. Rather hard on the tank and maybe a bit to much for the lighter M4.


The weakness of Panther final drive was the result of using spur gears in the final reduction gearing. Germany had limited amount of tooling available for cutting helical or bevel gears. Tiger I final drivel used helical gears to minimize gear teeth loading and lengthen final drive life, same was done in the Sherman and Panther prototype. But the capacity for cutting helical gear would not allow the projected production volume of Panther production to be realized. So production panthers reverted to cheaper, more easily produced, but higher gear tooth loading and shorter lived spur gearing for the final drive.

The same inability to cut enough helical gears was also the reason why production panthers adopted single turn radius gear box, unlike the Panther prototype and tiger I, which had double turn radius gear box that required a lot more helical gears.
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 08:54 PM UTC
Everyone, great ideas, great posts.

The biggest What If on my model is the suspension. The deciding factor was, I had the Fruil track in hand, and wanted to see how it looked on a Sherman.

I'm thinking of making this one a factory prototype, and doing another one more "Sherman".

I haven't had this much fun with a model in a long time and now can't wait to build a "workable" tank!

To answer one thought, the Ruhr industrial zone is close to the imaginary border and will be defended at all costs.
 _GOTOTOP