PZ IV variants

[montypython]

Here is a rather interesting yet little known panzer development found on the net.
During WWII Krupp developed design variants of the standard Pz IV design incorporating sloped armor:

The weak armour of the Panzer IV had not however gone un-noticed by the Krupp works which had drawn up plans in 1942 for a revised hull for the Panzer IV. The General staff took the decision to modernise the Panzer IV hull with a sloped glacis as proposed by Krupp. The tank weight would increase slightly with the new hull arrangement and new wider tracks would also be featured. Sadly the Adolf-Hitler production program called for the Pz.Kpfw. IV production rate to more than double by October 1943, with an additional 1200 completed by the Spring of 1944. In order to meet these production goals, the assembly and steel firms insisted that the Pz.Kpfw. IV design had to remain unchanged. The panzerkommision were forced to recommend the Pz.Kpfw. IV with sloped armour be dropped.

Images of some examples:

Panzerkampfwagen auf Einheitsfahrgestell III/IV

Panzer IV sloped armor model

It is interesting to consider how differently the course of the War would have been affected had the Germans been mass-producing these instead of the more complex King Tigers and Panthers.

[Samuel]

It is interesting to consider how differently the course of the War would have been affected had the Germans been mass-producing these instead of the more complex King Tigers and Panthers.

Not at all? The Allies had a massive numerical and material advantage.

Note that the General Staff made the right decision- if they had converted production would have been halved. It doesn't help having slightly better tanks if you don't actually get any tanks.

[montypython]

It is interesting to consider how differently the course of the War would have been affected had the Germans been mass-producing these instead of the more complex King Tigers and Panthers.

Not at all? The Allies had a massive numerical and material advantage.

Note that the General Staff made the right decision- if they had converted production would have been halved. It doesn't help having slightly better tanks if you don't actually get any tanks.

Not necessarily, instead of having to use completely new parts for a new tank model production line, since a new production line is needed anyway being able to use existing components would still increase overall production of tanks in absolute terms, especially in terms of turnover time.

[Sea Skimmer]

Hitler didn’t lose the war by an inch; he lost it by about 5,000 miles. Even thousands more Nazi tanks would make no difference in face of the totally overwhelming forces arrayed by the Soviets alone in 1944. The Germans needed vastly more of everything, and shortages of manpower, fuel, artillery ammunition and other items were every bit or even more damning then insufficient numbers of tanks.

That sloped armor isn't going to make much difference anyway. The Panzer IV was fundamentally only a 26 ton tank, with both the Sherman and T-34 being significantly heavier and already incorporating sloped armor.

[Captain Seafort]

Would switching to sloped-armour Pazer-IVs and abandoning Pathers, Tigers and various other limited-production designs have slowed the Allies and/or Russians down at all? Enough to change either the post-war map of Europe, or to prolong the war long enough that nuclear weapons might have been used against Germany?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Would switching to sloped-armour Pazer-IVs and abandoning Pathers, Tigers and various other limited-production designs have slowed the Allies and/or Russians down at all? Enough to change either the post-war map of Europe, or to prolong the war long enough that nuclear weapons might have been used against Germany?

Panther was not a "limited-production design". The answer to your question is: not significantly. A modification to a single weapons system would not have had major impact on the war even if said weapon system had been available in larger numbers. Furthermore, it's not that the Tiger I or the Panther were bad weapons. They had their flaws and they were certainly less than perfect, but both destroyed a lot of Allied vehicles. The King Tiger was without a doubt a wasteful design, but even it managed to do rather well when used properly (i.e. defensively).

For significant changes to the map of post-war Europe or Germany holding on for was several months longer you need more important changes: for example scratching the Ardennes and Hungary (Spring Awakening or Lake Balaton Offensive) offensives might have delayed the end of war by a few months. Not enough for the nukes to be used in Europe, though. Putting Speer in charge of the Armaments industry a year earlier might do it, but on the other hand he might not get the support from Hitler he needed for the industry reforms, before it was clear that the war could not be won in 1941. As usual for speculations, there are a lot of unknowns.

[Mr Bean]

This has often been brought up, between the Nazi armaments industry never standardizing to wasting lots of resources on upkeep of captured weapons, to setting dozens of design teams to producing useless or highly specialized designs to the constant feature creep. Would not have made much difference except to give the Axis another five or six tank brigades. Maybe instead of 800 Tiger's and 5100 Panthers and 11,000 Panzer IV's they would have produced 23,000 Panzer IV's. Still not enough to win the war never-mind the shock value that the Tiger and Panther designs had. Tiger panic was a very real thing and could delay the advance of entire brigades of infantry and armor while something was brought up (Normally air power or tank-hunters) to neutralize the offending tank. Much like the KV-1's were a nasty shock to the Germans in 1941, so the Tiger's and Panther's proved in Western Europe and during the Tunisia campaign.

Had that powerful psychological advantage been able to be exploited to any great effect it might have proved useful and as always given Hitler another six months to lose the war. But it's still not enough, no where near enough. Much like the KV1's, they were a nasty shock, a interesting chapter to read about in history, change the course of war they did not.

[CaptHawkeye]

The Panzer IV was, from a strategic sense, one of the best tanks the Axis ever had. Thing is, even if you were to fix the operational problems with the Panzer Divisions (fascination with silly wonder weapons and shitty overweight tanks) Germany is still going to lose hard. Their were so many problems with the German war effort it just beggars the mind where one would have to begin if you were so inclined to "fix" the German War Machine. Barring the obvious moral reasons not to.

EDIT: Additonally, all of those models and pictures depict the Panzer IV's HULL armour getting sloped. The Panzer's IV's max hull armour during the war went all the way up to 80mm. Which was by no means poor at all. The Panzer IV's biggest problem in armour was that its gun manlet never got thicker than 50mm, and it's side armour was paper thin.

[Marcus Aurelius]

EDIT: Additonally, all of those models and pictures depict the Panzer IV's HULL armour getting sloped. The Panzer's IV's max hull armour during the war went all the way up to 80mm. Which was by no means poor at all. The Panzer IV's biggest problem in armour was that its gun manlet never got thicker than 50mm, and it's side armour was paper thin.

Paper thin may be somewhat of an exaggeration for 30 mm of armor, but as Sea Skimmer wrote, ultimately the Panzer IV was more than 5 tonnes lighter than the M4 Sherman or the T-34, which were its main adversaries during the last two years of the war. It is noticeably that the Cromwell (A27M or Cruiser Mk. VII), which was only a couple of tonnes heavier than the Panzer IVH, also had a pretty poor side armor in the hull. It did have much better turret armor all around, though, which is probably where the extra weight was used (in addition I think the Cromwell had a somewhat smaller internal volume as well).