What is your favorite WWII tank?

[Terminus]

.

[Kevin E. Duguay]

"On the Southwestern Front, opinions are in favor of the Sherman tank and it's cross-country ability. The Sherman tank climbs mountains that our Panzer crews consider impassable. This is accomplished by the especially powerful engine in the Sherman in comparison to it's weight. Also, according to reports from the 26. Panzer Division, the terrain crossing ability on level ground (in the Po valley) is completely superior to our Panzers. The Sherman tanks drive freely cross-country, while our Panzers must remain on trails and narrow roads And therefore are very restricted in their ability to fight.

All Panzer crews want to recive lighter Panzers, which are more maneuverable, possess increased ability to cross terrain, and guarantee the necessary combat power just with a superior gun.

This desire by the troops corresponds with the conditions that will develop in the future as a result of the drop in production capacity and of the fact that, because of the shortage of chrome, sufficiant armor plate can't be produced to meet the increased production plans. Therefore, either the number of Panzers produced must be reduced or it will be nessessary to reduce the thickness of the armor plate. In that case, the troops will unequivocally ask for a reduction of the armor thickness in order to increase the total number of Panzers produced."

Report written by Albert Speer on November 1st 1944 after a trip to Italy on the dates between the 19th to the 25th of October 1944.

I'm not a big Sherman fan, but this report speaks for it self!

From Panzer Truppen 2, pages 150-151.

[Charles2222]

Rune Iverson:

Yup. And the germans clearly intended to phase out the Panzer IV. Otherwise they wouldn´t use half the 1944 and the majority of the 1945 MK IV hull production run to make anything but MK IVs proper. Compare with the 1943 MK IV hull production run, where about 80% of the produced hulls are completed as MK IV Tanks proper.

[:)]I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. Compare the '43 figures to the '44 for the PZIV. From the charts I saw the PZIV "increased" in '44 around 100 PZIV's more than in '43, and as such I see no intent to phase them out, at least not entirely. Just a vague look at the '45 production and it looks to me that when it is compared to Panther production that the '44 ratio has changed very little if any, which means they certainly weren't phasing it out even if they wanted to. There's no doubt that many people might think it a better idea to phase it out more strongly than they did, but if they intended to phase it out entirely you would think the production figures would have dropped at least 25% lower than the Panther. Naturally the total production of all types of tanks weren't as good in '45, but the ratio between the two tanks didn't change much at all.

Yup. And the germans clearly intended to phase out the Panzer IV. Otherwise they wouldn´t use half the 1944 and the majority of the 1945 MK IV hull production run to make anything but MK IVs proper. Compare with the 1943 MK IV hull production run, where about 80% of the produced hulls are completed as MK IV Tanks proper.

Oh yes, I have considered that, but two years is a long time for the ratio of PZIV's to Panthers to basically not change at all. It's pretty clear they re-tooled no more than 10% to Panthers, and probably far less than that. So how long did it take the USA to stop producing Grants and start re-tooling to Shermans? Far less than two years apparently; probably less than 9 months. If they said they really wanted to eliminate the PZIV for the Panther, they look like pretty empty words to me.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
[:)]I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not.

Possibly.

Compare the '43 figures to the '44 for the PZIV. From the charts I saw the PZIV "increased" in '44 around 100 PZIV's more than in '43, and as such I see no intent to phase them out, at least not entirely.

A logical consequnce of full economic mobilization from 1943 onwards, is the increasing of production figures. The german industry tops in the summer of 1944. Also notice, that I remarked, that they were "unsuccesful" in phasing out the IV for various reasons (inability to retool production on the fly, not enough Panthers, MK IV hull still kept in production etc.)

Just a vague look at the '45 production and it looks to me that when it is compared to Panther production that the '44 ratio has changed very little if any, which means they certainly weren't phasing it out even if they wanted to.

The number of Panthers (Hulls) rises from an approximate 63-37% relationship to a 60-40% relationship from 1944-45. In the MK IVs favor. The relationship between tanks proper are 54-46 (1944) and 57-43 (1945) Both in the Panthers favor. The corresponding numbers for 1943 is 68-32 (hulls) and 62-38 (tanks proper). Both in the MK IVs favor. What does this show you?

There's no doubt that many people might think it a better idea to phase it out more strongly than they did, but if they intended to phase it out entirely you would think the production figures would have dropped at least 25% lower than the Panther.

Speer: Mein Führer we are losing the war.

Hitler: Drop production rates!

Just didn´t happen. You just don´t stop production of a major hull type, when you were as much on the shitter as the germans were in 1945. Doesn´t mean they didn´t want to, and the MK IV hulls increasingly found other (and arguably better) uses than just tanks.

Naturally the total production of all types of tanks weren't as good in '45, but the ratio between the two tanks didn't change much at all.

Again: You just don´t stop producing a certain type of tanks at the drop of a hat when you are fighting for your life against the rest of the world. You do however phase it out gradually and put the hulls out to pasture in other more useful roles.

Oh yes, I have considered that, but two years is a long time for the ratio of PZIV's to Panthers to basically not change at all.

Heh. it only becomes two years if you factor in the 1943 production run. We can do that though. In that case, you have a relationship between the MK/Panther of 38-62 (Tanks proper) or 32-68 (Hulls) both in the MK IVs favor. If we take the relationship of the tanks proper, then the relationship changes one of 62-38 in the MK Ivs favor to one of 57-43 in the Panthers favor. If we the measuring stick is total number of hulls produced (of both types), the relationship goes from one of 68-32 to 60-40 between 1943 and 1945. Which shows the gradual phaseout of a hulltype no longer thought desirable in it´s orginal form.

It's pretty clear they re-tooled no more than 10% to Panthers, and probably far
less than that.

Yes.

So how long did it take the USA to stop producing Grants and start re-tooling to Shermans? Far less than two years apparently; probably less than 9 months. If they said they really wanted to eliminate the PZIV for the Panther, they look like pretty empty words to me.

Non sequitur. The US M3 and M4 hulls were largely interchangeable, and the uptooling of production lines a mere triviality. The MK IV and Panther hulls weren´t (to put it mildly) The US also had industrial capacity to spare, something that Germany didn´t have in 1944-45, where all manner of pre war hull designs (some even in their original form)were kept in production in order to make up the numbers of Germanys dwindling armoured fleet. The majority of those hulls were used as basis for assault guns though, not proper tanks. And so it was with the MK IV as well.

[freeboy]

Not that I trust Russian sources, but does anyone have a reliable source for total red army production, last I recall reading it was an astounding figure eclipsing all other combatents combined!

[Charles2222]

Rune Iversen:

The number of Panthers (Hulls) rises from an approximate 63-37% relationship to a 60-40% relationship from 1944-45. In the MK IVs favor. The relationship between tanks proper are 54-46 (1944) and 57-43 (1945) Both in the Panthers favor. The corresponding numbers for 1943 is 68-32 (hulls) and 62-38 (tanks proper). Both in the MK IVs favor. What does this show you?

I know what it shows, it's just that it doesn't seem to back your contention that they failed to eliminate the PZIV. IOW, it's more than a failure here, it's more like an out and out lack of desire to even gradually phase it out, much less eliminate it. If they had the slightest inclination to eliminate it, that had to be one of the worst eliminations in history.

Non sequitur. The US M3 and M4 hulls were largely interchangeable, and the uptooling of production lines a mere triviality. The MK IV and Panther hulls weren´t (to put it mildly) The US also had industrial capacity to spare, something that Germany didn´t have in 1944-45, where all manner of pre war hull designs (some even in their original form)were kept in production in order to make up the numbers of Germanys dwindling armoured fleet. The majority of those hulls were used as basis for assault guns though, not proper tanks. And so it was with the MK IV as well.

Picking the Grant/Sherman may not had been a very good idea as an overall example, but I couldn't think offhand of another medium that re-tooled to another medium like that. For example the T34's weren't a very fundamental shift throughout it's series. I also realize their being USA tanks didn't help matters much either in terms of what I was trying to say, but it's all I could think of. The Panther was introduced before '44 of course, but maybe you mention the re-tool difficulty for only 44-45 because that might supposedly be the period where they decided to re-tool for elimination of the PZIV, and not before. I don't care how difficult it was for germany to pulll it off, there clearly was very little effort there, so I do think they really didn't put a lot of thought behind any statements in that regard. The only thing that could be construed as elimination, would be that they might had decided to not allow any new factories to produce PZIV's, but then that has nothing to do with re-tooling. It might also be accurately stated that if a PZIV factory were destroyed through bombing, that to further the elimination theory they would also not re-build the factory, whereas they would bother to re-build a Panther one.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
I know what it shows, it's just that it doesn't seem to back your contention that they failed to eliminate the PZIV.

It does. Next question.

IOW, it's more than a failure here, it's more like an out and out lack of desire to even gradually phase it out, much less eliminate it. If they had the slightest inclination to eliminate it, that had to be one of the worst eliminations in history.

For the reasons stated above. Besides, they do gradually try to phase it out. The production figures shows us as much. It really is that simple. The percentage of MK IVs in relation to MK Vs (tanks proper) goes down from one of 62-38 to one of 43-57. Or to put it more bluntly: For each two Panther in 1943 they produced three MK IVs. Not so in 1945, where the relationship is slightly lower than 1:1 in the Panthers favor. 5 Panthers produced for each 4 MK IVs. They were gradually phasing it out. The production numbers shows that it was so.

Picking the Grant/Sherman may not had been a very good idea as an overall example, but I couldn't think offhand of another medium that re-tooled to another medium like that. For example the T34's weren't a very fundamental shift throughout it's series. I also realize their being USA tanks didn't help matters much either in terms of what I was trying to say, but it's all I could think of.

British shifts within the Cruiser family 1939-44? Soviet shift from KV to IS HVY Tanks?

The Panther was introduced before '44 of course, but maybe you mention the re-tool difficulty for only 44-45 because that might supposedly be the period where they decided to re-tool for elimination of the PZIV, and not before.

Heh. Since they kept producing the hulls, they didn´t retool the MK IV factories. It´s a fallacy. MK IV hull production is as high as you please throughout. The production of MK IVs proper... weren´t.....

I don't care how difficult it was for germany to pulll it off, there clearly was very little effort there, so I do think they really didn't put a lot of thought behind any statements in that regard.

True, but for a different reason than you think.

The only thing that could be construed as elimination, would be that they might had decided to not allow any new factories to produce PZIV's, but then that has nothing to do with re-tooling.

This is the real world, not Command and Conquer. You just don´t "decide" at a whim what factories produce and what they don´t.

It might also be accurately stated that if a PZIV factory were destroyed through bombing, that to further the elimination theory they would also not re-build the factory, whereas they would bother to re-build a Panther one.

[:-]
You are simply guessing now. Put up something concrete. At your leisure.

[Terminus]

Good Lord, you're arrogant...

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Good Lord, you're arrogant...

Al for megen hæder [:'(]

[Charles2222]

Rune Iversen:

For the reasons stated above. Besides, they do gradually try to phase it out. The production figures shows us as much. It really is that simple. The percentage of MK IVs in relation to MK Vs (tanks proper) goes down from one of 62-38 to one of 43-57. Or to put it more bluntly: For each two Panther in 1943 they produced three MK IVs. Not so in 1945, where the relationship is slightly lower than 1:1 in the Panthers favor. 5 Panthers produced for each 4 MK IVs. They were gradually phasing it out. The production numbers shows that it was so.

I only have time for a partial response right now, but I had to comment on this bit. No, no, no, no, no, no, rune, you cannot take the '43 figures into account really. The Panther wasn't being produced for the whole year, thereby very partial production at best for the Panther. Look at the PZIV totals alone, they actually "rise" in '44 from '43, IOW, not being phased out and certainly not being eliminated. The 5 to 4 ratio you mentioned, is pretty much the same thing in '44 and '45 both.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I only have time for a partial response right now, but I had to comment on this bit. No, no, no, no, no, no, rune, you cannot take the '43 figures into account really. The Panther wasn't being produced for the whole year, thereby very partial production at best for the Panther.

I can´t see how that changes anything. You have Panther in full production from April at the latest (with production starting in earnest in January 1943), which coincidentally happens to go nicely along with the ramp up of production following the german declaration of "Total War" in February. Before this, the MK IV production was 1/3 of what it could potentially have been as well.

Look at the PZIV totals alone, they actually "rise" in '44 from '43, IOW, not being phased out and certainly not being eliminated. The 5 to 4 ratio you mentioned, is pretty much the same thing in '44 and '45 both.

As I stated above: A logical consequence of a total economic mobilization starting in 1943 and topping in the summer of 1944. It is not like they were trying to produce less you know. As it is, you have a gradual phase-in of the Panther accompanied by a gradual phase out of the MK IV, whose hull was put to other uses. This is a fact. If they really didn´t mean to phase the MK IV out, don´t you think they would have used more of the available hulls to make them?

[.50Kerry]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
I only have time for a partial response right now, but I had to comment on this bit. No, no, no, no, no, no, rune, you cannot take the '43 figures into account really. The Panther wasn't being produced for the whole year, thereby very partial production at best for the Panther. Look at the PZIV totals alone, they actually "rise" in '44 from '43, IOW, not being phased out and certainly not being eliminated. The 5 to 4 ratio you mentioned, is pretty much the same thing in '44 and '45 both.

Chuckles that is what "mobilizing war industry" is....loosely translated "keep working"

are you going to argue that since we were producing the P-40 into 1943 in greater numbers than before we were not more interested in P-47 and P-51 procurement?

Nah can't make that guess by the rate of increase of % of total kit made we have to look at whether or not newly made "on the pathway to obsolesence" kit cranks down at once....

[8|]


it would have been a waste of the miltary dimension of time to completely retool chassis houses into making Mitten chassis, that said at least one field marshall was livid that they were appropriating so many IV hulls for secondary purposes......

"German procurement genius" at work....

[Kevin E. Duguay]

In reality the Germans wanted to phase out the PZIV but could not. It just was not practical. The reason for the decline in production of the PZIVH-J series of tanks is the simple fact that STUGs and PZjgr vehicles were cheaper and easier to build. At the end of the war there had to be at least 12 if not more armored vehicles based on the PZIV hull.

Now look at the PZIV's replacement the Panther.
3 vehicles at most. A tank, a tank destroyer, and a recovery vehicle. Everything else was a uber weapon made of wood to impress Hitler. There is one Panther II hull with the normal Panther turret that was captured in combat that now sits in the Patton museum.

[Charles2222]

First of all, I cannot remember who was looking for some of this information, but I have found a very detailed list of the number of German divsions anyway:

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=7288

Now to try finishing my previous partial response to Rune Iversen.

For the reasons stated above. Besides, they do gradually try to phase it out. The production figures shows us as much. It really is that simple. The percentage of MK IVs in relation to MK Vs (tanks proper) goes down from one of 62-38 to one of 43-57. Or to put it more bluntly: For each two Panther in 1943 they produced three MK IVs. Not so in 1945, where the relationship is slightly lower than 1:1 in the Panthers favor. 5 Panthers produced for each 4 MK IVs. They were gradually phasing it out. The production numbers shows that it was so.

First, let me show the figures I have been using. Note since we were taling about Panthers vs PZIV's, I was NOT talking about hulls alone, but completed tanks. See here:
http://www.feldgrau.com/afvstats.html

British shifts within the Cruiser family 1939-44? Soviet shift from KV to IS HVY Tanks?

I didn't say there weren't any, it's just I could not think of any others at the time. BTW, do you find their examples as non-existent as the PZIV phase out?

Heh. Since they kept producing the hulls, they didn´t retool the MK IV factories. It´s a fallacy. MK IV hull production is as high as you please throughout. The production of MK IVs proper... weren´t.....

Yes, well obviously this is one of the major failing points in your argument. Who started the subject of Panther production wasn't as low as one commonly thinks? It was me. I am also the one who went into comparing it to the PZIV. So....guess what I have been talking about all this time? That's right, I wasn't talking about hulls, but those specific tanks instead.

I don't care how difficult it was for germany to pulll it off, there clearly was very little effort there, so I do think they really didn't put a lot of thought behind any statements in that regard. (this portion was you an earlier statement by me)

True, but for a different reason than you think. (your returning comment)

Well I rest my case then. They basically had little or no effort into phasing out the PZIV in favor of the Panther. I'm not really too concerned as to why they did not, but it does seem to be the better decision.

This is the real world, not Command and Conquer. You just don´t "decide" at a whim what factories produce and what they don´t.

That's funny. Factories decide what they will and will not prodcue all the time, and often there are those above them, such as Hitler needless to say, who at times will direct them in micromanagement. Whether those making decisions make it on a whim or if it takes several months is immaterial for the subject at hand. I never said they just one afternoon decided that there would be no more new PZIV factories. In fact, that bit is entirely speculation, but the thought that they would not produce an older tank on new facilities in entirely commonplace practice in business when they are deciding to keep producing both.

You are simply guessing now. Put up something concrete. At your leisure.

Yes I was, but it makes sense when they are at least giving lip service to converting from one to the other. I mgiht look around a bit and see if I can find something concrete on that, but I have never seen data of that sort.

I can´t see how that changes anything. You have Panther in full production from April at the latest (with production starting in earnest in January 1943), which coincidentally happens to go nicely along with the ramp up of production following the german declaration of "Total War" in February. Before this, the MK IV production was 1/3 of what it could potentially have been as well.

You're talking hulls again and that wasn't my point.

As I stated above: A logical consequence of a total economic mobilization starting in 1943 and topping in the summer of 1944. It is not like they were trying to produce less you know. As it is, you have a gradual phase-in of the Panther accompanied by a gradual phase out of the MK IV, whose hull was put to other uses. This is a fact. If they really didn´t mean to phase the MK IV out, don´t you think they would have used more of the available hulls to make them?

Here you go with the hulls again. I said "production figures of the PZIV. That doesn't mean the gas filter of the PZIV, the gun, the suspension, or the hull, but the whole blooming thing. "IF" I were talking hulls you would be correct, but note one key difference, it wasn't Panthers they were phasing out to, but mostly to lesser roles such as TD hulls. Making a PZIV hull into a JPZIV is real lovely for noting some fashion of PZIV phase out but has nothign to do with phasing it out to the Panther. Perhaps you think that I regard hulls as a tank, but I do not. They're merely a large piece and no more.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
I only have time for a partial response right now, but I had to comment on this bit. No, no, no, no, no, no, rune, you cannot take the '43 figures into account really. The Panther wasn't being produced for the whole year, thereby very partial production at best for the Panther. Look at the PZIV totals alone, they actually "rise" in '44 from '43, IOW, not being phased out and certainly not being eliminated. The 5 to 4 ratio you mentioned, is pretty much the same thing in '44 and '45 both.

Chuckles that is what "mobilizing war industry" is....loosely translated "keep working"

are you going to argue that since we were producing the P-40 into 1943 in greater numbers than before we were not more interested in P-47 and P-51 procurement?

Nah can't make that guess by the rate of increase of % of total kit made we have to look at whether or not newly made "on the pathway to obsolesence" kit cranks down at once....

[8|]


it would have been a waste of the miltary dimension of time to completely retool chassis houses into making Mitten chassis, that said at least one field marshall was livid that they were appropriating so many IV hulls for secondary purposes......

"German procurement genius" at work....

There is a difference. RI spoke of "elimination of PZIV's retooling to Panthers". Note the Grant/Sherman reference again. There was a point where the Grant stopped being produced, IOW ELIMINATED. That was part of my point to stick on that word he used. Maybe I shouldn't had done that and instead just gave him to mean "phased out to Panthers" but even then the data doesn't really support that contention either. It is so minute as to almost not exist. Again, he has often been speaking hulls of PZIV's and not the tank entirely, whereas I have looked at the production figures of the PZIV in it's entireity and see very little correlation to Panthers getting a stronger ratio. To eliminate producing is at least for that to dwindle as time passes (excluding 45) and instead in 44 it rises slightly. "IF" I were talking hulls again, then yes production is going up, and a great deal of that is put into TD's and AG's etc. but how one sees more PZIV hulls being put into those, equates into that or any part, partially or totally amounting to re-tooling to Panthers I cannot fathom.

I have since found out that the PZIV and Panther were not even produced by the same manufacturer and unless some higher ups were stepping in and re-directing Krupp assets to MAN then there was no attempt to re-tool to Panthers. Instead what in fact did happen appears to be that the PZIV's proper were pruduced as much as ever, only their hulls and assumably some other parts were greatly put into other AFV's such as TD's.

I have also found a pretty good bit of information for some of this, but unfortunately it does not list monthly production tank figures for 43. It does however show a healthy clip for the Panther for 1/44 of some 279. For all of 43 to be only 1,850 according to the same chart, thn obviously full production was very short lived in 43, if at all, because the 1/44 rate would put them at some 3,300.

See Exhibit A on this page:
http://www.angelfire.com/super/ussbs/tankrep.html

[Kevin E. Duguay]

The PZIV phased out never happened!

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
First, let me show the figures I have been using. Note since we were taling about Panthers vs PZIV's, I was NOT talking about hulls alone, but completed tanks. See here:
http://www.feldgrau.com/afvstats.html

I am talking about both. Otherwise the analysis of the german tank production history makes no sense.

I get my numbers from here:

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/inh ... isHeer.htm

I didn't say there weren't any, it's just I could not think of any others at the time. BTW, do you find their examples as non-existent as the PZIV phase out?

As the germans tried to (unsuccesfully) phase out the MK IV, so the allies phased out their obsolete or redundant types. The soviets by stopping/converting the production and keeping the existing vehicles in service untill destroyed without any large scale conversions. The brits by stopping/converting production and relagating existing vehicles to training or rebuilding them for other roles (Crusader as towing vehicles for 17 pdr AT Guns or as AA vehicles etc.). Both eminenetly succesful I might add, but then neither was ever really in the dire straits that Germany was in during 1944-45.

Yes, well obviously this is one of the major failing points in your argument. Who started the subject of Panther production wasn't as low as one commonly thinks? It was me. I am also the one who went into comparing it to the PZIV. So....guess what I have been talking about all this time? That's right, I wasn't talking about hulls, but those specific tanks instead.

Which indicates what exactly? You still have the germans transitioning from a 2/3 to a 5/4 production mix of tanks proper, with the MK IV production numbers going exponentially lower as a percentage of total MK IV hull type vehicles produced over time. This at a time when german industry tops production wise.

Well I rest my case then. They basically had little or no effort into phasing out the PZIV in favor of the Panther. I'm not really too concerned as to why they did not, but it does seem to be the better decision.

How do you explain the transition of most of the MK IV production capacity to produce ANYTHING but MK IVs proper then?

That's funny. Factories decide what they will and will not prodcue all the time, and often there are those above them, such as Hitler needless to say, who at times will direct them in micromanagement. Whether those making decisions make it on a whim or if it takes several months is immaterial for the subject at hand. I never said they just one afternoon decided that there would be no more new PZIV factories. In fact, that bit is entirely speculation, but the thought that they would not produce an older tank on new facilities in entirely commonplace practice in business when they are deciding to keep producing both.

Translation: The german panzer production history doesn´t support the point Chucky is trying to make, so he will just ignore it

Yes I was, but it makes sense when they are at least giving lip service to converting from one to the other. I mgiht look around a bit and see if I can find something concrete on that, but I have never seen data of that sort.

Take your time.

You're talking hulls again and that wasn't my point.

Ehrm...

"No".

Here you go with the hulls again. I said "production figures of the PZIV. That doesn't mean the gas filter of the PZIV, the gun, the suspension, or the hull, but the whole blooming thing. "IF" I were talking hulls you would be correct, but note one key difference, it wasn't Panthers they were phasing out to, but mostly to lesser roles such as TD hulls. Making a PZIV hull into a JPZIV is real lovely for noting some fashion of PZIV phase out but has nothign to do with phasing it out to the Panther. Perhaps you think that I regard hulls as a tank, but I do not. They're merely a large piece and no more.

Heh. Again: You still have the germans transitioning from a 2/3 to a 5/4 production mix of tanks proper, with the MK IV production numbers going exponentially lower as a percentage of total MK IV hull type vehicles produced over time. This at a time when german industry tops production wise.

Which indicates an attempt to send the MK IV the same way as the MK III historically went.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22


There is a difference. RI spoke of "elimination of PZIV's retooling to Panthers".

Big fat strawman. I defy you to prove otherwise.

but how one sees more PZIV hulls being put into those, equates into that or any part, partially or totally amounting to re-tooling to Panthers I cannot fathom.

Nothing to fathom here, since they didn´t. The same factories that prodcued MK IVs kept on producing the other variants on the MK IV hull. No retooling. Never claimed that any retooling took place either.....

I have since found out that the PZIV and Panther were not even produced by the same manufacturer and unless some higher ups were stepping in and re-directing Krupp assets to MAN then there was no attempt to re-tool to Panthers. Instead what in fact did happen appears to be that the PZIV's proper were pruduced as much as ever, only their hulls and assumably some other parts were greatly put into other AFV's such as TD's.

Correct.

I have also found a pretty good bit of information for some of this, but unfortunately it does not list monthly production tank figures for 43. It does however show a healthy clip for the Panther for 1/44 of some 279. For all of 43 to be only 1,850 according to the same chart, thn obviously full production was very short lived in 43, if at all, because the 1/44 rate would put them at some 3,300.

A consequence of a german gear-up to total war happening gradually and of new factories coming online for all major types during 1943.

[Charles2222]

I'm not interested in this discussion any longer so save your fingers Rune.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I'm not interested in this discussion any longer so save your fingers Rune.

[:D]