Why did the Germans build some tanks without the hull mg?

[Troy Tempest]

I've posted this on a couple of boards seeking some answers! Why would they leave the hull machine gun off the Panther D? Did they think they wouldn't need it? Why did they leave them off the Ferdinand? With every other tank they'd built before, why did they go against tradition and delete them from those two? I know the Panther A and the Elefant corrected that ommission, but not before a few would have been lost by tank-hunting crews, especially the Ferdinands. Seems pretty silly to me - any clues behind the thinking?

Troy

[Klaus]

I'm Sorry Herr General, but I have to inform you, that our Panzer Panther (Ausf. D) is well equipped with two 7,92 mm MG-34s.



Alles für Deutschland Herr General!

[MAGNA]

The Elefant didn't get a hull machine gun as it was designated a tank destroyer. it was expected that the 88 it had being the later type would allow it stand off and outrange any enemy armour. In other words fire from behind the main line. It didn't work out that way at all though.

This is a certified rough guess by the way.

[McCoy]

I'm Sorry Herr General, but I have to inform you, that our Panzer Panther (Ausf. D) is well equipped with two 7,92 mm MG-34s.

Attachment 395

Alles für Deutschland Herr General!

That's an Ausf. A But yes, even the Ausf. D had a hull machinegun operated by the radiooperator. The Earliest Ausf. A didn't have the MG cupola on the front glacis plate but that was soon fixed.

[cyberia]

It was the same story with early Stugs and even the early Brümmbar.

What had not been anticipated was the successful use of tank killing squads, especially on the Eastern Front. Groups of incredibly brave brave men would assault AFVs with little more than grenades and gasoline and, quite often, knock them out.

The solution was the addition of hull mgs where tanks under such attack could button up and spray each other with machine gun fire.

[Pirate-Drakk]

I've posted this on a couple of boards seeking some answers! Why would they leave the hull machine gun off the Panther D?

Good question! The answer is quite simple and straight forward actually:

Structural Integrity

The best armor is a solid slab. When you start chopping holes in it for viewports and machine gun port in particular, you significantly weaken the entire piece of armor. What breaks easier? A solid board, or a board with holes in it? The same works for a slab of steel.

Since the front armor of a tank is designed to take hits and keep the tanks intake, it makes sense (for the engineer in his office) to make the front armor as strong as possible and with the lowest weight. If you chop holes in your front armor you need to add additional armor weight to achieve the same level of protection. Therefore, they didn't do that and since tactical doctrines were equally unrealistic, it seemed logical to eliminate the bow mount MG.

As it turns out, it's better on the battlefield to have that MG then the stronger armor. However, for the designers who were not tankers, it wasn't obvious until the battlefield testing results were in hand. At that point, they corrected the oversight. Theory and practice are two related but different things...