Panther II’s Schmalturm (narrow) turret was slightly different than that of Panther Ausf F. Turret’s armor protection was significantly increased if compared to any other Panther turret. Front was 120-125mm, gun mantlet was 150mm, while sides and rear were 60mm and top was 30mm thick. Schmalturm had special mountings for infrared device and telescopic range finder. All of those modifications increased Panther II’s weight to 47 tons. Panther II was to be powered by new Maybach HL234 engine with total power of 900hp operated by 8-speed hydraulic transmission. Instead Maybach HL 230 P 30 engine was mounted and Maybach HL234was later on due to be completed in August of 1945, for future Panther series. It was believed that Panther II’s performance would be similar to that of Panther Ausf G, while if ever produced Panther II would most likely suffer from the same problems as Tiger II. Simply because of its great weight and high fuel consumption which made it extremely slow. It is also unknown what other modifications would be made if Panther II would be combat tested.

” And the E-75 was to be christened the Tiger III “

Experiments were being conducted for an 88L71 version, however. It just would not have been called the Ausf F, but it would be some later Ausf.

That said, while the T-34 was faster and cheaper to build than the Panther, the numerical disparity had as much to do with Russia (and the US) simply having more capacity to build. There’s probably no tank design that could have been introduced by the Germans in 1943 or later that could have substantially affected the war – by the time you’re facing 10 to 1 odds against an opponent that’s even vaguely strategically and tactically competent, technical advantages can only go so far. While I don’t have the exact figures at hand, if you assumed the same industrial capacity was going into each, you could probably only build 2 or 3 T-34/85s per Panther, rather than 10.

When you remove the disparity in technical capacity, whether it’s better to have one “superior” tank or a few “good” ones becomes a question of whether your bottleneck is in manpower or war materials. If you’ve got lots of manpower, then going for quantity over quality with your equipment makes sense in order to equip all your soldiers. If manpower is your bottleneck, then superior equipment becomes a force multiplier – and Germany was in a situation of being outnumbered in personnel for pretty much the entire war except the period where Britain was their only credible opponent.

That said, to a degree the French ironically mirrored the latewar Germans – they arguably had the best tanks in the world at the time (the T-34 wasn’t in service then, and those that were had two-man turrets – not as bad as one-man, but still a weakness) but MOST of what the French had were the obsolete hulls. That said, the Germans at least made token efforts to turn their obsolete hulls into something that was still somewhat useful.