Der Alte Mann points out in his latest reply to my 'StuG III development' thread that Guderain and Speer saw it as top priority to cut down on the number of different tanks and assault guns being produced. The question comes to my mind: why the Panzer III and the Panzer IV? If the Germans were able to mount the 7,5cm L/24 in the Panzer III Ausf. N in 1942 why did they not do this at the outset? Initially there was nothing to choose between the two models in terms of armour - and the argument that the Panzer III could not have been upgunned with the long 7,5cm doesn't hold water because the Germans didn't know at the end of the 30's that they would have to face the T-34! Alternatively, why the Panzer III? The Germans had a L/40 version of the 7,5 cm available in the late 30's - they mounted it in experimental half-tracks - so why did they decide to go for the 3,7cm as the main armament of their battletank? If they knew anything about the French tanks being developed they must have realised that you don't install a gun which can barely cope with the armour of the opposition's tanks. If they had standardised on the Panzer IV in 7,5cm L/24 and L/40 versions the Matilda and the T-34 would not have come as so much of a shock. Was it really a question of keeping both Daimler-Benz and Krupp 'happy'?
- General talk and Comments
- The Panzer Forum
- The worldwar-2.net forum
- Waffen-SS forum
- Panzer Archive I
- General Talk Archive I
- worldwar-2.net Archive I
- The Commercial Zone [Archived]
- WWII Polls [Archived]
- Panzer Modelling [Archived]
- Website tips [Archiced]
- New members check-in [Archived]
- Games [Archived]
- Book tips and reviews [Archived]
- The Quiz And Trivia Section [Archived]
- The German army in general [Archived]
- Paper Militaria [Archived]
Why Panzer III AND Panzer IV?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 StuG fan |
Why Panzer III AND Panzer IV? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 13 (02/25/03 13:55:36) |
|
||
|
Ferdinand Porsche |
Re: Why Panzer III AND Panzer IV? | ||
|
Posts: 4958 (02/25/03 15:51:16) |
The Pz.Kpfw. III was intended as the anti-tank tank. The early Pz.Kpfw. IIIs gun was a bit better than the Pz.Kpfw. IVs, since the Pz.Kpfw. IV only had about 25% AT rounds. The Pz.Kpfw. IV was meant as an infantry support tank, to use against bunkers, etc.
When the Pz.Kpfw. III got the 5cm L/42 gun in 1940, it became superior to the 7.5cm L/24 gun of the Pz.Kpfw. IV. This kept being the case until the Pz.Kpfw. IV got the L/48 gun, but the Pz.Kpfw. III also got the L/60, which was a very good AT gun, although somewhat outdated by the time. It also had shorter range. I suspect the reason of the 7.5cm L/24 on the Pz.Kpfw. III was to take over the old role of the Pz.Kpfw. IV - an infantry supprt vehicle... Ferdinand Porsche |
||
|
Abwehr |
hmm | ||
|
Posts: 43 (02/25/03 21:08:39) |
also, by that time, there were effective 7,5cm HEAT rounds that could be fired from a low calibre gun.
|
||
|
The Argus |
Re: hmm | ||
|
Posts: 917 (02/26/03 08:07:04) |
Just be thankfull the Heer didn't decide to put the short 75 into the PIII for support roles. Since you couldn't cram the longer 75's into the PIII the mud would really have hit the fan in 41-42.
Concidering the different chassis, it's plain the two tanks were intended for different roles. Too me it looks like the PIV was aimed directly at supporting the Panzer Gren. It all boils down to exactly what the doctrine was when the specs for the PIV were frozen. Doctrine is a fluid thing, not only does it change, but the needs of the moment also have to be accomidated in the eventual for of doctrine that sees the field. I mean what the head shed was thinking in 1936 might be very different in detail to what they pracriced in 1939. I'ts my limited understanding of the situation that the German Army saw armour's role in the comming battle from several different perspectives. Given that they decided to form the Panzer Gren's to combine armour and infantry, they still had three types of field unit. -Pure infantry that still wanted armoured support in the assault. They had AT guns to defend them selves with from enemy armour. -The PG who needed armour to fulfill their basic role in all it's forms. -The Panzer force which was of course armoured to the core. The PIII was for the Panzers, With an AT gun to deal with enemy armour ect. Stugs gave the infantry what they needed roughtly speaking. But the PG's needed to deal with both enemy armour and strongpoints in the offensive. Towed AT guns are limited in offensive roles but got PIII's they would still need Stuggs for HE. Stugs could defend against armour they would still need PIII's to be agressive against enemy tanks (you need a turret). Soooo, IMHO the PIV was a good compromise for the PG's. It could deal with enemy armour and fire a good HE shell, and fill all the PG's 'tank' needs with a single vehicle. OK they then realised the PIII's could do with some HE support too, so mixed PIV's into the PIII units and the whole process evolved into the Panzer force we are familiar with. But I don't think I'm too far out. The PIV was designed specifically to take the short 75, and have a lower cross country speed to the PIII. It makes sense. On the other hand the Germans have always liked to design a spefic tol for a specific job so... shane Rule .303
Shoot straight, you bastards. |
||
|
StuG fan |
Re: Re Hmmm | ||
|
Posts: 13 (02/26/03 12:02:02) |
Hi Argus,
There's no argument that the Panzer divisions would have come an almighty cropper in 1941 if they had had to face T-34s with Panzer IIIs and StuG IIIs only. Although I put forward the idea of Panzer IIIs rather than Panzer IVs to begin with, I think I would argue for the reverse case - was there any justifiable reason for equiping a Battletank with a 3,7cm gun? Especially as there was the 7,5cm L/40 under development. There was the suggestion on another Forum that the idea of mass-production somehow went against the German idea of the pursuit of perfection, which would go along with your suggestion that the Germans preferred a specialised tool for each situation rather than a 'Jack-of-all-Trades'. It's ironic that this is exactly what the Ju88 successfully became for the Luftwaffe! I would argue as follows if I had been developing the Panzerwaffe: Drop the production of the Panzer II as soon as we had got our hands on the Czech Panzer 38, develop the Panzer IV as both Battletank (which it de facto became) and support tank, develop an Assault gun on the Panzer IV chassis with a 10,5cm FH (why go for the 7,5cm L/24 when the 10,5 cm was already a standard fieldgun?) and the Tiger I as a heavy support tank. Then after we had encountered the T-34 we develop the Panther, but as my Panzer IVs were already equipped with the 7,5cm L/40 It would have been possible to bring it into service after more thorough testing while the Panzer IVs were further upgunned with the 7,5 cm L/43 and L/48. The Panzer 38t chassis becomes the Jagdpanzer 38 and fully-tracked infantry carriers and I have a much better quality of armour which I can mass-produce while the Tiger II is developed.(The chance of being able to push through a rational programme with the characters 'running' the show would be very remote, of course...) |
||
|
PantherD |
Re: Re Hmmm | ||
|
Posts: 1014 (02/26/03 13:10:16) |
Visit these sites for an explanation of why both the Type 3 and Type 4 were developed.
www.achtungpanzer.com/pz3.htm#panzer4 www.achtungpanzer.com/pz8.htm www.achtungpanzer.com/stug.htm  ..........Mein Ehre Heißt Treue.......... |
||
|
Unregistered(d) |
PzIII | ||
|
Posts: 0 (02/27/03 10:35:01) |
What comes to the PIII the original requirement (of mid-30's by Inspectorate of PzTroops) called for a medium tank of 5cm gun. So it was in fact really intended to have a potent weapon in PIII from the very beginning. However, at that time, IPZ's demands were overrun by claims that 37mm weapon, already available, was sufficient, and thus could be achieved high standardization with infantry at (plus maybe start production earlier). Eventually, in sept 39 when it was realised that the 37mm gun was insufficient, germans couldn't switch to the production of upgraded PIII soon enough to get them in numbers for the France. Thus a number of 37mm models were still being built.
|
||
|
Alte Mann |
Re: PzIII | ||
|
Posts: 607 (02/27/03 21:12:37) |
Everyone has made good points. I would like to try to simplify things a little, but this is only my opinion.
The Pz Kpfw I and II were only intended to be training tanks and were only used in combat due to the lack of Pz Kpfw IIIs and IVs. Germany was so short of tanks for the French campaign that units, including Rommel's 7th Panzer Division were equipped mainly with the Pz Kpfw 38 (t). During the late 1930s Germany thought they were at the leading edge of tank technology. The weapons development people felt that a 37mm main gun would work fine for the Pz Kpfw III, which they intended to be the main combat tank for the Heer. The Pz Kpfw IV was designed as an infantry support vehicle and not intended to be produced in the same numbers as the Pz Kpfw III. (Less IVs.) The Pz Kpfw III had a smaller and lighter hull than the IV and, consequently, could not be up-gunned to 75mm because there just wasn't enough room in the turret. StuGs were different because they didn't have a turret. There also weren't any dedicated Panzerjaeger type StuGs, like the later StuG IIIs and IVs, during the French campaign. The StuGs became popular when it was found that they were faster, easier and cheaper to make than turreted tanks, and could do the same job in some situations. The only production tank designs on the boards that had a turret mounted gun larger than 37mm, in 1940, were Russian. Everyone else thought that 37mm would be just fine. Another point to consider is that the German armament development people had ideas very different from Hitler and his tank experts. At one point he ordered them to upgrade the Pz Kpfw III with a particular gun, and they decided, unilaterally, that they would use something less effective instead. When Hitler found out, he said, "This decision may have cost us the war!" and he never trusted them again. Sometimes the arms development people were right, as in the development of assault rifles for the Wehrmact, but I think they really screwed up in this case. |
||
|
Ferdinand Porsche |
Re: PzIII | ||
|
Posts: 4958 (02/28/03 10:48:20) |
As for the Pz.Kpfw. I and II, Thomas Jentz have made the very good point, that if the Pz.Kpfw. I and II were only intended for training, why did they have hardened steel, and not mild steel which would be cheaper and less demanding...
Ferdinand Porsche |
||
|
StuG fan |
Questions, questions... | ||
|
Posts: 13 (02/28/03 12:05:52) |
Didn't the French tanks in 1940 have a 4,7cm gun? I don't know how it compared with the German 3,7cm performance-wise but it must have been a sign that bigger guns were on the way - and after the French campaign it must have been obvious too that thicker armour had to be expected - why was it 1942 before the first Panzer IVs with the long 7,5cm reached the troops?.
Did any heads roll 'literally' at the Waffenpruf. after Hitler realised that the Panzer III had been upgunned with the 5cm L/42 instead of the L60? Did anyone remember that the same office had insisted on the installation of the 3,7cm when the Panzer Inspectorate wanted the 5cm from the outset? |
||
|
Ferdinand Porsche |
Re: Questions, questions... | ||
|
Posts: 4958 (02/28/03 12:22:47) |
Both the French and the Germans had weapons larger than 3.7cm
The French 4.7cm gun was very good, and placed in the Suoma S-35 it was the best tank of Fall Gelb... The Germans didn't introduce the long 7.5cm before they realsed they would need more tank battles. Remember that originally, tanks weren't meant to fight each other as much as bypass each other (try reading my 'Blitzkrieg' essay ;)) Ferdinand Porsche |
||
|
Alte Mann |
Another Point . . . | ||
|
Posts: 607 (03/04/03 17:55:44) |
Stug Fan, the 4.7 cm in the Somua was a mixed blessing because there was only room for two people in the turret. The TC was supposed to fire the thing as well as tell everyone else what to do, look for targets, communicate with command, etc., etc. I would think that would make the weapon appear less effective. Maybe Waffenamt didn't count the people in the turret.
I've never heard of anyone at Waffenamt getting in real trouble for a unilateral decision, but I have heard that Hitler spoke to them 'harshly' on more than one occasion. "If it is easy . . it probably isn't worth doing."
|
||
|
Ferdinand Porsche |
Re: Another Point . . . | ||
|
Posts: 4958 (03/06/03 15:16:50) |
The two-person vehicles were a drawback. Still, the Pz.Kpfw. I only had 2 crewmembers, but managed just great. If the S35 had been gathered in tand divisions, they could have halted the Germans...
Ferdinand Porsche |
||
- General talk and Comments
- The Panzer Forum
- The worldwar-2.net forum
- Waffen-SS forum
- Panzer Archive I
- General Talk Archive I
- worldwar-2.net Archive I
- The Commercial Zone [Archived]
- WWII Polls [Archived]
- Panzer Modelling [Archived]
- Website tips [Archiced]
- New members check-in [Archived]
- Games [Archived]
- Book tips and reviews [Archived]
- The Quiz And Trivia Section [Archived]
- The German army in general [Archived]
- Paper Militaria [Archived]
