Pz III adopts L60 instead of L42 5cm cannon in 1940

[Sid Guttridge]

If the losses of T-34s were not primarily due to tank-versus-tank combat, it would presumably make little difference.

My understanding is that tank-versus-tank combat caused only a minority of tank losses. Does anyone have any stats?

Sid.

[maltesefalcon]

If the losses of T-34s were not primarily due to tank-versus-tank combat, it would presumably make little difference.

My understanding is that tank-versus-tank combat caused only a minority of tank losses. Does anyone have any stats?

Sid.

Thats what I was askng for earlier. The table previous was helpful to compare the various models but doesnt really indicate what percntof the total was caused by tanks.

[GoldenState]

I recall reading that giving the best equipment to new units was certainly a German habit later in the war. It seems likely your theory is correct.

In the larger sense, I believe you are over thinking it. It makes sense that the PIII loss ratio would increase over the years as the competition stiffened.

To argue that the L60 did not mitigate losses is to argue that gun power was irrelevant. Are we really to believe that if the PIII had been thrown into battle rearmed with a 20mm gun that losses would not have escalated?

[maltesefalcon]

No one is arguing that gun power is irrevelant. Far from it.
In this case I was simply showing how statistics can be misleading without context.

However at least in my opinion, I feel that the best what if proposals need to have some chance to change the course of history. An incremental change in PIII success in 1941 is not going to win the campaign nor ultimately the war for Germany.

Of course a better tank is always desired. That's why the the PIII itself was eventually phased out for more powerful models.

[stg 44]

No one is arguing that gun power is irrevelant. Far from it.
In this case I was simply showing how statistics can be misleading without context.

However at least in my opinion, I feel that the best what if proposals need to have some chance to change the course of history. An incremental change in PIII success in 1941 is not going to win the campaign nor ultimately the war for Germany.

Of course a better tank is always desired. That's why the the PIII itself was eventually phased out for more powerful models.

Why would it only make sense to talk about big changes? Little ones could have knock on effects too. Even changing loss rates could add up and effect things down the line.

[maltesefalcon]

No one is arguing that gun power is irrevelant. Far from it.
In this case I was simply showing how statistics can be misleading without context.

However at least in my opinion, I feel that the best what if proposals need to have some chance to change the course of history. An incremental change in PIII success in 1941 is not going to win the campaign nor ultimately the war for Germany.

Of course a better tank is always desired. That's why the the PIII itself was eventually phased out for more powerful models.

Why would it only make sense to talk about big changes? Little ones could have knock on effects too. Even changing loss rates could add up and effect things down the line.

Okay. In your opinion , how many extra Soviet tanks would the Wehrmacht need to knock out with the PIII L60 to win the Barbarossa campaign, thus the war? (This assumes both sides still have the same number of tanks as IRL.)

Im assuming in this case, the L60 ensures no Raputitsia. Oh and a longer gun will help the majority of the Wehrmacht that moves on foot to catch up to the Panzer columns faster. Not to mention none of the troops will now freeze due to inadeqate clothing.

Otherwise the only outcome is an incremental change in Barbarossa casualties. No way Germany will win the war once Barbarrossa failed.

[stg 44]

My point is not that it would help the Germans win the war, but it might change the course of it, which, IMHO, is worthy of discussion on its own, rather than only focusing on What Ifs that change the outcome of wars.