No Panzer III Wins the War

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 19 Dec 2003, 08:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#61

Post by Konig_pilsner » 23 Feb 2017, 05:11

Jentz Panzertract 19-2
Our experience is that the capabilities of the 7.62 cm Kw.K are good. Thorough adjustment of the weapons and careful aiming ensure high accuracy even at long ranges. With their low rate of fire, the weapons are accurate and have few stoppages.
Kenny don't embarrass yourself, you are better then that. I critiqued the training, fire control and optics, not the gun. That was quite clear. The poor performance of Russian tanks extends beyond the handful of T34's but to the BT's as well. I have no clue what point you were attempting to make.
They only invaded with 707 Panzer III (50mm types) and 417 Panzer IV (75mmL24) and 418 StuGs (75mmL24). You are a little high there with that 'conceivable' number aren't you?.
My numbers are 327 Pz3 (37mm), 1177 Pz3 (5cm), 587 Pz4, and 418 Stugs not that it is at all relevant. You are wasting my time and anyone else who has any interest in this thread.
Last edited by Konig_pilsner on 23 Feb 2017, 05:25, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#62

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Feb 2017, 05:24

Konig_pilsner wrote:
Jentz Panzertract 19-2
Our experience is that the capabilities of the 7.62 cm Kw.K are good. Thorough adjustment of the weapons and careful aiming ensure high accuracy even at long ranges. With their low rate of fire, the weapons are accurate and have few stoppages.
Kenny don't embarrass yourself, you are better then that. I critiqued the training, fire control and optics, not the gun. That was quite clear.
Well you just have my laziness to thank for me not posting the pages from Panzer Truppen where the T-34 is noted for opening fire and obtaining hits at long range in 1941-42. Your argument seems to have shifted to the claim only the Germans could get results that were beyond the Soviets.
Blanket dismissal of the T-34 is no longer possible without wilful disregard for the record.


Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 19 Dec 2003, 08:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#63

Post by Konig_pilsner » 23 Feb 2017, 05:28

Just stop it. Obtaining hits and doing it consistently are two different things. You've been around enough to know better.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#64

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Feb 2017, 05:45

Konig_pilsner wrote:Just stop it. Obtaining hits and doing it consistently are two different things. You've been around enough to know better.
Indeedy I doody. I remember the 8.8 cm ammo consumption per claimed kill in The Panzer Tracts book on the '88'. 11 rounds per claimed kill at 'normal' range and 20+ at long range. Chimes well with ammo consumption v kill claims for the Pz IV Regiment in 12th SS in Normandy as recorded in 'Waffen SS Armour In Normandy' by Szamveber.
Note that claims are not kills so actual rounds per kill will be higher that the above quoted figures.
Care to put a figure on 'consistent' ?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#65

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Feb 2017, 05:52

Page 205 Panzertruppen 1

Freiher von Langermann, Commander 4th Panzer Divison 22 October 1941.

The Russian tanks usually formed in a half circle, open
fire with their 7.62 cm guns on our Panzers already at a range
of 1000 meters and deliver enormous penetration energy with
high accuracy.

Our 5 cm Kw.K. tank guns can achieve penetrations only
on vulnerable locations under very special favorable condi-
tions at very close ranges under 50 meters. Our Panzers are
already knocked out at a range of several hundred meters.
Many times our Panzers were split open or the complete
commander's cupola of the Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV flew off from
one frontal hit. This is proof that the armor is insufficient, the
mounting for the commander's cupola on our Panzers is de-
ficient, and the accuracy and penetration ability of the Rus-
sian 7.62 cm tank guns are high.
In addition to the superior weapons effectiveness and
stronger armor, the 26 ton Christie tank (T34) is faster, more
maneuverable, and the turret traverse mechanism clearly
superior. His wide tracks allow wading of fords that can't be
crossed by our Panzers. The ground pressure is somewhat
better than ours, so that in spite of the larger weight of the
Russian tank the same bridges can be crossed as by our
Panzers.
Combating the Russian tanks with the 8.8 cm Flak or the
10cm guns can never by themselves be sufficient. Both guns
are ponderous in comparison to the fast tanks and in most
cases are already spotted, taken under fire and destroyed as
they try to get into firing position. Alone in the one tank en-
gagement between Orel and Mzensk, two 8.8 cm Flak guns
and a 10 cm gun (all of the heavy defensive weapons that
were employed) were shot up and overrun. In addition these
big as barn door, unarmored guns present much too large
and easily acquired targets.


Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#66

Post by Yoozername » 23 Feb 2017, 06:20

Konig_pilsner wrote:
Jentz Panzertract 19-2
Our experience is that the capabilities of the 7.62 cm Kw.K are good. Thorough adjustment of the weapons and careful aiming ensure high accuracy even at long ranges. With their low rate of fire, the weapons are accurate and have few stoppages.
Kenny don't embarrass yourself, you are better then that. I critiqued the training, fire control and optics, not the gun. That was quite clear. The poor performance of Russian tanks extends beyond the handful of T34's but to the BT's as well. I have no clue what point you were attempting to make.
They only invaded with 707 Panzer III (50mm types) and 417 Panzer IV (75mmL24) and 418 StuGs (75mmL24). You are a little high there with that 'conceivable' number aren't you?.
My numbers are 327 Pz3 (37mm), 1177 Pz3 (5cm), 587 Pz4, and 418 Stugs not that it is at all relevant. You are wasting my time and anyone else who has any interest in this thread.
http://www.panzerworld.com/barbarossa-1 ... k-strength

You cited this and that is where I am getting THOSE numbers. It is listed under tnk strength.
Last edited by Yoozername on 23 Feb 2017, 06:30, edited 1 time in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#67

Post by Yoozername » 23 Feb 2017, 06:28

And, if your logic makes any sense....then why are the superior 5 cm Pak 38 taking higher losses????

3,7 cm Pak 14 580 10.9%
5 cm Pak 38 1 206 13.8%

You seem to be getting testy, BTW.

Wonder how much it would cost for 10K plus Pak 38's? Did they make that many?

Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 19 Dec 2003, 08:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#68

Post by Konig_pilsner » 23 Feb 2017, 19:58

Man you guys are killing me...
You seem to be getting testy, BTW
I respect Kenny's knowledge and contribution to the forum, but in this case he is just looking for a tank pissing contest and it's annoying.
You cited this and that is where I am getting THOSE numbers. It is listed under tnk strength.
The numbers at the top of the page are different then the bottom. You can choose which one you like more but it is irrelevant to the thread.
And, if your logic makes any sense....then why are the superior 5 cm Pak 38 taking higher losses????
Maybe because they are larger targets. Maybe because they are harder to maneuver. Hard to dispute their effect though so what is your point?
Wonder how much it would cost for 10K plus Pak 38's? Did they make that many?
By June of 1941, before the invasion, they were already producing over 1000 a month.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#69

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Feb 2017, 20:08

Konig_pilsner wrote:
I respect Kenny's knowledge and contribution to the forum, but in this case he is just looking for a tank pissing contest and it's annoying.
Whenever I see something I know to be at odds with the facts I will try to correct the error.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#70

Post by Yoozername » 23 Feb 2017, 20:11

Hard to dispute their effect though so what is your point?
The point is a counter-point to your first post. You base this all on the numbers on the first 60 days of Barbarossa. You make many claims regarding survivability and knee-jerk theories using that data. So, that data works both ways or not? Armor protection data certainly doesn't factor in? I would certainly like to see the first 120 days numbers. And, as far as those AFV with 37mm weapons having larger losses, this 'math' would assume that all tanks are in equal numbers in all the Panzer divisions. There is a very different TO&E amongst the armored divisions.

You make a leap of imagination that Germany COULD make Panzer IV, and increased numbers of KWK and Pak 50mmL60 class weapons before the invasion.
By June of 1941, before the invasion, they were already producing over 1000 a month.
No, they were not. They were making a PLANNED 200 a month, and actually made and issued 163 that month. Overall inventory is probably what you meant.

Oh yeah, the Pak 38 was 'huge'...

Image
Last edited by Yoozername on 23 Feb 2017, 20:23, edited 2 times in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#71

Post by Yoozername » 23 Feb 2017, 20:18

The first two months of Barbarossa would be a glory period for the Germans fighting a very disorganized and inept enemy. They had air superiority, if not supremacy, and the combined arms had the Soviets armed forces reeling. Organized defense in September and October, would give a better picture of tank warfare realities.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#72

Post by Yoozername » 23 Feb 2017, 20:25

Michael Kenny wrote:
Konig_pilsner wrote:
I respect Kenny's knowledge and contribution to the forum, but in this case he is just looking for a tank pissing contest and it's annoying.
Whenever I see something I know to be at odds with the facts I will try to correct the error.
And he will just be dismissive of points anyway. If this ISN'T about tanks, than what does he think it IS about????

Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 19 Dec 2003, 08:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#73

Post by Konig_pilsner » 23 Feb 2017, 20:28

Jentz Panzertract 19-2
Our experience is that the capabilities of the 7.62 cm Kw.K are good. Thorough adjustment of the weapons and careful aiming ensure high accuracy even at long ranges. With their low rate of fire, the weapons are accurate and have few stoppages.
You forgot to include the preface, "when used in an anti-tank roll." I am curious how great it was at spotting and hitting concealed anti-tank guns with such poor visibility and non-existent crew training.

You also forgot to include...
‘The gun sights in Russian tanks are far behind the German designs. The German gunners need to be thoroughly accustomed to the Russian telescopic gunsights. The ability to spot a hit through the gunsight is very limited.’
Or this...
‘In a Russian tank it is difficult to command a Panzer or a unit and at the same time serve as the gunner Therefore fire direction for the entire Kompanie is hardly possible, and the concentrated effect of the unit’s firepower is lost. The commander's cupola on the T 43 makes it easier to command and fire at the same time; however; vision is very limited to five very small and narrow slits.’
These are all things you have read before and are choosing to ignore, just like the mechanical reliability and crew training.

Barbarossa wasn't a panzer vs. tank affair like it would become in later years (again you know this), and the panzer divisions weren't tasked with destroying heavy armour (which you know). Even if it was are you arguing that Pz4's and anti-tank platoons armed with the 5cmL60 would be of no consequence? Wait, here is your answer...
T34: The T34 that was far superior to the German Panzers up to the beginning of the Spring of 1942 is now inferior to the German long 5 cm Kw.K. L/60 and 7.5 cm Kw.K.40 L/43 tank guns.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#74

Post by Yoozername » 23 Feb 2017, 20:33

Hey! Look at these numbers....what were the Soviet T34 numbers for the same period????? Over 12K in 1942?

Image

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#75

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Feb 2017, 20:43

Konig_pilsner wrote: You also forgot to include...
‘The gun sights in Russian tanks are far behind the German designs. The German gunners need to be thoroughly accustomed to the Russian telescopic gunsights. The ability to spot a hit through the gunsight is very limited.’
'Far behind' does not mean it does not fulfil its function. For example when a firm releases its latest model of iphone it does not render the previous model incapable of making phone calls. You can not get accurate long range hits without a working sight. The German got it working. It would be foolish to claim the Soviets could not get it working.
The thing that stands out in 1941 is the absolute eclipse of the previous unbeatable Panzer Arm. T-34 phobia was eampant.

Locked

Return to “What if”