Panzer III & Stug III succeses against T-34 and KV's?

[Krimzon]

Hello,

I was wondering if the early Stug III (ausf. a/b/c) with the short barreled 75mm was able to take on (penetrate) the t-34/76 or KV-1/2? I red some succeses Wittmann had in the early stages of Barbarossa but can anyone help me?

Also same question for the Panzer III early types with the 37mm & 50mm (short) barreled. Where they able to destroy T-34s or KV-1/2?

It seems unlikely to me that only the Flak 88 and the pak 7.5 where able to fight off these big russian vehicles with any succes.

Thanks!

[Meyer]

Excerpt from "Stug III Assault Gun 1940-1942",Doyle/Jentz


'From 22 June/31 December 1941, in exchange
for the total loss of nine Sturmgeschutz (six
destroyed hy enemy action and three blown up to
prevent capture), Sturmgeschiitz-Abteilung 185
destroyed or captured 64 medium and heavy
artillery pieces, 66 light artillery pieces, 39
infantry guns, 34 mortars, 79 anti-tank guns, 45
anti-aircraft guns, 314 MGs, 91 tanks, nine
armoured cars, etc. No less than 58,890 rounds of
75 mm ammunition had been fired. The high rate
of ammunition expenditure was due to the order
from the commander of the 18th Army that
Sturmgeschutz were to use gunfire to open routes
for the infantry to advance.'

In a follow-up report for the period from 20
Februaw/9 April 1912, Sturmgeschiirz-Abteilung
185 claimed to have knocked out two KW-11, 29
KW-I, and 27 T-34 tanks and over 50 guns
against a total loss of eight Sturmgeschiitz. Only
those enemy tanks that were observed to be burning
or heavily damaged were claimed. No claims
were made for those stopped by damaging the
tracks, drive sprocket, etc. Personnel losses had
amounted to I1 dead and 23 wounded. The
ammunition expenditure during this period was
12,370 Sprenggranaten (HE shells), 5,120
K.Gr.rot Pz. (AP shells), and 1,360 Gr.38 HI-
(HEAT) rounds.

[Krimzon]

Thank you for your info Meyer! This was just what I needed. Do you or does anybody else know of succeses of panzer III (short barreled) against the T-34 and KV's?

[Sleipnir11]

Excerpt from "Stug III Assault Gun 1940-1942",Doyle/Jentz
'From 22 June/31 December 1941, in exchange
for the total loss of nine Sturmgeschutz (six
destroyed hy enemy action and three blown up to
prevent capture), Sturmgeschiitz-Abteilung 185
destroyed or captured 64 medium and heavy
artillery pieces, 66 light artillery pieces, 39
infantry guns, 34 mortars, 79 anti-tank guns, 45
anti-aircraft guns, 314 MGs, 91 tanks, nine
armoured cars, etc. No less than 58,890 rounds of
75 mm ammunition had been fired. The high rate
of ammunition expenditure was due to the order
from the commander of the 18th Army that
Sturmgeschutz were to use gunfire to open routes
for the infantry to advance.'

In a follow-up report for the period from 20
Februaw/9 April 1912, Sturmgeschiirz-Abteilung
185 claimed to have knocked out two KW-11, 29
KW-I, and 27 T-34 tanks and over 50 guns
against a total loss of eight Sturmgeschiitz. Only
those enemy tanks that were observed to be burning
or heavily damaged were claimed. No claims
were made for those stopped by damaging the
tracks, drive sprocket, etc. Personnel losses had
amounted to I1 dead and 23 wounded. The
ammunition expenditure during this period was
12,370 Sprenggranaten (HE shells), 5,120
K.Gr.rot Pz. (AP shells), and 1,360 Gr.38 HI-
(HEAT) rounds.

Apparently the record of Stu.Gesch.Abt. 185 split out much clearer on the kills of KVs and T-34s only in early 1942. Meanwhile there was an event in late 1941 such that the improved HEAT Gr. 38 HL/A, capable of penetrating 70 mm armor, arrived in the frontline. Before this the original Gr. 38 HL could only deal with 45 mm armor. Could the improved HEAT ammunition the reason for early short barreled StuGs with 7.5 cm StuK 37 L/24 to confront Soviet heavy/medium tanks?

[Mobius]

Hello,
I was wondering if the early Stug III (ausf. a/b/c) with the short barreled 75mm was able to take on (penetrate) the t-34/76 or KV-1/2? I red some succeses Wittmann had in the early stages of Barbarossa but can anyone help me?
Thanks!

I read that as well in a Wittmann book. That he knocked out T-34s by hitting them in the turret ring. I don't recall an encounter with a KV, though.
It is possible for the short 75mm to penetrate the T-34 gun mantlet up to about 800m. But that's about it from the front.
I looked up where his early encounter with T-34s happened and there was considerable action in the general area.
But, I didn't find any specific battles that contained T-34s.
There were hordes of BT-7s and T-26s at the time so maybe these were misidentified as T-34s. During the early war the T-34s and KVs were mostly unknown and were called by their weights and not type.

[Cult Icon]

Thank you for your info Meyer! This was just what I needed. Do you or does anybody else know of succeses of panzer III (short barreled) against the T-34 and KV's?

generally they beat them with coordination and tactics- often capturing them. This was when the panzer divisions (1941 and 1942) often fought as strong, combined arms forces w/ air support.

[Stiltzkin]

Well, statistically speaking we have this (I wonder how they evaluated deformations and damage by the same caliber impact ):

So perhaps you should look for Stalingrad city fighting reports (for Stugs). It seems that they were either outflanking them (their sights, optics, FCE and radios gave them an edge), using special ammunition (which was scarce), ambush positions or simply evading them, occasionally.

There are many reports in Jentz Panzertruppen (describing the counter measures and tactics against the new heavy tanks), though a lot of those contain exaggerations and some are questionable (while reading them you will get the impression that the Panzers were absolutely outclassed, yet in almost all engagements Soviet losses are exponentially high). That is to say that many of those were actually 2ndary sources or reports filed in after the war (same case with Müller-Hillebrandt and his ridiculous, inflated claims).
Whenever I compared them to Guard reports/RKKA engagements, the Soviets were stating the exact opposite, i.e. "our tanks get stuck and our engines fail".
10% for 3.7cm guns, I find that hard to believe as these weapons were actually inadequate to deal with them. However I have found Soviet reports which state that even 3.7 and 20mm did indeed cause damage on the T-34s. Calculating with DeMarres or Krupps equation, they should have been relatively safe, except for point blank ranges.
A dug in T-34 was nigh impossible to destroy, especially if it was supported on the flanks. Frontal attacks against a high accumulation of T-34s or KV-Is was hard to survive.

"in an attack near Charkow, the new 2. Panzer Division supported by a Kampfgruppe from the 3. Panzer-Division, succeeded in cutting off and contributing to the destruction of a major Russian force. Panzer-Regiment 201 arrived in Russia with 34 Pz.Kpfw.IV with the long 7.5cm KwK40 L/43, of which 6 had reached the unit by 12 May.
The I.Abteilung/Panzer-Regiment 201 started out with 9 Pz.II, 36 PzIII and 13 PzIV operational on 12 May 1942. They still had 6 Pz II, 19 Pz III and 10 PzIV operational on 27 May and had lost 5 Pz.Kpfw.III (5cm KWK L/42), 4 PzIII(5cmKWK L/60) and 1 PzIV (7.5cmKWK 40 L/43). In exchange for these losses I.Abteilung claimed to have knocked out 79 Russian tanks including 45 T34, 13 Mark II, 12 Christi and 9 KW-I." ...

pzIIIvs.jpg (207.9 KiB) Viewed 2622 times

Furthermore, I believe Askey has some engagements covered in his Barbarossa compendium.

You have to keep in mind that the T-34 was used as an alibi for many Wehrmacht commanders, with the intention of distracting from their own failures.
On the other hand the Soviet war and postwartime propaganda did everything to influence histography to make everyone believe that the socialist system (and their respective technologies) were superior to western solutions.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Well, statistically speaking we have this (I wonder how they evaluated deformations and damage by the same caliber impact ): causes of T34 losses.jpg

Which book is that from?

[Mobius]

In the battle for Niemirow over 20 BT-7Ms and 6 T-34s attacked German infantry company defending with only 2 50mm PaK and 4 37mm Pak and were defeated. http://www.dishmodels.ru/gshow.htm?p=2483
They apparently were not well organized nor did they employ any tactics but to trundle straight ahead.

the T34 tanks, which neither the 37mm or 50mm PAK could penetrate frontally. The tanks caused confusion in Niemirow itself, crushing horse columns under their tracks, including a platoon of heavy infantry guns. Wigand says the T34s “vanquished” the divisional anti-tank guns, but some of the “monsters” were knocked out in “courageous single-handed close combat” by concentrated charges (geballten Ladungen) or anti-tank mines (Panerminen) thrown onto the rear decks of the tanks

In some pictures there are several holes in the side hull of T-34s so the 50mm must had some effect.

[Stiltzkin]

Which book is that from?

It is a Soviet study presented in Zalogas Handbook and Fowlers Book.

S. J. Zaloga, L.S. Ness, Red Army Handbook 1939-1945, Sutton Publishing, Stroud, UK, 1998, p. 179, table 6.1. Also, T. Bean, W. Fowler, Russian Tanks of WWII-Stalin’s Armoured Might, Ian Allan Publishing, London, 2002, appendix, p. 171.

Askey added (Barbarossa Volume IA):
This table should be treated with caution, and some of the figures appear dubious. For example, it is highly likely that more T-34s were destroyed by long 75mm guns and these could easily have been mistaken by Soviet intelligence as long 50mm guns.

Also it should be noted that 128mm casualties were indeed present in 42, however just 0,01% (Sturer Emil 12.8, about 44- 60 kills, T-34 losses in 42 are hard to estimate, 6000 was a rounded figure, TSAMO irrecoverable losses are only available since 43, Krivosheev only works with differences of each year)

In some pictures there are several holes in the side hull of T-34s so the 50mm must had some effect.

Which one, the 50mm did indeed have effect on the T-34, however such a single event is hardly representative for all situations. The morale of certain crews was insufficient, sometimes the T-34s routed even when MG fire hit their hull. They could also focus on just one enemy, target acquisition was very slow, visibility narrow.

[Jeff Leach]

I posted an activity report for Activity Report Pz.Jäg.Abt.(Sfl.) 670, July-August 1941 about a year ago, The unit was equipped with PzJg I's and the entry for 10th July 1941 shows the tactics the unit used against T-34s

10.07.41
3./Pz.Jg.Abt.(Sft.) 670 was instructed to cooperate with the I./Inf.Rgt.156(mot) for its attack from Podolance towards Wolosowka. The company was placed with the leading troops.

1./Pz.Jg.Abt.(Sfl.) 670 was subordinated to the II./Inf.Rgt.156(mot) to help forward its attack via Babuszki towards Bezymowka. After reaching the attack objective the company less one platoon was given the mission of seizing Januszpol. At the south exit of Wolica the company ran into a heavy Soviet tank (T34). Coming under fire from four tank destroyers (JägPz I) it turned around and headed back towards Januszpol. Together with the lead company of II./Inf.Rgt.156(mot), the tank destroyer company occupied the northern part of Januszpol after hard fighting. A further advance into the town ran into three Soviet heavy tanks. A fire fight developed at ranges of 200 – 300 meters. The Soviet tanks, which had been hit numerous times, were forced to withdraw. The company then pushed forward into the middle of town and took up a hedgehog formation. Another Soviet heavy tank showed up but it disappeared as soon as it came under fire. With part of the II./Inf.Rgt.156(mot) they advanced further into the town but with the falling of darkness the action had to be broken off.

I am also certain that there is a mention somewhere of a T-34 being abandoned because its running gear was damaged.

The German couldn't destroy the tanks so they just caused their crews to panic instead.

[Kawinksy]

pzIIIvs.jpg

I have to ask the question again, which book is that excerpt from?

On 27th June, Heeresgruppe Nord made arguably their first encounter with the KV-1, 3 of the 5 knocked out tanks burned out. However, they recommended following engagement range after field trial:

Calculating with DeMarres or Krupps equation, they should have been relatively safe, except for point blank ranges.

In theory and build with quality steel, perhaps. Unfortunately, some T-34 at time couldn't even withstand consecutively 3,7 cm shots to its front from 300-400m, and resistance was arguably much lower than expected. Reports from January 1942 also leaves much to be desired, a very grim picture:

[Stiltzkin]

I have to ask the question again, which book is that excerpt from?

Its from Jentz Panzertruppen Vol1.

In theory and build with quality steel, perhaps. Unfortunately, some T-34 at time couldn't even withstand consecutively 3,7 cm shots to its front from 300-400m, and resistance was arguably much lower than expected. Reports from January 1942 also leaves much to be desired, a very grim picture:

Yes, I am familiar with Soviet Metallurgy, there is a report on that from the Korean War. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/011426.pdf
The quality actually lowers in 42, as they pump out more and more machines to compensate for the dire losses (the quality of production was in fact very low). A similar general quality loss is observed at the end of the war with Panthers on the Western Front, cracks which lead to metal fatigue by shelling (from guns they should have been relatively safe).
However that does not necessarily mean that 3,7 fire was always successful, indicated by many German reports.
The Heeresgruppe Nord Bericht shows that the 4,7 and 5cm needed to use a Panzergranate 40.
The real question is: Were the fluctuations (in quality) the reason or subjective estimates? Which of the reports is more accurate, as many statements differ, we have to assume that this is under optimal conditions, hitting the perpendicular areas.
There is a Soviet report stating the 20mm fire caused some serious damage, I do not know how trusthworthy that is.

[Jeff Leach]

There were hordes of BT-7s and T-26s at the time so maybe these were misidentified as T-34s. During the early war the T-34s and KVs were mostly unknown and were called by their weights and not type.

I work a lot with the original documents and can say the German don't appear to missidentify the T-34 and KVs. They are usually referred to as 'heavy' (T34), 'heaviest' (KVs) and usually all the other types are just referred to as 'tanks' and in a few cases 'tankettes'. The mentions I have seen so far pretty much match up with the Soviet units possessing the T-34s and KVs.

[Kawinksy]

The Heeresgruppe Nord Bericht shows that the 4,7 and 5cm needed to use a Panzergranate 40.

Just to point it out, as Jentz didn't list the figure for the KV-1 at all. However I've seen reports which listed that the 5,0 cm could penetrate the T-34 only within 200m (front), 300m (sides) and 500m (rear) with the Pzgr. 40, while the Pzgr 39 failed to do so at even 100m.

The 3,7 cm was not even worth to mention.

The real question is: Were the fluctuations (in quality) the reason or subjective estimates? Which of the reports is more accurate, as many statements differ, we have to assume that this is under optimal conditions, hitting the perpendicular areas.

I would say so, with large scale productions in a short space of time, you will have a great amount of variation in quality, despite careful workmanship.

I work a lot with the original documents and can say the German don't appear to missidentify the T-34 and KVs

I do have seen some intances, esp. during the first 3 months.