AT Guns

[doogal]

BDV wrote - Likely brought on by the severe losses of mid-level commanders

this rings partially true, regimental and Battalion commanders from 39-40 would have been div /corps cmdrs .. disseminating tactics and adjusting doctrine to comply with field conditions and there were also very talented Major Generals who perished early in there combat command careers, but WW2 only spanned 6 years for Germany and it saw field tactics doctrine and the use of infantry artillery and armour stagnate owing to various factors I believe.

Although the peter principle, fatalities, career ending injury, dismissal do not I believe have as much effect or dilution of new thinking to cause endemic dystrophy within an organisation.

[randwick]

.
"Why the designing of TWO very equal tanks and not one, which could play all rolls? A Panzer IV from beginning with torsion bar suspension could have satisfied all roles with only one tank."

I was under the impression that the Mark III role was as a tank hunter while the Mark IV was conceived a breakthrough tank for use with infantry
that why the Mark IV had a short barrel , armor penetration not being the main use .
the arm race of armor versus shot penetration started as soon as the shooting started
one of the big argument for dragging one's feet on upgrading the PAKs is , of course, cost

[BDV]

... the Mark IV was conceived a breakthrough tank for use with infantry; that why the Mark IV had a short barrel ...

Then, by the triple horn of Odin, what the heck was the sturmgeshutz?

[Paul_G_Baker]

... the Mark IV was conceived a breakthrough tank for use with infantry; that why the Mark IV had a short barrel ...

Then, by the triple horn of Odin, what the heck was the sturmgeshutz?

IIRC, a direct-fire armoured support vehicle for the Infantry Divisions.

[Don71]

Hello,

yes, but the P IV could do anything with a 3,7cm, 5cm L42 and 5cm L60, what the P III could do, with only one tank layout.
The essential goal/issue is to have only one chassis in production
And I fully agree to BDV!

[Paul_G_Baker]

Hello,

yes, but the P IV could do anything with a 3,7cm, 5cm L42 and 5cm L60, what the P III could do, with only one tank layout.
The essential goal/issue is to have only one chassis in production
And I fully agree to BDV!

The idea of a 'Universal' tank hadn't, it seems, occurred to anyone at the time the P III and P IV were thought up. That idea came later.

Also, the German pre-war 'armoured thinkers' wanted all tanks concentrated in the Panzer Divisions.

[Don71]

Hallo,

I don't disagree, all tanks should be in a tank division, what had this to do with an universal MBT?
P III and P IV were very equal, it was obvious to do one chassis instead of two for the germans, because the two tanks were so equal!!

[Paul_G_Baker]

Hallo,

I don't disagree, all tanks should be in a tank division, what had this to do with an universal MBT?

PzKfw III was designed and intended to fight enemy tanks. It armament was a high-velocity gun.

PzKfw IV was designed and intended to engage enemy anti-tank guns, enemy Infantry and fortifications. Its armament was a low-velocity howitzer of somewhat larger calibre than the high-velocity gun on its counterpart.

Two different roles, two different vehicles.

A tank designed and intended to fulfil most (or all) roles required of its class is, to my understanding, a 'Universal' tank.

P III and P IV were very equal, it was obvious to do one chassis instead of two for the germans, because the two tanks were so equal!!

The PzKfw IV was capable of being up-gunned further than the III (reason; a larger turret ring) so not as equal as one might think. If the Germans had standardised on the PzKfw III, they couldn't just have swapped the roles of III and IV (and up-gunned the latter) when they found they needed more punch - they'd have actually needed a new tank!

[doogal]

I was surprised to learn that the pak36 3.7cm still penetrated the frontal armour of the majority of soviet tanks in 41 up to the but not including T-28 and T-35 T-34 KV FROM 1000 yards...
But did not rheinmetal first design this weapon in 1924 ??..

[Don71]

Hello.

that's correct, but it was a long way to introduction and they built differnt prototypes for horse drawn and for traction mode. At 1932 around 270 were introduced.

[ML59]

The Germans developed two major tank design in the '30s for their new Panzer Divisions: the Pz III to fight and defeat enemy armor and the Pz IV to support with HE direct fire the former, the Pz I never being intended to be more than a training tank and the Pz II was a reconnaissance vehicle. In comparison their opponents developed and deployed a full plethora of models, some of them with very undefined or unclear roles. France and GB had infantry tanks, cruiser or cavalry tanks, breakthrough tanks, light tanks, tracked armored cars and more. With the exception of the Char B1bis and the T-28, all Allied or Soviet tanks of the period were equipped with a main gun similar or inferior to the 3,7 cm tank gun so, I don't see a major drawback in this respect. Moreover, the Germans were the only one, in 1939, to have their major tank types designed to accomodate a five members crew, with the commander acting this only role instead of performing also the role of loader or gunner like in all other tanks of the period. Combined with the universal use of internal and external radios, this made a major difference in performances during real combats, much more than the caliber of the main gun. Anyway, the balance was quickly restored, to the surprise of Allied tankers in N.A. , for example, that dubbed the first Pz IV equipped with the 7,5 cm L43 "special" . By mid 1942 the German Panzer arm could transition quickly and quite effortless to new, better armed versions of their main types without the need to disrupt production of of redesigning the original models.

[BDV]

So was the goal of the Panzer divisions defeating enemy armor?

[Paul_G_Baker]

So was the goal of the Panzer divisions defeating enemy armor?

Actually paralysing the enemy's ability to operate (as per Fuller and Liddel-Hart) rather than destruction. That's when it was used properly (as Guderian showed in France - for as long as he could before being reined-in at the behest of more senior, and highly conservative, officers) . Too often it was simply seen as the 'cutting edge' at the tip of 'pincer movements'.

[BDV]

The largest fraction of the tanks (75%) in a Panzerdivision were the AT assets. So one is forced to acquiesce that their goal was fighting enemy armor.

[Paul_G_Baker]

Guderian was heavily involved in the design of the Panzerwaffe - and set the specs for the vehicles. I'd highly recommend reading his post-war book 'Panzer Leader'.