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

No Panzer III Wins the War

#1

Post by Konig_pilsner » 06 Feb 2017, 01:44

So...

Development of the Pz3 and Pz4 began in 1934, with prototypes for both being tested in 1936. The former was intended to perform an anti-tank role, while the latter being used as support. In the end they were pretty much the exact same tank except for the turret ring, in which the Pz4 offered greater flexibility. While both being effective and evolving in their own ways, had only the Pz4 been pursued early on the panzer divisions would have been far superior early on.

This all comes down to armament, logistics and production.

Armament:
Looking at the first 60 days of Barbarossa, 6.9% of upgraded Pz3's (5cm) were lost compared to 22.6% of Pz3's (37mm) that weren't. Roughly a 3v1 difference based on gun calibre and some slight armour enhancements. Pz4's lost were 6.3% but used in a different role so the comparison isn't quite valid. Clearly the power of the gun was influential on the battlefield.

Logistics:
The 37mm was initially employed on the Pz3 to standardize the round with the infantry. This benefit is negated by having two main variants of tanks in the panzer divisions who were the most motorized and supplied anyway. As more breakdowns and wear and tear occurred and the length of supply lines got longer, having one set spares and only one variant to cannibalize becomes preferable.

Production:

Self explanatory in the industrial sense... however had the Pz4 been chosen as the only platform early on... it is conceivable that the 1941 panzer arm invading Russia could have been 1500 Pz4's (5cm), 500 Pz4's (75mm/24), and 500 Stug4's (or more due to mass production). But the real question is had the Pz4 been chosen all along it is doubtful the 37mm would have ever been chosen in the first place. That means the 5cm L42 would have already proven to be insufficient in 1940, and likely many Pz4's would have been upgraded to the 5cm L60. Further, development of the 75mm L48 for the Stug in an anti-tank role brings higher calibre firepower to the table when it was needed the most.

The real question in the end is what does this all achieve, and I believe it could have changed Barbarossa or even the war. T34's and KV1's didn't save Russia, but the operational strength and speed at which the panzer divisions moved did. Barbarossa didn't fail by much, and as you project the slight improvement in German qualitative firepower over the course of 5 months you see a very different Wehrmacht on the steps of Moscow.

Cheers,
KP

Svrclr
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Sep 2016, 15:43
Location: Aiken, SC USA

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#2

Post by Svrclr » 06 Feb 2017, 16:44

I don't think it changes anything.
Historically, the Germans inflicted huge losses to the Soviets, in basically one-sided fighting. But the losses they took lead to a constant slow depletion of the forces by the time they got to Moscow. Add in that so many of the tanks and other motor vehicles are breaking down, in addition to the light, but steady losses (many of which were repaired).

As Army Group Center approach Moscow, there are (essentially) no spare parts being brought forward, so those losses aren't made good. Having more tanks available late in the campaign simply means more of them break down. while some are brought forward, it is only a token of what is needed. More vehicles just mean more breakdowns that cannot be repaired.

And in any case, the infantry are the ones the Germans would need to capture Moscow. But they are badly depleted as well, so that most divisions are only the strength of regiments in June (or weaker).


User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#3

Post by T. A. Gardner » 06 Feb 2017, 17:49

More tanks wasn't what Germany needed in Russia. Stuff like this was:

Image

Image

If the Wehrmacht could build good roads, rebuild railroads, build bridges, build camps and shelters, and other civil engineering projects quickly, then they could have avoided the loss of equipment to mud, the debilitating effects of cold or mosquitos, could have moved supplies forward expeditiously, and it would have multiplied the effectiveness of the equipment they did have, far more than just adding a few more tanks or something else to their inventory.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#4

Post by stg 44 » 06 Feb 2017, 19:45

I'm pretty sure I did a thread about this already. While I'm not sure I agree with it being a war winner, I certainly agree with most of your points in general about the wisdom of just one chassis and the Pz III not being it. Fit it with the 75mm L41 developed in the 1930s and the Allies have a problem in 1941-42:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz.Sfl._II#Design
Rheinmetall-Borsig's 7.5 centimetres (3.0 in) L/40.8 gun
The gun could depress 8° and elevate 20°. It fired a 6.8 kg (15 lb) K.Gr. rot Pz. (APCBC) shell with a muzzle velocity of 685 m/s (2,250 ft/s) and a 5.85 kg (12.9 lb) Sprenggranate (HE) shell at 485 m/s (1,590 ft/s).

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#5

Post by T. A. Gardner » 07 Feb 2017, 00:25

stg 44 wrote:I'm pretty sure I did a thread about this already. While I'm not sure I agree with it being a war winner, I certainly agree with most of your points in general about the wisdom of just one chassis and the Pz III not being it. Fit it with the 75mm L41 developed in the 1930s and the Allies have a problem in 1941-42:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz.Sfl._II#Design
Rheinmetall-Borsig's 7.5 centimetres (3.0 in) L/40.8 gun
The gun could depress 8° and elevate 20°. It fired a 6.8 kg (15 lb) K.Gr. rot Pz. (APCBC) shell with a muzzle velocity of 685 m/s (2,250 ft/s) and a 5.85 kg (12.9 lb) Sprenggranate (HE) shell at 485 m/s (1,590 ft/s).
So, you're advocating the Germans build something akin to the T34/76 or Sherman tank...

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#6

Post by stg 44 » 07 Feb 2017, 05:58

T. A. Gardner wrote:
stg 44 wrote:I'm pretty sure I did a thread about this already. While I'm not sure I agree with it being a war winner, I certainly agree with most of your points in general about the wisdom of just one chassis and the Pz III not being it. Fit it with the 75mm L41 developed in the 1930s and the Allies have a problem in 1941-42:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz.Sfl._II#Design
Rheinmetall-Borsig's 7.5 centimetres (3.0 in) L/40.8 gun
The gun could depress 8° and elevate 20°. It fired a 6.8 kg (15 lb) K.Gr. rot Pz. (APCBC) shell with a muzzle velocity of 685 m/s (2,250 ft/s) and a 5.85 kg (12.9 lb) Sprenggranate (HE) shell at 485 m/s (1,590 ft/s).
So, you're advocating the Germans build something akin to the T34/76 or Sherman tank...
No, a Panzer IVF2 with the existing tools in their tool belt. It requires no different technology than they used historically, just not making the Pz III at all and mating the existing 75mm L41 dual purpose (AP/HE) cannon. Its just the Pz IVF2 with a slightly weaker gun than it had in Summer 1942.

The German version of the M4 Sherman/T-34 would be the VK20 design:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VK_20
Only the Daimler version with rear engine/drive combo would have been reasonable.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#7

Post by T. A. Gardner » 07 Feb 2017, 07:01

stg 44 wrote:No, a Panzer IVF2 with the existing tools in their tool belt. It requires no different technology than they used historically, just not making the Pz III at all and mating the existing 75mm L41 dual purpose (AP/HE) cannon. Its just the Pz IVF2 with a slightly weaker gun than it had in Summer 1942.

The German version of the M4 Sherman/T-34 would be the VK20 design:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VK_20
Only the Daimler version with rear engine/drive combo would have been reasonable.
The Pz IV F2 would be a rough analog in 1940. It doesn't have to be an exact match.

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

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#8

Post by Konig_pilsner » 07 Feb 2017, 07:06

More tanks wasn't what Germany needed in Russia. Stuff like this was:
Umm, no...

Not one single offensive during Barbarossa was significantly delayed due to poor logistics until after Vyazma. It was the speed of the infantry that rightly held the panzers back, which also allowed the crews some rest as well as maintenance to be performed on the equipment. Add in the pauses caused by the bickering between OKH and OKW and you will find not one single moment where logistics played a crucial factor.
I don't think it changes anything.
Historically, the Germans inflicted huge losses to the Soviets, in basically one-sided fighting. But the losses they took lead to a constant slow depletion of the forces by the time they got to Moscow. Add in that so many of the tanks and other motor vehicles are breaking down, in addition to the light, but steady losses (many of which were repaired).

As Army Group Center approach Moscow, there are (essentially) no spare parts being brought forward, so those losses aren't made good. Having more tanks available late in the campaign simply means more of them break down. while some are brought forward, it is only a token of what is needed. More vehicles just mean more breakdowns that cannot be repaired.

And in any case, the infantry are the ones the Germans would need to capture Moscow. But they are badly depleted as well, so that most divisions are only the strength of regiments in June (or weaker).
Much of this is inaccurate. Barbarossa was a series of jumps, and when looking at the operation you can't focus too much on the end. Infantry losses were lower then expected, most occurring in the combat teams which accompanied the panzers. Had Moscow been encircled it would not have been these men that would take the city, but the infantry divisions that lagged behind.

Of course spare parts became an issue (although it was mostly the engines), which is why standardization of your vehicle park is crucial. It was the loss of lorries that seriously crippled the logistics later on, which could have been avoided had the Germans advanced quicker, or called a halt during the last weeks of October.

What is being missed here is the effects firepower has on a battle. The quicker you destroy your opponent the less ammunition you use, the less casualties you take, and the quicker you can advance. The 37mm might be able to destroy 80% of the armour it faced, but at much shorter ranges and with more rounds needed to knock out even a BT. When Pz3's equipped with this weapon engaged in fighting, they incurred disproportionately higher losses, as did the combat teams protecting the advance.
I'm pretty sure I did a thread about this already. While I'm not sure I agree with it being a war winner, I certainly agree with most of your points in general about the wisdom of just one chassis and the Pz III not being it. Fit it with the 75mm L41 developed in the 1930s and the Allies have a problem in 1941-42:
I am not surprised if you did, it is kind of your thing here:) A war winner maybe not, but making a dumb claim makes it more interesting.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#9

Post by stg 44 » 07 Feb 2017, 17:59

T. A. Gardner wrote: The Pz IV F2 would be a rough analog in 1940. It doesn't have to be an exact match.
Sure and good enough to smash just again anything in the world at that point. They'd have to L48 that 75 in 1942, but the L41 with APCBC is good enough for 1941 until the APCR shows up and can probably carry the L41 through 1942, but the L48 will be necessary by the end of the year.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#10

Post by T. A. Gardner » 07 Feb 2017, 19:25

As for a better design... A Pz III's suspension adding one or two road wheels, a more powerful engine, and widening the tank just a bit would have fixed most of issues with the design. That would have allowed a larger turret, gun, and more armor to be piled on the vehicle. The Pz III's suspension was well in advance of any competitor's in 1939 - 40 with its medium sized road wheels and torsion bars. The Krupp designed short leaf spring design for the Pz IV was so 1930's...

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#11

Post by stg 44 » 07 Feb 2017, 19:36

T. A. Gardner wrote:As for a better design... A Pz III's suspension adding one or two road wheels, a more powerful engine, and widening the tank just a bit would have fixed most of issues with the design. That would have allowed a larger turret, gun, and more armor to be piled on the vehicle. The Pz III's suspension was well in advance of any competitor's in 1939 - 40 with its medium sized road wheels and torsion bars. The Krupp designed short leaf spring design for the Pz IV was so 1930's...
AKA the VK20 (DB) design.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#12

Post by T. A. Gardner » 07 Feb 2017, 22:19

stg 44 wrote:
T. A. Gardner wrote:As for a better design... A Pz III's suspension adding one or two road wheels, a more powerful engine, and widening the tank just a bit would have fixed most of issues with the design. That would have allowed a larger turret, gun, and more armor to be piled on the vehicle. The Pz III's suspension was well in advance of any competitor's in 1939 - 40 with its medium sized road wheels and torsion bars. The Krupp designed short leaf spring design for the Pz IV was so 1930's...
AKA the VK20 (DB) design.
No. That design uses a interleaved suspension that is totally different. Simply adding one or two more road wheels to the existing Pz IIIE suspension is simpler. Widening the vehicle some is also relatively easy to do. Possibly widening the track a few centimeters as well.
New engine, new turret, and you have a tank that will take a 75/48 gun, possibly even a longer 75 as well.
If it got up armored to 80 to 100mm on the front and had 40 mm on the side and rear it would have easily been viable to the end of the war.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#13

Post by stg 44 » 08 Feb 2017, 00:08

T. A. Gardner wrote:
stg 44 wrote:
T. A. Gardner wrote:As for a better design... A Pz III's suspension adding one or two road wheels, a more powerful engine, and widening the tank just a bit would have fixed most of issues with the design. That would have allowed a larger turret, gun, and more armor to be piled on the vehicle. The Pz III's suspension was well in advance of any competitor's in 1939 - 40 with its medium sized road wheels and torsion bars. The Krupp designed short leaf spring design for the Pz IV was so 1930's...
AKA the VK20 (DB) design.
No. That design uses a interleaved suspension that is totally different. Simply adding one or two more road wheels to the existing Pz IIIE suspension is simpler. Widening the vehicle some is also relatively easy to do. Possibly widening the track a few centimeters as well.
New engine, new turret, and you have a tank that will take a 75/48 gun, possibly even a longer 75 as well.
If it got up armored to 80 to 100mm on the front and had 40 mm on the side and rear it would have easily been viable to the end of the war.
Not necessarily as simple with torsion bar suspension; also the VK20 Daimler originally had leaf spring suspension, finding torsion bar eating up too much space. They did have one design with the interweaved suspension to make the armaments board happy. Widening the tracks is easy, not the chassis, that requires an entirely new chassis. Lengthening is possible with some modification. New turret requires a new turret ring, which is a major modification, they tried to mate the Pz IV turret with 75mm L48 gun to the Pz III and found the production modifications were more trouble than they were worth.
http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Tank:G107_PzKpfwIII_AusfK

Really if you're going to go through the trouble to do all those mods to the existing chassis of the Pz III you'd have to just replace the whole thing with less work to get a heavier, better designed, newer chassis in production.

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

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#14

Post by Yoozername » 08 Feb 2017, 09:48

stg 44 wrote:
T. A. Gardner wrote: The Pz IV F2 would be a rough analog in 1940. It doesn't have to be an exact match.
Sure and good enough to smash just again anything in the world at that point. They'd have to L48 that 75 in 1942, but the L41 with APCBC is good enough for 1941 until the APCR shows up and can probably carry the L41 through 1942, but the L48 will be necessary by the end of the year.
The gun, and ammunition, would have a hard time taking on a T34 frontally. And APCR also has a hard time against sloped armor. So, it isn't quite as great a 'what-if' as you seem to describe. The Germans developed the 7,5 cm Pzgr 39 projectile to take greater velocities and handle the main threats at that time. The K.Gr. rot Pz., with its thin walled design and large cavity HE filling, also would have issues with sloped armor.

Penetration values 60 deg homog

*******************100 500 1000 1500 2000 meters
KWK 37
rot.Pz 365 M/s, 41 39 35 33 30 (mm)

7.5 cm Kan L40
rotPz. 685 M/S 65 64 62 59 56

7.5cm StuK40 L43
Pzg- Pg 39 740 M/S 98 91 82 72 63


Until the Germans met up with the T34 and KV tanks, they saw no reason to get a 75mm high velocity weapon. I suppose it was fortuitous that they had designed the StuG alongside the Panzer III. That is, once they developed the KWK 40/StuK 40, they had a chassis design around which to put it in. So, given the option of halting Panzer III production, they had a clear path for full time StuG production. In fact, in 1942, the amount of StuGs that could carry a KWK40 amounted to 45% 0f the Panzer IVs and StuGs total.

Image

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#15

Post by stg 44 » 08 Feb 2017, 15:53

Yoozername wrote: The gun, and ammunition, would have a hard time taking on a T34 frontally. And APCR also has a hard time against sloped armor. So, it isn't quite as great a 'what-if' as you seem to describe. The Germans developed the 7,5 cm Pzgr 39 projectile to take greater velocities and handle the main threats at that time. The K.Gr. rot Pz., with its thin walled design and large cavity HE filling, also would have issues with sloped armor.
APCBC would do the just just fine, I trust you've heard of overmatching?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=110070
Throughout the war, sloped armor was used on an increasing number of tanks. However it seems overmatching was a phonemon not understood till after the war. I notice alot of people seem not to have heard of the effect. Basically overmatching was an event that occured if a shell hit sloped armor that was thinner then the diameter of the tank shell. This effect neglects the sloped armor advantage, causing the shell to simply smash though the armor, causing a much bigger hole and much more armor fragments to enter the tank compartment, killing and maiming. For example teh T-34, its effective armor should of also been around 100mm, but because the 75mm shell was so much thicker then the sloped 45mm hull, the shell would often just smash though armor instead of being deflected.

Now in regards to the sherman, it originally had 51mm of armor sloped at 31 degrees from the vertical. This in effect meant the hull was armound 100mm's of effective armor if hit, which proved adequit in the desert against Mark3s with the 50mm guns. Except for armor quailty issues, never fixed until the M4A3(75) and (76) versons in late 1943, they stood up well.

However, with the appearence of more and more long barreled Panzer 4s with Long 75mms, the shermans hull was all of a sudden being penetrated by these shells at ranges beyond where it should of statistically or technically should of stoped the round. Of coruse the culprit was a combination of overmatching and bad armor quality. The bad armor quailty reduced the strength of the armor, meaning in effect it was not as strong as its real 51mm, which meant the 75mm was more effective at overmatching the 51mm then it should of been.

However, by late 1943, the newer verson of the sherman was coming out (which ever versons had the 64mm at 43 degrees from the verticle hull armor, with 75 and 76mm guns). In order to get rid of the two near verticle spots where the commander and hull gunner sat, the hull slope was decreased, but more armor was added to compensate. This had the added benifit of actually preventing overmatching. As a result of finally ironing out the armor quailty issues, and 64mm against a 75mm shell, the hull finally became its effective 100mm or so of armor.
Plus T-34 armor quality was pretty shitty.
Yoozername wrote: Penetration values 60 deg homog

*******************100 500 1000 1500 2000 meters
KWK 37
rot.Pz 365 M/s, 41 39 35 33 30 (mm)

7.5 cm Kan L40
rotPz. 685 M/S 65 64 62 59 56

7.5cm StuK40 L43
Pzg- Pg 39 740 M/S 98 91 82 72 63


Until the Germans met up with the T34 and KV tanks, they saw no reason to get a 75mm high velocity weapon. I suppose it was fortuitous that they had designed the StuG alongside the Panzer III. That is, once they developed the KWK 40/StuK 40, they had a chassis design around which to put it in. So, given the option of halting Panzer III production, they had a clear path for full time StuG production. In fact, in 1942, the amount of StuGs that could carry a KWK40 amounted to 45% 0f the Panzer IVs and StuGs total.

Image
Based on what you just posted above with 60 degree sloped RHA, i.e. what the T-34 had, the L41 would have penetrated it at 2000m, as the 60 degree sloped armor was only 45mm thick. The L41 gun was a dual purpose HE/AP weapon to do both roles, like the Sherman or T-34 cannon. Having a dual purpose gun for one chassis in the 20 ton range is just logical.


And historical penetration tests against T-34s:
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/ ... -t-34.html
The superior performance of the German gun is confirmed by a Yugoslav test which showed that the Pak 40 could penetrate the T-34/85 at the following distances:


hull front

hull sides

turret front

turret sides
75mm Pak 40

1,300

1,750

1,000

1,750
76mm M1

1,100

1,500

900

1,500
85mm ZiS-S-53

1,200

1,750

1,000

1,500

The vulnerability of the T-34 to the Pak40/Kwk40 is also shown in a Soviet report, presented in ‘Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II’- chapter 1. It shows that from summer 1943 till March 1945 the probability of the T-34’s armor being penetrated if hit was from 88-97%. This percentage was roughly 50-50 in the preceding period. Considering the mass use of the Pak 40/Kwk 40 by the Germans in the same period (and the limited number of heavy 88mm guns) it is clear that most of the T-34’s were destroyed by the Pak40/Kwk40.



The following are excerpts from German combat reports found in ‘Panzertruppen’ volumes 1 and 2:
Report of Panzer Regiment 33, dated 31 July 1942:

‘Penetration ability of the long 75mm gun KWK 40 /L43 panzergranate 39 against the T-34: The T-34 is cleanly penetrated at every angle that it is hit at ranges up to 1.200 meters’
‘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. After the Russians attacked the German Panzer forces in several battles with the T34 and received heavy losses, they didn't send the T34 tank against the German Panzers so long as they had a chance to with-draw’

Report of 5th Panzer Division for period 22 February to 20 March 1943:
‘7.5cm KwK 40 L/43 in 4 Pz IV: 17 KW-1, 26 T-34, 1 T-26, 1 Mark II, 3 Mark III, 1 General Lee. Pzgr.39 was fired at ranges from 1.200 to 1.600 meters. Every hit caused a destructive effect with the tank going up in flames. Two to three Pzgr.39 rounds were expended per tank killed. Gr.38 HL/E1 ammunition was seldom used. One to five rounds were required to set an enemy tank on fire.’

April 1943 report by Grossdeutschland division:
‘1. In the period from 7 March to 20 March 1943, 250 T34, 16 T60 or T70 and 3 KW-1 tanks were knocked out.

2. The number of kills scored by each type of weapon were:
188 by Pz.Kpfw.IV 7.5 cm lang,

41 by Sturmgeschuetz 7.5 cm lang,
30 by Pz.Kpfw.VI (Tiger),

4 by 7.5 cm Pak (mot Zug),
4 by 7.5 cm Pak (Sfl),

1 by a direct hit from a s.I.G.

1 using a Hafthohlladung (hand-held shaped charge)’

Locked

Return to “What if”