No Panzer III Wins the War

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#286

Post by Yoozername » 25 Mar 2017, 04:12

Was there ever such a variant of the Pz II?
Uh, yeah...it was called a Panzer 38 (t)....It was featured in this movie called "How I won the war with a 37mm gun"...

Oh, yeah, look up ignorance...and weigh that definition against your statement...
You people are far too patient with ignorance.
...and then contrast with your 'advice'...
I used the ignore option 5 pages in, after that it was quite a quick read.
Last edited by Yoozername on 25 Mar 2017, 05:35, edited 1 time in total.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#287

Post by Paul Lakowski » 25 Mar 2017, 05:35

Yoozername wrote:...and what happens to those Panzer IV's? They get knocked out or wore out just like all the other panzers in the east. They have no better guns than what the Panzer III had. They had no better or even worse armor.

Stop playing WOW it will rot your mind.


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

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#288

Post by Yoozername » 25 Mar 2017, 05:37

Lackowski...didn't you post worn out old information on Combat Mission site?

I don't play WOW. Go play with your penny jar and pretend you are an Economist! :D

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#289

Post by Paul Lakowski » 25 Mar 2017, 06:26

Yoozername wrote:Lackowski...didn't you post worn out old information on Combat Mission site?

I don't play WOW. Go play with your penny jar and pretend you are an Economist! :D
NO never heard of combat mission site.

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

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#290

Post by Yoozername » 25 Mar 2017, 06:29


User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013, 02:50

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#291

Post by JAG13 » 25 Mar 2017, 16:05

Paul Lakowski wrote:
Yoozername wrote:Lackowski...didn't you post worn out old information on Combat Mission site?

I don't play WOW. Go play with your penny jar and pretend you are an Economist! :D
NO never heard of combat mission site.
In my country we have a saying, "it is not the pig's fault, but that of whom feeds it" or something like that, I think it is nowadays just called "dont feed the troll"...

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6347
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#292

Post by Richard Anderson » 25 Mar 2017, 18:31

JAG13 wrote:Per Chamberlain & Doyle:

Pz III D 16t
Pz III E 19,5t, first produced Dec 1938

Pz IV C 19t first produced Sep 1938
I think that is what I just said. :D
The "light" 15t tank ended up 3,5t heavier after a thorough redesign that changed the tank to the point of being an almost completely different tank... that had more in common with the now lighter "medium" tank than with its own previous iterations, making it redundant.
Yes, and yet still a completely different tank from the Panzer IV too and with a different armament, a different tactical role, oh, and a different prime contractor, which was also a significant factor that keeps getting passed over.
And as you know, that 70km/h experiment never paid out, they could have just produced the Pz IV and then experiment with new types of transmissions, suspensions, etc...
They did of course, and also considered developments to make the two more alike, while retaining the different armament and tactical role, which was central to the original doctrinal concept dividing the "lighter" from the "heavier" company in the battalion. They also considered replacing the Panzer IV under the VK30.01 proposal in September 1939.
So they could have, right then and there, in early-mid 1938, before any large scale production was set up, decide that they do not need two 19t medium tanks and simply axe the Pz III, there was no point in pursuing a troubled project any further when a similar tank was already in production without any of the IIIs issues.
Except by that time they were already heavily committed in terms of resource and financial allocations to DB, Henschel, MAN, Alkett, and Wegmann for the Panzer III development and production, and to Krupp for the Panzer IV. Meanwhile, I get no sense that the Panzer III was ever a "troubled project", except in the hindsight-driven point of view of this what if.
Bottomline, it is perfectly feasible to kill the Pz III as part of an AH exercise, the Germans could have simply killed its "light" tank once it ceased to be light and became a medium with the E model. Hell, they could have even done it as soon as they decided to bring the PZ III into the 18t class sometime after 1936.
Yet again, the Panzer III was never a "light tank". It was the 3.7cm Gescheutz-Panzerwagen or the Zugfeuhrerwagen as opposed to the 7.5cm Gescheutz-Panzerwagen or the Begleitwagen. One was a gun tank fulfilling the cavalry maneuver and antitank roles and the other fulfilled the infantry support role.

It is just as feasible to posit killing the Panzer IV in favor of the Panzer III, because of course the Panzer III could mount the same weapon as the Panzer IV. However, being able to posit such a possibility is not the same as defining a good reason as to why they would do so. They did not decide to bring the Panzer III into the 18-ton class, rather they accepted the weight increase, which was the consequence of development, just as they accepted the weight increase taking the Panzer IV Ausf D from an "18-ton class" to a "20-ton class", the Ausf E to a 21-ton class, and so on. The weights changed, but the tactical roles remained different, until the Sd Kfz 161/1 fused the role of the gun tank and support tank into one...but that was November 1941.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6347
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#293

Post by Richard Anderson » 25 Mar 2017, 19:06

paulrward wrote:Let's see if you can get your head around this concept :

The title of this Thread is " NO Panzer III Wins the War ". I have taken the original Poster to mean,
What if there would have been NO Pz III AT ALL! EVER. Never existed. NOT cancelled in 1941, or 1939, but NO Panzer III EVER, AT ALL !
Mr. Respectful, the original thread concept was actually based upon this:
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.
Which was as flawed an understanding of the reality as was your statement:
In other words, what if, in 1937, the Germans had looked at the two prototypes, one the Pz III and the other the Pz IV, and decided to NEVER BUILD the Pz III ? They go directly from Pz II to Pz IV. They don't pass GO! They don't collect $ 200.00 !
The "prototypes" were not in fact "being tested in 1936". The Germans did not in fact "look at" the "two prototypes" in 1937.

It was 20 January 1938, before the first three Panzer IV Ausf A were in the hands of troops for a look see and service testing. At the same time, there were 23 Panzer III, Ausf A, B, and C in the hands of troops for the same purpose. Prior to that, a few Panzer III only were in the hands of troops, so they had nothing to compare them to. The initial look see and service test evaluations were that the doctrine was correct - unsurprising - but that BOTH vehicles were inadequate and needed work, which is why the Panzer III went through another development series - Ausf D - in 1938, BEFORE a production series was ordered - Ausf E - and began production in December 1938, while the Panzer IV went through the Ausf B, before production of the Ausf C was ordered in September 1938, which model itself was cancelled mid-production for the further improved Ausf D...in August 1939.

The actual "look see" and "testing" occurred from February 1938 to August 1939.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013, 02:50

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#294

Post by JAG13 » 25 Mar 2017, 19:26

Richard Anderson wrote:
JAG13 wrote:Per Chamberlain & Doyle:

Pz III D 16t
Pz III E 19,5t, first produced Dec 1938

Pz IV C 19t first produced Sep 1938
I think that is what I just said. :D
Nope, you were comparing it to the 20t Pz IV D of Oct 1939, a year later and heavier than the Pz III E... so, no.
The "light" 15t tank ended up 3,5t heavier after a thorough redesign that changed the tank to the point of being an almost completely different tank... that had more in common with the now lighter "medium" tank than with its own previous iterations, making it redundant.
Yes, and yet still a completely different tank from the Panzer IV too and with a different armament, a different tactical role, oh, and a different prime contractor, which was also a significant factor that keeps getting passed over.
Different? Same weight, protection, engine... different role becomes meaningless when both tanks have similar capabilities, only that one has shorter range and less development potential due to the smaller turret ring.

Remember I mentioned external factors? The corrupt nazi scheme had no doubt a hand to play on this in order to get some people to fill their pockets.
And as you know, that 70km/h experiment never paid out, they could have just produced the Pz IV and then experiment with new types of transmissions, suspensions, etc...
They did of course, and also considered developments to make the two more alike, while retaining the different armament and tactical role, which was central to the original doctrinal concept dividing the "lighter" from the "heavier" company in the battalion. They also considered replacing the Panzer IV under the VK30.01 proposal in September 1939.
That was later on, and further proof of just how obvious an issue this Pz III/IV thing was, this AHTL simply addresses this realization happening when something could be done about it.
So they could have, right then and there, in early-mid 1938, before any large scale production was set up, decide that they do not need two 19t medium tanks and simply axe the Pz III, there was no point in pursuing a troubled project any further when a similar tank was already in production without any of the IIIs issues.
Except by that time they were already heavily committed in terms of resource and financial allocations to DB, Henschel, MAN, Alkett, and Wegmann for the Panzer III development and production, and to Krupp for the Panzer IV. Meanwhile, I get no sense that the Panzer III was ever a "troubled project", except in the hindsight-driven point of view of this what if.
Irrelevant, those same factories would make Pz IVs instead, too bad for Daimler Benz the sole concern that built the Pz III A-D, but pretty much irrelevant for the remaining contractors once the bloated Pz III E is killed on its cradle.

You really need to read more on the Pz III then, there is a reason why the E variant was the one which ended in production after a thorough redesign that saw the tank gain 3,5t, 25% of its original weight.
Bottomline, it is perfectly feasible to kill the Pz III as part of an AH exercise, the Germans could have simply killed its "light" tank once it ceased to be light and became a medium with the E model. Hell, they could have even done it as soon as they decided to bring the PZ III into the 18t class sometime after 1936.
Yet again, the Panzer III was never a "light tank". It was the 3.7cm Gescheutz-Panzerwagen or the Zugfeuhrerwagen as opposed to the 7.5cm Gescheutz-Panzerwagen or the Begleitwagen. One was a gun tank fulfilling the cavalry maneuver and antitank roles and the other fulfilled the infantry support role.
It was the replacement of the light tank and intended for the light companies and capped at 15t, it never had better capabilities than the Pz IV, with or without the extra tons in spite of the repeated experiments.
It is just as feasible to posit killing the Panzer IV in favor of the Panzer III, because of course the Panzer III could mount the same weapon as the Panzer IV. However, being able to posit such a possibility is not the same as defining a good reason as to why they would do so. They did not decide to bring the Panzer III into the 18-ton class, rather they accepted the weight increase, which was the consequence of development, just as they accepted the weight increase taking the Panzer IV Ausf D from an "18-ton class" to a "20-ton class", the Ausf E to a 21-ton class, and so on. The weights changed, but the tactical roles remained different, until the Sd Kfz 161/1 fused the role of the gun tank and support tank into one...but that was November 1941.
Yes... only that why would you sacrifice the model with the best range and growth potential?

No, the Germans had no "20t class", they did have the 8t and 18t classes because that was the bridge capacity as registered on the pertinent development documents.

Mission is, again, irrelevant if both tanks have pretty much the same capabilities and the Pz IV had earlier availability and better growth potential.

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

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#295

Post by Yoozername » 25 Mar 2017, 19:53

The actual "look see" and "testing" occurred from February 1938 to August 1939.
This, and the initial use of the AFV, that is, Poland in September 1939, are critical to any realistic 'What IF' discussion. That is, the 'Time Crunch' and rapidly changing design issues and guess-work regarding the actual performance these AFV would show, in combat using the new tactics the Germans were envisioning, are basic logical steps to a rational conversation.

The early Panzer IV A had 14.5mm armor. As did the early Panzer IIIs. In fact, the Panzer II were also uparmored as the Germans were quickly arming and realizing (or guessing) the actual needs of the future battlefields. Poland certainly schooled the Germans regarding thin armor. The invasion of France 1940 schooled them again. The time frame, and constraints have been discussed already, and (apparently) not understood by some posters.

The Germans could not make enough Panzer IIIs. They clearly used the Panzer 38 (t) and Panzer 35 (t) as an ersatz Panzer III. I suppose the economists can wave their hands in the air and explain how Panzer IVs could be made in greater numbers than the actual Panzer III+Panzer IV+Panzer 38 (t)+Panzer 35 (t) that were made? That is, have enough Panzer IVs to populate 155+625+265+707=2304? This on top of the actual number made with the 75mmL24 weapon (417)???? Note, the numbers above are the numbers sent into Russia initially, the Germans would need to make hundreds more for those that were not sent into Russia initially.

Given the actual slow manufacture of Panzer IV, and its iterations till June 1941, I find this hard to believe. If, the argument is to just replace Panzer III with Panzer IV, deleting powered traverse and arming with the same mix of 37mm and 50mmL42, then I again find it a stretch of a normal person's imagination that it would have mattered.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6347
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#296

Post by Richard Anderson » 25 Mar 2017, 20:34

JAG13 wrote:Nope, you were comparing it to the 20t Pz IV D of Oct 1939, a year later and heavier than the Pz III E... so, no.
Ooops! Yes, you're correct, my bad.
Different? Same weight, protection, engine... different role becomes meaningless when both tanks have similar capabilities, only that one has shorter range and less development potential due to the smaller turret ring.
No, not at all, since the accepted role was fundamental to why two different tanks were envisaged from the first and why, even though they approached similarity with regards to weight, protection, and engine, they were still viewed as different. The same thing happened with the development of the American Light Tank M2 and Medium Tank M3. It wasn't until 28 August 1940, four years and three months into the project, before it was decided having a medium and a light tank with the same 37mm armament and same protection was not the way to go. And that was with the benefit of observing German developments pretty closely for over two years.
Remember I mentioned external factors? The corrupt nazi scheme had no doubt a hand to play on this in order to get some people to fill their pockets.
Yes, good, you did, and you are quite correct. Hitler and company maintained control of the industrialists by carefully meting out largess in the form of contracting. On top of that, Hitler was more enamored with the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine than the Panzerwaffe prewar and so a disproportionately smaller piece of the pie went to tank production in the prewar period than after. Resource allocations were minuscule compared to the capability of the industry until well into 1941-1942.
That was later on, and further proof of just how obvious an issue this Pz III/IV thing was, this AHTL simply addresses this realization happening when something could be done about it.
Yes, but that it stretched out into late 1941 and the decision to develop the Panther is also further proof of the lack of real urgency placed on "solving" the issue.
Irrelevant, those same factories would make Pz IVs instead, too bad for Daimler Benz the sole concern that built the Pz III A-D, but pretty much irrelevant for the remaining contractors once the bloated Pz III E is killed on its cradle.
Sure they could, just as Krupp, VOMAG, and Nibelungerwerke could have made Panthers instead...except for the expected nine-month or so lead-time lost while retooling. It is for similar reasons that Skoda and BMM never produced Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panthers, or Tigers, but continued to build an chassis obsolescent in 1941 in 1945.
You really need to read more on the Pz III then, there is a reason why the E variant was the one which ended in production after a thorough redesign that saw the tank gain 3,5t, 25% of its original weight.
What, Jentz, Doyle, Chamberlain, Spielberger, Mueller-Hillebrand, et al aren't good enough?
It was the replacement of the light tank and intended for the light companies and capped at 15t, it never had better capabilities than the Pz IV, with or without the extra tons in spite of the repeated experiments.
Oh, I agree completely. However, the light tanks - Panzer I and II - the the Panzer Abteilung were always placeholders until the two heavier tanks could be produced to replace them and they could take what was seen as their proper role as scouting vehicles (ignoring of course those odd vocies asking for a Panzer II infantry support tank and cavalry tank).
Yes... only that why would you sacrifice the model with the best range and growth potential?
Because few, not just in Germany, but also the U.S. and Great Britain, envisaged the growth potential, especially one based on 30+ ton "medium" tanks with high-velocity 75mm and larger armament.
No, the Germans had no "20t class", they did have the 8t and 18t classes because that was the bridge capacity as registered on the pertinent development documents.
Indeed, for the same reason in the U.S. the bridge limit by Army regulation was 7.5 U.S. tons (and just 5 tons prior to 1933!) for the light tank and 15 U.S. tons for the medium tank. And yes, the bridges in the States were not as good on average as those in Germany. :D
Mission is, again, irrelevant if both tanks have pretty much the same capabilities and the Pz IV had earlier availability and better growth potential.
Huh? There were only three Panzer IV in the hands of troops in early 1938 compared to 23 Panzer III. So possibly better growth potential - if anybody could see such - but later availability I think is more correct.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#297

Post by paulrward » 25 Mar 2017, 20:46

Hello All ;

I have to throw this in:

According to my sources, the first prototypes of the Pz III were designated I/ZW, and were produced and were being tested in May, 1937. These had five large double bogie wheels, and were known unofficially as Pz Kw III (3.7 cm) Ausf A. Ten were constructed, of which eight were armed with the 37mm gun in the prototype turrets.

The Krupp VK 2001/K, which was developed into the Pz IV, went into production in 1936, under the designation I/BW, and was known unofficially as the Pz Kw IV (7.5 cm) Ausf A. Thirty five of these were constructed in 1936-1937, and were used for testing, development, and training purposes.

So, it may be seen that BOTH the Pz III and the Pz IV were available for a head to head comparison, at least by mid 1937. In addition, at this point, there were about 10 Pz III, and 35 Pz IV. Thus, the Pz IV outnumbered the Pz III at that moment.

This is the yoke point. From this point, the Germans could have either continued as they did historically, or, someone could have pointed out that, as the two chassis were so similar, it would make more sense for the German industry to tool up to produce only one chassis, and use it for both purposes. Since the Pz IV already existed in greater numbers, it would have made sense to standardize on that chassis.

Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward



As a Post Scriptum, on YouTube there can be seen a number of presentations by the Curators of the Bovington Tank Museum, entitles " Tank Chats ". One of them, on the Pz III, can be seen at :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQdlJIKLmlI&t=355s

What is quite fascinating is the portion between 3:00 and 6:00, relating to the development of the Pz III and Pz IV, and, at 5:32, the Curator of the Tank Museum, David Willey, points out that the two tanks were so similar that it seemed to make no point to have them both, but that it was due to the decision by German High Command, who, as he puts it, " Were quite happy to actually step in at certain times in tank production and say ' well, we need to go down this route...' "

Now, if the Curator of Bovington agrees with me, what more can I say ?
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013, 02:50

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#298

Post by JAG13 » 25 Mar 2017, 21:12

Richard Anderson wrote:
JAG13 wrote:Nope, you were comparing it to the 20t Pz IV D of Oct 1939, a year later and heavier than the Pz III E... so, no.
Ooops! Yes, you're correct, my bad.
Happens to everyone.
Different? Same weight, protection, engine... different role becomes meaningless when both tanks have similar capabilities, only that one has shorter range and less development potential due to the smaller turret ring.
No, not at all, since the accepted role was fundamental to why two different tanks were envisaged from the first and why, even though they approached similarity with regards to weight, protection, and engine, they were still viewed as different. The same thing happened with the development of the American Light Tank M2 and Medium Tank M3. It wasn't until 28 August 1940, four years and three months into the project, before it was decided having a medium and a light tank with the same 37mm armament and same protection was not the way to go. And that was with the benefit of observing German developments pretty closely for over two years.
Viewed as such in spite of the obvious similarity, in the end it just shows the AHTL to be viable, as far as eliminating the PZ III that is. w nining the war I doubt it.
Remember I mentioned external factors? The corrupt nazi scheme had no doubt a hand to play on this in order to get some people to fill their pockets.
Yes, good, you did, and you are quite correct. Hitler and company maintained control of the industrialists by carefully meting out largess in the form of contracting. On top of that, Hitler was more enamored with the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine than the Panzerwaffe prewar and so a disproportionately smaller piece of the pie went to tank production in the prewar period than after. Resource allocations were minuscule compared to the capability of the industry until well into 1941-1942.
Yes, which is why I mentioned someone with bureaucratic pull, no engineer or soldier would be enough to pull such on PoD.
That was later on, and further proof of just how obvious an issue this Pz III/IV thing was, this AHTL simply addresses this realization happening when something could be done about it.
Yes, but that it stretched out into late 1941 and the decision to develop the Panther is also further proof of the lack of real urgency placed on "solving" the issue.
By 1939 the Germans had more pressing matters on their hands, so they kept using whatever they already had...
Irrelevant, those same factories would make Pz IVs instead, too bad for Daimler Benz the sole concern that built the Pz III A-D, but pretty much irrelevant for the remaining contractors once the bloated Pz III E is killed on its cradle.
Sure they could, just as Krupp, VOMAG, and Nibelungerwerke could have made Panthers instead...except for the expected nine-month or so lead-time lost while retooling. It is for similar reasons that Skoda and BMM never produced Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panthers, or Tigers, but continued to build an chassis obsolescent in 1941 in 1945.
No, not at all, once the Heer decides to redesign the Pz III and bring it to PZ IV weight you can cancel the project and just commit to the Pz IV before any tooling has taken place, remember, only DB made the PZ III A through D, the other producers started to get aboard just with the E model. The request for 18t dates form 1936, if the PZ III is cancelled early 1938 everyone can start churning out PZ IV Cs by late 1938.
You really need to read more on the Pz III then, there is a reason why the E variant was the one which ended in production after a thorough redesign that saw the tank gain 3,5t, 25% of its original weight.
What, Jentz, Doyle, Chamberlain, Spielberger, Mueller-Hillebrand, et al aren't good enough?
Then why are you surprised about its issues? Just to illustrate, a view of the different types of suspensions used:

Image

That was not a happy tank...
Yes... only that why would you sacrifice the model with the best range and growth potential?
Because few, not just in Germany, but also the U.S. and Great Britain, envisaged the growth potential, especially one based on 30+ ton "medium" tanks with high-velocity 75mm and larger armament.
Military equipment grows heavier, ALWAYS, it is why all ships and yes, German tanks, were designed with reserve weight for additional equipment/modifications, a larger turret ring falls in just that category, future proofing. Not to speak of the better range.
Mission is, again, irrelevant if both tanks have pretty much the same capabilities and the Pz IV had earlier availability and better growth potential.
Huh? There were only three Panzer IV in the hands of troops in early 1938 compared to 23 Panzer III. So possibly better growth potential - if anybody could see such - but later availability I think is more correct.
Yep, and the Pz III had been proving itself a mess since spring 1937 with almost every iteration getting a new suspension, once the initial Pz IV trials were done the Pz III could have been easily killed by someone with the necessary pull creating the necessary PoD.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6347
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#299

Post by Richard Anderson » 25 Mar 2017, 21:37

JAG13 wrote:Viewed as such in spite of the obvious similarity, in the end it just shows the AHTL to be viable, as far as eliminating the PZ III that is. w nining the war I doubt it.
It has never been a question of if the what if was viable, but rather when a viable point of departure was. I cannot see that happening much before February 1938 and likely much later in 1938, if it is posited that somehow service trials "reveal" the problem with the doctrinal vision rather than revealing technical issues that in real life everyone accepted simply needed design tweaking.
Yes, which is why I mentioned someone with bureaucratic pull, no engineer or soldier would be enough to pull such on PoD.
The someone at this time would likely have to be Hitler or Goering. However, Hitler was not so greatly enamored of the Panzerwaffe other than as spectacle then, while Goering was interested in lining his pockets with industrial profit and his interest was through Hermann Goering Werke and thence to Rheinmettal and Alkett...and so the Panzer III. :thumbsup:
By 1939 the Germans had more pressing matters on their hands, so they kept using whatever they already had...
Yep. It is actually a very narrow window in which this POD can viably exist. From about mid 1938 to 1 September 1939, after which it becomes moot.
No, not at all, once the Heer decides to redesign the Pz III and bring it to PZ IV weight you can cancel the project and just commit to the Pz IV before any tooling has taken place, remember, only DB made the PZ III A through D, the other producers started to get aboard just with the E model. The request for 18t dates form 1936, if the PZ III is cancelled early 1938 everyone can start churning out PZ IV Cs by late 1938.
Sure, effectively nine months from the point the decision is made to trash the Panzer III to first output from the factories. So basically if the decision was to occur at the end of February or in early March - the earliest I think could be possible, then by December DB starts turning out Panzer IV, followed by the others. Nothing really gets "sped up" in terms of production, but instead some Panzer III production prewar gets lost.
Then why are you surprised about its issues? Just to illustrate, a view of the different types of suspensions used:
Oh, mutual confusion I think. I am quite aware of the problems with the Panzer III suspension development and so am not surprised by its issues at all. If I gave the impression to you that I was then I am sorry.
That was not a happy tank...
Until they settled on the torsion bar suspension and then they were quite happy with it until c. July 1941. In the same vein, in November 1941, they were no longer happy with the Panzer IV Sd Kfz 161, but were also never really happy with its successor the 161/1 and its follow on, since the KwK 40 so over-weighted the chassis.
Military equipment grows heavier, ALWAYS, it is why all ships and yes, German tanks, were designed with reserve weight for additional equipment/modifications, a larger turret ring falls in just that category, future proofing. Not to speak of the better range.
Sure, but the Panzer IV was never designed with enough reserve weight for the KwK 40 and additional armor added.
Yep, and the Pz III had been proving itself a mess since spring 1937 with almost every iteration getting a new suspension, once the initial Pz IV trials were done the Pz III could have been easily killed by someone with the necessary pull creating the necessary PoD.
Again, the "someone's" either had no intellectual interest in the subject or no financial interest in killing the Panzer III. :milwink:
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: No Panzer III Wins the War

#300

Post by Paul Lakowski » 25 Mar 2017, 21:39

For OTL changes to happen they best have a trigger .

For Germany the triggers should be....

1932 The second rearmament drive
1934 Hitler control
Pz-I =34-37
1936 4 year plan
Pz-II 34-35-39
Pz-III 35-37-43
Pz-IV 35-37-45
1938 Munich
VK-20 & VK-30 = 37-41
Pz-IV3 37-38-45?

First year would be plans and design changes....Next year should be orders/retooling followed by production the following year.

Locked

Return to “What if”