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.
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.