A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by T. A. Gardner » 03 Jun 2022 18:31

ljadw wrote:
03 Jun 2022 06:38
A ''good '' tank is something totally meaningless ,because 'good'','bad '' depend not on the design/construction of the tank, but on the circumstances, the mission, the terrain, the strength of the opponent,etc ..
The Pz 2, condemned by Takoa as crap, for reasons he refuses to tell us, was after the war still used by Norway .
If he was crap, the Norwegian army would not use him .
The US army stopped to use the Sherman tank,but several of its allies continued to use the Sherman tank : Israel til the 1980s .
This proves that if a tank is no longer used ,this does not mean that suddenly the tank has become crap or even obsolete .
On the Pz II...

It was still competitive as a light tank at least well into 1941 if you look at the opposition it faced. Yes, in 1940 it was really undergunned to go up against French tanks with better armor but mostly with no better, and often worse, firepower. It was more than adequate to take on British light tanks like the Mk VI which usually had nothing but a machinegun for armament.

In Russia, a Pz II is competitive against a T26 or BT series tank, both of which have thin armor the 20mm could penetrate while having at least equally good protection itself. Against the T60 or even early T70, a Pz II is adequate too. It really is a better light tank than either Russian machine.

In N. Africa, a Pz II could take on early British cruisers--albeit at a somewhat disadvantage in firepower, and could still beat the Mk VI light tank.

So, at least up to 1942 the Pz II could fill the role of a light tank and be competitive against the vehicles it was facing in that role. Certainly, it had merit as a reconnaissance and line-of-communications / security vehicle.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13127
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by ljadw » 03 Jun 2022 18:40

I agree, but with the exception of ''the opposition it faced '' : the task of a tank was not to destroy enemy tanks, but to exploit the breakthrough ( the McNair doctrine ), and as such, it was not very important what the Pz 2 could do against a Soviet tank .

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by T. A. Gardner » 04 Jun 2022 07:29

Back on pg 11 of the thread I mentioned a US account of being fired on by Sturmtigers. Unpacked the book today.

The unit was the 113th Cavalry Group.

The first time they were between Winden and Untermaubach near the Rohr River attached to the 8th ID. An infantry unit near their position came under fire by what were described as "huge projectiles" with "flaming tails." They though these were V-2's but instead of landing with an "ear-shattering roar" they made a "dull plunk."
It was discovered the rockets were improperly fuzed and failed to detonate because of that.

The second time was on the 5th of February 1945 at Schophoven when they were hit by approxmately ten rocket-type projectiles that caused no damage. These did result in seven causalities from the blast effects. The first ten rockets fell in the area held by Troop A of the 125th Cavalry squadron and two more landed in the area of Troop F near Pier.

The unit on the 27th or 28th of February captured a Sturmtiger (they assumed it was from S. Sturmpanzer Abt 1000) near Bedburg Germany.

The Man on the Red Horse. History of the 113th Cavalry Group in World War II William Eagen

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 04 Jun 2022 08:54

ljadw wrote:
03 Jun 2022 18:40
I agree, but with the exception of ''the opposition it faced '' : the task of a tank was not to destroy enemy tanks, but to exploit the breakthrough ( the McNair doctrine ), and as such, it was not very important what the Pz 2 could do against a Soviet tank .
Things that make you go hmmmmmm......

Yes folks! An American General made pre-war German tank doctrine!

Proof Please!

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13127
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by ljadw » 04 Jun 2022 13:24

Where did I say that an American general made pre-war German tank doctrine .
And, proof please that the pre-war German tank doctrine was used by the Wehrmacht in WW 2 and that,if it was used,it was determinant .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 04 Jun 2022 13:50

ljadw wrote:
04 Jun 2022 13:24
Where did I say that an American general made pre-war German tank doctrine .
Right here...
ljadw wrote:
03 Jun 2022 18:40
I agree, but with the exception of ''the opposition it faced '' : the task of a tank was not to destroy enemy tanks, but to exploit the breakthrough ( the McNair doctrine ), and as such, it was not very important what the Pz 2 could do against a Soviet tank .
Please provide proof that the Germans were following "the McNair Doctrine."

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13127
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by ljadw » 04 Jun 2022 19:01

1 I did not say that the Germans followed the McNair doctrine ,they had their own doctrine which was similar to the McNair doctrine but elaborated independent from McNair .
2 In 1940 ( the Ardennes ) and in 1941 ( USSR ) the German tank units had not as mission to search for and to destroy the enemy tanks , whatever was telling the liar Guderian after the war in his memoirs .
The number of German tanks destroyed by the Soviet tanks and the number of Soviet tanks destroyed by German tanks was very secondary and had no effect on the outcome of the war .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 05 Jun 2022 10:57

ljadw wrote:
04 Jun 2022 19:01
1 I did not say that the Germans followed the McNair doctrine ,
A lie.
ljadw wrote:
03 Jun 2022 18:40
The task of a tank was not to destroy enemy tanks, but to exploit the breakthrough ( the McNair doctrine ), and as such, it was not very important what the Pz 2 could do against a Soviet tank .
You can deny it all you want, but that won't change your statement one iota.
ljadw wrote:
04 Jun 2022 19:01
they had their own doctrine which was similar to the McNair doctrine but elaborated independent from McNair .
Another lie...If this was true, the Germans never would have developed or produced the Panzer III.
ljadw wrote:
04 Jun 2022 19:01
2 In 1940 ( the Ardennes ) and in 1941 ( USSR ) the German tank units had not as mission to search for and to destroy the enemy tanks , whatever was telling the liar Guderian after the war in his memoirs .
You have already been caught telling two lies.
If I should not believe Guderian, then I should not believe you.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13127
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by ljadw » 05 Jun 2022 13:22

I thought that you would believe Guderian .
I assume that you have heard of Williamson R. Murray and,what can we read on note 133 of '' Military Innovation in the Inter War period '' by Williamson R. Murray and Allan R . Millett?
We can read the following :
'' In fact the reader should be warned that of all memoirs by senior German generals ( and there are many )Guderian's number among the most dishonest and misleading .''
Thus Guderian was a liar.
He was also a coward who attacked in Panzer Leader a deceased person ( Kluge ) who could not defend himself .
He was also totally inept and had no knowledge about tank warfare ; see Panzer Leader PP 136,137,138, 139 .
He was also insubordinate : see May 13 1940 ,see December 1941. In the US he would have ended very fast in Fort Leavenworth ,in the USSR in the Lubianka or the Gulag .
About the Pz III :he did not search for enemy tanks .
And about the McNair doctrine : McNair proposed to build tank destroyers . The Germans did build Sturmgeschütze,but of course the imbecile Guderian objected .And lucky for the Germans his objections were overruled .
The biggest cause of tank losses on German and on Soviet side were non combat losses as accidents, mechanical failure, lack of ammunition, lack of fuel .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 05 Jun 2022 16:47

ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 13:22
I assume that you have heard of Williamson R. Murray and,what can we read on note 133 of '' Military Innovation in the Inter War period '' by Williamson R. Murray and Allan R . Millett?
We can read the following :
'' In fact the reader should be warned that of all memoirs by senior German generals ( and there are many )Guderian's number among the most dishonest and misleading .''
Thus Guderian was a liar.
Attacking a deceased person who cannot defend himself...How cowardly of Mr. Murray, Mr. Millett, and yourself.

You three should be ashamed.

ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 13:22
He was also a coward who attacked in Panzer Leader a deceased person ( Kluge ) who could not defend himself .
You are a hypocrite and a coward. See above.

ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 13:22
He was also totally inept and had no knowledge about tank warfare ; see Panzer Leader PP 136,137,138, 139 .
Do you have a particular passage in mind?

ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 13:22
He was also insubordinate : see May 13 1940 ,see December 1941. In the US he would have ended very fast in Fort Leavenworth ,in the USSR in the Lubianka or the Gulag .
Another lie?
You sure? I mean really sure?

Eisenhower was insubordinate and it did not end his career.
Patton was insubordinate and it did not end his career.
MacArthur was insubordinate and it did not end his career until much later - Still he did not go to Leavenworth.
Montgomery was insubordinate and it did not end his career.
Zukov was insubordinate and it did not end his career.

It's a long list, would you like me to continue?

ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 13:22
About the Pz III :he did not search for enemy tanks .
It was designed specifically to kill enemy tanks, which is why it mounted an AT gun, as opposed to the Panzer II's pop gun or the Panzer IV's HE gun.

ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 13:22
And about the McNair doctrine : McNair proposed to build tank destroyers .
Shows what little you know about McNair "doctrine".

ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 13:22
The Germans did build Sturmgeschütze,but of course the imbecile Guderian objected .And lucky for the Germans his objections were overruled .
Even another lie.

He did not object to them...He wanted control over them. As artillery, he had no control over them. As panzerjager, he did have control over them.

It would helps this discussion if you could get your facts correct without letting your personal bias get in the way.

ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 13:22
The biggest cause of tank losses on German and on Soviet side were non combat losses as accidents, mechanical failure, lack of ammunition, lack of fuel .
Really?

If a tank accidentally runs over a mine, is it a combat loss or an operational loss? After all, a tank does not purposely drive over a mine.

Mechanical failure - yeah, that 88mm shell in the transmission is an operational loss.

Lack of ammunition? Your joking right.

Lack of fuel? Just put more fuel in the tank's tank.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4866
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Richard Anderson » 05 Jun 2022 18:46

Takao wrote:
05 Jun 2022 16:47
ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 13:22
And about the McNair doctrine : McNair proposed to build tank destroyers .
Shows what little you know about McNair "doctrine".
Quite. I get more than a little tired of idiot's like ljadw who glance at a single secondary source like Gabel and then reduce a highly complex subject down to a reductio ab adsurdam. It never was "McNair doctrine". The evolution of the doctrine began long before McNair became commander of AGF. It was actually General Marshall who called for the development of what became the Tank Destroyer doctrine, not McNair. It was Twaddle, Lynch, Chaffee, Herr, Green, Gerow, and McNair - all essentially co-equal major generals at the time - who held the first conference to seek solutions, but failed to reach a consensus. It was Marshall again a month later who broke the logjam by creating an Antitank Planning Staff as a “small planning and exploring branch” under the War Department G-3 to resolve the issue and placed it under the direction of Lieutenant Colonel Andrew D. Bruce. It was then Bruce who developed much of the early doctrinal concept of the Tank Destroyers. It was the Planning Branch and Colonel Bruce that ignored the sensible conclusion laid out by General Lynch the year before, which recommended using tanks as the principal antitank defense. Instead, Bruce discussed two possibilities. One, which he favored, was for developing an entirely new mechanized weapons system with its gun carried in a limited traverse mounting in the front or rear of the vehicle or in a turret. The other was for developing McNair’s antitank concept, which depended on masses of towed antitank guns to defeat massed enemy tanks. Bruce and the Planning Branch instead opted for a hybrid, advocating development of light towed battalions for infantry divisions, light SP battalions for cavalry and motorized divisions, and heavy SP battalions for armored divisions and corps and army reserves. After that concept was tested in the Louisiana and Carolina maneuvers of July-September 1941, Marshall, McNair (then commander of the War Department General Staff), Clark (who was then McNair's G-3), and Bruce met and agreed to the formation of the Tank Destroyer Command, albeit one greatly reduced from Bruce's grandiose concept of 220 battalions for a 55-division army.

So it was very much a corporate effort, helmed by Marshall and Bruce rather than McNair.

Even more interesting is the later decision in January 1943 to experiment again with a heavy towed Tank Destroyer battalion. "Blame" for that is usually laid at McNair's feet again, but the evidence is that he simply agreed to a decision by the Tank Destroyer Center rather than "forcing" it on a reluctant Tank Destroyer Command. There is even some odd ex post facto thinking regarding that decision...it is claimed the decision to go with the heavy towed guns was made based upon "experience gained facing German towed antitank guns in Tunisia", except that the order to create a provisional battalion at Camp Hood to experiment with the towed guns was made 1 January 1943, well before any significant experience with German antitank guns in Tunisia occurred. Instead, it appears that the decision to make the experiment was driven by McNair's long-standing desire for such, but then the final directive to actually convert battalions permanently was made on 31 March 1943, but not by McNair, who at that time was acting as a Special Observer in Tunisia, where he was then severely wounded by German artillery fire and went on recuperative leave for some months.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13127
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by ljadw » 05 Jun 2022 19:48

About Guderian : On P 139 of Panzer Leader he wrote the following :

''Thus,the German Army,though doubling its nominal strength in armoured divisions,did not acquire double the number of tanks, which was after all that counted .''
This disqualifies Guderian as a serious tank commander , because, as every one knows ,the PzDivisions of May 1940 had less tanks than those of September 1939, but were not worse than their predecessors .The same for the PzDivisions of June 1941 .
About non combat losses : on P 111 of Armoured Champion: the Top Tanks of WW 2,
one can read the following
''The evidence presented by the after-action reports of the Soviet mechanized corps,suggests that more than half of the Soviet tank losses were due to mechanical breakdowns and the abandonment of damaged and bogged-down tanks .''
This debunks the myths of the decisive importance of the quantity and quality of tanks, of their design, of the tank doctrine .
One can not in peacetime decide how one will use tanks in a war .
How tanks were used in war time depends on the enemy (always forgotten by the tank lobby ) ,by the mission, by the terrain, by the weather , by the available amount of fuel and ammunition and by the protection of the tanks by the infantry and artillery .
That the Pz III had an anti-tank gun does not mean that the intention was to use him exclusively or mainly against enemy tanks ,because this would not be decided by tank constructors, neither by the creator of the Panzerwaffe (which was not the impostor Guderian, but his boss Oswald Lutz ),but it would be mainly decided by the enemy .
If the enemy had no tanks on a certain front, the gun of the PZ III would be used for other things .
US used M1 Abrams against ISIS and the Taliban, who had no tanks .
This applies also to aircraft,to submarines, to BBs,...

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 06 Jun 2022 20:53

ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 19:48
About Guderian : On P 139 of Panzer Leader he wrote the following :

''Thus,the German Army,though doubling its nominal strength in armoured divisions,did not acquire double the number of tanks, which was after all that counted .''
This disqualifies Guderian as a serious tank commander , because, as every one knows ,the PzDivisions of May 1940 had less tanks than those of September 1939, but were not worse than their predecessors .The same for the PzDivisions of June 1941 .
The total number of tanks was not doubled, but it was increased by 25%over the number of tanks at the start of Poland.

More nonsense...How are you defining "serious"?
For that matter, if you do not have "bad" & "good", how can you have "serious?"
Again, allowing your personal biases to interfere with your jujudgment.

ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 19:48
About non combat losses : on P 111 of Armoured Champion: the Top Tanks of WW 2,
one can read the following
''The evidence presented by the after-action reports of the Soviet mechanized corps,suggests that more than half of the Soviet tank losses were due to mechanical breakdowns and the abandonment of damaged and bogged-down tanks .''
Useless data. Which Soviet mechanized corps? What year? Where any of these tank "losses" recovered & repaired? How many were recovered & repaired?
You raise more questions than you provide answers.

ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 19:48
This debunks the myths of the decisive importance of the quantity and quality of tanks, of their design, of the tank doctrine .
False, it reinforces the decisive importance of the quantity & quality of tanks, of their design, of the tank doctrine.

ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 19:48
One can not in peacetime decide how one will use tanks in a war .
Sure one can, every nation that has tanks, decides in peacetime, how they will use those tanks in war.
ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 19:48
How tanks were used in war time depends on the enemy (always forgotten by the tank lobby ) ,by the mission, by the terrain, by the weather , by the available amount of fuel and ammunition and by the protection of the tanks by the infantry and artillery .
Even more nonsense & False.
Tank use in war time is dependant only on those who control them.
In war time -
Tanks are used for training, where there is no enemy.
Tanks are used in all types of terrain, even in those types of terrain not considered "tank country."
Tanks are used in all types of weather, even in mud, snow, and ice.
Tanks have been sent into combat with little fuel & ammunition.
Tanks with no fuel have been used as static pillboxes.
Tanks with no ammunition have been used as recovery vehicles, railroad switch engines, ammunition carriers, tractors, etc.
Tanks have been sent into combat with little infantry & artillery protection.
Tanks have been sent into combat with no infantry & artillery protection.

ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 19:48
That the Pz III had an anti-tank gun does not mean that the intention was to use him exclusively or mainly against enemy tanks ,because this would not be decided by tank constructors, neither by the creator of the Panzerwaffe (which was not the impostor Guderian, but his boss Oswald Lutz ),but it would be mainly decided by the enemy .
Actually, having an AT gun with very limited HE capacity, does mean that it will be used mainly against tanks.
ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 19:48
If the enemy had no tanks on a certain front, the gun of the PZ III would be used for other things .
US used M1 Abrams against ISIS and the Taliban, who had no tanks .
You do not know the Abrams very well, nor are you familiar with it's ammunition...
The HEAT & HE rounds work quite well against bunkers & buildings. The German 37mm HE certainly did not.
The Canister round is very effective against infantry in the open. Did the Germans have a Canister round for their tanks?

ljadw wrote:
05 Jun 2022 19:48
This applies also to aircraft,to submarines, to BBs,...
Aircraft can be used as tanks? Submarines can be used as tanks? Battleships can be used as tanks?

Nebfer
Member
Posts: 299
Joined: 10 Oct 2004 22:36
Location: Florida

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Nebfer » 07 Aug 2022 04:29

Well in my opinion in this Idea is to go back to the start of 1934 (the go ahead for the Panzer III project was in January of 34), and do a few tweaks to the Panzer III specifications...

Such as a 170cm Turret ring (vs ~155 cm)
A operating weight of around 20 tons, stressed to handle 30 tons in future upgrades
A 400ish HP motor
A 50mm gun, with the 37mm being acceptable as an interim, though a nearly identical model only differing in armament should be equipped with a short 75mm gun, should be produced.

In effect combining the Panzer III with the IV, with only the armament differing.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 573
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by paulrward » 07 Aug 2022 18:47

Hello All:

Mr. Nebfer posted:
#344 by Nebfer » 06 Aug 2022 20:29
Well in my opinion in this Idea is to go back to the start of 1934 (the go ahead
for the Panzer III project was in January of 34), and do a few tweaks to the
Panzer III specifications...

Such as a 170cm Turret ring (vs ~155 cm)
A operating weight of around 20 tons, stressed to handle 30 tons in future upgrades
A 400ish HP motor
A 50mm gun, with the 37mm being acceptable as an interim, though a nearly
identical model only differing in armament should be equipped with a short 75mm
gun, should be produced.

In effect combining the Panzer III with the IV, with only the armament differing.

If you go back to my posting on page 2 of this thread, Posting No. 29. you will find I discussed this
concept, and in the following postings, successfully defended the thesis against criticisms that had
little or no merit.

I like it when Great Minds think alike. And you sir, came to the same conclusion that I did, except
that, instead of ' tweaking ' the Pzkw III chassis to make it like the Pzkw IV, I simply proposed building
only Pzkw IV chassis, and completing some of them with the -III turrets and the rest with the -IV turrets.

Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward
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 !

Return to “What if”