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.
HP
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 17:07
Location: Finland

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by HP » 04 Oct 2022 11:32

Destroyer500 wrote:
04 Oct 2022 00:06
I would personally give the late versions of the panzer 3 an extra 20mm spaced plate on the hull and turret front,or make both external spaced plates 25 and 25mms and have it reach 100mm of spaced armor. - - - Finaly i believe they should modify the schurtzen on the late panzer 3s to be like on the stuh 42 and on the panzer 4 H were you could have both the ost-winterketten and the schurtzen attached at the same time.I would also probably make the schurtzen double the thickness to not have them fall off on every encounter with a bush or random rock and to offer better protection.Why not even even have 2 spaced (with a small distance between them) schurtzen on each side or both the turret and hull ? No HEAT shell or bazooka is getting through that !
All these changes would work if one was willing to accept a tank with twisted torsion bars that would constantly break down from mechanical strain. There was a limit on weight that could be mounted on Pzkpfw III chassis.

Schurzen were designed as additional protection against small caliber AT-rounds (14,5 mm Soviet AT rifles in particular), because the Pzkpfw III & IV had only 30 mm lower hull side armour and 14,5 mm could penetrate up to 40 mm at 100 meters. Original German report (1942) includes this info and they were also tested against 14,5 mm AP and 76 mm HE with reasonable results (Feb 1943). In 1945 they started using wire mesh panels instead because they were cheaper, lighter and just as effective in this regard as full steel skirts. The purpose of schurzen was to mess up the shell trajectory so it could be defeated by the main armour.

The case of schurzen also demonstrates the issues with changing an existing tank design: why did they just not add 11-12 mm armour to the 30 mm armoured areas? Yep, not that easy to do in practice - perhaps a comprehensive redesigning is required as the dimensions change, maybe the chassis could not take the weight etc.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Destroyer500 » 04 Oct 2022 12:02


All these changes would work if one was willing to accept a tank with twisted torsion bars that would constantly break down from mechanical strain. There was a limit on weight that could be mounted on Pzkpfw III chassis.

Schurzen were designed as additional protection against small caliber AT-rounds (14,5 mm Soviet AT rifles in particular), because the Pzkpfw III & IV had only 30 mm lower hull side armour and 14,5 mm could penetrate up to 40 mm at 100 meters. Original German report (1942) includes this info and they were also tested against 14,5 mm AP and 76 mm HE with reasonable results (Feb 1943). In 1945 they started using wire mesh panels instead because they were cheaper, lighter and just as effective in this regard as full steel skirts. The purpose of schurzen was to mess up the shell trajectory so it could be defeated by the main armour.

The case of schurzen also demonstrates the issues with changing an existing tank design: why did they just not add 11-12 mm armour to the 30 mm armoured areas? Yep, not that easy to do in practice - perhaps a comprehensive redesigning is required as the dimensions change, maybe the chassis could not take the weight etc.
You are right that it would put strain on the whole system but here i ask;wasnt the t34 upgunned and uparmored multiple times throughout its lifetime ? They went from being 25 ton tanks to 32 and if you count the t34-100 33.One could argue that they started from a higher weight than their enemies medium tanks but then again they jumped 7 tons and all im asking is a 2-3 tons jump im sure some basic upgrades could make the tanks handle the weight.There was a 500HP engine being designed for the vk16.02 that could be mounted on the pz3 or 4 and i doubt they couldnt make enough changes to accommodate for bigger tracks and a stronger transmission.They just thought it wasnt worth the hustle.Only if the Germans realized they could never hope to mass produce (as much as they wished to mass produce it) and properly field enough new medium tanks of the panther type to save them from what was coming and to replace their older designs would any of this happen.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 04 Oct 2022 13:49

Destroyer500 wrote:
04 Oct 2022 12:02
You are right that it would put strain on the whole system but here i ask;wasnt the t34 upgunned and uparmored multiple times throughout its lifetime ? They went from being 25 ton tanks to 32 and if you count the t34-100 33.One could argue that they started from a higher weight than their enemies medium tanks but then again they jumped 7 tons and all im asking is a 2-3 tons jump im sure some basic upgrades could make the tanks handle the weight.There was 500HP engine being designed for the vk16.02 that could be mounted on the pz3 or 4 and i doubt they couldnt make enough changes to accommodate for bigger tracks and a better transmission.They just thought it wasnt worth the hustle.Only if the Germans realized they could never hope to mass produce and properly field enough new medium tanks of the panther type to save them from what was coming and to replace their older designs would any of this happen.
Invalid comparison.

The Panzer III had already been increased from 19.5 tons(IIIE) to 23 tons. Now, you want to add more weight to that.

Not to mention that the P3 is a good bit shorter than the 34. This will likely push your "new" P3 to unacceptable ground pressure levels.

New engine? How does that affect gas consumption? What is the range reduction?

Basically, you need a new tank. You can't shoehorn in all these "modifications" on the Panzer III chassis and still have an acceptable battle tank.

HP
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 17:07
Location: Finland

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by HP » 04 Oct 2022 18:22

Destroyer500 wrote:
04 Oct 2022 12:02
You are right that it would put strain on the whole system but here i ask;wasnt the t34 upgunned and uparmored multiple times throughout its lifetime ? They went from being 25 ton tanks to 32 and if you count the t34-100 33.
Pzkpfw III A weighted 15 tons.
Pzkpfw III E weighted 19.5 tons.
Pzkpfw III N weighted 23 tons. That´s over 50 % increase from the A and over 20 % from E.

About Ausf. N one can find stuff like this: "The increased weight of the 7.5cm gun meant that the spaced armour on the gun mantlet had to be removed." http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... usf_N.html

T-34 (1941) weighted 26.5 tons.
T-34-85 weighted 31 tons. That´s a weight increase of 17 %.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Destroyer500 » 05 Oct 2022 01:48

HP wrote:
04 Oct 2022 18:22
Destroyer500 wrote:
04 Oct 2022 12:02
You are right that it would put strain on the whole system but here i ask;wasnt the t34 upgunned and uparmored multiple times throughout its lifetime ? They went from being 25 ton tanks to 32 and if you count the t34-100 33.
Pzkpfw III A weighted 15 tons.
Pzkpfw III E weighted 19.5 tons.
Pzkpfw III N weighted 23 tons. That´s over 50 % increase from the A and over 20 % from E.

About Ausf. N one can find stuff like this: "The increased weight of the 7.5cm gun meant that the spaced armour on the gun mantlet had to be removed." http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... usf_N.html

T-34 (1941) weighted 26.5 tons.
T-34-85 weighted 31 tons. That´s a weight increase of 17 %.
Dont count the A,B,C versions because those mostly served as testbeds and were the necessary evolutionary steps for what the actual panzer 3 would become.The E,F,L onwards were truly tanks.In the same manner the t34 prototypes weighed 19-20 tons and the final versions 28-32.

I really dont understand how half a ton of armor on the turret,which was the weight of the add on spaced armor,created so many problems when the short 75 was added but if that is true it creates some problems for what i proposed.I remember reading somewhere but for the love of god i cant find where that they removed the spaced armor on the turret because the 75 would not properly fit.

Lets also not forget that they tried to mount the long 75 on the pz3 but they considered it too much of a hustle.Yes of course it would require small or big upgrades to the whole thing but thats normal when you choose to keep a design.
Invalid comparison.

The Panzer III had already been increased from 19.5 tons(IIIE) to 23 tons. Now, you want to add more weight to that.

Not to mention that the P3 is a good bit shorter than the 34. This will likely push your "new" P3 to unacceptable ground pressure levels.

New engine? How does that affect gas consumption? What is the range reduction?

Basically, you need a new tank. You can't shoehorn in all these "modifications" on the Panzer III chassis and still have an acceptable battle tank.
I take back what i said about the added spaced armor thingys.It sounds great but it will definitely require some factory alterations for it to work.It wont be impossible but it wont be a days job.In the end even if they create no problems the firepower will still be inadequate.These upgrades could maybe work on a panzer 4 that hasnt had its armor increased from 50 to 80mms.Two extra 25mm thick plates on the turret and chassis would have it achieve greater protection without much added weight.

In the end theres need for big changes all of which i have mentioned in the past.If made on the pz3 chassis it would end up looking a lot different yes but youre creating something that is not as complicated as the panther and that for the most part is based on an existing design.Call that panzer 3 2.0.I will not restate all the proposed big and small alterations because this topic is getting very repetitive.I will also not restate why even though i sometimes support the panzer 4 i consider its existence beyond the testing faze as a waste of time.

Take a look at this slopped armor bad boy i found
123123 - Copy.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 05 Oct 2022 20:29

Destroyer500 wrote:
05 Oct 2022 01:48
Take a look at this slopped armor bad boy i found 123123 - Copy.jpg
A StuG with sloped armor. Color me unimpressed.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Destroyer500 » 05 Oct 2022 23:57

Takao wrote:
05 Oct 2022 20:29
Destroyer500 wrote:
05 Oct 2022 01:48
Take a look at this slopped armor bad boy i found 123123 - Copy.jpg
A StuG with sloped armor. Color me unimpressed.
Well its not really just a StuG and with that angle the protection will be great

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 06 Oct 2022 02:07

Destroyer500 wrote:
05 Oct 2022 23:57
Well its not really just a StuG and with that angle the protection will be great
Sure it is a StuG...That turret is so unbalanced, weight-wise, it will never rotate.

Not to mention the turret extends well into the engine compartment.

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 569
Joined: 20 Jan 2019 10:14
Location: Australia

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 06 Oct 2022 12:51

The top one might be possible, but the L/48 in that turret, oh my god no way.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Destroyer500 » 06 Oct 2022 13:01

Takao wrote:
06 Oct 2022 02:07
Destroyer500 wrote:
05 Oct 2022 23:57
Well its not really just a StuG and with that angle the protection will be great
Sure it is a StuG...That turret is so unbalanced, weight-wise, it will never rotate.

Not to mention the turret extends well into the engine compartment.
Yea thats true.Hmm i guess it needs some elongation and maybe an extra wheel to be able to hold that extreme armor angles at the front and also give the driver and radio operator-machine gunner hatches.My version could do it without elongation but widening the chassis a little would be needed for any bigger turrets-guns to fit properly anyway so why not do both at this point since were building something new ?
ThatZenoGuy wrote:
06 Oct 2022 12:51
The top one might be possible, but the L/48 in that turret, oh my god no way.
Why not ? Just widening the hull a bit will do the trick.The panzer 4s turret could carry that gun and it wasnt that huge

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 569
Joined: 20 Jan 2019 10:14
Location: Australia

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 06 Oct 2022 15:39

Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Oct 2022 13:01
Why not ? Just widening the hull a bit will do the trick.The panzer 4s turret could carry that gun and it wasnt that huge
The Panzer 3's turret was already upgunned to the 50mm long and the 75mm Short. The 75mm Long is a whole 'nother beast.

Fitting a 75mm long in the Panzer 3? Certainly possible, but with compromises, and one of those compromises would 100% be "Not a super sloped thick armored turret".

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 06 Oct 2022 16:24

Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Oct 2022 13:01
Yea thats true.Hmm i guess it needs some elongation and maybe an extra wheel to be able to hold that extreme armor angles at the front and also give the driver and radio operator-machine gunner hatches.My version could do it without elongation but widening the chassis a little would be needed for any bigger turrets-guns to fit properly anyway so why not do both at this point since were building something new ?
Begging the question...Why bother when you have the Panzer IV chassis?
Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Oct 2022 13:01
Why not ? Just widening the hull a bit will do the trick.The panzer 4s turret could carry that gun and it wasnt that huge
The issue is not size, but weight.

Again...Begging the question...Why bother when you have the Panzer IV chassis?

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Destroyer500 » 06 Oct 2022 16:33


The Panzer 3's turret was already upgunned to the 50mm long and the 75mm Short. The 75mm Long is a whole 'nother beast.

Fitting a 75mm long in the Panzer 3? Certainly possible, but with compromises, and one of those compromises would 100% be "Not a super sloped thick armored turret".
Why is it not possible to have the supper sloped turret ? It will be like that of the e100s Henschel turret ,when it come to the frontal part,but shorter.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Destroyer500 » 06 Oct 2022 16:41

Takao wrote:
06 Oct 2022 16:24
Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Oct 2022 13:01
Yea thats true.Hmm i guess it needs some elongation and maybe an extra wheel to be able to hold that extreme armor angles at the front and also give the driver and radio operator-machine gunner hatches.My version could do it without elongation but widening the chassis a little would be needed for any bigger turrets-guns to fit properly anyway so why not do both at this point since were building something new ?
Begging the question...Why bother when you have the Panzer IV chassis?
Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Oct 2022 13:01
Why not ? Just widening the hull a bit will do the trick.The panzer 4s turret could carry that gun and it wasnt that huge
The issue is not size, but weight.

Again...Begging the question...Why bother when you have the Panzer IV chassis?
In this scenario the panzer 4 doesnt really exist beyond some testing phase plus the panzer 3s and 4s turret due to their geometry cannot offer enough protection against anything fired from a t34,m4 Sherman e.g. so its not that much that i would just put a panzer 4 turret and call it a day more so that i would change the 3s turret a lot but have the ring as big as that of the panzer 4.

The only thing that could make the pz4 viable armor wise is the additional spaced armor plates the way i mentioned.Two 25mm rolled homogenous plates placed on the turret and chassis.But again those feel more like patching a hole that actually fixing the main issue and then theres the weight issue.

The more i am into this the more realize a new design is needed but not as humongous as the panther.A German t44 like tank is what im envisioning

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 06 Oct 2022 17:22

Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Oct 2022 16:41
In this scenario the panzer 4 doesnt really exist beyond some testing phase plus the panzer 3s and 4s turret due to their geometry cannot offer enough protection against anything fired from a t34,m4 Sherman e.g. so its not that much that i would just put a panzer 4 turret and call it a day more so that i would change the 3s turret a lot but have the ring as big as that of the panzer 4.

The only thing that could make the pz4 viable armor wise is the additional spaced armor plates the way i mentioned.Two 25mm rolled homogenous plates placed on the turret and chassis.But again those feel more like patching a hole that actually fixing the main issue and then theres the weight issue.

The more i am into this the more realize a new design is needed but not as humongous as the panther.A German t44 like tank is what im envisioning
I missed the part where you killed off Guderian prior to 1934.

Was it Colonel Mustard, in the conservatory, with the candlestick?

Return to “What if”