A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

[Destroyer500]

No point in a feed tray. The loader is still feeding the gun single rounds.

There was a tank called begleitpanzer with a 57mm full auto gun in the 70s.It used a magazine hanging below the gun.Cant tell if they could adapt a system like that back then but doesnt seem that sophisticated

The sophistication comes in reliably loading the gun at any angle.
The French first solved this problem with the AMX-13, by using an oscillating turret. Reliable autoloaders in normal tank turrets did not begin operational service until the mid-60s, and even then there were many problems with reliability.

IIRC,the Begleitpanzer was a one-off that no one really wanted.

The caliber is 50-55mm so not worth an autoloader.There were 37mm AA guns and since the 55mm gerat 58 was gonna be used as an AA in our standart and not what if history,i guess it would use a magazine like system.From what i remember most of them used magazines-some box with ammo but not all of them.
The only way a magazine could be used to reload a gun of that size in a small space like that of a tanks enclosed turret would be if it was facing downwards since upwards is out of the question and sideways will most propably leave little space for the loader to peform his duty.

[ThatZenoGuy]

If the pz4 did not exist due to reasons i mentioned then they would have to upgrade the panzer 3 and add a suspension able to handle the extra weight,a stronger engine,extra armor and all the things i talked so many times about.The pz4 had a really bad armor layout all around with the front being 4 times more armored than the back which led to problems with transmisions and suspensions and i guess a bad center of gravity ?

You can't just rip out a torsion bar suspension system and slap on an external one. You'd have to redesign the entire internal space which basically means you've made a new tank. A stronger engine might also not fit (although you'd gain internal space to move the fuel tanks to the crew compartment, making more engine-room I suppose?).

The PZ4 had a perfectly acceptable armor layout for it's size and weight, it had a large internal volume due to a lack of sloped armor, and you cannot add any more weight unless you upgrade the engine, making it guzzle more fuel, add a new transmission/final drives, etc. This all costs time and money.

The pz3 had 50mm back front that became 70mm on the front from the L model afterwards.Make that 70mm plate a single piece,slope it and connect it the way i showed and the weight goes max 1 ton up.Now if you want more armor a new suspension and engine is needed.Slope and make one piece the armor on the turret front too and you have a really good when it comes to survivability tank.

PZ3 also had fairly weak side armor. Hits to the rear were not as common as the front and sides, thus you can get away with it being relatively thinner, using the heavy engine as a counterweight for the frontal armor.

Doing some calculations a plate to replace the PZ3's with your specifications weighs around one ton, whereas my calculations of the PZ3's heaviest frontal armor would weigh around 850 kilograms. But you have to factor in with this new plate you'd need a new machinegun mount, drivers port, hull hatches might need to be changed, etc. In addition I don't believe 70mm was a thickness the Germans had in production, you'd have to go for 60mm or 80mm for ease of construction.

Even with this plate you'd be pushing the chassis, with no more weight available for the turret or hull sides.

I know they were facing a ton more enemy armor than they had but thats why i proposed the 5.5cm gerat 58 or a gun of that kind.Its a full auto 55mm that had it had an apcbc round and a good enough muzzle velocity it could kill more tanks way faster while keeping the overal size of the design down.I guess that a 5.5cm shell at around 1000m/s velocity could have the same lethality as the long 75.Germany was mainly facing t34s,t34-85s,is1s,kv1s on the east.The "small" ones could be dealt even from a distance by the 5.5auto gun and i guess the heavies with an apds or apcr round coult be dealt from distance too.

Gerat 58 is simply out of the question, too expensive, its an AA gun. Battles were dictated often by who fired first, not who fired the most shells (although it certainly helped). Germany's various AT guns were known for their ease of use and high rates of fire already, so the humble 75 is more than sufficient.

Germany also didn't really figure out APDS until later, and they elected to use conventional steel penetrators of questionable usage. They simply lacked the tungsten for APDS and APCR, hence their great push for great APCBC shells.

The western tanks did not really have that much armor apart from the american designs.Of course my panzer 3 variant also has a long 75 so i guess that will take on the big boys and in case the 5.5cm seems weak which i doubt it then it(the 75) can be its standart gun.In the end there wont just be pz3s but stugs and TDs of all kinds which will help defeat stronger armor.If the need for a heavy arose they could have made some sort of a tiger 1-2 and be fine.
I have never ever heard of the 8-10cm PAW.I took a look at them and they seem mediocre with small ranges.

The british tanks had pretty good armor in the Churchills and Centurion, and the Sherman had the jumbo variant.

For all the internet memes about it, the Tiger 1 simply proved to be a powerful if difficult to maintain tank. If anything Germany might get more usage out of a refined Tiger than a Panzer 3 given their late-war situation.

The PAW cannon series had relatively low ranges but you're not looking at the big picture. Namely they are cheap, relatively light and easy to fit inside of vehicles, and fire a HEAT charge with enough penetration to kill all but the heaviest of armored vehicles (the 10cm variant actually probably CAN pen anything in the war).

Its the radically opposite version of the high velocity anti tank gun, and while not being very popular in the cold war on the BMP-1, it likely would have been very useful in WW2 for the sheer number of them you could pump out.

[paulrward]

Hello All :

This is what happens when you start listening to ignorant blather.

That's right, Mr. Destroyer500 - if you listen to anyone other than poorly educated historians, you might
actually learn something…..


Mr. Anderson stated :

No, the "panzer 4 was" NOT "only chosen for the fact it had the short 7.5cm".
That twists the reality. Krupp received the prime contract for the Panzer I, with DB and
others acting as subs. DB got the prime contract for the Panzer II, with Krupp and others
acting as subs. The Panzer III was developed DB as the prime contractor and others as
subs. The Panzer IV was developed by Krupp with others as subs.

Do you notice a pattern? Much of the largess from the Nazis in armaments was to curry
favor from the industrialists. Sharing the trough was good for the Nazi Party. That was
the point of the question regarding compensation to DB.

Yes, the above is true. However, unlike Mr. Anderson, and apparently the senior officers of the Heer,
I have never considered it rational to have military procurement run as a Hog-Trough into which
Contractors can put their snouts, and in some case, their front trotters, in their efforts to fatten
themselves…. A more rational approach is to purchase the best weapons for your military, from
the most efficient manufacturers, in order that your troops have the best and most equipment
possible. Otherwise, you are purchasing M-16 Rifles, F-111 Aardvark Fighter Bombers, and
1052 class Destroyer Escorts, all purchased due to political influence to pay off Lyndon Johnson's
political contributors…….

And yes, that is one of the reasons we LOST the Viet Nam War - but too many Think-Tankers, all
of whom were trying to get their own snouts into that money trough, are unwilling to look that
unpleasant fact in the face.

Now, in 1936, the Luftwaffe had four possible choices for their next generation single seat fighter -
the competitors were Heinkel, Arado, Focke-Wulfe, and Bayerische Flugzeugwerke. ( The Me109 ) .
The Messerschmitt won. And Arado and Focke-Wulfe were all given contracts to produce Me 109s,
under license, and made money doing so.

So, all that would have been necessary would be for the Heer to be as smart as the Luftwaffe, and
have Krupp be given the contract to produce a lot of Pzkw IVs, and DB be given a contract to produce
them under license. Again, this is not Rocket Science, though it may be out of the range of a
History Major…..

Nor were the Panzer III and IV developed simultaneously because "Because only
an Idiot or an Employee of a Military Think Tank would decide to build two competing
chassis". That in fact requires an idiot to think that it might be an actual reason.

First, it is a historical fact that the Pzkw III and Pzkw IV were NOT developed simultaneously.
In fact, the Pzkw IV was in production in late 1936, with 35 units being completed by the end of the
year. The Pzkw III was not even approved for production until early in 1937, with only 10 being
completed by the end of 1937. By that time, an additional 40 more Pzkw IVs had been produced,
and the AusfC model was going into production in early 1938 !

All this also requires multiple decision points, which was the point of the factory
retooling question. Of course they could retool, STOOOOPID is thinking that is the issue
and that waving a magic wand changes it.

From the above, we can see how, if the Pzkw III had been cancelled with the speed and promptness
that Discovery demonstrated in canceling CNN+, say, in the middle of 1936 while it and the other
Pzkw III candidates were still being tested in the prototype stage, then NO RETOOLING would have
been necessary, because NO TOOLING HAD TAKEN PLACE ! I hesitate to explain what should be an
elementary truism, but Prototypes are NOT built with Production Tooling ! They are hand built
' one-offs ', and ONLY when a contract is awarded is any Production Tooling generated.

So, no ' Magic Wand ' is necessary. Just a few Telephone Calls in, say, June of 1936, along with a
couple of letters canceling a contract which has not yet been issued. And, since the Pzkw IV is
already going into production at Krupp in Magdeburg, they can send drawings of parts, jigs, and
fixtures, as well at detailed specifications for machine tooling necessary, and Engineers and
Technicians to Daimler Benz to streamline the process and get production moving.

The two were developed because the Germans perceived a tactical need for
them due to the technological limitations they had to work with. The Maybach HL108TR
engine, which was the cutting edge then of German engine development, was capable
of 250 HP. There is a reason the Panzer III and IV are both considered medium tanks,
but the Heer classified the III organizationally as leichte and the IV as mittlere.

The fact that the Heer seemed to think that calling one 20 ton tank with a 250 hp engine a Light Tank
made it different from another 20 ton tank with the same engine that was called a Medium Tank, only
shows that the Heer lacked the sort of common sense that they should have been exhibiting from Day
One. They were so obsessed with their organizational charts that they were blinded to the practical
realities of their equipment. But, this was not uncommon in Germany - some people have expressed
the opinion that this over-emphasis on organizational order and neatness stems from a tradition of
toilet training at too early an age ......

To achieve a tank with a 75mm gun and the desired ammunition stowage, it
had to weigh more. The Panzer IV Ausf A weighed 17.3 tons and every iteration from
there kept getting heavier. The Panzer III Ausf A weighed 15.4 tons and also kept getting
bigger. To get the Ausf N fitted with the 7.5cm KwK meant it went up to 23 tons. The
Germans simply were not interested in or consider it necessary to fit a 7.5cm gun in
the Panzer III initially. They also did not want only a 7.5cm HE thrower, they wanted
a hole-puncher, the 5cm initially, but got the 3.7cm, and that is a different story.

Here we see that Mr. Anderson has everything backwards. We are NOT trying to fit a 7.5 cm gun on
a Pzkw III, we are trying to fit a 3.7 cm gun on a Pzkw IV !

In fact, the Pzkw IV came out of the factory with the 7.5 cm KwK. It was the Pzkw III that had the
smaller, lighter turret with the 3.7 cm AT gun. Thus, if you fitted a Pzkw III turret on a Pzkw IV, you
would have had a LIGHTER TANK ! And, since the turrets on the Pzkw III had a smaller turret ring,
you simply had to make the Pzkw III turrets with their high velocity guns with a larger turret base that
would fit on a Pzkw IV. Let me put it this way: It is easier to make a tank turret fit a larger turret ring
than it is to make it fit a smaller turret ring. This is called ... Geometry... but that is Math, which is
something that Historians have trouble with......

The German solution was two designs, a leichte tank primarily to combat enemy
tanks, and a mittlere tank primarily to fire HE at enemy AT guns, infantry, and soft targets.

But, if the Germans had used ONE Tank Chassis, the Pzkw IV chassis, half of which were fitted
with 3.7 cm AT guns, and the other half with 7.5 cm HE guns, they would have had the same tactical
result, with fewer manufacturing, spares, supply, and training issues.

And why would the Heer decide to do a "competitive test" between the Panzer III
and Panzer IV in 1936 when they were not in competition? Since they weren't actually
developing two DIFFERENT 20 ton tanks, why would they decide they DON'T NEED two
DIFFERENT 20 ton tanks?

Why would the Heer decide to do a competitive test between their two 20 ton tank chassis ? I don't
know..... maybe if they hadn't been a bunch of greedy, short sighted idiots who are trying to pay off a
group of contractors with sweetheart deals in return for a few well placed bribes......

The two chassis were not in competition, BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ! And, if they had been, the
Pzkw IV would have won, as it could do everything the Pzkw III could do, carrying the same weapons,
while the Pzkw III chassis was limited by it's turret ring diameter.

As for Mr. Anderson saying that the Germans:

" .... weren't actually developing t(w)o DIFFERENT 20 ton tanks..... "

Well, someone is divorced from reality. The two chassis are within a ton of each other, when fitted
with the same armament, they have the same dimensions, ( at most about a half meter difference in
any dimension ) and they had the same engine and transmission. Their similarities outweight their
differences, and that, in itself, should have been a signal to the High Command of the Heer that they
were wasting a lot of time and money.


If the Heer had standardized on ONE Medium Tank Chassis, the Pzkw IV, built by Krupp, and had
also subcontracted it out to be built by Daimler Benz, MAN, and Rheinmetall, they would have had a
much more adaptable chassis on which to base their armored forces on - and the Allies would have
almost certainly been faced with a larger number of more capable tanks throughout the war.


It's a good thing for the Allies that the High Command of the Heer were more like Historians than they
were like Engineers......


Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

[Takao]

Now, in 1936, the Luftwaffe had four possible choices for their next generation single seat fighter -
the competitors were Heinkel, Arado, Focke-Wulfe, and Bayerische Flugzeugwerke. ( The Me109 ) .
The Messerschmitt won. And Arado and Focke-Wulfe were all given contracts to produce Me 109s,
under license, and made money doing so.

They made a pittance off the contracts when compared to their other contracts...Arado produced roughly 1% of all Messerschmitt 109s, and Focke Wulf produced roughly 1% of all Messerschmitt 109s.

So, all that would have been necessary would be for the Heer to be as smart as the Luftwaffe, and
have Krupp be given the contract to produce a lot of Pzkw IVs, and DB be given a contract to produce
them under license. Again, this is not Rocket Science, though it may be out of the range of a
History Major…..

Well we know it is out of range for a math major...There's fractions in your subtraction, and X don't equal Y, but my headaches are bound to multiply.

So, according to your hypothesis - That the Heer was as smart as the Luftwaffe - Krupp would be assigned the bulk of the work, while DB was given a pittance contract(1% of total construction) and let DB work on designing & constructing other tanks & armored vehicles.

Hey, maybe it will produce a Panther earlier.

[Takao]

Then again...Since the Luftwaffe had Messer producing the 109 AND Focke Wulf producing the 190...Maybe, just maybe, one size does not fit all.

[Richard Anderson]

More bafflegab. It is sad to see what some consider to be "historical fact". It is also sad to see someone confuse two very simple terms - development and production. They are not one and the same.

The initial doctrinal development, the derided "think-tank" work was essentially completed by Lutz and Guderian at In 6 by the end of 1933. That doctrine envisaged the use of two complementary tanks, code-named the Zugführerwagen or ZW, which was to be armed with a 3.7cm gun to defeat enemy tanks, and the Beglietwagen or BW, which was to be armed with a 7.5cm gun to support the ZW's maneuver by suppressing enemy antitank guns and infantry.

The development of ZW was approved by the Generalstabes des Heeres on 11 January 1934. The development of BW was approved 25 February 1934. The distribution of the contracts for the ZW and BW was decided 25 February 1934.

In June 1934, the DB ZW chassis design was approved and the first test chassis was completed in August 1935. In April 1934, the Krupp BW chassis design was approved and the first test chassis was completed in April 1936.

The first ten ZW.1, later known as the Panzer III Ausf A, were completed between April and August 1937, the next ten (plus five chassis completed as StuG), later known as Ausf B, were completed in early December 1937, the next fifteen, later known as Ausf C, were completed by the end of 1937, the next twenty-five, later known as Ausf D, were completed by September 1938. The first thirty-five BW.1, later known as the Panzer IV Ausf A, were completed between October 1937 and June 1938.

The reason for the multiple types of early ZW was mostly due to experiments with suspensions other than the simple leaf-spring of the BW, since the ZW was intended to be lighter, more maneuverable, and faster than the BW. The innovative suspension experiments also led to delays in production of the initial test types and delays in completion of the first 96 production series, the ZW.4 or Ausf E to the end of 1939 rather than September 1938. However, the major reason was simply lack of engine production and other component manufacturing, which was also going into the BW. Both used the Maybach HL 108TR initially and then the Maybach 120TR in production. The decision to leap ahead in maneuverability in the ZW also screwed the ZW.4, the Maybach Variotex SRG 32-8-145 semi-automatic transmission simply didn't work well and took too long to produce.

I have no idea where the rather odd notion that it is "historical fact that the "Panzer III...was not even approved for production until early in 1937" comes from? Possibly more research into comic book history? Effectively, the most likely point at which a decision could have been made to cancel the ZW "with the speed and promptness that Discovery demonstrated in canceling CNN+" - rather an oddball comparison - would have been late 1938 or early 1939 when the first ZW.4/Ausf E were delivered for testing, not "say, in the middle of 1936" when the only things being tested were the pre-production vehicles of both the ZW and BW series.

The second, less likely, POD could have been October 1937, when the implications of the decision to develop the Panzer IV Ausf C with the same torsion-bar suspension of the Panzer III came home to roost. The 42 Ausf B were completed May 1938 to October 1939, but the Ausf C was delayed and then ordered built with the leaf spring in October 1937, with 140 chassis completed October 1938 to August 1939.

Otherwise, the actual "historical fact" as opposed to comic book history, is that it was December 1938 when Wa Pruef 6 made the actual decision to authorize development of the VK20.01 as a replacement for BOTH the Panzer III AND the Panzer IV. Of course, the actual "historical fact" is that development of that vehicle by DB, Krupp, and MAN stretched into December 1941, when they were all declared obsolete.

I will happily ignore the rest of the litany of couldas, shouldas, and wouldas, as should you. They are simply expressions of opinion...and you know what they say about opinions.

[Richard Anderson]

BTW, initial design weight of the ZW was ten metric tons, while that of the BW was eighteen. Yes, an eight ton difference might qualify as "a few", but a near doubling in weight does not. The actual weight of the Panzer III Ausf A was 15, the Ausf B, C, and D was 16, and the E-G was 19.5 tons. The actual weight of the Panzer IV, Ausf A-C was 18 tons, the D was 20 tons, the E was 22 tons, and the F was 22.3 tons.

Both quickly grew beyond their intended weight.

[paulrward]

Hello All :

I am not certain where Mr. Anderson is getting his ' facts ', but they are unfortunately wrong...

In June 1934, the DB ZW chassis design was approved and the first test chassis
was completed in August 1935. In April 1934, the Krupp BW chassis design was approved
and the first test chassis was completed in April 1936.

The first ten ZW.1, later known as the Panzer III Ausf A, were completed between April
and August 1937, the next ten (plus five chassis completed as StuG), later known as
Ausf B, were completed in early December 1937, the next fifteen, later known as Ausf C,
were completed by the end of 1937, the next twenty-five, later known as Ausf D, were
completed by September 1938. The first thirty-five BW.1, later known as the
Panzer IV Ausf A, were completed between October 1937 and June 1938.

The reason for the multiple types of early ZW was mostly due to experiments with
suspensions other than the simple leaf-spring of the BW, since the ZW was intended
to be lighter, more maneuverable, and faster than the BW. The innovative suspension
experiments also led to delays in production of the initial test types and delays in
completion of the first 96 production series, the ZW.4 or Ausf E to the end of 1939
rather than September 1938. However, the major reason was simply lack of engine
production and other component manufacturing, which was also going into the BW.
Both used the Maybach HL 108TR initially and then the Maybach 120TR in production.
The decision to leap ahead in maneuverability in the ZW also screwed the ZW.4, the
Maybach Variotex SRG 32-8-145 semi-automatic transmission simply didn't work well
and took too long to produce.

I have no idea where the rather odd notion that it is "historical fact that the "Panzer III...
was not even approved for production until early in 1937" comes from?

So many errors, so little time. In fact, in 1934 the preliminary discussions about what became the
Pzkw III and Pzkw IV took place - but while the Daimler Benz design won the contest in 1936, approval
was only given to construct 10 more prototypes. These ( the Ausf A's ) had a suspension that was, in
fact, completely different from the first prototype, consisting of five interleaved road wheels. They
were tested in late 1936, and so many problems arose that the Ausf B and Ausf C variants, some 15
of each, were constructed. These again had a totally different suspension, consisting of eight small
road wheels per side on leaf springs bogies, but which was still not satisfactory. The Ausf D model
kept this suspension, and was, in fact, the first to go into series production, and a total of 35 chassis
were delivered between July and September of 1938. But, it must be emphasized, that these were
still little more than service prototypes, and had significant problems with the suspension and the
transmission. In spite of Daimler Benz's efforts, the Pzkw III, after more than two years of testing,
was still ' Not Ready for Prime Time '.


In effect, at this point, the Heer had a total of 75 prototype and pre-production Pzkw IIIs of five
different types. Contrast this with the Pzkw IV, which went into production in late 1936 with a
first production lot of 35 vehicles, all delivered by the middle of 1937, and a second production
lot of 42 Ausf B models, and 140 Ausf C's. all of which were delivered and acccepted by the end
of 1938. So, by the beginning of 1939, some 75 Pzkw IIIs had been delivered, less than 10 of
which were combat worthy, while some 180 Pzkw IVs had been accepted, ALL of which were
combat worthy.


As we all know, of course, the Ausf D was NOT the final version of the Pzkw III - the suspension and
road wheels were still giving problems, and the design was altered to from eight small road wheels
to six slightly larger road wheels with a torsion bar suspension - This version, the Ausf E, was approved
for series production in early 1938, and a total of some 96 units were constructed on that first contract.
However, despite the plans for them all to be delivered between May and September of 1938, in fact,
the first 9 were not delivered until December of 1938, and the full contract of was not completed
until September of 1939, after the outbreak of the war.

Thus, in reality, the Pzkw III did NOT go into large scale production until the middle of 1938. At any
time, the Heer, if their heads had been screwed on right, would have cancelled that turkey, and gone
with the Pzkw IV !

So, despite Mr. Anderson's opinions and misinformation, it is clear that, in fact, throughout 1936, 1937,
and well into 1938, the Pzkw III was NEVER in full production, rather, it was a long series of test units
and prototypes that were being hand built in an effort to resolve serious design and component problems.
In fact, in order to cover this up, ALL the Pzkw Ausf A's, B's, and C's were re-designated as Ausf D's, and
were sent back to the factory to be re armored. For this reason it gave an appearance of an artificially
high number of Pzkw IIIs in service, when, in reality, these early prototypes were NEVER really combat
worthy, and were, after the Polish Campaign, rapidly passed to training units.

As the first full production version of the Pzkw III was the Ausf E, and these were not fully accepted for
service until September 27, 1939, it is clear that the Pzkw III had a somewhat protracted period of
development What is more telling, despite Mr. Anderson's misinformation, is that the all up weight of
a Pzkw III Ausf D was NOT 16 tons, it was in fact, 19 tons, and the Ausf E version, the first truly production
version, when fitted with it's armor, came in a 22.3 tons.

And what was the weight of a Pzkw IV, such as the Ausf D model ? Well, it was.... 22.3 tons ! In
other words, by the time they had brought the Pzkw III into full production, it was the same weight
as a Pzkw IV, which had already been in production for over two years. And which had both greater
capabilities, and greater potential for growth.

Now, what was that all-important reason for building the Pzkw III instead of simply building a LOT
more Pzkw IVs, half of which would be armed with either the 3.7 cm or 5.0 cm AT guns, and the other
half with the 7.5 cm KwK bunker buster ?



Hopefully this will help everyone stay upwind of Mr. Anderson's .... Opinion.....


Respectfully

Paul R. Ward

[paulrward]

Hello All :

To Mr. Takao :

You stated :

They made a pittance off the contracts when compared to their other contracts
...Arado produced roughly 1% of all Messerschmitt 109s, and Focke Wulf produced roughly
1% of all Messerschmitt 109s.

We must remember: This was Pre War - contracts for aircraft were numbered in the tens, and occasionally,
a few hundred. Not the tens of thousands, like the Me 109 later counted.


I hope that this sort of bold thinking doesnt hurt your head too much, but WHAT IF ( the two most powerfull
words in the English Language ) since the Heer had planned on purchasing roughly equal numbers of Pzkw IIIs
and IVs, WHAT IF they ordered the Pzkw IV from both Krupp and Daimler Benz, in equal numbers, as well as
further contracts from Rheinmetal-Borsig and MAN ?

Now, EVERYBODY is making Pzkw IVs, with interchangeable parts, the large turret ring, and all the future
growth potential than anyone could want. You might have had a situation in which, by the outbreak of the
war, Krupp had produced some 250 tanks, Daimler Benz another 250, and perhaps 50 - 75 each from
MAN and Rheinmetal. That would give you between 600 and 650 Pzkw IVs, half armed with the 7.5 cm L24,
half with either the 3.7 cm or 5.0 cm AT gun, and perhaps 50 to 100 built as StuG IVs with the 7.5 cm in a
casemate.

With production continuing through the winter of 1939-1940, by the time it came to the Battle for France,
the Heer might have had over 1000 Medium tanks !

Oh - and just to keep some historical perspective: The first flight of the Bf 109 prototype was May, 1935.
The FW 190 didn't get into the air until June, 1939 - FOUR YEARS LATER ! Even so, Kurt Tank had a hell
of a fight to get it into production, since the early FW 190A was only marginally superior to the current
models of the Me 109F.

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

[Peter89]

This leads us back to the core of the problem: the German politico-military-industrial complex was simply built up too fast, on a too narrow base, with little attention to a sophisticated infrastructure and to the operational reality. Especially to the operational reality the Germans found themselves in from late 1941. On top of this, the German system amalgamated some of the worst traits of both the American-like economy and the Soviet planned economy.

The systemwide collapse that happened in the winter of 1941/1942 would have happened no matter the designs put forward a good year prior to that. Strategic decisions made that sure. The German industry simply did not have the capacity to change the guns of all Pz IIIs before the start of Barbarossa, not to mention other modifications which were implemented rather slowly. A successful phase out of old technologies and the phase-in of new ones could only be imagined in the context of an operational pause; or at least an operational pause for the bulk of the Wehrmacht.

But then again, there are problems with that, too. The German industry could not cope with the industrial might of the Allies; in turn, it could access a "what if" possibility to build up the defenses of continental Europe with a much more effective armed force than the one they possessed in mid-1941. Had there been a defensive-oriented mindset of the general staff, or Hitler himself.

To think that additional tinkering was either fruitful in operational results, or that the industry was able to cope with it, is very much questionable. And any ideas that address the actual problem of German mechanized forces, would lead us not to a single POD, but to a panoply of mindsets and structures that were deeply ingrained into the German warmaking.

[Richard Anderson]

Yep, we're seeing typical comic book history in action here. Versuchs-Fahrgestell ZW1. and Versuchs-Fahrgestell ZW.2 were the initial prototypes, later known as Panzer III Ausf A (AKA 1. Serie ZW). Versuchs-Fahrgestell ZW.3 was the Panzer III Ausf B (AKA 2. Serie ZW), Versuchs-Fahrgestell ZW.4 was the Panzer III Ausf C (AKA 3a. Serie ZW) and D (AKA 3b. Serie ZW).

The Versuchs-Fahrgestell ZW.1 prototype was completed in August 1935 and DB was immediately contracted to build the Versuchs-Fahrgestell ZW.3 and Versuchs-Fahrgestell ZW.4.

I suspect the similar designations easily confuse some. I also suggest using Thomas Jentz's Panzerkampwagen III , Ausf.A, B, C, und D (Panzer Tracts, Volume 3-1) rather than comic books as a source.

[Destroyer500]

I came here to share some ideas and to say that they could just built the pz3 and be ok.Mr Paul mentioned the pz4 and showed his version and how it could progress.Problems you people mentioned to me were weight that leads to stronger engine and suspension requirments.I managed to show what kind of a 75mm long gun could fit on a tank such as the pz3 so the firepower part i guess is solved.With the redesign youll see bellow i guess even the standart pz4 75mm L48 could fit.
The only time they could decide for a standart tank was 1938-1939-1940.After that point they fully commited to having 2 medium tanks so its too late.Of course they had different things in mind initialy and lets not forget that Germany was only starting to think of rearmament after 1933 while most countries had more openly been playing with different vehicle designs,ideas and doctrines and of course rearming since the end of ww1.I know the Germans made progress in a secretive way but im taking about doing business openly.Many things were done in a hurry.I believe the pz3 could be made the t34 of Germany but it would after a certain point require many changes.Even mrPauls ideas would work in the end and as i said i believe it comes down to what they would choose.
When it comes to the pz3s weight;1)add a shock absorber to every wheel that can get one (will show in a picture bellow) 2)torsion bar suspension is really good no need to change it just reinforce it 3)widen the wheels and the tracks 4)add some sort of interleaved system like this one https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comme ... on_system/ 5)i read they were developing a 400hp engine for the pz3 but they could also add the engine that was gonna be added to the vk16.02 which was 500 hp (not sure thought)
Now im gonna do a bold move and show my ideal design of a pz3 to debute at lets say 1943.You can laugh you can say like mr Anderson that its a comic book fantasy but i want to show how i envision it non the less

I would add a 15mm gun on that commanders cupola.Why ? Because americans have .50 cals and i want a bigger gun.If thats too much just add a standart mg.
Even my ideal panzer 4 would be like that.I like to play with designs as you understand.I guess an L70 7.5cm would require an overall bigger hull just like mrPaul showed in his pz4 version of the story.If they could make a t34-100 nothing tells me they can make my pz3 https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/d ... or_id=1170

My suspension drawings are a bit whacky but you get the point.I also forgot to mentioned that the commander would be moved on the back of the turret so there would be more space on it

[Richard Anderson]

I don't know if you noticed, but if you put your TC there then either you increase the size of the turret ring or you force him to sit hunched over all the time...or you increase the TC's cupola height to a ridiculous extent.

[Destroyer500]

I don't know if you noticed, but if you put your TC there then either you increase the size of the turret ring or you force him to sit hunched over all the time...or you increase the TC's cupola height to a ridiculous extent.

Yea i noticed that too,we can either make the turret a bit taller or the cupola.Or just raise both a bit ?

I guess i fixed it

I may have made it too big because this guy

is really tall and can properly sit on the commanders position and my commanders position is just a bit behind so i guess even my initial turret design would be ok ? In my version he would get a seat though so the bigger size may matter.What do you think ?

Armor would be 80mm on the turret and the chassis front,40mm side-back of the turret,40mm sides-50mm behind of the chassis.

[Takao]

You have now created a tank roughly the size of a Sherman from a Panzer III. With inferior sloped frontal armor.

What effect on weight is that massive turret going to have?
Not to mention the effect on turret traverse speeds.