The Army Ordnance Department plays a role in the outcome at Stalingrad.

[Richard Anderson]

Indeed it tells us why your argument has failed. The Ordnance Dept. played a role is why they didn't. The notion that the Germans had to stay with a 3.7cm AT weapon is just simply not true rich!

Not my argument at all and your continuing straw man argumentation and ad hominem amply demonstrate why it is probably more worthwhile to go back to ignoring your a-historical ravings.

[LachenKrieg]

And you are quite incorrect in thinking that the WI has to account for every single factor that played out in the war. The WI proposes an increase in German firepower when they needed it most. It would account for some of the infantrymen, artillery guns, ect... Had the PzIII been able to maintain higher attrition rates of Soviet tanks (primarily of the T34 variety), it would have also helped to maintain the advantage gained by the Germans in 1943 by slowing the advancement of Soviet improvements.

So then you are arguing that all the Germans needed to do to win the war was ensure that the Sturmgeschütz with 7.5cm StuK 40 replaced the Panzer III and Sturmgeschütz by 22 June 1941.

Neat.

Wouldn't it be simpler to ask "what if Hitler had a Leopard II in BARBAROSSA?" It could be a great Saturday Night Live sketch like "What if Napoleon had a B-52 at Waterloo?"

No, what the WI proposes is that had the Germans taken the appropriate steps in prewar Germany, then the increased firepower to follow would have changed the situation on the Eastern Front so that it didn't collapse when it did. Yeah that would have been neat, but not attainable. What could have been attainable is a PzIII L/60 at the start of Barbarossa.

[LachenKrieg]

I am not overrating the presence of the T34, I am simply reciting the historical figure for the number that were there. And I am not underrating the capability of the Pz Divisions to deal with Russian armored forces, I am just pointing out the historical fact that they couldn't in the end because enemy numbers were too great, and that they lost the war. I don't know how you come to the conclusion you do, but they do brighten up my day

I think you need to look at the actual composition of units in mid-1942 in the Red Army. Tank brigades--at that time--were primarily composed of T60 and T70 light tanks with a 2 to 1 ratio to T 34's at best (one T34 command tank in a platoon, with two to four T60 or T70), and often just the company and battalion command tanks being T 34's. Production doesn't necessarily equal what's at the front.

That's what the Germans were observing at the time, and for that the Pz III with a 50/60 gun was adequate. Sure, they knew they needed better, that's why they developed the Panther.

Yeah and that is a good point Mr. Gardner, and one I have already acknowledged. But the point is not about the tanks the Pz III could deal efficiently with, it is about the ones it couldn't. And aren't you oversimplifying the situation? It is one thing to say that T34 tanks numbers were small compared to other light tanks, but the point is the number of Pz III facing them. They made close to 500 L/42's in 1940, with approximately another 1600 in 1941. You can add another 60 L/60's at the end of 1941, but the Soviets made 3000 T34's in 1941.

[Richard Anderson]

No, what the WI proposes is that had the Germans taken the appropriate steps in prewar Germany, then the increased firepower to follow would have changed the situation on the Eastern Front so that it didn't collapse when it did. Yeah that would have been neat, but not attainable. What could have been attainable is a PzIII L/60 at the start of Barbarossa.

Um, we've been over this over and over again. The Germans did take the "appropriate steps" insofar as they understood what was technologically, economically, and industrially feasible. However, like other nations, they got shafted by the pace of technological change...and also by their own proclivities for a bureaucracy that ensured the needs of the Party elites and the industrialists got served. There was also the problem of inter-service rivalry, the final form of the Panzer division was decided so late because the Kavallerei faction within the Schnelltruppen wanted a more "cavalry-like" Panzer division. The whole Sturmgeschütz thing also revolved around rivalry over scarce resources between the Schnelltruppen and the Infanterie/Artillerie. That rivalry was so intense that, as we have seen, it continued until the end of 1943 and was still festering in 1944.

[Aida1]

In the April 1942 version it was changed to "The Sturmgeschütz may be successfully used against armored vehicles, and light and medium tanks.

Of course, mostly because of the improved performance of the PaK 40. Prior to that the only way to reliably defeating medium and heavy tanks was with Hohlading.

Where though does it say "The Sturmgeschütz may be successfully used as a Panzer"?

That is a good question, where does it say that. I'm hoping you know, because what the WI is calling for are for StuG's to be used as StuG's as they attack and defeat enemy tanks from 1200+m away on the open Steppes of Southern Russia. Something their Pz III L/60 brethren couldn't do. And don't get too hung up on the place, because they could do pretty much the same thing in the North as well

You would be unable to explain where the pz div had firepower problems in the summer of 1942. Simply your fiction.

[Aida1]

I am just pointing out the historical fact that they couldn't in the end because enemy numbers were too great, and that they lost the war.

You are quite correct. They couldn't in the end because enemy NUMBERS were too great, not because the number of enemy T-34 tanks were too great. The number of enemy T-60, T-70, Light M3, Light M5, Medium Me, Medium M4, Cruiser, and Infantry tanks were no great, not to mention the number of infantrymen, artillery guns and howitzers, mortars, combat aircraft, and ships. The number of their enemies were too great as well.

And you are quite incorrect in thinking that the WI has to account for every single factor that played out in the war. The WI proposes an increase in German firepower when they needed it most. It would account for some of the infantrymen, artillery guns, ect... Had the PzIII been able to maintain higher attrition rates of Soviet tanks (primarily of the T34 variety), it would have also helped to maintain the advantage gained by the Germans in 1943 by slowing the advancement of Soviet improvements.

That is clearly factually incorrect.

[Aida1]

So, going a different direction...

What if the German ordinance department went the US route and developed a 75mm gun that weighed half, give or take, of the current L48 and could be mounted in a Pz III turret with minimal modifications? Then the Pz III would be just as good as a Pz IV with the L/48.

After all, that is what the US did with the M6 75mm that was put in the M 24 Chaffee tank. The M6 weighed about 500 lbs. compared to the M4 Sherman's M3 75mm that clocked in at close to 1000 lbs.

Or what about turning it into an open turret TD like the M10? Does anyone know if it would have been possible to get an L/43-48 in something like that?

The point of the WI was more attached to the prewar decisions that led to the firepower problems after the war started, then it is about getting rid of a tank. They obvously needed the Pz chassis production numbers, but just as obvious was the need for a better gun. I just think it is hilarious that the Nazi's worst enemy turned out to be the Nazi's themselves. I just don't think enough of us realize what good fortune that truth really was.

Open topped turrets worked so well on the M 10, etc., that...

That was to further your suggestion of a WI in a WI. The StuG on the other hand was already there, and it was already being used to kill T34 tanks.

The StuG brings a lot to the table in terms of advantages that would have been very useful in dealing with the increased tank strength seen in 1942 with its lower profile, better frontal armor, and ability to engage medium tanks head on from 1200+m.

German pz div could deal with the T 34. Your tunnel vision only sees battles between russian tanks and the pz div. You ignore the threat to the inf div which were the ones really needing sturmgeschutze more and more.

[Aida1]

Gee whiz, I wonder what the Germans had to say about using Sturmgeschütz at the time...other than the experience reports already mentioned?

H.Dv. 200/2m, Die Sturmgeschützbatterie, Führung und Kampf der Sturmartillerie
...
5. Das Bekämpfen feindlicher Panzerkampfwagen ist bei jeder Kampfhandlung ohne Rücksicht auf den bestehenden Auftrag die wichtigste Aufgabe. Dies darf jedoch nicht dazu führen Sturmgeschütze als Panzerjäger zu verwenden.
...
25. Geringer Schwenkbeeich des Geschützes, ungünstige Verhältnisse für Nahverteidigung sowie schwache Seiten und Rückenpanzerung machten ständigen Schutz durch Begleitgrenadiere, Infanterie oder Pioniere unerlässlich.

Are you trying to suggest that the StuG L/43-48 was not used to destroy enemy armor, or that it couldn't?

And what of the Pz III L/60 rich, was that the best weapon to deal with the growing T34 tank problem the Germans were facing? What happened when they threw all those Pz III's with their turrets at them?

The first two questions require simple yes/no answers. You can go wild with the 3rd.

Again an example of your tunnel vision.

[Aida1]

You are completely living in fantasyland. It is very valid to prove to you that germans would never replace the panzer III with a sturmgeschutze as the latter belonged in support of the inf div. And never could operate as tanks anyway.

Do you realize you just made 6 posts that say essentially the same thing?

I don't know why you keep stating the above and directing it at me, I never said a StuG was a tank, or that it should replace all tanks, or that it failed as a tank. That was something rich said, and what he claimed has already been proven to be false.

This WI is about dealing with the growing T34 medium tank threat that the Germans faced. And because we already know from history the outcome of the firepower starved Pz III, the WI introduces a viable alternative.

The WI does not claim that the growing T34 threat will only be dealt with by StuG's, it is simply adding much needed firepower to the German equation at a time when the Germans needed it most. By the time Germany gets tanks like the Panther into service, it is too late. The amount of force stacked against them is too great, and they are heading into full blown retreat.

But in terms of your claim regarding "And never could operate as tanks anyway.", I am sure you are aware that dealing with enemy tanks was one of the roles of a tank. And since I know how much importance you give to guidelines, this is a part of what rich posted above:

In the April 1942 version it was changed to "The Sturmgeschütz may be successfully used against armored vehicles, and light and medium tanks.

If a sturmgeschutze is not a tank then you do not replace a tank type by it. :roll: :roll: You contradict yourself when you propose to replace a tank type by a sturmgeschutze which means it would have to operate as a tank which it cannot as you admit yourself. When sturmgeschutze were historically added to some pz div as a transitional measure, Guderians guideline made it clear they should be used as Sturmgeschutze which is an infantry sopport and AT role. There is amajor difference between operating sturmgeschutze WITHIN a pz div as sturmgeschutze and having them as operate as such and replacing a whole tank type as you propose. Such a decision is therefore historically impossible.
If inf div need more AT capability against a growing tank threat , among others, you can put Sturmgeschutze Abteilungen behind them. Sturmgeschutze are meant to support the infantry. It really needed sturmgeschutze and other AT means more and more as the russian tank threat grew.
You have a completely wrong idea of what the role of a pz div is and a very limited view of how russian tanks were dealt with by them.
And when it was historically judged towards the end of 1941 that the Panzer III had to be phased out , it was in favour of the panzer IV. A tank is replaced by another tank type. Your WI does not make sense.

[Aida1]

So, going a different direction...

What if the German ordinance department went the US route and developed a 75mm gun that weighed half, give or take, of the current L48 and could be mounted in a Pz III turret with minimal modifications? Then the Pz III would be just as good as a Pz IV with the L/48.

After all, that is what the US did with the M6 75mm that was put in the M 24 Chaffee tank. The M6 weighed about 500 lbs. compared to the M4 Sherman's M3 75mm that clocked in at close to 1000 lbs.

Or what about turning it into an open turret TD like the M10? Does anyone know if it would have been possible to get an L/43-48 in something like that?

The point of the WI was more attached to the prewar decisions that led to the firepower problems after the war started, then it is about getting rid of a tank. They obvously needed the Pz chassis production numbers, but just as obvious was the need for a better gun. I just think it is hilarious that the Nazi's worst enemy turned out to be the Nazi's themselves. I just don't think enough of us realize what good fortune that truth really was.

You are rewriting history with hindsight. Anyway, the only realistic scenario is where the Panzer III gets a 5 cm gun from the beginning and the L60 quicker. Replacing the Panzer III with the panzer IV would never have been decided earlier. Your idea about the sturmgzschutze would never even come up as even Hitler knew the difference between Sturmgzeschutze and tanks. :roll:
No scenario would change the Stalingrad campaign as the problems there had nothing to do with your imagined pz div firepower problem that never existed.

Yes that is sort of the idea behind a WI, using hindsight to provide an alternate history. The course the German Ordnance Dept. set for its military left it ill prepared to deal with Russian tank production capacity after the war started.

But where does your comment about replacing Pz III with Pz IV come from in the quote your using? I think Mr. Gardner was suggesting that the Pz III would be just as good as a Pz IV had Germany developed a lighter version of the L/48, not that it should replace the Pz IV.

The issue is you do not replace a tank with an infantry support weapon. Your views on german pz div are completely wrong. You do not understand tactics of the pz div and what their role is. And seriously ignorant about the stalingrad campaign.

[Aida1]

If we are discussing the WI, which is what this thread is about, then the historical time points of most interest include up to 1942 when the Pz III was still being relied on as a main battle tank. The issue being addressed by the WI is the limited firepower of the PzIII, not the Panther tank. The point was about adding fire power when the Germans needed it most in 1941/42. The Russians were able to significantly increase T34 production during this period beyond what the Pz III could handle. Making the PzIII available at the Start of Barbarossa, and the long barreled StuG earlier in 1942 would have benefited the German war effort greatly.

That is your fantasy. You overrate the presence of T 34. You far underrate the capability of pz div to deal with russian armored forces .You completely ignore that the sturmgeschutze ware needed to support the inf div against russian tanks. And then you create another fantasy about the Stalingrad campaign where you fabricate a firepower issue that never existed and deny or underrate the real issues.

I am not overrating the presence of the T34, I am simply reciting the historical figure for the number that were there. And I am not underrating the capability of the Pz Divisions to deal with Russian armored forces, I am just pointing out the historical fact that they couldn't in the end because enemy numbers were too great, and that they lost the war. I don't know how you come to the conclusion you do, but they do brighten up my day

You certainly have continually acted as if the germans only dealt with the T34 in 1942 which was incorrect as has been pointed out to you . And again ignore that it was the inf div that had to fear russian tanks most. They could not deal with the growing number of russian tanks.Tney needed, among others, sturmgeschutze as AT weapon. You only talk about the pz div which had an offensive role.

[LachenKrieg]

No, what the WI proposes is that had the Germans taken the appropriate steps in prewar Germany, then the increased firepower to follow would have changed the situation on the Eastern Front so that it didn't collapse when it did. Yeah that would have been neat, but not attainable. What could have been attainable is a PzIII L/60 at the start of Barbarossa.

Um, we've been over this over and over again. The Germans did take the "appropriate steps" insofar as they understood what was technologically, economically, and industrially feasible. However, like other nations, they got shafted by the pace of technological change...and also by their own proclivities for a bureaucracy that ensured the needs of the Party elites and the industrialists got served. There was also the problem of inter-service rivalry, the final form of the Panzer division was decided so late because the Kavallerei faction within the Schnelltruppen wanted a more "cavalry-like" Panzer division. The whole Sturmgeschütz thing also revolved around rivalry over scarce resources between the Schnelltruppen and the Infanterie/Artillerie. That rivalry was so intense that, as we have seen, it continued until the end of 1943 and was still festering in 1944.

So I guess this must mean your finally resigning to the fact that the WI is viable, and that it only took you 28 pages to realize it. Awesome, I knew we would eventually find common ground Now the only pill you will have to swallow is how fielding an armored force with limited firepower affected the situation, and how the proposed WI could address it.

[LachenKrieg]

BTW, going back to this gem of a non sequiter.

Are you trying to suggest that the StuG L/43-48 was not used to destroy enemy armor, or that it couldn't?

Are you trying to suggest that anything used to destroy enemy armor is a Panzer?

Does that make Infanterie close-assault means "Panzer" because they could destroy enemy armor?
Does that make Flak "Panzer" because they could destroy enemy armor?
Does that make Artillerie "Panzer" because they could destroy enemy armor?
Does that make Panzerjäger "Panzer" because they could destroy enemy armor?
Does that make the Luftwaffe "Panzer" because they could destroy enemy armor?

Yes, it those are reductio ab adsurdam but then so is your premise.

Why are you asking if I would suggest that? I am suggesting no such thing. You are continuously taking this discussion off topic, and misrepresenting me on this forum. I never said StuG = tank. You building an argument as if I did is what caused me to ask if you think an AT gun is a tank because it was abe to knock out a tank. You never answered my question, but instead posted this.

It is clear you do not have an argument to counter the WI with, and have no intention of carrying an intelligent discussion, so why don't you just leave it there?

[LachenKrieg]

I am just pointing out the historical fact that they couldn't in the end because enemy numbers were too great, and that they lost the war.

You are quite correct. They couldn't in the end because enemy NUMBERS were too great, not because the number of enemy T-34 tanks were too great. The number of enemy T-60, T-70, Light M3, Light M5, Medium Me, Medium M4, Cruiser, and Infantry tanks were no great, not to mention the number of infantrymen, artillery guns and howitzers, mortars, combat aircraft, and ships. The number of their enemies were too great as well.

And you are quite incorrect in thinking that the WI has to account for every single factor that played out in the war. The WI proposes an increase in German firepower when they needed it most. It would account for some of the infantrymen, artillery guns, ect... Had the PzIII been able to maintain higher attrition rates of Soviet tanks (primarily of the T34 variety), it would have also helped to maintain the advantage gained by the Germans in 1943 by slowing the advancement of Soviet improvements.

That is clearly factually incorrect.

What is factually incorrect?

[LachenKrieg]

In the April 1942 version it was changed to "The Sturmgeschütz may be successfully used against armored vehicles, and light and medium tanks.

Of course, mostly because of the improved performance of the PaK 40. Prior to that the only way to reliably defeating medium and heavy tanks was with Hohlading.

Where though does it say "The Sturmgeschütz may be successfully used as a Panzer"?

That is a good question, where does it say that. I'm hoping you know, because what the WI is calling for are for StuG's to be used as StuG's as they attack and defeat enemy tanks from 1200+m away on the open Steppes of Southern Russia. Something their Pz III L/60 brethren couldn't do. And don't get too hung up on the place, because they could do pretty much the same thing in the North as well

You would be unable to explain where the pz div had firepower problems in the summer of 1942. Simply your fiction.

The firepower problem was made self-evident in 1941 when Pz III crews ran into the newer heavier Russian tanks. The firepower problem that plagued the Pz III would only be addressed when the Germans stopped relying on it as a main battle tank, and replaced it with the Pz IV.