A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

[Takao]

This thread has become a tedious and disingenuous argument about arguments. This is partially my fault for engaging people I usually don't. I am unilaterally withdrawing, have fun guys.

We know what they said, because it was written down.

We do not know WHY they said what they said, because it was not recorded.

How is delving into this matter tedious & disingenuous?
Oh, yeah, I forgot...TMP is smarter than everyone else and his assumptions are not to be questioned.

[Destroyer500]

No one has knowledge about everything but there are quite a few experts in specific areas here. If you rely on Google to validate what-if scenario then be prepared to discover the pitfalls and how it should be used as a starting point for your research and not the last word on any subject. You can either use the corrections provided as free 'Peer Review' or dismiss it is a great big Conspiracy where 'The Establishment' is ganging up to silence you. It all depends on why you post here. Is it to learn or to preach?

Well of course it is to learn and the free peer review thing you mention was exactly why i came here.I dont have time to read books and i mostly hear them as audiobooks whenever i can.The whole theme that the internet is a bad source of knowledge is very wrong because it depends on how you use it.The internet is the most advanced library in the world where you can find anything about anything very easily but are there gonna be lies and misconceptions ? Yes of course but the same applies for a book and thats something many people forget.The ironic tone of many in the forum in general is not that much annoying as it is hindering to the conversation.Do you have any opinion on the pz3 post the way it developed in the last few messages ? I want mostly opinion on the last iterations because the first ones were my first steps of learning a lot

[Michael Kenny]

The whole theme that the internet is a bad source of knowledge is very wrong because it depends on how you use it.The internet is the most advanced library in the world where you can find anything about anything very easily but are there gonna be lies and misconceptions ? Yes of course but the same applies for a book and thats something many people forget.

I have always said that the majority of books on any subject use the formulae 'read 10 books about X and write book 11 about X' In the general population I would say the majority of what ordinary people think happened in WW2 (as an example) is wrong. Sometimes wrong in just detail but many times wrong to the point of complete absurdity. The most common WW2 problem is the over-estimation of the prowess of The German Armed Forces. I would estimate a full 80% of all the WW2 books peddle that myth. This has fatally poisoned the well in that this print bias is now the established online bias. Anyone using Google to research WW2 is going have to wade through ton of sand to find the nuggets. However the majority of such seekers rarely go past page 1 of the results. That and they are only looking for, or pay attention to, info that matches what they already want to believe. In short the majority of stuff you read on the internet is worthless as a source for advancing understanding.

It is not a crime to admit you are not an expert on every subject in the world but if you start claiming that you, and you alone, have special insight that will overturn all previous versions of what happened then you better make sure you have double and triple checked everything you post here.

Do you have any opinion on the pz3 post the way it developed in the last few messages ? I want mostly opinion on the last iterations because the first ones were my first steps of learning a lot

I don't go much on 'magic bullet'. solutions to complex problems. No one tank type is ever going to change anything so I think it is a detail that is so unimportant as to not be worth all the arguing. If the Germans had all T34s and The Allies only Cromwells it still would have played out much as in real life.
My problem is not people asking such questions it is the self-appointed 'experts-on-everything' who blatantly distort and misquote historical records to bolster their bogus narrative. Do not be fooled into thinking this type of expert here can teach you anything because from what I can see you know more than him.

[Richard Anderson]

Now add in port clearance issues and the notion logistics was "easy" and it was as easy to ship 60 ton tanks as it was 30 ton tanks becomes even more ludicrous.

Not forgetting the problems of keeping a tank that heavy in running order and how difficult it would be to move around by both rail and transporter.

Heavy Tank T26E3 on Tank Transporter T25A1 was 87 short tons. Of the twenty T26E3 in ZEBRA, it appears one was more or less never operational since it suffered from electrical gremlins. When they arrived at Aachen, it took the 559th Ordnance Heavy Maintenance (Tank) Company roughly four days to prepare the first ten for action, brief the 3d AD crews, and turn them over to them. The crews then had two days on the range and driving familiarization before going into action.

[Richard Anderson]

I just love how almost every single thread in this forum ends up being an arena

What you tend to get is a set of inveterate "how can the Germans win the war" types, who usually postulate a set of far-fetched notions that they present as absolute fact, and that have hissy fits when challenged as to the facts their assumptions are supposedly based on. The threads then frequently drift into other areas, as the original posters attempt to widen their nets of confirmation bias and start making absolute statements such as "the American Army had a viable heavy tank in the T1E1", which is poppycock. Then, when their poppycock is called poppycock, they wrap themselves in ad hominem, declare no one else understands their genius and impeccable logic, and wander away to start another, even less probable thread. Wash, rinse, repeat.

So try to follow the logic of a poster who declares "logistics is simple and other posters just use it as a catch-all excuse for why the U.S. didn't simply just roll over the Germans in 1943" and then starts a thread on just how problematic logistical planning could get and just how difficult it was to correct when it went south. :roll:

[Takao]

I just love how almost every single thread in this forum ends up being an arena

You should have been here when this was the Third Reich Forum.
(Early 90s, maybe mid 90s, when I joined then - name change to AHF was 2001-2002?)

This is tame compared to what it used to be in the "old" days.

[ThatZenoGuy]

If I can just throw in something related to the Panzer 3/4...

I think having different suspensions on the two tanks seems a little weird, if both chassis are to be built at the same time, at least standardize the suspension mounts and tracks and stuff. They weigh nearly the same for the most part anyways.

It'd also save some internal space for the Panzer 3, giving it more fuel, ammo, etc.

[Peter89]

If I can just throw in something related to the Panzer 3/4...

I think having different suspensions on the two tanks seems a little weird, if both chassis are to be built at the same time, at least standardize the suspension mounts and tracks and stuff. They weigh nearly the same for the most part anyways.

It'd also save some internal space for the Panzer 3, giving it more fuel, ammo, etc.

This is a wider problem with the strategic situation. The Germans should have made a complete phase-out and phase-in of "new" technologies from 1941-1943, but for various reasons it simply didn't happen. Mostly because before Barbarossa, they didn't feel their weapons are atrociously inferior and after Barbarossa they couldn't stop the production lines. Tanks were a prime example of this, but if we think about the fact that the Wehrmacht still used the same designs in 1944 as in 1939 it shows a tendency. The the 37 mm PAK, Do 17, He 111, Ju 87, Ju 52, Me 110, Panzer II, T 35 / 38, etc. were obsolete by 1941 but the Germans didn't stop production, and the new models were either crap (like Me 210 or He 177), or unreliable or came too late. Even the better designs could not advance into mass production because of the constant pressing need for new machines.

[Destroyer500]

I have always said that the majority of books on any subject use the formulae 'read 10 books about X and write book 11 about X' In the general population I would say the majority of what ordinary people think happened in WW2 (as an example) is wrong. Sometimes wrong in just detail but many times wrong to the point of complete absurdity. The most common WW2 problem is the over-estimation of the prowess of The German Armed Forces. I would estimate a full 80% of all the WW2 books peddle that myth. This has fatally poisoned the well in that this print bias is now the established online bias. Anyone using Google to research WW2 is going have to wade through ton of sand to find the nuggets. However the majority of such seekers rarely go past page 1 of the results. That and they are only looking for, or pay attention to, info that matches what they already want to believe. In short the majority of stuff you read on the internet is worthless as a source for advancing understanding.

It is not a crime to admit you are not an expert on every subject in the world but if you start claiming that you, and you alone, have special insight that will overturn all previous versions of what happened then you better make sure you have double and triple checked everything you post here.

After years of research i can also agree that the German army was overestimated and its military achievements-victories bathed in golden light.There is something though that many forget.The average and also non average intellectual German changed due to the Third Reich and he changed a lot (especially after the initial victories).The morale,the willingness to give it all and to fight until death,the belief that he is invincible,the belief that hes fighting for a greater cause and of course the amazing propaganda and the emotions it provoked was what allowed that Germany to do what it did.This can also be seen in the scientific world of that Germany where in all fields advancements were made and that because the Third Reich didnt target just the plain factory,farm worker but as i also already said intelectuals as well.The machinery,the equipment,in other words the tools of war were not that far and many times were behind or not that incredible (with some exceptions that didnt matter in the big picture) compared to some of their advanced adversaries but their morale and spirit was incomparable.In the end it doenst matter how much cracked you are but if you make the right decisions for your specific situation,especialy when your plans are that big.

I don't go much on 'magic bullet'. solutions to complex problems. No one tank type is ever going to change anything so I think it is a detail that is so unimportant as to not be worth all the arguing. If the Germans had all T34s and The Allies only Cromwells it still would have played out much as in real life.
My problem is not people asking such questions it is the self-appointed 'experts-on-everything' who blatantly distort and misquote historical records to bolster their bogus narrative. Do not be fooled into thinking this type of expert here can teach you anything because from what I can see you know more than him.

Well this panzer 3 thread mostly aimed to propose a solution to the standardization problem and provide some ideas about a modified pz3 tank that could do it all,from being reliable,fast,armored and properly armed for most of its enemies to being able to cross anything even deep rivers and lakes with an amphibious kit (this because i consider being able to cross water easily a strong advantage in a maneuver warfare).Could it win Germany the war ? Well it could definitely give them more time and also alleviate the headache that tank production was but looking at the big picture it depends on how they play their cards.
Paul Ward proposed that the pz4 take the place of the pz3 far earlier because it had more upgrade potential but to that i say that the pz3 only needed small modifications to be able to take more weight and a bigger turret.Richard Anderson said that it was doctrine that ulimately defined if there would be 2 "medium" tanks and that this whole idea is flawed from the beggining,he said a lot more but i cant start writing essays,but after a point the 2 tanks had the same weight and were very similar in many regards so having 2 of them,again after a certain point,makes no sense.The pz3 could be fitted with the short 75 and fulfill the inf support role and if the need to mount the long 75 came then it was possible to be mounted with some modification of course.If they follow my design and alter the frontal armor of the turret and chassis even the protection (and survivability of the crew due to extra hatches) gets a lot better without adding much thicker plates.Following my idea to the fullest the pz3 (or at this point panzer 3 version 2,imagine this naming in terms of tiger 1 and 2 were the two tanks although sharing the same name had few thinngs in common) ends up looking like a shorter panther but at that point i wouldnt blaim anyone for telling me ive gonna too far.

[Destroyer500]

You should have been here when this was the Third Reich Forum.
(Early 90s, maybe mid 90s, when I joined then - name change to AHF was 2001-2002?)

This is tame compared to what it used to be in the "old" days.

Did you people arrange street fights if things got sideways ?

[Destroyer500]

If I can just throw in something related to the Panzer 3/4...

I think having different suspensions on the two tanks seems a little weird, if both chassis are to be built at the same time, at least standardize the suspension mounts and tracks and stuff. They weigh nearly the same for the most part anyways.

It'd also save some internal space for the Panzer 3, giving it more fuel, ammo, etc.

Before the war suspension of these 2 tanks was being developed along with the chasses and i guess that because that development was still going in the early war years they just sticked to what they had.Its just a guess so i may be wrong.
A standard suspension especially if they have 2 designs is necessary.I would stick with torsion bar.

Is it though possible to save internal space on the panzer 3 ?

[Richard Anderson]

If I can just throw in something related to the Panzer 3/4...

I think having different suspensions on the two tanks seems a little weird, if both chassis are to be built at the same time, at least standardize the suspension mounts and tracks and stuff. They weigh nearly the same for the most part anyways.

It'd also save some internal space for the Panzer 3, giving it more fuel, ammo, etc.

Before the war suspension of these 2 tanks was being developed along with the chasses and i guess that because that development was still going in the early war years they just sticked to what they had.Its just a guess so i may be wrong.
A standard suspension especially if they have 2 designs is necessary.I would stick with torsion bar.

The Germans were experimenting with various systems, looking for best ride and maneuverability combined with simplicity and durability. However, since Panzer IV was not intended as a maneuver tank, which was the job of the Panzer IV. Krupp tried five different suspension systems in its prototype BW I and BW II, including a torsion bar with each bar dampened by a shock absorber, which did not work. Instead it was decided that a simple, rugged system that did not necessarily give the best ride was adequate, but In 6 was still enthusiastic about the possibilities of the torsion bar system.

It was the Panzer III, the intended maneuver tank, that was experimented with.

Ausf A had the five roadwheels mounted on individual swing axles with coil springs mounted in boxes on the side of the hull.
Ausf B had eight smaller roadwheels mounted in pairs on double swing axles with each pair of swing arms in turn mounted on leaf spring, also bolted to the hull side.
Ausf C was a variant on the B design with the center four roadwheels mounted in pairs on a leaf spring and with a front and rear pair mounted on separate leaf springs.
Ausf D was a variant on C.

None were considered adequate, so In 6 decided to go with a simplified version of the Krupp torsion bar suspension with shock absorbers mounted only on the front and rear, which worked well, in the production Ausf E. The result was considered so favorable that it was planned to fit it in Panzer IV as well, but it was never implemented.

So in a backwards sort of way they did intend to stick with the torsion bar, but never were able to implement it in the Panzer IV given the production delays it would entail. The real problem was that the simple four double-bogie leaf spring suspension worked well in an 18-ton vehicle, but became progressively more problematic as the weight went up. That was one of the reasons VK20 was proposed in December 1938 as a replacement for both Panzer III and IV.

[Destroyer500]

If I can just throw in something related to the Panzer 3/4...

I think having different suspensions on the two tanks seems a little weird, if both chassis are to be built at the same time, at least standardize the suspension mounts and tracks and stuff. They weigh nearly the same for the most part anyways.

It'd also save some internal space for the Panzer 3, giving it more fuel, ammo, etc.

Before the war suspension of these 2 tanks was being developed along with the chasses and i guess that because that development was still going in the early war years they just sticked to what they had.Its just a guess so i may be wrong.
A standard suspension especially if they have 2 designs is necessary.I would stick with torsion bar.

The Germans were experimenting with various systems, looking for best ride and maneuverability combined with simplicity and durability. However, since Panzer IV was not intended as a maneuver tank, which was the job of the Panzer IV. Krupp tried five different suspension systems in its prototype BW I and BW II, including a torsion bar with each bar dampened by a shock absorber, which did not work. Instead it was decided that a simple, rugged system that did not necessarily give the best ride was adequate, but In 6 was still enthusiastic about the possibilities of the torsion bar system.

It was the Panzer III, the intended maneuver tank, that was experimented with.

Ausf A had the five roadwheels mounted on individual swing axles with coil springs mounted in boxes on the side of the hull.
Ausf B had eight smaller roadwheels mounted in pairs on double swing axles with each pair of swing arms in turn mounted on leaf spring, also bolted to the hull side.
Ausf C was a variant on the B design with the center four roadwheels mounted in pairs on a leaf spring and with a front and rear pair mounted on separate leaf springs.
Ausf D was a variant on C.

None were considered adequate, so In 6 decided to go with a simplified version of the Krupp torsion bar suspension with shock absorbers mounted only on the front and rear, which worked well, in the production Ausf E. The result was considered so favorable that it was planned to fit it in Panzer IV as well, but it was never implemented.

So in a backwards sort of way they did intend to stick with the torsion bar, but never were able to implement it in the Panzer IV given the production delays it would entail. The real problem was that the simple four double-bogie leaf spring suspension worked well in an 18-ton vehicle, but became progressively more problematic as the weight went up. That was one of the reasons VK20 was proposed in December 1938 as a replacement for both Panzer III and IV.

Would though some production delays be worth it if it meant a more comfortable ride and a suspension able fo survive longer ?

Apart from that what i cant understand is why did not a shock absorber in each wheel help ? Wouldnt it be sufficient to move more weight and make the ride more comfordable ? Is this answered in your last paragraph or am i wrong ? Couldnt they if weight was a problem somehow make it handle more ?

And again the ausf C and D seem 1)lower and 2)like they haveb a really good suspension,so why werent they chosen and why werent they "good" ?

[Richard Anderson]

Would though some production delays be worth it if it meant a more comfortable ride and a suspension able fo survive longer ?

Apart from that what i cant understand is why did not a shock absorber in each wheel help ? Wouldnt it be sufficient to move more weight and make the ride more comfordable ? Is this answered in your last paragraph or am i wrong ? Couldnt they if weight was a problem somehow make it handle more ?

And again the ausf C and D seem 1)lower and 2)like they haveb a really good suspension,so why werent they chosen and why werent they "good" ?

They did accept production delays in the development of the Panzer III because they were looking for the best suspension. It is sometimes difficult to keep in mind, but they weren't on a schedule such as "we need to get this done by Tuesday, because the war starts Wednesday". They were planning in peacetime without wartime pressures. I suspect as far as Krupp and DB went the more development monies they received the better, while the others were happy to take the money to expand and tool their plants in anticipation of building a finished design.

The Krupp BW prototype did test a torsion bar with each swing arm linked to an shock absorber, but it did not work - the absorbers tended to overheat and fail. Instead of further pursuing that they reduced the number of shock absorbers to the front and rear with heavy rubber stops for the center swing arms on the Ausf E, which worked. Remember it was considered good enough that the plan was the next generation of Panzer IV would use it, but then the war intervened. However, when weight went up the solution didn't work as well, which is one reason they went to the interleaved wheel and torsion bar design on the later VK20/30 and then the Tiger and Panther, which better distributed the weight between wheels and bars and dampened the feedback that made the shock absorbers necessary.

I think the leaf springs were seen as a vulnerable point of failure. I am more surprised they did not try simple and robust volute suspension system used by French and American designers.

[ljadw]

If I can just throw in something related to the Panzer 3/4...

I think having different suspensions on the two tanks seems a little weird, if both chassis are to be built at the same time, at least standardize the suspension mounts and tracks and stuff. They weigh nearly the same for the most part anyways.

It'd also save some internal space for the Panzer 3, giving it more fuel, ammo, etc.

This is a wider problem with the strategic situation. The Germans should have made a complete phase-out and phase-in of "new" technologies from 1941-1943, but for various reasons it simply didn't happen. Mostly because before Barbarossa, they didn't feel their weapons are atrociously inferior and after Barbarossa they couldn't stop the production lines. Tanks were a prime example of this, but if we think about the fact that the Wehrmacht still used the same designs in 1944 as in 1939 it shows a tendency. The the 37 mm PAK, Do 17, He 111, Ju 87, Ju 52, Me 110, Panzer II, T 35 / 38, etc. were obsolete by 1941 but the Germans didn't stop production, and the new models were either crap (like Me 210 or He 177), or unreliable or came too late. Even the better designs could not advance into mass production because of the constant pressing need for new machines.

It is questionable to say that the Pz II was obsolete : obsolete depends on the mission and on the enemy and he weapons he could use .The Pz II could always be used for other aims, in other occasions .
It is also questionable to say that the German weapons were inferior during Barbarossa .