Panzer III

[Olddog84]

I have always thought the Panzer III was a highly under-appreciated model. It was clearly the best German tank of the early war period and a major player in the blitzkreig successes. One thing that always made me wonder, though was the access for the driver and radio operator in the hull. There were obviously no hatches in the top of the superstructure for them to get in and out of the vehicle or ride head out. Could they get in and out through the split hatches in the glacis? You dont see pictures of anyone in these, and I dont know if there was room for them to squeeze out of them, or were they dependent on the emergency hatches in the sides? What did they do when these were deleted?

[LeoTanker]

Not better than the French and Brit mediums of that time... And it got slaughtered when in encounterd Shermans in North Africa and T-34s in the USSR in 1941/42.

 

The early German suces in the West was more thanks to mouch better training and tactics than a haveing a surperior tank I belive.

 

The StuG-III was the best vehicle that ever evolved from that design. The PzKpfv it self wasnt that inpressing... (I mean, a 37mm main gun?? )

[Akhe100]

First off the 37mm was around the standard for that time and the infantry anti-tank gun was a 37mm gun so it helped with logistics. Also you're forgetting that they made the turret big enough to have a 50mm gun which was later used. Also while the mechanical superiorty of tanks was not what won the germans the early battles, as a tank it did have 2 big advantages over the british and russian tanks. Many of the british and french tanks had small turrets so the commander had to act as a gun or loader as well as a commander. The same thing with the original T-34. This allowed the vastly superior tactical flexibility. The other important thing was that the original T-34 didn't have a radio and actually needed to use signal flags to communicate, once again, having a radio vastly improved tactically flexibility and organization. Though overall it was obsolete after a year or two because it simply wasn't big and powerful enough.

[Old Tanker]

I also am a fan of the Pz. III. If it was just a little bigger turret ring wise it would have been an excellent design.

It brought us torsion bar suspension which is one of the keys to modern western tanks.

[Akhe100]

Nah, the model itself was pretty much doomed to obsolescence simply because it was so small, compared to the larger model 4. It just didn't have room for the gun, the armor, or the engine it needed.

[cbo]

I have always thought the Panzer III was a highly under-appreciated model. It was clearly the best German tank of the early war period and a major player in the blitzkreig successes. One thing that always made me wonder, though was the access for the driver and radio operator in the hull. There were obviously no hatches in the top of the superstructure for them to get in and out of the vehicle or ride head out. Could they get in and out through the split hatches in the glacis? You dont see pictures of anyone in these, and I dont know if there was room for them to squeeze out of them, or were they dependent on the emergency hatches in the sides? What did they do when these were deleted?

 

Up until and including the Ausf L, there were escape hatches for the driver and radiooperator in the hull sides. They were removed in the Ausf. M. Ausf N's were partly built on older chassis with these hatches, partly on new hulls which didn't. The hatches on the front were for working on the steering drive and brakes. Judging from interior pictures, there was no room for the radiooperator to get through the hatch in front of him, while the hatch in the front of the driver could be accessed but it would require worming your way through the steering levers and between the brake and the steering drive, over a drive shaft. There is very little room and lots of things to get hung up on. So I think it is safe to say that once the side hatches were delted, the only real way to get out for the driver and radiooperator was through the turret.

 

cbo

[Olddog84]

Thanks for all of the replies. I too think that the hull crew had to get out through the turret on the later models. Funny but nowhere have I read about that being a "death trap" like you read about the small hull hatches on the sherman or the lack of a loader's hatch in the sherman turret.

 

I totally disagree about being worse than the British or French mediums. Paper figures examining the armament and armor is only one side of the story. The 37mm was about as good as other armaments of the 1939 and 1940 period, and the III was the only one of those contemporaries capable of being upgraded, a vital feature that the british couldnt accomplish until much later. Where the Mark III was light years ahead of those designs was in the "ergonomics" or "fightability" department. The 5 man crew, with three men in the turret, the abundance of vision devices, radio, and internal intercom made it a winner.

 

It isnt until the invasion of Russia that the Mark III was found wanting. In the desert against the british it was the master of every "cruiser" tank sent against it, and the only challenge in tank vs. tank fighting was the Matilda II with it's heavy armor until the American mediums made an appearance. Even then, when armed with the L/60 50mm, it was pretty much a match for the sherman.

[Mk 1]

I am also one who believes the Pz III is under-rated by most hobby historians.

 

It was probably one of the most successful tanks in history, if we judge the success rates of the campaigns to which it contributed, or its "exchange rate" with opposing combattants.

 

For its time, it was a very well balanced design, particularly when armed with the 50mm gun, either the L42 which was the original design intention, or the up-rated L60. On a 1940 / 41 battlefield there were few other tanks that showed as its equal in the combination of firepower (both anti-armor AND anti-infantry), mobility (at the tactical AND operational levels), protection, and ergonomics/crew efficiency.

 

Compared to French designs in 1940 it was miles ahead on crew efficiency, not even just one step, but two. In most French tanks the tank commander was also the turret gunner AND loader. But the Pz III tank commander (TC) was just a tank commander, leading to unit-level tactics that the French could neither emulate nor counter. It also won over the French designs in operational mobility. It was also ahead of MOST French tanks in terms of firepower (even the 37mm-armed Pz IIIs).

 

Compared to British designs in 1940 and 1941 it had heavier armor than any Cruisers, better mobility than any I tanks, and a useful dual-purpose gun (in the 50mm). And again, several of the British tanks did not have a dedicated TC.

 

Compared to Soviet designs in 1941 it was still the most usefull and successful tank. To say they were "slaughtered" by T-34s defies any study of battle results. I can't find a single campaign, much less a month or quarter, in which T-34s achieved more, at a lower cost, than the Pz IIIs they faced.

 

For all the crowing about the T-34 "defining the balance" in a tank, I see no indication that a T-34 was a breakthrough in balance versus a Pz III. It was bigger, and heavier, and so it had the benefits one would expect of a bigger and heavier design. The only aspect on which the T-34 excelled, that might not be credited just to its larger size, was in mobility. Oddly, I see the comparision between Pz III and T-34 much in the same way I see the later comparison between T-34 and Panther. The bigger tank has an advantage in gunpower and protection. No shattering revelation there. The only suprise is that the bigger tank also has very good mobility. Not that the smaller was deficient in this, but only that it was a surprise at that time to see the larger designs also achieving excellent mobility. At least tactically.

 

Clearly, though, the T-34 fell far short of the Pz III in terms of crew efficiency. While many credit the Panzer troops with mysterious qualities of tactical brilliance, and while I don't deny that they were probably the most tactically adept mechanized troops in the world in their time, I think that some portion of the credit must be given to their mounts, which allowed for more tactical coordination by having dedicated TCs and radios in every tank. The Panzers kept this advantage throughout the period in which they scored like a wunderwaffe. The most tactically clever and well-trained crews in the world would still fall short of their potential if the TCs were busy pulling up the floor covering to get at ammo instead of focussing on the coordination of their crews and their units during battle.

 

The combat record of the Pz III proves that a well balanced design can be a useful weapon well beyond its day as a leader in any one aspect of that balance.

 

-Mark 1

[FITZ]

I am also one who believes the Pz III is under-rated by most hobby historians.

 

It was also ahead of MOST French tanks in terms of firepower (even the 37mm-armed Pz IIIs).

 

Except that 50mm gun armed Pz III's were not used in the French campaign. The first 50mm L42 gunned tanks did not enter service until July 1940 which left the Pz III seriously under-gunned against many of the allied tanks.

 

For all the crowing about the T-34 "defining the balance" in a tank, I see no indication that a T-34 was a breakthrough in balance versus a Pz III.

Then you are not looking very hard. The T34 was the first tank to combine the mobility of a medium tank, the protection of a heavy tank and a truly dual-purpose armament in a vehicle that could be produced on a massive scale. Unlike the Pz III at any time during its career the T-34 was virtually immune to all in-service tank and anti-tank guns at the time of its introduction. It had a gun that not only fired a AP round that could defeat any Axis tank at considerable ranges but fired a very useful HE round as well. The Pz III never had a truly effective DP gun - that was why Germany needed both the Pz III and the Pz IV.

 

Clearly, though, the T-34 fell far short of the Pz III in terms of crew efficiency. While many credit the Panzer troops with mysterious qualities of tactical brilliance, and while I don't deny that they were probably the most tactically adept mechanized troops in the world in their time, I think that some portion of the credit must be given to their mounts, which allowed for more tactical coordination by having dedicated TCs and radios in every tank. The Panzers kept this advantage throughout the period in which they scored like a wunderwaffe. The most tactically clever and well-trained crews in the world would still fall short of their potential if the TCs were busy pulling up the floor covering to get at ammo instead of focussing on the coordination of their crews and their units during battle.

 

The combat record of the Pz III proves that a well balanced design can be a useful weapon well beyond its day as a leader in any one aspect of that balance.

 

Your leaving out a hugely critical factor. The Soviet army in being in the summer of 1941 - such as it was after the purges of the 1930's - was virtually wiped out that summer. Fresh conscripts were shoved into T-34's with the paint still wet and thrown into the front practically leaderless against highly experienced combat veterans. By 1943 though the Russian's had gained sufficient military competence to start turning the tables against an often technically superior opponent. This great Pz III battle record you speak of probably has more to do with the complete disarray of Soviet forces in the 1941-42 period than any technical brilliance of the design.

[rmgill]

Thanks for all of the replies. I too think that the hull crew had to get out through the turret on the later models. Funny but nowhere have I read about that being a "death trap" like you read about the small hull hatches on the sherman or the lack of a loader's hatch in the sherman turret.

 

 

Probably because when a Pz III without the hull escape hatches was brewing up, you couldn't see the hull crew fighting to get out. They were just as well dead. On a Sherman you DID see them fighting to squeeze out of the hatches.

 

Of course you then have the valentine which has TWO hatches for the driver to get out of or he can go out the turret with the crew (assuming the basket isn't blocking him.

 

Personally, the hatch arrangements for the Churchill seem optimal for access (enough room to stow a small generator set in the hull forwards of the turret!).

[KingSargent]

Probably because when a Pz III without the hull escape hatches was brewing up, you couldn't see the hull crew fighting to get out. They were just as well dead. On a Sherman you DID see them fighting to squeeze out of the hatches.

How did the bow MG gunner get out of the T-34 vunderpanzer? Oh, I know, he went out the big hole where the turret used to be...

 

Of course you then have the valentine which has TWO hatches for the driver to get out of or he can go out the turret with the crew (assuming the basket isn't blocking him.

Yeah and no way to put his head out for vision and the diesel exhaust blowing right in the hatch... :rolleyes:

 

Personally, the hatch arrangements for the Churchill seem optimal for access (enough room to stow a small generator set in the hull forwards of the turret!).

The M3 Medium had the best, until they welded up the side doors.

There wasn't all that much difference in size between a PzIII and a PzIV. As long as the "mediums" were restricted to the 75/L24, there was really no reason for the PzIV (aside from not enough PZIIIs), the PZIIIN did just fine with the stumpy 75.

 

The PzIII definitely had it all over the French and British tanks in mechanical reliability. The first PzIIIs in the desert had problems with sand in the mechanics, but so did the Brits.

 

Ermmmm, Leo, "The StuG-III was the best vehicle that ever evolved from that design."

The early StuGIII had a 75mm/l24 and no MGs. In what way was it superior to he PzIIIN?

 

I'd also like to know where the T-34 had "the armor of a heavy tank (AKHE?)." 45mm is a heavy tank?

[Gman]

There wasn't all that much difference in size between a PzIII and a PzIV. As long as the "mediums" were restricted to the 75/L24, there was really no reason for the PzIV (aside from not enough PZIIIs), the PZIIIN did just fine with the stumpy 75.

 

The PzIII definitely had it all over the French and British tanks in mechanical reliability. The first PzIIIs in the desert had problems with sand in the mechanics, but so did the Brits.

 

Ermmmm, Leo, "The StuG-III was the best vehicle that ever evolved from that design."

The early StuGIII had a 75mm/l24 and no MGs. In what way was it superior to he PzIIIN?

 

I'd also like to know where the T-34 had "the armor of a heavy tank (AKHE?)." 45mm is a heavy tank?

 

Few problems with this post. Firstly, the initial PzIII's had 37mm, the initial PzIV's had the 75mmL24, it wasn't til 1943 IIRC that the Pz III came out with the short 75mm. Every reason to have both side by side in 1940, actually, when the French had arguably most of the best tanks available, firepower and armour wise.

 

I think you will find if you look carefully enough that the German 37 was clearly inferior to the 2pdr and the French 47, the comparable medium tank guns at this time, also.

 

Leo is I think referring to the later models perhaps with the 75mm L43, the F8 or G model Stug III.

 

And I believe that with the extremely capable slope to the T34's original 45mm armour, it was almost as good as a 1939 or 1940 Heavy tank. Far better if you compare it with the armour of a T28 or T35 which were much heavier but far inferior in armour protection if not thickness.

 

cheers

 

Gman

[Akhe100]

1. Hey, I never said anything about it having armor like a heavy tank, where are you getting that from?

2. The T-34 actually did have much better balance. First off, it had the panzer III beat by a mile in mobility with a speed 6 mph faster (25 vs 31) and had a LUDICROUS range and very very low ground pressure. Also it had significantly better armor being well sloped and the turret armor was significantly superior.

3. The Panzer III was just too small to have any real room for much growth.

4. It DID have the ORIGINAL T-34 beat in crew factors definitily, the original T-34 didn't even have a freaking radio, they used SIGNAL FLAGS! (this was later corrected along with the 2 person turret in the later T-34/85 which also had heavier armor and a bigger gun.

5. The reason the russians did so bad in the beginning of the war was because of 3 reasons.

A. The purges stripped the russian forces of experienced commanders something they were only able to regain later in the war.

B. The Germans outnumbered them (3.2 mil vs 2.6 mil) at first and enlisted the help of finaland and almost all the rest of eastern and central europe.

C. The russians were caught with their pants down not expecting an attack for another year or two.

[KingSargent]

1. Hey, I never said anything about it having armor like a heavy tank, where are you getting that from?

Sorry, that was Fitz. I wasn't sure it was you, which is why I put in the question mark.

[Akhe100]

No harm no foul man. It's cool.

[Meyer]

Soviets also liked the III

 

Nevertheless this plan failed. Moreover, in summer 1940 the clouds were gathering over the T-34. The point is that two Pz-IIIs were bought in Germany and delivered to Kubinka for comparative tests. Soviet documentation does not clarify the exact modification of the Pz-III, in all cases it was named as "German T-III". The results were unfavourable for the Soviet T-34.

 

The T-34 was superior in terms of protection and firepower, but that's all. The Pz-III had a cosy three-man turret with a commander's cupola. Each crewman had an internal communication device at his service. In contrast, the T-34 had a very cramped two-man turret without a commander's cupola. Only the tank commander and the driver had internal communication.

 

The German tank had a very smooth motion and wasn't as noisy as the T-34: moving with maximum speed the Pz-III could be heard from 150-200 metres while the T-34 could be heard from 450-500 metres.

 

Soviet engineers were surprised by Pz-III's maximum speed. It was far superior and could run up to 69.7 km/h whereas the T-34's best result was 48.2 km/h. The BT-7, which was used as a standard model, could run on wheels at only 68.1 km/h. The report of those tests indicates that the Pz-III had better suspension, a high quality of German optics, a handy layout of ammunition and radio, and a reliable engine and transmission.

 

By those results the GABTU issued a summary document for Marshal G.I.Kulik, who affirmed it and ordered production of the T-34 to cease until improvements were made in all revealed defects and drawbacks. Large wrangles occurred. They've were cancelled by the personal meddling of Marshal K.E.Voroshilov: "Tank production must be continued with guaranty race of 1,000 km. Factory must develop a new tank - T-34M with improvements not only in its protection but also in running capabilities, so the new five-speed gearbox should be used."

 

from here

 

PS I would also like to see where the III got slaughtered by T-34 and M4

[KingSargent]

Few problems with this post. Firstly, the initial PzIII's had 37mm, the initial PzIV's had the 75mmL24, it wasn't til 1943 IIRC that the Pz III came out with the short 75mm. Every reason to have both side by side in 1940, actually, when the French had arguably most of the best tanks available, firepower and armour wise.

 

I think you will find if you look carefully enough that the German 37 was clearly inferior to the 2pdr and the French 47, the comparable medium tank guns at this time, also.

 

Leo is I think referring to the later models perhaps with the 75mm L43, the F8 or G model Stug III.

 

And I believe that with the extremely capable slope to the T34's original 45mm armour, it was almost as good as a 1939 or 1940 Heavy tank. Far better if you compare it with the armour of a T28 or T35 which were much heavier but far inferior in armour protection if not thickness.

 

cheers

 

Gman

The pre-war German requirement was for a tank carrying the 75mm/L24 as a support vehicle. The PzIIIN shows that that could have been fulfilled with the PzIII chassis. AIUI most of the 75/L24 fitted to the IIINs came from PzIVs being up-gunned.

 

The French TANK GUNS were not superior to the 37mm/45. The 2800fps MV usually quoted is not for the 47mm/L34 tank gun (which was 2300 fps) but the larger towed 47MM AT gun. As for French 37mm, even the "long" 37mm of the later Hotchkiss and Renault lights was only 33 calibers long.

 

The T-28 was a medium tank in Soviet classification. The T-35 was the only heavy tank standardized prior to the KVs.

[Akhe100]

Soviets also liked the III

from here

 

PS I would also like to see where the III got slaughtered by T-34 and M4

You want an example, look at the late desert campaign? Or look at the fact that the germans stopped making it halfway through the war and took much off the ones that were left and made them into other things like infantry support guns. Also the Panzer III was also beat hands down and a half in manuverability. (look at my above post)

[Meyer]

You want an example, look at the late desert campaign?

I'm looking it.. what about it? Show me the mone.. I mean numbers

[Gman]

The pre-war German requirement was for a tank carrying the 75mm/L24 as a support vehicle. The PzIIIN shows that that could have been fulfilled with the PzIII chassis. AIUI most of the 75/L24 fitted to the IIINs came from PzIVs being up-gunned.

 

The French TANK GUNS were not superior to the 37mm/45. The 2800fps MV usually quoted is not for the 47mm/L34 tank gun (which was 2300 fps) but the larger towed 47MM AT gun. As for French 37mm, even the "long" 37mm of the later Hotchkiss and Renault lights was only 33 calibers long.

 

The T-28 was a medium tank in Soviet classification. The T-35 was the only heavy tank standardized prior to the KVs.

 

I stand corrected on the T-28, sounds bit like the Panther being a medium to the Germans but comparable to everyone else's heavy. Likewise the T-28 was heavier than most people's mediums, thus my error. I suspect that armour quality wise, the T-35 would have been far poorer at keeping out 37mm shells than the T-34

 

Kingsargent, do you have any details on the comparison for the comparative performances of French 47's and German 37's in the Battle for France 1940 ? My understanding is that French 47s (NOT necessarily 37s as you rightly pointed out) and French armour thickness were both far superior to the German 37mm and Pz III and Pz IV's armour thickness at this time.

 

Reference this for an example http://www.tarrif.net/

 

thanks

 

Gman

[Gman]

Oops by superior I do mean in gun performance, I was referring to penetration

 

thanks

 

Gman.

[Sardaukar]

For its time, it was a very well balanced design, particularly when armed with the 50mm gun, either the L42 which was the original design intention, or the up-rated L60.

 

IIRC, original design intention was to arm it with 37 mm... A. Hitler personally ordered that Pz IIIG and later versions should be upgunned to 50 L 60 gun..but along the chain of command, that was changed to 50L42..reason might have been lack of L60s or just an error. 50L60 was capable to deal with T-34 even if not perfect, L42 less so.

 

AchtungPanzer is always good for reference:

 

In October of 1940, Ausf H (7-serie) entered production. It was produced by MAN, Alkett, Henschel, Wegmann, MNH and MIAG until April of 1941 with 308 produced (chassis numbers 66001-66650). Ausf H featured newly designed turret to mount 50mm gun with a single 30mm armor rear plate. Armor protection ranged from 10mm to 30mm but hull front and rear as well as superstructure front had 30mm armor plates bolted on to them increasing the protection. The increase in armor protection in Ausf H neutralized the threat of British 2pdr, Soviet 45mm and American 37mm anti-tank guns.

 

Neutralized..hardly...but it was very hard to kill frontally by those guns that time.

 

Thus, for that time, it was very good tank. And British had problems with Pz III J later, they called it "Pz III Special", 50L60 with similar armour (less density, but better desingn, since bolt on was deemed unsatisfactory).

 

IMHO, Pz III was very good tank indeed.

Edited August 30, 2007 by Sardaukar

[Guest bojan]

...4. It DID have the ORIGINAL T-34 beat in crew factors definitily, the original T-34 didn't even have a freaking radio, they used SIGNAL FLAGS! (this was later corrected along with the 2 person turret in the later T-34/85 which also had heavier armor and a bigger gun...

 

T-34 was supposed to have radio from a begining - it was a fact that shortage of radios made that im posible until 1943. Majority of KVs however had a radio and all later-war tanks (T-34/85, IS series) and SPGs (with SU-76 being exception) had radio.

[Guest bojan]

Couple of points:

 

First tank with dedicated TC/gunner/loader, radio and DP gun was a T-28 model 1938.

Larer models also had 30+50mm frontal and 30+30mm side armor.

 

T-34 armor scheme was planed vs small caliber high velocity AT guns - hence 45mm@60deg sceme.

KVs armor was planed vs large caliber, lower velocity guns - those that you would usualy encounter when attacking fortifications, hence 75mm@30deg on original model.

Saying that T-34 armor was as good as that of heavy tanks is ignoring reality - in practice ZiS-3 gun could penetrate T-34 front hull @300m, while it could not penetrate KVs hull even @ 100m.

Edited August 30, 2007 by bojan

[KingSargent]

IIRC, original design intention was to arm it with 37 mm... A. Hitler personally ordered that Pz IIIG and later versions should be upgunned to 50 L 60 gun..but along the chain of command, that was changed to 50L42..reason might have been lack of L60s or just an error. 50L60 was capable to deal with T-34 even if not perfect, L42 less so.

Very possibly the reason for avoiding the L60 gun was that the barrel was too long. Before WW2 no tank (except WW1 Brit 'rhomboids') had a gun barrel that protruded outside the boundary of the hull, at least with gun forward or aft. Presumably the designers were terrified of banging the gun tube against something. It seems silly to us, but it was a universal design constraint before 1940.