Talk:Panzer III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Panzer III article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

Contents 1 Armor 2 Comparison to Somua S35 3 Lead Photo caption 4 Gun performance 5 Armour Thickness of Panzer III Ausf L 6 Ammunition Capacity 7 Panzer III vs Soviet tanks 8 Speed 9 'Formidable' Tank? 10 SU76i 11 Norway

[edit] Armor

This edit, "The unusually heavy rear armor of the Panzer III meant that it could engage enemy tanks while either advancing or retreating, whereas most tanks had to be careful while maneuvering to keep their thin rear armor away from the enemy." is a bit of a spin, isn't it?

There were a few early-WW2 tanks such as the T-50 and KV that also had quite heavy armor on the sides or rear. By mid-war it was evident that putting heavy armor at less-vulnerable points such as the rear was a design disadvantage. It added weight disproportionate to the benefit. The trend in later-war designs was to putting lots of armor in the frontal quadrant and much less in the sides or rear.

This lesson was not lost on the Germans either, as evidenced by, say, the Panther with very strong frontal armor but weak sides - a T-34-85 actually has a penetration advantage on side hits against a Panther's thin side armor.

So, it's tough to sustain that paragraph as written, isn't it? DMorpheus 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison to Somua S35

I dare say the claim that it 'outclassed' S-35 is a tad ridiculous, too. Afterall, the S-35 only had 25mm more armor, a better gun and equavelent mobility... Chin, Cheng-chuan

The S-35 had a one-man turret. With the same guy taking the roles of commander, gunner, and loader, there's no way the tank could be used effectively. A bigger gun and thicker armor don't mean anything if the commander is too busy reaching for ammunition to realize he's just been outflanked by a Panzer III. --Carnildo 22:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, even though the S-35's gun was excellent, the Pzkw-III's 37mm or 50mm was sufficient and thus the 3-man turret crew would probably give it a decisive advantage. This is a great illustration of the difference between paper quality and real-world figthability. If the S-35 (or any French tank) had really been in the same class the Germans probably would have required the French to keep building it. DMorpheus 00:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, being outflanked by a PzKpfw III wasn't a very serious thing for a S 35 as it had about the same armour thickness all around. Certainly it would be unwise to claim that the S 35s were hopelessly outclassed by the PzKpfw IIIs, as there are simply no exact data supporting this. The types really only seriously met in battle during the engagement near Hannut when neither side seems to have had a clear advantage.--MWAK 18:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The S-35 rarely engaged Panzer III under tactical conditions that it could win. If my memory serves, the bulk of the units that possessed the Suomi tank were cut off at Belgium. The ones that were actually committed against German spearheads were too little, too late. The Germans were able to prevail over the S-35 with overwhemling numbers and firepower, inspite of its very good characteristics. BTW there is no evidence that 50mm Panzer III's ever fired a shot in anger in France. I am sorry for being untimely in my response.-Chin, Cheng-chuan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.239.222.84 (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Lead Photo caption

We have a bit of back-and-forthing going on the lead photo caption. Although this has been labeled an ausf J for a long time, I believe it is in fact an ausf L, since it has no side vision blocks on the turret. Wasn't that a distinguishing feature between the late J and the L ? DMorpheus 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right. I actually have a book with the same tank (different angle on photo taken) and it says its an ausf L.--chubbychicken 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. I've never learned the details of recognizing different variants. --Carnildo 02:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, then I don't quite understand why you reverted the caption change? DMorpheus 02:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the other edits at the same time contradicted the sources I was working with. If I see three unsourced edits, two of which contradict a source I've got, and I don't have any information one way or the other on the third, I'll assume it's also wrong. --Carnildo 03:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun performance

Bovington's "Fire and Movement" gives the following figures for the L/60 50mm gun: APC: 61mm at 500 yards; 50mm at 1000 yards APCR: 86mm at 500 yards; 55mm at 1000 yards

Ellis, "WW2 Databook" 1993, gives the same figures.

With the early-war T-34s having 52mm of turret armor and 45mm of hull front armor, penetration from 600 meters does not seem impossible DMorpheus 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that taking armor slope into account? The T-34 was famous for using sloped armor, after all. --Carnildo 18:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this helps more [1] It gives values for different armor angles. AFAIK the sloped armor was effective like 80-85 mm vertical armor. It looks the other sources cited mistakenly used yards instead of meters.--Denniss 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Two things: one, most gun tests, including the ones I cited, are fired against test plate sloped at 30 degrees from the vertical. The T-34 glacis is sloped at a better angle than 30 degrees, of course. The turret front, being curved, is in effect sloped at many angles, including slopes less than 30 degrees.

Second, the sources do not "mistakenly" use yards, they deliberately used yards. They are British sources and the ranges are not metric. I wish they were but I did not want to misquote them. DMorpheus 21:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Was there not some confusion with angled shots, the germans using 30 degree from the horizontal instead of the vertical (or am I confused now)? I have a small copy of a 5cm Pak 38 report by the british war office, december 1942. It gives a homogeneous armour penetration of 78, 73, 67, 63 for "normal" and 65, 61, 56, 52 for 30 degree shots with Panzergranate 38 (AP shell, not the tungsten core AP40) at 500/700/1000/1200 yards. --Denniss 16:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Generally, from what I have read the Germans measured in degrees from horizontal and everyone else measured degrees from vertical. There are tons of sources on gun/ammo penetration and its good to use more than one, although they tend to converge around roughly the same figures. DMorpheus 12:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The German field manual I have read says 50mm shorty gunner should not engage T-34A(M40?)at ranges longer than 200 meters. The long one should be able to penetrate T-34's frontal armor at reasonable ranges, though even Pz IIIL/Ms were still highly vulnerable to 76.2 guns on T-34.-Chin, Cheng-chuan

[edit] Armour Thickness of Panzer III Ausf L

I still reckon that the armour thickness for the Panzer III Ausf L should be 57mm+20mm plates. The reason i say it is 57mm is because a book i have called "The Illustrated Guide To Tanks of The World" by George Forty clearly states that info. --chubbychicken 07:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

World War II Vehicles cites "Panzer Truppen: The Complete Guide to the Creation and Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force 1933-1942" by Thomas L. Jentz and "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two" by Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle as giving an armor thickness of 50mm for the lower hull front, 50+20mm for the upper hull front, and 50+20mm for the turret mantlet. "Panzer Truppen" gives a thickness of 50+20mm for the turret front, while "Encyclopedia of German Tanks" gives a thickness of 57mm with no added armor for the turret front. Since the thickest armor is the 50+20mm of the upper front hull, that's the number that should be in the infobox. --Carnildo 19:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue against Jentz. DMorpheus 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

o.k. thanks. I was just a bit confused.--chubbychicken 06:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

B. Perrett's Panzerkampfwagon III describes Ausf. L as the following: "The Ausf. J began reaching regiments at the end of 1941, by which time it was already apparent that a 50mm armor base was inadequate. In order to minimize the weight increase inevitable with teh addition of further applique armor, it was decided to employ a spaced armor system, 20mm plates being mounted slightly ahead of the front plate and mantlet... this version was known as Ausf. L"-Chin, Cheng-chuan

[edit] Ammunition Capacity

How many rounds of ammunition for the main armament could the Panzer III carry?--chubbychicken 06:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

~120x 37 mm, 99x 50 mm (short cannon), 78x 50 mm (long cannon), 64x 75 mm, at least this is the info from the de wiki. --Denniss 09:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!--chubbychicken 11:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panzer III vs Soviet tanks

What was the maximum range in which the KwK39 L/60 of Panzer III (Ausf J,L and M)'s could pierce the armour of the T-34 and KV-1? And at what ranges could the armour of Panzer III (ausf J,L,M and N) withstand against the Russian 76.2mm guns? chubbychicken 00:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You can look this up via google as easily as any of the rest of us, my friend. DMorpheus 02:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Under 500 meters according Steven Zologa. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

[edit] Speed

I read in the Achtung Panzer website that the Panzer III when compared with a T-34, could reach the speed of 69km/h. How does that work if the Panzer III's speed is only 40km/h?chubbychicken 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Proably the widly reported 40 km/h is somewhat incorrect, you'll find this value for older and later Panzer III as well as Stug III and Panzer IV. But their weight increased from little below 20 t to somewhat above 23 t. Hard to believe if this tank was able to run 40 km/h with 23t it was not able to be faster with less weight. Maybe some kind of limitation to prevent track damage or the vhicle sold to the USSR did not have full combat weight.--Denniss 14:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Formidable' Tank?

I don't see the uparmored Panzer III even with the long 50mm gun as "formidable" tank or an effective response to the T-34-76. The more optimistic estimates of the long 50mm gun's penetration is that it is capable of penetrating the T-34 frontally at a distance of 500 meters at what I believe to be the turret. That's not any better than T-34-85's against the Panther tank. And the Panzer III was by no means numerically superior. -Chin, Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.202.30 (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SU76i

The quoted figure of 1,200 captured Pnz III's being converted ito a crude but serviceable SPG by the Russians seems rather high. To begin with, if you go through the article and count up the numbers of Pnz III's available to the Germans in 1942, you get just over 1900. (of which some were deployed in North Africa and occupied countries). It just doesn't seem plausible that two-thirds of this number were captured. And that they were captured in good enough condition to be re-used against their former owners - things get damaged or destroyed in war, so where are the wrecks?

Other sources point to a more reasonable figure of 250-300 Pnz III tanks captured by the Russians by February 1943, with fifty or so sacrificed as a reserve of parts to keep the rest running, fifty used by specialist "captured tank companies" as standard gun tanks, and no more than 200 sent for conversion to the SU 76i. THe 76i was only ever meant as an interim stopgap until the SU85 and JSU assault guns were on stream later in 1943 - the first purpose-built Soviet SPG's saw action at the battle of Kursk in July, and the first SU76i's left the factories in Jan-Feb of that year. Production of the SU-76i ceased in November 1943 after no more than 200 were built.

(Incidentally, doesn't this mean the USSR was also a user of Pnz III's?) Cheers, Paul C, England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.77.245 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the 1,200 number has to be much too high for the SU-76i. For one thing, there is perhaps *one* photo available of the type in service. There are plenty showing the vehicle in trials or at the factory. For a vehicle produced in those numbers you'd expect to find more photos. It is quite easy to find dozens of photos of each type of Lend-Lease tank, for example, and the Stalin regime had an interest in airbrushing their existence away. So why no SU-76i photos? The trouble of course is to find another published estimate, since the 1,200 estimate - however odd it appears to us - has been published.

BTW there were no ISUs built in 1943 - they came a bit later - and the Red Army had purpose-built SPGs in the 1930s. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We should take a look at our "friends" at battlefield.ru - they mention 181 SU-76i plus 20 command vehicles. All of them were converted in Factory #37 in Sverdlovsk with the last converted in 11/43. There was no reason to build/convert more of them as the problems with the SU-76 were ironed out and the SU-76 was buildable in much higher numbers and way cheaper than the SU-76i (not to forget lack of spare parts). --Denniss (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norway

Isn't it a bit wrong to say that Norway used this tank when they were in fact occupied by Nazi Germany? cKaL (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Norway used Panzer III after World War II for a short period and these vehicles were taken from german units stationed in Norway at the time of the surrender. The norwegian designation was" Stridsvogn KW-III". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barild (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)