Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them
Sign in to follow this  
Peaveyyyyyyyy

No Pz III?

Recommended Posts

Were there really no Panzer III's at all in the Western Front campaign?

It would make a nice tank to choose against the Stuart in games played under Recon rules.

It's pleasing on the eye as well.

Ah well, I can't imagine it being left out of CMBB, so I'm sure I'll be happier soon.. smile.gif

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Peaveyyyyyyyy ]</p>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By June 1944, the PzIII was extremely rare on any front; its production had long prior been superseded by more powerful tanks and also by assault guns based on the PzIII's chassis. BTS (and a few forum members) detailed the quantity of PzIIIs remaining. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to sift through Search results to find it.

Suffice to say, BTS made a decision that the PzIII didn't factor strongly enough to warrant its inclusion.

DjB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of Panzer Mark III's in service on the western front on June 10th 1944 was around 40 tanks. This compares with 1852 other tanks. That makes 2 percent of all tanks Panzer III's. Not worth the effort if you ask me.

It is interesting to note that most of the Pz III's were in the 11th Panzer XX(26) and the 116th Panzer XX(13).

E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Eric Young:

The number of Panzer Mark III's in service on the western front on June 10th 1944 was around 40 tanks. This compares with 1852 other tanks. That makes 2 percent of all tanks Panzer III's. Not worth the effort if you ask me.

<hr></blockquote>

I understand that BTS had to draw the line somewhere, otherwise the release of the game would have been much later than it actually was - But the Mk III did play a significant roll in some famous battles, notably the fight for Arnhem Bridge.

On the other hand, if the MkIII would have been in CMBO then I'm sure we'd see unrealistic uses of them in quick battles. It would be a cheap armored alternative to a MkIV that still had enough punch to knock out most allied armor. I remember online games in Close Combat where the most popular German Tank was the MkIII because it was cheap, it could kill all allied armor frontally (Churchill excluded), it had a superiour rate of fire, and it could still do a decent amount of damage to infantry. We were all gamey bastards back then tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it.

The late Pz III 50mm is the same as the towed one and on the Puma, all L/60, isn't it?

It does not penetrate the Sherman's turret front regularily. It is somewhat effective against Cromwells. It will do no good against the Churchill's sides.

I'd sure like to have it to have a fast full tank, much like the Stuart is. But I don't see you can do without something else to take on Shermans, on the contrary, with the Stuart you can look forward to meeting Pz IV with the very weak turret. The Pz III would be nice for not being .50cal vulnerable when flanking (as opposed to the Puma), but what would you like to flank? Jumbos? You can dispatch M10s, but that would not a too attractive fight assuming the Pz III would be around 95-100 points and a Puma could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

I don't get it.

The late Pz III 50mm is the same as the towed one and on the Puma, all L/60, isn't it?

It does not penetrate the Sherman's turret front regularily. It is somewhat effective against Cromwells. It will do no good against the Churchill's sides.

<hr></blockquote>

The 50mm sometimes has tungsten which would increase the value of the MkIII a little. But, you're right, it doesn't have much penetrating power especially at mid to long ranges. BUT, what it does have is decent speed and a fast rate of fire. This spells death for any allied tank if the MkIII is used in a flanking role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that the Panzer III that are on strength in the West in 1944 were command tanks, and would not appear in the frontline.

Where in the Ardennes were they so decisive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Pak40:

Why isn't the MkIII in CMBO when the Lynx is? Were there that many Lynxs used in 44-45? Anyone have any figures?<hr></blockquote>

About 100 were built.

However, the Luchs is a design of that time, it was built for its role in that timeframe. The Pz III is an obsolete piece only pressed into service due to lack of better AFVs, and even then frontline usage is questionable. They didn't waste crews in a thin MBT, while a crew in a recon AFV is not wasted, even if those vehicle is thin.

Not that recon works particulary well in CMBO...

BTW, I repeat my question, what do you want to flank? For the Allies, there are Tigers and Panthers to flank, which cost 180-200 points and have slow turrets. Flanking a Churchill is very difficult due to the fast turret. Shermans are cheap enough to be in pairs, which make flanking additionally difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Pak40:

The 50mm sometimes has tungsten which would increase the value of the MkIII a little. But, you're right, it doesn't have much penetrating power especially at mid to long ranges. BUT, what it does have is decent speed and a fast rate of fire. This spells death for any allied tank if the MkIII is used in a flanking role.<hr></blockquote>

As an interesting side note the 50mm high performance ammunition (PzGr 40) was notorious for case expansion. After the round was fired the empty shell case would stick in the chamber.

Cross your fingers and fire smile.gif

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

About 100 were built.

However, the Luchs is a design of that time, it was built for its role in that timeframe.<hr></blockquote>

I know there were very few Pumas built (~50 IIRC). For scale, how many of the more common German ACs were built?

--Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas:

I always thought that the Panzer III that are on strength in the West in 1944 were command tanks, and would not appear in the frontline.

Where in the Ardennes were they so decisive?<hr></blockquote>

i agree, i remembver reading that as well. the panzer III's late in the war were used as command tanks, not for front line fighting. i also do not envision many lynx spear heads on the western front as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas:

I always thought that the Panzer III that are on strength in the West in 1944 were command tanks, and would not appear in the frontline.

Where in the Ardennes were they so decisive?<hr></blockquote>

According to one source I've recently recieved, Andreas, there were about 500 Mk.III's on strength for the entire German Army in January 1945. These were Ausf M/N's not specialised vehicles (the source lists Flammpanzer III's seperately), as far as I can tell. 500 spread across two major fronts, one secondary one (Italy) and several other regions (ie Norway, Balkans, etc) isn't very many IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mattias:

As an interesting side note the 50mm high performance ammunition (PzGr 40) was notorious for case expansion. After the round was fired the empty shell case would stick in the chamber.

Cross your fingers and fire smile.gif

M.<hr></blockquote>

lol

I hope we can have this kind of fun in CMBB ;)

...maybe it is too particular, but the "jamming" probability could go up... if there is "jamming" for guns in CMBB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

According to one source I've recently recieved, Andreas, there were about 500 Mk.III's on strength for the entire German Army in January 1945. These were Ausf M/N's not specialised vehicles (the source lists Flammpanzer III's seperately), as far as I can tell. 500 spread across two major fronts, one secondary one (Italy) and several other regions (ie Norway, Balkans, etc) isn't very many IMO.<hr></blockquote>

Yep, although by German standards that is a huge number smile.gif The N version is the one with the 75L24 howitzer, IIRC.

According to Lexikon der Wehrmacht, in March 1945 there were 16 Panzer III in the East, 58 in Italy, and 90 in Denmark/Norway. A further 105 with training units and 328 with the Ersatzheer (territorials, I think). Which comes close to your number of 500, if you exclude the training versions.

The final significant production run of 50L60 equipped Panzer III was 1942 (1,907 units), in 1943/4 only 75L24, Flammpanzer, Bergepanzer, and the OP version was produced, with none produced in 1945. Which makes sense, since the Panzer III chassis was used for the Stug III, which was altogether a more desirable weapon on the late-war battlefields. At some point 435 command tanks based on the Panzer III were produced.

BTW - it looks to me as if most of the surviving 50L60 Panzer III were turned into 75L24 (450 out of 650 L version, and 215 out of a to me unknown number of M versions). A lot of repaired tanks were turned in unarmed Bergepanzer, Engineer, Bridging, and munition carrier versions too, i.e. not just repaired and sent out again with the marvel weapon that is the 50L60. :D

All numbers from LdW, therefore handle with care. Based on this, I agree with you Brian that it is not very significant, and I somehow fail to see how a horde of 75L24 equipped Panzer III could be decisive in the Ardennes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas:

The final significant production run of 50L60 equipped Panzer III was 1942 (1,907 units), in 1943/4 only 75L24, Flammpanzer, Bergepanzer, and the OP version was produced, with none produced in 1945. Which makes sense, since the Panzer III chassis was used for the Stug III, which was altogether a more desirable weapon on the late-war battlefields.<hr></blockquote>

Mk.III components were also utilised in several other chassis, most notably the Nashorn/Hummel (usually referred to as a Panzer III/IV chassis), Andreas. While production of hulls/turrets had ceased, other pieces of equipment continued, well into 1944 by my understanding. It was also most unusual by normal German standards, as they were notorious in not producing sufficient spare parts for their vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

Mk.III components were also utilised in several other chassis, most notably the Nashorn/Hummel (usually referred to as a Panzer III/IV chassis), Andreas. While production of hulls/turrets had ceased, other pieces of equipment continued, well into 1944 by my understanding. It was also most unusual by normal German standards, as they were notorious in not producing sufficient spare parts for their vehicles.<hr></blockquote>

Learn something new every day - I always thought the Nashorn/Hummel was exclusively Panzer IV. I am not too surprised about the spare parts though, since production of the Stug III on the chassis continued right to the end in very high numbers, I believe, so the assembly lines were probably never fully retooled from 1937/8 (or whenever they started churning them out) to 1945.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

Alas, we must wait until CM Desert War and/or

CM The Early Years.

50L60 Toad<hr></blockquote>

No, they should be in CMBB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One interesting thing, is how the Panzer III equipped with the long 50 mm gun (50L60), was successful and famous with the DAK. On the other end, it was somehow unsuccessful and infamous in the Eastern front, where the 75L48 of the Panzer IV did better.

This can suggest that the 50L60 had too much work with the sloped armor of the T-34 and not with the typical more vertical USA/UK armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can suggest it? I thought every historian already pretty much agreed on that it was fact.

I beleive it may have been suggested in 1941, thought about and mulled over then agreed upon years ago.

I've done some reading that suggests that the world is not flat, but infact a sphere. tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×