side armour or pz 4 penetrated by 37 mm.

[fatehunter]

Hello you grognards out there.

I recently had an encounter between a US M8 armoured car and a pz 4 (first scenario KG Engel). The M8 got three shots off with its 37 mm M3 gun into the side of the pz 4. The angle of the shots, measured from a straight on side shot, was at about 30 degrees for the first shot, increasing to about 60 degrees for the last one as the pz 4 turned towards the m8. Interestingly all 3 shots penetrated but caused no lasting damage. The encounter ended with the pz 4 taking out the m8.

I don't have any concerns around the reality of this situation, more I was just very surprized that the side armour of the pz 4 was that weak. I would love for some observations from any of you more informed persons than me about the pz 4. How weak was the side armour really?

I am starting to find that the pz 4 cannot handle any real shots, and consequently I play them very carefully, treating them like a glass knife.

I

[GLynn41]

it was really about that weak -- around 30 mm-- so 2# er or 37 and up will go through- --it was called the mess kit tank-while the smaller rounds would go through they did not always damage a lot----- parts of the front had up to 80mm but turret was 50mm -so becareful with them but they do have a decent gun in the L48

[John Kettler]

fatehunter,

Pretty thin, as seen here in this wartime intel bulletin.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/armor-german-tanks.html

That said, most tanks have thin side and rear armor--relative to the front! You may also wish to bear in mind the 37mm is firing AP shot, not APHE shell, so if there's nothing critical in the shotline path, the Panzer IV will still be in the fight. It may be dinged up some, but, as you found, it can still kill you. That's why elsewhere (CMFI Forum?) there's a discussion about how the Stuart's gun was so flat shooting and accurate it allowed for aiming at specific vulnerable points on the enemy tank, rather than center of mass. This was taken from a veteran's direct experience.

Regards,

John Kettler

[DasMorbo]

The side armour of the PzIV was thin enough to be penetrated by russian PTRD Abti-Tank Rifles up to 1943. It did increase but not that much.

From PzIV Ausfuehrung (Version)G to Ausfuerung J the frontal armour was 80mm strong. Before this, it was even less. The linked diagram shows either a Ausfuehrung F or early G who are not presented in CMBN. Still the versions in the game doesn't withstand a Sherman 75mm hit reliably so play them clever.

My experience is, as long as they get the first shot, PzIVs regularly win a duel.

Regards,

Olf

[Faelwolf]

Been a while since I read up on this stuff, but wasn't this due to the blitzkreig tactic they were designed for back in the 30's?

IIRC the Pz III and IV were designed more with fast mobile infantry support in mind rather than to go up against other tanks. So they were given enough armor to withstand what a typical infantry unit could throw at them at that time with the idea that the infantry they were supporting would be protecting their flanks and doing the bulk of the work. Air strikes on the leading edge of the attack would (in theory) have taken out hard targets ahead of time that would pose the most threat to the armor.

It worked prety well in Poland and France, but later tanks show the evolution of the war as Germany ran into heavy armor, improved AT weapons, and the loss of air superiority, such as the Stuka no longer being a viable asset.

At least this is my understanding of it.

[c3k]

Yeah, and look at the AT weapons in vogue in the mid to late thirties. 20mm was "normal" and 37mm was "hot stuff". (Long barreled.) Support weapons, stubby barrels, were larger, but not much. The 75mm of the PzIV was the cat's meow. So, it was expected to FACE, at most, 37mm ATG's.

The chassis could only take so much more weight. As they uparmored the PzIV, priorities had to be assigned. The sides and rear were very vulnerable by late 44.

[Seedorf81]

Any serious war skyrockets weapon-tech development, so it isn't unlikely that the things we currently perceive as top-notch (Abrams + T90, RPG's, MLRS, and what not) will be as fast obsolete in a future war as the fore mentioned weapons (20mm, 37mm and AT-rifles) in WW2.

Personally I believe that rifles are a rather archaic way of killing each other, so I expect some surprising developments in that field when a big war erupts.

[womble]

Personally I believe that rifles are a rather archaic way of killing each other, so I expect some surprising developments in that field when a big war erupts.

Archaic, but efficient ways of imparting energy to a target. I think we're pretty close to the "pinnacle" of chemically-powered small arms design, and anything that succeeds in replacing them will be thoroughly revolutionary, by definition.

[Michael Emrys]

...it was expected to FACE, at most, 37mm ATG's.

The British 2 pdr was 40 mm and there were a few 47 mm ATGs around too. But basically you are right. For instance, the ATG that the French thought was pretty hot was only 25 mm and they didn't have enough of those to go around because they hadn't been in production long enough.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Any serious war skyrockets weapon-tech development, so it isn't unlikely that the things we currently perceive as top-notch (Abrams + T90, RPG's, MLRS, and what not) will be as fast obsolete in a future war as the fore mentioned weapons (20mm, 37mm and AT-rifles) in WW2.

But that assumes the war will last long enough to go all the way through the design-testing-debugging-production cycle. There is a reason why NATO was calling a possible outbreak of hostilities with the WARPAC as "the come as you are war". Of course, not all wars are like that one. Wars between Third World nations (or factions within nations) have sometimes dragged on for years, witness the Iran-Iraq war of the '80s. But wars in which First World countries are involved tend for the most part to be over with before a lot of technological development can occur. The only exceptions that come readily to my mind are the US in Southeast Asia and the USSR in Afghanistan (well, anybody in Afghanistan).

Michael

[Faelwolf]

For modern, first-world warfare, it's not what you will develop, but what you already have developed, that no one knows about

[Duckman]

Things were indeed moving quickly in the 1930s. The T-26, for example, was king of the battlefield in Spain and Mongolia but obsolete just a few years after.

Given the pace of development there was bound to be mismatches and failed projects; things like the failure to upgun the Sherman in time and the Panther's reliability problems should also be seen in that context.

[John Kettler]

The Panzer IV was designed as a fire support tank for the lighter Panzers. That's why it has the gun it has, rather than a high velocity cannon (Panzers II and III) or MG armament (Panzer I). It became a proper standard tank when the Panzer III reached the limit of its upgunning and in direct response to the T-34 threat.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Seedorf81]

But that assumes the war will last long enough to go all the way through the design-testing-debugging-production cycle. There is a reason why NATO was calling a possible outbreak of hostilities with the WARPAC as "the come as you are war". Of course, not all wars are like that one. Wars between Third World nations (or factions within nations) have sometimes dragged on for years, witness the Iran-Iraq war of the '80s. But wars in which First World countries are involved tend for the most part to be over with before a lot of technological development can occur. The only exceptions that come readily to my mind are the US in Southeast Asia and the USSR in Afghanistan (well, anybody in Afghanistan).

Michael

Well, I mean a real biggie of a war. US in Vietnam and USSR in Afghanistan were not real big wars in the sense of "total" war for which the entire nation is called upon. Those two wars were never meant to be that big a commitment; both US and USSR got suckered in bit by bit. Neither existence as a nation was at risk, so no "fight for life" needed and no all out efforts to survive.

Vietnam nor Afghanistan had any real potential for big technological research, be it for political, financial and/or technical-infrastructural reasons.

And WARPAC against NATO never took place, so it remains an ever-unanswered question if NATO's assessment "come as you are" would be right. It's possible that such a war could be over in weeks, but it is also possible that it would have become a stalemate-y thing that lasted for years.

If all of the Islamic fanatics would team up and fight "The corrupted decadent west" that could be a big one. Or China vs. US, Russia vs. US, Russia vs. China, Ukraine vs. Russia or India vs. anyone for instance. Not yet, but in ten to twenty years time.

Hopefully we don't get no great wars no more, but looking back at mankind's history doesn't give me the feel that "universal peace" is near.

Unfortunately..

[Duckman]

Vietnam nor Afghanistan had any real potential for big technological research, be it for political, financial and/or technical-infrastructural reasons.

The development of laser-guided bombs was a direct effect of Vietnam. They were used very successfully in 1972, as were helicopter-launched TOWs for the first time.

[Michael Emrys]

And WARPAC against NATO never took place, so it remains an ever-unanswered question if NATO's assessment "come as you are" would be right. It's possible that such a war could be over in weeks, but it is also possible that it would have become a stalemate-y thing that lasted for years.

NATO's assessment was based on the firmly stated policy that if any member nation's existence or independence was threatened by military aggression, the war would quickly escalate to a nuclear exchange. And keeping in mind that it was estimated that NATO forces would likely shoot off the bulk of conventional munitions in three days to a week at most, a lot of those countries would be very threatened indeed.

Of course, it might not have unfolded that way at all. But it's hard to get a clear idea of how else it might have unfolded. Would WARPAC forces have crossed the borders, penetrated twenty miles and announced, "That's it, we won't go any farther." I don't think so and the war plans that years later leaked out didn't indicate that they were planning anything remotely like that. If war had broken out between the two blocs, it looks like it would have been a fight to the death and that point would have been reached within days if not hours.

Which is why both sides were very careful not to provoke WW III.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

The development of laser-guided bombs was a direct effect of Vietnam. They were used very successfully in 1972, as were helicopter-launched TOWs for the first time.

Along with anti-radiation (radar) missiles and a whole host ECM tools. And though they were not operational during Vietnam war, a whole generation of aircraft were designed to specifications arrived at as a result of combat in Southeast Asia. There were also some aircraft that were developed and put into operational use during the war, such as the AC-130.

Michael

[Andrew H.]

Any serious war skyrockets weapon-tech development, so it isn't unlikely that the things we currently perceive as top-notch (Abrams + T90, RPG's, MLRS, and what not) will be as fast obsolete in a future war as the fore mentioned weapons (20mm, 37mm and AT-rifles) in WW2.

Personally I believe that rifles are a rather archaic way of killing each other, so I expect some surprising developments in that field when a big war erupts.

I think that this is not *at all* true as a general rule. It was true in WWII to some extent, in some areas, although I can't really think of any other war in which this has applied.

I also think that it's worth pointing out that a lot of what appears to be weapons tech in WWII wasn't really - the Germans started the war in '39 with Pz IIIs and Pz IVs, and ended the war with Pz IVs and StuG IIIs. A lot of the German developments in tank tech were just seeing how much armor and how large a gun you could stick on a preexisting chassis. The most revolutionary tank in WWII was probably the T-34, but it was a pre-war design and its improvement over its predecessors (BT series and T-26's) is as large or larger as any increase that happened during the war.

Radar was improved; aircraft improved somewhat; ships stayed basically the same, small arms stayed basically the same (the StG was an incremental change). Bazookas were developed, which was significant, as were recoilless rifles, which weren't.

The V-2 and the atomic bomb were probably the most significant developments.

[JonS]

I think that this is not *at all* true as a general rule. It was true in WWII to some extent, in some areas, although I can't really think of any other war in which this has applied.

... apart from every war, ever.

Radar was improved;

If by "improved" you mean miniturasied, ruggedised, mobilised, accurised, and by 1945 routinely used is a vast array of applications which hadn't even been imagined in 1939.

aircraft improved somewhat;

Well, planes still flew through the air, but otherwise they were flying far higher, far faster, far further, and carrying far more. They were also being used in ways and in quantities previously unimagined, and using weapons that hadn't even been thought of.

ships stayed basically the same,

Yep, they still floated. Although they were vastly more automated than before, and using processes, materials, and technology that hadn't existed. The vast panopaly of amphibious ships pretty much came out of nowhere.

small arms stayed basically the same

But the tactics of using them wasn't.

The V-2 and the atomic bomb were probably the most significant developments.

Operational research. Computing. Medicines and medical care. Off-road vehicles. Submarines. Guided weapons. Networked systems. Proximity fuses. Logistics. International finance. Communications. IFF. ECM. etc.

The word technology refers to the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a preexisting solution to a problem, achieve a goal, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a specific function.

[LukeFF]

aircraft improved somewhat

The Me 262 and the Ar 234 (when they could get into the sky) were hardly minor improvements over their predecessors.

(the StG was an incremental change)

...aside from the fact that it paved the way for a whole new class of firearms that were adopted the world over, sure.

[Michael Emrys]

The evolution of combat aircraft during WW II was phenomenal. The top speed of first line fighter aircraft more or less doubled. This was mostly due to huge increases in the horsepower of aircraft engines. This also allowed single engined fighters to carry a bomb load greater than that carried by twin engined light bombers at the beginning of the war. Even though only about five years separated their design, the technology embodied in the B-29 was a quantum leap from that of the B-17. Helicopters appeared and were used operationally.

So in this one area alone, there were huge technological leaps. Then there were electronic computers...

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I think that this is not *at all* true as a general rule. It was true in WWII to some extent, in some areas, although I can't really think of any other war in which this has applied.

How about the use of railroads in the American Civil War? Or repeating rifles in the Franco-Prussian War? Or the introduction of motorized vehicles in World War I, most especially tanks? Or the airplane in that same war? Or poisoned gas?

And that's just on the land. Also in WW I the navies were transitioning from coal to oil as a fuel.

In short, for any war that lasts long enough, there will be greatly accelerated technological evolution as each side struggles to gain any advantage whatsoever over its opponents.

Michael

[Seedorf81]

The development of laser-guided bombs was a direct effect of Vietnam. They were used very successfully in 1972, as were helicopter-launched TOWs for the first time.

Yes, I agree. M16 is another example for USA, but in the quote that you based your reply on, I meant that the countries Vietnam and Afghanistan (not the conflicts named after 'm) didn't have the political, financial and/or infrastructural possibilities for big weapon-developments, even though they were fighting for their existence (more or less).

[Seedorf81]

How about the use of railroads in the American Civil War? Or repeating rifles in the Franco-Prussian War? Or the introduction of motorized vehicles in World War I, most especially tanks? Or the airplane in that same war? Or poisoned gas?

And that's just on the land. Also in WW I the navies were transitioning from coal to oil as a fuel.

In short, for any war that lasts long enough, there will be greatly accelerated technological evolution as each side struggles to gain any advantage whatsoever over its opponents.

Michael

And I even think that code-breaking and medical care, espionage (OSS and SOE) and even war-production and logistical methods (Higgins boats, Victory ships, Dukws, Red BAll express etc.) could be categorized as forms of revolutionized WW2 weapons-technology.

And look how bombing changed! I bet the list is even longer.

[JasonC]

"repeating rifles in the Franco-Prussian War?"

Actually, neither side used repeating rifles to any great extent in that war. The French standard issue Chassepot was a long bolt action breech loading rifle of recent design, and outranged the standard German Dreyse "needle gun", also a muzzle loading one shot breechloader that was 25 years old by the time of that war. The Prussians had led the way in adopting breechloaders, but the French had more than caught up and their rifles were superior to the Prussian model in every respect.

The place the Germans did have a technical edge in that war was in their artillery arm. The French were still using bronze muzzle loading rifled guns for their artillery arm, much like US civil war pieces, but the Germans were already fielding steel breechloaders of the pattern recognizable in all modern field pieces. Which gave them much higher rate of fire, range, etc.

But neither side actually fielded any significant military innovations made during the war. The innovations were developments of the previous peacetime period, being used in action for the first time in some cases, but that is all.

The pattern of tech moving fast enough to matter during a war in progress is actually quite recent, and WW I is pretty much the first in which it figured. (And even there, it mostly kept pace in the different combatants, making some difference when first fielded but little after the other side copied each innovation. The only real exception to that is tanks, which Germany did not match, and they mattered for the very last period of the war).

From the 30 years war until the battle of Waterloo, changes in arms were very small. The British adopted the "Brown Bess" musket in 1722 for the wars against Louis XIV for example, and were still using them at Waterloo 100 years later. It was actually standard issue for 126 years. And the immediate preceding models, though less standardized, were not appreciably different - marginally so, sure, but that is all. The same was true of the artillery, pretty much, which did get lighter and got better prepared canister ammunition, but in the field operated in pretty much the same manner from the time of Gustavus Adolphus until Waterloo.

Tactical innovations mattered as much as technical ones or changes in equipment for most of that period, and for much of the longer term past before it. There were certainly multiple military revolutions related to both equipment and tactics, but on century long time scales, not within individual wars.

It is applied science and industrial economies (to deliver in quantity what science can come up with) that are responsible for the change, and it is quite recent.