Fission Mailed

[Aured]

So, after meticulously planning an uphill attack, the Americans abruptly cancelled my well-executed plan by sending in a platoon of Shermans. My pre-placed PzIII's, which I thought had a 8/10 chance of annihilating the Shermans, might as well have been equipped with nerf guns. All shells fired were deflected majestically up into the sky, and Adolf's PzIII's were scrap iron in two minutes flat. My plan was in about the same kind of state after the Shermans introduced themselves to my infantry.

Would PzIVs have fared better? I thought the PzIII was designed to be the anti-tank tank.

[Sublime]

Designed initially in early war/pre-war for AT use. The Pz IV's also initially had a short 75 which was fine for infantry support but near useless against tanks. The problems didn't become apparent until the Ost Front, when against T34s and KV1s the 50mm ATGs had a difficult time. By 1942 limited numbers of Pz IV F-2s with a long 75mm gun (an excellent one by the way) appeared, and were a huge success. This led to the G series of PZ IV's and so on - though of course at the same time plans were also being made and introduced for the Tiger I heavy tank and Panther tanks. By 43-44 Pz III's were hopelessly obsolete for an AT role. Pz IV later models with the long 75 are about the German equivalent of the Sherman. Pz III's with the long 50mm are the best AT version of that tank, and thats still hopeless against a Sherman's front. The Pz IV's long 75 will kill Shermans from the front reliably, though in game and especially under 1000 meters Shermans seem to have a slight edge. Also note the Pz IV H is perhaps the best model - the J late war models have a slower (hand cranked) turret, among other things....

Also always keep in mind that armor penetration calculations need to factor in ANGLE as well. This is why the T34s famous sloped armor is famous - shells striking at an angle can either make the armor more effective, or conversely lessen the effect of armor. (all depending on where its hitting and from what angle it was fired from, and endless other things)

[agusto]

Would PzIVs have fared better?

Probably, yes.

I thought the PzIII was designed to be the anti-tank tank.

An inaccurate but useful method to roughly estimate you vehicles AT effectiveness is to compare the lenght & size of their gun barrels with those of the enemy tanks. The longer the gun, the bigger the calibre, the larger is the amount of kinetic energy of the projectile and accordingly the penetration power. However because kinetic energy is calculated by E=mv²*(1/2), the speed of the projectile is more important than its mass. A longer barrel usually means a higher muzzle velocity.

(Weapons that fire HEAT ammo are an excepion to the rule)

So, if you want to outgun an enemy armourd force, the rule of the thumb is choose tanks that either have a longer gun than the enemys or wich have a longer gun & and a larger calibre than those of your foe. A larger calibre but a significantly shorter barrel would usually be a bad choice.

If you match 57 mm Pz-IIIs vs. 75mm Shermans wich both have roughly equally long barrels, the Pz. IIIs are outgunned by the Shermans.

[Sublime]

If you match 57 mm Pz-IIIs vs. 75mm Shermans wich both have roughly equally long barrels, the Pz. IIIs are outgunned by the Shermans.

*ahem* you meant 50mm of course

[agusto]

Yeah, thanks

[YankeeDog]

The Pz III was a pretty good "anti-tank tank" in 1939, but was quickly surpassed by more advanced designs as the war progressed. The chassis and turret ring were too small to accept a main gun larger than the 50mm/L60. Once PzIIIs started facing T-34s on the East Front in late 1941, and later Shermans in North Africa 1942, it became very clear that this armament was insufficient, which is why in the second half of the war Pz. III chassis production goes into designs like the Stug III, which was able to carry a 75mm/L48 by getting rid of the turret and so creating more space and weight allowance for a larger gun.

Basically, by the time fighting reaches Sicily and Italy, the Pz. III in its original, turreted configuration is a second-line weapons system.

[Aured]

I tried it again with the PzIV's. The Shermans got rekkd.

[StieliAlpha]

Once I read a Story about Russians visiting Germany in the pre-war "Co-Operation Agreement" Time. The Germans Showgeschäft them the Pz III and IV Production and the Russians left infuriated, accusing the Germans to hide their Heavy Tanks. Don't know, if it is True (perhaps John Kettler can confirm). But it illustrates nicely how obsolete the German Tanks were already then. It was battlefield tactics, which made the difference.

[StieliAlpha]

Once I read a Story about Russians visiting Germany in the pre-war "Co-Operation Agreement" Time. The Germans showed them the Pz III and IV Production and the Russians left infuriated, accusing the Germans to hide their Heavy Tanks. Don't know, if it is True (perhaps John Kettler can confirm). But it illustrates nicely how obsolete the German Tanks were already then. It was battlefield tactics, which made the difference.

[CM-Kane]

Hi StieliAlpha,

i think it's true, even Guderian mentions this in his own memories.

Kane

[Sublime]

Maybe its true but I doubt it.

If it is true, it would have had to been in the mid to late 30's, which is why I doubt it. Most of the German/Russian exchange (and German secret training in Kazan, etc) was done in the 1920s, way before even Pz II's were around.

Also sad but true - it's been shown (quite well on this board) that most German officer's memoirs aren't exactly gospel truth. They're full of exaggerations, excuses, and always lay the blame for things elsewhere, usually on Hitler. A lot of other officers did a lot of revisionism of what happened before the war too, Guderian being amongst those taking credit for things he may not have exactly invented, or not crediting other officers. Of course this isn't to say it's all not true, or the same can't be said for other nation's war memoirs. Still, with Nazi era memoirs (ESPECIALLY high level officers) I take it with a grain of salt and always wonder what motives the author has for saying this or that thing, much as I do when I read Soviet memoirs...

[LukeFF]

Don't know, if it is True (perhaps John Kettler can confirm).

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

[StieliAlpha]

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Honi

Soit quo mal y pense

[StieliAlpha]

That is how it should have read: honi soit qui mal y pense.

No more posts from the iPhone!