Question about PzIII

[Schwarze]

Will all PzIII versions be in CM2?

The 37mm Panzer III AUSF F

The 50mm Panzer III AUSF J

And I know the Panzer III AUSF N cuz I saw it in the new screenies at CMHQ

But will the PzIIIF and PzIIIJ be in it?

[Schrullenhaft]

My guess is that they should be. The Ausf. F and Ausf. J were produced in large numbers (to my limited knowledge) and are very representative of the Pzkw III series.

[Panzer Leader]

I am not BTS (just a mere mortal) but I think you can rest assured that they will include every version of that sleek and sext tank.

The PzIII is the epitome of early war tank design, and its improvement over the war perfectly matched the state of the art of armoured combat.

To me the PzIII and PzIV are THE German tanks. On the eastern front, I would liken them to Panther and Tiger, respectively.

Incidentally, I thought that WAS the PzIIIj shown at CMHQ. Hmmm....

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[Mattias]

A reasonable minimum “spread” of Pz III models represented in CM:BB could look like this. The list could pretty much be doubled in size but this one pretty much covers the development stages.

F with 37 mm

G with 50 L42

H with 50 L42

J with 50 L60

L and/or M with 50 L 60 (sharing the same 3D model)

N with 75 L24

It seeme the tank on CMHQ was indeed a Pz III “J” (unless you were looking at the Pz IV 75L24)

M.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I'll be taking they Pz38T before I take the PZ-III in the early years. Of course when that nice high velcoity 50mm gun comes around I'll be grabbing the PZ-III.

[Panzer Leader]

PzIb is good enough for me!

[MikeyD]

For the PzIV in CM1 they simply used the same polygons and skins but alltered the specs. I expect the same here, with the addition of skirts and gun lengths. I wonder if they're going to supply time-specific dark grey 'early' skins and yellow 'late' skins for the armor.

[Michael Emrys]

Does anyone know offhand whether the Germans were still using the 37mm gunned Pz. IIIs at the time of Barbarossa? I would expect those would have been replaced by the 50mm models by that time.

Michael

[Panzer Leader]

The picture shows a PzIV with a "short 75" and I'm sure they will include one with a "long 75" so I am guessing they will have two sets of polygons for the tanks. At least for the turrets and gun anyway.

[Schrullenhaft]

I believe that a majority of the Pz III's at the outset of Barbarossa were equipped with 37mm guns. However I'm not looking at any references to confirm this.

I believe that the Pz IV D model in the preview screenshot has a different hull than the later Pz IV models, so there should be some differences visually too.

[MikeyD]

I don't think the PzIII ever had a long 75mm gun. The short 75's were used right up to the end of the war and were very popular with the crews. The short 75's HEAT round made it an effective little tank killer when circumstances permitted. We should'a had a short 75 PzIII modelled in CM1.

[Panzer Leader]

I agree that we should have had the PzIII in CMBO, but I believe I read somewhere that in Africa, Rommel had a detachment of long 75 PzIII's, so I would assume they also had them on the East Front, if that is true.

[Skipper]

> I don't think the PzIII ever had a long 75mm gun.

Not as a tank, not in production series.

[ParaBellum]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I agree that we should have had the PzIII in CMBO, but I believe I read somewhere that in Africa, Rommel had a detachment of long 75 PzIII's, so I would assume they also had them on the East Front, if that is true.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. The KwK 75L46 (long 75mm) couldn't be installed in the Pz III due to its smaller (compared to Pz IV) turret. There were no Mk IIIs produced with said weapon.

Edit:

Perhaps you mean the Stug III which used the long 75mm gun.

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[offtaskagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I agree that we should have had the PzIII in CMBO, but I believe I read somewhere that in Africa, Rommel had a detachment of long 75 PzIII's, so I would assume they also had them on the East Front, if that is true.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think thats just a misread of the first batch of Pz IVF2s with the L43 guns that got sent to DAK.

[Panzer Leader]

Thanks for the info. My mistake!

[Wolfe]

Didn't the PzIII undergo a change in chassis from short to long? Maybe that's what they were referring to. I think this started with the J model?

- Chris

[Wolfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD:

For the PzIV in CM1 they simply used the same polygons and skins but alltered the specs. I expect the same here, with the addition of skirts and gun lengths.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Steve said some of the models had changed and that mods would have to be updated to fit the new vehicles. Waaah! All my beautiful mods, some of which I know won't be updated. *sniff* Oh well.

- Chris

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

[vonHoff]

PZ III had a 37L46 at first and later 50L42 and 50L60.(Guderian wanted a 50mm from start but the Reichs supply office said no...)

At the end of the war they put in a 75L24 in it, but only a few where build. (PZIIIN)

In operation Barbarossa models from PZIII E to G (early Russia) where used.

Also the PZIV F2 came out with the 75L43 much after Barabarossa started. It was the much needed upgrade to use against T34s.( summer 42 if I am remember right)

PZ III had never a 75 mm long barrel...to big for the turret. The StuG III had it though. StuG III- a-f 75L24, G 75L43, H 75L48.

At first the StuG was desinged as a Infantrie support gun, but was used later as a Tank killer. (StuGs killed double the amount of tanks then thier build number in the war...)

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: vonHoff ]

[sturmtiger101]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Does anyone know offhand whether the Germans were still using the 37mm gunned Pz. IIIs at the time of Barbarossa? I would expect those would have been replaced by the 50mm models by that time.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some specially prepared submersible PzIIIs belonging to ? 18 Pz Div ( at work and can't remember exact unit number ) were armed with the 37mm, they participated in securing a crossing over the river Bug, in the early stages of Barbarossa. As a general rule however, most Mk III equipped units had recieved models mounting the L/42 50mm or had been up-gunned to this standard. I suppose there were exceptions but I've yet to see any photo evidence. Most MkIII Ausf F were originally fitted w/ the 37mm but had been rearmed with the 50mm by 1941. The Mk III is a very interesting series and it can often be challenging to distinguish the different models as the Heer was constantly upgrading the earlier marks with new gun / armour, cupolas, drive sprokets, idlers, wider tracks (40cm vs 36cm) and so forth.

Hope this helps!

Cheers,

Eric Tuggle

[sturmtiger101]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfe:

Didn't the PzIII undergo a change in chassis from short to long? Maybe that's what they were referring to. I think this started with the J model?

- Chris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, from the MkIII Ausf E on all versions used the same chassis and drivetrain. the earlier Ausf A - D were all developmental series with experimental suspensions and only saw limeted operational duty during the invasion of Poland in '39 before being withdrawn from service. In terms of refering to Mk IIIs as short or long, perhaps this is the ref to L/42 vs L/60 50mm equipped versions?

Cheers,

Eric Tuggle

[JasonC]

37mm Pz IIIs were certainly used in Russia. They did not all have even the short 50mm by then.

Only 53 existing 37mm tanks were upgraded to 50mm during calender 1940. Another 285 were so upgraded throughout 1941, and 85 were in 1942. The rest were probably lost by then.

They did ramp up production of the 50L42 version, which was the main production model throughout 1941. The changeover for new tanks produced occurred during 1940 - although 1941 was the peak production year for the 37mm Pz38t, the Czech chassis, and those were made well into 1942. (Then Marders took over).

So it was not until the summer of 1942 that the Germans stopped making 37mm tanks. Early '42 were the last upward conversions of Pz IIIs with 37mm.

In 1942 the main production model was the 50mmL60, the J and L makes. They started making the 75L24 version later that year - not at the end of the war as one fellow said. And some of those were produced into 1943. Essentially, the idea with the 75L24 was a role reversal with the Pz IV, which had just been upgunned from the short 75 to the longer ones, making it a superior tank dueler. The idea was the Pz IIIs could remain useful as the sort of CS tanks the short Pz IVs had been for the Pz IIIs earlier.

This wasn't the brightest idea in practice, though. The L24 wasn't great. So by later in 1943, they switched all Pz III chassis to making StuGs, which had carried the long 75mm versions since 1942. This let all the Pz III and Pz IV chassis go to make AFVs with the same, effective guns. The difference was just that the Pz IVs had turrets and the Pz IIIs, now StuGs, did not.

At the same time, production emphasis switched to the Pz IV. That had been made in numbers only ~1/3 or less the Pz III models earlier, but after the upgrade to the long 75, production of IVs jumped to about equal to total III chassis production.

Some also seem to have the impression that once a model change was made, all tanks had the newest and best type - the "averaging up" idea. Not at all. It took quite a while for the fleets in the field to transition from an older make to a newer and better one. Which mainly happened by new ones being added, and everything already there being lost to wastage and combat.

So for example, at Kursk the Germans had about as many Pz IIIs with long 50mm guns, and Pz IVs with long 75s - and those two were the bulk of the force. And they had well over 100 of both types with short 75s, and also of Pz IIIs with short 50s.

The total tank "population" in the summer of -43-, not 42, was divided about 1-2-2-1 between heavier tanks (Tiger, Elephant, Panther - combined = "1"), then Pz IVs with long 75 ("2"), then Pz III with long 50 ("2"), then mixed worse than that - IVs w/ L24, IIIs w/ 75L24, IIIs w/ 50L42, and Pz IIs (combined "1"). Roughly. It wasn't until 1944 that the IIIs (besides StuG) were basically out of the force, and the Panthers started to get numerous enough to give the force its Panther-Pz IV-TD "mix", that you see in CMBO and that it basically kept the rest of the way to the end.

In other words, it is not like they conquered western Russia in Pz III 50L60, and then fought the hordes of T-34/76s that came out in 1942 and 1943 with uniform Pz IV long and then Panthers. No siree bob.

They made the great gains of 1941 with mixed 20mm, 37mm, short 50mm, and short 75mm guns. Then they spent most of 1942 fighting T-34/76s in 50mm Pz IIIs mixed longs with shorts and winning (which is also what Rommel had by the way, while he was winning), and most of 1943 fighting the same Russian threat vehicles in larger numbers with the above mix, and losing.

Incidentally, where the got the first significant numbers of long 75s is also often misunderstood. People know the Pz IV with it came out in mid 42, but 900 of them were made or converted by the end of the year. 700 StuG were made with the long guns by then, and 1200 Marders in 5 different makes (German gun or Russian, various chassis). So only 1/3rd of the AFV long 75s fielded in 1942 were on actual tanks - most of them were on TDs. (Only 84 Tiger Is were made that year, incidentally). For comparison, the Russians made ~12000 T-34/76 in 1942.

In 1943, the German production mix continued about 50-50 tank and TD, but the big change was every weight of chassis was making effective AFVs carrying powerful guns. The Marders were still important, and StuG production match Pz IV production that year. Tiger I production ramped up and Panthers of course - about one out of four was a "heavy" in armor and gun terms that year. By 1944, that is what they were fighting with, essentially.

Force mixes in the field only match production after a lag. That is the main point.

[JasonC]

On the aside that StuGs averaged 2 AFV kills each, I suggest you take it with a grain of salt. I do not doubt that is the number of kills claimed, but claims tend to be inflated. The cross-check is to go through an accounting of all such claims. Thus, the heavies and Panthers are routinely said to have KO'ed 5 apiece on average. Both StuGs and Pz IVs routinely get claims for 2. The often overlooked towed PAK are as numerous again as the AFVs. Then the fausts get their share, and the mines (21 million AT types laid).

If you take the claims made for the various weapon types literally, you will quickly find that the Allies supposedly lost twice as many AFVs as they produced - yet somehow managed to end the war with larger AFV fleets than they started with.

I think it is quite unlikely either the StuG or the Panzer IV got KO totals as high as 2:1 on average over the whole war. And this is not exactly surprising, when you consider that many of both the StuGs and the Pz IVs were KO'ed by anti-tank guns or by aircraft, plus some to artillery, mines, bazookas, and molotovs - not to mention simply bogging or falling into anti-tank ditches or being abandoned after a breakdown, etc. And likewise, that tanks do not only shoot at other tanks, but also anti-tank guns, infantry, etc.

But I am willing to put the point in terms of a multiple choice optional set, which any claimant can stipulate to. When he claims vanilla German AFVs KO'ed 2 tanks apiece, does he also claim that Panthers and Tigers did no better than vanilla German AFVs in this respect? Or does he claim that 50,000 heavy PAK and front-line heavy FLAK KO'ed practically nothing? Or that several millions fausts and schrecks didn't hit anything because no one was brave enough to get close with them (which on its own is only worth half of the others above)?

Take your pick. But the Lake Woebeggone solution, where all German weapons are above average, will not stand scrutiny. The Allies only -made- so many tanks, after all, and you can only claim so many kills.

[Username]

The Panzer III with the L60 was a potent weapon till the end of 1943. Its 3 man turret and small size, decent armor and good gun depression allowed it to KO many T34/76 that had 2 man turrets, poor communivcations, inferior gun depression and optics.

In a case where the T34/76 were attacking, the PIII longs had the edge. It was a fully developed AFV where the T34 was still on the learning curve.

When the allies started producing shermans in record numbers and T34s were upgraded to 3 man turrets/85mm, thats when it was time to ship these old warriors back to the factory for stug rebuilding.

In Panzertruppen theres good accounts of what the PIII long/short and PIV short/long

mix could do up till the end of 1943. The tungsten situation was a death blow to the 50mmL60 use in tanks.

It was only when the 50mmL42 and 75L24 mix in early war panzers, that had lighter armor, was there a real problem. The quick change of tactics of 88mm escorts and Marders, etc helped till the PIII and PIV got there guns.

Lewis

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sturmtiger101:

As a general rule however, most Mk III equipped units had recieved models mounting the L/42 50mm or had been up-gunned to this standard. I suppose there were exceptions but I've yet to see any photo evidence. Most MkIII Ausf F were originally fitted w/ the 37mm but had been rearmed with the 50mm by 1941.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Eric. My own thought was that as far as I know, the Pz. IIIs that got shipped to Tripoli all had the 50mmL/42, and that was a couple months before Barbarossa.

Michael