Frontal armour on the PzIIIH turret and mantlet...a bug?

[Little_Black_Devil]

I was playing a quick battle yesterday, and saw a 2 Pounder anti-tank gun at 800 some metres engage my PzIIIH which was hull down to him (frontally).

The 2 Pounder was able to eventually take out my PzIIIH before my (Green) PzIIIH could finally land an HE round anywhere close to him.

I know it was the 2 Pounder anti-tank gun, because I verified it after the battle by viewing his kills.

I wish I would have paid closer attention to the listed armour stats for the PzIIIH, let alone the penetration details during the battle, but I got too wraped up in the Infantry battle, and clicked "go" carelessly before I should have. I figured the 2 Pounder didn't have a chance against my PzIIIH, so paid it little concern.

That was a mistake.

In any event - from what I've read, it seems to me that a 1941 era 2 Pounder (no advanced munitions or "little john" adapater) just firing sold shot AP should not be able to penetrate the frontal armour of the PzIIIH.

However - this is where it gets tricky.

Again - I was hull down, so the 30mm+32mm plates on the front hull of the tank were of no use to me.

I was now in for a rude surprise, as at the time - I didn't realize the game records the turret/mantlet thickness as just 30mm.

What I can't confirm (from any of my own books - though I admit that I may have missed it) is what the actual thickness of the front of the PzIIIH's turret is - or does it varry?

What information I do have, is somewhat conflicting, leading me to believe that the front turret armour on the PzIIIH could have been only 30mm thick or 37mm thick or 67mm thick.....I'm not sure what to think and 'am having trouble distinguishing between the mantlet measurements and the other small portions of the front of the turret proper that are exposed. Obviously Battlefront got their 30mm figure from somewhere.

Page 46 on Thomas L. Jentz's "Tank Combat in North Africa" denotes, that a 2 Pounder could penetrate the PzIIIH's mantlet at 200 yards (183metres). This leads me to believe, that indeed - the front of the PzIIIH's turret - and in particular its mantlet, were only ever 30 or 37mm thick (albeit rounded).

Is this correct?

It would make sense to me if the mantlet, and front of the PzIIIH's turret was as thick if not thicker than the hull armour - so that the tank could stand up to opposition that its facing directly - as its supposed to. After all - the hull/chasis exists only to get the gun, which is in the turret into battle. In this case - the gun was designed to kill other tanks. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to go to all the trouble of up-armouring the hull, but then leaving the turret (front) still vulnerable.

Anyhow, Thanks in advance.

[ March 13, 2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

[flamingknives]

The original Pz III had a 37mm gun and 30mm armour. Up-armouring adds weight to the chassis and turret, as does up-gunning. Possibly the traverse on the IIIH wasn't up to moving the extra weight of gun and armour?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Little_Black_Devil:

Page 46 on Thomas L. Jentz's "Tank Combat in North Africa" denotes, that a 2 Pounder could penetrate the PzIIIH's mantlet at 200 yards (183metres). This leads me to believe, that indeed - the front of the PzIIIH's turret - and in particular its mantlet, were only ever 30 or 37mm thick (albeit rounded).

Is this correct?

As far as I know, yes... Chamberlain, Doyle & Jentz give 37mm for the mantlet, von Senger und Etterlin gives 30mm for the turret front, and Grove says the hull had applique armour added but does not mention the turret. But then these are probably the same sources you're using.

Originally posted by Little_Black_Devil:

[snips]

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to go to all the trouble of up-armouring the hull, but then leaving the turret (front) still vulnerable.

It may not give perfect protection, but protection against hull hits is worth something. I don't know what german ammunition stowage policy was at the time the Ausf H was introduced, but as most ammunition is stowed in the hull, preventing hull penetrations is probably more advantageous than preventing turret penetrations from the point of view of crew survivability. There are quite a few tank types that have thinner frontal armour on the turret than on the hull, including such successful types as the T-34 and Panther.

All the best,

John.

[Little_Black_Devil]

Thanks for the input guys.

With the exception of Grove, I'm looking at all of the same books and a few more.

However, nothing I've come accross thus far is entirely conclusive.

I can't find anything specific enough, that deals with how the turret front was layed out/constructed. I have reason to believe that part of the gun mount itself was 30mm in thickness, which was further protected by a 37mm rounded external mantlet - not to be confused with the type of mantlet added to later PzIIIs like the Ausf N for instance.

However, I also have good reason to believe, that the gun mounting, was perhaps not amroured, and the only substantial armour in the front of the turret was the 35mm rounded mantlet.

Aside from the general thickness of the PzIIIH turret front being mentioned like this in most sources I have (which identify 30mm as the turret front thickness), not all clearly stipulate whether or not this is the mantlet.

I did notice though, in Rexford's book - that he identifies the mantlet on the PzIIIH as 35mm curved and the front turret on the PzIIIH as 30mm at 15° (both pieces being face hardened).

The question is - do these overlap, or not? If they do, then that would seem to lend creedence to the 30+35/37 idea - for a much better armoured turret (frontally anyways).

At this point though, I'm more apt to believe that the turret, or the mantlet, were seperate - and there was no overlapping - and the turret crew and gun were only ever protected by 30mm at 15° or 35/37mm curved respectively.

This seems logical in light of the fact that it is not until the advent of the PzIIIL that the turret specifically is uparmoured to 57mm, and then again - with the addition of a bolted on 20mm plate (for a total of 77mm?).

Using Chamberlain/Doyle and Jentz's "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two" (Revised Edition) - there does appear to be a pattern, whereby the PzIII does not recieve an upgraded turret until the PzIIIL. But is this impression accurate?

I'm now wondering if the PzIIIL's turret armour, is only mentioned - as a significant point of interest, as the *new* turret front was made of a single piece (as opposed to two levels or plates of armour which overlap (which might be the case with earlier PzIII's back to the PzIIIH and perhaps even the PzIIIG).

In any event - for game purposes - unless this can be clarified/rectified/verified - I'm now thinking that whenever I engage with late PzIIIG's, the PzIIIH's and PzIIIJ's - that I will no longer adopt hull down positions, because I'm in effect putting myself at a disadvantage (ONLY presenting my weakest frontal armour to the enemy).

If I present a full silouette - then the enemy has more target to see and more importantly - more target to hit.

From that perspective, I increase the chances that an incoming round will strike my well protected front hull armour, which obviously keeps my tanks operational a bit longer. If I only ever present a 30mm turret to them (as was the case in my original scenario) - then I'm inadvertently putting myself at a disadvantage. Being hull down, I might be initially more difficult to hit, but when I do take hits they will likely be crippling.

It still boggles my mind though, that so many books contain blanket statements regarding the "invulnerability" of the PzIIIH in particular - to the 2 Pounder and American 37mm. Where, or better yet - HOW could these statements be made, when clearly - the turret, which makes up roughly a third of the tank as a target - was possibly suceptable to both the 2 Pounder and American 37mm - if it is indeed only protected by roughly 30 or 35mm of armour?

Just seems odd....

Putting myself in the shoes of an Allied tank or anti-tank gunner - I know I'd sure as hell be doing my damndest to score turret hits - range and visibility permitting.

Jentz's "Tank Combat in North Africa" makes mention of the German practice of setting Matilda II's ablaze by firing HE into/onto their rear decks. I find it odd, that he wouldn't concurently identify the practice by British/Commonwealth gunners to fire their 2 Pounders into the turret of the PzIII for an easy (or easier) kill (assuming they were indeed only protected by 30/35mm of armour). Instead, in a few places - he makes note of their ability to resist the 2 Pounder, but would seem to contradict himself with the chart on Page 46 which he uses to illustrate what the 2 Pounder could take on, and at what ranges (that the 2 Pounder could penetrate the PzIIIH's mantlet at 200 yards/183 metres).

Bah, this just gets frustrating when you lack the proper information and can only speculate.

[ March 14, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

[flamingknives]

I recall, dimly, that there was a problem with the tracer on the 2pdr shot such that the shot would penetrate but the tracer would break and fly off, creating the impression of a failure. Add poor behind armour effect and you have battlefield observation not always being accurate wrt actual effect.

That said, I've had the opportunity to talk to a desert tank vet. and he was firmly in the "2pdrs are rubbish" camp.

[OT]He also mentioned putting pipes over the 2pdr barrel to make the 2pdr armed Crusaders look like MkIIIs (6pdr armed) [/OT]

Final point: 200m is very close for desert engagement.

[Little_Black_Devil]

Interesting, though - I would think that with respect to Jentz's figures regarding the 2 Pounder and 200m, that this was more of an illustration as to the performance of the gun and its AP projectile - not necessarily and approval or encouragement that 2 Pounders ought to seek out 200m engagement distances, but rather to inform the gunners that they will not be able to penetrate the PzIII's turret frontally unless they ARE within 200m.

That said - and as you pointed out - 200m was not and average engagement distance in North Africa. That - might explain where the blanket statements come from regarding the 2 Pounder's ineffectiveness vs the PzIIIH (since most engagements I would imagine - would have taken place over larger distances).

[rexford]

The PzKpfw IIIH frontal protection has been discussed quite a bit in the bat-a-rounds between JasonC and myself.

British firing tests in Cairo during May 1942 showed that the 2 pdr AP round would not penetrate the PzKpfw IIIH hull front at 200 yards. The same firing tests with 37mm APCBC, 75mm AP and APCBC from a Grant, a Grant 75mm firing the German 75mm APC round (75L24 ammo) and 6 pdr AP from the early shorter barreled gun (2700 fps muzzle velocity) showed that 32mm/30mm on the PzKpfw IIIH drive plate resisted like a single 69mm face-hardened plate.

Since the 2 pdr AP would only penetrate 67mm or so of face-hardened armor at 0 yards, don't expect many defeats of the IIIH hull front.

The PzKPfw IIIH mantlet and hull front don't really overlap much. The mantlet is 37mm face-hardened and has a 40 degree slope from vertical in one area (it isn't really rounded at the upper and lower areas, just near the middle), which would resist 2 pdr AP hits like close to 60mm face-hardened, and which may account for the 200 yard penetration range Jentz mentions.

But half of the IIIH mantlet was not very well sloped, and would be much more vulnerable. The data Jentz refers to probably didn't include many hits on the less sloped areas of the IIIH mantlet.

The hull front of a PzKpfw IIIH makes up the majority of the frontal target aspect, so most hits would land on either the hull front or the highly sloped mantlet area.

At close range the 2 pdr would tend to hit what it aimed at, namely the driver plate, due to the high muzzle velocity (for North Akrika during early to mid 1942).

[Little_Black_Devil]

Thanks Rexford.

I guess I should elaborate, that from the outset, I assumed the turret was as well armoured as the hull, with the exception that the mantlet would be rounded/curved, and that the way this has been conveyed in a myriad of sources was just never "detailed" enough - so as to explain the actual layout of the turret front (armour) and mantlet.

I assumed this, because it just seemed logical to up-armour the turret frontally, as with the hull, so as to be reistent to enemy fire from the front entirely. Leaving the turret so suceptable just didn't make much sense to me.

My fault for making an assumption.

I also meant, earlier - with reference to overlapping of armour, that I was wondering if the Mantlet (37mm curved - or partially curved) overlapped any part of, the front turret armour (30mm) which alone would have provided 67mm of armour (albeit probably spaced). Sorry if I confused this with overlapping the hull.

I didn't expect that the curved portion of the mantlet (37mm at 40°) would equate in resistance as if it were 60mm of Face Hardened Armour).

This obviously explains much.

I should have done some math before I started blabbing I guess.

To sum up - and make sure I undertand this correctly, you're saying that a portion of the PzIIIH mantlet, was 37mm thick and curved at 40° which gave it the equivilent protection of 60mm of Face Hardened Armour (accredited to the tests in Cairo you cited), though the non-sloped portion of the mantlet was only "just" 37mm thick(at 0°?) - which is why, this small (unsloped) area of the mantlet WAS penetrable by the 2 Pounder?

From here;

It appears that, the upper portion of the mantlet, is the part which is sloped at 40°. The lower portion appears to be sloped at roughly a 20° (inverse) angle, with the centre of the mantlet almost at 0°. From that, it would seem that from the centre down - that the mantlet armour would subsequently be less reistent.

Aside from the Mantlet, what little portion of the exposed turret armout there is - would only be 30mm thick at 15°.

Is all that on-track or have I botched it somewhere?

[JasonC]

The other thing to understand here is that the IIIH is not all IIIs, just a station on the way. Earlier IIIs had only 30mm hulls - including the G model - so the turret was marginally stronger than the hull. The hull was uparmored on the Hs, to 30+30, but not the turret.

When the early Js come out, both hull and turret are up to 50mm. They still have short 50L42 guns. The next batch of Js have 50L60 guns. And the late Js and the Ls and Ms then upgrade the armor still further, to 50+20 - though the lower front hull stayed 50mm. The Ns have 50mm armor, +20 on the upper hull only, and the 75L24 gun. After that, III chassis production all switched to making StuGs, which could carry the superior 75L48 and 80mm of front armor, at the cost of giving up the turret.

So the H is a snapshot in a continuous process of uparmoring and upgunning, that (for the turreted IIIs) peaked with the late J through M models, with 70mm armor and 50L60 guns. That particular snapshot happens to have improved hull armor but hasn't upgraded the turret armor yet - or the gun.

50mm as on the early Js would be basically proof against 2 pdrs and 37mm at medium range, but vulnerable to them if the range got short enough. Not every Panzer III is an H...

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Little_Black_Devil:

I was now in for a rude surprise, as at the time - I didn't realize the game records the turret/mantlet thickness as just 30mm.

What I can't confirm (from any of my own books - though I admit that I may have missed it) is what the actual thickness of the front of the PzIIIH's turret is - or does it varry?

What information I do have, is somewhat conflicting, leading me to believe that the front turret armour on the PzIIIH could have been only 30mm thick or 37mm thick or 67mm thick.....I'm not sure what to think and 'am having trouble distinguishing between the mantlet measurements and the other small portions of the front of the turret proper that are exposed. Obviously Battlefront got their 30mm figure from somewhere.

I had brought this up earlier but it seems nothing was done after Moon said they'd look into it. The G and the H share the same turret so both should have identical armour thickness of either 3cm or 3,7cm.

[Abteilung]

The construction of the Pz.III turret is something which is of great interest to me. In particular the 5.0cm armed variants. What I seem to fail to understand is how much protection there actually is from a frontal aspect.

It seems to me like it would be reinforced quite significantly in some areas and barely sufficient in others (versus the 2pdr). There seems to be multiple overlapping pieces of armor and some edge effects to account for. The natural space between mantle and turret front is partially obscured on either end of the turret front by what appears to be caps for the trunnion pins. Of further interest is the area directly behind the mantle, but between the trunnion pins. Is this area simply a modified (different apertures cut into it) version of the original internal mantle of the 37mm armed vehicles?

Looking at Jentz's Panzertruppen Vol.I, there is a pic of a III.E that has been shot up pretty badly on page 139. The pic clearly shows the port side trunnion cap shot away as well as part of the external 30mm mantle. This external mantle appears stationary and overlaps the 30mm internal mantle as clearly depicted by the portions blown away. What I surmise is that the 5,0cm L/42 and single co-axial MG were mounted in a modified version of that original internal mantle, with a new 37mm (later 50mm) external mantle welded on.

The extent of the coverage is still a bit of a mystery to me. The most helpful item has been the picture of a III.H being dismantled by the English. The particular photo can be found on page 112 of Jentz's Tank Combat in North Africa. The mantle is sitting on the ground next the tank it belongs to; a III.H from the 5th Pz.Rgt (tactical number II02) captured in Tobruk on April 14th, 1941. It clearly shows some sort of internal mantle/armor between the trunnion caps and behind the mantle and is to my knowledge the best picture extant of the III's mantle.

Edit: An additional oddity which kind of dovetails into my theory are production numbers found in appendices A5 and A6 in Panzertruppen vol.I.

According to Jentz (Panzertruppen vol.I) the 37mm.KwK armed unit (5/ZW) saw production at the same time as the 50mm.KwK. The 5/ZW gave way to the 6/ZW but both types saw production at the same facilities as verified by a factory floor picture seen in Spielberger's Panzer III and its variants. In July of 40 the first 5cm armed variants began rolling off the lines with 17 produced in that month. There were 67 37mm armed units produced that same month. Previous to July the 37mm armed variants were delivered in batches of 40-60 or so a month.

August saw a flip-flop with 84 5.0cm armed variants delivered as opposed to just three 37mm armed units.

In my theory, that kind of a rapid change over had to have been helped along by existing stocks of fabricated internal mantle assemblies. A modification of the exisiting unit seems to be my best assumption at this point.

[ March 15, 2004, 04:42 AM: Message edited by: Abteilung ]

[Wisbech_lad]

It is also interesting how CM:AK is revisionist to our myths.

Accepted theory - CW stuff sucks.

CM:AK

2pdr > 37mm

6pdr >> 50mm

17pdr >> 75mm

I tried some "what ifs" the UK had decided to focus on 6pdr production, rather than 2pdr, after fall of France (i.e. they had gambled that invasion wasn't imminent) Replacing 2pdr Valentines & Crusaders with 6pdr versions in N. Africa scenarios in 1942. Ouch. PzIII's and IV's brewing up all over the place...

6pdr with T rounds even takes out Tigers from the front.

[Abteilung]

Additional tidbit regarding the loader's veiwport: Looking closely at the dismantled III.H in the pic on page 112 of Jentz's TCNA, reveals the thickness of the viewport itself to be greater than the mantle. The viewport is partially counter-sunk/recessed into the mantle and partially protruding from its surface. Looking at interior photos from afvinteriors' site reveals the back of this viewport rests in a small tunnel-like box in the interior. Given the depth at which the viewport covers are resting and the extent to which they protrude, I wonder if the covers themselves aren't closer to 5,0cm in thickness.

[ March 15, 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Abteilung ]

[Dinsdale]

I have inspected our PzKw III H and have the following information:

The main problem I see here is some inaccurate information. The front mantlet armor on our PzKw III Ausf H is 50mm not 37mm - the records I found always seem to quote 37mm. Perhaps ours was upgraded to 50mm, but we have no additional information on that. Ours was brought back from southern Germany in October 1946 and had been captured by the American Third Army. Having said that - let's talk construction.

You have the gun assembly itself attached to the rotor and gun mantlet assembly. The gun tube and some of its recoil mechanisms project through the mantlet armor and are not covered by the its 50mm thick mantlet armor. They are, instead surrounded by an oval section of formed armor plate (20mm thick at sides, top and bottom) that projects from the front of the mantlet center and is covered at the end with a plate through which the gun tube finally projects. That end plate is bolted over the end of gun recoil mechanisms and measures 50mm thick.

The opening for the coaxial machinegun is approximately 100mm in diameter is is covered by a cast and milled steel armor cover which is 20mm thick all around. The covers over the sight openings at either side of the mantlet are 25 to 30mm thick and recess into the mantlet armor when closed. The armor plate over the mantlet is welded to the rotor at top and bottom with 20mm thick plates to take up the space between the two curved surfaces.

The two surfaces do not actually overlap very much- as the mantlet armor was designed to protect the gun rotor and the gun itself. Where they do overlap (top and bottom) they would only overlap no more than 2" or so. and would be spaced probably about 4" apart at that point.

Hope that this is helpful

Charles Lemons

Curator, Patton museum

[Abteilung]

Interesting history there on the Patton Museum's IIIs, thank you Dinsdale. IIRC, they have two of the vehicles. One outside and one inside. Mr. Lemons is correct with respect to the thickness, as it seems the tanks they have were rebuilt and upgraded during later production runs which utilized the ubiquitous 5,0cm mantle. Whether they were rebuilt more than once is unknown to me.

It is assumed that the "rotor" that is referred to is the area which I described as being behind the mantle and between the trunnion pins. What I'm still unclear on is the exact dimensions of this rotor unit.

Starting at the sides of the recoil cylinder housing, it would seem that the closer one gets to the outer edges of the mantle, the degree of overlap with other armored components increases. To the immediate interior side of the trunnion pins are the ends of the rotor. From there outward we have the caps for the trunnion pins which themselves overlap the turret front armor to a degree. Next we move towards the top edges of the mantle: there we have more edge effects, about a 40 degree slope, and almost directly above & below the recoil cylinder housing is 2 inches of overlap with the rotor.

What is unclear to me at this point is how he is describing this overlap. He states the rotor unit is welded at the top and bottom to the mantle, but are spaced 4" apart where they do overlap. This confuses me, as I am having trouble understanding two pieces of armor welded at those angles and not overlapping except for a point where they are spaced 4 inches apart. Clarity is requested if possible.

Thanks and take care!

[Abteilung]

Here is a link to a line drawing I found covering either an Ausf.L or Ausf.M Link

The mantle on this series had little differentiation between earlier units of 37mm thickness aside from the obvious addition of the 20mm pre-armor frame and plate (which was only mounted on mantles for 5.0cm armed units). The real difference was the spring mounting for the breech necessitated by the increasingly barrel heavy mounting. Moving the trunnion axis back was not a good option due to the tight confines of the turret. The spring was mounted to the top. More details on the differences are covered in Spielberger's Panzer III and its Variants.

The rotor is depicted as not even being directly in contact with the 5cm mantle of the Ausf.L/M in the cutaway drawing. Also there appears to be some other plating between the mantle and turret front both above and below the rotor. One can clearly see the sight aperture wrt its mounting from the drawing. The sight itself does not contact the mantle, rather stands off from it. What's not clear from the drawing is the connection between the rotor and mantle outwards of the recoil cylinder housing.

I'm curious to know how this will fit into the picture Mr. Lemons has painted for us. I'd like to say the drawing from the russian site is accurate, however, I cannot read cyrillic so I'll provide a link for those who can to view it and see if sources are cited. link

Lots of questions, very little in the way of concrete answers. I'd venture to say that a 3D (front-left elevation) cutaway of the mantle and rotor assembly would be the answer, but I know of no such reference. The best one I have found is the picture of the III.H being dismantled on page 112 of Jentz's TCNA.

[ March 15, 2004, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Abteilung ]

[Abteilung]

I'd like to take a moment to debunk one of my own theories posted earlier in the thread. I now have found some information which leads me to different conclusions regarding the Pz.III variants armed with the 5.0cm KwK L/42 with respect to their production.

I posted:

Edit: An additional oddity which kind of dovetails into my theory are production numbers found in appendices A5 and A6 in Panzertruppen vol.I.

According to Jentz (Panzertruppen vol.I) the 37mm.KwK armed unit (5/ZW) saw production at the same time as the 50mm.KwK. The 5/ZW gave way to the 6/ZW but both types saw production at the same facilities as verified by a factory floor picture seen in Spielberger's Panzer III and its variants. In July of 40 the first 5cm armed variants began rolling off the lines with 17 produced in that month. There were 67 37mm armed units produced that same month. Previous to July the 37mm armed variants were delivered in batches of 40-60 or so a month.

August saw a flip-flop with 84 5.0cm armed variants delivered as opposed to just three 37mm armed units.

In my theory, that kind of a rapid change over had to have been helped along by existing stocks of fabricated internal mantle assemblies. A modification of the exisiting unit seems to be my best assumption at this point.

This is what I found:

On page 28 of Jentz's Tank Combat in North Africa I found a passage stating that the Wa.Pruef.Amt began conversion of Ausf.F and G in July of 40 using new turret front and mantle assemblies. This was done due to feedback regarding the Somua S-35. The change was facilitated by the assemblies already being in production. While Jentz doesn't state when the production of the new mantle and turret front assembly actually began, there were only seventeen 50mm armed Pz.Kpfw.III delivered in July as stated earlier. He goes on to state that these new mantle and turret assemblies were being produced in anticipation of Ausf.H production slated for October.

This passage states that the 50mm facilities were of a new design. It leaves the impression that they were not using components formerly from the 37mm armed units. Looking at the difference in trunnion pin covers confirms this.

[Little_Black_Devil]

I'am left wondering if there are any recent studies, which include measurements of German tanks in particular.

I suspect that most of the numbers we currently refer to in most *conventional* or regularly referred too sources, are all - at some point - from the same recorded measurements taken...god knows when.

Perhaps its time for a *new* book, akin to Chamblerlain, Doyle and Jentz's "Encyclopedia", with measurements re-taken.

Heck, why stop with just German tanks....

Hmmmmmm

[JasonC]

I am not seeing the confusion, apparently. First off, please carefully distinguish 37mm armament from 37mm armor, and 50mm armament from 50mm armor likewise. The armament changes from the F (all 37mm) and G (some originally 37mm, later ones 50mm, and conversions to 50mm), with the H series the first built for 50mm armament from the get-go. (Not that all Gs were converted, they weren't. But when the G designation was created, they were still building IIIs with 37mm).

The reference to "due to the Somua S-35" would appear to refer to the need for a 50L42 gun rather than a 37mm gun. It is not a matter of turret armor for the Pz IIIs. Obviously, a new gun requires a new mantlet to match; the old ones would hardly fit the new gun.

The turret armor is upgraded to 50mm with the early Js, which still had short 50mm armament. This reflects a basic issue with German military nomenclature. Their model letters did not refer to specific upgrades in any exclusive fashion. When enough changes had accumulated to set a new standard, they changed the letter designation.

This has probably caused considerable confusion in allied accounts. Thus the Brits for a long time thought the "J" designation implied a 50L60 gun ("mark III special" they said). They would therefore tend to call any Pz III with a short 50mm gun, something earlier in letter series than a "J".

When a tank museum says they have an "H", but its turret is 50mm, it probably just means it has an early J not an H, and can't tell the difference, or doesn't know there is such a critter as an early J. (The long 50 Js were Ausf J SdKfz 141/1 rather than Ausf J SdKfz 141, hardly an noticable nomenclature change).

I looked into the issue once before, of whether DAK in 1942 had all Hs. What I found is there weren't enough true Hs - only 308 were made - to go around. While the IIIs that came over with 15 panzer were clearly Hs, and those that arrived in the second half of 1941 as reinforcements and replacements probably likewise, those received in the first half of 1942, before the Gazala battles, probably were not.

Production of the true Hs stopped in April of 1941, more than a year before Gazala. Early Js were produced starting in March of 1941. For most of calender 1941, they were turning out Js with short 50s and 50mm turrets. These would have been the tanks on hand in early 1942, when convoys of replacements were sent to rebuild the depleted DAK armor fleet. There were few vehicles remaining from the 1941 DAK fleet before these arrived.

So allied side accounts of "Hs" in the Gazala fighting are probably not Hs at all - other than a few surviving vehicles - but early Js.

[ March 17, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Dinsdale]

From WWIIOnline Forums just FYI for those interested.

Mr. Lemmons,

Recently there has been a debate in forums I participate on concerning the armor configuration on the Pz.IIIH mantlet. Most sources state that the mantlet was 37mm, curved, face hardened, as appears in many books. That appears to be the extent of the armor on this tank, as produced. So we thought.

However, recently some information has come to light that the mantlet on this (and other Pz.III/IV models) was backed by an 'inner mantlet'/gun cradle/rotor which provided additional armor protection.

In photographs I've viewed, such as these on AFVinteriors, it appears that the MG, vision slits and gun mount are attached/go directly through the backside of the mantlet: http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/pz3/pz3a.html

And in fact you can see the backside of the mantlet, in our interpretation. Some sources debate that this is not the backside of the mantlet, but is another piece of metal which is used as a backing plate to the actual mantlet. This piece, it is claimed, provides additional armor protection of 20mm or more.

Can you shed some light this? Do you know if the backside of the mantlet is exposed on those pictures? I have additional pictures you can browse at: http://www.pangea-systems.com/jas/pub/share/wwiiol/IIIh/ some are not IIIH tanks, but used in an attempt to discover the nature of the construction of the vehicle. In fact, there are pictures of your museum's Pz.III I've used during our debate and discussion.

Now, I understand that your tank appears to be up-armored with a thicker mantlet - perhaps a Pz.IIIJ mantlet of 50mm. This would not change the nature of this tank's construction as compared to the IIIH base model in my opinion.

The real interesting and burning question: is the backside of the mantlet exposed at some places directly to the interior of the turret? Or, is there additional protection that must be defeated?

Thank you for your time.

Reply:

Sir:

Best information (after some research with our vehicle and looking at the British references). 1st thing is that the vehicle we have is identified by serial number as a PzKw III Ausf F which was modified by the germans with the added 30mm armor bolted on to the front of the hull and glacis. It was upgraded with a new mantlet having 50mm armor. The armor forms the front portion of the rotor into which the gun is mounted. The shield over the recoil mechanisms that project forward of the armor is 20mm thick on sides, top and bottom with the front of the shield being 50mm thick. The covers over the sight openings is from 25 - 30mm thick. The protruding machinegun cover is also constructed of 20mm thick armor. The "added armor" on the inside is apparently a sheet metal plate to catch splinters - not armor protection at all. That information is based on British inspections of the PzKw III and IV.

First remember the construction of the beast. You have the rotor - to which the gun mount is attached. In US vehicles the armor is then bolted on over the rotor for protection. In the case of the German PzKw III and IV, the rotor is open at the front and back with the curved armor plate welded directly across the front opening - making it an integral part of the rotor. Behind the rotor in some vehicles a sheet metal plate is bolted across the opening to act as a light splinter shield in case anything should come through the opening for the sights or machinegun. It is NOT armor - as it is mostly to take care of bullet splash and the like. Of course the cradle for the gun takes up a large amount of the space behind the mantlet - but nothing special is added.

The term "exposed directly to the interior" is a bit confusing. The frontal armor plate seals against the rotor completely - using 20mm thick plates to take up the space difference caused by the greater curvature of the rotor vs the armor. (sealing the armor against the rotor all around). If you are asking "If the round penetrates the 50mm armor - is there something spaced behind it to stop it?" then the answer is no. I doubt that the light metal spinter shield would stop even shrapnel caused by a penetration of the frontal armor - although it might stop armor flaking from a near penetration. The gun mount might catch some of it, but otherwise you are out of luck. The actual thickness of the turret front (surrounding the opening where the rotor and mantlet are mounted) is 30mm thick - but that is a very small target compared to the mantlet.

I hope that I understood the question.

Charles Lemons

Curator, Patton Museum

[JasonC]

"...identified by serial number as a PzKw III Ausf F which was modified by the germans with the added 30mm armor bolted on to the front of the hull and glacis."

Presumably uparmored at the same time it came in to be upgunned...

[Little_Black_Devil]

So - then, the PzIIIH Mantlet, would have indeed been 37mm thick (curved), with the surrounding edges of the front of the turret - still remaining at 30mm thick, as it was only later models of the PzIII and retro-fits, which up-armoured the PzIII's mantlet (and armament to say nothing of any other minor changes/upgrades).

Correct?

That said - with respect to CMAK, which only denotes 30mm as the PzIIIH's front turret armour, how is this information abstracted or otherwise reflected in-game?

Since upper half of the mantlet is 37mm sloped at 40° providing us with an equivilent thickness of 60mm at 0°, the bottom half, is substantially less protected by the same 37mm mantlet, which is in some places (closer to the absolute middle) nearly 0° and in others closer to approximately 20° (inverted). This obviously means the lower half of the mantlet is not as well protected.

Does the in-game number of "30mm" account for all of this somehow?

Or - should the armour be improved to 37mm and the game engine left to calculate such *exceptions* such as the lower and upper halves of the mantlet? Perhaps these are accounted from in a simpler formula accounting for just "curve"?

I simply don't know enough about how the game calculates all of this, or how much fidelity it has in order to account for such differences.

But it would seem to me - in light of this dicsussion, that CMAK's listed thickness of "30mm" for the PzIIIH's front turret armour MIGHT not necessarily be correct (unless it is indeed including and thereby abstracting BOTH angled portions of the mantlet and averaging them).

'am I missing something here? :confused:

[MikeyD]

This reminds me of a big thread/debate we had in CMBB about the IS-2's 120mm thick bow in the game. It seems if you follow one reference source for armor stats there's always going to be a second (or third) source to contradict you. I recall during the IS-2 debate they said they had gone with Brit military stats.

[Dinsdale]

Front Turret armour is 30mm.

Mantlet is 37mm.

You can hit the Turret Front without hitting the Mantlet.That and the Viewport covers are 25mm-30 mm and vulnerable as well.

[Little_Black_Devil]

I would imagine that the portions of the front turret (which are 30mm at 15°) only make up a small portion of the entire surface area of the front of the turret.

As the mantlet covers most of the front of the turret, these 30mm portions seem to be more on the peripheree, and don't actually "protect" a great deal of anything (frontally). In fact, as these portions of the turret are closer to the edges, I would bet they are actualy in effect "thicker", because of the plates comprising the sides of the turrets are positioned directly behind them - thus, small portions might "only" be 30mm, while the remainder are considerably thicker - as they consist of the lengthwise thickness of the side armour (which while widthwise are only 30mm thick - lengthwise probably measure closer to a metre or two (not that a penetrating projectile would travel down the length of this armour).

In any event - I don't imagine the 30mm portions are of any real significance. As the mantlet is 37mm, and it comprises most of the surface area of the front of the turret, this would seem to be the important figure.

The covers, which I thought were thicker would also seem to present additional vulnerabilities.

The 37mm mantlet, has already been covered above.

All that said - I'm still wondering with respect to CMAK, why "30mm" is the number chosen to represent the thickness of the PzIIIH's frontal turret armour, when clearly this isn't accurate.

An error perhaps - or again - does this "30mm" figure. somehow include or otherwise abstract the mantlet as well?