VERY Interesting read about Pz III - T-34 comparison

[Gryphon]

Nevertheless this plan failed. Moreover, in summer 1940 the clouds were gathering over the T-34. The point is that two Pz-IIIs were bought in Germany and delivered to Kubinka for comparative tests. Soviet documentation does not clarify the exact modification of the Pz-III, in all cases it was named as "German T-III". The results were unfavourable for the Soviet T-34.

The T-34 was superior in terms of protection and firepower, but that's all. The Pz-III had a cosy three-man turret with a commander's cupola. Each crewman had an internal communication device at his service. In contrast, the T-34 had a very cramped two-man turret without a commander's cupola. Only the tank commander and the driver had internal communication.

The German tank had a very smooth motion and wasn't as noisy as the T-34: moving with maximum speed the Pz-III could be heard from 150-200 metres while the T-34 could be heard from 450-500 metres.

Soviet engineers were surprised by Pz-III's maximum speed. It was far superior and could run up to 69.7 km/h whereas the T-34's best result was 48.2 km/h. The BT-7, which was used as a standard model, could run on wheels at only 68.1 km/h. The report of those tests indicates that the Pz-III had better suspension, a high quality of German optics, a handy layout of ammunition and radio, and a reliable engine and transmission.

More here:

http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html

[Gryphon]

I wonder what engine they used to get that 70km/h what type of Pz III that was and if it can go that fast in CMBB..

[Doug Beman]

And yet, when the Germans began designing the Panther, the T34 was a much more important influence than the PzIII was. One of the two finalists for the Panther design was a "Germanized" copy of the T34, with forward-set turret, rear-mounted drive sprocket, aluminum diesel engine, and super-wide tracks.

I've also read, in 2 sources (one was in George Forty's book, the other I cannot recall) that, in spring 1941 (a few months before Barbarossa), a group of Soviet designers visited a German tank proving ground and got a climb-around on the current PzIII and IV. The Soviets kept insisting that those tanks couldn't be Germany's best, clearly indicating the Soviets believed their current medium tank was superior.

DjB

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

I've also read, in 2 sources (one was in George Forty's book, the other I cannot recall) that, in spring 1941 (a few months before Barbarossa), a group of Soviet designers visited a German tank proving ground and got a climb-around on the current PzIII and IV. The Soviets kept insisting that those tanks couldn't be Germany's best, clearly indicating the Soviets believed their current medium tank was superior.

This was before they found out just how fatally flawed the T-34/KV-1 turret design and lack of communication were. This is not to say that the T-34 didn't have some inovative design ideas... which heavily infuenced future German designs. their numbers were not great enough in 1941 to make any real difference, and by the time the Germans up-gunned the IIIs and IVs in 1942, only numbers made the T-34 effective. When the T-34/85 rolled out (a big improvement), it was, at best, a mediocre tank.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Gryphon:

I wonder what engine they used to get that 70km/h what type of Pz III that was and if it can go that fast in CMBB..

it was the 10 speed Transmission that allowed such high speeds. mounted from ausf E-G. The ausf H-N mounted a more reliable and cheaper 6 Speed gear limiting top speed to 42km/h.

The German's were aware of the T-34's exsitance as in an *OKW internal document on Soviet military industrial capacity with an cut off date of March 1941 identified a new Soviet 32 ton tank the "T-32" (which was the T-34's original designation) was being produced in several Soviet tank factories.

*See: Zaloga Steven J, Technological Suprise and the Initial Period of War: The Case of the T-34 Tank in 1941 The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Vol.6 No. 4 December 1993. pp. 634 - 646

[Shosties]

If the pre-war Soviets were really dissapointed by finding out the Pz III had such a top speed advantage (under ideal conditions no doubt) then even they underestimated the importance of robust cross country performance over soggy ground.

[ September 06, 2002, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Shosties4th ]

[apex]

I've also read, in 2 sources (one was in George Forty's book, the other I cannot recall)

Could have been Guderian's memoirs.

apex

[Visom]

Originally posted by apex:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I've also read, in 2 sources (one was in George Forty's book, the other I cannot recall)

Could have been Guderian's memoirs.

apex</font>

[Shosties]

The main things I think the Germans recognized they needed in a MBT to succeed the Pz III (Pz IVF2 and beyond are really stop gap and expedient MBTs evolved from an infantry support tank):

Thicker, well sloped armor on front hull and turret.

Wider tracks. (Ummm what's the ground pressure of Panther vs. late model Pz IIIs?)

A much bigger gun.

Certainly the T-34 can be seen as a big infuence in these features. Basically, achieving the best features of both the T-34 and the Pz III in one tank was the driving goal. The one thing the Panther sacrificed in achieving this (largely, I guess you could bitch about the traverse rate) was economy of production and prehaps reliability in the field to some extent (even after the Ausf. D?).

[ September 06, 2002, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Shosties4th ]

[MikeyD]

I read somewhere that PzIIIs remained VERY popular with their crews right up through the war's end. Perhaps the most reliable tanks the Germans had (didn't the Panther have a dismal 40% availibility rate or something like that?). The PzIII's main fault was lack of expansion possibilities. Too small to add armor, too small to add a bigger gun.

[ September 06, 2002, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I read somewhere that PzIIIs remained VERY popular with their crews right up through the war's end. Perhaps the most reliable tanks the Germans had (didn't the Panther have a dismal 40% availibility rate or something like that?). The PzIII's main fault was lack of expansion possibilities. Too small to add armor, too small to add a bigger gun.

Readiness rate for the Panther and the late variants PIV remained at comparable rate from 1944 till the end of the war. Around 50% for units in combat and obviously higher for “out of the line” units.

[gunnergoz]

One thing to remember is that the T-34 of 1940 was quite a bit different from the ones produced in the coming years. The later ones were upgunned, first with a better 76mm then the 85mm version. Protection improved and reliability also. The later 3-man turret brought the tank to even more efficiency. Finally, lets not forget that the production run of T-34's far outstripped that of Pz III's and that the tank lent itself particularly well to the Russian production system.

[busboy]

I just wonder how the war would have gone if the U.S. had supported Walter Christie rather than shunning he and the tank program.

Imagine only U.S. and U.K. tanks with a torsion bar suspension system.

Also, the BT series of tanks was a direct decendent of one of Christie's prototypes that featured sloping front armor. The hull design on the BT series is a clear evolution of this, and the T-34 partially evolved from the BTs.

I just wonder what would happen if Germany and Russia didn't have the torsion bar suspension. Idle meusings, thats all.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Shosties4th:

Certainly the T-34 can be seen as a big infuence in these features. Basically, achieving the best features of both the T-34 and the Pz III in one tank was the driving goal. The one thing the Panther sacrificed in achieving this (largely, I guess you could bitch about the traverse rate) was economy of production and prehaps reliability in the field to some extent (even after the Ausf. D?).

Fastest turret transverse rate for ausf a and ausf G Panthers was 17-18sec for 360 deg.

German estimates retold by Spielberger 'According to rough estimates the labour hour relation in comparison to the Panzer III stood at approximately 1 to 1.25 hrs i.e. 4 Panther for 5 Panzer III tanks to be built. Cost (without weaponry) PzKpfw III RM 96,100; Panther RM 117,100. (1993 Spielberger p23)

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by busboy:

I just wonder how the war would have gone if the U.S. had supported Walter Christie rather than shunning he and the tank program.

Imagine only U.S. and U.K. tanks with a torsion bar suspension system.

Christie didn't design torsion bar suspension -

"The suspension designed by J. Walter Christie in the 1920s involved independently springing a vehicle's road wheels on tall vertical helical springs. The wheels were attached to swing arms which then connected to the springs. The springs required a tall double-walled hull, and they were placed in between the two hull layers......"

Torsion bar is slightly but importantly diffent..

"Torsion bar suspension

This suspension type predominates among modern tracked vehicles. The road wheels are independently sprung, and attached by swing arms to the torsion bars, which are specially-treated steel tubes which run from the road wheel swing arm to an anchor on the other side of the hull. The torsion bars twist in response to wheel movement, and provide a large amount of wheel travel. Vehicles with torsion bar suspension have their opposite road wheels slightly offset from each other, since each torsion bar runs the width of the hull. "

Both from http://afvdb.50megs.com/glossary.html

[Bastables]

The T-34 Christie suspension had greater problems with maintaining low pitch motion in cross-country test at Kummersdorf than both the Sherman and the PIV with their more conventional designs. Pitching was so bad for the T-34 that the speed cross-country was restricted to 26km/h during the tests, things would have progressively worsened as the T-34s added better armour/turret/gun. The Panther was markedly superior to all of them: with a 10cm ground undulation was able to maintain 44km/h. (1993 Spielberger pg 71)

[ September 07, 2002, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[TSword]

Gryphon,

P3's up to version G had a 10 gear Maybach Variorex Gearbox thus allowing much higher speeds then 40 km/h especially when going slightly downhill before overrevving the engine.

Starting version H a less complex 6 gear SSG 77 Gearbox was introduced which reduced max. possible speed before overrevving the engine.

Btw. www.jagdtiger.de has a fine moviesection of a restored StugIII G (And even better a beautiful restored Panther G) where one can hear the distinct sound of the Maybach engines.

Greets

Daniel

[TSword]

Torsion bar suspension does not necessarily mean better suspension. Actually there was a torsion bar suspension tried out with a pre-war PzIV prototype which was found to be inferior to the actual suspension then implemented for the PzIV.

Panther had the most sophisticated torsion bar suspension used in WWII with actually two bars coupled per wheel thus giving the tank an exceptionally soft ride (more then 50 cm travel, only half of that possible with a single bar and much lower resonance frequency) and thus superior crosscountry speed.

Greets

Daniel

[Bastables]

Originally posted by TSword:

Torsion bar suspension does not necessarily mean better suspension. Actually there was a torsion bar suspension tried out with a pre-war PzIV prototype which was found to be inferior to the actual suspension then implemented for the PzIV.

I think this had more to do with Daimler-Benz stacking the deck to insure proven leaf spring suspension was superior for their PIV design. And the PIV chassis never having been designed to accept torsion bar suspension didn't help at all. Inspite of the smaller turret The PIII with its early torsion bar suspension was considered the better and more advanced chassis when compared to the PIV during 1943.

Along with the smaller turret ring, Daimler-Benz continued faith in leaf spring suspension insured that the MAN torsion bar prototype for the Panther was the one selected for serial production. At least after DB Berlin's succesful politicking directed at Dr Todt and then Speer was closed down by an angry Wa Pruf 6 (The Germany army tank design office) and MAN during the Panzer commison ordered by Hitler to review his earlier preference for the DB Panther.

[ September 08, 2002, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]