Talk:Panzer III/Archive 1

Armor
This edit, "The unusually heavy rear armor of the Panzer III meant that it could engage enemy tanks while either advancing or retreating, whereas most tanks had to be careful while maneuvering to keep their thin rear armor away from the enemy." is a bit of a spin, isn't it?

There were a few early-WW2 tanks such as the T-50 and KV that also had quite heavy armor on the sides or rear. By mid-war it was evident that putting heavy armor at less-vulnerable points such as the rear was a design disadvantage. It added weight disproportionate to the benefit. The trend in later-war designs was to putting lots of armor in the frontal quadrant and much less in the sides or rear.

This lesson was not lost on the Germans either, as evidenced by, say, the Panther with very strong frontal armor but weak sides - a T-34-85 actually has a penetration advantage on side hits against a Panther's thin side armor.

So, it's tough to sustain that paragraph as written, isn't it? DMorpheus 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Armour Thickness of Panzer III Ausf L
I still reckon that the armour thickness for the Panzer III Ausf L should be 57mm+20mm plates. The reason i say it is 57mm is because a book i have called "The Illustrated Guide To Tanks of The World" by George Forty clearly states that info. --chubbychicken 07:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * World War II Vehicles cites "Panzer Truppen: The Complete Guide to the Creation and Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force 1933-1942" by Thomas L. Jentz and "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two" by Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle as giving an armor thickness of 50mm for the lower hull front, 50+20mm for the upper hull front, and 50+20mm for the turret mantlet. "Panzer Truppen" gives a thickness of 50+20mm for the turret front, while "Encyclopedia of German Tanks" gives a thickness of 57mm with no added armor for the turret front.  Since the thickest armor is the 50+20mm of the upper front hull, that's the number that should be in the infobox. --Carnildo 19:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't argue against Jentz. DMorpheus 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

o.k. thanks. I was just a bit confused.--chubbychicken 06:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

B. Perrett's Panzerkampfwagon III describes Ausf. L as the following: "The Ausf. J began reaching regiments at the end of 1941, by which time it was already apparent that a 50mm armor base was inadequate. In order to minimize the weight increase inevitable with teh addition of further applique armor, it was decided to employ a spaced armor system, 20mm plates being mounted slightly ahead of the front plate and mantlet... this version was known as Ausf. L"-Chin, Cheng-chuan

Gun performance
Bovington's "Fire and Movement" gives the following figures for the L/60 50mm gun: APC: 61mm at 500 yards; 50mm at 1000 yards APCR: 86mm at 500 yards; 55mm at 1000 yards

Ellis, "WW2 Databook" 1993, gives the same figures.

With the early-war T-34s having 52mm of turret armor and 45mm of hull front armor, penetration from 600 meters does not seem impossible DMorpheus 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that taking armor slope into account? The T-34 was famous for using sloped armor, after all. --Carnildo 18:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe this helps more It gives values for different armor angles. AFAIK the sloped armor was effective like 80-85 mm vertical armor. It looks the other sources cited mistakenly used yards instead of meters.--Denniss 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Two things: one, most gun tests, including the ones I cited, are fired against test plate sloped at 30 degrees from the vertical. The T-34 glacis is sloped at a better angle than 30 degrees, of course. The turret front, being curved, is in effect sloped at many angles, including slopes less than 30 degrees.
 * Second, the sources do not "mistakenly" use yards, they deliberately used yards. They are British sources and the ranges are not metric. I wish they were but I did not want to misquote them. DMorpheus 21:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Was there not some confusion with angled shots, the germans using 30 degree from the horizontal instead of the vertical (or am I confused now)? I have a small copy of a 5cm Pak 38 report by the british war office, december 1942. It gives a homogeneous armour penetration of 78, 73, 67, 63 for "normal" and 65, 61, 56, 52 for 30 degree shots with Panzergranate 38 (AP shell, not the tungsten core AP40) at 500/700/1000/1200 yards. --Denniss 16:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally, from what I have read the Germans measured in degrees from horizontal and everyone else measured degrees from vertical. There are tons of sources on gun/ammo penetration and its good to use more than one, although they tend to converge around roughly the same figures. DMorpheus 12:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The German field manual I have read says 50mm shorty gunner should not engage T-34A(M40?)at ranges longer than 200 meters. The long one should be able to penetrate T-34's frontal armor at reasonable ranges, though even Pz IIIL/Ms were still highly vulnerable to 76.2 guns on T-34.-Chin, Cheng-chuan

Panzer III vs Soviet tanks
What was the maximum range in which the KwK39 L/60 of Panzer III (Ausf J,L and M)'s could pierce the armour of the T-34 and KV-1? And at what ranges could the armour of Panzer III (ausf J,L,M and N) withstand against the Russian 76.2mm guns? chubbychicken 00:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can look this up via google as easily as any of the rest of us, my friend. DMorpheus 02:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Under 500 meters according Steven Zologa. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

'Formidable' Tank?
I don't see the uparmored Panzer III even with the long 50mm gun as "formidable" tank or an effective response to the T-34-76. The more optimistic estimates of the long 50mm gun's penetration is that it is capable of penetrating the T-34 frontally at a distance of 500 meters at what I believe to be the turret. That's not any better than T-34-85's against the Panther tank. And the Panzer III was by no means numerically superior. -Chin, Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.202.30 (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Norway
Isn't it a bit wrong to say that Norway used this tank when they were in fact occupied by Nazi Germany? cKaL (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Norway used Panzer III after World War II for a short period and these vehicles were taken from german units stationed in Norway at the time of the surrender. The norwegian designation was" Stridsvogn KW-III". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barild (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

SU76i
The quoted figure of 1,200 captured Pnz III's being converted ito a crude but serviceable SPG by the Russians seems rather high. To begin with, if you go through the article and count up the numbers of Pnz III's available to the Germans in 1942, you get just over 1900. (of which some were deployed in North Africa and occupied countries). It just doesn't seem plausible that two-thirds of this number were captured. And that they were captured in good enough condition to be re-used against their former owners - things get damaged or destroyed in war, so where are the wrecks?

Other sources point to a more reasonable figure of 250-300 Pnz III tanks captured by the Russians by February 1943, with fifty or so sacrificed as a reserve of parts to keep the rest running, fifty used by specialist "captured tank companies" as standard gun tanks, and no more than 200 sent for conversion to the SU 76i. THe 76i was only ever meant as an interim stopgap until the SU85 and JSU assault guns were on stream later in 1943 - the first purpose-built Soviet SPG's saw action at the battle of Kursk in July, and the first SU76i's left the factories in Jan-Feb of that year. Production of the SU-76i ceased in November 1943 after no more than 200 were built.

(Incidentally, doesn't this mean the USSR was also a user of Pnz III's?) Cheers, Paul C, England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.77.245 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the 1,200 number has to be much too high for the SU-76i. For one thing, there is perhaps *one* photo available of the type in service. There are plenty showing the vehicle in trials or at the factory. For a vehicle produced in those numbers you'd expect to find more photos. It is quite easy to find dozens of photos of each type of Lend-Lease tank, for example, and the Stalin regime had an interest in airbrushing their existence away. So why no SU-76i photos? The trouble of course is to find another published estimate, since the 1,200 estimate - however odd it appears to us - has been published.
 * BTW there were no ISUs built in 1943 - they came a bit later - and the Red Army had purpose-built SPGs in the 1930s. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We should take a look at our "friends" at battlefield.ru - they mention 181 SU-76i plus 20 command vehicles. All of them were converted in Factory #37 in Sverdlovsk with the last converted in 11/43. There was no reason to build/convert more of them as the problems with the SU-76 were ironed out and the SU-76 was buildable in much higher numbers and way cheaper than the SU-76i (not to forget lack of spare parts). --Denniss (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Speed
I read in the Achtung Panzer website that the Panzer III when compared with a T-34, could reach the speed of 69km/h. How does that work if the Panzer III's speed is only 40km/h?chubbychicken 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Proably the widly reported 40 km/h is somewhat incorrect, you'll find this value for older and later Panzer III as well as Stug III and Panzer IV. But their weight increased from little below 20 t to somewhat above 23 t. Hard to believe if this tank was able to run 40 km/h with 23t it was not able to be faster with less weight. Maybe some kind of limitation to prevent track damage or the vhicle sold to the USSR did not have full combat weight.--Denniss 14:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Panzer III indeed was capable of speeds around 70km/h, i guess this 40km/h mention is some kind of maintainable (motor) marching speed or something without elevated risk of breakdowns and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.215.41 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image ID needed
This image from the german federal archives shows an early version of the Panzerkampfwagen III during the invasion of Poland. Is this an Ausf. B, C, or D ? It's suitable for the article but I'd like to know the version before adding it. --Denniss (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm creating a gallery for the wonderful, recently-uploaded German Federal Archive files with variants of the Panzer III. I encourage more knowledgable wikipedians to ID these tanks for us to caption them properly within the main text.

Koalorka (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

SU-76i disambig
I changed the redirect for SU-76i from SU-76 to here using a span html tag for Panzer III. The SU-76 has no relationship at all with the SU-76i, and hence I feel the redirect is appropiate. If the section on the SU-76i is ever expanded, please move the tags accordingly. I also bolded as per MoS. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead Photo caption
We have a bit of back-and-forthing going on the lead photo caption. Although this has been labeled an ausf J for a long time, I believe it is in fact an ausf L, since it has no side vision blocks on the turret. Wasn't that a distinguishing feature between the late J and the L ? DMorpheus 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure you're right. I actually have a book with the same tank (different angle on photo taken) and it says its an ausf L.--chubbychicken 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't know. I've never learned the details of recognizing different variants. --Carnildo 02:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, then I don't quite understand why you reverted the caption change? DMorpheus 02:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the other edits at the same time contradicted the sources I was working with. If I see three unsourced edits, two of which contradict a source I've got, and I don't have any information one way or the other on the third, I'll assume it's also wrong. --Carnildo 03:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All Pz Kpfw IIIs with the 5 cm Kw. K. 39 L/60 were either Ausf. L or Ausf. M, in that all Ausf. J with the L/60 were re-named Ausf. J (see Panzer Tracts 3-3, page 1). Since it's definitely not an Ausf. M, it must be an Ausf. L. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, that was settled three years ago ;) ....Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Settled and settled - it was agreed upon based on a caption in an unnamed book, but captions in books often makes mistakes about which model a tank is. My addition was aimed at proving the correct identification. Didn't notice the date, though - will keep a better eye on that in the future :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Ankerstjerne (talk • contribs) 08:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Main article photo of Panzer III from the German archives
The legend of the photo from the German archives in the main page, showing a panzer iii in Greece...I think it's not correct, because the photo's date marks April 1940. That time Greece wasn't in war with Germany. Greece entered the war first with Italy in October 28th 1940 and then in 1941 with the Germans. Thus the photo must be from another war front (France?) or the legend marks wrong date... 02/02/2010 - Yannis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.93.24 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

3.7 cm cannon on the first models
Hi, on the page I read that the 3.7 cm gun is a "3.7 cm KwK 36 L/46.5", while instead the relative page says "3.7 cm KwK 36 L/45". So which is the correct barrel length (45 is 1665 mm and 46.5 is 1720.5 mm)? Cheers, --Amendola90 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * L/45 (= 1665 mm)is the correct one. v.r. --HHubi (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of On-War article
Is there a better source for commentary on use of three-man turrets. The article itself has the questionable phrase: "The simple fact that German tanks were the only ones to have three-man turrets in the early period of World War II represents a significant factor in explaining the military successes achieved during the Blitzkrieg years of 1939-42". Questionable as during the period mentioned all the British cruiser tanks were three man turrets. Of the infantry tanks the Matilda II had a three-man turret, the Valentine had a 3-man turret introduced from the Mark III, and the Churchill introduced in 1941 was a 3-man turret design. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that the article gives undue weight to the 3-man turret design. The British pioneered this idea at least as far back as the 1920s. As you note, many other tanks (we could add the KV-1, T-28 and T-35 as additional examples) used 3-man turrets earlier or about the same time. The M4 Sherman used a 3-man turret and was not influenced by the Pzkw-III design. It was a response to the Pzkw-IV. Of course it was a good turret crew layout but not a huge influence on others who had the same idea earlier or about the same era. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Panzer III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160105092753/http://afvdb.50megs.com/germany/pz3.html to http://afvdb.50megs.com/germany/pz3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comparison to Somua S35
I dare say the claim that it 'outclassed' S-35 is a tad ridiculous, too. Afterall, the S-35 only had 25mm more armor, a better gun and equavelent mobility... Chin, Cheng-chuan
 * The S-35 had a one-man turret. With the same guy taking the roles of commander, gunner, and loader, there's no way the tank could be used effectively.  A bigger gun and thicker armor don't mean anything if the commander is too busy reaching for ammunition to realize he's just been outflanked by a Panzer III. --Carnildo 22:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, even though the S-35's gun was excellent, the Pzkw-III's 37mm or 50mm was sufficient and thus the 3-man turret crew would probably give it a decisive advantage. This is a great illustration of the difference between paper quality and real-world figthability. If the S-35 (or any French tank) had really been in the same class the Germans probably would have required the French to keep building it. DMorpheus 00:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, being outflanked by a PzKpfw III wasn't a very serious thing for a S 35 as it had about the same armour thickness all around. Certainly it would be unwise to claim that the S 35s were hopelessly outclassed by the PzKpfw IIIs, as there are simply no exact data supporting this. The types really only seriously met in battle during the engagement near Hannut when neither side seems to have had a clear advantage.--MWAK 18:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The S-35 rarely engaged Panzer III under tactical conditions that it could win. If my memory serves, the bulk of the units that possessed the Suomi tank were cut off at Belgium. The ones that were actually committed against German spearheads were too little, too late. The Germans were able to prevail over the S-35 with overwhemling numbers and firepower, inspite of its very good characteristics. BTW there is no evidence that 50mm Panzer III's ever fired a shot in anger in France. I am sorry for being untimely in my response.-Chin, Cheng-chuan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.239.222.84 (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Well this...

"These other tanks, which may look impressive on paper, lacked this key element of "fightability".[citation needed] The French Somua S-35 was a classic example of a tank that appeared to be the equal of the Panzer III on paper, with a good gun and strong armor, but with its one-man turret crew it was hopelessly outclassed by the Panzer III."

...is utterly NPOV anyway, is uncited and yet it, apparently, has been there for over two years... That sort of thing is what fuels so much of the criticism directed at Wikipedia you know... In fact, I'll remove it, it simply does not belong in this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.83.205 (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I haven't cut it entirely, but I've rewritten it to sound less like a German propagandists screed against the Souma... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.83.205 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Utterly NPOV"... Opps... Well, you know what I meant, it was pretty biased agains the Somua, particularly when it was an uncited claim... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.26.58 (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe you may be able to cite to Guderian's Panzer Leader for this claim. If I recall correctly, he stated that the SOMUA S35 was superior in firepower and armor to the Panzer III (and probably the IV too, since it was still armed with the L/24 infantry support gun), but it was ineffective against the Panzer III due to German use of radios, crew configuration, and the fact that the French dispersed their armor with the infantry rather than using concentrated armor as the Germans did. Also, see the Panzer IV page, which cites to other sources supporting this claim. Afwm1985 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That still leads to the question if it was the French tank or the French tactics that was the main issue with the S-35 in comparison with the PzKw-III. BP OMowe (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * S35s were certainly not "dispersed with the Infantry". This is something of a myth anyway. S35s were all grouped into cavalry formations. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Torison bars
I've now had two editors roll back sourced information for less considered reasons. Fact is that the torsion bar tank-suspension was indeed developed at Landsverk (German-Swedish cooperation), and then spread with the German-Soviet cooperation, which is the reason both the KV and the Pz.Kw. III had such suspension. As the L-60 precedes both the PzKw III and the KV-1 by several years it is neither irrelevant nor undue weight. BP OMowe (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a major difference between developing something and being the first to use it in a tracked vehicle. L-60 was likely the first use in a tracked vehicle but they didn't develop Torsion bars.--Denniss (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with User:Denniss here (and I was one of the ones who rolled this back). Torsion bar suspension was developed in the civilian vehicle realm and then migrated to tracked vehicles. I believe we assign undue weight to the Landsverk design (which influenced practically nothing) when we select it, out of all the other preceding vehicles equipped with torsion bar suspension, as if it directly influenced the design of the Panzer III. It would be equally valid to cite the Renault 7CV instead, if we want to cite the real pioneer of torsion bar suspension. In the period of the very late 1930s-early 1940s almost everyone was migrating their AFV designs to torsion bar. By 1945 it would be difficult to find new designs that were not using it (the Centurion, a new design in 1945, was a real outlier in this respect).
 * So, at *best* I believe the lansverk cite is undue weight. It is also probably irrelevant in that Landsverk was not the inventor, nor have we shown that there was a design link between landsverk and Panzer III designers.
 * Better option is to simply keep a wiki link to torsion bar suspension and let that article tell the story.
 * regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is a direct link between AB Landsverk, the German and the Russian tanks. After the Versailles-treaty, German engineers and industry went abroad to circumvent the imposed restrictions. From the article: "In late 1920 the company found itself on the verge of bankruptcy. Through a Dutch company, the German Gutehoffnungshütte Aktienverein für Bergbau und Hüttenbereich Oberhausen (GHH), invested heavily and gained control of 50% of the shares.

In 1923 the company manufactured a small number of tracked agricultural tractors based on an American design. The Germans increased their ownership to 61% in 1925, three years later the name was changed to AB Landsverk. In 1929 the German engineer Otto Merker was assigned to Landsverk to develop armoured vehicles, a few prototypes of a German design with both wheels and tracks were manufactured in Landskrona". The same type of crossbreeding and exchanges of knowledge that benefited AB Bofors took place in other countries like Czechoslovakia, Soviet and Switzerland. More can be found here, I ran it through google translate if you don't happen to read Swedish. When it comes to influence, Landsverk was the first to use welded hulls, prism periscopes and automatic gears to mention a few things that became standard equipment, the last even licensed to Western manufacturers after the war.

None of these connections are present in the article, meaning a reader will not even get a hint there is more information to look for, much less where to look for it. Hence I strongly object to the passage being omitted. BP OMowe (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If you have english-language sources to back you up then we should discuss this further. My specialty is Soviet, not German armor but I've never read anything leading to the belief that Landsverk had any influence on Soviet designs. Sometimes a technology is so obviously good that it gets adopted widely - which is a bit different than crediting a particular early adopter.
 * The L-60 was not the first AFV to use welding nor periscopes.
 * Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * More attention to what I actually have written would advance the pace of discussion. I said Landsverk, not L-60. Have a look at the L-10 instead. Point is that Landsverk (with a German majority owner) was used as a development facility, just as the exchange between Germany and the Soviet Union. The stridsvagn m/40 (L-60-S III) was the first serial produced tank with automatic transmission, unless you have other sources disputing that of course. Before you dismiss the given source, I should mention that Rickard O. Lindström, apart from serving at Försvarets Materielverk, also is author of the history of the Swedish armoured forces and tank development "Svenskt Pansar" so it is not some anonymous blogger. BP OMowe (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The claim was the L-60 as the influencer, not merely Landswerk. And wikipedia policy is to rely on english-language sources in the english wiki. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think this has gotten a bit derailed, so I'll summarize it. The claim was that the first torsion bar tank-suspension was developed at AB Landsverk for the L-60, which obviously makes the statement of KV-1 and PzKw III being the first tanks with said suspension false. The relevance for including the claim (apart from the statement of being first is false) is the connections between AB Landsverk and German tank development. The source is an expert in his field who apart from having combat vehicle development as profession has had his historical work published by an established publisher of military history (Svenskt Militärhistoriskt Bibliotek).
 * Your statement regarding policy have me a bit puzzled, since I know there are a plethora of other articles with non-English sources. Least to me, the appropriate policy pages are hard to find among all the help pages, so I takes the liberty to post a link to Verifiability here for easy reference. BP OMowe (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

After checking the sources available on-line, the Citroën Traction Avant and the stridsvagn L-60 both turn out to be from 1934, making the claim that torison bar suspensions were a civilian invention adapted for military use a questionable one, even with one source crediting Ferdinand Porche as the brain behind the tank suspension (at the time he was deeply involved in the German automotive industry and -movement).BP OMowe (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, there is the 1921 Leyland and the 1933 Volkwagen. I don't think we will get to the bottom of this very easily. DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)