Talk:Panzer III

Ammunition Capacity

How many rounds of ammunition for the main armament could the Panzer III carry?--chubbychicken 06:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

~120x 37 mm, 99x 50 mm (short cannon), 78x 50 mm (long cannon), 64x 75 mm, at least this is the info from the de wiki. --Denniss 09:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!--chubbychicken 11:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it state anything in regard to what mix of ammunition (if any) that was typically carried? BP OMowe (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Browsing through some PanzerTract books I found the following: only AP rounds mentioned for 3.7cm gun, short 5cm is reported as 58x HE, 36x AP + six further AP as option, long 5cm as 50x HE + 34 AP (of which 8 were optional). No info regarding 7.5cm. Sounds a bit HE heavy, especially for the long-gunned versions.--Denniss (talk)

Good find. Very close to the typical 'rule of thumb' loadout of 1/3 AP, 2/3 HE (noted far below). Popular imagination seems to be that tanks mostly shoot at other tanks; actually they mostly throw HE at stuff. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Cruisers are not Mediums

It's troubling that this article seems to equate the classification of Cruiser tank and Medium tank. They are not the same concept at all, and this confusion is perhaps reflected in the last bit of the article that lists the Matilda (an Infantry tank, neither a medium nor a cruiser) as a comparable design. The Pzkw-III clearly belongs to the class of medium tanks, not cruisers. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the PzKw III and PzKw IV were mediums, although I suspect the term was not used until the heavy tanks like KV-1 and PzKw VI made the distinction necessary. BP OMowe (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No...the 'cruiser' concept is a part of British armor doctrine and is different from a medium tank. The British concept has no real counterpart in German, Soviet, French or US doctrine of the era.

The idea of mediums had been around since the 1920s/early 30s. The Soviet T-28 is a pre-war examples. Heavy tanks had also been envisioned even during WW1.

regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:46, 21 −June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are objecting to, as I was agreeing that they were not cruisers (nor cavalry tanks as per the French doctrine) but indeed medium tanks. What I was pondering about was if the Germans classified them as such in the absense of heavy (Schwere) tanks. BP OMowe (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You suggested above on 6/21/16 that perhaps the term 'medium tank' was not in use prior to 1941/42 with the appearance of the KV and Tiger. My response was that the terms 'medium tank' and 'heavy tank' long pre-date those vehicles. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You confuse me here, are we talking about German tank doctrine pre-WWII (to which my suggestion refer) or classification in general? BP OMowe (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Tactical role

I reverted an edit that contained extensive uncited content regarding the tactical role of medium tanks in general and the Panzer III in particular. Some of it was not strictly accurate but, more to the point, I think this content is better served up in the tank classification or medium tank articles. Very few armies in the 1930s envisioned tanks fighting other tanks, BTW. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. The medium tank classification wasn't strictly followed by the Germans, who were more pragmatic about this kind of thing compared to other nations. It doesn't really fit in this article. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The medium classification is as far as I understand something added after the emerge of heavy tanks and thus dubious. There is no doubt about the intended roles for the PzKw III and PzKw IV though. Soft targets, best defeated with HE-shells, requires large calibre guns to deliver sufficient amount of explosives to the target, but at the time the velocity was a lot lower making them unsuitable for defeating armour. For that purpose, smaller calibre, high velocity guns were better suited. The Germans chose to field two different tanks for that, instead of using dual purpose tanks like the M3 Lee. The previous text described the separate roles, and which of them the PzKw III was to fill and thus should not be omitted entirely, although I agree that the wording tended to be a bit verbose. BP OMowe (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a decent article about tank classification that may be helpful. It's not perfect but what is? There were many systems of classification in use prior to, say, the early postwar period (late 1940s-1950s) when the modern classifications became more or less standard everywhere - light, medium, heavy - and then the concept of the MBT replaced mediums and heavies. But even in the 1920s the concepts of light, medium, heavy, existed alongside Infantry, Cruiser, Cavalry, Recon etc. It just depends on which army you are dealing with. There is nothing wrong in describing the Pzkw-III as a medium tank. Good dual-purpose guns had not yet been invented in the 1930s so every tank-building country tended to either build multi-gun tanks or multiple tank types to fill different roles. The Pzkw-III was intended to be a medium tank but that does not mean its primary mission was to fight other tanks. The Wehrmacht's doctrine assigned the main antitank role to towed AT guns. The Pzkw-III design was NOT optimized for tank-to-tank fighting.

Also, I'm not aware of any army that use a two-role classification for tanks as you are advocating. Nor did many folks envision that tanks would have a major role fighting other tanks. Those are the parts that are not completely accurate.

Regardless, the content is best kept in the tank classification article.

regards, 12:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC) added by DMorpheus2 (talk • contribs)

Take a look at the armament of the PzKw III and then tell me its purpose was not to deal with enemy armour, if nothing else since it is unsuitable for engaging infantry- and ATG-positions. The PzKw IV on the other hand had a very suitable gun for those kinds of targets, but that low velocity gun was on the other hand less suitable for tank vs. tank engagements. Those two roles are the ones perceived necessary for the armoured spearheads creating a break-through the infantry then would consolidate and expand, and where the ATG-doctrine came into play.

When it comes to classifications, I thought we already reached consensus that linking to the main article is the way to go? BP OMowe (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that very little of this should be in this article, i.e., I agree with my own suggestion. You seemed to disagree and want some of that content back. German pre-war and early-war doctrine did not envision two roles (one anti-armor and one infantry support) for tanks. They envisioned at least three roles - reconnaissance, breakthrough and exploitation. Recon is performed by light tanks and armored cars; breakthrough and exploitation by mediums. They envisioned (and actually carried this out rather well) the very close coordination of tanks and towed guns. Towed guns owned most of the AT role. If you believe the Pzkw-III was primarily designed to fight other tanks, why did it have heavy armor on all sides? Why did the armor branch want a 50mm gun in the original design? The answer is that they were looking for a medium tank, i.e., a tank that could engage a variety of targets, survive AT gunfire and be reasonably mobile. This was to carry out the breakthrough and exploitation roles. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Apples and pears leads to a fruitsallad... I should have pointed out that I was discussing the roles of the Panzer III and IV only. If you read the Armour and Armament sections in the article, the PzKw III wasn't heavily armoured and indeed intended to engage other tanks. This however does NOT contradict your description of breakthrough and exploitation. I think you'll agree that Germans saw, even in defence, the tank as an offensive weapon, the iron fist if you like, that was to disrupt and break the enemy coherency on their own. This is what differ the German doctrine regarding tanks from the French and British concept of evenly spread out tanks to bolster and support the infantry with cavalry tanks to exploit the breaches. The 50 mm gun (and much less the 37 mm) isn't a very good weapon against infantry, and a even worse choice for defeating enemy AT-guns as it required a direct hit at a critical spot to disable it. It is however very suitable to deal with enemy armour encountered once the attack is moving forward, leaving the cover of the own AT-guns who has to reposition to keep up. BP OMowe (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no way to intelligently discuss the role of the Panzer III without showing how it fit into a combined-arms team that included other tank types, Infantry, Artillery etc. Otherwise it would be impossible to understand German thinking. Just an aside but that's another reason to keep this content in the tank classification article - it's too much for each individual tank article IMHO.

I don't understand your Pzkw-II comment but we'll leave that aside.

I think its a fair generalization that no army defends with armor if they can help it. It happens, of course, but not usually by choice.

With respect, I think there is a very old myth that in 1940 the British and French "evenly spread out" their armor. Too complex to get into here but the facts are not supportive of that idea.

By the standards of the mid 1930s when the Pzkw-III was being developed, a 50mm gun that could fire both HE and AP projectiles was indeed a pretty good weapon. The very idea of a dual-purpose gun was in its infancy. The first tanks to have such guns - the 50mm-armed Pzkw-III, the T-34 and KV - were formidable partly because they could engage infantry, towed guns, and other tanks. The *reason* the developers wanted the 50mm was to have HE capability. This is the same reason the Red Army upgraded from a 37mm to a 45mm in the early 1930s - for HE.

I agree we're waaaay into the weeds here but, briefly, I think its sort of obvious that the Pzkw-III was intended for the general-purpose medium tank role with a goal of a 50mm gun (even though the 37mm was adopted as a stopgap) and thick armor (for the time) on all sides and rear. It was envisioned that the tank would need to survive fire from all sides. If it had been designed from the outset as a specialist AT vehicle there would have been no need for thick side or rear armor, nor for the designed-in capability of accepting a 50mm gun. Nor would the intent have been to equip 3/4ths of the tank units with a specialist AT-tank. Tanks spend most of their time firing HE, not AP.

DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Pz-II was a typo, it should have read PzKw III, fixed that. To avoid further confusion, I'll just quote the relevant passages from the article:

The Panzer III was intended to fight other tanks; in the initial design stage a 50-millimetre (1.97 in) gun was specified. However, the infantry at the time were being equipped with the 37-millimetre (1.46 in) PaK 36, and it was thought that, in the interest of standardization, the tanks should carry the same armament. The Ausf. A to early Ausf. F were equipped with a 3.7 cm KwK 36 L/45, which proved adequate during the campaigns of 1939 and 1940, but the later Ausf. F to Ausf. J were upgraded with the 5 cm KwK 38 L/42 and the Ausf. J¹ to M with the longer 5 cm KwK 39 L/60 gun in response to increasingly better armed and armoured opponents.

This doesn't in any way mean the sole purpose was to act like a mobile anti-tank gun, merely that if enemy tanks were encountered it was the PzKw III rather than the PzKw IV who was intended to deal with them. On a side-note, I have yet to encounter exact details of the standard mix of HE and AP in the ammunition load-out, only the total number of rounds seems readily available.

I fully concur with your opinion regarding the armour upgrade about the need to survive enemy fire from all sides, a scenario highly likely to occur during a break-through and realized during the Polish campaign. BP OMowe (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ammo loadout typically is about 1/3rd AP and 2/3 HE for tanks that can fire both types. But that is merely typical; I don't see that data for Pzkw-III either. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I enjoy reading this discussion, but what can come of it? (Not a WP:FORUM, WP:SYNTH and all that.) Anything added to the article must be sourced. If we have WP:RSs clearly stating the PzKw III was for an anti-tank role, we must state it was. Without them, we must not. If we have RSs that imply, suggest, or propose that role along with some that imply otherwise, then it doesn't belong here per WP:UNDUE, but should be added to some fully-detailed section in Tank classification or such. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I now have two sources explicitly stating the main task intended for the panzer 3 indeed was enemy armour: "Panzer",p. 73, Robert Jackson, Parragon Books ISBN 978-1-4454-6810-5 and "Deutsche Panzer des 2. Weltkriegs", p.18, Chris Ellis, Peter Chamberlain, John Batchelor, Heyne Bildpaperback ISBN 3-453-52020-3, while the panzer 4 was intended as an (infantry) support tank. BP OMowe (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Pz IIIN.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

"StuG (Fl" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect StuG (Fl has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13 § StuG (Fl until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)