"Comparison of Panzer III to T-34." Topic

Despite it's classification I've always looked at the PzIII as a medium tank due to the role it played during the first half of the war.

It is worth keeping in mind that classifications can vary from military to another (for example, in WWII Finnish military terminology 81 and 82 mm mortars are called light mortars), and in the end the nominal classification of a vehicle does not affect its actual battlefield performance.

Furthermore, back in the late 30's common tank classification scheme was by a tactical role, rather than weight or armament. In the period British terminology Pz III would have probably been considered a cruiser tank by its tactical role, and Pz IV as a close support cruiser tank. In the Soviet terminology Pz III would have filled the role of a cavalry or fast tank (though not quite as fast as the Soviet BT tanks) and Pz IV again the support version of the same. In the US it would have probably been considered as a cavalry combat car by its tactical role (though the armament is rather similar to an infantry light tank).

I am less certain how the French, Polish, Italian and Japanese militaries would have classified in in the late 30's.

Oh, heck. I just realized that he was using the F-34 using German manufactured ammo.
(Bottom of page)
link

But, it should be using Russian ammo.
link

I guess I can post on YouTube to correct this.

The Japanese with their poor tanks overran Malaysia and the Philippines.

Very true … but as noted there were a number of factor that contributed to that. They had surprise, etc., and were prepped to go to war. As we see many in the early days of WWII were not.

If you don't have a useful AT weapons and/or know how to use them effectively. Even the IJFs' AFVs, e.g. Type 94s, 95s, etc., are pretty "good" …

The Germans overran France which had more and better tanks. The Germans had the better tanks in Normandy and The Bulge but lost both badly. Seems to me that there is little correlation between how your armor looks on paper and how it performs in real life.

Again a weapon is only as good as trooper/crew using it along with capable leadership.

However, a "good" overall AFV is useful if used efficiently and effectively. And certainly gives the troops on the ground a tactical edge. Which could translate over to operational and even strategic victory. Based on other factors, as we see and know.

Of course, imagine an M13/40 vs. a Centurion. Or even a T34/85 vs. an M60 or even an M1. Some times … bigger is better …

Stonne 15-18 May 1940

French forces attempt to attack the village of Stonne, a bridgehead on the Meuse, the French attack is disorganized and the tanks outpace the infantry attacking a battalion of the Grossdeutschland with 9 AT guns. The attack fails and over the next three days the town will change hands 17 times. German aggressive defense causes French tanks to panic and retreat several times. At the same time Billotte in his Char B launches an attack and knocks out 13 German tanks and several AT guns. But ultimately the French fail to break the enemy lines.

Battle of Montcornet 17 May 1940

DeGaulle's 4 DCR (Activated May 12 with a strength of 85 tanks) attacks German forces at Montcornet. His forces face a tough defense with mines, AT guns and constant air strikes, though ultimately victorious his forces are exhausted and cannot pursue the enemy.

Battle of Arras 21 May 1940

At this point of the campaign the situation was more critical than ever. The German spearhead had pretty much reached its objective meaning that there was now a gap between the motorized troops and the foot infantry which had yet to catch up.

The French and British launched an armoured attack on the vulnerable German flank and initially scattered German defenses, but they managed to regroup and put up a strong defense reinforced by artillery and air strikes, slowing down the advance just enough until the night set in and fearing a counter-attack the British withdrew.

Battle of Abbeville 27 May – 4 June 1940

Once again DeGaulle and his 4 DCR attempts to break the German lines and while the initial advance caused great panic with German troops, the French attack was erratic, with wildly fluctuating success, some units easily breaking through enemy defenses, while others barely made an advance. After several days of bitter fighting, the French attempts prove futile and the heavy losses force the French to call off the attack.

The main themes we see in these battles is that tanks can retain their inherent combat value in many cases even in adverse conditions, but they also remain extremely vulnerable when not properly used and supported, their advantages will only go so far. German troops are often disrupted by these attacks, but the attacks tend to peter out for lack of coherence and support. Communications is severely lacking with the Allied forces. Many mistakes are made, at Abbeville French troops maneuver through an area they believe to be held by British forces, who withdrew the day before and run into minefields and heavy defenses.

We have testimonies that the crews of the Char B or the Matlida varians performed very well until they finally run into a problem and end up either lost or in retreat.

The Germans know how to coordinate their forces and while enemy attacks takes their troops off guard many times, they often recover just enough to hold up the offensive which gives the breathing space for other units to come to the rescue.

We find that on the tactical level armour and guns can help, but they are not absolutes and the enemy does not stand slack-jawed staring in disbelief at the enemy, but strike back. If the front proves invulnerable they will try something else, attack the tracks, knock off the antenna, let them bypass your positions and hit from the flank or rear, or use tank destroyer teams, artillery or air strikes to disrupt or destroy them.

Flash forward to 1944 and we find British and US troops that are now using combined arms doctrine, have the proper communications and mutually supporting arms. Their units are now tactically much more mobile and much more resilient. When the Germans launch an attack with several Panther brigades against US positions at Arracourt, the situation is not very different from that of Abbeville. A strong armoured force, lacking in support attempts to break through a capable force. They do the same as the Germans did in 1940. Flank the enemy, hit them where they are vulnerable and once the initial attack is blown bring in artillery and air power to disrupt the enemy into retreating or even rout them.

At Abbeville the French found their tanks were not able to dislodge a well-positioned German infantry division. In September 1944 another German division holds the same positions against the 1st Polish Armoured division, they are overwhelmed in a matter of hours and the town is liberated by the evening.

It is highly important that we hear the same discourse in 1940 as we hear in 1944. German reports are full of mentions of "Ungeheuer", "Stahlfestungen" and "Riesenpanzer", monsters, steel fortresses and giant tanks, much in the same way the allies cry "Tiger" whenever something on tracks looks a little big and scary.

The general assumption is that you just have to show up with a big gun tank, take a good position and then pick off the stupid enemy who charges at you headlong. Tank warfare is not knights bravely duelling, it's bushwhacking, sniping or using all unfair advantages to beat the other guy.

And once we talk about battalions and divisions the armour and gun factors tend to even out. US, Soviet and British divisions became highly capable fighting units, capable of using their assets very effectively, the Germans attempted to close the gap by introducing very powerful tanks, but they came into a situation where a capable opponent could mitigate this advantage and still win even if equipped with "inferior" equipment.

The biggest mistake is to see the armour and gun size as absolutes, and while a tank retains a certain degree of inherent combat value no matter what, their ultimate effectiveness can fluctuate tremendously. A single Tiger can take out the spearhead of a British division, but can also be knocked out by a brutally aggressive armoured car armed with a 37mm gun attacking the rear and scoring several hits into the engine.

Yes, I fought those 1940 battles on the game board with SPI and AH board games. Very interesting … Until the '88s opened up …

Regardless I agree with you again Patrick.

Tank warfare is not knights bravely duelling, it's bushwhacking, sniping or using all unfair advantages to beat the other guy.

That is basically all warfare. Based on my training, experience, etc., as an Army Infantry Officer, '79-'90. E.g. an L-Shaped Ambush, nothing fair about that … But if done properly very effective/deadly …

In September 1944 another German division holds the same positions against the 1st Polish Armoured division, they are overwhelmed in a matter of hours and the town is liberated by the evening.

Which. Rings me back to my original point. The real problem the Germans had in 1944 was not poor tanks it was poor infantry. A 1940/41 division would not have folded like that, but the German infantry had lost their edge, which the Germans were aware of, but powerless to reverse. If you look at the ratings that the Germans gave their divisions you see far too many rated for only limited defensive action.

The quality is certainly a factor, but 1943 is the year that shows the German army no longer has the operational mobility to launch major offensives, 1944 is the year they lose much of the core of veteran troops because of the lack of motorisation.

Just like Soviet divisions were captured and isolated in 1941, Entire German divisions are lost because they cannot escape or disengage and are ground up in ongoing battles.

Technically a 1944 division should be stronger with a much higher proportion of MG's, mortars, a beefed up AT section and the widespread use of infantry AT weapons like the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck. But they have to sacrifice the tail to keep up the numbers of the head so these units are even less mobile and resilient than a 1940 division. Instead of being lean and mean on account of better equipment they are much more fragile and often cannot disengage fast enough without significant losses.

By the fall of 1944 the core of useful veterans is now utterly depleted. They can maintain a few veteran formations which remain capable, but many other divisions lack experienced troops and are extremely brittle, inflexible and no match for Allied divisions. In 1945 we see battalions aggressively take on divisional formations and break them. At this point most German units are not even speed bumps to an allied advance.

Tank warfare is not knights bravely duelling, it's bushwhacking, sniping or using all unfair advantages to beat the other guy.

And this sort of sneaking, ambushing, taking flank shots from hiding etc. that could be highly efficient in the real life becomes trickier to re-present on the gaming table, where the players under most rules have both a high level of situational awareness as well control over their tanks.

This then tends to favour vehicles with thick frontal armour and big guns in the games.

In 1945 we see battalions aggressively take on divisional formations and break them.

Most German divisions were Brigade strength at best by then. Sometimes no more than a strong battalion, with limited support.

And this sort of sneaking, ambushing, taking flank shots from hiding etc. that could be highly efficient in the real life becomes trickier to re-present on the gaming table, where the players under most rules have both a high level of situational awareness as well control over their tanks.
This then tends to favour vehicles with thick frontal armour and big guns in the games.

Very true, at least the rules should give some sort of "bonus" to flank or rear shots, generally. E.g. +1 to roll to hit on the flank and +2 to the rear … or something like that …

I think what he's saying is getting that flank shot in real life often relies on the target being unaware of the shooter's position.
Whereas in many games the player sees all. So sneaking up isn't viable.

Our games tend to pit forces of equal strength against each other (taking into consideration advantages of position, etc.), whereas, the art of war is to find ways to attain local superiority.

Point-wise the PZIIIH is worth 26 points and the T-34/76 Model 1940 is 39 points. In a head-to-head battle at 750 meters 10 T-34s can beat 10 Panzer III 3 to 8 in losses. When 10 green crew T-34s face off vs. 10 veteran Panzer IIIH at 250 m the panzers win 7 to 8. Basically, APCR effectiveness is the thing that counts.

Interesting analysis Mobius. Presuming that's with the data set from PanzerWar?

Basically, APCR effectiveness is the thing that counts.

I expect so, but … range matters too, no? I mean, in one way they are tied together (as the APCR loses effectiveness more quickly over range), but being closer matters.

It is easy to say "this is the variable that matters" if you are only adjusting one variable, and you get a different result. But did you vary the crew quality between the two cases? You describe the crew quality only in the second case.

How would the balance play out if we move up to PzIIIL or M? I would expect that balance with APCR would shift rather significantly to the PzII's favor. But even without, it might move the balance over to the PzIII.

Not trying to give you a mountain of work, mind. Ignore my ramblings if it places a burden on your time. Just a topic that keeps my interest up.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I used the computer game Panzer Command. In the first test the crew quality was both veteran. This game has a ROF and the T-34 was 4 rpm and the PZIII was 9. So the computer handles the choice of target and fire except as German player I try to target sides of the enemy.

I'll try the scenario with a better German tank. But, there are actually lots of scenarios already that have Panzer III j/1s which you can win against T-34s and KV-1s. Bear in mind the 50mm/L60 has an even better APCR round.
I have to change the date of the scenario to 2/42 to get the 50mm/L60 on a tank.

Vs 10 Panzer III J/1 resulted in 8 vs 8 losses at ~500m.

I suspected you had run it as an auto-run scenario with Panzer Commander.

In the several times I played Panzer Commander with T-34s, I was shot to pieces. But then, it was a few years ago now, and I was not quite as content with the notion that the Pz IIIJ/L/M could out-fight T-34s, so I presumed my game skills were behind the curve vs. the game AI.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I think what he's saying is getting that flank shot in real life often relies on the target being unaware of the shooter's position.
Whereas in many games the player sees all. So sneaking up isn't viable.

This is what I had in mind – the all-knowing and all-controlling player is aware of the sneaking force, and can thus try to adjust his frontage to meet the flanking force.

Of course, if one has superior numbers, then it becomes possible to attack the opponent from multiple directions at once, which might give a better chance for some of them getting a flank shot.

The effect becomes even more pronounce with unarmoured targets, such as bazooka crews and anti-tank guns, that could be historically challenging to spot in suitable terrain, but very vulnerable once spotted.

As for benefits of flanking shots, besides the issues of weaker armour (on most tanks) and the response times, the tank tends to present a larger area profile towards the flank than to the front/rear. But I cannot think of any skirmish rules that would be detailed enought to provide a to-hit bonus for shooting at flank (though then the different sizes of vehicles, from Bren carrier to a Tiger, should be also taken into account…).

I think height is more significant than width. Unless the target is moving. Then the lateral change is most important and width becomes more significant.
Steel panthers models size and movement speed.

In a few more tests I pitted 10 uparmored Panzer IIIL vs. 10 T-34 Model 1942s. The Germans failed exchanging fire from 500-750m in two bouts.

Next I tried to charge in closer and fight from a range of 400-600 m. Even though I lost 3 tanks before they came to a stop I still won this fight with only 7 vs 10 losses.

Next bout I tried to get in even closer before opening fire. This time some tanks got to 300-500 m. But, this was a rush too far and I lost this attempt badly.

In conclusion it looks like there is a sweet spot distance that I could get too without losing too many tanks but still inflict more casualties. Too far or too close will lose the match.

I think what he's saying is getting that flank shot in real life often relies on the target being unaware of the shooter's position.

Not necessarily … E.g. AFVs, AT weapons etc. spread out basically "on line/line breast", or in a "Lazy W", etc. Will get flank shots on enemy armor, if they are in number of formations, e.g. "V"/Wedge, etc. Again it is all based on the terrain, and the relative positions of the all the vehicles. Both firing and targets …

Also when I talk about a flank shot, I'm including "oblique". Not necessarily a direct on the flank shot, i.e. where the firer sees the total side aspect of the target. But again "oblique" shots … from that aspect of the target.

Hits on US M4 tanks in WWII

Turret Front 9%
Hull Front 21%
Turret Side 18%
Hull side 32%
Suspension 19%
Hull rear 1%

Hits on Soviet T34 tanks 1942-1945

Turret Front 14.5%
Turret Side 17.2%
Turret Rear 2.8%
Hull Front 15.6%
Hull Side 46.8%
Hull Rear 3%
Tank front 30%
Tank side 64%
Tank rear 6%

Very interesting ! Thanks or should I say "Tanks" !

Would the larger than expected % of side hits be from anti-guns situated in an ambush location to almost guarantee a side shot?

Wolfhag

Germans kill claims for January-April 1944

Panzers 39.2 %
AT Guns 24.1%
Panzerjaeger and StuG 21.6%
Artillery, mines, other 8.6%
Other AT : 6.4%

Flanking attacks are attractive for more than just the opportunity to strike thinner side armor. They also promise a greater likelihood that the firer will remain undetected.

FWIW.

B

You have a better chance of penetration on side/flank shots. As all knows the flank armor is thinner than the front. Which has the thickest armor, of course.

Hits on US M4 tanks in WWII

Turret Front 9%
Hull Front 21%
Turret Side 18%
Hull side 32%
Suspension 19%
Hull rear 1%

These are very interesting numbers, but I would be interested to know a bit more how the data was collected.

For example, if the data is based on a study of damaged tanks, then that could affect the ratios.

Another thing to consider, that the side aspect of an AFV presents a much bigger target too …

Legion,
Yes, a side aspect does present a larger target but how much does it really increase the chance to hit?

A head-on target might be 3.0m wide and 2.0m high. A 90-degree aspect might be 6.0m wide and 2.0m high. So is the chance to hit increased by 100% because of 2x the area?

Mobius could give a good answer to this. My guess is if aiming at center mass the horizontal dispersion would come into effect after about 2 seconds time of flight, any closer than that the horizontal size of the target is not going to come into play. However, with a side shot a round that would normally pass between the ground and hull floor of a head-on target will hit the road wheels/tread so you get a slight increase just from that.

Another advantage of a side shot is that you can target the fuel tanks easier and some tanks had the fuels tanks alongside of the engine for a double whammy. The higher up on the fuel tank you hit the better chance of hitting an area that is empty but will ignite the fumes.

Wolfhag

Theoretically it makes almost no difference. There is 0.1-0.2% difference in hitting the side than front of a Tiger I with a 75mm Sherman gun from 500 yds to 2000 yds.
That is because there is so little lateral dispersion in the Sherman's gun. The target goes from 6 standard deviations to more than 12 wide so it doesn't really increase the to-hit chance very much.

In practice it might be different because the target might be partially hidden or obscured so there is not a clear shot.

Yes, a side aspect does present a larger target but how much does it really increase the chance to hit?

Well this is what I remember using the M47 Dragon MAW and M72 LAW. The sight picture had similar standard lines, etc., that you'd see on most sights.

In fact the M47 had a sight picture like – I_I. If the target was to fill the space in between the I_I, touching or exceeding both sides. If not it was too far away to engage effectively.

So short answer the closer the target, the easier it is to hit … of course. The closer the target, the bigger the target, the easier it is to hit. I'm simple guy, and never was very good at math …

Just like the 25m target on the M16 range was easier to hit than the 300m. Bigger target easier to hit … Yes ?

Of course I've never been in an M4 trying to engage a Tiger …

The height of the target is supposedly more important than its width, so far as the chances of hitting it go.

Legion,
Like Mobius said, it's about the lateral dispersion of the round. The pattern will be an oval and the lateral dispersion is about 1/3 of the vertical. That's why at longer ranges it matters but not shorter ranges because as the lateral dispersion widens a side aspect is easier to hit. However, as the lateral dispersion widens the vertical does too and the target height stays the same so less of a chance.

The Dragon (I think the later version) had about a 20% chance to hit a target at 1.5K. Since it is wire-guided the dispersion is probably in a circle, not an oval. So in the case of a Dragon at long range, the poor accuracy will be helped to aim at the side aspect but only to a point but not make a difference at 200-300m. So I think in the Dragon's case you are right.

The sight description sounds like a stadiametric rangefinder probably to make sure you don't engage a target outside or inside your minimum/maximum effective range. We didn't have them when I was in.

Higher targets are always easier to hit than wider targets for a variety of reasons.

Wolfhag

Just found this brief video comparing a Sherman and a Panther, so far as their abilities to handle a few types of obstacles. Don't know who made the video, or when, but it was apparently made by Russians.

YouTube link

From my calculations a 75mm Sherman with a M55 sight has a 33.8% chance to hit a Tiger facing them at 1000 yards. If the height of the Tiger drops 1 foot this goes down to 30.3%.
This is an average of two different methods. One is the WWII German rectangular method the other is the more modern oval method.

Also found this comparison of a Sherman and a Tiger I, although a bit simplistic. It includes interviews with a few British Sherman crewmen and one Tiger crewman.

YouTube link

Like Mobius said, it's about the lateral dispersion of the round. The pattern will be an oval and the lateral dispersion is about 1/3 of the vertical. That's why at longer ranges it matters but not shorter ranges because as the lateral dispersion widens a side aspect is easier to hit. However, as the lateral dispersion widens the vertical does too and the target height stays the same so less of a chance.

I see … like I said I was never any good at the math and physics stuff …

The Dragon (I think the later version) had about a 20% chance to hit a target at 1.5K. Since it is wire-guided the dispersion is probably in a circle, not an oval. So in the case of a Dragon at long range, the poor accuracy will be helped to aim at the side aspect but only to a point but not make a difference at 200-300m. So I think in the Dragon's case you are right.

Yes, IIRC, the original M47 was had a max rg of @ 1000ms ..

The sight description sounds like a stadiametric rangefinder probably to make sure you don't engage a target outside or inside your minimum/maximum effective range. We didn't have them when I was in.

That sounds about right …

Higher targets are always easier to hit than wider targets for a variety of reasons.

Yes, I see and of course that makes sense … now …

Don that video was made by the Swedes.
Here is the full video.
YouTube link

Mobius: Interesting. Includes a Churchill and what is either a Pz 38(t) or its Swedish equivalent, as well as the Sherman (a Firefly) and a Panther.