green beanie | 19 Jan 2020 7:57 a.m. PST |
I was wondering why Rommel never used and Panzer 38t gun tanks in North Africa? His 7th Panzer Div. in France had a very large force of them and I do believe they were better tanks than the Panzer I's & Panzer II's that were used by the 15th Panzer and 21at Panzer Div's in North Africa. Thanks for your help in advance. |
Mserafin | 19 Jan 2020 8:05 a.m. PST |
He used what they gave him to use. They didn't give him 38t's in NA, so he didn't use any (except for some Marders on the 38t chassis). |
Fred Cartwright | 19 Jan 2020 8:38 a.m. PST |
Simple answer is the divisions Rommel was allocated for DAK didn't have them. The Czech tanks remained with the formations that had them for the invasion of France like 6th and 7th Panzer, committed to the eastern front plus a couple of new divisions got them from ongoing production. |
Legion 4 | 19 Jan 2020 9:27 a.m. PST |
Yep … no 38ts in the DAK. Save for as noted the Marders on the 38t chassis. |
Martin Rapier | 19 Jan 2020 11:30 a.m. PST |
And even the units which did have Pz 35s and Pz 38s, also had Pz IIs… that was how light and medium panzer companies were organised in 1941. |
Griefbringer | 19 Jan 2020 11:40 a.m. PST |
Perhaps the Panzer 38t would be best compared to the early Panzer III tanks with the 37 mm guns? My understanding is that in the early war they were employed in a similar role. From a logistical perspective, it was more efficient to concentrate those Czech tanks in specific divisions. And as far as I recall, there was actually a whole lot of them taking part in Barbarossa. |
panzerfrans | 19 Jan 2020 2:01 p.m. PST |
They wanted 50mm gun tanks for the DAK… Panzer III's that didn't have them were upgunned before being shipped to Africa. |
Frederick | 19 Jan 2020 5:51 p.m. PST |
Plus they were using all the 38ts in Russia |
Garand | 21 Jan 2020 7:08 a.m. PST |
The Pz. 35(t) & 38(t) were substitute tanks for the Pz III, not the Pz I or II. So if the division already had Pz III in their TO&E then no Pz 38(t)s would be issued. So sure they were better than the I or II but the roles were different. Damon. |
Legion 4 | 21 Jan 2020 9:26 a.m. PST |
The 35 & 38ts could be arguably be considered "better" than the early versions of the Pz III. |
Rich Bliss | 21 Jan 2020 1:26 p.m. PST |
Yep. No 38(t) in Africa. Unlike some rules, generals usually don't get to pick their equipment. |
Griefbringer | 22 Jan 2020 4:03 a.m. PST |
The 35 & 38ts could be arguably be considered "better" than the early versions of the Pz III. Isn't there however a difference between the turret layout? My understanding is that the Pz III was from the beginning designed with three person turret, while the Czech tanks had two person turrets. This would make a difference on the effectiveness of the tank commander. |
Garand | 22 Jan 2020 6:52 a.m. PST |
I was under the impression that the Germans modified the 38(t) turret to give it an extra seat. I'd have to check my references, whether this made it into a 2 man or a 3 man turret. Yes, the Pz III was designed from the ground up to have a 3 man turret, but the armor protection on the early models (A, B, C & maybe D) was only 15mm all around, whereas the E upgraded to 30mm. The 38(t) had up to 30mm in the early models IIRC. Damon. |
Legion 4 | 22 Jan 2020 9:21 a.m. PST |
The TC effectiveness could be affected by a two man turret. But again IMO it comes down to crew training and experience in many cases. I'm not sure if the Germans modified the 38t turret. But they were known to do such things. But yes, overall I think the 38t was a better BT than the early models of the Pz III. Yes it appears they did add a loader seat … link In German service, a loader position was added to the turret by reducing the ammunition capacity by 18 rounds. All future Panzer 38(t) tanks were rebuilt according to this specification and those already in service were modified accordingly. The commander had to aim and fire the main gun in addition to his role as commander.
|
Mark 1 | 22 Jan 2020 4:26 p.m. PST |
I was under the impression that the Germans modified the 38(t) turret to give it an extra seat. I'd have to check my references, whether this made it into a 2 man or a 3 man turret. Yes it appears they did add a loader seat … We should be careful in how much we read into this development. As Garand expressed, the addition of a seat does not necessarily mean the addition of a crew member. I believe that all versions of the 38t that were produced (not including whatever various experimental variants were considered) had 4 man crews. The crew positions were: - 2 in the hull: Driver, and co-driver/bow machine gunner/"radio operator" - 2 in the turret: Commander/Gunner, and loader Adding a seat for the loader took up space otherwise used for some ammunition. But it did not change the fundamental division of labor. Also worth noting are: - There was no power traverse for the turret. Well, no motor-driven power, at least. It could be turned by man-power -- by the gunner (also commander) putting his shoulder to the gun and pushing. - The turret MG was not necessarily co-axial. As I understand it, the MG could be "locked" to the main gun, or "unlocked" for free aiming separate from the main gun. I may be mistaken about the "locked" feature, but I am quite confident in the "free aiming" capability. Commanders in 38t's were very busy guys. Finding targets, aiming the cannon (by brute force), aiming the turret MG, giving orders to the crew, keeping an eye out for the platoon and/or company commander and what he was doing… But in terms of operational mobility it was quite a tank for it's day. And this fit in very well with German tactics. So for them it was a very productive tank in 1940 and 41. By 1942, less so. As the number of T-34s increased, and the German positions become more static, it's value decreased significantly. Most remaining in service in German hands were then shunted off to Axis partners. Or so I have read. Don't claim to know too much about this interesting little tank. Perfectly willing to be shown as wrong, if anyone has better info. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Legion 4 | 23 Jan 2020 9:03 a.m. PST |
That is a good point, Mark. We need a model with an interior, a cut away drawing or someone who has been in a 38t … Again I'll have to go with the German's TC/Crew members being generally better trained and more effective than most of the other Allies. At that time … So the German TC's were probably/most likely still superior than most of the Allies' AFVs with a 2 man turret. Never a 38t crewman around when ya need one ! |
Wolfhag | 23 Jan 2020 12:45 p.m. PST |
According to this site: link Production under German supervision: Although the Germans were impressed by the design, the Praga-Škoda lines were reorganized under their control, and the design of the new LTM 38 was revised while production was running. Modifications included a rearranged and roomier turret, holding a third crew-member, the commander being spared of any other tasks. Also added were an intercom system, a new German radio set, a revised commander cupola, modified sights, and new external fixations. These vehicles were renamed Panzerkampfwagen 38(t) in January 1940. The coax mg does appear to be in some type of a ball mount like the hull mg. From wikipedia: In addition, a 7.92 mm machine gun was in a ball mount to the right of the main gun. This machine gun could be trained on targets independently of the main gun, or coupled to the main gun for use as a conventional coaxial machine gun. The driver was in the front right of the hull, with the radio operator seated to the driver's left. The radio operator manned the hull-mounted 7.92 mm machine gun in front in addition to operating the radio on his left. Mark 1 is right again! Wolfhag |
Mark 1 | 23 Jan 2020 2:08 p.m. PST |
According to this site: linkProduction under German supervision: Although the Germans were impressed by the design, the Praga-Škoda lines were reorganized under their control, and the design of the new LTM 38 was revised while production was running. Modifications included a rearranged and roomier turret, holding a third crew-member, the commander being spared of any other tasks. Good find. But it is at odds with the Wikipedia page:
Panzer 38(t) Aus. A-C Crew: 4
Wikipedia currently describes the addition of the loader to the turret thus: "In German service, a loader position was added to the turret by reducing the ammunition capacity by 18 rounds." But this statement is followed with: "The commander had to aim and fire the main gun in addition to his role as commander." So if there were 3 men in the turret, what was the third man's role? An earlier version of the Wiki page had this statement (vs. the current statement about adding the loader): "Minor adjustments, such as adjustable seats for the driver and firmer footing for the commander/gunner and loader, were provided in German service." I find that it is reasonably possible that references to the Germans fiddling with the seating arrangements, and reducing the ammo to provide more room in the turret, could be told and re-told until it became adding a loader to an existing crew. But that would imply that the 2 man crew (prior to adding the third) was gunner and commander/loader, or gunner/loader and commander. I find no evidence of either of those configurations. I have tooled about in the turret of a US M5A1 Stuart. I can not see any path to putting a third man into a turret of that size. And the Stuart turret was a bit larger than the 38t turret. But the Brits managed to fit a third man into the Valentine turret (in some versions), so I do concede that such things are possible. So far I am unconvinced that the Germans fit a third man into the 38t turret. I still believe it was a 4 man crew with a 2 man turret, even in German service. But again, I do not hold this as dogma. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Steve Wilcox | 23 Jan 2020 2:33 p.m. PST |
I still believe it was a 4 man crew with a 2 man turret, even in German service. Correct, commander/gunner and loader in the turret, driver and radioman in the hull. Source: Panzer 38(t) by Steven J.Zaloga. |
Legion 4 | 23 Jan 2020 4:12 p.m. PST |
Good intel … the turret does on look big enough for 3 IMO, anyway … |
Griefbringer | 24 Jan 2020 3:32 a.m. PST |
The TC effectiveness could be affected by a two man turret. But again IMO it comes down to crew training and experience in many cases. My understanding is that by the end of the WWII it was generally acknowledged that a tank crew performs best when directed by a dedicated tank commander who was not saddled with additional tasks. Of course for best performance the tank commander also needed to be able to observe the surroundings and transfer his commands to the other crew members. In the interwar era and early WWII, this was not always evident in the design of tanks, not helped by the space limitations on the smaller tanks. Germans seemed to have come up with a pretty working basic recipe when they laid out the requirements for Panzer III and IV in the 30's: three man turret, cupola with decent view for the commander and internal communication system. Even the best trained and most experienced crews benefited from having a dedicated tank commander, especially when the battlefield conditions got very dynamic. Thus the crew could be able to react in a faster and more coordinated fashion, and the gunner and loader could fully focus on their own crucial tasks. That said, the benefits of a dedicated tank commander are something that is not always well presented in tabletop games, though I can recall certain card-activation skirmish game where the commander could pass his own activations to any of the other crew members. Granted, given a choice to decide what their tank commanders should do, there is a certain group of gamers who would prefer them to simply engage the enemy infantry with their own cupola MG for the maximum dakka. |
Wolfhag | 24 Jan 2020 9:48 a.m. PST |
What's the standard drill when you lose the TC? I've read the tank goes to the rear or the gunner assumed the TC, loader is the gunner and radioman is the loader. One account I read was the headless body of the tank commander dropped down on top of the driver and he panicked and took off. Wolfhag |
Legion 4 | 24 Jan 2020 3:15 p.m. PST |
My understanding is that by the end of the WWII it was generally acknowledged that a tank crew performs best when directed by a dedicated tank commander who was not saddled with additional tasks. Of course for best performance the tank commander also needed to be able to observe the surroundings and transfer his commands to the other crew members. Generally true … but I still believe in the early days of WWII the German tank crews were better trained than the Allies even if they only had a 2 man Turret. They trained how to operate in a 2 man turret to be effective. As well as based on the record it seems even if the German 2 man turret crews could be considered undermanned. They generally performed better than the Allies 2 man turret crews. Or in some cases better than the 3 man turret crews. Of course IIRC the FT-17 that was still used with the French. Had a 1 man turret. They would be at a distinct disadvantage I'd think. Even the best trained and most experienced crews benefited from having a dedicated tank commander, especially when the battlefield conditions got very dynamic. Thus the crew could be able to react in a faster and more coordinated fashion, and the gunner and loader could fully focus on their own crucial tasks. Yes again generally true. But again a well trained experienced crew will be effective regardless. Yes I believe you are correct Wolf. A good crew is cross trained in all the stations on their vehicle. But no doubt the headless bloody body of the TC dropping into the turret would probably cause most tank crews to panic and abandon their AFV or just head to the nearest cover then to the rear. |
deephorse | 26 Jan 2020 11:28 a.m. PST |
A lot of the earlier confusion in this topic seems to have been caused by an erroneous Wikipedia entry. No surprise there then. It was the LT vz.35, or 35(t) to the Germans, that had a one-man turret. It was to this tank that the Germans added a loader and lost the space for 18 rounds of ammo. The 38(t) always had a two-man turret, as other have stated. The 38(t) turret had a hand wheel traverse (3 degrees per full turn) as well as the brute force option if the hand wheel was disengaged. The turret MG could be either co-axial or independent as the operator desired. 'Czechoslovak Armored Fighting Vehicles 1918-1948' by Kliment & Francev |
Andy ONeill | 26 Jan 2020 12:03 p.m. PST |
The pz38t was pretty small. You'd need very thin people. Elves maybe. Before you'd get 3 in a turret. Take a look at some pictures and compare the size of crew to tank. |
Wolfhag | 26 Jan 2020 12:58 p.m. PST |
I checked the line drawings from George Bradford's book. The Pz38 turret ring a 4' wide, so is Panzer II. The Panzer IV is 5.5' wide. If it did have a 3 man turret the layout would have to be like the Panzer III and Panzer IV with the TC in the rear and in the middle. The Panzer 38 turret would not accommodate that. This site shows some interior pics and seems to confirm a 2 man turret. The driver appears to be the radio operator and fires the bow mg via a cable. link I'm going with the 2 man turret only unless I can see a top view diagram that shows differently. Wolfhag |
deephorse | 27 Jan 2020 5:08 a.m. PST |
Sometimes you have to wonder why you bother. |
Griefbringer | 28 Jan 2020 7:04 a.m. PST |
It was the LT vz.35, or 35(t) to the Germans, that had a one-man turret. It was to this tank that the Germans added a loader and lost the space for 18 rounds of ammo. The 38(t) always had a two-man turret, as other have stated. Thanks for the clarification! 'Czechoslovak Armored Fighting Vehicles 1918-1948' by Kliment & Francev Sounds like an interesting book, though seems a bit pricy out there. The Pz38 turret ring a 4' wide, so is Panzer II. Which makes me wonder if it would have been possible to mount a 37 mm gun armed turret on Panzer II… |
deephorse | 28 Jan 2020 7:25 a.m. PST |
Sounds like an interesting book, though seems a bit pricy out there. Maybe, but if you don't support the people that do the research and write the books, where do you suppose all this free stuff on the internet will come from? |
Wolfhag | 29 Jan 2020 2:48 a.m. PST |
I wondered about a 37mm gun on the Panzer II so I put an M5 Stewart on it.
Wolfhag |
Legion 4 | 29 Jan 2020 7:39 a.m. PST |
|
Mark 1 | 29 Jan 2020 2:25 p.m. PST |
Wolf, wolf, wolf… I put an M5 Stewart on it. That's an M3A1, not an M5. And its a Stuart, not a Stewart. [/mr.picky voiceover] -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Wolfhag | 29 Jan 2020 7:33 p.m. PST |
Ahhhhhhh – busted again! No more postings at 1:48am at night. I should have put a Pz38 turret on it. Wolfhag |