Sturmgeschütz IIIG Development

Guderian’s opposition to the assault gun had eroded with experience. Not only was its frontline utility indisputable, it could be manufactured faster and in larger numbers by less experienced enterprises than the more complex turreted tanks. Guderian correspondingly advocated restoring the panzer regiments’ third battalions and giving them assault guns as a working compromise.

The vehicles he intended were significantly different from the original assault guns and their underlying concept. The mission of supporting infantry attacks had become secondary at best. What was now vital was holding off Soviet armor. The self-propelled Marders, with their light armor and open tops, were well into the zone of dangerous obsolescence. In 1943 the Weapons Office ordered the development of a smaller vehicle mounting a scaled-down 75mm gun on the chassis of the old reliable 38(t). The 16-ton Hetzer (Baiter) was useful and economical, and continues to delight armor buffs and modelers. It was, however, intended for the infantry’s antitank battalions, and did not appear in combat until 1944—one more example of diffused effort that characterized the Reich’s war effort.

On the other hand, the Sturmgeschütz IIIG, with its 75mm L/48 gun, seemed highly suited to tank destruction and was readily available—until Allied bombing intervened. The factory manufacturing the bulk of IIIGs was heavily damaged in late 1943. To compensate, Hitler ordered the available hulls to be fitted to Panzer IV chassis. The result proved practical enough to encourage the production of over 1700 Jagdpanzer IVs by November 1944, despite Guderian’s protest at the corresponding fallout of turreted tanks. The new name of “tank destroyer” suited the vehicles’ new purpose, though their predecessors continued in service under the original title, creating confusion during and after the war that remains exacerbated by the vehicles’ close resemblance.

Best tank of WW II criteria???

Operationally speaking the Sherman was the best tank because it featured the best all round reliability. When the T-34 started out they were losing 60 out of every 100 tanks for every 100kms driven on marches alone. The German Pz III did much better than this marching over the same ground and distance losing about 1/3 tanks, so in the early war period the Pz-III was the best.

As the war progressed the German ammo manufacturing failed to keep pace and the replacement ballooned into the Panther monster tank, which had appalling reliability.

In the late war period Russian tank loses [read T-34] were around 13% for every 100km driven. But this was more of a reflection of the improved emphasis the Soviets placed on parts and the logistics tail of their combat units. Meanwhile Sherman reliability topped all in no small part to design.

When you look at the Tactical side, the most important quality is fire power as this is the mechanism that kills and that's what settles the battle. In terms of firepower the most important criteria is ROF or rate of fire. Obviously nothing can be stated as simplistic as that, because there's a point where ROF can't make up for poor ammo penetration. This is why the failure of the German ammunition concept -when the AP 40 shots disappeared - became one of their biggest failures.

In the initial stages the Pz-III was the best tactically due to its high rate of fire [2:1 against the French/ Brits and 3-4:1 against the Russians]. By mid war the Panthers and Tigers featured lower ROFs while allies remained the same [8 rpm Germans Vs 3-4 rpm T-34s and 10-12 rpm for the Shermans]. So the heavy armor and fire power worked against the Russians- to wars end, but didn't work so well against the western allies.

It’s hard to show just how important ROF is but if you take 2 tanks that are equal in all respects but blue out shoots red by 3:1 then- in an even battle -blue will inflict 10:1 kill ratios. Even outnumbered, this kill ratio can be maintained due to the smoke and fog of war. This allows better trained troops to section off large numbers into mini firefights near one on one. The weak point of the ROF argument is that it does require 'well trained troops' and to preserve those you do need good armor over enough of the front quadrant to allow the said 'well trained troops' to survive.

So I guess the bottom line is you can't pin down the best tank unless you have a proper strategy and tactics. If you’re forced to change mid stride, like the Germans you have to adjust your designs accordingly. Even the Poorly designed T-34 is the best tank at the end of the war cause the Soviets finally got there tank; logistics and strategic situation right.

4th Panzer Division report

Here’s a report from 4 Pz. Division. It basically says: “We need T-34 and we need it now”.

From “Panzer Truppen” by Thomas Jentz

“The Russian tanks usually form in a half circle and open fire with their 76mm guns on our Panzers already at a range of 1000m and deliver enormous penetration energy with high accuracy.

Our 5cm Kw.K can achieve penetrations only on vulnerable locations under very special favorable conditions at very close ranges under 50m. Our panzers are already knocked out at a range of several hundred meters. Many times our panzers were split open or the complete commander’s cupola of the Pz.Kpfw.III and IV flew off from the frontal hit…. Russians also have better suspension, diesels, cross-country etc.. During advance from Glebov to Minsk there weren’t any Russian tanks that had broken down due to mechanical failures. In comparison about 20 Panzers alone from Pz. Regiment 35 were left lying on the same road due to mechanical problems.

To combat these Russian tanks the following is needed:

1. Immediately produce copies of the Russian 26 ton tank and employ intact captured 26 and 52 ton tanks. A company is needed for each Pz. Rg.

2. Install the Russian 7.62cm cannon in the Pz.Kpw.IV, even if it is necessary to give up the commander, strengthened armour and the hull machine gun mount.