Panzer 3 was ready for mass production in 1936

[Deleted member 1487]

What would the effects on the German war effort be if the Panzer 3 was ready to be produced in numbers in 1936? Would this allow for the German army to have decent medium tank ready for the war and also save them from reliance on the Czech tank divisions? Thoughts?

 

[Flogger]

well it was complicated so cannot be built in numbers like Pz II was built before 1939 secondly the czech tanks would be a welcome supplement to PzIII in 1939 , even if 700 or so Pz III were avalible the Pz 38[t] comprised a good quarter of german tank forces

 

[Markus]

Hmm, the first Pz.II were made in 35, but over the next 18 montht the production rate remaind low, because design was constantly improved. Total production for 35 and 36 was 100 tanks. In 37 production increased and by Sept. 39 over 1.000 P.II were in service. Problem is, a Pz.III is 50 to 100% heavier and there is just so much steel available. And it´s a more complicated design. You´d be lucky to get this tank into mass production in 37. In the best case you get the 1940 numbers(750) already in 1939. Given the fact that the Czech tanks were used as MBTs until 42, it´s unlikely they would be replaced by 1940. They were quite good, especially the LT-38. Not to mention that the early Pz.III wasn´t that great, the 37mm gun was already obsolescent in 39 and 30mm of armour were totally inadequate.
Never forget that Germany re-armed as fast as possible anway, so speeding up things is difficult.

 

[Michele]

The effects would be relevant, especially in operation Barbarossa.

The German panzer arm fared very well in 1939-40 even with its PzIs and PzIIs, which is a monument to doctrine, tactics and combined-arms balance. Adding the PzIII to those campaigns doesn't change them a lot.

However, when we come to 1941, Germany has 20 Panzerdivisionen. In June, one is in Africa and two are refitting; 17 are immediately used for Barbarossa.
But they had, on average, just 192 tanks each. And those having more tanks than that, normally were the Czech-equipped divisions, with the Pz35(t) and Pz38(t).
So, assuming the Germans have just 400 PzIIIs more, they can either outfit two additional Panzerdivisionen, or significantly reinforce the existing ones. And the difference is likely to be felt.

Now, of course this assumes the Germans produce all the tanks they produced in OTL, and _on top of that_, some 400 PzIIIs more. That's unlikely. Steel, rubber, production lines, and money are what they are, and, as others have mentioned, the Germans are already rearming as fast as they can. Something has to be cut.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I would imagine the extra pz1/2's and the czech tanks.

 

[Jeeves]

If you want to make cuts the Westwall is the place to start ... billions of Reichsmark and enormous amounts of steel and concrete went into that thing. Simply reducing the depth of the defensive lines or scrapping the parts opposite Belgium and the Netherlands would provide all the money and steel you need to build a few hundred additional tanks - the only question is whether the production tools for engines and guns are available.

 

[Michele]

Cutting the Czech tanks would be nonsense. For starters, many had already been built! And they were roughly on par with the 37mm-armed PzIII models, especially the Pz38(t); so you have an equivalent vehicle, with its production lines up and running... stopping work there would not be a wise move.

Cutting the PzI would make more sense, but one would need to look up how many of those were produced after the proposed POD; I suspect a sizable number had already been produced.

Cutting the PzII is the more likely choice. Once again one would need to consider how many were produced after the POD; I seem to recall some 1,200 or so (not counting hulls produced for specialized vehicles).

As to the idea of saving on fixed fortifications, that will give you the steel. But you need plants and production lines, tooling, tank guns, and plenty of other raw materials that you won't find in bunkers.

 

[bouscher]

I think that it would have accelerated the design and production of the P4, however beyond that, the panther and tiger would have to wait since they were designed upon war experience with the Russians (the T-34).

 

[Markus]

1. Production of the LT-38/Pz.38(t) had barely begun, when Germany occupied the CSR. Furthermore the tank had just a two man turret, didn´t it? Anyway, an LT-38 is just as good as an early Pz.III, so if you already have the Pz.III in full production, producing the LT-38 makes not much sense.
2. The Pz.I was supposed to be a sort of armed training tank, so the industry, army and soldiers could get a grip on how to make, use and maintain tanks. Reducing the Pz.II production makes more sense. The tank is clearly obsolete compared to the light french tanks and 1,000 Pz.II give you enough steel for at least 500 Pz.III.
3. I´m not convinced cutting back on the Westwall would be a good idea. It was a wonderfull bluff. France and Britain swallowed the German propaganda hook line and sinker.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Yeah, but just cutting the netherlands and belgium focused portion wouldn't that harmful to the propagand roll. In fact saving on the labor and material would not have been that bad at all, at least it could be used for the the french border portion of the wall.
I would agree that the pz2 would likely be cut as well as the czech tanks yet to be produced. It would not make sense otherwise.
I could definitely see the t35 being used for some units, but with the extra experience with the pz3, I could see the french campaign going somewhat differently, as well as russia.

 

[Michele]

1. Production of the LT-38/Pz.38(t) had barely begun, when Germany occupied the CSR. Furthermore the tank had just a two man turret, didn´t it? Anyway, an LT-38 is just as good as an early Pz.III, so if you already have the Pz.III in full production, producing the LT-38 makes not much sense.
2. The Pz.I was supposed to be a sort of armed training tank, so the industry, army and soldiers could get a grip on how to make, use and maintain tanks. Reducing the Pz.II production makes more sense. The tank is clearly obsolete compared to the light french tanks and 1,000 Pz.II give you enough steel for at least 500 Pz.III.
3. I´m not convinced cutting back on the Westwall would be a good idea. It was a wonderfull bluff. France and Britain swallowed the German propaganda hook line and sinker.

When I said that many had already been built, I meant the Pz35(t) too. And while the PzIII, even with just the KwK36, was better than both Czech designs, I still maintain it to be roughly on par with both.
But the main reason to continue producing the Pz38(t) (while the earlier model can be discontinued) is that you already have, in the POD year, the tooling, production lines, plants housing them, and trained workforce for continuing with the Pz38(t). Any change (such as, deciding to build the PzIII there) will bring about delays that are simply not worth the difference.
As to mere steel tonnage, yes, one could have a PzIII out of every two PzII. Again, you have to consider start-up costs for building or converting the production lines. I also wonder if one KwK36 doesn't cost more than two 20mms.

 

[Sinclair]

The effect i think will not be too different, since the Pzkpfw III in 1940 cannot withstand it's French and British counterparts, Matilda Mk II and Char B2. Pzkpfw III were hopeless when facing this opponents. Especially i think T-34. But i think the latest Pzkpfw III J. were able to match British Matilda Mk II in Africa, but i don't know about Char....

The situation will be different if the Germany already have a Pzkpfw IV in the 1936-1938, but that will not be very possible.

Anyhow the German should combine the Pz-38(t) with Pzkpfw III in their armored division.

 

[Michele]

The effect i think will not be too different, since the Pzkpfw III in 1940 cannot withstand it's French and British counterparts, Matilda Mk II and Char B2.

But OTL shows they could win nevertheless. I agree there is not much difference in the Western campaign - but the point is not "withstanding".

Pzkpfw III were hopeless when facing this opponents.

It doesn't seem so if you look at the campaign results.

Especially i think T-34.

As already explained, the point is not one-on-one confrontations. The point is having more Panzerdivisionen, or stronger ones.

Anyhow the German should combine the Pz-38(t) with Pzkpfw III in their armored division.

Not in the least. They already had enough headaches with the variety of models. The way they went in OTL has its very sound logistical reasons.

 

[Markus]

But the main reason to continue producing the Pz38(t) (while the earlier model can be discontinued) is that you already have, in the POD year, the tooling, production lines, plants housing them, and trained workforce for continuing with the Pz38(t). Any change (such as, deciding to build the PzIII there) will bring about delays that are simply not worth the difference.

Point taken, to a certain degree. Provided sufficient Pz.III are already available and 500 more is IMO sufficient in early 1939, I´d prefer not to make LT-38 tanks, but use the chassais for a self propelled gun.

I also wonder if one KwK36 doesn't cost more than two 20mms.

IMO a moot point, becasue the 20mm gun is worthless against armour and dug in infantry. In 1940 the Pz.II were just used for recon and as decoys.

 

[trajen777]

If the PZ3 had the 50 mm gun vs the 37 mm (Hitler ordered the 50 mm) this would have made a great. difference. Everyone is correct that the 3 was more difficult to make - so assume either 2 extra divisions or the current divisons with more power.
Impact

-- If 2 div deployed in the North --- the initial breakout would have allowed the out flanking of the Russ Army Group N - leading to its being cut off around Riga - see Stolfi "Hitlers Pz East" pg 49 - 55 Battle of Divna.
-- If 2 div deployed in South -- would the Army Gp Center have to drive to Kiev ? Of could Arm Gp S benn able to acheive the object. and Center could have taken Moscow?

If 50 mm then greater success in N Arf ( the 50 mm "special" did well vs Brit armor in NA) // the battle in France vs Brit Mitilda's could have been halted sooner and perhaps no Dunkirk because of Nerves.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

IMHO the best sacrifice the Germans can make is building a battleship and a battlecruiser less. That should provide plenty steel and time in factories like Krupp to build other guns than naval ones.

Unfortunately you can't 'trade' light tanks like the Pz I and II for medium tanks like the Pz III or IV as the first often could be build in relatively 'light' factories where during peacetime tractors and trucks were build.

The situation will be different if the Germany already have a Pzkpfw IV in the 1936-1938, but that will not be very possible.

The first production model was produced in '37, but a lot of time was wasted during initial development and fielding of the Pz IV; by '39 they only had 200 or so. That was a bit comparable to the Panther development.

By cancelling some naval builds or perhaps one of the Schwere Gustav's railway guns the Germans could scrape some more tanks together, of whatever kind matters less.

 

[Markus]

Unfortunately you can't 'trade' light tanks like the Pz I and II for medium tanks like the Pz III or IV as the first often could be build in relatively 'light' factories where during peacetime tractors and trucks were build.

They could have been build in "light" factoires, but they weren´t.

 

[Jeeves]

Actually, all German tanks built before the start of the war were built at specialised factories at MAN, Krupp, Rheinmetall and Henschel ... not converted tractor factories - the question is whether Maybach could supply 1 12-cylinder HL120 for every 2 6-cylinder engines from the Pz II ...

Regarding pricing I can throw a source in the ring, I have no idea how reliable it is ...

http://www.panzerworld.net/prices

 

[Michele]

If the PZ3 had the 50 mm gun vs the 37 mm (Hitler ordered the 50 mm) this would have made a great. difference. Everyone is correct that the 3 was more difficult to make - so assume either 2 extra divisions or the current divisons with more power.
Impact

-- If 2 div deployed in the North --- the initial breakout would have allowed the out flanking of the Russ Army Group N - leading to its being cut off around Riga - see Stolfi "Hitlers Pz East" pg 49 - 55 Battle of Divna.
-- If 2 div deployed in South -- would the Army Gp Center have to drive to Kiev ? Of could Arm Gp S benn able to acheive the object. and Center could have taken Moscow?

If 50 mm then greater success in N Arf ( the 50 mm "special" did well vs Brit armor in NA) // the battle in France vs Brit Mitilda's could have been halted sooner and perhaps no Dunkirk because of Nerves.

There is a reason if they had to go with the KwK36, just like there is a reason if the PzIII wasn't ready earlier on. You are asking the Germans to both have the vehicle ready earlier _and_ to arm it with the gun they couldn’t give it in the OTL time frame.
In other words, you are asking too much.

I'd also like to know what you mean by "Russ Army Group N". The _Germans_ had a Heeresgruppe Nord. And deploying two more Panzerdivisionen there would be the worst way of employing them, there are reasons if HGN was the poor relative.

 

[Michele]

Point taken, to a certain degree. Provided sufficient Pz.III are already available and 500 more is IMO sufficient in early 1939, I´d prefer not to make LT-38 tanks, but use the chassais for a self propelled gun.

Yes, you are right. That would be the good choice.