If the Germans were aware of the T-34 and KV-1

Deleted member 1487

But as far as light tanks go, was an excellent design for 20 ton tank.
It was certainly better than the Stuart or any other light tank of WW2 but could not go toe to toe with enemy tanks and was a lot more expensive than an armored car; the Germans dropped their VK1601, pretty much the equivalent tank, for that reason and just continued on with a heavy armored car, which was cheaper and largely did the same job.

Fast, 35mph, with a good ride and reliable, hull was well shaped, and the 75mm was an excellent gun against infantry and other light armor.
Except it largely faced none and was highly vulnerable to AT guns and infantry AT weapons.

Downside was this should have been done sooner, in place of the M7 'Light' tank, and the T45 HVAP ammo for the 75mm should have been put into production.
Sure, had it be around in 1943 it would have been fine, but only showed up in December 1944, way too late to really matter. Should just have had more Shermans then.

Light tanks continued to be made thru the Cold War, other than the amphibious bit, is superior to the PT-76, that was equipped with with a gun little better than the old ZiS-3 76mm field gun.
It however, got a HVAP round.
Yes, but they were largely a waste except against light infantry in COIN operations, like how the Germans used their light tanks after 1941. The Soviet Cold War light tanks were never really tested in combat, but only had the virtue of there being a lot of them, not sure if the US could afford to have a bunch of light tanks that were highly expendable. I doubt either would have stood up well in a serious war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT-76
Great against irregulars, not so hot against enemy with actual AT weapons.

That is your opinion..
Based on actual German behavior. They kept making nothing but Pz38t's with the chassis IOTL until at least Spring 1942 despite encountering the T-34 and KV-1 in June 1941.

My opinoin: the Pz-38(t) need to be taken out of production, it's hull converted into something toting either a much bigger gun, or the SP Flak..
I agree, but the problem is the Germans IOTL did not do that until Spring 1942. I'd say cancel the production line and start making Pz III chassis instead with a KWK42 in Marder setup.

There we go. In a contested ww2 battlefield, against a more numerous foe, the thinly-armored and weakly armed tanks are waste, niches like 'swimming' or 'paratrooper' tanks aside.
Sure, problem is the Germans, while being the first to drop theirs, persisted until Spring 1942 for some reason. The Marder III didn't come out until April 1942 IOTL.

Hence, a better gun to go on the existing platforms informed by this ATL intelligence (I'm assuming this will involve several German mock-up T-34s for testing?).
As you said above the problem is the Germans didn't have enough tanks to go around even in 1941 so were forming their new Panzer divisions (22nd-25th) with old French tanks and were still using heaps of Pz IIs and 38ts. They couldn't afford to interrupt production in the run up to Barbarossa and phase out the old light tanks for what they considered a walk over campaign over in 6 months at the most. The T-34/KV-1 discovery wouldn't change that, it would probably that like in the French campaign the Germans use air power and better tactics to outfight them (which they did IOTL Barbarossa).
 
Based on actual German behavior. They kept making nothing but Pz38t's with the chassis IOTL until at least Spring 1942 despite encountering the T-34 and KV-1 in June 1941.

That Germany did something does not mean they were right. Plus, Pz-38(t) was better than no tank at all, and production lines can't make a switch within a few months, let alone several weeks. A year or so of advanced informations allows Germany to make a switch, after France fell, for the Czech production to make something more dangerous for the next enemy.

I agree, but the problem is the Germans IOTL did not do that until Spring 1942. I'd say cancel the production line and start making Pz III chassis instead with a KWK42 in Marder setup.

The Kwk 42 does not exists in 1940-41 time frame as a series-produced gun.
But, by all means, a really big gun is needed for 1941, whether long-barreled 7.5cm or 8.8L56.

Sure, problem is the Germans, while being the first to drop theirs, persisted until Spring 1942 for some reason. The Marder III didn't come out until April 1942 IOTL.

We don't need to seek very long to answer why Germans used light tanks by that time - they were short of tanks, just like Soviets that used T-60/70.
 
The Germans shrug as the tanks are only available at the start in insignificant numbers, they believe the Soviets won't have time to manufacture more, and there's no way those incompetent Slavs could ever use armor correctly. War will be over before the end of August after all. Some programs will be started but they'll initially be on the backburner and by the time the Germans realize that, yes, this will be a long war and Soviet mass production capabilities matter, it'll be December '41.
 

Deleted member 94680

So would it just be a case of Marder IIIs in service ready for Barbarossa?

The way I read it, it was a 38t with the 7.5cm L40 in an open turret. Maybe the intelligence gained pre-invasion (as opposed to reacting to T-34s encountered on the battlefield) means the 7.5cm gun gets priority but the project is shortened (no pun intended) because they put it into production 'as is' and the Marder crews have to live with limited ammunition loads. A 7.5cm Pak 38?
 

Deleted member 1487

That Germany did something does not mean they were right.
Sure, but I'm not arguing 'right' I'm arguing what they would have done and actual history indicated they'd persist with the Pz38t because of the shortfall in AFVs.

Plus, Pz-38(t) was better than no tank at all, and production lines can't make a switch within a few months, let alone several weeks. A year or so of advanced informations allows Germany to make a switch, after France fell, for the Czech production to make something more dangerous for the next enemy.
Sure. Which is why even with intel about the T-34 and KV-1 they most likely couldn't change over or would think it really mattered; their counter would be other things like the towed PAK40 and an early KWK40 for the Pz IV and Stug. They couldn't have had advanced info about the T-34 as it wasn't even in production yet, that only started in 1941, it was just a prototype and wouldn't have caused a panic and production change. The KV-1 was also in so few numbers in 1940 plus would really need something heavier than a SP 75 to deal with (88) that again it is unlikely to change anything prior to Barbarossa.

The Kwk 42 does not exists in 1940-41 time frame as a series-produced gun.
Sure, I was suggesting that for 1942 instead of the Marder III, as the FLAK 75 L60 was being trialed in early 1942 as a tank cannon.

But, by all means, a really big gun is needed for 1941, whether long-barreled 7.5cm or 8.8L56.
Indeed, which is why I suggested the Dicker Max with 88mm gun, a FLAK 18, instead of the 12/18 ton 'flak wagon'.

We don't need to seek very long to answer why Germans used light tanks by that time - they were short of tanks, just like Soviets that used T-60/70.
Yes, but in the case of the T-70 they introduced that in 1942, it wasn't an issue of being too short at that time, it was because they still thought light tanks were useful because the Germans had so few tanks relative to the Soviets and much lower threat ones than the T-34.

The Germans shrug as the tanks are only available at the start in insignificant numbers, they believe the Soviets won't have time to manufacture more, and there's no way those incompetent Slavs could ever use armor correctly. War will be over before the end of August after all. Some programs will be started but they'll initially be on the backburner and by the time the Germans realize that, yes, this will be a long war and Soviet mass production capabilities matter, it'll be December '41.
Exactly this except they might rush the PAK40 and produce some tanks with a 75mm L41 just in case, but no major changes beyond that.

So would it just be a case of Marder IIIs in service ready for Barbarossa?
Maybe to a degree.

The way I read it, it was a 38t with the 7.5cm L40 in an open turret. Maybe the intelligence gained pre-invasion (as opposed to reacting to T-34s encountered on the battlefield) means the 7.5cm gun gets priority but the project is shortened (no pun intended) because they put it into production 'as is' and the Marder crews have to live with limited ammunition loads. A 7.5cm Pak 38?
No, it was a PAK40 in a fixed open top fighting compartment starting in 1942:
305px-Marder-III-Aberdeen.0004sryz.1.jpg


The 75mm L41 already existed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz.Sfl._II#Design
But it was a tank gun, not mountable in the Marder format. It could be fitted to the existing Pz IV and Stug III.

And they did have the French converted 75mm guns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_Pak_97/38
But the recoil was very violent and it relied on the HEAT shell that was historically not authorized for use in the east until 1942.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Except it largely faced none and was highly vulnerable to AT guns and infantry AT weapons.

As was the Sherman, and most medium tanks.

Anything short of a Jumbo would have this same problem

The M24 is an excellent choice vs the other Armored Cars and light bunkers the Germans were still using, plus all Infantry out of panzerfaust range, 66 yards
 

Deleted member 1487

As was the Sherman, and most medium tanks.
Of all WW2 mediums it was by far the best protected from the front. Unless you consider the Panther a medium. Anyway the M4 was actually able to survive shots outside of 1000m to the front by a PAK40 or Pz IV 75 unlike all other tanks in it's category.

Anything short of a Jumbo would have this same problem
Sure, the Jumbo was effectively a Tiger I in frontal armor.

The M24 is an excellent choice vs the other Armored Cars and light bunkers the Germans were still using, plus all Infantry out of panzerfaust range, 66 yards
In early 1945 sure, the Germans were already beaten, it wasn't around in early 1944 when it's limitations against a well armed foe would have been apparent. In Korea it was slaughtered by T-34s, they only really recovered their utility after Korean armor was out of the picture and China didn't really bring any. In the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971, their last war, they were slaughtered again and unable to do their job. Again they were great if the enemy lacked AT weapons, but then so are armored cars.
 
Yes, but in the case of the T-70 they introduced that in 1942, it wasn't an issue of being too short at that time, it was because they still thought light tanks were useful because the Germans had so few tanks relative to the Soviets and much lower threat ones than the T-34.

You're forgetting a massive part of why the T-70 was so useful, which is that it could produced in smaller factories not capable of producing the T-34 or KV-1.
 

Deleted member 1487

You're forgetting a massive part of why the T-70 was so useful, which is that it could produced in smaller factories not capable of producing the T-34 or KV-1.
Yet it was phased out to make Su-76s a far more useful weapon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-70#Decline_of_light_tanks
The SU-76 self-propelled gun was better suited for infantry support, its 76.2-mm gun capable of firing a larger high explosive shell. Industrial resources could be redirected from light tanks to building SU-76s.

In an attempt to compensate, the T-80 light tank was designed, a more robust version of the T-70 with a two-man turret. But there was enough lend-lease equipment available to fulfill the reconnaissance role of the light tanks, and armoured cars were better suited for light scouting and liaison. All light tank production was cancelled in October 1943, after only about 120 T-80s were built. No further light tanks would be built during the war.
 
And they did have the French converted 75mm guns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_Pak_97/38
But the recoil was very violent and it relied on the HEAT shell that was historically not authorized for use in the east until 1942.

Before 1942, you really don't need HEAT.

It's nearly the same weapon as the US 75mm, with a poor recoil design for a tank
The 75mm M72 AP-T, the worst AP round, could do 63mm@30 degrees at 1000 yards, 76mm at 500. Against Face Hardened its 46 and 58mm.
That takes care of most AFVs at that point in time.

The light weight 75mm M6 gun developed for aircraft and later M24 weighed just 410 pounds, and 75mm M3 893 pounds as used in the Lee and Sherman

They should have used this, as the weight was not far off, the KwK 37 L/24 weight was 1080 pounds, so this could have been in the Mk III in place of the 50mm of either length or the short 75mm after 1940
 

Deleted member 1487

Before 1942, you really don't need HEAT.
Against KV-1s and T-34s that was the only weapon that could reliably kill them that wasn't an 88 or 105mm artillery piece firing direct.

It's nearly the same weapon as the US 75mm, with a poor recoil design for a tank
The 75mm M72 AP-T, the worst AP round, could do 63mm@30 degrees at 1000 yards, 76mm at 500. Against Face Hardened its 46 and 58mm.
That takes care of most AFVs at that point in time.
45mm of 60 degree sloped armor would deflect/stop that at 500m, as the effective thickness was 90mm. That was the T-34 hull armor in 1941.

The light weight 75mm M6 gun developed for aircraft and later M24 weighed just 410 pounds, and 75mm M3 893 pounds as used in the Lee and Sherman
And both had their strong limitations against anything above a Pz IV (with 80mm armor by 1942).

They should have used this, as the weight was not far off, the KwK 37 L/24 weight was 1080 pounds, so this could have been in the Mk III in place of the 50mm of either length or the short 75mm after 1940
Got a source for all the weights? Can't seem to find any info on that. If so they didn't have recoil mechanism that was probably why the German gun weighed more (the Lee had it hull mounted and the Sherman had a bigger turret to absorb the recoil), plus the Germans didn't have it developed. The L41 75mm they had developed already was better than either though, so they could just use that.
 
If the Germans go through so much effort to have better tanks by Barbarossa, then surely the Soviets would've used that time to continue improving things as well? If the Germans delay the invasion to have heavy AFVs with 88mm guns leading it they might find themselves opposed by 107mm armed KV-3s or something. The Germans weren't working in a vacuum, nor was time on their side.
 
In Korea it was slaughtered by T-34s, they only really recovered their utility after Korean armor was out of the picture and China didn't really bring any. In the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971, their last war, they were slaughtered again and unable to do their job.

Crews have a lot to do with this, They weren't WWII Vets, but new Draftees, and as I noted, it was near criminal to not have produced the T45 HVAP for them. That would have had 79mm@30 degrees penetration at 1500 yards. Second, yeah, Medium tanks will beat light tanks. Especially 25 year old ones. That's not news.

M24s could be airmobile,
Image1041.jpg


Image1043.jpg


Image1044.jpg

That's something you can't do with heavier tanks.
 

Deleted member 1487

Crews have a lot to do with this, They weren't WWII Vets, but new Draftees, and as I noted, it was near criminal to not have produced the T45 HVAP for them. That would have had 79mm@30 degrees penetration at 1500 yards. Second, yeah, Medium tanks will beat light tanks. Especially 25 year old ones. That's not news.
Again unable to penetrate the hull of the T-3, forget the KV-1. Also that isn't enough to penetrate the 1942 Pz IV hull either. Again not going to win against anything but vulnerable infantry without sufficient AT weapons.

M24s could be airmobile,
That's something you can't do with heavier tanks.
Not in WW2.
 
45mm of 60 degree sloped armor would deflect/stop that at 500m, as the effective thickness was 90mm. That was the T-34 hull armor in 1941.

And that was the worst AP round for the 75mm, and still has a better chance than the 37mm or the 50mms, plus has a decent HE round. The Mk IV and Stug III were infantry support first, the French 75mm gives them AT capability they didn't have at first. This would have given him an equal to the 'Mk IV Special' the F2, from the start with the DAK. That's huge.

The Pak97/38 was just that, the 75mm tube on the Pak 38 carriage, so recuperator and such were under strength.
Got a source for all the weights? Can't seem to find any info on that. If so they didn't have recoil mechanism that was probably why the German gun weighed more (the Lee had it hull mounted and the Sherman had a bigger turret to absorb the recoil), plus the Germans didn't have it developed. The L41 75mm they had developed already was better than either though, so they could just use that.
http://www.panzerworld.com/7-5-cm-kw-k-l-24

Doing it ugly, that's the Soviet way with the large box to house the Recoil and Recuperator ahead of the mantlet
Soviet_tank_guns.jpg


vs the M4
SjCXOxo.jpg

 

Deleted member 1487

And that was the worst AP round for the 75mm, and still has a better chance than the 37mm or the 50mms, plus has a decent HE round. The Mk IV and Stug III were infantry support first, the French 75mm gives them AT capability they didn't have at first. This would have given him an equal to the 'Mk IV Special' the F2, from the start with the DAK. That's huge.

The Pak97/38 was just that, the 75mm tube on the Pak 38 carriage, so recuperator and such were under strength.
Thanks for the sources, but in terms of the field gun, it didn't have a tank mounting, the Germans would have to invent their own turret mount for it, produce it, and convert all the existing field guns to it, which is a huge waste of time and resources when they had the L41, which had better AT performance than the best shell for the M4 Sherman:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz.Sfl._II#Design
Four prototypes of the HKP 902 chassis, No. 9009-2012, were built, two of which had Rheinmetall-Borsig's 7.5 centimetres (3.0 in) L/40.8 gun mounted in an open-topped, low-profile turret.

The gun could depress 8° and elevate 20°. It fired a 6.8 kg (15 lb) K.Gr. rot Pz. (APCBC) shell with a muzzle velocity of 685 m/s (2,250 ft/s) and a 5.85 kg (12.9 lb) Sprenggranate (HE) shell at 485 m/s (1,590 ft/s). It carried 35 rounds on board.
 
Again unable to penetrate the hull of the T-3, forget the KV-1. Also that isn't enough to penetrate the 1942 Pz IV hull either.

note 1500 yards. its 117mm at 500 yards for the T45 HVAP, all at 30 degrees
T-34 frontal has 90mm equivalent. Even with the smaller diameter of the Tungsten core of the HVAP, it would still get an additional bonus from still overmatching the thickness of the plate.

Vs the KV-1, the drivers plate has an 87mm equivalent, lower glacis 95mm. Hull Sides were flat at 75mm, turret sides 78mm equivalent, Mantlet might keep out the T45, depending where it hits.
 
Thanks for the sources, but in terms of the field gun, it didn't have a tank mounting, the Germans would have to invent their own turret mount for it, produce it, and convert all the existing field guns to it, which is a huge waste of time and resources when they had the L41, which had better AT performance than the best shell for the M4 Sherman:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz.Sfl._II#Design
Difference is, France has all kinds of these tubes just sitting around, plus depots filled with ammunition. The Mle 1897/33 was still in the light artillery regiments in 1940, 36 in most infantry divisions
 

Deleted member 1487

note 1500 yards. its 117mm at 500 yards for the T45 HVAP, all at 30 degrees
T-34 frontal has 90mm equivalent. Even with the smaller diameter of the Tungsten core of the HVAP, it would still get an additional bonus from still overmatching the thickness of the plate.

Vs the KV-1, the drivers plate has an 87mm equivalent, lower glacis 95mm. Hull Sides were flat at 75mm, turret sides 78mm equivalent, Mantlet might keep out the T45, depending where it hits.
HVAP wasn't available to the US until about 1944 IIRC. The Germans had it in 1940 in limited amounts. But even the US never had much of it and apparently did not have it in Korea to stop the T-34s.
Counting on side shots on the KV-1 seems risky. Anyway as I said the Germans had the L41 75, which had greater muzzle velocity with the APCBC shells than the M72 round. The T-45 HVAP would have been equivalent to the German PzGr. 40 round, which again would have been faster and more effective out of their existing L41 gun.

Difference is, France has all kinds of these tubes just sitting around, plus depots filled with ammunition. The Mle 1897/33 was still in the light artillery regiments in 1940, 36 in most infantry divisions
There is a ton of work converting less effective field guns (they weren't the L40 M3 75 Sherman guns you are quoting numbers from they were the shorter L35 or so field guns, less effective and would require developing a totally new recoil system for). Better just making the newer, longer, better German L41 and using the PAK98 for field gun use.
 
Top