The mainstay of the Panzer divisions in 1939-40 was actually the tiny Panzer 1 and 2, without them there would be no Polish or French campaigns. The Panzer 3 was more advanced than the 4, but the latter had a larger turret ring and could take the long 75mm gun, which made all the difference.

@kurt5490

Жыл бұрын

Yes larger turret ring allowed more space to manipulate & load the longer high velocity ammo.

@lucius1976

3 ай бұрын

Came from their role - Panzer 3 was intended as a Anti Tank Tank, therefore it had torsion bar suspension, which was far better than the leaf spring of the Panzer IV. But Panzer IV was intended as a Anti infantry tank and did not need as good of a suspension but originally it was intended that Panzer IV get torsion bar too, but due to time constrains it never happened

@AlienDogStar

28 күн бұрын

Thanks for sharing

The Pz.III J did not have 50mm. of armour all around. Pz.III.J armour layout: Gun mantlet = 57mm. Turret front = 57mm. Turret sides = 30mm. Turret rear = 30mm. Hull front = 50mm. Hull sides = 30mm. Hull rear = 50mm. Roof = 17mm. Floor = 17mm.

@211q1

2 жыл бұрын

He say all around which mean around the corner and say nearly which meant all of it is not 50 mmm

@windmillman

2 жыл бұрын

Shut up nerd

@MsZsc

8 ай бұрын

“He” you realize its robot text to speech and not written by a human right

@stevenspilly

5 ай бұрын

​@@MsZscyou realise robots didn't write thr script though, "he" did.

@polarvortex3294

5 ай бұрын

Was the hull rear armor thickness really 50mm? Seems weird that it would be thicker there than on the hull sides, which you say were 30mm...

With the long 50mm it was really much more effective. I think they called it the panzer 3 “improved”. Given they conquered most of Europe with it, it was clearly effective at least initially. It was outclassed as everyone improved their tanks. Not surprising given it was an early war tank.

I always liked the look of the Pz. III but the 3.7cm gun and to an extent the 5cm guns mounted on it just look out of scale to me.

@jerryjeromehawkins1712

2 жыл бұрын

Hey Pit... I prefer the look of the PzIII with the 50mm. Best looking tank of the war. 👌🏽

@kurt5490

Жыл бұрын

@@jerryjeromehawkins1712 L/60, the long barreled high velocity 5cm!

@jerryjeromehawkins1712

Жыл бұрын

@@kurt5490 Absolutely!! 👌🏽🍻

@Fact Bytes, as a fan of your work, it pains me to have to ask- please, check your facts. Panzer IV entered production in 1936 and Germany had 215 Panzer IVs models A,B, C. By September 1939, Panzer IV aus.D with version was already under production, and 250 of IV-Ds were available and fielded during invasion of Poland. Panzer IV model E entered production in october 1940. I think you might have meant Panzer IV F and F2 (renamed G), which entered production in late 1941 and march 1942 respectively, and fielded long barrelled KwK40 75mm anti-tank main gun??

@CZ350tuner

2 жыл бұрын

The Pz.IV.F2 mounted the 75mm. L.43 gun, whilst the Pz.IV.G mounted the 75mm. L.48 gun. Pz.IV.F2 models rearmed, in field workshops, with the 75mm. L.48 gun were also called G models. They are recognisable by the extra 30mm. of bolted on frontal armour, to increase it to 80mm. Production line Pz.IV.G models were manufactured with 80mm. of frontal armour, from the factory. Some F2 models also received the frontal armour upgrade kit, often seeing them mistaken for the G model, in photo labelling. The 75mm. L.43 gun muzzle brake always reveals these as up armoured F2 models.

@charlesc.9012

10 ай бұрын

In addition, the 3-man turret was not a new concept. The Vickers Medium tanks already featured that before the Pz.II was designed

@MsZsc

8 ай бұрын

Why are you a fan it’s an ai content farm bruh

... as a German Biologist and Pythagorean - my father was a Wehrmacht Soldier in Southern Ukraine - Rostov on Don, Taganrogg... Sea of Azov... and he survived the entire War - because he was in a Unit repairing German Tanks. he told me, about the horrific conditions - the absurd Benzin Guzzling maybach Engines, the lack of tools and parts - and under constant threat of extinction. Many NEW Tanks had to be abandoned and blown up - for lack of Benzin and parts - and ammunition. No matter how excellent any equipment was - it never lasted long. Made me a Pazifist...

@euwatashiyounaoto7949

2 жыл бұрын

Interessante, sua história,pode me contar mais sobre esse assunto.

"Prior to the arrival of the Panzer IV"? The Panzer IV was already there, it was just re-designated as their MBT when it was given a more powerful anti-tank gun in 1942.

@richnaper6666

2 жыл бұрын

He literally says that 10 seconds later

@Ralphieboy

2 жыл бұрын

He does. But it directly contradicts what he mentioned before.

@stonefox9124

2 жыл бұрын

Then... what makes this the Pz.III?

@executivedirector7467

Жыл бұрын

The term MBT dates from the postwar era.

@Ralphieboy

Жыл бұрын

of course, but the concept of the main battle tank (as opposed to a heavy breakthrough tank or a light cavalry/support tank) was already there.

Anyone ever play 'Red Orchestra '? My favorite was the PzIII with the high velocity 5cm. Awesome game with realistic ballistics, sounds, load times, and battle damage effects on vehicle performance.

@robertmorton38

2 жыл бұрын

A great game which I really enjoyed.

Panzer IV was around from the start, but it wasn't until mid 1942 when it became an "MBT" without replacing Panzer III ! Panzer III was still an MBT at Kursk. That's 4 years in my book. The 5cm L42 gun was introduced on Ausf. F (or G ?) in late 1940 and already served in the Balkans and with the Afrikakorps. Ausf. J received a massive armor upgrade. Late J models would receive 5cm L60 guns only in Dec.1941, often referred to as "Ausf. J lang". Panzer III hardly had any major impact during the French campaign with less than 200 in service. Panzer III (with 5 cm L42) really started to shine in North Africa and was the most important tank during "Barbarossa" and the 1942 campaigns.

@randallturner9094

2 жыл бұрын

This isn’t a very good reference.

@mirkojorgovic

2 жыл бұрын

Panzer3 was in France 1940 alongside pz38t and pz35t contains main cavalry divisions. Pz2 performed well signal / fast reconnaissance role and pz4 was used against heavier targets with 75mmL24 gun.

@velqt

Жыл бұрын

Neither the panzer 3 nor panzer 4 were MBTs

@ottovonbismarck2443

Жыл бұрын

@@velqt Because "MBT" is a post WW2 term, thus I had put it in " ". I argue that Panther, T-34 and Sherman were "MBTs" as well. What's your definition of MBT ?

@executivedirector7467

Жыл бұрын

@@ottovonbismarck2443 The MBT term dates from the 1950s. During WW2, various armies had concepts that were headed towards the MBT idea but no one actually implemented it. An MBT is a tank design that can perform all or almost all tank missions and does not require or expect the support of heavy tanks. MBTs coexist with light / recon tanks but not with heavies. Some mainstream armies were still operating heavies into the 1960s. There's not a hard-and-fast time when the MBT became more or less universal, and it's a very grey area to even say what the first MBTs were. Most authors will cite the Centurion, M48 or T54/55 as the first MBTs. But even in those cases, there were heavy tanks present and it only gradually became apparent that the heavy tank had become obsolete. The T-34, M4 and Panther were all adopted by armies that expected there would be heavy tanks operating in support of those medium tanks, None of those tanks conforms to the MBT concept.

Pzk IV was not a infantry support tank. That's what the Stug was for. Pzk III and Pzk IV were always meant to work together III dealing with tanks IV dealing with anti-tank guns.

@AHappyCub

2 жыл бұрын

Sadly youre wrong, the Panzer IV was originally design with a short barrel for infantry support, it just so happen that the turret ring is big enough for a much needed bigger gun that it took over the role of being the main tank from the Panzer III

@andrewgraziani4331

2 жыл бұрын

@@AHappyCub In fact the 75/24 KWK used by the PZK IV was meant to fire high explosive rounds to defeat anti-tank guns while the various small caliber high velocity guns on the PZK III dealt with opponent tanks. Infantry would be fought of with turret and hull mounted machine guns. Meanwhile infantry support was meant to be provided by STUG III using the same gun as the PZK IV. Don't feel bad this mistake gets made all the time.

@randallturner9094

2 жыл бұрын

You’re wrong, and happy’s correct. The 75L24 PzIV was an infantry support tank. There is no such beast as an “anti-AT tank”, they’re either designed primarily to destroy hard or soft targets. The 75L24 PzIV was intended to fight soft targets - among other things, AT guns. The StGIII was an assault gun, also an infantry support AFV in it’s initial configuration w/a 75L24, later dual-role with longer barreled 75mm variants. This might be a semantic issue.

@andrewgraziani4331

2 жыл бұрын

@@randallturner9094 I suggest you read Guderian. He saw the anti-tank field gun as a great threat to tanks, perhaps greater then other tanks for it could be fired concealed from behind heavy cover and an armour piercing round with it's small internal volume would be all but useless against it. A low velocity large caliber shell, on the other hand would and did destroy guns and their crews but wouldn't be as effective an armour piercer. So yes there was such a thing as a anti-tank gun tank (even if you can't find such nomenclature). The threat posed by anti- tank field guns was recognized by other tank proponents. Thus the early mark Shermans that sacrificed armour penitration for high explosive capacity. Of course as the war progressed and armour thickened the ultimate solution was to up gun to a high velocity high volume weapon like the KWK 75/48. Meanwhile Guderian as well as many other tank theorists were dead set against infantry support tanks believing they dangerously dispersed armoured fighting power. So a compromised vehicle like the Stug was developed to be attached to infantry units. So to summarize early panzer units were equiped with PZK III anks armed with small caliber, high velocity guns to deal with tanks and PZK IV tanks carrying low velocity, high capacity guns to deal with anti tank guns while infantry units were supported with assault guns and all three vehicles having multiple machine guns used to deal with infantry. Later in the war whatever could be upgraded got upgraded.

@randallturner9094

2 жыл бұрын

@@andrewgraziani4331 yes, there was such a thing as an anti anti-tank gun tank. They were called, “infantry support tanks”. And I can “find such nomenclature” everywhere. Jesus. Part of an “infantry support” tank’s job was to blow AT guns the fuck up. Did I not make that clear? And we’re not debating British armor doctrine, with their usage of “cruiser” tanks and “infantry” tanks. An “infantry support tank” isn’t an “infantry tank”, indeed some “infantry tanks” like Matildas had “infantry support” variants with HE-capable main armament. As did “cruiser” tanks. Likewise Panzer division makeup and concentration doctrine is irrelevant, that’s a completely different topic. Infantry support tanks were found in armor divs and independent battalions both. It’s true that PzIV’s were generally in Panzer regiments BUT NOT ALWAYS. Again, irrelevant - that’s their operational doctrine, “infantry support” refers to their tactical employment. Also - Nowhere am I debating the effectiveness of AT guns. That’s stupid. Your whole post is a waste of time. WTF?

My favorite tank of the war. It should have gotten the 50mm L60 from the get-go.

@michaelillingworth6433

2 жыл бұрын

Just said the same thing. 😂🤣 Great minds think alike.

@benlaskowski357

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelillingworth6433 I'm not a great mind, dude. I just know when people make a shitty decision.

@paullakowski2509

9 ай бұрын

poor design and should have beern scrapped

@erab9514

8 ай бұрын

When upgunned to a 50mm cannon for the invasion of Russia it was supposed to have the L60 gun. However the builders claimed the barrel couldn't extend beyond the front of the tank, so built it with the L42 instead. Surprised Hitler didn't have them shot.

The Panzer III had an awful developmental period, and in Poland there were three different chassis types being tested. The 10 speed initial transmission, expecting the Panzer III to be a speedster, was a mistake, and once more armor was put on, it could not even use top gears. The necessity to decrease the number of Panzers in Panzer Divisions prior to invading the Soviet Union, and the need to use Czech tanks as a MBT substitute, as well as the sheer number of Soviet tanks (including t34 and KV-1), made 1941 a giant write off for the Panzer fleet. The up gunning of both Panzer III, panzer IV, and StuG III came at a very slow pace in 1942. And the Soviets were soon concentrating on T34 and outproducing the Germans. The Germans even had issues producing 7,5 cm KWK 40 ammunition. The Germans really needed a common chassis tank Fleet. The T34 is an example just as the Sherman was. A Panzer IV-lite, in retrospect, would have been a good idea. That is a 50 mm armed panzer IV without the expensive gas/electric auxiliary engine turret drive.

Good stuff 😀

Thanks!

@FactBytes

2 жыл бұрын

Welcome!

Excellent information and really good video. Nice work!

@oisnowy5368

2 жыл бұрын

Except that if you would know the details, you would find it very lacking. Notice which book expert the video trots out at the start? Guderian? He was one of Germany's generals. Who after the war tried to rehabilitate himself through various means and loads of rewriting of history. Or how the Pz3 fared against Soviet tanks. Mostly tanks are not there to 1v1 other tanks. And in the early years the KV and T-34 losses were atrocious as well. It was not just the BT-x series or other light tanks. The armor statistics are also pretty wrong. The Pz3 did not have sides and rears as well protected as the front.

The gun 5cm KwK L42 was introduced with Ausf. F in 1940, not with Ausf. J which started 1941 and tok until december to upgrade to 5-cm-KwK 39 L/60.

Sehr gut.

Beautiful video, FactBytes !!!!! Great work !!!!!! 👏👏👏😁❤️❤️❤️ Can you make a video about the Waffen SS ?

Panzer 3 was good tank for standards in west Europe 1938-42. Introduction of 76mm for Cromwell-tank was advantage. Crusader and covenanter tanks were slightly more sloped than pz3 but pz3 50mmL60 was more than adequate against them. Vk2001Db was "de facto" panzer 3 with diesel engine and Sdkfz250 suspension style, but weapons were at the same. In peak of pz3 upgrade, 50mmL42 replaced with 75mmL24 (previous main gun of panzer4), and 50mmL60 for pz3J/L and pz3M was main weapon. Pz3N had 75mmL24 gun , and it was equally with Stug3 ausf B. Big nations SSSR and USA introduced T34/76 and Sherman-tanks 75mm /76mm ; these two heavier, sloped mass produced tanks reclassified panzer3 as light tank. In this era, panzer-2 will be classified as ultra/light tank ( even Soviet's t26 was used as TT~teletank, predecessor of drones). With introduction of T34/85 ,torsion-bar T43-85 and T44/85 as medium tanks 1944, panzer 3 became definitely obsolete/ in role of MBT /.

In any case, I a good film full of interesting footage.

Hetzers built in Prague; Pz-4's and Stugs using the pz-3 chassis = win. The super heavy tanks were costly and not fast enough IMO.

Good timeline. The panzer 3 was quickly outdated. This demonstrates that well.

Having read about the collaboration between the Soviet Red Army and Weimar Germany in weapons development during the 1920's in inconceivable how the Wehrmacht didn't field the 'heavy' Mark 4 in large numbers during Barbarossa. They HAD to have known that the Russians were delivering heavy tanks along with the mainstay speedier light tanks. And in LARGE numbers as well! BOTH countries expected to go to war against the other eventually. AH gets a bad rapt for firing Guerdian when Barbarossa failed. The OKW were assigned to implement the necessary measures to defeat the USSR in 8 weeks and having heavy tanks would have been the "difference maker" (the Russian resistance at Smolensk was directly attributed to the entrance of large numbers of T-34's!). Of course the rest.. is HISTORY.. 💥💥💀

is this your real voice or a computer voice i cant tell just wondering

Now that’s what you call a ww2 German MBT

The panzer 3 had not enough firepower to be a MBT

The Afrika Korps love the PzIII... its nickname was "Little Honey."

The panzer is not an mbt

It was good enough for the beginning of the war and was upgraded as far as practicable until such time as it was usurped by P IV, V and VI. It was never the main battle tank of the German Army.

@michaelillingworth6433

2 жыл бұрын

Technically it was. At the start of WW2 the panzer 4 was used as an infantry support vehicle and the panzer 3 was used for tank on tank engagements. I do wonder if it had the 50 mm gun Heine Guderien requested from the get go, how much difference it would of made to things. More so if they used the L60 of the later model's.

At 2:48 he states that the 50mm upgrade was postponed until 1941 with the model J. This is factually incorrect. The model F had a 50L42 before the end of 1940. The J started with the same gun but by Dec 41 had thd 50L60.

Pz III was inferior to contemporary cruiser tanks like the A-15 Crusader in almost every aspect they had the same issues with a lack of effective HE yet had worse AP penetration than contemporaneous UK cruiser tanks the 37mm was vastly inferior to the 2lbr while the 50mm was vastly inferior to the 6lbr. They had an even more unreliable filter system hence why you got no stugs in North Africa and the Armour protection was also worse.

Good video, even with the fake computerized voice.

I wouldnt say it a main battle tank since it kinda outdated, not alot of improvement can be added.

@randallturner9094

2 жыл бұрын

It was actually a very effective early war tank. And it maintained a 4:1 kill ratio advantage over T-34’s, which makes this video’s claim it was “out performed” by the “more advanced” Soviet design kinda hilarious. Virtually any other video on this site makes that point, these guys are clueless.

Not Pănzer, but Ponzer!

I love your channel but this guy cannot annunciate German words to save his life

@ShopeeMarketteam

5 ай бұрын

It's a fucking text to speech what the fuck did you expect

George Washington Typhoon

Suspension is the plural , not suspensions , these bloody AI voices are mangling the language as badly as the ordinance dept mangled the gun selection

@jerrysnider1950

Жыл бұрын

The f3f