German tank T 3 modifications. Development of the PzKpfw III tank
In 1934, the Army Armament Service (Heereswaffenamt) issued an order for a combat vehicle with a 37 mm cannon, which received the designation ZB (Zugfuhrerwagen - company commander's vehicle). Of the four companies that participated in the competition, only one - Daimler-Benz - received an order for the production of a pilot batch of 10 cars. In 1936, these tanks were transferred to military testing under the army designation Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.A (or Pz.IIIA). They clearly bore the mark of the influence of W. Christie's designs - five large-diameter road wheels.
The second experimental batch of 12 Model B units had a completely different chassis with 8 small road wheels, reminiscent of the Pz.IV. On the next 15 experimental Ausf.C tanks, the chassis was similar, but the suspension was noticeably improved. It should be emphasized that all other combat characteristics of the mentioned modifications, in principle, remained unchanged.
This cannot be said about the D series tanks (50 units), the frontal and side armor of which was increased to 30 mm, while the tank mass reached 19.5 tons, and the ground pressure increased from 0.77 to 0.96 kg/cm2 .
In 1938, at the factories of three companies at once - Daimler-Benz, Henschel and MAN - production of the first mass modification - Ausf.E - began. 96 tanks of this model received a chassis with six rubber-coated road wheels and a torsion bar suspension with hydraulic shock absorbers, which was no longer subject to significant changes. The combat weight of the tank was 19.5 tons. The crew consisted of 5 people. This number of crew members, starting with the Pz.III, became standard on all subsequent German medium and heavy tanks. Thus, already from the mid-1930s, the Germans achieved a functional division of duties among crew members. Their opponents came to this much later - only in 1943–1944.
The Pz.IIIE was armed with a 37-mm cannon with a 46.5-caliber barrel and three MG 34 machine guns (131 rounds of ammunition and 4,500 rounds of ammunition). Maybach HL120TR 12-cylinder carburetor engine with a power of 300 hp. at 3000 rpm it allowed the tank to reach a maximum speed on the highway of 40 km/h; The cruising range was 165 km and 95 km on the ground.
The layout of the tank was traditional for the Germans - with a front-mounted transmission, which shortened the length and increased the height of the vehicle, simplifying the design of control drives and their maintenance. In addition, the prerequisites were created for increasing the size of the fighting compartment. Characteristic of the hull of this tank, as indeed of all German tanks of that period, was the uniform strength of the armor plates on all main planes and the abundance of hatches. Until the summer of 1943, the Germans preferred ease of access to units over the strength of the hull.
The transmission deserves a positive assessment, which was characterized by a large number of gears in the gearbox with a small number of gears: one gear per gear. The rigidity of the box, in addition to the ribs in the crankcase, was ensured by a “shaftless” gear mounting system. In order to facilitate control and increase the average speed of movement, equalizers and servomechanisms were used.
Pz.III Ausf.D. Poland, September 1939. Theoretically, the driver and gunner-radio operator could use access hatches to the transmission units to enter the tank. However, it is quite obvious that it was almost impossible to do this in a combat situation.
The width of the track chains - 360 mm - was chosen mainly based on road driving conditions, significantly limiting off-road capability. However, the latter still had to be found in the conditions of the Western European theater of military operations.
The next modification was the Pz.IIIF (440 units produced), which had minor design improvements, including a new type of commander's cupola.
600 tanks of the G series received the 50-mm KwK 38 tank gun with a barrel length of 42 calibers, developed by Krupp in 1938, as their main armament. At the same time, the re-equipment of the previously produced E and F tanks with a new artillery system began. The ammunition load of the new gun consisted of 99 rounds, and 3,750 rounds of ammunition were intended for two MG 34 machine guns. After rearmament, the tank's weight increased to 20.3 tons.
The H variant received an improved turret, a new commander's cupola, and later additional 30 mm frontal armor and a new 400 mm track. From October 1940 to April 1941, 310 Ausf.H tanks were produced.
Pz.III Ausf.G tanks of the 5th Tank Regiment of the 5th Light Division before being sent to North Africa. 1941
The Pz.III Ausf.J was protected by even thicker armor. Among the minor improvements, the most significant was the new type of machine gun mounting. The first 1,549 Ausf.J tanks were still armed with a 50-mm KwK 38 cannon with a 42-caliber barrel. Starting in January 1942, the new 50-mm KwK 39 gun with a barrel length of 60 calibers began to be installed on Ausf.J tanks for the first time. 1067 tanks of this modification received such guns.
Front-line experience forced us to move on to the next modification - L, in which the front of the hull and the front of the turret were protected by additional 20-mm armor plates. The tanks also received a modernized mask installation, which simultaneously served as a counterweight to the 50 mm gun. The tank's weight increased to 22.7 tons. From June to December 1942, 653 (according to other sources - 703) tanks of the L modification were manufactured.
Pz.III Ausf.J from the 6th Tank Regiment of the 3rd Tank Division. Eastern Front, winter 1941.
On the M variant, a 1350 kg “eastern” caterpillar appeared. With it, the width of the car increased to 3266 mm. Since March 1943, these tanks were produced with bulwarks - 5-mm steel sheets that protected the vehicle from cumulative shells. The initial order was 1,000 units, but the low effectiveness of 50-mm guns in the fight against Soviet tanks forced the Wehrmacht Ground Forces Armament Service to reduce the order to 250 vehicles. Another 165 already completed chassis were converted into StuGIII assault guns, and another 100 into Pz.III(Fl) flamethrower tanks.
The lack of tungsten in the Reich reduced the effectiveness of the long-barreled 50-mm cannon (its sub-caliber projectile with a tungsten core, which had an initial speed of 1190 m/s, penetrated 94-mm armor at a distance of 500 m); Therefore, it was decided to re-equip some of the tanks with a “short” 75-mm KwK 37 cannon with a barrel length of 24 calibers - for use as assault weapons. 450 L series vehicles were rearmed, and later another 215 M series tanks. The frontal armor of the turrets on these vehicles was increased to 57 mm, and the turret weight was 2.45 tons. These tanks - Ausf.N - became the last modification of the Pz.III, mass-produced.
In addition to combat, so-called linear tanks, 5 types of command tanks were produced with a total of 435 units. 262 tanks were converted into artillery fire control vehicles. A special order - 100 Pz.III Ausf.M with flamethrowers - was completed by Wegmann in Kassel. For a flamethrower with a range of up to 60 m, 1000 liters of fire mixture were required. The tanks were intended for Stalingrad, but only reached the front in early July 1943, near Kursk.
At the end of the summer of 1940, 168 tanks of models F, G and H were converted for movement under water and were to be used in the landings on the English coast. The immersion depth was 15 m; fresh air was supplied by a hose 18 m long and 20 cm in diameter. In the spring of 1941, experiments were continued with a 3.5-m pipe - a “snorkel”. The Pz.III and Pz.IV submersible tanks and the Pz.II amphibious tanks formed the 18th Tank Regiment, which was deployed into a brigade in 1941, and then into the 18th Tank Division. Some Tauchpanzer III vehicles entered service with the 6th Tank Regiment of the 3rd Tank Division. These units were trained at the Milovice training ground in the protectorate of the Czech Republic and Moravia.
Since July 1944, the Pz.III was also used as an ARV. At the same time, a square wheelhouse was installed in place of the tower. In addition, small batches of vehicles for transporting ammunition and engineering were produced. There were prototypes of a minesweeper tank and options for converting it into a railcar.
Pz.III Ausf.J during unloading from a railway platform. Eastern Front, 1942. On the right wing of the vehicle is the tactical badge of the 24th Panzer Division of the Wehrmacht.
It should be noted that a significant number of tank turrets released as a result of the conversion were installed as firing points on various fortifications, in particular on the Atlantic Wall and in Italy on the Ready Line. In 1944 alone, 110 towers were used for these purposes.
Production of the Pz.III was discontinued in 1943, after about 6 thousand tanks had been produced. Subsequently, only the production of self-propelled guns on its basis continued.
Pz.III Ausf.N during testing at the NIBT Test Site in Kubinka near Moscow. 1946
It must be said that all German tanks created in the pre-war years had a rather monotonous fate. Like the Pz.IV, the first “troikas” formally entered service with the troops in 1938. But not to combat units! New vehicles were concentrated in Panzerwaffe training centers, staffed by the most experienced tank instructors. Throughout 1938, essentially military tests took place, during which it became clear, in particular, that the chassis of the first modifications was unreliable and futile.
A number of foreign and domestic sources indicate the participation of the Pz.III in the Anschluss of Austria in March and the occupation of the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia in October 1938. However, their presence in the units of the 1st and 2nd Wehrmacht tank divisions that participated in these operations is not confirmed by German sources. Perhaps the Pz.III tanks were delivered there a little later in order to demonstrate German military power. In any case, the first 10 Pz.III tanks were transferred to combat units in the spring of 1939 and could actually only participate in the occupation of the Czech Republic and Moravia in March of this year.
The total order for tanks of this type was 2,538 units, of which 244 were to be produced in 1939. However, the Armament Service was able to accept only 24 vehicles. As a result, on September 1, 1939, the Wehrmacht had only 98 of the 120 Pz.IIIs produced by that time and 20–25 command tanks at its base. Only 69 vehicles took direct part in the hostilities against Poland. Most of them were concentrated in the 6th Tank Training Battalion (6 Panzer Lehr Battalion), attached to the 3rd Panzer Division, which was part of General Guderian's XIX Tank Corps. The 1st Tank Division also had several vehicles.
Unfortunately, there is no information about combat clashes between Pz.III and Polish tanks. We can only say that the “troika” had better armor protection and maneuverability than the most powerful Polish tank 7TR. Different sources give different figures for German losses: according to some, they amounted to only 8 Pz.IIIs, according to others, 40 tanks were out of action, and irrecoverable losses amounted to 26 units!
By the beginning of active hostilities in the West - May 10, 1940 - the Panzerwaffe already had 381 Pz.III tanks and 60-70 command tanks. True, only 349 vehicles of this type were immediately ready for combat.
After the Polish campaign, the Germans increased the number of tank divisions to ten, and although not all of them had the standard structure with two tank regiments, it was not possible to fully equip them with a regular number of all types of tanks. However, the “old” five tank divisions were not much different from the “new” ones in this regard. The tank regiment was supposed to have 54 Pz.III and Pz.Bg.Wg.III tanks. It is not difficult to calculate that there should have been 540 Pz.III in ten tank regiments of five divisions. However, this number of tanks was not simply physical. Guderian complains about this: “The re-equipment of tank regiments with tanks of the T-III and T-IV types, which was especially important and necessary, progressed extremely slowly due to the weak production capacity of the industry, as well as as a result of the mothballing of new types of tanks by the main command of the ground forces.” The first reason expressed by the general is indisputable, the second is highly doubtful. The presence of tanks in the troops was quite consistent with the number of vehicles produced by May 1940.
Be that as it may, the Germans had to concentrate scarce medium and heavy tanks in formations operating in the directions of the main attacks. Thus, in the 1st Panzer Division of Guderian’s corps there were 62 Pz.III tanks and 15 Pz.Bf.Wg.III tanks. The 2nd Panzer Division had 54 Pz.IIIs. Other divisions had smaller numbers of combat vehicles of this type.
The Pz.III turned out to be quite suitable for fighting French light tanks of all types. Things were much worse when meeting with medium D2 and S35 and heavy B1bis. German 37 mm cannons did not penetrate their armor. Guderian himself also drew personal impressions from this situation. This is what he writes, recalling the battle with French tanks south of Junivville on June 10, 1940: “During the tank battle, I tried in vain to knock out the French tank “B” (B1bis. – Note auto); all the shells bounced off the thick armored walls without causing any harm to the tank. Our 37- and 20-mm cannons were also not effective against this vehicle. Therefore, we were forced to suffer losses.” As for losses, the Panzerwaffe lost 135 Pz.III tanks in France.
Pz.III Ausf.N, knocked out by Soviet artillery in the Sinyavino area. Winter 1943.
Like other types of German tanks, the Troikas took part in the operation in the Balkans in the spring of 1941. In this theater, the main danger to German tanks was not the small number of Yugoslav and Greek tanks and anti-tank guns, but the mountainous, sometimes unpaved roads and poor bridges. Serious clashes, leading to losses, albeit minor, occurred between the Germans and British troops who arrived in Greece in March 1941. The largest battle took place when the Germans broke through the Metaxas Line in northern Greece, near the city of Ptolemais. Tanks from the 9th Panzer Division of the Wehrmacht attacked the 3rd Royal Tank Regiment here. The British A10 cruiser tanks were powerless against the Pz.III, especially the H modification, which had 60 mm frontal armor and a 50 mm gun. The situation was saved by the Royal Horse Artillery - 15 German tanks, including several Pz.IIIs, were shot down by fire from 25-pounder guns. However, this did not affect the development of events as a whole: on April 28, the regiment’s personnel, abandoning all their tanks, left Greece.
Pz.III Ausf.J, knocked out in the summer of 1941. The Soviet shell literally broke through the frontal armor of the tower.
In the spring of 1941, the “troikas” had to master another theater of operations - North African. On March 11, units of the 5th Light Division of the Wehrmacht, numbering up to 80 Pz.III, began to unload in Tripoli. These were mainly cars of the G modification in a tropical version (trop) with reinforced air filters and a cooling system. A couple of months later they were joined by combat vehicles of the 15th Panzer Division. At the time of its arrival, the Pz.III was superior to any British tank in Africa, with the exception of the Matilda.
The first major battle in the Libyan desert involving the Pz.III was the attack by the 5th Tank Regiment of the 5th Light Division on British positions near Tobruk on April 30, 1941. The offensive launched by German tank crews after lengthy air preparation was unsuccessful. The 2nd battalion of the 5th regiment suffered especially heavy losses. Suffice it to say that 24 Pz.IIIs alone were knocked out. True, all the tanks were evacuated from the battlefield and 14 vehicles soon returned to service. It must be said that the commander of the German Afrika Korps, General Rommel, quickly drew conclusions from such failures, and in the future the Germans did not undertake frontal attacks, preferring the tactics of flank attacks and envelopments. This was all the more important because by the end of the autumn of 1941, neither the Pz.III nor the Pz.IV had such a decisive superiority over the majority of British tanks as in the spring. During Operation Crusader, for example, in November 1941, the British advanced with 748 tanks, including 213 Matildas and Valentines, 220 Crusaders, 150 older cruiser tanks and 165 American Stuarts. production. The Afrika Korps could oppose them with only 249 German (of which 139 Pz.III) and 146 Italian tanks. At the same time, the armament and armor protection of most British combat vehicles were similar to, and sometimes superior to, German ones. As a result of two months of fighting, British troops were missing 278 tanks. The losses of the Italian-German troops were comparable - 292 tanks.
The British 8th Army drove the enemy back almost 800 km and captured all of Cyrenaica. But she was unable to solve her main task - to destroy Rommel’s forces. On January 5, 1942, a convoy arrived in Tripoli, delivering 117 German (mainly Pz.III Ausf.J with a 50-mm 42-caliber gun) and 79 Italian tanks. Having received this reinforcement, Rommel launched a decisive offensive on January 21. In two days, the Germans advanced 120–130 km east, while the British rapidly retreated.
Command tank Pz.Bf.Wg.III Ausf.Dl. Poland, September 1939.
The natural question is: if the Germans had neither quantitative nor qualitative superiority over the enemy, then how can their success be explained? This is the answer to this question given by Major General von Mellenthin (at that time, with the rank of major, he served on Rommel’s headquarters): “In my opinion, our victories were determined by three factors: the qualitative superiority of our anti-tank guns, the systematic application of the principle of interaction combat arms and - last but not least - our tactical methods. While the British limited the role of their 3.7-inch anti-aircraft guns (very powerful guns) to fighting aircraft, we used our 88-mm guns to fire at both tanks and aircraft. In November 1941 we had only thirty-five 88 mm guns, but moving with our tanks, these guns inflicted huge losses on British tanks. In addition, our 50-mm anti-tank guns with a high muzzle velocity were significantly superior to the British two-pounder guns, and batteries of these guns always accompanied our tanks in battle. Our field artillery was also trained to cooperate with tanks. In short, the German tank division was a highly flexible formation of all types of troops, always relying on artillery both in attack and defense. The British, on the contrary, considered anti-tank guns to be a defensive weapon and failed to adequately use their powerful field artillery, which should have been trained to destroy our anti-tank guns.”
Everything said by von Mellenthin, especially concerning the interaction of all types of troops with tanks, was also typical for another theater of military operations - the Eastern Front, which became the most important for the Pz.III, as well as for all other German tanks.
Command tank Pz.Bf.Wg.III Ausf.E and command and staff armored personnel carrier Sd.Kfz.251/3 of the headquarters of the 9th Tank Division. Eastern Front, 1941.
As of June 1, 1941, the Wehrmacht had 235 Pz.III tanks with 37 mm guns (another 81 vehicles were under repair). There were significantly more tanks with 50 mm guns - 1090! Another 23 vehicles were in the process of being re-equipped. During June, the industry was expected to receive another 133 combat vehicles. Of this number, 965 Pz.III tanks were intended directly for the invasion of the Soviet Union, which were distributed more or less evenly among 16 German tank divisions out of 19 that participated in Operation Barbarossa (6th, 7th and 8th Panzer divisions were armed with Czechoslovak-made tanks). So, for example, the 1st Tank Division had 73 Pz.III and 5 command Pz.Bf.Wg.III, the 4th Tank Division had 105 combat vehicles of this type. Moreover, the vast majority of tanks were armed with 50-mm L/42 cannons.
Since the landing on the shores of Foggy Albion did not take place, Tauchpanzer III underwater tanks were also transferred to the east. In the first hours of Operation Barbarossa, these tanks, which were part of the 18th Panzer Division, crossed the Western Bug along the bottom. Here is how the German historian Paul Karel describes this extraordinary event for those years: “At 03.15, in the sector of the 18th Panzer Division, 50 batteries of all calibers opened fire to ensure the crossing of the river by submarine tanks. The division commander, General Nehring, described the operation as a magnificent spectacle, but at the same time rather pointless, since the Russians were smart enough to withdraw their troops from the border areas, leaving only a few units of border guards who fought bravely.
At 04.45, non-commissioned officer Virshin plunged into the Bug on tank No. 1. The infantry watched what was happening in amazement. The water closed over the roof of the tank turret.
“Tankers give in!” They're playing submariners!"
Where Virshin’s tank was now located could be determined by the thin metal pipe sticking out of the river and by the bubbles from the exhaust on the surface that were carried away by the current.
So, tank by tank, the 1st Battalion of the 18th Tank Regiment, led by battalion commander Manfred Count Strachwitz, disappeared to the bottom of the river. And then the first of the strange “amphibians” crawled ashore. There was a quiet bang, and the gun barrel was freed from the rubber plug. The loader lowered the motorcycle camera around the turret ring. They did the same in other cars. The tower hatches opened, from which the “captains” appeared. The battalion commander’s hand flew up three times, which meant “Tanks, forward!” 80 tanks crossed the river under water. 80 tanks rushed into battle. The appearance of armored vehicles on the coastal bridgehead was very opportune; enemy armored reconnaissance vehicles were approaching. Immediately the leading tanks received an order:
“Towers for one hour, load with armor-piercing, range 800 meters, at a group of enemy armored vehicles, rapid fire!”
Panzerbeobachtungswagen III forward artillery observer vehicle. 20th Panzer Division. Eastern Front, summer 1943.
The muzzles of the “amphibious” guns spewed out flames. Several armored vehicles caught fire. The others hastily retreated. The tank fist of Army Group Center rushed towards Minsk and Smolensk."
Subsequently, there were no such episodes of crossing water obstacles, and the Pz.III was used underwater as ordinary tanks.
It must be said that the “troikas” as a whole were an equal opponent of most Soviet tanks, surpassing them in some ways, but inferior in some ways. In three main evaluation parameters - armament, maneuverability and armor protection - the Pz.III was significantly superior only to the T-26. The German vehicle had an advantage over the BT-7 in armor protection, and over the T-28 and KB in maneuverability. In all three parameters, the “troika” was inferior only to the T-34. At the same time, the Pz.III had an undeniable superiority over all Soviet tanks in the quantity and quality of observation devices, the quality of sights, the reliability of the engine, transmission and chassis. An important advantage was the 100% division of labor among the crew members, which most Soviet tanks could not boast of. The latter circumstances, in the absence of a pronounced superiority in performance characteristics, generally allowed the Pz.III to emerge victorious in tank duels in most cases. However, when meeting with the T-34, and even more so with the KB, it was very difficult to achieve this - good optics or bad, but the German 50-mm cannon could penetrate their armor only from a very short distance - no more than 300 m. It is no coincidence that that during the period from June 1941 to September 1942, only 7.5% of the total number of T-34 tanks hit by artillery became victims of fire from these guns. At the same time, the main burden of the fight against Soviet medium tanks fell on the shoulders of anti-tank artillery - 54.3% of T-34 tanks were hit by fire from 50-mm Pak 38 anti-tank guns during the specified period. The fact is that the anti-tank gun was more powerful than a tank gun, its barrel had a length of 56.6 calibers, and the initial speed of the armor-piercing projectile was 835 m/s. And she had a better chance of meeting a Soviet tank.
After the turret was dismantled, some of the tanks were converted into Munitionsschlepper III ammunition carriers.
From the above it follows that the most popular Wehrmacht tank at that time, the Pz.III, which also had the greatest capabilities for fighting tanks, in 1941 was in most cases absolutely powerless against the Soviet T-34 and KV. If we take into account the lack of quantitative superiority, it becomes clear how, perhaps without knowing or understanding it, Hitler was bluffing when attacking the USSR. In any case, on August 4, 1941, at a meeting at the headquarters of Army Group Center, he told General G. Guderian: “If I knew that the Russians really have the number of tanks that were given in your book, I would probably I didn’t start this war.” (In his book “Attention, Tanks!”, published in 1937, G. Guderian indicated that at that time the USSR had 10,000 tanks, but Chief of the General Staff Beck and the censorship objected to this figure. - Note auto)
However, let's return to the Pz.III. In six months of 1941, 660 tanks of this type were irretrievably lost, and in the first two months of 1942, another 338. Given the then existing rate of production of armored vehicles in Germany, it was not possible to quickly make up for these losses. Therefore, the Wehrmacht tank divisions constantly maintained a chronic shortage of combat vehicles.
Throughout 1942, the Pz.III remained the main striking force of the Panzerwaffe, including during large-scale offensive operations on the southern flank of the Eastern Front. On August 23, 1942, Pz.III Ausf.J from the 14th Tank Corps were the first to reach the Volga north of Stalingrad. During the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of the Caucasus, the Pz.III suffered the most severe losses. Moreover, “troikas” armed with both types of guns – 42 and 60 calibers – took part in these battles. The use of a long-barreled 50-mm cannon made it possible to push back the firing distance, for example, from the T-34, to almost 500 m. In combination with the rather powerful armor protection of the frontal projection of the Pz.III, the chances of victory for both tanks were largely equalized. True, the German vehicle could only achieve success in combat at such a distance using PzGr 40 sub-caliber projectiles.
In May 1942, the first 19 Ausf.J tanks with 50 mm L/60 guns arrived in North Africa. In English documents these vehicles appear as Panzer III Special. On the eve of the battle at El Ghazala, Rommel had only 332 tanks, of which 223 were “troikas”. It should be taken into account that the American Grant I tanks that appeared at the front were practically invulnerable to the guns of German tanks. The exceptions were the Pz.III Ausf.J and Pz.IV Ausf.F2 with long-barreled guns, but Rommel had only 23 such vehicles. However, despite the numerical superiority of the British troops, the Germans again went on the offensive, and by June 11 the entire forward line of strong points from El Ghazala to Bir Hakeim was in their hands. Over the course of several days of fighting, the British army lost 550 tanks and 200 guns, and British units began a disorderly retreat to a rear defensive position on Egyptian territory near El Alamein.
Pz.III Ausf.F of the 7th Tank Regiment of the 10th Tank Division. France, May 1940.
Heavy fighting on this line began at the end of August 1942. On the eve of the offensive that Rommel launched at this time, the Afrika Korps had 74 Panzer III Specials. During unsuccessful offensive battles, the Germans suffered heavy losses in equipment, which they could not replace. By the end of October, only 81 combat-ready tanks remained in the German forces. On October 23, 1029 tanks of General Montgomery's 8th Army went on the offensive. By November 3, the resistance of the German and Italian troops was broken, and they began a rapid retreat, abandoning all heavy equipment. In the 15th Panzer Division, for example, by November 10, there were 1,177 personnel left, 16 guns (of which four were 88 mm) and not a single tank. Leaving Libya, Rommel's army, which received reinforcements, was able to stop the British on the Tunisian border, on the Maret Line, in January 1943.
In 1943, a number of Pz.III tanks, mainly modifications L and N, took part in the final battles of the African campaign. In particular, Ausf.L tanks of the 15th Panzer Division took part in the defeat of American troops in the Kasserine Pass on February 14, 1943. Ausf.N tanks were part of the 501st heavy tank battalion. Their task was to protect the Tigers’ positions from attacks by enemy infantry. After the surrender of German troops in North Africa on May 12, 1943, all these tanks became Allied trophies.
The main theater of combat use of the Pz.III in 1943 remained the Eastern Front. True, the main burden of the fight against Soviet tanks passed to the Pz.IV with long-barreled 75-mm guns by the middle of the year, and the “troikas” increasingly played a supporting role in tank attacks. Nevertheless, they still made up approximately half of the Wehrmacht tank fleet on the Eastern Front. By the summer of 1943, the German tank division included a two-battalion tank regiment. In the first battalion, one company was armed with “triples”, in the second – two. In total, the division was supposed to have 66 linear tanks of this type.
The “farewell tour” of the Pz.III was Operation Citadel. The table gives an idea of the presence of Pz.III tanks of various modifications in the tank and motorized divisions of the Wehrmacht and SS troops at the beginning of Operation Citadel.
AVAILABILITY OF Pz.III TANK IN GERMAN TANK AND MOTORIZED DIVISIONS ON THE EVE OF OPERATION CITADEL
In addition to these tanks, there were 56 more vehicles in the 502nd and 505th heavy tank battalions, the 656th tank destroyer division and other units. According to German data, during July and August 1943, 385 “troikas” were lost. In total, during the year, losses amounted to 2,719 Pz.III units, of which 178 were returned to service after repairs.
By the end of 1943, due to the cessation of production, the number of Pz.IIIs in first-line units had sharply decreased. A significant number of tanks of this type were transferred to various training and reserve units. They also served in secondary theaters of war, for example in the Balkans or Italy. By November 1944, a little more than 200 Pz.III remained in the first-line combat units: on the Eastern Front - 133, in the West - 35 and in Italy - 49.
As of March 1945, the following number of tanks remained in the army:
Pz.III L/42 – 216
Pz.III L/60 – 113
Pz.III L/24 – 205
Pz.Beob.Wg.III – 70
Pz.Bf.Wg.IIl – 4
Berge-Pz.III – 130.
Of the line tanks and forward artillery observer vehicles, 328 units were in the Army Reserve, 105 were used as training vehicles, and 164 vehicles located in front-line units were distributed as follows:
Eastern Front – 16
Western Front -
Italy – 58
Denmark/Norway – 90.
German statistics for the last year of the war end on April 28, and the figures for the presence of Pz.III in the troops on this date are almost no different from those given above, which indicates the practical non-participation of the “troikas” in the battles of the last days of the war. According to German data, from September 1, 1939 to April 10, 1945, the irretrievable losses of Pz.III tanks amounted to 4,706 units.
A few words about export deliveries of Pz.III, which were very insignificant. In September 1942, Hungary received 10 tanks of the M modification. Another 10–12 vehicles were transferred to the Hungarians in 1944. At the end of 1942, 11 Ausf.N vehicles were delivered to Romania. They were in service with the 1st Romanian Tank Division "Greater Romania" (Romania Mage). In 1943, Bulgaria ordered 10 such tanks, but in the end the Germans supplied it with Pz.38(t). Slovakia received 7 Ausf.N in 1943. Several vehicles of modifications N and L were in service with the Croatian troops. Turkey planned to purchase 56 vehicles of the L and M variants, but these plans could not be realized. Thus, only no more than 50 Pz.IIIs entered the armies of Germany's allies.
In battles with the Red Army, the Hungarian army most actively used these tanks.
A number of captured Pz.IIIs were also used by the Red Army, mainly in 1942–1943. About 200 SU-76I self-propelled artillery mounts were manufactured on the chassis of captured tanks, which were used in battles with German troops until the end of 1943.
In 1967, in his book “Designs and Development of Combat Vehicles,” British tank theorist Richard Ogorkiewicz outlined an interesting theory of the existence of an intermediate class of “light-medium” tanks. In his opinion, the first vehicle in this class was the Soviet T-26, armed with a 45-mm cannon. In addition, Ogorkevich included in this category the Czechoslovak LT-35 and LT-38, the Swedish La-10, the British “cruisers” from Mk I to Mk IV, the Soviet tanks of the BT family and, finally, the German Pz.III.
One of 135 Pz.IIIs destroyed during the French campaign. Judging by the image of the buffalo on the side of the turret, this Pz.III Ausf.E belongs to the 7th Tank Regiment of the 10th Panzer Division. May 1940.
It must be said that Ogorkevich’s theory makes a certain sense. Indeed, the tactical and technical characteristics of all these combat vehicles are quite close to each other. This is all the more important since these tanks have become opponents on the battlefield. True, by 1939 their performance characteristics had changed slightly, mainly in the direction of strengthening the armor, but the main thing remained the same - all these combat vehicles, to a greater or lesser extent, were a kind of overgrown light tanks. They seemed to have stepped over the upper bar of the light class, but did not reach the full-fledged intermediate class.
Nevertheless, in the 1930s, thanks to a successful combination of the main parameters of armament and mobility, “light-medium” tanks were considered universal, equally capable of supporting infantry and performing the functions of cavalry.
Pz.III Ausf.G from the 6th company of the 5th tank regiment in battle. North Africa. 1941
However, accompanying infantry required movement at the speed of an infantryman, and such vehicles, which had relatively weak armor protection, became easy prey for anti-tank artillery, as was clearly demonstrated in Spain. The second function, which was confirmed already at the very beginning of World War II, they also could not perform independently; they had to be supported or ultimately replaced by tanks with more powerful weapons, for example, with a 75-mm cannon, capable of not only hitting enemy equipment, but also to conduct effective fire with high-explosive fragmentation shells.
The march to the East has begun! A Pz.III unit of the 11th Panzer Division advances deep into Soviet territory. In the background is a burning BT-7. 1941
However, the need to combine “light-medium” tanks with tanks armed with a 75-mm cannon was realized already in the mid-1930s. They just solved this problem in different ways: the British installed parts of their cruiser tanks with 76-mm howitzers in the standard turrets instead of 2-pounder guns, the USSR produced several hundred BT-7A artillery tanks with a 76-mm cannon in an enlarged turret, while the Germans went with the most radical and least simple way to create two tanks.
In fact, in 1934, four German firms received an order to develop two different tanks under the mottos ZW (“company commander’s vehicle”) and BW (“battalion commander’s vehicle”). It goes without saying that these were only nominal mottos. The technical specifications for these machines were close. Base weight, for example, 15 and 18 tons, respectively. There were significant differences only in armament: one vehicle was supposed to carry a 37-mm gun, the other – a 75-mm cannon. The similarity of the technical specifications ultimately led to the creation of two vehicles almost identical in weight, dimensions and armor, but differing in armament and completely different in design - Pz.III and Pz.IV. At the same time, the layout of the second one was clearly more successful. The Pz.IV has a lower hull that is narrower than that of the Pz.III, but the Krupp builders, having expanded the turret box to the middle of the fenders, increased the clear diameter of the turret ring to 1680 mm versus 1520 mm for the Pz.III. In addition, due to the more compact and rational layout of the engine compartment, the Pz.IV has a noticeably larger control compartment. The result is obvious: the Pz.III does not have landing hatches for the driver and radio operator. What this can lead to if it is necessary to urgently leave a damaged tank is clear without explanation. In general, with almost identical overall dimensions, the reserved volume of the Pz.III was less than that of the Pz.IV.
Pz.III Ausf.J, knocked out by a tank unit of Colonel Khasin's guard. Southwestern Front, 1942.
It should be emphasized that both machines were created in parallel, each according to its own technical specifications, and there was no competition between them. It is even more difficult to explain the appearance of such similar technical specifications and the subsequent adoption of both tanks. It would be much more logical to accept one tank, but with two weapon options. Such a solution would entail significantly lower costs in the future. It is quite obvious that by launching into mass production two tanks that were practically identical in all respects, but differed in armament and different in design, the Germans made a mistake. However, we should not forget that we are talking about 1934–1937, when it was difficult to guess the path that tank building would take.
Pz.III Ausf.L tanks in Tunisia. December 1942.
In its category of “light-medium” tanks, the Pz.III turned out to be the most modern, having to the least extent inherited the shortcomings characteristic of light tanks. After its armor and armament were strengthened, and its weight exceeded 20 tons, which practically made the “troika” a medium tank, its superiority over its former “colleagues” increased even more. It was strengthened many times over by the superiority in tactical methods of using tank units and formations. As a result, the German command in the first two years of the war had no particular reason to worry about the combat qualities of the Pz.III.
A Pz.III Ausf.M from the SS motorized division "Reich" capsized as a result of unsuccessful maneuvering. Kursk Bulge, 1943.
The situation changed completely in 1941, when the Germans encountered the T-34 on the Eastern Front, and the Grant in Africa. The Pz.III also had certain advantages over them. In particular, the T-34 was superior in the quantity and quality of observation and aiming devices, crew comfort, ease of control and technical reliability. The Grant was fine with surveillance devices and reliability, but in design and layout it was inferior to the Troika. However, all these advantages were negated by the main thing: both of these vehicles were designed within the framework of the promising concept of a “universal” tank, designed to replace both “light-medium” and support tanks. In the USSR, they came to understand the need for such a replacement as a result of a long evolution of “light-medium” tanks. There was no evolution at all in the USA, but the Americans made quick and, most importantly, correct conclusions from the experience of others. What about the Germans? Apparently, by mid-1941 they fully realized the seriousness of the mistake they had made. On September 6, 1941, Hitler was presented with a report that substantiated the benefits of the “unification” of the Pz.III and Pz.IV. The matter was set in motion, and several companies were tasked with developing various versions of Panzerkampfwagen III and IV n.A. (n.A. neue Ausfuhrung - new version).
Pz.III Ausf.N, knocked out during Operation Citadel. Judging by the emblems, this vehicle is from the 3rd Tank Regiment of the 2nd Tank Division of the Wehrmacht. Oryol direction, August 1943.
The Krupp company built two prototypes, which were Pz.III with a new chassis intended for Pz.III/IV. The road wheels were staggered and the suspension was torsion bar. Both vehicles were tested at various testing sites for quite some time. Other suspension and chassis options were also tested. Design and testing led at the beginning of 1942 to the creation of a unified Geschutzwagen III/IV chassis (“gun chassis”), in which the road wheels, suspension, support rollers, idler wheels and tracks were borrowed from the Pz.IV Ausf.F tank, and the drive wheels, engine and gearbox - for Pz.III Ausf.J. But the idea of a “single” tank never came to fruition. This project was buried in March 1942, after a 75-mm cannon with a 43-caliber barrel length was installed in the Pz.IV Ausf.F, turning the support tank into a “universal” one overnight and without hassle.
It was impossible to apply such a solution to the Pz.III. An indispensable condition for creating a “universal” tank was the presence of a long-barreled gun with a caliber of at least 75 mm, which could not be installed in the Pz.III turret without significant alterations in the design of the tank. And with a 50-mm cannon, even with a length of 60 calibers, the Troika remained the same “light-medium” tank. But she has no “colleagues” or opponents left. The removal of the Pz.III from production in the summer of 1943 was the only and, it must be said, belated solution.
As a result, the “universal” “four” was in mass production until the end of the war, the Geschutzwagen III/IV chassis was actively used to create various self-propelled guns... But what about the “troika”? Alas, the mistake made by the customer when choosing the type of tank devalued the work of the designers and manufacturers. In the Panzerwaffe tank “palette” the “troika” turned out to be superfluous.
Not long ago, the restoration of the German Pz.III tank was completed, about the process of which we have a small photo report:. Now let's take a look inside and look at the jobs of the tank crew.
2. The crew of the PzKpfw III consisted of five people: a driver and a gunner-radio operator, located in the control compartment and a commander, gunner and loader, located in a three-seat turret. 
3. At the bottom of the photo, on the left, is the driver’s seat, and at the bottom right is the radio operator’s position. A gearbox is installed between them. 
4. Driver's mechanic position. The viewing slot has an armored curtain with several positions and is clearly visible in photographs from the outside. The side clutches, thanks to which the tank turns, are painted gray. 
5. Radio operator position. 
6. View of the fighting compartment from the driver’s seat. The transmission tunnel is painted gray at the bottom, inside of which there is a driveshaft that transmits engine torque to the gearbox. The side cabinets contained stowage shells. The tower is three-seater. 
7. Gunner's sight. On the right is the breech of the gun with the year of manufacture stamped, 1941. 
Photographer: Moiseenkov Andrey.
We express our gratitude to the staff of the Central Museum of Armored Weapons and Equipment for their assistance in photographing.
In 1935, the Armaments Directorate, following Guderian's concept of mat. parts of tank divisions, issued a number of companies with an order for a medium tank weighing 15 tons. The project presented by Daimler-Benz turned out to be the best. It was this company that was assigned the right to be the main developer of the machine. In the period from 1937 to 1938, the company produced small batches of experimental tanks of modifications A, B, C and D. All vehicles in this series had armor thickness of only 14.5 millimeters. In 1938, real mass production began with the release of modification E. The maximum speed of the vehicle, which had a combat weight of 19,500 kg, was 40 km/h. The crew of the combat vehicle included 5 people (driver, commander, gunner-radio operator, gunner and loader). The layout of the Pz Kpfw III was traditional for German tank building - in the stern there was a power compartment, in the bow there was a combined control compartment and transmission compartment, in the turret and in the middle of the hull there was a fighting compartment. The front wheels were driving. The turret and hull are welded, made from surface-hardened chrome-nickel armor steel sheets. The armor of the turret and hull was the same - 30 millimeters.
The armament included a 37 mm caliber semi-automatic tank gun and three machine guns (two in the turret and the front one).
A. Hitler, after the French campaign, demanded to rearm the Pz Kpfw III with a 50-mm long-barreled L/60 cannon (this designation is the length of the barrel in bulbs). The reason for this decision was the appearance of the British Matilda tanks with thick armor. However, the Armament Directorate made a different decision and preferred a gun with a 42-caliber length and a low muzzle velocity. The cannon was equipped with Pz Kpfw III tanks of modifications E, F, G. It was with these vehicles that the German army began the war with the USSR. Subsequently, the initiative of the Armaments Directorate was very costly for the tank units - a 50-mm cannon shell could hardly penetrate the armor of the Soviet T-34 and KB.
On modification N, which appeared in 1940, due to the screens, the thickness of the armor of the stern and frontal parts of the hull was increased to 60 millimeters. The combat weight, which increased to 21,800 kg, required wide tracks in order to maintain a sufficiently high specific ground pressure at the same level.
German tank crews on PzKpfw III in northern Africa
Unloading German equipment at the port of Tripoli. In the foreground is a PzKpfw III Ausf G tank.
German tank PzKpfw III Ausf. L on a flatbed trailer, which was most often used with the 18-ton FAMO half-track tractor
Modification J tanks (created in the second half of 1941) were finally equipped with the long-barreled gun that A. Hitler spoke about. An armor-piercing projectile penetrated an armor plate 75 millimeters thick at a range of 500 meters, and a sub-caliber projectile penetrated 115 millimeters. The mass of the tank was 21,500 kg.
In July 1942, serial production of modification L began, and in October - modification M, which was distinguished by enhanced armor protection of the frontal part of the hull. The total thickness of the armor plates and 20 mm screens reached 70 mm.
The latest modification N was armed with the same short-barreled 75 mm caliber gun, which was previously installed on the Pz Kpfw IV tank. This modification should be classified as assault tanks, not linear tanks. Between 1942 and 1943, 660 tanks were built.
In total, twelve modifications of the Pz Kpfw III were produced in the amount of 5,691 units. In addition, 220 command vehicles were built without cannon armament, 50 with a long-barreled gun and 81 with a short-barreled gun. In 1943, they produced 100 Pz Kpfw III Flamm flamethrowing vehicles. From February 43rd to April 44th - 262 artillery observation tanks Sd Kfz 143 (Pz Beob Wg III). There are 150 tanks in repair and evacuation areas.
From a technical point of view, this medium tank was an interesting vehicle. The Pz Kpfw III featured many innovations: the road wheels had a torsion bar suspension, control was carried out using planetary turning mechanisms and servos, and so on.
On the other hand, the “troika” was characterized by low cross-country ability and insufficient mobility. Attempts at modernization did not bring significant results, except for a partial increase in armor and strengthening of weapons. The engine group was never revised, and therefore, as the mass increased, the specific power decreased.
The Germans, even if they wanted to, were unable to equalize the combat qualities of the Pz Kpfw III with the T-34, mainly due to the lack of structural reserves. Production of these tanks ceased in August 1943. The freed up factory capacity was used to produce assault guns based on these vehicles.
Combat and technical characteristics of medium tanks Pz Kpfw III (Ausf E/Ausf G/Ausf M/Ausf N):
Year of manufacture – 1938/1940/1942/1942;
Combat weight - 19500/20300/22700/23000 kg;
Crew – 5 people;
Body length – 5380/5410/5410/5650 mm;
Length with gun forward – 5380/5410/6410/5650 mm;
Width – 2910/2950/2950/2950 mm;
Height – 2440/2442/2500/2500 mm;
The thickness of the armor plates of the frontal part of the hull (angle of inclination to the vertical) is 30 mm (21 degrees)/30 mm (21 degrees)/50 mm (21 degrees)/50 mm (21 degrees);
The thickness of the armor plates on the sides of the hull is 30 mm (the angle of inclination to the vertical is 0 degrees);
The thickness of the armor plates of the front part of the turret is 30/30/57/57 mm (the angle of inclination to the vertical is 15 degrees);
The thickness of the armor plates of the roof and bottom of the hull is 17 and 16/18 and 16/18 and 16/18 and 16;
Gun brand – KwK/KwK38/KwK39/KwK37;
Gun caliber – 37/50/50/75 mm;
Barrel length – 46.5/42/60/24 klb.;
Ammunition, rounds – 131/99/92/64 pcs.;
Number of machine guns – 3/3/2/2;
Machine gun caliber - 7.92 mm;
Ammunition, cartridges - 4500/2700/3750/3750 pcs.;
Engine type and brand – Maybach HL120TR/Maybach HL120TRM/Maybach HL120TRM/Maybach HL120TRM;
Engine power – 300 l. With.;
Maximum speed on the highway – 40 km/h;
Fuel capacity – 320/320/318/318 l;
Cruising range on the highway – 165/165/155/155 km;
Average ground pressure – 0.95/0.93/0.94/0.94 kg/cm2.
German tank PzKpfw III and its crew
German medium tank PzKpfw III Ausf.J. This modification had a lighter hull, and the thickness of the frontal armor was increased to 50 mm
Description
The development of the Panzer III medium tank has been carried out since 1934 by such well-known German concerns as Friedrich Krupp, MAN, Daimler-Benz and Rheinmetal Borsing. Each manufacturer presented its own sample of the tank. As a result, the military gave preference to the Daimler-Benz project. The tank was put into production in 1937 and received its final name - "Pz.Kpfw.III". The first modification of the "Panzer III Ausf.A" had only 14.5 mm bulletproof armor and a 37 mm caliber gun. The tank was quickly improved and refined. Modifications A, B, C, D and E were released in small quantities. The first large batch (435 units) was produced of the Panzer III Ausf.F tank. Most of the F modification tanks were already armed with the 50 mm KwK 38 L/42 cannon. The reinforced frontal armor was now 30mm. The tank continued to be improved, making various design changes, increasing armor and strengthening weapons. Thus, the frontal armor of the Panzer III Ausf.H was already increased to 60mm. For the late 30s, early 40s, this was very good anti-ballistic armor. Work on the tank.jpg)
continued during the first major victories of the Wehrmacht in the West, and then during the war with the Soviet Union, where the Panzer III was already the main tank of the German army. The combat value of the most widely produced Pz.III can be compared with the Soviet T-28 medium tank in terms of firepower and armor, since after the Finnish War the 30mm armor of these Soviet tanks was increased to 50-80mm. Light tanks of the Red Army, such as the T-26 and BT-7, could fight on equal terms with the Pz.III only under very favorable conditions, such as sudden fire from an ambush at very close range, but as a rule the trio was superior to the light Soviet ones tanks due to the best tactical and technical characteristics, primarily armor and guns, as well as thanks to excellent guidance devices, excellent optics and the division of duties of a crew of five people, each of whom did his own thing, while, for example, Soviet crews of three the T-26 was overloaded with work. Comfortable working conditions for the crew significantly increased the effectiveness of the Pz.III in combat. And yet, with all its advantages, the troika could not fight on absolutely equal terms with the new types of Soviet combat vehicles - the T-34 and KV. Only at a very close range was the fire from the Pz.III cannon effective against these tanks - the weak gun at that time became the most serious drawback of this excellent combat vehicle. Soviet tanks had the ability to penetrate the armor of the Panzer III while being at a fairly large distance outside the effective zone of destruction of the latter. The only thing that prevented Soviet tankers from fully realizing their advantages in battle was the lack of radio communications, problems with the T-34 and especially the KV transmission, as well as poor visibility from the tank. In this, the “troika” had advantages, but these shortcomings on the T-34 were eliminated during the war, which completely negated some of the superiority of the Pz.III. "Panzer III" was assigned the role of the main tank in the Eastern Campaign of 1941, and an unpleasant surprise for the Germans was its poor maneuverability in the war against the USSR - too wide caterpillar tracks made it difficult for the tank to move along Russian off-road conditions. The commander of the third German tank group, Hermann Hoth, noted that the lack of roads hampered the advance of his tanks, which were moving through Belarus to Moscow, almost more than the Soviet armies. 
Assessing the latest modifications of the Panzer III tank, namely "Ausf.J", "Ausf.L" and "Ausf.M", it is worth saying that in the late 30s, early 40s this would have been simply an excellent tank, however At the time of the deployment of truly mass production of these tanks of the latest series, Germany’s opponents already also possessed good examples of armored vehicles, in no way inferior, and in a number of characteristics even superior to the German tank. The British could oppose the German Pz.III with their Matilda with 78mm frontal armor, as well as the well-armored Valentine infantry tank. The Soviet Union mass-produced T-34 medium tanks, and the Americans began sending M4 Sherman tanks to the allies under Lend-Lease. The maximum potential of the Panzer III design was achieved during the development of modifications L and M. It was not possible to further strengthen the armor and install a more powerful gun on the "troika". The Soviet Union, Britain and the USA continued to improve the characteristics of their combat vehicles and it was no longer possible to bring the Panzer III to their level. By that time, Germany had long had a more advanced tank - the Panzer IV, which it finally decided to rely on after the obvious impossibility of further modernizing the Panzer III.
