StuG 38(t)?

I think it is true that during the war the german industrie made to many types of tanks and AFV. On the other hand it was the freedom that the industrie had in developing that gave Germany some outstandig high quality and innovative weapon systems.

 

well here is a Pz 38(t) that is just down the road from me

 

I recently thought back to this old post, something I've mentioned a few times over the years, and it occurred to me that I may have erred in thinking that the Ursus factory (taken over by the German firm FAMO) could easily have been adapted to manufacturing Panzer IIIs or IVs. The only tanks it seems to have produced were variations of the Vickers 6-tonner, mainly the 7TP; Ursus mostly built trucks, tractors, and similar vehicles for both military and civilian use. Restarting Panzer II production may have seemed the best way to make use of a limited facility. As it turned out, the new line was mainly of value for producing self-propelled guns like the Marder or Wespe.

 

Back to this again. Panzer pioneers like Lutz and Guderian had identified the need for artillery to keep up with tanks, but little seems to have been done about it in the prewar years. If the Germans were looking to make use of a factory that couldn't handle anything larger than Panzer IIs, perhaps someone might have thought to adapt the chassis as a self-propelled gun, essentially the Wespe, but starting production in early 1941.

Although no one could predict it at the time, an SP already in production would speed up the delivery of 75/76mm tank destroyers when the need for those arose. Historically it took until mid-1942 for the various Marders to be fielded.

 

When Lutz and Guderian were working together, the priority was for panzers in-lieu of the wood framed, cardboard cutouts that school children poked their pencils through. Rapid expansion of the panzer arm meant that tanks were need first.

Later in the war Guderian complained about assualt guns were being made in lieu of panzers. By then Germany was fighting a defensive war (but I'll have to check with his book, Panzer Leaader).

The U.S. Army had something like a 4 x 8 "H" shaped wood tank simulator. The four "crewman" each grabbed a leg and manuevered around as if they were a tank.

 

The problem with that is the Czech tanks were required as "leichte" tanks to fulfill the same role as the Panzer III, so were not available in any quantity for converision to anything until 1942 when Panzer III manufacturing rates caught up.

 

Lest we forget, the short barrel Stg. III was envisioned as an infantry support vehicle and not intended for anti-tank service. Concurrently the panzerwaffe's main weapon was the 3.7 mm AT and later the short barrel 5 cm (5 c.m. KWK 38 L42) AT gun. Long barrel 5 cm L60 guns were disliked by OKH b/c the barrel would protrude beyond the hull. The OKH sabotaged Hitler's directive that the 5 cm KWK39 L60 were to be installed on the newer Pz III. Meeting the heavier armored KV-1 and T-34 in the initial stage of Operation Barbarossa increased the priority of the 75 mm Pak 40 that first saw field service in 1942.

 

Part of the reason 'the Czech tanks were required as "leichte" tanks to fulfill the same role as the Panzer III' was that a portion of Panzer III production was being used for assault guns. The Panzer III (and IV) were the tanks whose production should not have been diverted to other purposes until the panzer divisions had their full complement.

My thought was to devote the 38(t) line entirely to StuG, but a mix of tanks and StuG might be appropriate. The key point in 1939-41 was not to cut into Panzer III or IV production.

 

Part of the reason 'the Czech tanks were required as "leichte" tanks to fulfill the same role as the Panzer III' was that a portion of Panzer III production was being used for assault guns. The Panzer III (and IV) were the tanks whose production should not have been diverted to other purposes until the panzer divisions had their full complement.

My thought was to devote the 38(t) line entirely to StuG, but a mix of tanks and StuG might be appropriate. The key point in 1939-41 was not to cut into Panzer III or IV production.

 

Why? The number of StuG was not considered a problem and the conversion of Alkett to StuG production was considered amply sufficient for purposes until the failure of BARBAROSSA in winter 1941/1942. Then production requirements expanded, but by that time the Czech chassis were prioritized to Marder, which was a much more practical vehicle than the PzJg 38(t), which never would have made an adequate StuG for German purposes.

Again, up to that point the Czech tanks, the remaining 35(t) in stock and the 38(t) still in production, were absolutely required to fill out the strength of the existing Panzer divisions. Six divisions, 6., 7., 8., 12., 19., and 20. Panzer-Division all substituted Czech tanks for the required Panzer III in spring 1941, .29 percent of the Panzerwaffe. In mid-1942, 1., 2., 8., 19., 20., and 22. Panzer-Division still used some Czech tanks (1. and 2. took the few left over when 6. and 7. returned to Germany to refit - they were waiting for German tanks as late as October-November). It was spring 1943 before the requirement for Czech tanks really ended.

 

The 38t is indeed a red herring.
Extensively equipping panzer divisions with StuGs because 'first rate' tank production failed, despite them 'managing', was essentially a disaster.

And yet... Every single one of those '()' vehicles, while obviously useful, was not and could not ever have been envisioned as a serious military plan for 'battle tanks' above StuG.
To assume that is to ignore allied developments & the ongoing technological 'race',

StuGs were a better stopgap than any other option, really.
38t was a fine (and eventually adaptable) machine, but by mid-war it was not in any sense 'modern' or 'first rate' in its turreted form.

 

Not quite sure people always realise how small 38t tank variants (and chassis sub-sets) are.
A few snaps I took of a lovely restoration at Beltring years back.
Some may recall there was an old cartoonish Tamiya thing decades back with oversized crew that I always assumed was overdone. (Can't find the thing. Though very clear in my mind.)
Once I saw this chap squeezing out of his hatch...Not really.
Tiny.
Leichte.

Put that up against M4, Churchill, 6pdr, let alone 17....
Hmmm....

.

 

The Russians still build tanks around 45 tons. The Armata is an exception and mebbe the Russians built bridges that can handle that weight.

 

I see Germany has gone full circle with cardboard trainers and reverting back late war to cardboard. Next war someone will firebomb the Schwazwald and there'll be no cardboard panzers. Pray for peace! Do it for the cuckoo birds.

 

And again, 200+ of those Czech tanks were only needed because a share of Panzer III production had been diverted to assault guns. This also delayed the process of replacing Czech tanks with Panzer IIIs.

I would agree that if the Panzer III line was devoted entirely to tanks, some 38(t)s might still have been needed.

At the outset of Barbarossa, the indicated panzer divisions had three panzer battalions, while most of the Panzer III equipped units had two. As suggested in the original post, a smaller number of tanks were considered acceptable if they were the proper type. In both cases, battalions averaged just over 40 Panzer IIIs or 38(t)s [35(t)s in 6. Panzer] although their Leichte companies should have had a total of 66.

No doubt the StuG III was a fine weapon, but the original question remains - which was more important, producing the best possible assault gun or giving the panzer force the right tanks?

 

Carronade - I suppose it comes down to offensive v. defensive purposes. Tanks are more versatile but SPGs require less material & are lower cost to produce. After Kursk, the Germans were mostly on the defensive.