Achtung! Panzer! [Archive] - Military Photos

Sousuke

07-15-2010, 11:31 AM

Since i saw no similar thread here on MP.net - I thought why the hell not open it!

Here, you can post "articles" (pics are a must) Of World War II era tanks. Bah...better shown then explained.

(Lengthy post Incoming, stay tuned)

Sousuke

07-15-2010, 11:32 AM

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/Panzermk3plans.jpg

The Panzer III is a medium tank that was developed in the 1930s by Germany, and was used extensively in World War II. The official German designation was Panzerkampfwagen III (abbreviated PzKpfw III) translating as "armoured battle vehicle". It was intended to fight other armoured fighting vehicles and serve alongside the infantry-supporting Panzer IV. However, as the Germans faced the formidable T-34, stronger anti-tank guns were needed. Since the Panzer IV had a bigger turret ring, the role was reversed. The Panzer IV mounted the long barreled 7.5 cm KwK 40 gun and engaged in tank-to-tank battles. The Panzer III became obsolete in this role and for most purposes was supplanted by the Panzer IV. From 1942, the last version of Panzer III mounted the 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24, better suited for infantry support. Production of the Panzer III ended in 1943. However, the Panzer III's capable chassis provided hulls for the Sturmgeschütz III (popularly known as the "Stug") until the end of the war.

------------------------------------------------------------------

On January 11, 1934, following specifications laid down by Heinz Guderian, the Army Weapons Department drew up plans for a medium tank with a maximum weight of 24,000 kg and a top speed of 35 kilometres per hour (21.75 mph). It was intended as the main tank of the German Panzer divisions, capable of engaging and destroying opposing tank forces.

Daimler-Benz, Krupp, MAN, and Rheinmetall all produced prototypes. Testing of the prototypes took place in 1936 and 1937, leading to the Daimler-Benz design being chosen for production. The first model of the Panzer III, the Ausf. A, came off the assembly line in May 1937, and a total of ten, two of which were unarmed, were produced in 1937. Mass production of the Ausf. F version began in 1939.

Between 1937 and 1940, attempts were made to standardize parts between Krupp's Panzer IV and Daimler-Benz's Panzer III.

Much of the early development work on the Panzer III was a quest for a suitable suspension. Several varieties of leaf-spring suspensions were tried on Ausf. A through Ausf. D before the torsion-bar suspension of the Ausf. E was standardized. The Panzer III, along with the Soviet KV heavy tank, was one of the first tanks to use this suspension design.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/KV1.jpg
(Soviet KV-1)

The Panzer III was intended as the primary battle tank of the German forces. It outclassed most of the tanks of the time, in that it had a three man turret, which greatly improved effectiveness in battle. However, when it initially met the KV and T-34 tank designs it proved to be inferior in armor and gun power. To meet the growing need to counter these tanks, the Panzer III was upgunned with a longer, more powerful 50-millimetre (1.97 in) cannon and received more armour although this failed to effectively address the problem caused by the KV tank designs. As a result, production of self-propelled guns, as well as the upgunning of the Panzer IV was initiated.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/pz41.jpg
(Panzer IV - They are commonly mistaken for Panzer III's and vice versa because of their similar looks. One of the easiest ways to distinguish Panzer IV's form Panzer III's is the difference in the number of "upper" wheels. The Panzer IV's have four "upper" wheels, while all the Panzer III variants have three, with the exeption of the Ausf. A early version wich has two.)

In 1942, the final version of the Panzer III, the Ausf. N, was created with a 75-millimetre (2.95 in) KwK 37 L/24 cannon, a low-velocity gun designed for anti-infantry and close-support work. For defensive purposes, the Ausf. N was equipped with rounds of hollow charge ammunition which could penetrate 70 to 100 millimetres (2.76 to 3.94 in) of armour depending on the round's variant but these were strictly used for self-defense.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The Panzer III was used in the campaigns against Poland, France, the Soviet Union and in North Africa. A handful were still in use in Normandy and at Arnhem in 1944.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/pz3Afrcicacorp.jpg
(Panzer III of the Africa Korp.)

In the Polish and French campaigns, the Panzer III formed a small part of the German armored forces. Only a few hundred Ausf. A through F were available in these campaigns, most armed with the 37-millimetre (1.46 in) gun. They were the best medium tank available to the Germans and outclassed most of their opponents such as the Polish 7TP, French R-35 and H-35 light tanks.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/FrenchR-35.jpg
(French R-35)

Around the time of Operation Barbarossa, the Panzer III was numerically the most important German tank. At this time the majority of the available tanks (including re-armed Ausf. E and F, plus new Ausf. G and H models) had the 50-millimetre (1.97 in) KwK L/42 cannon which also equipped the majority of the tanks in North Africa. Initially, the Panzer III's were outclassed and outnumbered by Soviet T-34 and KV tanks. However, the most numerous Soviet tanks were the T-26 and BT tanks. This, along with superior German tactical skill, crew training, and the good ergonomics of the Panzer III all contributed to a rough 6:1 favourable kill ratio for German tanks of all types in 1941.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/T34.jpg
(The Soviet legend - T-34)

With the appearance of the T-34 and KV tanks, rearming the Panzer III with a longer, more powerful 50-millimetre (1.97 in) cannon was prioritised. The T-34 was generally invulnerable in frontal engagements with the Panzer III until the 50 mm KwK 39 gun was introduced on the Panzer III Ausf. J¹ in the spring of 1942. This could penetrate the T-34 frontally at ranges under 500 metres (1,600 ft).[3] Against the KV tanks it was a threat if armed with special high velocity tungsten rounds. In addition, to counter antitank rifles, in 1943 the Ausf. L version began the use of spaced armour skirts (schürzen) around the turret and on the hull sides. However, due to the introduction of the upgunned and uparmoured Panzer IV, the Panzer III was, after the Battle of Kursk, relegated to secondary roles, and it was replaced as the main German medium tank by the Panzer IV and the Panther.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/PANTHER.jpg
(The German Panther tank)

The Panzer III was well designed in that it had a three-man offensive crew (gunner, loader and commander), leaving the commander free to concentrate on commanding the tank and maintaining situational awareness. Although other medium tanks of the time also had this feature, most tanks of the late 1930s had fewer than three men in the turret crew, potentially providing the Panzer III with a "fightability" advantage over otherwise similar tanks, such as the French Somua S-35, which only had a one man turret crew.

The Panzer III chassis was the basis for the Sturmgeschütz III assault gun, one of the most successful self-propelled guns of the war, and the single most-produced German armored fighting vehicle design of World War II.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/StuGIII.jpg
(German Sturmgeschütz III "Stug" assault gun)

------------------------------------------------------------------
Variants:

* Panzer III Ausf. A, B, C, D - Pre-production models in 1937-1938. 75 produced.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausfa.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausfa2.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausfb.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausfD2.jpg

* Panzer III Ausf. E, F - Production models 1939-1940. Armed with 3.7 cm KwK 36 L/46.5 (later 5 cm KwK 38 L/42) guns. 531 produced.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausff.jpg

* Panzer III Ausf. G - More armour on gun mantlet. Armed with 5 cm KwK 38 L/42 gun. 600 produced in 1940-1941.

* Panzer III Ausf. H - Minor modifications. Bolt-on armor added to front and rear hull (30 mm + 30 mm plates). 308 produced in 1940-1941.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/AusfH.jpg

* Panzer III Ausf. J - The hull was lengthened. Front armor increased to 50 mm plate. 482 produced in 1941.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/AusfJearly.jpg

* Panzer III Ausf. J¹ - Equipped with the longer and more powerful 5 cm KwK 39 L/60 gun. 1,067 produced in late 1941 to mid 1942.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/Ausfj2nd.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausfJ.jpg

* Panzer III Ausf. K - Panzerbefehlswagen command tank variant with a modified turret. Carried actual main armament rather than a dummy gun as found on other Panzer III command versions.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausfk.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausfk2.jpg

* Panzer III Ausf. L - Uparmored to 50 mm + 20 mm plates. 653 produced in 1942.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausfL2.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausfL.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausfl3.jpg

* Panzer III Ausf. M - Minor modifications such as deep-wading exhaust and schurzen. 250 produced in 1942-1943.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausfm.jpg

* Panzer III Ausf. N - Armed with a short barreled 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 gun, due to 7.5 cm gun's ability to fire HEAT rounds. 700 re-equipped J/L/M models in 1942-1943.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausfn3.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausfN.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/ausfn2.jpg

------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifications:

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/generalspecs.png

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/2.png

------------------------------------------------------------------
Gallery:

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/th_aufN.jpg (http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/aufN.jpg)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/th_IMG_0318.jpg (http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/IMG_0318.jpg)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/th_AufL.jpg (http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/AufL.jpg)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/th_1panzer3_j12.jpg (http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/1panzer3_j12.jpg)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/th_IMG_0320.jpg (http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/IMG_0320.jpg)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/th_pzkpfw-iii-03.jpg (http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/pzkpfw-iii-03.jpg)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/th_pzkpfw-iii-02.jpg (http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/pzkpfw-iii-02.jpg)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/th_PanzerIIIN.jpg (http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/PanzerIIIN.jpg)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/th_Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-219-0595-23_.jpg (http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-219-0595-23_.jpg)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/th_Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-185-0137-14A.jpg (http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-185-0137-14A.jpg)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/th_00085.jpg (http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/00085.jpg)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/th_00083.jpg (http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/00083.jpg)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/th_0-panzer_3.jpg (http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/0-panzer_3.jpg)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/th_pzkpfw-iii-08.jpg (http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/Boris_Kozma/Panzer/pzkpfw-iii-08.jpg)

------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: www.achtungpanzer.com (http://www.achtungpanzer.com) ; www.wikipedia.com (http://www.wikipedia.com) ; google image search ; my brain.

------------------------------------------------------------------
A small notice:

Please don't repost pictures from my photobucket acc to other forums, its murdering my bandwidth there. You can re-upload them to your acc easily.

If some of you cant see the images, please let me know via PM and i will re-upload em as soon as i can.

Thank you.

Damian90

07-15-2010, 11:38 AM

(The Soviet legend - T-34)

Yeah, a true legend, and true piece of crap, in fact, if IIIrd Reich not attacked SU this tank never would be fielded. It was horrible machine.

From 50,000 manufactured 40,000+ was destroyed, IRCC after the war more than 1,100 in Red Army were good to do anything.

Hopefully more and more military historicians are start to fighting with T-34 myth.

Only sad thing is, so many young man died in that coffin!

Steak-Sauce

07-15-2010, 11:55 AM

Ah, Achtung Panzer. What a great site.. sure brings back memories of the many hours I spent reading the articles.

Damian90

07-15-2010, 11:57 AM

Alfacentori

07-15-2010, 11:59 AM

Sousuke

07-15-2010, 12:05 PM

One question though, considering the copyright issues in using so much of their content in this thread and denying them (Achtung Panzer) hits is it appropriate and within the forum rules? Don't get me wrong I love the thread and pics, but I'm not sure the mods will ok it.

Alfa

Only the specification tables are from there, most of the text is from wiki (but i used their site to double check the information at wiki), I altered a bit of it, and didn't include all (only what i thought essential). Images are gathered from all over the net, I re-uploaded them to my photobucket acc so no trouble there. Also, I included my sources at the end of the post so it shouldn't be any trouble :)

Alfacentori

07-15-2010, 12:07 PM

Only the specification tables are from there, most of the text is from wiki (but i used their site to double check the information at wiki), i altered a bit of it, and didn't include all (only what i thought essential). Images are gathered from all over the net, I re-uploaded them to my photobucket acc so no trouble there. Also, I included my sources at the end of the post so it shouldn't be any trouble :)

Sweet, good effort, as I said cool thread

Alfa

Sousuke

07-15-2010, 12:10 PM

Sweet, good effort, as I said cool thread

Alfa

Thanks ^^ Hopefully more ppl will post soon :) Aldo i plan to post one of these huge posts every few days ^^ Takes a lot of time to gather the info, double-check it, and find the photos.

LineDoggie

07-15-2010, 12:32 PM

There are many interesting issues with production lines of Panzers manufactured before PzKpfw. V Ausf. D and later Panther variants.

Panther was first German tank manufactured in a true modern way. But sorry, due to my bad English I can't wrotem more. ;-)I may be oversimplifying the Issue, but wasn't it a question of German industry not being able to manufacture both complete AFV's and a sufficiant amount of spares for same? IIRC Panzer units sometimes had to send men back to Germany to beg parts from the manufacturing concerns, and cannibalizing hulks became commonplace.

Damian90

07-15-2010, 12:36 PM

Nope, this is not the case.

Tanks before Panther got eee... internal skeleton and armor plates were welded to this skeleton, where the panther didn't have that skeleton and armor was welded to... another armor plate. I hope this is clear what I'm saying. ;-)

Indiana Jones

07-15-2010, 01:08 PM

Yeah, a true legend, and true piece of crap, in fact, if IIIrd Reich not attacked SU this tank never would be fielded. It was horrible machine.

From 50,000 manufactured 40,000+ was destroyed, IRCC after the war more than 1,100 in Red Army were good to do anything.

Hopefully more and more military historicians are start to fighting with T-34 myth.

Only sad thing is, so many young man died in that coffin!
Hmmm. How is that, if I may ask ? I am aware that the T 34 had fundamental deficiencies, such as crew layout, etc., but it nevertheless no doubt excelled in key parameters such as armour configuration, main gun, cross-country mobility etc. compared to such contemporaries as the Pz. III/IV or the American M 3.
Cheers,
IJ.

Damian90

07-15-2010, 01:55 PM

T-34 never got good armor, in fact it was thinner than in M4 Sherman and some PzKpfw. IV variants. Only T-34/85 got good armor on front of the turret, still newer M4's like M4A2(76)W, M4A3(76)W, M4A3E8 etc. were better tanks.

Besides this, in frontal armor there were big weak zones, like idiotic position of driver hatch. T-34 also was never trully mobile tank, it mobility was avarage as all medium tanks of that era, there were even very interesting raports about T-34, it got poor engine, transmission etc.

Even yanks after testing T-34 send report to Soviets and in that report there was suggestion that engine from their point of view was an act of an sabotage.

Main guns in T-34 were not so bad but the ammo was horrible.

Besides this, why do You think, elite Guard Divisions, prefered M4 Shermans than "wonderfull" T-34's? ;-) There were even very interesting memoirs of soviet tankers about that issue, and they clearly said, T-34 was a bad tank.

There were more issues and problem with T-34, but what I can say, try literature, from Polish ones I can say that "T-34: Mythical Weapon" is good, I don't remember title and it is something like this, also I don't remember author, but here in Poland it is threated almost like a bible about T-34.

Mordoror

07-15-2010, 02:18 PM

in Poland it is threated almost like a bible about T-34.talk about lack of bias:roll:

the T34 was certainly not the ultimate tank but it proved itself quite reliable in the russian landscape (thanks to the tracks and transmission) and with considered at that time good firepower and good armor (especially because it was slopped) and without the tendencies of german tanks to catch fire due to use of diesel

let's face it in front of it in early 41 germans had only a mere number of tanks fitted to confront it
that's why often it ended engaged by Atk and field artillery most of the time (who of course destroyed it as coordination with infantry and artillery support was deficient)

of course it had some drawbacks (the worse being the cramped status of the crew and the very poor fire control) but it was efficient enough to make the german sweat and to adapt from it some ideas

and for the guards units prefering the shermans : hum Looool

tank vs tank it was better than the PzIII and early PzIV engaged by the germans
what led to such amount of losses was bad crew training, bad tactics and on the other side the experience and combat capability of the panzerwaffe that was always tactically superior
the problem is also that is design was quite frozen for a long time when the germans improved theirs so it sinked slowly from excellent to good then to average until some improvment were made (like adding a 85 mm gun)

To conclude you are fully entitled to believe some books but i rather suggest that you stick to several sources rather than a single one or two. The information is in the balance of the sources and frankly while i don't buy that the T34 wa the best tank in WWII (best for what ?? mobility, firepower, endurance, ....) i rather think that saying that it was crap is utterly BS

Damian90

07-15-2010, 02:31 PM

talk about lack of bias:roll:So Polish military historicians are not reliabale? On what basis You make such statement? Not all Poles are rusophobs.

And if You don't like historicians from my country try some Russian ones, they also talk about T-34 as a bad tank. Solonin one was named, I don't remmeber the rest.

good armor (especially because it was slopped)It is a mytch, armor was not good, rather poor. They wasted such potential! Stalin should shoot main designer.

and without the tendencies of german tanks to catch fire due to use of diesel
This is also a myth, both burned in the same way... and funny thing, T-34 burned more often, also thanks to idiotic placement of fuel tanks in crew compartment over side armor.

of course it had some drawbacks (the worse being the cramped status of the crew and the very poor fire control) but it was efficient enough to make the german sweat and to adapt from it some ideasMain draw back was poor armor and idiotic placement of driver hatch + poor engine and transmission... search in net, there are plenty of reports even from US after tests.

There are even some russian sites with good info about how much T-34 was bad design and wasted potential.

as for the 11 000 produced i think that you are very far away from the true nmber (except if you are only talking about T34/76 model 40 and 41)All produced T-34's over the WWII period was 50,000.

and for the guards units prefering the shermans : hum LoooolThis only proofs of Your very poor knowledge of history, Shermans fighted even in Berlin operation. But You opinion is typical for westerners. No offence to Your person.

tank vs tank it was better than the PzIII and early PzIV engaged by the germansLate PzIV's were over all better tanks.

what lead to such amount of losses was bad crew training, bad tactics and on the other side the experience and combat capability of the panzerwaffe that was always tactically superiorYou forgot design flaws in T-34.

the problem is also that is design was quite frozen for a long time when the germans improved theirs so it sinked slowly from excellent to good then to average until some improvment were made (like adding a 85 mm gun)No, the problem was T-34 was not capabale to be upgraded in a such way as Sherman for example. In fact T-34M a upgrade for the design was a very different tank... never fielded unfortunetly.

To conclude you are fully entitled to believe some books but i rather suggest that you stick to several sources rather than a single one or two. The information is in the balance of the sources and frankly while i don't buy that the T34 wa the best tank in WWII (best for what ?? mobility, firepower, endurance, ....) i rather think that saying that it was crap is utterly BS I don't believe one book or source, but You still doubt even when Russians start to openly claim that T-34 was a bad tank? I must say that, soviet propaganda was remarkabale, even today some myths are living and in good shape.

I only can say, try to reach sources and books from the east, it is not so hard task, then You will see that there were better medium tanks than T-34/76 or T-34/85.

Sousuke

07-15-2010, 02:41 PM

As far as debates go, I concur, debate, and share information and sources alike. But please, don't make a piss contest out of this thread.

Just so that I make it clear in the beginning.

Thank you.

Mordoror

07-15-2010, 03:43 PM

So Polish military historicians are not reliabale? On what basis You make such statement?

never said that but i am so used to some rusohaters on this forum that i have the bad tendency to be a little bit paranoid; If i hurted you then i apologize deeply

And if You don't like historicians from my country try some Russian ones, they also talk about T-34 as a bad tank. Solonin one was named, I don't remmeber the rest.
i'll come back on the historical thing below

It is a mytch, armor was not good, rather poor. They wasted such potential! Stalin should shoot main designer.
armor thickness seems to have been quite poor on earlier model but i think that you are puting things out of context
in 1941 15-50 mm armor thickness is above the power curve (especially when compared to PzIII)
you'll have to wait the PzIIIJ to reach the same armor with however none slopped armor

as i said when engaged on the field in 1941 the T34 was an excellent tank by a lot of features in regard to what was fielded by the germans
but of course comparing a T34/1941 and a Tiger in 1942 sets the balance on the other side for a lot of things

Main draw back was poor armor so please explain how T34 sustained Pak36 fire which was considered as the average Atk gun in 1941; As i said put the thing in the context .

This only proofs of Your very poor knowledge of history, Shermans fighted even in Berlin operation. But You opinion is typical for westerners. No offence to Your person.

i know that but you clearly stated that they prefered the Shermans. I'd rather said that they used the shermans because they were available. And funnily a lot of books (especially old soldiers memories and letters) are not tender with US hardware like tnaks (while other US issued stuff was greatly appreciated)

Late PzIV's were over all better tanks.
yes but as i stated you are comparing apple and oranges because i was talking of early PzIV (something like "same generation" tanks)

You forgot design flaws in T-34.

a design flaw is fatal to one crew, a tactical flaw is fatal to tenth of crews. The difference is that you think too technically. i know you love tanks but the shiny hardware is not what makes a war or a battle to be won or lost. A battle is lost because of poor leading, not because an hatch is badly placed on a tank

I don't believe one book or source, but You still doubt even when Russians start to openly claim that T-34 was a bad tank? I must say that, soviet propaganda was remarkabale, even today some myths are living and in good shape.

it is not only soviet propaganda but this tank was widely used up to 1999 and proved reliable in many conflict (including somes vs hardened western armor)
if the design was so full of flaws it would have been phased out far earlier
to conclude as i said you are too drastic in the way you put the things. The things are never black or white. As far as i reckon some drawbacks of the T34 (like in any other tanks, none was perfect) i reckon also it was efficient enough during its intended lifetime and even after

aop

07-15-2010, 06:36 PM

Surprise surprise, someone makes real effort to start a Panzer topic and then some "RUSSIA STRONG!!!!111§§½" fella strolls in and ruins whole thread.

edit: Germany had more than enough stuff to counter the T-34s, especially when 2/3s of them were equipped with the poor 76mm cannon (much worse than German 75mm/L48). However they were fighting on two fronts and didn't even have enough fuel to run their machines. What good are 6000 Panthers or 10000 StuGs when you have no fuel, ammo or trained crew for them?

Shark with freaking laser

07-15-2010, 06:58 PM

Panzer-Brigade "Norwegen" was formed as Sturmbrigade "Norwegen" on 28 June 1944. It was renamed Panzer-Division "Norwegen" on 27 July 1944 and finally Panzer-Brigade "Norwegen" on 8 August 1944.

Order of Battle, August 1944
Brigade-Stab
Panzergrenadier-Bataillon "Norwegen"
Panzer-Abteilung "Norwegen"
- 25 PzKpfw III 5 cm L/60
- 36 PzKpfw III 7,5 cm L/24
Sturmgeschütz-Abteilung "Norwegen"
- 10 StuG III 7,5 cm L/48
Lehr-Batterie "Norwegen"
- 4 leFH 16 10,5 cm

129688 (http://www.luftwaffe.no/Pz3/17.jpg)
Panzer-Brigade “Norwegen” at Trandum during the surrender in May 1945.

Links (in Norwegian mostly):
http://nuav.rforum.biz/discuss-all-about-norway-during-ww2-f2/panzer-division-norwegen-t117.htm
http://www.kystfort.com/forum/topic2781.html

Sousuke

07-15-2010, 07:15 PM

You contribution is appreciated, however, I've intended this thread to be dedicated to hardware only :) Meaning tanks, assault guns, self-propelled howitzers and similar, not brigades and such. However, such information is welcome as part of an "article" - of course only briefly. Anyone looking for more information concerning one brigade or another can look into it via google.

I just want to evade "that brigade did this and that, murderers" and such in this thread, we all know the monstrosities committed in this war - lets keep it at an military level. No more, no less.

Thanks, and I hope you understand :)

Shark with freaking laser

07-15-2010, 07:30 PM

Oh, thanks for letting me know.

Shark with freaking laser

07-15-2010, 07:58 PM

These photos show Panther Ausf. G tanks of Fallschirm-Panzer-Division "Hermann Göring" delivered during September and Oktober 1944. Some of these appears to be of the late production variant featuring the reinforced mantlet to prevent shot traps and a new engine deck layout with a raised fan cover.

129701

129699

Link (where I found the photos):
http://forum.panzer-archiv.de/viewtopic.php?t=4904&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

khalifah

07-15-2010, 08:17 PM

Sousuke

07-15-2010, 08:25 PM

hey Sousuke, this is an excellent thread idea, so far the thread title, as well as the tanks have all seemed Field Grey (if you know what i meen). May i add with some British and/or Russian, Italian, etc.. tanks?
(im also looking at prospective large posts)

Thanks, and of course bro! Any WW2 era tank,assault gun, self-propelled howitzer or the like is welcome! :)

@Shark with freaking laser

Interesting information, thanks for sharing! ^^

khalifah

07-15-2010, 09:23 PM

http://j.imagehost.org/0302/M3Grant.jpg
History

The speed with which the M3 Grant and Lee was designed, developed, and put into production was probably unmatched in the history of armoured fighting vehicles. In September 1939 when war was declared in Europe, the Ordnance Department already had plans to contract large scale tank production to heavy engineering firms and, in fact, the first American tank to be built in quantity, the M2A4 light was turned out by one of these firms, American Car & Foundry.

Events in Europe in May/June 1940, which gave rise to the adoption of the new American National Munitions Program, showed that tanks - especially medium tanks - would be needed in far greater numbers than had been forseen the previous October when the light tank building programme was initiated.
William S. Knudsen, President of GMC, was the member of the National Defense Advisory Commission responsible for co-ordinating industry to American defence needs. He advised that heavy engineering firms, used to comparatively slow and small output of such items as locomotives and cranes, would not have the capacity or expertise to turn out tanks on the vastly increased scale which, in June 1940, was now required. In Knudsen's view tank production was analogous to automobile production, and, except for manufacture of armour plate, there was no reason why the automotive industry, rather than the heavy engineering industry, should not become the prime producers of tanks, making them from the ground up all under one roof.

Since tank production raised problems not encountered in automobile making, Knudsen suggested that a purpose-built plant should be established in Detroit and arranged that Chrysler would build and operate this plant on behalf of the American Government. Thus was the beginning of Detroit Tank Arsenal. On August 15, 1940, the contract was signed with Chrysler for an initial order for 1,000 M2A1 medium tanks which was cancelled thirteen days later in favour of the M3 medium. Events moved fast from then on. Building of the plant commenced on a 100 acre site outside Detroit in September 1940. The building was 1,380ft long and 500ft wide.

http://i.imagehost.org/0359/M3-Grant-001-px800.jpg

Concurrently, Rock Island Arsenal were working on the M3 medium design with Chrysler engineers in attendance to devise plant and production equipment as design proceeded. Final M3 design work was completed in March 1941 by which time construction of the huge Arsenal building was almost finished, the whole operation taking just six months.

Three contracting firms all produced pilot models of the M3 in April 1941 and by August full-scale production had started in three plants, American Locomotive, Baldwin, and Detroit Arsenal.
Most important innovation of all, however, was the installation of gyrostabilisers for both the 75mm and 37mm guns allowing the vehicle to fire with accuracy while on the move.
Production of the M3 medium, and its variants, continued until December 1942, by which time a grand total of 6,258 M3 series vehicles had been turned out

http://i.imagehost.org/0964/M3-Lee-001-px800.jpg

A British Tank Commission had been sent to the United States in June 1940 when there was a grave shortage of tanks for the British Army and much of the British tank strength had been lost in France at the time of the Dunkirk evacuation.

In October 1940 they
placed direct contracts with Baldwin, Lima, and Pullman for M3 mediums for Britain. The M3s built and paid for by Britain (ie, the initial order) had a new cast turret to meet British requirements that called for the radio equipment to be mounted in the turret rear instead of in the hull as in the original design. This turret was longer than the original M3 turret with prominent rear overhang and a pistol port in each side. The cupola was eliminated to reduce the silhouette and the turret itself was lower, reducing the vehicle's overall height by about a foot. This version was called the Grant by the British (after General Ulysses S. Grant) and the 200 vehicles ordered were all shipped to the 8th Army in the Western Desert starting early in 1942.

http://i.imagehost.org/0159/M3-Grant-002-px800.jpg

For the big Gazala battle on May 27, 1942, 167 Grants formed the bulk of the equipment of 4th Armoured Brigade and at last gave the British a tank with superior fire power to any opposing German AFV. For the first time the British had a tank in service which could out-range the German panzers and had the added feature of a 'dual purpose' capability with a 75mm gun which could fire AP or HE as necessary, the latter in the close support and indirect fire roles. The M3 Grant gave a welcome boost to the morale of British tank-men, helped to inflict a big reverse in the fortunes of the Afrika Korps, swung the balance of tank power both qualitatively and quantitatively in favour of the British from then on, and, as an after effect, started the British off on the quest to design a similar 75mm dual purpose gun for mounting in British-built tanks. It was, indeed, at that time, the most important new addition to the British armoury.

http://a.imagehost.org/0865/M3-Lee-003-px800.jpg

On March 11, 1941, the Lend-Lease Act was ratified which made munitions of all kinds available to Britain and to others of the Americans' allies. Standard M3 mediums were thus also supplied to the British Army who gave these vehicles the name Lee (after Robert E. Lee). By June 1942 a further 250 M3 medium tanks had arrived in Egypt for the 8th Army and by the time of the Battle of Alamein in October 1942, a total of nearly 600 M3 series medium tanks had been delivered.

http://i.imagehost.org/0069/M3-Grant-003-px800.jpg

When the M4 Sherman replaced the M3 in this theatre, the M3s were shipped to Burma where they equipped British units previously using Matildas, Stuarts, Valentines, and other obsolete types. Some also went to the Australians at this period.
In October 1941, when the M4 Sherman medium design was standardised, the M3 was reclassified 'substitute standard' and in April 1943 when M4s were in full service, the M3 was declassified to 'limited standard', finally being declared obsolete in April 1944.
Users: Britain, USA, Russia, Canada, Australia (for all series).

khalifah

07-15-2010, 09:26 PM

deleted...

Link...(contains info from previous post as well as Tank Specifications such as armor, radio, range, etc.)
http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/Vehicles/Tanks/US/M3-tank/M3-Grant.htm

ayanami_tard

07-16-2010, 03:05 AM

a crappy tank is better than no tank at all

Sousuke

07-16-2010, 01:03 PM

Nice article Khalifah, thanks for posting ^^

But yea, the M4 grant was a pretty flawed design. Still, better to have a tank then not to have one.

khalifah

07-17-2010, 07:19 PM

The M4A1(Improved)
http://a.imagehost.org/0965/Sherman-76mm-01-px800.jpg

User experience led to numerous design improvements being suggested by the Armored Force and incorporated into M4 Sherman series vehicles by the Ordnance Department. Foremost among these were the need for a more powerful gun and better protection.

Sherman tank with 76mm gun:
To increase firepower the Ordnance Department developed the 76mm gun M1 and M1A1, starting in July 1942. Tests showed that the existing M4 series turret was too small to accommodate the extra length of this weapon and the turret of the T20/T23 medium tank was adopted and suitably modified. The 76mm gun installation was standardised and introduced in production lines from February 1944 and vehicles so fitted were available in time for the Normandy landings and subsequent combat in NW Europe. Suffix '(76mm)' indicated vehicles with this gun. A modified 76mm gun M1A1C or M1A2 with muzzle-brake was later introduced.

http://j.imagehost.org/0475/uaa_m4a1_76_w_sherman.jpg

Sherman tank with better protection:
Fire hazard from hits in the engine, ammunition bins, and fuel tanks was the major shortcoming in the M4 series due to the relatively thin armour. Expedient measures to combat this were the addition of applique armour plates on hull sides adjacent to ammunition bins and fuel tanks, plus further applique armour welded on hull, and sometimes turret, front. Field modifications by crews included the use of sandbags on hull front and the welding of spare track shoes in vulnerable spots. In some instances large armour shields or concrete were added to hull fronts. Major design change to overcome the problem was the introduction of 'wet stowage' (glycerine-protected) ammunition racks in 76mm-armed and late 75mm-armed vehicles. Howitzer-armed vehicles had internal armour plates on ammunition racks.

http://a.imagehost.org/0762/Sherman-76mm-02-px800.jpg

Miscellaneous: Other improvements included better electrical wiring, and other internal detail changes, a new 47° hull front to simplify production (it also improved frontal protection), larger access hatches for driver and co-driver, a loader's hatch, and the provision of a vision cupola for the commander replacing the rotating hatch ring originally fitted.

Users: USA, Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, France, Russia, China (for all series).

http://a.imagehost.org/0173/Sherman-76mm-03-px800.jpg
A column of Russian M4A2(76mm) Sherman tanks line the streets of Brno on 26 April 1945. Shermans were the single most common type of Allied tanks supplied to the Soviet Union, and played a prominent role in the 1944-45 fighting.

http://i.imagehost.org/0061/russian_Sherman_and_T-34_inAlps-px800.jpg
Russian Sherman (76mm) and T-34 in front of the Austrian Alps in spring 1945.

http://j.imagehost.org/0627/3763792242_159bbe04da.jpg
http://i.imagehost.org/0264/m4s.jpg

images (mostly) from Google, everything else from...
http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/Vehicles/Tanks/US/Sherman-tank/Sherman-tank-76mm.htm

emind

07-17-2010, 08:06 PM

I don't believe one book or source, but You still doubt even when Russians start to openly claim that T-34 was a bad tank? I must say that, soviet propaganda was remarkabale, even today some myths are living and in good shape.

I only can say, try to reach sources and books from the east, it is not so hard task, then You will see that there were better medium tanks than T-34/76 or T-34/85.

t-35 might have not been a most powerful tank of ww2, or most comfortable for crew, or best armed, but it sure was most reliable of all, and do not forget the fear factor :)
also, if you take only medium tanks, it was the best in average criteria. has nothing to do with propaganda. statistics only.

sgt_G

07-17-2010, 08:14 PM

kinda interesting that "uncle Joe" didn't have the M-4 copied like he did the B-29

T-Rex

07-17-2010, 10:23 PM

Did everyone notice the Polish markings on the T-34 in the first set of pictures?

Damian90

07-18-2010, 07:08 AM

@emind

t-35 might have not been a most powerful tank of ww2, or most comfortable for crew, or best armed, but it sure was most reliable of all, and do not forget the fear factor http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/../images/smilies/icon_smile.gif

Reliabale?! You don't know what You are talking about, that tank was one of the mos unreliabale. Read about how angry was Stalin when first tanks were shown to him and one just broke down, main designer was sick (he could not talk) and Stalin almost ordered to shoot him.

And this is proof that real history of T-34 still is not known to many people. There are reporst from evaluation in Aberdeed that were send to Russians, and they clearly say that tank is unreliabale and engine cooling system was called a sabotage.

also, if you take only medium tanks, it was the best in average criteria. has nothing to do with propaganda. statistics only.

Yeah, ~40,000 lost of all variants produced (~50,000), great statistic, this more than Shermans destroyed by Germans.

Typical and false believeing in myths.

Good for Russians that after the war they started to build a very good tanks, in some period the best in the world.

Brasi

07-18-2010, 07:24 AM

Damian90

07-18-2010, 07:35 AM

Damian: There are enough history buffs who scroll through Mp.net to know that the T-34 was an excellent piece of battlefield machinery. I can see from your posts that no matter what someone else thinks you will stick to your guns, which is your choice. I for one beg to differ on your opinion of the T-34.

The one thing is believing, other thing is a real history, I wan't to be military historician and I educate currently to do that in future, so I will stick to the true, not the myths that people wan't believe. ;-)

lets leave the T-34 debate behind and just focus on WW2 tank pics and history.

Agree.

Abyr

07-18-2010, 07:59 AM

The one thing is believing, other thing is a real history, I wan't to be military historician and I educate currently to do that in future, so I will stick to the true, not the myths that people wan't believe. ;-)

In that case I would recommend you to stay away from Solonin's works and not quote him in a similar debate.
Guy is almost as infamous as Rezun.

Damian90

07-18-2010, 08:27 AM

It is not only Solonin, but also a documents, like a Aberdeen evaluation tests reports for and from General Chlopov... but of course nobody need to believe official reports. ;)

Transmission

Without doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent (?). The Americans were surprised, not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.

From polish forum about WWII : http://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=8792&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=550

And I think we can end that, later I will try to get a link for page with fragments of that report.

Abyr

07-18-2010, 09:02 AM

It is not only Solonin, but also a documents, like a Aberdeen evaluation tests reports for and from General Chlopov... but of course nobody need to believe official reports.
Damian, no need to be a smart-ass and put words in my mouth.

You've pointed on Solonin, I told that he is unreliable.
You could have mentioned the Aberdeen report (that I am well aware of, so no need to quote it, I've read it already) and I would not say similar thing, like I did regarding Solonin.

Damian90

07-18-2010, 09:18 AM

But it is good to take in to account several different sources, even if some are unreliabale... well this is at least what they thought me on university.

Damian, no need to be a smart-ass and put words in my mouth.

And where I did that?

Damian90

07-18-2010, 09:33 AM

I would reccmomend to end this off topic.

Some interesting photos.

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4639/panth011cb.jpg

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5330/panth039ez.jpg

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5125/panth049qf.jpg

11 Bravo

07-18-2010, 10:25 AM

D90 ; Any chance you have links in english regarding the T34's evaluation(s) by Aberdeen ?. I'd love to read more on such 'mechanics'.
I remember reading about Shermans in russian use where an advance late in the war got halted as they completely wore out the rubber on their road wheels - I seem to recall they had to be supplied by US in an emergency manner.
Anyhow My opinion of german tank guns is that when the germans realized the vast amount of allied tanks they would be fighting and the very indaequate main guns on their tanks they simply designed and fielded very improved high velocity guns for their tanks. In that they were effective in time. The long barreled 75mm guns and of course al the 88mm guns on their tanks were superb in accuracy and penetration. The russians never matched the qualities of german tank guns and simply substitued bigger guns in place of high velocity guns as well as the aforementioned lower quality russian main gun rounds. The 17 pdr/76mm gun on the later shermans and M10's was something the germans I feel never quite delt with effectively. I'd love to read more about the german response and evaluation of the 76mm/17 pdr gun as used against their armor.

Damian90

07-18-2010, 02:23 PM

I remember reading about Shermans in russian use where an advance late in the war got halted as they completely wore out the rubber on their road wheels - I seem to recall they had to be supplied by US in an emergency manner.

This was in memoirs of Dimitriy Loza. http://www.battlefield.ru/en/memoirs/369-loza.html

D90 ; Any chance you have links in english regarding the T34's evaluation(s) by Aberdeen ?. I'd love to read more on such 'mechanics'.

I wil ask people that are more interested in WWII armored fighting vehicles than I am. But I don't promise anything, sometimes it is hard to get such docs in the internet.

khalifah

07-18-2010, 03:43 PM

M1, M2, M59 Towed 155mm Gun 'Long Tom'

http://i.imagehost.org/0217/longtom_920.jpg

"I do not have to tell you who won the war. You know our artillery did." General George S. Patton

The 155mm Long Tom was originally designed by the French during World War I, designated the M1917, M1917A1 or M1918 GPF (Grande Puissance, Filloux). The U.S. modification was the M1 155mm Field Gun, followed by the M1A1 employed by coast defense and corps artillery battalions. In 1940 the gun was redesigned with the pheumatic tire carriage and other improvements, redesignated the M2 155 mm Field Gun. The M2 was the backbone of heavy artillery with thousands serving in both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operation. Although designed for indirect fire at ranges of 10-14 miles, "Long Toms" have been used for direct aimed fire under extraordinary circumstances, such as reduction of Japanese cave fortifications on Peleliu during WW II. It was later redesignated as the M59 155mm Towed Gun.

The American 155mm artillery gun was an exceptional artillery weapon of WWII. Well known by its nickname the "Long Tom", the gun could fire a 95lb projectile upwards of 15 miles with high accuracy. It could fire more than 40 rounds per hour of high-explosive, chemical, smoke, or illuminating shells. The gun elevation, up to 63 degrees.

http://a.imagehost.org/0900/id_m2_155mm_england_ww2_700.jpg

The standard prime mover for the M2 "Long Tom" 155mm gun was a heavy truck (See Mack NO) or, later in WW II, the tracked M4 or M5 prime mover (see M4 High Speed Tractor), which was also an ammunition carrier. When the standard prime mover was not available, a "Long Tom" could be pulled by any heavy truck. A two wheel limber mounted under the trail ends and connected to the standard military pintle hook. Approximately 30 minutes was required to emplace a "Long Tom" upon arrival at a firing position.
The "Long Tom" weighed 30,600 pounds, had a split trail and eight pneumatic tires on two axles, was moved by a tractor, and was served by a combined crew of 14 or 15 men.

http://a.imagehost.org/0398/155_behind_770.jpg

The "Long Tom" served in all branches of the United States military of WW2. The "Long Tom" served the Army in North Africa, the ETO and the Pacific, the Marines, and Army costal defense units protecting the harbors and coastlines of the States and its territories such as Alaska. Units in the British Army were also equipped with the 155.

During World War II, the gun was featured on a war production poster, "Defense Needs Rubber" due to its use of ten tires. The 155mm "Long Tom" has been utilized by U.S. allies around the world and remains in service in the 21st Century.

http://i.imagehost.org/0731/defenseneedsrubberposter_sm.jpg

This poster was issued in 1941 by the U.S. Office for Emergency Management, Division of Information as one in a series devoted to promoting conservation of materials that were vital to the war effort. Rubber was particularly critical since the Japanese controlled areas in Southeast Asia and the East Indies that were former sources of natural rubber.
The straightforward but striking poster illustrates its message with a large tire plus a military tractor-towed M-2 "Long Tom" 155mm field artillery gun superimposed. The Long Tom could fire a 95 pound shell over 15 miles with high accuracy.
The lower area of the poster says: "Your part--get the most out of your tires, ask attendant to tell you how." The poster was printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office.

http://j.imagehost.org/0115/4097259107_bf57e4e5a9.jpg

http://i.imagehost.org/0206/id_m2_155mm_hrpe_700.jpg

http://i.imagehost.org/0960/id_155mm_usmc_rendova_700.jpg

Crew= 15
Height= 10ft.
Width= 8 ft.
Lenght= 45ft.
Max rate of fire= 2 rpm
Sustained rate of fire= 1-2 rpm
Max range 14 miles
sources...
http://efour4ever.com/long_tom.htm
http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_m2longtom.php
pictures from links, and google search.

Shark with freaking laser

07-18-2010, 06:15 PM

The 17 pdr/76mm gun on the later shermans and M10's was something the germans I feel never quite delt with effectively. I'd love to read more about the german response and evaluation of the 76mm/17 pdr gun as used against their armor.

Well, the M10 and M4 (76) were not really up to the job when it came to knocking out heavier German tanks, which is why the M26 and M36 were introduced near the end of the war.

The QF 17 pounder however only struggled against the frontal armor of the Tiger II.

130036
Tiger II of the 501. schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 501 passing some US POWs in the Ardennes December 1944.

130037
Another Tiger II (possibly the same tank) of s.SS-Pz.Abt. 501 giving some Fallschirmjägers a ride.

Sousuke

07-18-2010, 07:13 PM

Thanks for the contribution guys! Great stuff.

Btw - an article about the Panzer IV is coming up! ;) Been busy lately, expect it within the next 24hrs tho! ^^

Sousuke

07-19-2010, 09:22 PM

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/HEADER.png

The Panzerkampfwagen IV (Pz.Kpfw. IV), commonly known as the Panzer IV, is a medium tank developed in Nazi Germany in the late 1930s and used extensively during the Second World War.

Designed as an infantry-support tank, the Panzer IV was not originally intended to engage enemy armor—that function was performed by the lighter Panzer III. However, with the flaws of pre-war doctrine becoming apparent and in the face of Soviet T-34 tanks, the Panzer IV soon assumed the tank-fighting role of its increasingly obsolescent cousin. The most widely manufactured and deployed German tank of the Second World War, the Panzer IV was used as the base for many other fighting vehicles, including tank destroyers and self-propelled anti-aircraft guns. Robust and reliable, it saw service in all combat theaters involving Germany, and has the distinction of being the only German tank to remain in continuous production throughout the war, with over 8,800 produced between 1936 and 1945. Upgrades and design modifications, often made in response to the appearance of new Allied tanks, extended its service life. Generally these involved increasing the Panzer IV's armor protection or upgrading its weapons, although during the last months of the war with Germany's pressing need for rapid replacement of losses, design changes also included retrograde measures to simplify and speed manufacture.

The Panzer IV was the most widely exported tank in German service, with around 300 sold to partners such as Finland, Romania, Spain and Bulgaria. After the war, the French and Spanish sold dozens of Panzer IVs to Syria, where they saw combat in the 1967 Six-Day War.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/SIRIJApz4.jpg
(A Syrian Panzer IV Ausf. G, captured during the Six-Day War, on display in the Yad La-Shiryon Museum, Israel.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Panzer IV was originally intended to be used only on a limited scale, so initially Krupp was its sole manufacturer. Prior to the Polish campaign, only 262 Panzer IVs were produced: 35 Ausf. A; 42 Ausf. B; 140 Ausf. C; and 45 Ausf. D. After the invasion of Poland, and with the decision to adopt the tank as the mainstay of Germany's armored divisions, production was extended to the Nibelungenwerke factory (managed by Steyr-Daimler-Puch) in the Austrian city of St. Valentin. Production increased as the Ausf. E was introduced, with 223 tanks delivered to the German army. By 1941, 462 Panzer IV Ausf. Fs had been assembled, and the up-gunned Ausf. F2 was entering production. The yearly production total had more than quadrupled since the start of the war.

As the later Panzer IV models emerged, a third factory, Vomag (located in the city of Plauen), began assembly. In 1941 an average of 39 tanks per month were built, and this rose to 83 in 1942, 252 in 1943, and 300 in 1944. However, in December 1943, Krupp's factory was diverted to manufacture the Sturmgeschütz IV, and in the spring of 1944 the Vomag factory began production of the Jagdpanzer IV, leaving the Nibelungenwerke as the only plant still assembling the Panzer IV. With the slow collapse of German industry under pressure from Allied air and ground offensives — in October 1944 the Nibelungenwerke factory was severely damaged during a bombing raid — by March and April 1945 production had fallen to pre-1942 levels, with only around 55 tanks per month coming off the assembly lines

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/PROTOTYPE.jpg
(VK 2001(Rh) - Rheinmetall-Borsig’s Prototype.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Panzer IV was the only German tank to remain in both production and combat throughout World War II, and measured over the entire war it comprised 30% of the Wehrmacht's total tank strength. Although in service by early 1939, in time for the occupation of Czechoslovakia, at the start of the war the majority of German armor was made up of obsolete Panzer Is and Panzer IIs. The Panzer I in particular had already proved inferior to Soviet tanks, such as the T-26, during the Spanish Civil War.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/T26.jpg
(The T-26 tank was a Soviet light infantry tank used during many conflicts of the 1930s as well as during World War II. It was a development of the British Vickers 6-Ton tank and is widely considered one of the most successful tank designs of the 1930s.)

Western Front and North Africa (1939–1942)

When Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, its armored corps was composed of 1,445 Panzer Is, 1,223 Panzer IIs, 98 Panzer IIIs and 211 Panzer IVs; the more modern vehicles amounted to less than 10% of Germany's armored strength. The 1st Panzer Division had a roughly equal balance of types, with 17 Panzer Is, 18 Panzer IIs, 28 Panzer IIIs, and 14 Panzer IVs per battalion. The remaining panzer divisions were heavy with obsolete models, equipped as they were with 34 Panzer Is, 33 Panzer IIs, 5 Panzer IIIs, and 6 Panzer IVs per battalion. Although the Polish army possessed less than 200 tanks capable of penetrating the German light tanks, Polish anti-tank guns proved more of a threat, reinforcing German faith in the value of the close-support Panzer IV.

Despite increasing production of the medium Panzer IIIs and IVs prior to the German invasion of France on 10 May 1940, the majority of German tanks were still light types. According to Heinz Guderian, the Wehrmacht invaded France with 523 Panzer Is, 955 Panzer IIs, 349 Panzer IIIs, 278 Panzer IVs, 106 Panzer 35(t)s and 228 Panzer 38(t)s. Through the use of tactical radios and superior tactics, the Germans were able to outmaneuver and defeat French and British armor. However, Panzer IVs armed with the KwK 37 L/24 75-millimetre (2.95 in) tank gun found it difficult to engage French tanks such as Somua S35 and Char B1. The Somua S35 had a maximum armor thickness of 55 mm (2.17 in), while the KwK 37 L/24 could only penetrate 43 mm (1.69 in) at a range of 700 m (2,296.59 ft). Likewise, the British Matilda Mk II was heavily armored, with at least 70 mm (2.76 in) of steel on the front and turret, and a minimum of 65 mm on the sides.

Although the Panzer IV was deployed to North Africa with the German Afrika Korps, until the longer gun variant began production, the tank was outperformed by the Panzer III with respect to armor penetration. Both the Panzer III and IV had difficulty in penetrating the British Matilda II's thick armor, while the Matilda's 40-mm QF 2 pounder gun could knock out either German tank; its major disadvantage was its low speed. By August 1942, Rommel had only received 27 Panzer IV Ausf. F2s, armed with the L/43 gun, which he deployed to spearhead his armored offensives. The longer gun could penetrate all American and British tanks in theater at ranges of up to 1,500 m (4,900 ft). Although more of these tanks arrived in North Africa between August and October 1942, their numbers were insignificant compared to the amount of matériel shipped to British forces. The Panzer IV also took part in the invasion of Yugoslavia and the invasion of Greece in early 1941.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/AFRICACORP.jpg
(Panzer IV of the German Africa Korps.)

Eastern Front (1941–1945)

With the launching of Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941, the unanticipated appearance of the KV-1 and T-34 tanks prompted an upgrade of the Panzer IV's 75 mm (2.95 in) gun to a longer, high-velocity 75 mm (2.95 in) gun suitable for antitank use. This meant that it could now penetrate the T-34 at ranges of up to 1,200 m (3,900 ft) at any angle. The 75 mm (2.95 in) KwK 40 L/43 gun on the Panzer IV could penetrate a T-34 at a variety of impact angles beyond 1,000 m (3,300 ft) range and up to 1,600 m (5,200 ft). Shipment of the first model to mount the new gun, the Ausf. F2, began in spring 1942, and by the summer offensive there were around 135 Panzer IVs with the L/43 tank gun available. At the time, these were the only German tanks that could defeat the Soviet T-34 or KV-1. They played a crucial role in the events which unfolded between June 1942 and March 1943, and the Panzer IV became the mainstay of the German panzer divisions. Although in service by late September 1942, the Tiger I was not yet numerous enough to make an impact and was suffering from serious teething problems, while the Panther would not be delivered to German units in the Soviet Union until May 1943. The extent of German reliance on the Panzer IV during this period is reflected by their losses; 502 were destroyed on the Eastern Front in 1942.

The Panzer IV continued to play an important role during operations in 1943, including at the Battle of Kursk. Newer types such as the Panther were still experiencing crippling reliability problems which restricted their combat efficiency, so much of the effort fell to the 841 Panzer IVs which took part in the battle. Throughout 1943, the German army lost 2,352 Panzer IVs on the Eastern Front; some divisions were reduced to 12–18 tanks by the end of the year. In 1944, a further 2,643 Panzer IVs were destroyed, and such losses were becoming increasingly difficult to replace. By the last year of the war, the Panzer IV was definitively outclassed by the upgraded T-34-85 which had an 85 mm (3.35 in) gun, and other late-model Soviet tanks such as the 122 mm (4.80 in)-armed IS-2 heavy tank. Nevertheless, due to a shortage of replacement Panther tanks, the Panzer IV continued to form the core of Germany's armored divisions, including elite units such as the II SS Panzer Corps, through 1944.

In January 1945, 287 Panzer IVs were lost on the Eastern Front. It is estimated that combat against Soviet forces accounted for 6,153 Panzer IVs, or about 75% of all Panzer IV losses during the war.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/PZIVRUSSIA.jpg
(Panzer IV somewhere in the Soviet Union during operation Barbarossa.)

Western Front (1944–1945)

Panzer IVs comprised around half of the available German tank strength on the Western Front prior to the Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. Most of the 11 panzer divisions that saw action in Normandy initially contained an armored regiment of one battalion of Panzer IVs and another of Panthers, for a total of around 160 tanks, although Waffen-SS panzer divisions were generally larger and better-equipped than their Heer counterparts. Regular upgrades to the Panzer IV had helped to maintain its reputation as a formidable opponent. Despite overwhelming Allied air superiority, the Norman bocage countryside in the US sector heavily favored defense, and German tanks and anti-tank guns inflicted horrendous casualties on Allied armor during the Normandy campaign. On the offensive, however, the Panzer IVs, Panthers and other armored vehicles proved equally vulnerable in the bocage, and counter-attacks rapidly stalled in the face of infantry-held anti-tank weapons, tank destroyers and anti-tank guns, as well as the ubiquitous fighter bomber aircraft. That the terrain was highly unsuitable for tanks was illustrated by the constant damage suffered to the side-skirts of the Ausf. H's; essential for defence against shaped charge anti-tank weapons such as the British PIAT, all German armored units were "exasperated" by the way these were torn off during movement through the dense orchards and hedgerows.

The Allies had also been developing lethality improvement programs of their own; the widely-used American-designed M4 Sherman medium tank, while mechanically reliable, suffered from thin armor and an inadequate gun. Against earlier-model Panzer IVs, it could hold its own, but with its 75 mm M3 gun, struggled against the late-model Panzer IV (and was unable to penetrate the frontal armor of Panther and Tiger tanks at virtually any range). The late-model Panzer IV's 80 mm (3.15 in) frontal hull armor could easily withstand hits from the 75 mm (2.95 in) weapon on the Sherman at normal combat ranges, though the turret remained vulnerable. The British up-gunned the Sherman with their highly effective QF 17 pounder anti-tank gun, resulting in the Firefly; although this was the only Allied tank capable of dealing with all current German tanks at normal combat ranges, few (about 300) were available in time for the Normandy invasion. The other British tank with the 17 pdr gun could not participate in the landings and had to wait for port facilities. It was not until July 1944 that American Shermans, fitted with the 76 mm (2.99 in) M1 tank gun, began to achieve a parity in firepower with the Panzer IV.

However, despite the general superiority of its armored vehicles, by August 29, 1944, as the last surviving German troops of Fifth Panzer Army and Seventh Army retreated toward Paris, the twin cataclysms of the Falaise Pocket and the Seine crossing had cost the Wehrmacht dearly. Of the 2,300 tanks and assault guns it had committed to Normandy (including around 750 Panzer IVs), over 2,200 had been lost. Field Marshal Walter Model reported to Hitler that his panzer divisions had remaining, on average, five or six tanks each.

During the winter of 1944–45, the Panzer IV was one of the most widely used tanks in the Ardennes offensive, where further heavy losses—as often due to fuel shortages as to enemy action—impaired major German armored operations in the West thereafter.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/AROFFENS.jpg
(The Ardennes offensive was Hitler's last attempt at breaking the Allied counterattack.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variants:

* Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf A - 75mm KwK 37 L/24 - The first mass-produced version of the Panzer IV was the Ausführung, A (abbreviated to Ausf. A meaning "Batch A"), in 1936. It was powered by Maybach's HL 108TR, producing 250 PS (183.87 kW), and used the SGR 75 transmission with five forward gears and one reverse, achieving a maximum road speed of 31 kilometres per hour (19.26 mph). As main armament, the vehicle mounted the Kampfwagenkanone 37 L/24 (KwK 37 L/24) 75 mm (2.95 in) tank gun, which was a low-velocity gun designed to mainly fire high-explosive shells. Against armored targets, firing the Panzergranate (armor-piercing shell) at 430 metres per second (1,410 ft/s) the KwK 37 could penetrate 43 millimetres (1.69 in), inclined at 30 degrees, at ranges of up to 700 metres (2,300 ft). A 7.92 mm (0.31 in) MG 34 machine gun was mounted coaxially with the main gun in the turret, while a second machine gun of the same type was mounted in the front plate of the hull. The Ausf. A was protected by 14.5 mm (0.57 in) of steel armor on the front plate of the chassis, and 20 mm (0.79 in) on the turret. This was capable only of stopping artillery fragments, small-arms fire, and light anti-tank projectiles.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausfa.jpg

* Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf B - 75mm KwK 37 L/24 - After manufacturing 35 tanks of the A version, in 1937 production moved to the Ausf. B. Improvements included the replacement of the original engine with the more powerful 300 PS (220.65 kW) Maybach HL 120TR, and the transmission with the new SSG 75 transmission, with six forward gears and one reverse gear. Despite a weight increase to 16 t (18 short tons), this improved the tank's speed to 39 kilometres per hour (24 mph). The glacis plate was augmented to a maximum thickness of 30 millimetres (1.18 in), and the hull-mounted machine gun was replaced by a covered pistol port. Forty-two Panzer IV Ausf. B's were manufactured before the introduction of the Ausf. C in 1938.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausfb.jpg

* Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf C - 75mm KwK 37 L/24 - This version has increased turret armor to 30 mm (1.18 in), which brought the tank's weight to 18.14 t (20.00 short tons). After assembling 40 Ausf. Cs, starting with chassis number 80341 the engine was replaced with the improved HL 120TRM. The last of the 140 Ausf. Cs was produced in August 1939, and production changed to the Ausf. D.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausfc.jpg

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausfc2.jpg

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausfc3.jpg

* Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf D - 75mm KwK 37 L/24 - this variant, of which 248 vehicles were produced, reintroduced the hull machine gun and changed the turret's internal gun mantlet to an external one. Again protection was upgraded, this time by increasing side armor to 20 mm (0.79 in). As the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 came to an end, it was decided to scale up production of the Panzer IV, which was adopted for general use on 27 September 1939 as the Sonderkraftfahrzeug 161 (Sd.Kfz. 161).

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausfd.jpg

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausfd2.jpg

* Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf E - 75mm KwK 37 L/24 - In September 1940 the Ausf. E was introduced. This had 50 millimetres (1.97 in) of armor on the bow plate, while a 30-millimetre (1.18 in) appliqué steel plate was added to the glacis as an interim measure. Finally, the commander's cupola was moved forward into the turret. Older model Panzer IV tanks were retrofitted with these features when returned to the manufacturer for servicing. Two hundred and twenty-three Ausf. E's were produced between September 1940 and April 1941.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausfe.jpg

* Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf F1 - 75mm KwK 37 L/24 - In April 1941 production of the Panzer IV Ausf. F started. It featured 50 mm (1.97 in) single-plate armor on the turret and hull, as opposed to the appliqué armor added to the Ausf. E, and a further increase in side armor to 30 mm (1.18 in). The weight of the vehicle was now 22.3 tonnes (24.6 short tons), which required a corresponding modification of track width from 380 to 400 mm (14.96 to 15.75 in) to reduce ground pressure. The wider tracks also facilitated the fitting of ice sprags, and the rear idler wheel and front sprocket were modified. A total of 464 Ausf. Fs were produced from April 1941 to March 1942. On May 26, 1941, mere weeks before Operation Barbarossa, during a conference with Hitler, it was decided to improve the Panzer IV's main armament. Krupp was awarded the contract to integrate a 50 mm (1.97 in) Pak 38 L/60 gun into the turret and to deliver the first prototype by November 15, 1941.
The shock of encountering the Soviet T-34 medium and KV-1 heavy tanks during the first months of Operation Barbarossa in the summer of 1941 necessitated a new tank gun to meet these threats. In response to the difficulty of penetrating British Matilda Infantry tanks during the Battle of France, the Germans had earlier installed a 50 mm (1.97 in) L/60 gun—based on the 5 cm PaK 38 anti-tank gun—on a Panzer IV Ausf. D. However, with the rapid German victory in Russia, the original order of 80 tanks was canceled before they entered production. In November 1941, the decision to up-gun the Panzer IV to the 50-millimetre (1.97 in) L/60 gun was dropped, and instead Krupp was contracted in a joint development to modify Rheinmetall's pending 75 mm (2.95 in) anti-tank gun design (later known as 7.5 cm PaK 40 L/46). Because the recoil length of the PaK 40 was too long for the tank's turret, the recoil mechanism and chamber were shortened. This resulted in the 75-millimetre (2.95 in) KwK 40 L/43.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausff1.jpg

* Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf F2 - 75mm KwK 40 L/43 - The KwK 40 L/43 was mounted on the Panzer IV Ausf. F, and those tanks which received the new, longer gun were renamed Ausf. F2 (with the designation Sd.Kfz. 161/1), while tanks with the shorter gun received the designation Ausf. F1. The F2 increased in weight to 23.6 tonnes (26.0 short tons), but firing an armor-piercing shot, the gun's muzzle velocity was increased from 430 m/s (1,410 ft/s) to 990 m/s (3,250 ft/s). Initially, the gun was mounted with a single-chamber, ball-shaped muzzle brake which provided just under 50% of the recoil system's braking ability. Firing the Panzergranate 39, the KwK 40 L/43 could penetrate 77 mm (3.03 in) of steel armor at a range of 1,830 m (6,000 ft). Three months after beginning production, the Panzer IV. Ausf. F2 was renamed Ausf. G. Four hundred and sixty-two Ausf. F (later F1) tanks were produced from April 1941 to March 1942, of which 25 were converted to the F2 on the production line. One hundred and seventy-five Ausf. F2s were produced from March 1942 to July 1942.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausff2.jpg

* Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf G - 75mm KwK 40 L/43 (early) // 75mm KwK 40 L/48 (late) - During its production run from May 1942 to June 1943, the Panzer IV Ausf. G went through further modifications, including another armor upgrade. Given that the tank was reaching its viable limit, to avoid a corresponding weight increase, the appliqué 20-millimetre (0.79 in) steel plates were removed from its side armor, which instead had its base thickness increased to 30 millimetres (1.18 in). The weight saved was transferred to the front, which saw a 30-millimetre (1.18 in) face-hardened appliqué steel plate welded (later bolted) to the glacis—in total, frontal armor was now 80 mm (3.15 in) thick. This decision to increase frontal armor was favorably received according to troop reports on November 8, 1942, despite technical problems of driving system due to added weight. At this point, it was decided that 50% of Panzer IV productions would be fitted with 30 mm thick additional armor plates. Subsequently on January 5, 1943, Hitler decided to make all Panzer IV to have 80 mm frontal armor. To simplify production, the vision ports on either side of the turret and on the right turret front were removed, while a rack for two spare road wheels was installed on the track guard on the left side of the hull. Complementing this, brackets for seven spare track links were added to the glacis plate. For operation in high temperatures, the engine's ventilation was improved by creating slits over the engine deck to the rear of the chassis, and cold weather performance was boosted by adding a device to heat the engine's coolant, as well as a starter fluid injector. A new light replaced the original headlight, and the signal port on the turret was removed. On March 19, 1943, the first Panzer IV with Schurzen skirts on its sides and turret was exhibited. The double hatch for the commander's cupola was replaced by a single round hatch from very late model Ausf. G. and the cupola was up-armored as well. In April 1943, the KwK 40 L/43 was replaced by the longer 75-millimetre (2.95 in) KwK 40 L/48 gun, with a redesigned multi-baffle muzzle brake with improved recoil efficiency.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausfg.jpg

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausfg2.jpg

* Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf H - 75mm KwK 40 L/48 - The next version, the Ausf. H, began production in April 1943 and received the designation Sd. Kfz. 161/2. This variant saw the integrity of the glacis armor improved by manufacturing it as a single 80-millimetre (3.15 in) plate. To prevent adhesion of magnetic anti-tank mines, which the Germans feared would be used in large numbers by the Allies, Zimmerit paste was added to all the vertical surfaces of the tank's armor. The vehicle's side and turret were further protected by the addition of 5-millimetre (0.20 in) side-skirts and 8-millimetre (0.31 in) turret skirts. During the Ausf. H's production run its rubber-tired return rollers were replaced with cast steel; the hull was fitted with triangular supports for the easily-damaged side-skirts. A hole in the roof, designed for the nahverteidigungswaffe, was plugged by a circular armored plate due to shortages of this weapon. These modifications meant that the tank's weight jumped to 25 tonnes (27.56 short tons), reducing its speed, a situation not improved by the decision to adopt the Panzer III's six-speed SSG 77 transmission, which was inferior to that of earlier-model Panzer IVs.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausfh.jpg

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausfh2.jpg

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausfh3.jpg

* Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf J - 75mm KwK 40 L/48 - Despite addressing the mobility problems introduced by the previous model, the final production version of the Panzer IV—the Ausf. J—was considered a retrograde from the Ausf. H. Born of German necessity to replace heavy losses, it was greatly simplified to speed production. The electric generator that powered the tank's turret traverse was removed to allow the installation of an auxiliary 200-litre (44 imp gal) fuel tank; road range was thereby increased to 320 kilometres (198.84 mi), but the turret had to be rotated manually. The pistol and vision ports in the turret were removed, and the engine's radiator housing was simplified by changing the slanted sides to straight sides. In addition, the cylindrical muffler was replaced by two flame-suppressing mufflers. By late 1944, Zimmerit was no longer being applied to German armored vehicles, and the Panzer IV's side-skirts had been replaced by wire mesh, while to further speed production the number of return rollers was reduced from four to three.
In a bid to augment the Panzer IV's firepower, an attempt was made to mate a Panther turret—carrying the longer 75 mm (2.95 in) L/70 tank gun—to a Panzer IV hull. This was unsuccessful, and confirmed that the chassis had, by this time, reached the limits of its adaptability in both weight and available volume.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/ausfJ.jpg

* Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf J - Panzerbefehlswagen / Panzerbeobachtungswagen - Command Tank / Observation Tank. It is interesting to note that unlike the PzIII command tank, the PzIV version did not have a turret.

END OF PART 1.

Sousuke

07-19-2010, 09:23 PM

PART 2:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chasis used for:

In keeping with the wartime German design philosophy of mounting an existing anti-tank gun on a convenient chassis to give mobility, several tank destroyers and infantry support guns were built around the Panzer IV hull. Both the Jagdpanzer IV, initially armed with the 75-millimetre (2.95 in) L/48 tank gun, and the Krupp-manufactured Sturmgeschütz IV, which was the casemate of the Sturmgeschütz III mounted on the body of the Panzer IV, proved highly effective in defense. Cheaper and faster to construct than tanks, but with the disadvantage of a very limited gun traverse, around 1,980 Jagdpanzer IV's and 1,140 Sturmgeschütz IVs were produced. The Jagdpanzer IV eventually received the same 75 millimeter L/70 gun that was mounted on the Panther.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/Jagdpanzer4.jpg
(Jagdpanzer IV)

Another variant of the Panzer IV was the Panzerbefehlswagen IV (Pz.Bef.Wg. IV) command tank. This conversion entailed the installation of additional radio sets, mounting racks, transformers, junction boxes, wiring, antennas and an auxiliary electrical generator. To make room for the new equipment, ammunition stowage was reduced from 87 to 72 rounds. The vehicle could coordinate with nearby armor, infantry or even aircraft. Seventeen Panzerbefehlswagen were converted from Ausf. J chassis, while another 88 were based on refurbished chassis.

The Panzerbeobachtungswagen IV (Pz.Beob.Wg. IV) was an artillery observation vehicle built on the Panzer IV chassis. This, too, received new radio equipment and an electrical generator, installed in the left rear corner of the fighting compartment. Panzerbeobachtungswagens worked in cooperation with self-propelled artillery Wespe and Hummel batteries.

Also based on the Panzer IV chassis was the Sturmpanzer IV Brummbär 150-millimetre (5.91 in) infantry-support self-propelled gun. These vehicles were primarily issued to four Sturmpanzer units (Numbers 216, 217, 218 and 219) and used during the battle of Kursk and in Italy in 1943. Two separate versions of the Sturmpanzer IV existed, one without a machine gun in the mantlet and one with a machine gun mounted on the mantlet of the casemate. Furthermore, a 105-millimetre (4.13 in) artillery gun was mounted in an experimental turret on a Panzer IV chassis. This variant was called the Heuschrecke, or Grasshopper Another 105mm artilley variant was the ****e Max.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/Sturmpanzer4.jpg
(Sturmpanzer IV Brummbär)

Four different self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicles were built on the Panzer IV hull. The Flakpanzer IV Möbelwagen was armed with a 37-millimetre (1.46 in) anti-aircraft cannon; 240 were built between 1944 and 1945. In late 1944 a new Flakpanzer, the Wirbelwind, was designed, with enough armor to protect the gun's crew and a rotating turret, armed with quadruple Flak 38 guns; at least 100 were manufactured. Sixty-five similar vehicles were built, named the Ostwind, but with a single 37-millimetre (1.46 in) anti-aircraft cannon instead. This vehicle was designed to replace the Wirbelwind. The final model was the Flakpanzer IV Kugelblitz, of which only five were built. This vehicle featured a covered turret armed with twin 30-millimetre (1.18 in) anti-aircraft cannons.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/mobel_1.jpg
(Flakpanzer IV Möbelwagen)

Although not a direct modification of the Panzer IV, some of its components, in conjunction with parts from the Panzer III, were utilized to make one of the most widely-used self-propelled artillery chassis of the war—the Geschützwagen III/IV. This chassis was the basis of the Hummel artillery piece, of which 666 were built, and also the 88 millimetres (3.46 in) gun armed Nashorn tank destroyer, with 473 manufactured.[114] To resupply self-propelled howitzers in the field, 150 ammunition carriers were manufactured on the Geschützwagen III/IV chassis.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/LAST.jpg
(The Geschützwagen III/IV)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Export:

The Panzer IV was the most exported German tank of the Second World War. In 1942 Germany delivered 11 tanks to Romania and 32 to Hungary, many of which were lost on the Eastern Front between the final months of 1942 and the beginning of 1943. Romania received approximately 120 Panzer IV tanks of different models throughout the entire war. To arm Bulgaria, Germany supplied 46 or 91 Panzer IVs, and offered Italy 12 tanks to form the nucleus of a new armored division. These were used to train Italian crews while Italian dictator Benito Mussolini was deposed, but were retaken by Germany during its occupation of Italy in mid-1943. The Spanish government petitioned for 100 Panzer IVs in March 1943, but only 20 were ever delivered, by December. Finland received 20 Panzer IVs in 1944, and the same year a second batch of 62 or 72 were sent to Hungary (although 20 of these were diverted to replace German losses). In total some 297 Panzer IVs of all models were delivered to Germany's allies.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/HUGARY.jpg
(Hungarian PzIV)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specs:

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/chart01.png

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gallery:

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/th_8.jpg (http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/8.jpg)

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/th_7.jpg (http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/7.jpg)

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/th_6.jpg (http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/6.jpg)

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/th_5.jpg (http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/5.jpg)

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/th_4.jpg (http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/4.jpg)

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/th_3.jpg (http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/3.jpg)

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/th_2.jpg (http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/2.jpg)

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/th_1.jpg (http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/1.jpg)

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/th_9.jpg (http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/9.jpg)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the end:

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/boris_kozma2/panzer/zabuzaandi.jpg

Little ol' me and a friend, at the Belgrade war museum at Kalemegdan. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:

www.achtungpanzer.com ; www.wikipedia.org ; www.google.com