Pages

Apr 2, 2013

"Buff my tank!" - Panzer III

Hello and welcome to the first edition of "Buff my tank!"

The "Buff my tank!" articles are meant as an historical way to look at some tanks considered underpowered in game and ways to improve their combat abilities discussed by the original german engineers.
Beware that while being sometimes ironic in tone, the article treats about both costs and benefits of every choice and it most likely will never be listened by WG as suggestion.

Panzer III... almost the perfect MMO tank.
It has been "buffed" several times during its historical operational life, but ultimately it faced its demise as it was hopelessy outgunned by T-34 and KV tanks, while being in trouble returning fire as both 5cm and 7.5cm L/24 cannons were effective only when firing special ammunition such as APCR or HEAT.

In game the situation is pretty much the same and we will be using Panzer Tracts 20-1 to showcase a possible tank modification.
While being an agile and reasonably armored medium good versus its tier IV peers, its gun selection is rather anemic against most tier V enemies.
This made many players (especially the less experienced ones) ask for a buff of the tank as it can be rather dependent on "gold" ammunition when not top tier.

Historically, german engineers faced similar troubles and of course raced to find alternate solutions.
APCR was a short term patch, although an expensive one, while operationally the Panzer III ended up being replaced by the rearmed Panzer IV with the 75mm L/43 and L/48, while the chassis itself found its second life as STUG III.

The Panzer III/IV was another solution that found itself on prototype stage while its chassis powered again some (rather good) self propelled guns, but in game it is already represented as a tier V tank.

Still, this was not the first attempt to merge the two tanks:

In december 1941 Krupp was requested to mount the Panzer IV turret in a Panzer III chassis, and by the end of the year a preliminary design was ready:




Thus, the Panzer III Ausf K was born.
As "pimp my ride" was not on TV yet, calculations were started and the price to pay was a large increase in weight, meaning new tracks and suspensions were needed, as well as the fact that mobility was surely impacted despite the best design efforts.

In game terms this is a very similar situation to the old Pz IV with Panther narrow turret.
Estimating with game stats, it means over half a ton extra weight without taking into account any ancillaries and going by "Wargaming Engineering".
As the in game improved suspensions limit is set at 22.65 tons so it could be doable and using the top 440HP engine even power to weight ratio still looks good enough so mobility shouldn't be affected overall.


It looks almost too good to be true, right?

To balance this, unfortunately reality strikes with a huge nerfbat.

Mounting a bigger turret without serious modifications to the hydraulics means that rotation will become a lot more sluggish, prone to failure or will plainly require manual cranking.
This means in game a greatly reduced turret rotation.

Mounting a more powerful gun on a lighter chassis that is already unbalanced by an heavier turret means that recoil will have a stronger kick.
This translates in lowered accuracy, increased aim time and gun dispersion.

Oh, did I mention the designers saw the modification would affect the center of gravity?
Say hello to terrain passability and track rotation nerf.

Finally, bigger gun on a smaller tank?
Less ammo of course.

The final verdict:

Doable, but it will transform german ergonomics into a disguised mid-tier french tank.

Are you sure you want to pay the price?

Thank you for reading and see you in the next article!

67 comments:

  1. I still want PzIV ausf.K, that some pimp my ride for real.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice post! Would love to see a model swap to have the PZ4's stock turret with the /L43 on the PZ3's chasis :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. PzIII is, IMO, the best tier 4 tank (not tank destroyer)
    It has reasonable front and back armor, great mobility, and the gun isnt bad, as long as you know weakspots and know how to flank, wich you can do, cause you have mobility.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmm, this is also mentioned as a Ausf. K

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a Befehlpanzer - a commander version of the Panzer III. Ausf.K is what Zarax mentioned actually.

      Delete
    2. Or rather - to be exact: what you linked is not Panzer III Ausf.K, but Panzerbefehlswagen III Ausf.K - Panzerbefehlswagen is a "branch" of radio command vehicles based on Panzer III chassis.

      Delete
    3. I was aware it being a command tank due the amount of "antennas". It was stated as an ausf. K on the model box but I suppose it's incorrect and merely referring to Kommander or so?

      Delete
    4. Ok I saw your post. I typed my post before your 2nd was on so That's why it's also an ausf. K

      Delete
    5. It's two parallel designs, they both are designated Ausf.K. As far as I remember, Befehlpanzer Ausf.K has more to do with Panzer III Ausf.J - but I could be wrong.

      Delete
  5. make it more extreme (but still somewhat historical): give it the gerat 725 gun. the Pz IV too :D

    ReplyDelete
  6. IIRC what I've read of it the added glacis armour and 7.5cm L/40+ guns made the later-model Pz IVs already rather front-heavy with due assorted issues - slapping the same turret/gun combo on the smaller and lighter Pz III chassis oughta be a surefire way to get yourself a whole slew of headaches...

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Buff my tank!" Tiger
    Reduce it to tier 6, remove 88 L/71 and reduce its health.

    BAM! more historical and more balanced

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nooo! Tiger on Tier VI will be so very very sad :(

      BTW, we will get a Tiger-like heavy on Tier VI - it's gonna be VK3601H

      Delete
    2. Stop whining and get yourself a VK36, Anon. Pretty much the same thing ("turret onna box") and well-nigh prints money as is.

      For an alternative take you could get a T-150 which, as one of the engineers who worked on it apparently later pointed out, was basically a "Soviet Tiger" a year early. 'S prity cool too.

      Delete
  8. I still wholeheartedly miss the Schmalturm PzIV. It being a tier 6 just doesn't cut it, especially since they increased the weight (sheets on the sides, i don't even know what they're for since they're not real armor plates) and gave it an underpowered engine.

    Maybe they can implement this as a tier IV premium with kinda bad accuracy and the likes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sheets protected it IRL against 14.5mm AT rifles, which could penetrate the sides without the mesh screens. So really very useful

      Delete
    2. They are there to predetonate HEAT, as the mesh screen hardly stops bullets...

      Delete
    3. They aren't, Anon. By that time, HEAT rounds were hardly percieved as a threat. The mesh is against AT rifles as mentioned. Originally, 5,5mm armor plates were used, but it was discovered that a thick mesh has the same effect.

      Delete
    4. Pz IV Schmalturm with long 7,5cm was a good tank before the new MatchMaker, when it often faced tiers VIII and even IXs. With the new MM, seeing nothing more powerful than Tier VII, Pz IV with long 7,5cm was just owerpowered. Introducing it as a premium tank was the only way to make it stay ingame, which is very good imho.


      And BTW, the main reason the side sheets were placed was protection from HEAT rounds. And they were very succesful in that. As far as the game is considered, I guess the server takes sheets as spaced armour.

      Delete
    5. No. HEAT rounds weren't used that much by the allies. Also, in some cases, spaced armor (if incorrectly applied) actually made the HEAT effect worse. It was really against AT rifles, check Doyle's literature if you don't believe me.

      Delete
    6. Those skirts were originally there to protect against AT-rifles not against heat weapons

      Delete
    7. I believe you Frank, I do :3

      Delete
    8. Data about ATR and 75/76mm HE (NOT HEAT!) protection is in Spielberger, Jentz/Doyle and original German documents that were published on the net. Nothing indicates HEAT protection was goal, except western Allies wild-ass guessing.

      Delete
  9. I like the current pzIII, for once Im glad Wg doesnt take suggestions ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not? its not like it would change much, as you could have two different setups. The current one and another with Pz4 turret and the big gun. So those that do not wish for the big gun can still have the same gun they have already.

      Delete
  10. The buff that could be done is to add the pak 38/39 L60 to it since it was used with the Pz.3 L.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I know its already done :)

      Delete
    2. so... keep it the way it is currently?

      Delete
  11. Hammerschlag wrote:

    Not so pesimistic Zarax! (by the way nice articles)

    Imo that would be an exellent T5 premium med.
    Not all downsides it would have had in reality need to be ingame 1:1 as well.
    Dont forget we play world of failed prototype tanks :P


    Also, the blog will get the article regarding shell normalization, i didnt forget it!


    Regards

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the scope was about "buffing" a tank in the current tier rather than creating a new design...

      When it comes to older tanks WG prefers to rebalance so that a positive is compensated by something else in some other part of the tank.

      Delete
  12. Hi. I am reading this blog for quite some time (since it replaced Q&A topic on EU forums). I think that if now there are two writers on this blog, it would be best to tell at beginning of (each) article, who is the author. I mean something like "Hi, [insert name] here!". That's just an idea ;)

    And, since I forgot to say. SilentStalker, you're doing great job with those Q&A translations, your blog is my primary source of information about development of WoT. Also, Zarax, your articles are as entertaining as SS's. Keep it up, guys! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that will do. Thanks for the praise (Zarax is out atm) :)

      Delete
  13. damm..things get serious...well done..more pls :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. It would be a nice tier 4 premium tough.

    ReplyDelete
  15. [i]
    Mounting a bigger turret without serious modifications to the [b]hydraulics[/b] means that rotation will become a lot more sluggish, prone to failure or will plainly require manual cranking.
    This means in game a greatly reduced turret rotation.
    [/i]

    There were no hidraulic turret traverse due the lack of space in Pz-III, turret was manually rotated at pretty much glacial speed (IRL speed was ~same as KV-1 turret rotation speed).
    Late model Pz-IV also (Ausf J), so any vehicle as you have proposed would have manually cranked turret anyway.

    Also I don't really see point of such vehilce in WoT at tier 5 (and it would be way, way OP for tier 4), speed and armor would be pretty much same as Pz-IV, with worse gun selection.

    My idea about low tier German tanks is to break Pz-IV in two:
    Early, tier 4 - 30/20/20 (Ausf D) hull armor, 7.5xm kwk 37, 5cm kwk 39, 7.5cm kwk38 L/40 (proposed gun at one moment), 7.5cm kwk40 L/43 as top. Top turret is Ausf F turret with 50/30/30 armor.
    Tier 5 Pz-IV stays same.
    Those two could be start of Krupp tank line.

    For Pz-III I would introduce MKA as tier 3 medium.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was a slip-up due to me running out of time... Still, the general principle stands.

      Delete
  16. Nice post :)
    Little bit offtopic question:
    VK20.01 DB is going to be the other Tier IV German Medium, and seems to be quite similar to the Pz III.

    1. How do the two tanks differ? Greater capacity? Higher Top speed? etc.
    2. If VK20.01 DB has greater capacity, would it be able to mount a Pz IV turret with 7,5 cm L/43+ with less technical problems?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TBH, not much. Also, depends which version of Panzer III. The weapons are literally the same. For the ingame stats, you'll have to wait for the test, but basically, the speed should be around 50 km/h, historically it had a 350hp engine, weighted 22,2 tons (Panzer III - 21,5 tons), it was also somewhat wider, frontal armor remains the same (50mm), but the sides are thicker (40mm) than on the regular Panzer III Ausf. J.

      In other words, performance will be roughly similiar to the one of Panzer III. And no, it most likely can't mount the Panzer IV turret, as the sloped sides probably allowed for only a small turretring, but that's just a guess, I'd have to dig into the documents.

      Delete
    2. No, I take back the part about the sloped armor, I mistook the photos. In which case - theoretically yes, it could carry a Panzer IV turret.

      Delete
  17. The 5 cm L/60 needs a buff to ~74 mm of penetration(which is the # in the same Soviet Tests that gave the 7.5 L/70 150 mm of pen). aim time, RoF, dispersion, and accuracy could be buffed as well. The Panzer III already has the best chassis at tier IV, the 5cm is a good gun too, it is just lacking versus higher tiers, a small firepower buff would be fine.

    The Ausf. K would suffer too much for the gun at tier IV IMO. It maybe best for it to be a tier V premium.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it would do well as a T5 premium, but it would be significantly weaker than the T-25.

      Delete
    2. Well the T-25 could eventually be moved to the Pan-European tree leaving a gap of a tier V premium which the ausf. K could fill.

      Delete
  18. Well, you can just put it on 5 level.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I just want a 4,7 gun from Pz38t to mount it on PzIII. It would be brilliant on this tank.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, that wouldn't be very historical :)

      Delete
    2. Zis 4 on T28 also is not historical.
      For now there is now good gun option for PzIII.
      small derp or not accurate 5cm gun. 4,7 cm is accurate, fast firing, fast aiming gun though worse dmg and pen.
      Imho better in summary.

      Delete
    3. 57mm is semi-historical as gun mount for it was developed using T-28. IOW, gun was intended for T-34 but it was originally tested on T-28. Same as 85mm F-30 gun which was tested on T-28 and intended for arming KV-1.

      Delete
  20. My compliments for the effort you make to give me a lot info on tanks. Ingame and real.
    Since WW2 is a big passion of me its greatly appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hey guys, my first post here, great blog. I purchased my Panzer III yesterday and elited it in short order. So far I'm loving it, though the gun could really use a pen and accuracy buff. Not complaining though, it has the speed an manoeuvrability to flank (I'm used to this, Brit mediums are my favourite tanks). There's one 'but' - the KwK 39 is used on lots of German tanks, which would need rebalancing after the potential buff. Thankfully in its current form the 39 gets a huge boost in pen with APCR, though I'd prefer using regular ammo while shooting at the sides of Matildas, which are fantastic tanks to drive (one of my favourites atm), but a nightmare to deal with...

    While we're on the subject of mid-tier German mediums - is the T-25 any good? I'm looking for an 'el cheapo' crew trainer. From stats alone the Skoda tank looks like a good purchase, is it comparable to, say, the T-34 and Sherman in terms of overall effectiveness? Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait for the test server, should be up in a few days.

      Delete
    2. what Viktor said.

      on the other hand, IMHO the T-25 is awesome. sure, it has glacial turret and hull traverse, and hull armour is made of wet paper towels, but speed is great, aceleration is ok-ish, gun depression is good (and not german-good, I mean almost-american-good) and I have found that having the turret that far forward is an asset, as you don't have to expose that much of the hull to take shots at the enemy.

      is it better than a Sherman or a T-34? depends. on my hands it is, but the T-25 is after all my most played tank (seventh german medium crew being trained on it as we speak), so I know its limitations and abilities better than on the T-34 or Sherman. it all comes down to the player, and if the player is able to adapt to the tank.

      Delete
    3. Thanks, I'll buy it once it's 50% off price. :)

      Delete
  22. IDK, the Ausf. K seems better as a Tier 5 Premium tank to replace the T-25 after the European tree shows up and if the T-25 is on it, since there are also rumors that a "Panzer IV Ausf A" will replace the 38 nA if/when it and the other Czech tanks get ported to the European tree.

    IMHO it doesn't feel like it should be a tank that's incorporated into the tree, but rather would be a premium vehicle.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey, with this buff my tank, could you do the VK3002DB, cause that tank is in Dire(And I mean dire) need of a buff. It stands right now as the worst Tier 7 medium in the game. I know it was a prototype, but of all the tanks in the game I feel that it has the highest need of a buff at this moment. I know that 8.5 is coming and it may change it but, I'm not sure there hasnt been any mention of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3002DB/30.02(D) is in dire need of players who know how to aim.
      Compare to T-43 FFS, it is not that that one is any better. Or Comet, what exactly it has better?
      Panther is about equal, gets great gun, but lacks manevarability of 3002, so about equal.
      Really, only better tier 7 medium is T20 and I played all of them except Chinese one.
      If you suck with 3002 you suck with whole game, period.

      Delete
    2. I have used the DB, but compared to the Other Tier 7 mediums the DB holds the crown as the worst overall. Its a tier 6 trying desperately to be a tier 7. I used the Vk3001H extensively, The Short 88 was phenomenal on it(Turn & burn). This is effective strategy at Tier 6 where the short 88mm has tolerable penetration, but at Tier 7 its a completely different story. Every other Tier 7 Medium tank in the game has more penetration than the VK3002DB when Its equipped with its best gun, the Short 88mm(The 75 can be used, but the short 88 really is better for a flanking tank)(As do many Tier 6s for that matter as well).
      The Gun on the DB isn't only major weak point however. The Armor is another Major issue. It may be sloped at 80mm, which equates to about 120-130mm of unsloped armor(Same as the panther), but the Armor itself is very weak and rarely bounces. Angling at a 90 degree angle can help, but because of how thin the armor is, most guns will still have no problem getting through your armor due to the unangled lower glacis plate and Large weak spots on the front plate. Although If you turn and burn with the DB, they wont bother with your front plate and will just shoot your side or rear armor and kill you first.
      Thus, the Only option for the DB, is to Flank the enemy. However, Flanking maneuvers are often difficult to accomplish and more often then not require extraordinary amounts of luck and good timing to pull off.
      The VK30.02(D)/3002(DB) is a very poor and underpowered tank due to all of the aforementioned issues. These issues are known by many players, that is why the DB is such a rare sight on the Battlefield now

      Delete
    3. .__.
      So don't use the 88 L/56 if pen ain't enuff. Seems pretty elementary.

      Also, armour? On a Tier 7 med? Hah. Remind me again, which one *has* enough to deflect anything by virtue of something else than sheer luck?

      Delete
    4. Joren, did you play any other T7 med?

      Whining about gun? Like 85mm is better? or British 77mm?
      Whining about armor?
      Played T20 with absolutely no armor where tier 3 Marder can pen you w/o any problem...
      Played T43, which has less armor (and it's ammo rack and fuel tank are behind glacis), practically same armament with worse aim time, worse accuracy?
      Played Comet with it's cardboard armor which is also not sloped so any chance of ricoschet goes away?
      3002DB armor protects you well vs tanks 1 or 2 tiers lower, which is great for med, you obviously never played US meds,

      That 3002 sucks is pure fanboy whine by players who don't realize it plays different then anything else in German tank tree, and shines in that role.

      Delete
  24. Surely the easiest, most historical and most effective way to fix the PzKpfw III is to correct the penetration of the 5cm KwK39 L/60 to historical values. The in-game penetration of 67mm is ridiculous since the documented penetration of the gun was 69mm against 30° armour @ 100m. Which would translate to ~76mm against 0° armour.
    I doubt the penetration was as high as 99mm which some un-sourced sites claim. But the in-game penetration if far too low.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will dig-up Yugo weapon tests for 5cm PaK and post it on Tank-net, I am pretty sure it was barely able to penetrate T-34 and Sherman glacis with AP at some stupidly short range. It works better in game.
      It was not able to penetrate T-34/85 side turret (75mm at 10deg), so less penetration then 75mm, I actually suspect WoT numbers are closer to RL performance then table data.

      Delete
    2. There's a problem with though, some time ago(before Brits tree patch) PzIII was a main tier 4 company tank, I don't know how Matilda affected it, but buffing PzIII is somewhat like buffing KV1S...

      Delete
    3. Does Pz3 one and two shots anyone like KV-1S. Kv-1s has also very unhistorically penetration with its 122mm gun which should be far weaker than russian "idiot" 100mm gun.

      So i agree give pz3 atleast historical penetration. And if you say pz3 couldnt penetrate t-34 i think they are talking about 50L42 gun not 50L60.

      Delete
    4. Upping the penetration of the Pzgr 39 wouldn't affect company battles much since the PzKpfw III is preferred there because of the good premium ammo penetration (Pzgr 40).

      Delete
    5. 122mm penetration is not really ahistorica, while Russian data shows less penetration, US and British tests show 8" (203mm) @ 100yards. US and British tests give 9" (226mm) @ 100m for 88/71, relation is ~ same as in game 226/203 ~=~ 203/175, if anything ingame penetration of 122mm should be 182mm.
      Same tests say Soviet 100mm penetrated 8.3" (210mm), so following same relation with 88mm it should penetrate 189mm.

      And not just that, both 122mm and 100mm were better vs sloped armor then 88/71, Yugoslavian tests it penetrated M47 Patton glacis @ 950m while 88/71 could do it only at 350m (IIRC).

      Delete
  25. We also need "Nerf my tank! - T-54", "Nerf my tank! - T-72A" and "Nerf my tank! - Foch"

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.