Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: dee@linus.UUCP (David E. Emery)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: German Weapons in WW2
Message-ID: <6905@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 26 May 89 02:52:19 GMT
References: <6863@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
Lines: 33
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: dee@linus.UUCP (David E. Emery)
>From: uunet.uu.net!bywater!archet!wlm (William L. Moran Jr.)
>Why did earlier Pz Kw IVs have a short 75mm gun? They later switched
>to the long version; was there a good reason? I guess what I'm
>wondering is why they would ever have used a short barrel gun?
>(Especially since the Pz Kw III had a longish gun).

The reason is that the PzKw III was the Anti-Tank tank, and the PzKw
IV was the Anti-Infantry tank.  For a while the Germans supported a
doctrine somewhat similar to the British, of distinguishing between a
tank designed to fight other tanks, and a tank designed to engage soft
targets.  However, unlike the British, the two tanks were supposed to
fight together, i.e.  the Pz III would attack other tanks while the Pz
IV would attack infantry, AT guns, etc.  Therefore, unlike the British
Cruiser and Infantry (e.g. Matilda) tanks, these were designed to work
together, and they both could travel fast.  Later on, as the Germans
saw the need for higher velocity, larger caliber guns, they upgraded
the Pz IV, and it became a single, general purpose tank.  The Pz IV
generally fired HE, while the Pz III fired AP.  However, both tanks
could fire both kinds of ammunition (I think).  This again was not
true of the British tanks, where their Crusiers could fire only AP,
and could not engage AT guns with any degree of effectiveness.

By the way, to contrast philosophies, the U.S. did not have a similar
approach.  Instead, they had light and heavy tanks.  The Light tanks
(e.g. M-3/M-5 Stuarts) would perform the traditional duties of Light
Cavalry, and the Medium (M-3 Lee/M-4 Sherman) would be the primary
"attack" tanks.  In retrospect, this was probably the right approach. 

				dave emery
				emery@mitre.org