Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: German Weapons in WW2
Message-ID: <7027@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 1 Jun 89 03:09:17 GMT
References: <6863@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 19
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025)

The short barreled Pz MkIV's were originally expected to serve primarily
as infantry support tanks, and the low velocity gun was expected to be
okay for shooting HE and smoke.  The MkIII was thought to fill the
tank-fighting tank role.  It wasn't until the war got underway that the
Germans and everybody else realised that tanks were going wind up having
to fight other tanks and the dedicated infantry support tanks were going
to be in trouble whenever this happened.
The slow, heavy, undergunned British tanks like the Valentine and
particularly the Matilda also got caught by the same kind of conflict
between design and jobs actually undertaken.
At least this is my impression after reading a lot on tank warfare over
the years.  I'm afraid I can no longer remember the specific references to
back these comments up.

Ed Allen (allen@enzyme.berkeley.edu)