Panzer III is a perfect example of how a tank can be more effective than its simple firepower, mobility and armour statistics. In theory this was supposed to be inferior to the Char B1 and T 34-76, but it turned out to allow its crew to take better advantage of the tank and use it to its full potential.
Yeah, I think the French Somoa is a good comparison and while the Somoa looks much better on paper the Panzer III can get to it's maximum potential much more easily.
@@Legitpenguins99 Well, there are people boasting about kitchens and toilets on Su-34, but the toilet is a pissbottle under the seat and the kitchen is a thermos flask with coffee behind the pilot. So I imagine T-14s "bathroom" is just the good old poophatch.
The mysterious doohickey is a gyro compass, basically because tanks are big metal boxes a magnetic compass won't work, instead you set this thing to a known heading (ie north) and the gyroscope will spin and stay on that heading no matter which way the vehicle turns, so you can always know which way north is
Improbable, first because a gyro compass needs current input to keep the rotor turning (and the doohickey is a bit small for a period gyrocompass), second because the scale is only up to 12 whereas a compass would have a degree (360) or mil (6000 or 6400) scale, and third because you CAN have a magnetic compass on a metal tank -- you just need to calibrate it. How do you think they can have magnetic compasses on iron ships if metal were a problem? Presuming this is supposed to be an Afrika Korps tank, they could also have used a sun compass like the LRDG. And finally, the guy actually doing the navigation would be the TC (or more likely a navigator in the command tank); the driver would be occupied negotiating the terrain.
@@jarmokankaanpaa6528 probability has nothing to do with it, I was stating a fact not making a guess. It's a gyro compass, called a 'kurskreisel' , my source is page 43 of the Haynes Tiger tank workshop manual.
@@imagifyer I speculate that the "1 to 12" scale might be clock degrees as to more easily follow tank commanders directions if given in clock degrees. Would the lower yellow part (harder to see in the video) possibly be a 360 degree scale?
Its a beautiful tank and I believe especially in desert conditions it served DAK well due to its reliability where it apparently outperformed P-IV. Its the punch of the gun that gets you into trouble ofc. Mathildas etc would be a tough nut
Nicholas mentions at 13:21 a "little device" to the left front of the driver's position. The manual labels it as a "Kurskreisel" which I believe translates as gyro compass.
Was so happy to see this pop up. The Panzer III (and the Stug) were incredibly reliable, well thought out tanks. If not as powerful as later tanks. Hoping that WG also had you go through the Panzer IV, and Maybe Tiger 131.
@@Angry-Lynx At the start of the war they were definitely not paper tanks. And they were up-armored as the war went on. Yes they were very outclassed by late model tanks, but they could still stand up to a lot of mid to lower caliber guns that were still in use.
I suppose the driver and radio operator didn’t have their own hatches because the tank was too small to accommodate them. It’s easy to forget that the Panzer III was designed as a 15 ton tank. Allied near equivalents in terms of weight were the British Cruiser III and IV, and the US M3 / M5 Light, which all had a crew of 4 men, and the Russian BT-7 and British Valentine III, which both had only 3 men. So the Germans did a brilliant job of crew ergonomics on the Panzer III considering the small size of the tank.
Well more that the Germans figured the inconvenience was worth it for the increased protection. Hatches are weak points in the armor. The Driver and radio operator would have hatches in the front which is the most likely part to be hit.
The early marks had escape hatches for the driver and radio man on the side: deleted after this model I think. Our man here makes mention of them in the video. These are in the hulk sides and hinge forward. There's a number of photos of knocked out tanks with the open and at least one with a crew member apparently dead gal in and half out the tank.
Also the intended weight of the Panzer III was 18 tons which was the maximum weight of army bridges at the time. The British clung on to that a little more which is why the Valentine is so cramped cause they wanted it to stay under 18 tons.
I'm shorter than him right now but only by 3" so yeah. I've always heard that submarine crews could only be a certain height so maybe the Germans did something similar with tank crews.
Excellent video. When you see how well layed out that turret is, you can see the real reason why this tank 'over-performed' in North Africa and Russia for so long.
Please keep doing early war subjects like the panzer II or Czech designs. A day without Moran is a day without sunshine. You are such a great presenter that I would watch you evaluating make-up airbrushes or non stick cookware.
Also the Panzer III is great looking with the long 5cm gun. In the end perhaps the panzer IV was better (due to the ability of upgrading it), but the Panzer III looks like a very capable tank. And something of a terror in the Desert.
@@bigblue6917 The Stug III is arguably the most important AFV of the German army from 1942 and onwards... But it was there already in 1940. But you are quit correct!
I didn't realize Mr. Moran was so tall. If he can fit into most of these WW2 era tanks and their crew positions fairly easily, then the crews of that time period, which were smaller and shorter in stature, would have no problem at all. It is the small details that make up this series of armored education. I almost considered being a tanker, then thought about how big a target I would be. So jumping out of airplanes and humping a ruck around didn't seem like too bad a deal. I would love to go to Bovington for a visit before I expire. Hell, all of the museums in Europe also.
For once (especially from about 1942 onwards), it looks like the Germans designed a great tank on the 'bang for the buck' scale. I gained a lot of respect for this tank thanks to this review. Thank you.
Maybe the azimuth indicator is so the commander can know the relative positions without completely shifting his field of vision? I can imagine the reasoning being that they want to be able to let the commander track targets without having to look away and still be able to give accurate commands to the various crewmen
Shorter people back then, yes. But they also specifically chose crewmen based on their physical ability to fit. I think Moran would have been advised to go to the infantry instead, they *wanted* smaller crew for armor and aircraft, for similar reasons. Making the tank just enough bigger to accommodate a man of 6'2" instead of 6' could easily add hundreds of pounds worth of armor hull plate, and strange as it seems, saving weight was a major consideration for tank designers. Even with the later behemoths like the Tigers, the weight was already so huge, they had to try to limit it as much as possible, and the thicker your armor is, the larger the increase is when you add a few inches to the dimensions. In aircraft, it means more material and weight, and more size means more drag (and a larger target, which is especially significant on a panzer). It is much simpler to simply be selective of your crewmen. And yes, those are escape hatches. A person can squeeze out of a surpisingly small space when it is a matter of life or death...but yet another reason to prefer small men. Hatch openings are vulnerable weak points, and you want them as small as possible (especially on an extremely vulnerable spot like the hull side). All they needed was a space barely big enough to squeeze out of in dire emergency, it would make no sense to make them larger for comfort (or to accommodate fat crewmen) at the cost of making the whole panzer more vulnerable.
Panzer IV! Panzer IV! Panzer IV! We need a complete tour video for Panzer IV! (Challenger already made one for it, but I still hope there will be a complete tour for this warhorse.)
The Drivers and Radio Operators / Hull machine gunners hatches were located on the sides of the lower hull between the tracks on the Ausf L model . I think you could also escape in an emergency out of the differential drive shaft inspection hatches above the Drivers knees. As on the Stug 3.
Did you see inside those hatches in part 1? I was thinking "those are literally just inspection hatches, you couldn't even fit your hands in there to work on anything", and here you are claiming a whole person could squeeze out? There is no way. The *hatch* is large enough, but there is less than six inches of space between the brakes and the hull.
@@justforever96 Hi , I have seen pictures of German Panzer Crewmen coming out of the hatch in question in front of the driver . Once you squeeze past the control leavers you open the hatch from the inside of the Panzer III / Stug and pop out. ( please note people were also alot slimmer in the 1940's)!
Access hatches for the driver/machine gunner in the hull were located on the glacis plate in front. I've seen a pic of a pz 3 driver standing in the open hatch.
An absolutely brilliant tank for the first years of the war. Up until 1941/42 there wasn’t much that could match them, except for T34’s which were tactically inferior. And after 41 they were an excellent basis for the STUG and as infantry support vehicle.
Why, because it's more scary if a *German* tank is shooting at you, as opposed to any other kind of tank? A tank shooting at you is bad news, no matter whose it is. Even a crewman in a Tiger II isn't laughing when he sees an M3 Light drawing a bead on him, let alone an M4 Medium. No tank is invulnerable, all have weak points and can be very deadly to the crew. Tanks don't even like being under MG fire if they can help it. For those *not* in a tank, even a light tank is a terrifying prospect. To infantrymen, even the worst of Italian tanks can be a monstrous beast. With the right weapons and training infantry can deal with tanks, but they are always something to be afraid of.
Finally, was beginning to wonder if there ever was to be a part 2. Now...the music. In the last video I couldn't see/hear the issue that so many commented on, but in this video, the music *really* is distracting. Not too big on background music in general, but we sort of have to live with it (its a fad), but could you please tone it down a few notches? Its too loud compared to his voice, which is what we come for; information over noise. Other than that, refreshing to see a tank with good ergonomics for a change ;)
To put german males of the period into perspective: My step-grandfather (maternal) was a WW2 german tanker (Panzer IV and Panther). He was considered a BIG GUY both in hight and shoulder width. He was 182cm in hight and visibly bigger than his crew My geandfather (paternal) was seen as a giant at 192cm, towering a head over his fellow miners on pictures. And even at 190cm today I am well above average for a german male (177cm for german my age, 179cm for age 18-30)
It good to remember that the Pz.Kpfw III not only had better ergonomics but it had a number of first regarding tanks: it was the first to understand the importance of having a three manned turret to divide the workload in a more logic way, it was the first to recognize the importance to give good view to the crew with the hatches closed so it was fitted armored glass all around with an cupola with an all-around view for commander, it was the first to be regularly fitted with the intercom system permitting a excellent coordination among the crew altrough the loader was not connected for ease of movement, and finally it was the first to have torsion bars permitting a relatively smooth ride on rough terrain. Compare it, with the exception of the Pz.Kpfw IV, to the contemporary tanks then in production in other countries to get an overall picture...
The Neubaufahrzeugs turret, wich became a huge influence for the turret on the Pz3 and 4, already had the 3 man configuration with the commander elevated in the back. But you could still say the Pz3 was the first to bring that turret design to a mass produced tank.
Honestly, wiggling into the driver seat without a hatch looked much easier than going through many other tanks that had a drivers hatch. Didn’t notice him having to do any twisting or bending, or shoulder dislocating, can’t say that for some other tanks.
If the Pz. III is so close to perfect I'd imagine the Pz. IV is going to be arguably perfect, takes everything the Pz. III does wrong and makes it right.
I once read that the latest version of the Pzkmpf III with the short barrel 75mm was produced to be a support tank for the Tiger I units, messenger tank ect. However that very fast turned out to be a bad idea. The best support for a Tiger was another Tiger.
If Panzer IV production had been numerous enough. I'm sure all Panzer III hulls would have been given over to Stug production early in the war. That combination with either Tiger Mk1 or another, would have given the USSR a real problem. The resources wasted on Panther, Tiger II and the other crazies lost the production of the workhorse vehicles. With more tanks available, the German armies could have reached much needed oil reserves before halting for the winter and consolidating. The T34 and KV's were a shock but very difficult to both operate, coordinate and keep running. Don't get me wrong. I'm so pleased the Germans never achieved their full potential. But but with hindsight the allies were very lucky Hitler was a drug addicted megalomaniac. Had he "died" in 1941 and been replaced by Erich Von Manstein or similar. Who know what would have happened?
Ok, the tank is in fire! For many Panzer 3s they had a hull escape hatch on each side. He even showed it on this one. The later ones. Didn’t have them. It is the GUNNER that was lucky to have his own hatch. Most LOADERS always had their own hatch.
@@razor1uk610 For that you do not need such big hatches... they appear to be too small for people and too large for anything else. Earlier versions had pistol ports, they were way smaller. Plus there was the bottom hatch for other uses.
Looking at the turret hatches and the ergonomics inside the hull a "Oh booger, the tank is on fire" test from the hull would probably be quicker than some of the other tanks, where he got stuck. Not having a hatch for the people is pretty horrible, but if you were to build one without them, this is probably the best you can do.
Tended to get overlooked in the dessert the old torpedo. They did come up with a clockwork one on wheels but by then the Afrika Corp had run out of Africa.
Hey, mr chieftain, it would be interesting to see a video on a type 63 apc, or a panzer 4 brumbarr. Your knowledge and research is second to none. Great video.
The hatch in the floor is also for hosing out the gore of the previous crew if needed. I read about one becoming blocked with a skull and the guy cleaning it had to hop in and remove the skull so he could keep hosing.
You keep saying the loader has no seat, but I cannot believe that is true. The guy has to ride around in this thing for hours, days at a time, usually not in combat, just on route march. He must have something to sit on besides the floor and the hatch sill. I have heard of a bicycle-style removable seat for other Panzer types, and I suspect the same here. It can be easily removed and stowed for combat, and allows more room for movement should he need to start slinging ammunition suddenly.
0:41 That MG34 is the standard infantry version - a Panzer wouldn't use it. There was a Panzer version. 5:28 The word "traverse" refers to rotating the turret to move the gun sideways. The word you're looking for is "elevation". 06:40 "periscopic sight" is wrong. That little port was for shooting flares through. 7:00 While discussing the gunner's position, it would be helpful to explain how he fires the gun! There's a trigger, there are indicator lamps, and there's a backup battery if it goes wrong - you don't show us any of this! 9:00 "These boxes here" are the power transformer for the radio receiver, the first-aid box, a box of MG ammunition, and the transformer for the radio transmitter. 13:25 "My guess is that this is a timer".... Just about every type of Panzer had this standard electrical gyroscope. It's well documented. It acts as a compass, it doesn't have a timer function.
@@AKUJIVALDO Sorry if I did not make myself clear. A tank crew would want ONLY the armoured version of the MG34. Because it could be used both as an AA defence and mounted in the tank's ports. The flexibility made it more useful to them than an ordinary MG34.
P-III impresses me more and more. Apart from the escape hatches for driver and funker ..they dont have emergency hatches either? I believe I have read somewhere that P-III was a favorite in DAK because of its reliability. The problem ofc was the punch of the gun.
In Sweden the tank driver have the task of counting the time we're exposed in a fiering position for example. You dont want to be exposed more than 60 sec or so
Do you know why the top speed is listed as 40 km/h? The Soviets acquired a Pz III for testing in 1939, and found that it could go 60 km/h or more, faster than the T-34, thanks to its torsion bar suspension
I've also heard this, with an explanation. It's thought that it had more to do with the Russians lack of respect for the machine, ie pushing it past its designers specification.
AWESOME! I was waiting 4 this! The panzer III ausf H is my favorite tank of the war. And something to remember is it was with this tank that the wehrmacht did achieve it's best victories. Large push ups like the french campaign or the early manouvers of barbarroja would been unreacheable with the rate of malfunctions of the tiger or the panther. This was the tool wich come closer to achieve Hitler's dreams. As allways, a big fat Thank you for the video, Nicholas! It was better than i espected.
It was with this tank that the Wehrmacht achieved its *only* victories. Retiring the Pz III from its original role coincided with the Germans going into sustained defense/retreat. (I'm obviously not saying they should have stuck to the Pz III to avoid losing.) It's my favorite WWII tank too. One of the very first tanks that wasn't just a lumbering tin can monster, and throughout its career its crews consistently defeated tanks that were, on paper, superior to it. The little tank that could, until it couldn't any more.
The hull escape hatches were deleted in the later production models of this tank I think mid way through the “J” spec model. Possibly that is why they are very blocked up as they have moved things around in the hull with the adoption of the larger gun and bigger ammunition.
It was really a tremendous “ Main Battle Tank “ for 1940. It would have been devastating with the 50mm that Adolf specified from the beginning. The invasion of the USSR might have been even faster destruction.
Its 50mm monolith piece, being cast homogeneous armor and having round shape factual effective armor is equivalent to a 200mm rolled plate. Its easier to shoot off the rest of the tank than the cupola.
Excellent, and I agree that the PzKmpfw III is an underappreciated tank. After all, Germany's greatest successes in WWII all occurred while the PzKmpfw III was their main battle tank (and the PzKmpfw IV was a support tank). I was quite surprised with the proximity of the recoil guard to the commander's legs. Was this a compromise when the L/60 gun replaced the L/42 gun? Or was it a design flaw (inconvenience?) from the outset. Finally, I think that the PzKmpfw III in 1940 had the 37mm gun, so it was inadequately armed, IMHO. However, by Barbarrossa, all PzKmpfw IIIs had the 50mm L/42 & it may be fair to say that in 1941 it was the best tank in the world that was available in impactful quantities (so the T-34/76 wouldn't count). Looking forward to your next video!
German tankers could go to the toilet on a trench spade and then throw the waste out of the ejection port. Standard practice among panzer crews whe buttoned up.
Can you please put the camera up to the cupola and weapon/driver sights so we can get an idea of the Commander and crewman view please?? Would definitely add more to the video, I would love to see that!
Pz 3 was my most favourite tank. I even make a semi sci-fi upgrade depiction of it by having a turret of a Comet tank (bit modified of course for the gun) and swap the gun with 7,5 kwk 39 gun so that it has more room inside and included modern upgrade such as modern gun sight, digital battlefield system, etc etc. Btw, how much weight a Comet turret has? Oh and any specific on the dimension of it? Anyway I really really love the video, and it is kinda painful of a wait for part 2 :))
They don't even have the same turret ring diameter. If you could easily make a Pz III ring larger, they would have done so, and to reduce the diameter of the Comet turret would defeat the whole purpose and make it impossible to fit the larger gun (never mind that reengineering it to that extent would basically involve designing a whole new turret, so you might as well just design a whole new turret; the whole point of using an existing one is to use up existing stocks or at least tooling and molds instead of setting up a whole new production line). What you are describing is fantasy, not sci-fi. Sci stands for science, which means it is based on plausible, reality-based (or potentially real) scenarios. Fantasy can be fun as well, but they aren't the same thing. And dropping a Comet turret on a PzIII chassis is fantasy.
Panzer III is a perfect example of how a tank can be more effective than its simple firepower, mobility and armour statistics. In theory this was supposed to be inferior to the Char B1 and T 34-76, but it turned out to allow its crew to take better advantage of the tank and use it to its full potential.
Yeah, I think the French Somoa is a good comparison and while the Somoa looks much better on paper the Panzer III can get to it's maximum potential much more easily.
Crew efficiency matters.
That poop chute is probably the single greatest feature on a tank ever.
I think that's why the support troops are always laughing in the movies. 😆
@Dmitry Godlevsky seriously? Thats the most unnecessary, non Russian tank feature ive ever heard of
@@Legitpenguins99 yes
@@Legitpenguins99 Well, there are people boasting about kitchens and toilets on Su-34, but the toilet is a pissbottle under the seat and the kitchen is a thermos flask with coffee behind the pilot.
So I imagine T-14s "bathroom" is just the good old poophatch.
@I don't know wait like the airplane
The mysterious doohickey is a gyro compass, basically because tanks are big metal boxes a magnetic compass won't work, instead you set this thing to a known heading (ie north) and the gyroscope will spin and stay on that heading no matter which way the vehicle turns, so you can always know which way north is
Improbable, first because a gyro compass needs current input to keep the rotor turning (and the doohickey is a bit small for a period gyrocompass), second because the scale is only up to 12 whereas a compass would have a degree (360) or mil (6000 or 6400) scale, and third because you CAN have a magnetic compass on a metal tank -- you just need to calibrate it. How do you think they can have magnetic compasses on iron ships if metal were a problem? Presuming this is supposed to be an Afrika Korps tank, they could also have used a sun compass like the LRDG. And finally, the guy actually doing the navigation would be the TC (or more likely a navigator in the command tank); the driver would be occupied negotiating the terrain.
@@jarmokankaanpaa6528 probability has nothing to do with it, I was stating a fact not making a guess. It's a gyro compass, called a 'kurskreisel' , my source is page 43 of the Haynes Tiger tank workshop manual.
You are correct, @@imagifyer.
I guess the magnetic center of the tank was in a very inconvenient location.
@@imagifyer I speculate that the "1 to 12" scale might be clock degrees as to more easily follow tank commanders directions if given in clock degrees. Would the lower yellow part (harder to see in the video) possibly be a 360 degree scale?
Nice to see the Panzer 3 in detail. It tends to get overlooked for the later tank but good for its day.
Beast in the desert
Its a beautiful tank and I believe especially in desert conditions it served DAK well due to its reliability where it apparently outperformed P-IV. Its the punch of the gun that gets you into trouble ofc. Mathildas etc would be a tough nut
Nicholas mentions at 13:21 a "little device" to the left front of the driver's position. The manual labels it as a "Kurskreisel" which I believe translates as gyro compass.
Was so happy to see this pop up. The Panzer III (and the Stug) were incredibly reliable, well thought out tanks. If not as powerful as later tanks. Hoping that WG also had you go through the Panzer IV, and Maybe Tiger 131.
They allready did Tiger 131.
Look it up at the Chieftains channel
Ivan Vukadin The Challenger did the Tiger, not the Cheiftain that I know of
@@ivanvukadin3194 The Chieftan has not done Tiger 131. (Many others have, but I would like his input)
I don't like the fact that they were mostly paper tanks, generally everything designated as AP will destroy them.
@@Angry-Lynx At the start of the war they were definitely not paper tanks. And they were up-armored as the war went on. Yes they were very outclassed by late model tanks, but they could still stand up to a lot of mid to lower caliber guns that were still in use.
Panzer 4 next? It's got hatch for the driver and radio operator :P
And it's the first tank with a real turret basket
@@ThePerfectRed You're a turret basket!
@@ThePerfectRed I think T-28 gets that honor, actually. Would need to check.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Oooh. That's actually pretty surprising, especially considering it's a Russian tank...and their reputation..
That would be cool, but I think it was only the 1940 design of the "conical" turret that had this. A video about the T-28 would be great!
I suppose the driver and radio operator didn’t have their own hatches because the tank was too small to accommodate them. It’s easy to forget that the Panzer III was designed as a 15 ton tank. Allied near equivalents in terms of weight were the British Cruiser III and IV, and the US M3 / M5 Light, which all had a crew of 4 men, and the Russian BT-7 and British Valentine III, which both had only 3 men.
So the Germans did a brilliant job of crew ergonomics on the Panzer III considering the small size of the tank.
Well more that the Germans figured the inconvenience was worth it for the increased protection. Hatches are weak points in the armor. The Driver and radio operator would have hatches in the front which is the most likely part to be hit.
The early marks had escape hatches for the driver and radio man on the side: deleted after this model I think. Our man here makes mention of them in the video.
These are in the hulk sides and hinge forward. There's a number of photos of knocked out tanks with the open and at least one with a crew member apparently dead gal in and half out the tank.
@@chrisgibson5267 That's absurd, women didn't serve in the Wehrmacht
It is also the reason they went for the more vertical armor. It allowed them to make a smaller tank which still fitting in 5 people.
Also the intended weight of the Panzer III was 18 tons which was the maximum weight of army bridges at the time. The British clung on to that a little more which is why the Valentine is so cramped cause they wanted it to stay under 18 tons.
I WAS WAITING SO HARD FOR THE SECOND PART TO COME!
YESS
Same here
*insert It's Been So Long meme here*
Thats what she said.
how its done? waiting hard... :D
British - Tea making machine inside their tank
German - Toilet inside their tank
"Shorter people back then"... (3:55). Considering you are 6'5", everyone was shorter back then and most still are today. ☺
He knows, he's saying it for context probably
I'm shorter than him right now but only by 3" so yeah. I've always heard that submarine crews could only be a certain height so maybe the Germans did something similar with tank crews.
@@terrystoner4504 same height as you so would i be able to be a gunner in a german tank ?
My uncle was 6’4” and a Sherman driver/ assistant driver/ bow gunner / in 712th tank battalion
@@CB65810 shermans are taller than Germans tanks but if he fit i could fit but i would prefer loader or a gunner.
Excellent video. When you see how well layed out that turret is, you can see the real reason why this tank 'over-performed' in North Africa and Russia for so long.
Please keep doing early war subjects like the panzer II or Czech designs. A day without Moran is a day without sunshine. You are such a great presenter that I would watch you evaluating make-up airbrushes or non stick cookware.
Also the Panzer III is great looking with the long 5cm gun.
In the end perhaps the panzer IV was better (due to the ability of upgrading it), but the Panzer III looks like a very capable tank.
And something of a terror in the Desert.
But then got its second wind as the Stug III
@@bigblue6917 The Stug III is arguably the most important AFV of the German army from 1942 and onwards... But it was there already in 1940.
But you are quit correct!
I agree on all accounts... Pz-III is a good looking and comfortable tank, Pz-IV is not, but Pz-IV was a MBT "work horse" thorough the WWII.
Thank you post production for lowering the music volume!
The Panzer 1 video's music was so dominating and it was really nice that I could actually listen to the Cheiftain properly in this one.
Fun fact
The boxy design of WWII German panzers was inspired by the shape of Hindenberg's head
I have been waiting for this tank for years, so many go to panther and such but I love the III. Thank you for doing the early war machines.
I didn't realize Mr. Moran was so tall. If he can fit into most of these WW2 era tanks and their crew positions fairly easily, then the crews of that time period, which were smaller and shorter in stature, would have no problem at all. It is the small details that make up this series of armored education. I almost considered being a tanker, then thought about how big a target I would be. So jumping out of airplanes and humping a ruck around didn't seem like too bad a deal. I would love to go to Bovington for a visit before I expire. Hell, all of the museums in Europe also.
9:15 the M3 Lee is making a flanking move you better move quick :)
mattmopar440 not if i have anything to say about that
@@panzerkampfwagenmark6tiger198's transmission proceeds to brake
Gafe León NEIN NOT AGAIN
That's a Grant
@@ZoSoPage1977 the Lee is American, Grant is British
For once (especially from about 1942 onwards), it looks like the Germans designed a great tank on the 'bang for the buck' scale.
I gained a lot of respect for this tank thanks to this review.
Thank you.
Maybe the azimuth indicator is so the commander can know the relative positions without completely shifting his field of vision? I can imagine the reasoning being that they want to be able to let the commander track targets without having to look away and still be able to give accurate commands to the various crewmen
Shorter people back then, yes. But they also specifically chose crewmen based on their physical ability to fit. I think Moran would have been advised to go to the infantry instead, they *wanted* smaller crew for armor and aircraft, for similar reasons. Making the tank just enough bigger to accommodate a man of 6'2" instead of 6' could easily add hundreds of pounds worth of armor hull plate, and strange as it seems, saving weight was a major consideration for tank designers. Even with the later behemoths like the Tigers, the weight was already so huge, they had to try to limit it as much as possible, and the thicker your armor is, the larger the increase is when you add a few inches to the dimensions. In aircraft, it means more material and weight, and more size means more drag (and a larger target, which is especially significant on a panzer). It is much simpler to simply be selective of your crewmen.
And yes, those are escape hatches. A person can squeeze out of a surpisingly small space when it is a matter of life or death...but yet another reason to prefer small men. Hatch openings are vulnerable weak points, and you want them as small as possible (especially on an extremely vulnerable spot like the hull side). All they needed was a space barely big enough to squeeze out of in dire emergency, it would make no sense to make them larger for comfort (or to accommodate fat crewmen) at the cost of making the whole panzer more vulnerable.
My compliments and congratulations Nicolas. You done your homework well. This will help me on scale model projects in the future.
Man, I waited for this like ages! There's a reason why this is my favourite WW2 Tank!
Thanks Chieftain, I have been eagerly awaiting part 2!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you, the Panzer 3 L is one of my favorite tanks of all times. =)
A comfortable crew would make for an effective tank I imagine.
STUG 3 NEXT EPISODE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!
YES!!!
Перевода в ближайшем десятилетии мы не дожёмся. Для русскоязычной аудитории передачу можно назвать «Учим английский вместе с Николасом Мораном»
Panzer IV! Panzer IV! Panzer IV! We need a complete tour video for Panzer IV!
(Challenger already made one for it, but I still hope there will be a complete tour for this warhorse.)
I honestly get lit to the looping guitar in the background
The Drivers and Radio Operators / Hull machine gunners hatches were located on the sides of the lower hull between the tracks on the Ausf L model . I think you could also escape in an emergency out of the differential drive shaft inspection hatches above the Drivers knees. As on the Stug 3.
Side hatches yes. The inspection hatches are too small, and you can't squeeze past the gearbox/final drive assembly anyway.
@@peterlewerin4213
Ooh Yes you can when the tanks on fire !!!
Did you see inside those hatches in part 1? I was thinking "those are literally just inspection hatches, you couldn't even fit your hands in there to work on anything", and here you are claiming a whole person could squeeze out? There is no way. The *hatch* is large enough, but there is less than six inches of space between the brakes and the hull.
@@justforever96 Hi , I have seen pictures of German Panzer Crewmen coming out of the hatch in question in front of the driver . Once you squeeze past the control leavers you open the hatch from the inside of the Panzer III / Stug and pop out. ( please note people were also alot slimmer in the 1940's)!
Access hatches for the driver/machine gunner in the hull were located on the glacis plate in front. I've seen a pic of a pz 3 driver standing in the open hatch.
No you haven't.
@@donvanduzen8944 I've seen that too.
Very Cool, Makes me have a lot of respect for all those that have served and fought in this things.
An absolutely brilliant tank for the first years of the war. Up until 1941/42 there wasn’t much that could match them, except for T34’s which were tactically inferior.
And after 41 they were an excellent basis for the STUG and as infantry support vehicle.
Imagine looking at a German tank and the turret starts traversing towards you
Why, because it's more scary if a *German* tank is shooting at you, as opposed to any other kind of tank? A tank shooting at you is bad news, no matter whose it is. Even a crewman in a Tiger II isn't laughing when he sees an M3 Light drawing a bead on him, let alone an M4 Medium. No tank is invulnerable, all have weak points and can be very deadly to the crew. Tanks don't even like being under MG fire if they can help it. For those *not* in a tank, even a light tank is a terrifying prospect. To infantrymen, even the worst of Italian tanks can be a monstrous beast. With the right weapons and training infantry can deal with tanks, but they are always something to be afraid of.
Seeing as the driver has no hatch to poke his head through the designers had no choice but to give him a generous vision block.
Finally, was beginning to wonder if there ever was to be a part 2.
Now...the music. In the last video I couldn't see/hear the issue that so many commented on, but in this video, the music *really* is distracting. Not too big on background music in general, but we sort of have to live with it (its a fad), but could you please tone it down a few notches? Its too loud compared to his voice, which is what we come for; information over noise.
Other than that, refreshing to see a tank with good ergonomics for a change ;)
To put german males of the period into perspective:
My step-grandfather (maternal) was a WW2 german tanker (Panzer IV and Panther). He was considered a BIG GUY both in hight and shoulder width. He was 182cm in hight and visibly bigger than his crew
My geandfather (paternal) was seen as a giant at 192cm, towering a head over his fellow miners on pictures.
And even at 190cm today I am well above average for a german male (177cm for german my age, 179cm for age 18-30)
It good to remember that the Pz.Kpfw III not only had better ergonomics but it had a number of first regarding tanks: it was the first to understand the importance of having a three manned turret to divide the workload in a more logic way, it was the first to recognize the importance to give good view to the crew with the hatches closed so it was fitted armored glass all around with an cupola with an all-around view for commander, it was the first to be regularly fitted with the intercom system permitting a excellent coordination among the crew altrough the loader was not connected for ease of movement, and finally it was the first to have torsion bars permitting a relatively smooth ride on rough terrain. Compare it, with the exception of the Pz.Kpfw IV, to the contemporary tanks then in production in other countries to get an overall picture...
The Neubaufahrzeugs turret, wich became a huge influence for the turret on the Pz3 and 4, already had the 3 man configuration with the commander elevated in the back.
But you could still say the Pz3 was the first to bring that turret design to a mass produced tank.
@@zafranorbian757 interesting, as I didn't know that the turret of the Neubaufahrze had a three man-crew. Thanks for the heads up!!
Oh bugger, that guitar riff again! Let's escape before my ears burn!
(otherwise, great review of a really smart tank!)
I like it
Cosimo Piovasco looks comfy
Music is much to loud. Rather hear what he is saying. It's a distraction!
Honestly, wiggling into the driver seat without a hatch looked much easier than going through many other tanks that had a drivers hatch. Didn’t notice him having to do any twisting or bending, or shoulder dislocating, can’t say that for some other tanks.
If the Pz. III is so close to perfect I'd imagine the Pz. IV is going to be arguably perfect, takes everything the Pz. III does wrong and makes it right.
Great tour of the Panzer III, thank you!
I once read that the latest version of the Pzkmpf III with the short barrel 75mm was produced to be a support tank for the Tiger I units, messenger tank ect. However that very fast turned out to be a bad idea. The best support for a Tiger was another Tiger.
If Panzer IV production had been numerous enough. I'm sure all Panzer III hulls would have been given over to Stug production early in the war. That combination with either Tiger Mk1 or another, would have given the USSR a real problem. The resources wasted on Panther, Tiger II and the other crazies lost the production of the workhorse vehicles. With more tanks available, the German armies could have reached much needed oil reserves before halting for the winter and consolidating. The T34 and KV's were a shock but very difficult to both operate, coordinate and keep running.
Don't get me wrong. I'm so pleased the Germans never achieved their full potential. But but with hindsight the allies were very lucky Hitler was a drug addicted megalomaniac. Had he "died" in 1941 and been replaced by Erich Von Manstein or similar. Who know what would have happened?
Very informative review of Panzer III
8:40 look at the soldiers looking into the tank 😅
Ok, the tank is in fire! For many Panzer 3s they had a hull escape hatch on each side. He even showed it on this one. The later ones. Didn’t have them.
It is the GUNNER that was lucky to have his own hatch.
Most LOADERS always had their own hatch.
WHAT!!!!! No side escape hatch test?!?!?!?!?!?!
@@razor1uk610 For that you do not need such big hatches... they appear to be too small for people and too large for anything else. Earlier versions had pistol ports, they were way smaller. Plus there was the bottom hatch for other uses.
@@razor1uk610 I've heard of shooting gold rounds, but this is ridiculous!
He was impressed. The panzer 111 was the James bonds of tanks in that era
Looking at the turret hatches and the ergonomics inside the hull a "Oh booger, the tank is on fire" test from the hull would probably be quicker than some of the other tanks, where he got stuck. Not having a hatch for the people is pretty horrible, but if you were to build one without them, this is probably the best you can do.
The timer was for torpedo launches. Just joking.
Greetings and thanks from Germany.
It's a German tank. So maybe to time the Bratwurst cooker?
Tended to get overlooked in the dessert the old torpedo. They did come up with a clockwork one on wheels but by then the Afrika Corp had run out of Africa.
@@beersmurff as a german you know when your bratwurst is done !
I thought only TOG II had torpedoes.
staplafara QA
Hey, mr chieftain, it would be interesting to see a video on a type 63 apc, or a panzer 4 brumbarr. Your knowledge and research is second to none. Great video.
This is why the mk3 lasted till 1943-great design, functionality and thus speed of fring
Why is there music playing when he's talking?????
Panzer 4 now? Please?
There we go...
ua-cam.com/video/SPemWeDBgF0/v-deo.html
@@RussianThunderrr no we want Tank Jesus to do the Panzer 4!
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The hatch in the floor is also for hosing out the gore of the previous crew if needed. I read about one becoming blocked with a skull and the guy cleaning it had to hop in and remove the skull so he could keep hosing.
Cool story bro
StuG III please!!
lol having a potty hole inside a flipping tank is the uttermost luxury at those times
lol
I'm proud that I knew that 18 years ago about the 39 versus the 40
Thanks for the video just a suggestion is to have close up shots from the crew position and details
I think I'll hear the background music in my head in my sleep
This video's audio was decent enough that I could hear it. The Panzer 1's audio mixing haunts my nightmares
Really great vidéos!!! I am doing a Das Werk 1/16 Panzer 3 ausf J
Glad to see all the details.
Thank you for finally coming out with part 2.
Finally, I can never ever find a video on the panzer 3 interior
excellent report
You keep saying the loader has no seat, but I cannot believe that is true. The guy has to ride around in this thing for hours, days at a time, usually not in combat, just on route march. He must have something to sit on besides the floor and the hatch sill. I have heard of a bicycle-style removable seat for other Panzer types, and I suspect the same here. It can be easily removed and stowed for combat, and allows more room for movement should he need to start slinging ammunition suddenly.
As a guy with claustrophobia I salute your ability to get into that thing
if this scares you, try the long, small and dark tunnel the T-54 driver has to get trew to get to the drivers position.
All the German victorious campaigns were with this tank. That should tell you something about proper tank building philosophy.
Col., I see the boys at Bovington chained the MG-34 to the mount, so you couldn't liberate it.
Panzer IV next please :)
0:41 That MG34 is the standard infantry version - a Panzer wouldn't use it. There was a Panzer version.
5:28 The word "traverse" refers to rotating the turret to move the gun sideways. The word you're looking for is "elevation".
06:40 "periscopic sight" is wrong. That little port was for shooting flares through.
7:00 While discussing the gunner's position, it would be helpful to explain how he fires the gun! There's a trigger, there are indicator lamps, and there's a backup battery if it goes wrong - you don't show us any of this!
9:00 "These boxes here" are the power transformer for the radio receiver, the first-aid box, a box of MG ammunition, and the transformer for the radio transmitter.
13:25 "My guess is that this is a timer".... Just about every type of Panzer had this standard electrical gyroscope. It's well documented. It acts as a compass, it doesn't have a timer function.
Specially armoured MG34 were mounted in front.
@@AKUJIVALDO Sorry if I did not make myself clear. A tank crew would want ONLY the armoured version of the MG34. Because it could be used both as an AA defence and mounted in the tank's ports. The flexibility made it more useful to them than an ordinary MG34.
You know it has begun when you hear that music.
At the beginning of WW2, namely the battle for France, they had the much less effective 37 mm gun.
2:03 is that a stirrup in the side of the 5cm ammo box to possibly allow the commander head out operation without exposing his torso?
P-III impresses me more and more. Apart from the escape hatches for driver and funker ..they dont have emergency hatches either? I believe I have read somewhere that P-III
was a favorite in DAK because of its reliability. The problem ofc was the punch of the gun.
there were originally escape hatches in the side of the hull, though they were super tiny and were removed on later models.
In Sweden the tank driver have the task of counting the time we're exposed in a fiering position for example. You dont want to be exposed more than 60 sec or so
Do you know why the top speed is listed as 40 km/h? The Soviets acquired a Pz III for testing in 1939, and found that it could go 60 km/h or more, faster than the T-34, thanks to its torsion bar suspension
I've also heard this, with an explanation.
It's thought that it had more to do with the Russians lack of respect for the machine, ie pushing it past its designers specification.
Finally!
I have to say, this is all I wanted for christmas
AWESOME! I was waiting 4 this! The panzer III ausf H is my favorite tank of the war. And something to remember is it was with this tank that the wehrmacht did achieve it's best victories. Large push ups like the french campaign or the early manouvers of barbarroja would been unreacheable with the rate of malfunctions of the tiger or the panther. This was the tool wich come closer to achieve Hitler's dreams. As allways, a big fat Thank you for the video, Nicholas! It was better than i espected.
It was with this tank that the Wehrmacht achieved its *only* victories. Retiring the Pz III from its original role coincided with the Germans going into sustained defense/retreat. (I'm obviously not saying they should have stuck to the Pz III to avoid losing.)
It's my favorite WWII tank too. One of the very first tanks that wasn't just a lumbering tin can monster, and throughout its career its crews consistently defeated tanks that were, on paper, superior to it. The little tank that could, until it couldn't any more.
The hull escape hatches were deleted in the later production models of this tank I think mid way through the “J” spec model. Possibly that is why they are very blocked up as they have moved things around in the hull with the adoption of the larger gun and bigger ammunition.
It was really a tremendous “ Main Battle Tank “ for 1940. It would have been devastating with the 50mm that Adolf specified from the beginning. The invasion of the USSR might have been even faster destruction.
Why are you at a leisure center? Youll see im rather exposed... Because im standing up, and im a giant!!!
When russians shot the cupola off the commander loses his head - what a nice solution to a problem.
Its 50mm monolith piece, being cast homogeneous armor and having round shape factual effective armor is equivalent to a 200mm rolled plate. Its easier to shoot off the rest of the tank than the cupola.
The Panzer III was so good there were no bloopers.
Apart from describing the gun's elevation as traverse....;-)
In certain days Bovington tank museum sells tickets to ride in that tank
Really would like to see Nick do a video on Tiger I.
Apparently, the wooden Challenger has already done one... So its probably not first priority.
Such a beautiful tank. This and Pz 4 is probably the reason why i don't progress in my Tech tree.
It is hard not to like the Panzer III.
Amazing -- a thank Sir Chieftain actually likes!!!
Excellent, and I agree that the PzKmpfw III is an underappreciated tank. After all, Germany's greatest successes in WWII all occurred while the PzKmpfw III was their main battle tank (and the PzKmpfw IV was a support tank).
I was quite surprised with the proximity of the recoil guard to the commander's legs. Was this a compromise when the L/60 gun replaced the L/42 gun? Or was it a design flaw (inconvenience?) from the outset.
Finally, I think that the PzKmpfw III in 1940 had the 37mm gun, so it was inadequately armed, IMHO. However, by Barbarrossa, all PzKmpfw IIIs had the 50mm L/42 & it may be fair to say that in 1941 it was the best tank in the world that was available in impactful quantities (so the T-34/76 wouldn't count).
Looking forward to your next video!
Tank crewmen were much smaller back in WWII.
Did they make a sport model?
German tankers could go to the toilet on a trench spade and then throw the waste out of the ejection port. Standard practice among panzer crews whe buttoned up.
Just one look at this tank and you realize why Moran thinks the Sherman was an underappreciated fighting vehicle.
Can you please put the camera up to the cupola and weapon/driver sights so we can get an idea of the Commander and crewman view please?? Would definitely add more to the video, I would love to see that!
Too bad the camera didn't go along with some of the details. I am most interested in the gunner sight and other equipment panels.
Pz 3 was my most favourite tank. I even make a semi sci-fi upgrade depiction of it by having a turret of a Comet tank (bit modified of course for the gun) and swap the gun with 7,5 kwk 39 gun so that it has more room inside and included modern upgrade such as modern gun sight, digital battlefield system, etc etc. Btw, how much weight a Comet turret has? Oh and any specific on the dimension of it?
Anyway I really really love the video, and it is kinda painful of a wait for part 2 :))
They don't even have the same turret ring diameter. If you could easily make a Pz III ring larger, they would have done so, and to reduce the diameter of the Comet turret would defeat the whole purpose and make it impossible to fit the larger gun (never mind that reengineering it to that extent would basically involve designing a whole new turret, so you might as well just design a whole new turret; the whole point of using an existing one is to use up existing stocks or at least tooling and molds instead of setting up a whole new production line).
What you are describing is fantasy, not sci-fi. Sci stands for science, which means it is based on plausible, reality-based (or potentially real) scenarios. Fantasy can be fun as well, but they aren't the same thing. And dropping a Comet turret on a PzIII chassis is fantasy.
Stug III next
Tiger II, STUG III or panzer 4 next?