I am currently looking for another Panzer III kit, like the one pictured below.
It is a Panzer III Ausf J w/Pak 38 . This tank also has the armor plate ring around the turret but did not incorporate the skirts. Anyone know of a 1/35 kit offering??
Could also be a Panzer III Ausf L


I guess the easiest thing would to just kitbash a Tamiya Pak 38 anti-tank barrel into a Dragon Panzer III kit?

Hi David,

That is a strange looking Panzer III J were did you find this? Is it a what if, or a field mod? If it is just the barrel you want to change I think you could pick up an RB barrel for a resonable price.

Regards,

Rod

I'm curious as well, as the III was not able to handle the longer-barreled guns the way the IV could. It's why the Germans diverted the III production line to StuGs and even refurbished damaged IIIs as StuGs IIRC.

Not sure if there is truth to it but I like they way it looks lol.

So it looks like you just have to add a 50mm muzzle brake from a Puma or something. Otherwise, it's a standard J.

Gents:

I am a little confused here...

Installing a 5.0cm gun was actually designed into the III from the first - the turret and ace were designed for that larger gun (but not for a much-larger 7.5cm gun). The anticipated 5.0cm gun was not ready when III hit production as the Ausf E, so the tank originally came with that puny 3.7cm PaK 36 AT gun (mounted as the KwK 36 L/45).

The 50mm (5.0cm)PaK 38 - developed in late 1938 but actually entering service only from 1941 (no PaK 38 in France, 1940, apparently!) - was, best of my knowledge, the gun installed, minus that muzzle-brake, on the later F up to J as the 5.0cm KwK 38 L/42. This was later, in the late III-J+ tanks, upgraded to the longer (and higher-velocity = harder-hitting longer reach) KwK 39 L/60 gun. Both 5.0cm KwK guns used the same ammo as that of the trailed PaK 38.

The pic looks to be a mid+ production Ausf H. That would have been the likely test-bed, I think, for bringing the now-in-service 5.0cm PaK 38 to the III "table" in early 1942. There should likely have been little problem putting that gun into the III, as the turret and race were already designed to accept that larger weapon over the 3.7cm door-knocker.

Note that this PaK 38 installation was not a production version, nor some field-shop conversion - and probably few were fielded as seen in the photo. The pic shows what was likely the pre-production test-bed prototype for a 5.0cm - gunned III that would become the early J (and retro-fitted to upgrade some H), as suggested by it being shown to Adolf...

IF that artwork pic is near correct, this would be on an "H / early J hull" given the hull hatches. The spaced armor and turret schurzen (only available in 1943...)suggests the J - however, as all J had the 5.0cm KwK, there would be little point in swapping in the PaK 38 to replace... itself!. Of course, the art could "capture" the prototype after a bit of service and some upgrading, like later adding schurzen... All very interesting!

As mentioned by others - just get and fit an RB barrel - it'll certainly look mighty cool!

Bob

I'm not sure. The J used the 5 cm KwK 39 L/60. The PAK 38 is totally different gun, same caliber...with a muzzle break. 5 cm Panzerabwehrkanone 38 (L/60)

Hello David,

I'm pretty sure this is not a 50mm Pak 38, I have seen pics of this before and it is a 75mm tungsten core squeeze bore gun . Many of you may know of the smaller 2.8 version modeled by Dragon and Bronco and on the Bronco 221armored car. This is a larger version and this is the experimental mounting on the Pz III J . The Germans stopped using these weapons as the special tungsten was hard to obtain and too expensive to produce. Hope this helps.

Brian

I doubt that the pictured gun and tank are of the 7.5cm PaK 41 mounted in any Pz III - it's perhaps possible that this was tried, but I cannot find any mention of that - but whether or not they tried it, I strongly doubt that the pics are of any such trial...

The 7.5cm / 5.5 cm Gerlich-principle "squeeze-bore" PaK 41 gun - specimen preserved at Ft. Nelson, BC, Canada. The following image, borrowed from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:75_mm_PaK_41fort_nelson2010.JPG

and posted here For Discussion Purposes Only:




This is one of about 150 or so of these very rare guns made - this weapon was extremely different from any other 7.5cm type AT gun, in that it's barrel was built up of three (3) distinctly different sections, it's muzzle-brake was a very different design than any used on either Pak 38 or Pak 40 guns, the mount was different, as it was built from a sort of spherical mount sandwiched between the gun-shield plates, and of course it fired a very different cartridge and shot - one with a tungsten core. Externally, the obvious differences are that barrel - a straight cylindrical form without any external taper but rather complexly-formed steps for the joins (this barrel being built from 3 sections joined together) - and it's very special muzzle-brake. Dimensionally, the PaK 41 gun itself was both a little heavier and longer than was the PaK 40 (which was longer and heavier in barrel than the PaK 38).

Notably, the guns seen in both the artwork pic and that tank photo do not in any way appear similar to this weapon. They do, however, closely match the form (and size, relative to the tank) of the 5.0cm PaK 38.

The Pz III turret-race was never designed to be large enough to allow mounting any 7.5cm gun with its longer recoil space and longer cartridge needing more loader room. The commander, sitting central behind this gun would have it in his lap. This why there were no 7.5cm AT gun Pz III. The Germans already knew that they would not be able to successfully mount the 7.5cm PaK 40 into the Pz III, and directed the adapted versions of that weapon to arming Pz IV, with its larger race, and swapping in the short-barrel / short cartridge / short recoil L/24 7.5cm short guns to Pz III.

Bob

Hello Bob,

I have scanned the page with this pictured tank from the Encyclopedia of German Tanks by Thomas Jentz ( whom I consider the best a great loss to our hobby ). All I can say is that I took the word of Mr. Jentz over anybody else as Gospel. Hopefully I can post the pic this will be my first picture posting on this site.

Brian

OK Gang,

I need help uploading a picture? Can someone please explain how to get my pic from my kit maker gallery to my post?

Brian

If you go to my photo button on top of this post the pic is there , I do not know how to put it in my post as of yet?

Here's your picture:



...as Schultze would say, "Interesting, very interesting".

Hi,

I also found a small paragraph in Spielbergers Pz III and Varients book in the Chapter on Armaments . Just a small note on the Waffe 0725 gun experimented with but lack of supplies ended the experiment.

Brian

Thanks Bob,

How do I post my pic into the post?


Brian

Brian, there may be a different way, but I right click on the picture and hit "copy the URL". When you do your reply hit the IMG button below the reply window and insert the URL between the tags.

Brian;

I cannot pick any fight with Mr. Jentz, being as he is no longer here with us, and indeed I generally accept what he reported as being reliable and true. However, we have us one of those delightful moments where the same pic is posted with two different claims or legends about it! Whichever you want to believe is up to you. The fact is, you have two different answers to the same question...

Plate 974 is clearly NOT of any sort of PaK 41 - but is labeled what I'll bet as correct - i.e., a 5.0cm KwK 39 L/60 - the long-barrel derivative of the 5.0cm PaK 38 later used in Pz III later marks. I'll accept Jentz on this one. Note that it has that characteristic barrel taper associated with the PaK 38, KwK 39 types, and the 7.5cm PaK 40 and its tank-mounted derivatives.

Plate 976 is the same pic David posted above, but with a different legend. By me, the legend David posted with it rings as being much more likely. That is definitely an externally - tapered barrel with a characteristic muzzle-brake of the general form used on the PaK 38. And it LOOKS, to me, just like a PaK 38 barrel - barrel shape, muzzle-brake, and overall size.

Whatever Jentz's "Waffe 0725" was, the gun shown in David's pic / Plate 976 bears very little semblance to that PaK 41 Gerlich-principle gun - which again is a non-tapered barrel with clear sectional joins and a very different muzzle-brake. Conversely, unless somehow that "Waffe 0725" was an altogether different gun than the PaK 41 - and a strangely undersized one for a 7.5cm weapon, at that - it was not that gun shown mounted on the Plate 976 Pz III. That one just does not visually measure up in any regards to being a 7.5cm/5.5cm PaK 41.

Just my observations and opinion!

I'll still vote for that Plate 976 / David's "III with 5.0cm PaK 38" as being exactly as labeled - a III with a standard PaK 38 mounted (as a testbed).

Cheers!

Bob

I have looked all over and cannot find any Pak 38 or any 5cm gun with that Muzzle break. The Pak 38 and the 234/2Puma had a double baffle with the second baffle larger than the first . This Pz III pic has a baffle the exact opposite the second baffle is smaller in dia than the first baffle . Also have read that the long barreled 50 mm gun prototype was first shown to Hitler in March of 41 , if this very first long 50 was the Pak 38 then this picture has Vorpanzer wich was not installed until March of 42 . I must admit I have been studying this subject all day and still have many questions and unsurities about it . There just is not any real good info on this matter to make a positive decision in my opinion and until I am shown positive proof that Jentz is wrong I will trust his knowledge. Also the pics that David posted and you keep referring to and claiming correct , I never saw what reference they actually came from? I looked up Waffe 0725 and Pz III squeeze bore and anything else I could on the web and found many diff thoughts and notes but none were actual references. I do know that Both Jentz and Spielberger both state that the Waffe 0725 was experimentally mounted on the Pz III. I do not know the actual facts on this but I do know what I have read from very reputable sources. Bob I truly am in great pleasure in talking about this and do not wish to appear rude in anyway I actually love investigating such things and I do find Pros and cons on both sides of our debates and hope that more real info can be obtained. Take care and happy modeling.

Brian

At this point, it seems that we may be "debating" two or perhaps 3 different things all within one discussion!

Let's separate out things a bit: 1) The pics posted of that oddly-armed Pz III with some sort of long-barrel gun with a mono-baffle muzzle-brake - and how it is identified, 2) the existence of some German WWII 7.5cm taper-bore (or squeeze-bore) AT gun, and 3) the particulars of some "experimental gun" called "waffe 0725".

The first item was a likely reality - there was indeed at least one Pz III apparently armed with some tapered-barrel (NOT confused with taper-bore) long gun with a fairly conventional-looking mono-baffle muzzle-brake. That's the subject David seeks to build. That configuration appears to have existed - so the appearance can at least be potentially modeled. The debate for the modeler would be how to get the barrel - as it looks to be more the size of a PaK 38 than a PaK 40, one could at least consider appproaching that configuration as "a 5.0cm PaK 38 or similar-sized gun and style" mounted on his Pz III.

The second item - 7.5 cm PaK 41 - is pretty well documented and there exist numerous photos of the Krupp gerlich-principle 7.5cm tapered-bore gun. And at least one available specimen (Ft. Nelson, BC, CAN.). That is the ONLY 7.5cm tapered-bore gun ever remarked on or described in any reference site I can find. That PaK 41 gun was larger than a 7.5cm PaK 40 (170+ inch barrel compared to 146 inch PaK 40 barrel) and way larger than any PaK 38 (126 inch barrel), as heavy as a PaK 40, and came with a very special and different barrel configuration (no external taper, sectional tube, atypical muzzle-brake), very different mount, etc. The PaK 41, while rare, is well-described and documented and there exist several photos of them in service and parked. ALL photos conform to that Ft. Nelson specimen in appearance. This was the only reported 7.5cm tapered-bore weapon... Notably, this gun cannot be visually confused with the gun on any Panzer III or IV photo that is posted here (and I've not found any photo showing this gun ever being tested or mounted on any tank.) It should be pretty apparent to all that whatever that gun on David's Pz. III was, it was NOT any 7.5cm PaK 41 Gerlich-principle gun. Ideally all debate of that should cease!

The third item - "waffe 0725" - is a different matter and, as there is no available info nor documentation, other than that photo, to access about it, something of a rather pointless diversion, here. Nobody can say with any certainty WHAT w-0725 was. And as that photo comes from two different places with two different stories... all are left voting their preference opinion about which story is right and none the technically-wiser after voting is done! Seems pretty idle, if you ask me!

So... the tank with its odd-looking gun was real, and that odd gun not being a PaK 41 also evident and real, and no other 7.5cm taper-bore gun being reported is evident and likely real- we are left to massage our thinking, here.

Did someone actually try to make ANOTHER 7.5cm taper-bore gun - a "competitor design"? I suppose anything is remotely possible, but as Krupp had the monopoly on the Tungsten, Dr. Gerlich worked for Krupp, and Krupp built that PaK 41, it seems unlikely that there was yet another made by someone different. No record appears to support that in any way. One might also consider why Krupp built that PaK 41 the way they did - sectional barrel, no external taper, etc. Making a taper-bore is very difficult and costly, and being larger did not simplify things. Krupp didn't make this thing so large or with such a complex barrel design because they wanted to impress someone. The "monobloc" construction used on the much much smaller 28/20mm s. PzB 41 squeeze-bore gun was apparently not practical for this larger-cal gun. It would be mighty odd that someone else could have somehow quietly (and without any apparent record!) made a smaller (presumably also lighter...), simpler 7.5cm monobloc taper-bore gun. And, for our discussion here, we NEED to posit that someone did do just that, IF we "want" that Pz. III "w-0725" pic to represent an "experimental 7.5cm tapered-bore gun"! If this alternative design were smaller and lighter and simpler to make, folks probably would have "jumped" on it, and surely we should be able to find out about it? But whatever the real case was, we currently know nothing, and may never know much, about that "waffe 0725", whatever it may have been.

Cheers!

Bob