M3 Medium Tank vs Panzer III: Kasserine Pass 1943

Great books

"Kirby could see the panzers coming through his periscope, which was just high enough to see over the wadi's edge. His gun could not be brought to bear -- yet. The firing order blared over the radio, and US guns began to crack, including their own 37mm -- for what it was worth."Gordon L. Rottman is the author of "M3 Medium Tank vs. Panzer III: Kasserine Pass 1943", the 10th book in Osprey's popular Duel series. The veteran author does a suitable job of analyzing and contrasting the American built M3 medium tank and the German Mark III. "Duel 10" is clearly written, well illustrated and is a fast read.Mr. Rottman's discussion comprises the design, layout, and development of these tanks, their crew assignments, their respective army units, and their deployment. "Duel 10" concludes with a clash between the two rival tanks -- The Battle of Kasserine Pass.With a total output of 5,688, the Mark III was Germany's most produced panzer. In 1937, for compatibility reasons, the Mark III was assigned the new high velocity 37mm gun. The Mark III was first upgraded to the short 50mm in June 1940 after battling the rugged French Char B tank. Later the main gun was upgraded again to the long 50mm, in response to the threat of the formidable Russian T-34 tank in 1941.In 1939, realizing that no current tank matched up with the German panzers rolling through Poland, US designers hurriedly began development of the unorthodox high-profile M3 medium tank.After reports that German panzers had crushed France were analyzed, the US Army Ordinance Committee demanded that a 75mm gun be incorporated into the M3 tank -- somehow.This cobbled together M3 would serve in the interim until the faster, more reliable M4 Sherman could be made available in February 1942.The M3 medium tank ably served with the British Army in North Africa, starting in May 1942. While other units had already converted to the M4 Sherman medium tank, the 2nd Battalion, 1st US Armored Division still was using M3s during the Battle of Kasserine Pass. In the Far East Theater, Commonwealth M3s served against the Japanese in India, Burma, and Borneo.The author is unwilling to name either tank as the superior weapon. In analysis of the tanks, Mr. Rottman argues, "The M3 tank was rife with flaws, some fatal." The most predominate drawback was its very high profile. The M3 was much easier to see and a much larger target than the Mark III.Another obvious disadvantage of the M3 tank was that the sponson-mounted 75mm main gun could only fire forward and be aimed from side-to-side with 30 degrees of total adjustment. In order to fire the 75mm main gun at a target, over half the M3 must be exposed to the enemy. The M3 commander's job was further complicated by the responsibility for two guns.Most of the M3 tank's armor plate was riveted on -- if a shell struck a rivet head, the rivet shaft could be turned into deadly shrapnel inside the tank. Also bullets and shell fragments could enter the tank through the seams of the side hatches.In judging the M3's armament, Mr. Rottman points out that the machine gun in the cupola was unable to track attacking aircraft and the secondary 37mm was of little value against German tanks. On the positive side, both the 37mm and 75mm guns were gyro stablised and the powerful 75mm main gun could knock out any German tank.The Mark III's design has few flaws in comparison with the M3. Of note, it lacked gyro stabilised guns and could not fire accurately while moving. Also the turret rotation must be done manually.By having two-way radios in all German tanks, the author feels the Mark III panzers had an advantage over the M3s. Mr. Rottman argues, "By allowing all tanks to transmit, the Germans were more responsive and able to pass information up the chain-of-command which surely enhanced German combined arms tactics."Through superior logistics, the US Army was able to quickly replace any M3 losses. In contrast, the German Army had no spare tanks, crewmen, or trucks. Often they would use captured equipment.I found the section on the daily life of tankers to be best part of the book. This is an insider's view of each crewman's day-to-day duties and experiences that I have not seen in other books.The author gives us an eye witness account of armored combat in North Africa. Through the experiences of German panzer radio operator Baldur Kohler and M3 gunner Paul Kirby, the reader re-lives the opening round of this confusing tank battle.In summary and analysis of the battle, the author argues that the defeat of the US Army at Kasserine Pass was due to American inexperience at all levels more so than marked inferiority of the M3 tank.The US armored forces were inadequately prepared to meet the seasoned German panzers. Mr. Rottman believes that US Army units were too scattered on the battlefield to be effective. He states, "American doctrine, tactics, and techniques at the time were guilty of unrealistic expectations with inadequate preparation."Mr. Rottman argues that by only practicing in staged exercises, the US Army leadership had not developed skills necessary to make timely battlefield decisions -- this comes only with combat experience. "They were unprepared for the speed of events, the confusion, the loss of contact between units, and nonlinear dispositions".The US Army did learn well -- Kasserine Pass was the last German victory in the North Africa campaign."M3 Medium Tank vs. Panzer III: Kasserine Pass 1943" includes a great number of interesting photographs, color illustrations, diagrams, and three adequate maps of the Battle of Kasserine Pass.

This is my first experience with the Osprey Duel collection. Although the cover gives the impression that there is going to be some talk about the performance of each of these tanks in combat with each other (and there were numerous encounters between them starting with the Gazala battles and ending in Tunisia) it is in fact really just some kind of parallel lives treatment, but that in itself is welcome in giving many details about these two machines. Interestingly enough, at the time of the battle narrated in this book, neither of these tanks were the best in their respective country's arsenal.By the time the Pz. III met the M3 in the summer of 1942, the Pz.III was looking long in tooth, having been designed in 1937 and already outmoded by competition it met in the form of the T-34. However a great degree of foresight prevented the Pz III from being completely obsolete, the degree of command and control as well as coordination and teamwork fostered by the layout and design of the Pz III still made it formidable, especially against lesser trained opponents. However at the time of Kasserine, the upgunned Pz IVf2 ("Mark 4 Special") was the best tank in the Panzerwaffe.The M3 was a stopgap solution to getting a good heavy 75mm gun into the field at a time when all British tanks carried the pathetic 40mm 2pdr. However the placement of that gun in a sponson with limited traverse was a major liability. When the M4 Sherman came along in time for the Alamein push, the M3 was destined for the knacker's yard, until a good number of the US inventory of Shermans were destroyed in the approach from Algeria to Tunisia and M3s (in the form of the Lee version, mostly featured in this book) had to take up the slack on the front line.There is a lot of interesting talk about the engineering and design of both machines. The illustrations, gunner's views and interviews with veterans of both types makes this book worthwhile. If you buy Osprey books to figure out how to paint your models, this book won't be much help to you, it only covers one battle. If you want to figure out how these tanks, the Pz III and M3 Lee fought as individual types and how the men fighting in them operated in the field and closed in on their targets to take them out, this is a good book to read.

Normally I would give a book such as this a 4 or 5 star rating because it really was a good, well rounded book. But like a tanker complaining about bad chow, I am considering what is important to me. As in other books put out by Osprey, the topic is well researched backed up by the usual maps, photos, and when possible, interviews of participants.Words and terminology were stated here. I couldn't help but laugh at the explanation of German military terms. No offense meant to my German friends but I don't know why they say, in German of course, "Divisionallighttankusedforreconnaissance" in one word when they are talking about a "Divisional light tank used for reconnaissance." In a similar manner I can't figure out why so much US military stuff is called "M1." I mean, you have the M1 Garand rifle, M1 Carbine, M1 helmet, M1 Abrams tank, and probably the M1 pillow. In reality, in combat, the US tankers referred to their M3 Medium Tank simply as the "M3" whereas the Germans called their Panzerkampwagen MK III the "Panzer III." BTW, the British simply assigned American Civil War generals' names to the various US tanks. The M3 as used by the British with a turret of their design was called the Grant while the one the US used was called the Lee.These M3 and the Panzer IIIs were used against each other at the Battle of Kasserine Pass in 1943. It was the last victory for Rommel and his Afrika Korps. The reasons for the initial US losses were covered. The Germans captured a lot of equipment but few tanks. One reason being that a US armor piercing round (AP) was a solid shot. It punched through the armor killing and destroying whatever was in its way. German AP rounds had an explosive filler and bursting charge. A penetrating round brewed up (burned) an American tank with a gasoline engine. Anyone who has watched the movie "Fury" will know what I am talking about. Now for my complaint. There are books dedicated to the M3, the Panzer III, as well as the Kasserine Pass in the Osprey series. I felt that too much space was wasted on the tank development and production processes, nor did the author have to give so much battlefield background information. I would have preferred more interesting tidbits about the two tanks. Also, there are pictures of tank main gun ammunition, but no explanation. For instance, did you know that the 37mm M52 APC (armor piercing capped) was for shooting at light armor, that the M63 HE (high explosive) was for blowing up stuff, and that the M2 canister was like a giant shotgun shell? Without peeking at Wikipedia, I am not sure of the difference between the German 5cm Pzgr 39 and the Pzgr 40, and I know this stuff.Overall, it was a good book, but being as I paid for it, I was just a teeny bit disappointed.

This volume of the 'duel' series compares two medium tanks, the M3 Lee/Grant versus the PzKpfW III.What I found interesting was the development of the odd-looking M3. Incredibly, the U.S. had no tank force when the war started, just a design for the remarkable M2 tank with a central 37 mm gun turret and 4 machine guns in sponson turrets at each corner. Only a few of these tanks were built as the Americans correctly deduced from the Polish and French campaigns, that much more heavy armament was called for. The M3 design was rushed through, based very much on the M2, but with a 75 mm gun in the hull (which necessitated moving the driver over to the left from a central position in the M2). The hull position of the gun was inevitable given the time pressure, as no turret was available for this size of gun. The result was a rather bulky tank with a high profile and limited movement of the main gun.It had various good qualities though: at the time it was used, a 75 mm gun was a real improvement over what the British tanks had (mainly 2 pounders; 40 mm). The high profile did mean that the crew had at least some space and comfort inside, and perhaps most importantly, the tank was reliable (despite the cobbled together design and despite the hasty production; a testament to American engineering and industrial capacity). Also, it could be produced in huge numbers: in just one year, from mid 1941 to mid 1942 the Americans produced about as many M3s as the Germans produced Panzer IIIs in the six years from 1937 to 1943 (and the Panzer III was Germany's second most produced tank). Even if the Lee/Grant was already removed from active service in the European theater in 1943 (it only fought in Africa, from the battles of Gazala through Alamein to Tunisia), much of the chassis design lived on in the Sherman.Interestingly, turning out this amount of tanks in such a short time involved some compromises: in order to prevent bottlenecks from the production of aircraft engines (the M3 used a 9 cylinder radial aircraft engine) some M3 variants were produced using 2 truck diesel engines, and others an amazing array of 5 gasoline car engines in a star-shaped arrangement.On balance, all other things being equal, I'd rather be in a Panzer III with the long 50 mm gun (in a proper turret) than in an M3, especially because of the lower profile. On the other hand, I would argue that the M3 has the more appealing esthetics compared to the rather ordinary looking, businesslike Panzer III.On the book itself: I did not see a lot of added value compared to Wikipedia. Much of the text is fairly bland and might have been replaced by more photos or sketches. Other reviewers have found numerous errors. My 5 cents: if the writer is right that the M3's 75 mm gun had no HE charge on its armour piercing ammunition while the German 50 mm AP rounds did have an explosive charge, and that this was a real differentiator, then this information should have been presented in the relevant technical sections rather than suddenly popping up in the conclusions.