Medium Panther and heavy T-4. About the German designations of technology

Is it true that during the Second World War the Germans classified Tanks gun caliber? Did they consider the Pz.Kpfw.IV a heavy tank, and the Panther a medium one? It would seem that many photographs of the original documents are available, and the Panzer Tracts book series contains entire lists of designations with dates. However, people still repeat the old misconceptions, which is clearly seen in the discussions on the Internet. Some are trying to adapt the Soviet approach to classification, while others invent a classification for the Germans on the go. What unites these misconceptions is the lack of reliance on original documents, on how the Germans themselves called their equipment.

In this article, we will consider the German approach to the designations of armored vehicles, tanks and self-propelled guns. All examples are taken from photographs of documents and books in the Panzer Tracts series, which are based only on primary sources. Core content provided by Harold Biondo, Alexander Sotnikov and members of the Panzer Fakten Facebook group* (Meta Platforms, Inc., its Instagram and Facebook products are banned in the Russian Federation).

Looking for classes

Many German designations of technology can be roughly divided into two types. Short designations like Sturmpanzer or Tiger H1 were like proper names, usually used by the troops. Long symbols served for description. For example, Jagdpanzer IV is a leichter Panzerjäger auf Fgst.Pz.Kpf.Wg.IV mit 7.5 cm Pak 39 L/48, i.e. a light tank destroyer on a Pz.Kpfw.IV chassis with a 75 mm Pak 39 L/48 gun. We are interested in just such detailed notation with the words easy (light), average (mittler) and heavy (difficult).

Light and heavy reconnaissance armored vehicles. From the determinant of 1940. Source: Panzer Fakten

Let's start with reconnaissance armored vehicles (Panzerspähwagen). The Germans divided them into light and heavy. The four-wheeled Sd.Kfz.221 was light (Leichter Panzerspähwagen), six- and eight-wheeled Sd.Kfz.231 - heavy (Schwerer Panzerspähwagen). In general, the Germans sometimes resorted to dividing only into two classes - light and heavy. Therefore, before arguing whether the Pz.Kpfw.IV was considered a medium tank, it was worth clarifying whether the Germans had medium tanks at all. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Line of half-track tractors (Zugkraftwagen) was divided into light, medium and heavy vehicles. Tractors for 1 and 3 tons were called light, for 5 and 8 tons - medium, and for 12 and 18 tons - heavy. The half-track armored personnel carriers created on their basis were light (leichter Schützenpanzerwagen Sd.Kfz.250) and average (mittlerer Schützenpanzerwagen Sd.Kfz.251).

Heavy eight-wheeled armored car and medium half-track armored personnel carrier. From the determinant of 1940. Source: Panzer Fakten

The devil will break his leg

Dealing with armored vehicles was quite simple, which cannot be said about self-propelled guns. German self-propelled guns received especially verbose names, in addition, many vehicles were renamed, and more than once.

After the success of the StuG III, the Germans decided to create a whole line of assault guns (Sturmgeschütze) on chassis of different types. Initially, they were called light and heavy assault guns and were supposed to be subordinate to the infantry. However, General Guderian wanted to replace the obsolete Marder tank destroyers, so under his influence, the assault guns were renamed tank destroyers. For example, leichtes Sturmgeschütz 38(t) was leichter Panzerjager auf 38(t), and later a short notation appeared Jagdpanzer 38.

Light tank destroyers IV and 38(t) - General Guderian approves! From the manual of 1944. Source: Panzer Fakten

Other cars had a similar path:

*Sturmgeschütz neuer Art → leichter Panzerjager IV → Jagdpanzer IV
*schweres Sturmgeschütz auf Fgst.Panther → schwerer Panzerjäger auf Fgst.Panther → Jagdpanther
*schweres StuG mit 12.8 cm Kanone → schwerer Panzerjager auf Fgst.Tiger II → Jagdtiger

An early sketch of an 88mm assault gun - the future Jagdpanther. Pay attention to the silencer - it was abandoned on serial Panthers. Source: Panzer Tracts

It must be said that the Germans freely treated the names of self-propelled guns. Sometimes they didn't mention the weight class at all in the long descriptive notation. Moreover, the old names continued to be used along with the new ones. For example, the drawings of 1944 with the modernization of the Jagdpanzer IV on a six-wheeled chassis have been preserved. They are signed as Sturmgeschütz Auf Pz.IV. But the StuG III, following its counterparts, did not receive the designation of the weight class.

Open-cabin tank destroyers such as the Panzerjäger I, Marder II and Nashorn were not classified by weight at all. Self-propelled howitzers also did not have their own classification, however, the howitzers themselves were called light or heavy. Gun carriers (Waffentrager) were not originally classified. Later, the Germans came to the division into light and medium gun carriers. Preserved drawing Mittlerer Waffenträger SFH18/Panther - a medium carrier of a 150-mm heavy howitzer based on the Panther. Please note that the tank destroyer Jadgpanther on the same chassis was classified as heavy. The Waffenträger based on the Pz.Kpfw.III/IV was also called medium, although the tank destroyer leichter Panzerjager III/IV belonged to the lungs.

Medium gun carrier on a Pz.Kpfw.III/IV chassis weighing 28 tons. Note the 150 mm gun in the open turret. Source: BAMA

Stamp of the same drawing close-up. Although the chassis is called Gw.IV here, it only has the engine and cooling system from the Pz.Kpfw.IV. The transmission was taken from the Pz.Kpfw.III, the undercarriage and hull are completely new. However, the Germans sometimes referred to the Pz.Kpfw.III/IV as Pz.Kpfw.IV. Source: BAMA

In total, for each self-propelled gun in the Panzer Tracts series, you can find entire lists of designations. The Germans themselves were clearly not bothered by them: why remember one of the old designations, if you can always come up with a new one?

Not by mass and not by gun

Usually, conversations about the classes of German tanks come down to a dispute about how the Germans divided tanks into light, medium and heavy: by weight or by gun caliber? Let's supplement this question: did the Germans have a division of tanks by weight? And if so, which one - light/heavy or light/medium/heavy? An analysis of original documents and reliable secondary sources gives an unexpected answer: with rare exceptions, the Germans did not have any division into light, medium and heavy tanks at all. Therefore, talking about how the Germans classified their tanks, by mass or by caliber, does not make sense.

Technical characteristics of the heavy tank destroyer Jagdpanther. Source: Panzer Fakten

For comparison, similar characteristics of the Panther tank. That is how, without a weight class, the Germans usually called their tanks. Source: BAMA

The Germans began the revival of tank troops in secrecy, so at first they called tanks tractors and tractors. At first it was compact tractor и Grosstraktor – small and large tractors. The Kleintraktor was later renamed to Leichttraktor - light tractor. The unsuccessful Grosstraktor was abandoned, and the tank created to replace it was originally called mittlerer tractor - medium tractor. If the Germans continued to develop such designations, then they could well come to their classification by weight. However, the "agricultural" Wehrmacht soon ended.

By 1935, the first more or less coherent system of notation had developed. Each tank was called a Panzerwagen with an indication of the armament. In addition, he was given the designation of the form Vskfz.xxx, from Versuchskraftfahrzeug - an experimental machine. Here is a list of these designations:

*MG Panzerwagen (Vskfz.617) - future Pz.Kpfw.I
*2 cm MG Panzerwagen (Vskfz.622) - future Pz.Kpfw.II
*3.7 cm Geschütz-Panzerwagen (Vskfz.619) - future Pz.Kpfw.III
*7.5 cm Geschütz-Panzerwagen (Vskfz.618) - future Pz.Kpfw.IV

On December 20, 1935, a proposal for a new classification was published in the reference book "Main Army Bulletin". If earlier tanks were called armored car, Kampfwagen or Panzerkampfwagennow only the last word remained. In addition, tanks were divided into light, medium and heavy guns in terms of caliber. The lungs were armed with cannons up to 75 mm, medium - from 75 to 105 mm, and heavy - from 105 mm and above. It is doubtful that the myth of classification by caliber arose from this, because in the original there was no question of any heavy tanks with a 75-mm gun. Most likely, the German propagandists did their best. They turned the outdated Neubau Fahrzeug (aka mittlerer Traktor) into the latest heavy tank with a 75mm gun.

German propaganda in action: Behind the image of the mighty Rheinmetall breakthrough tank, weighing 70 tons, is an unsuccessful 23-ton tank with 13-20 mm armor. Illustration from an American magazine of those years

If the Germans adhered to the mentioned caliber classification, then even a 70-ton Tiger II with an 88-mm gun would be considered just a medium tank. However, this proposal was soon abandoned. Already on April 3, 1936, a new classification was published in the same reference book. In it, the Germans came to the usual notation of the form Panzerkampfwagen III (3.7 cm)) and Sd.Kfz.141and the old names are gone. Note that there is no mention of light, medium or heavy tanks here. And not only here. An analysis of the documents shows that the Germans usually mentioned tanks without any weight specification. There are no hints of classification by weight or caliber even in detailed specifications and reference manuals.

Perhaps German tanks were classified according to the types of tank units? Alas, this idea does not work. Before the start of World War II, the Germans combined in light tank companies (leichte Panzerkompanie) all available tanks, from Pz.Kpfw.I to Pz.Kpfw.IV. With the start of the war, light companies were reduced to one type, which included Pz.Kpfw.II and Pz.Kpfw.III. In addition to them, medium tank companies (mittlere Panzerkompanie) were created from Pz.Kpfw.II and Pz.Kpfw.IV. Of course, the Pz.Kpfw.II cannot be a light and medium tank at the same time!

Subtotals

Disputes about the German names of tanks, which from time to time arise on the Internet, surprise with their naivety, to say the least. The disputing parties, for example, are trying to find out whether the Pz.Kpfw.IV was considered a medium tank. This implies that the Germans divided tanks by weight and in this division there were medium tanks. Meanwhile, an analysis of the official designations shows that the Germans did not have any systematic classification of their tanks by weight at all.

Lists of symbols from the reference table with fuel consumption for different cars. After light and heavy armored vehicles, as well as light and medium armored personnel carriers, tanks are listed. Just tanks. Source: Panzer Fakten

In different countries, tanks were designated differently, and the point was not that the Germans wrote Pz.Kpfw.I, but the British Mark I. The approaches to the compilation and use of designations themselves differed. The Germans were characterized by the following:

1. Lack of a unified classification. Different types of technology could be classified in different ways. Some cars were divided into light and heavy, others into light, medium and heavy, and still others were not indicated by weight at all.

2. Lack of uniform classification criteria. For example, Jagdpanther was called a heavy tank destroyer. On the same chassis, the Mittlerer Waffenträger SFH18 / Panther was designed - the medium carrier of the 150-mm gun. And the Panther tank itself was not called either medium or heavy.

3. Inconsistency in notation. Tank destroyers with closed cabins, conceived as assault guns, were divided into light and heavy. However, StuG III and StuG IV were not officially called light. And if StuG III, apparently, decided not to rename, then StuG IV appeared already with new designations.

4. Several designations of the same machine. It was common practice for the Germans to use several names in parallel. Sometimes story The renaming turned out to be very bizarre. For example, the strange name 8.8cm Sturmgeschütz 42 (Pz.Sfl.IVd) hides just a Jagdpanther.

An example of abracadabra from the telegraph correspondence between Krupp and Daimler-Benz. The Sfl.IVd had nothing to do with the Pz.Kpfw.IV - we are talking about the future Jagdpanther based on the Pz.Kpfw.V. Source: BAMA

The Germans did not divide their tanks either by weight, or by caliber, or by organizational and staff structures. What happens, they did not have a tank classification at all? There is also such an opinion. The author believes that the Germans still had their own original classification. Its description, however, would require a separate article.

Sources:
*Bundesarchiv-Militaryarchiv
*Panzer Tracts
*For more on the evolution of tank designations see Panzer Tracts #3-2

Comments

[certero]

Thanks, very interesting article! It is especially pleasing that it was written on the basis of German documents.
It turns out that we can conclude that the Germans were the first to come to the concept of a single tank?

[tihonmarine]

Quote: certero

Thanks, very interesting article! It is especially pleasing that it was written on the basis of German documents.

I will add that the tanker, a specialist, and not an amateur, writes about tanks.

[geraet4501]

May I know who this tanker is? I'm just not aware.

[saigon]

Yes, the Germans did not come to the concept of MBT at all.
The author spared readers a little without overloading their brains with a bunch of nuances. The Hans, with all their love for order, had a mother, don't worry.
The author gives both the abbreviated and full names of the equipment, while there was also such a thing as continuous numbering of all armored vehicles from light armored personnel carriers to tigers 2. Very good article. thanks for the hard work.

[geraet4501]

It turns out that we can conclude that the Germans were the first to come to the concept of a single tank?

How? Classification by weight is generally perpendicular to the concept of the main tank. The main tank T-72 was adopted as a medium tank. It is both basic and intermediate.

[karabas-barabas]

Thank you for an interesting article that distracts from today's information heat. What can you say about the classification of E-25, E-50, E-75, E-100, which appeared at the end of the war, or were there such plans? Wouldn't that be weight classification? Thank you.

[Fizik13]

Quote: certero

Thanks, very interesting article! It is especially pleasing that it was written on the basis of German documents.

Article SUPER!
We just used to call tanks T-1 ... T-6 ....
And they had a LITTLE DIFFERENT aviator, i.e. product range.
Pi. Si. I forgot about the Czech T-38

[EMMM]

Article SUPER!
But the author did not indicate the names of the tanks that were accepted in the Red Army.

[2 Level Advisor]

the author did a good job, informative, thanks for the article ..

[Victor Leningradets]

Many thanks, Dmitry!
Heavy, medium and light were invented by the British back in WWI.
Then, too, abandoned this classification.
For the USSR, in addition to direct borrowing, heavy, medium and light meant a different consumption of resources per unit of output, which is extremely important in large-scale production.
Oddly enough, the Americans had the strictest classification, who paid little attention to tanks until 1940.

[Birch fresh]

Read up to the muffler. Didn't make it any further

[SergioPetrov]

silencer

Well, yes, there is

It seems to me that the Germans divided tanks according to the degree of usefulness in battle crap - light, not medium crap, heavy zergud

[Viktor Sergeev]

Well, who cares how the Germans divided the tanks? It was more important for us to know how to destroy the menagerie, and now it is even more interesting to no one, there is a Panther, there is a T4, and for its time and its army, the T4 was heavy, and the Panther was average in comparison with the Tiger.

[geraet4501]

for its time and its army T4 was heavy

Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.E/F/G in the basic version weighed 19,5 tons. Produced at the same time Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.B and Ausf.C weighed 18,5 tons.

[rotmistr60]

The article is of course informative, but the abundance of the German language, to be honest, loads. Although it is clear that one cannot do without the original names.

[geraet4501]

The Germans have a good spelling. This is a problem in English and French with reading, sometimes it is not at all clear how this or that word is read. German has a clear set of rules - how individual letters and letter combinations are read. There are very few exceptions, you can learn to read clearly in a few evenings without understanding anything at all. Who needs it, he masters it without problems. I personally do not know German, but I write many even long words from memory.

[Scaffold]

Where is the trouble with reading in English? Raise my eyelids! Everything in it is clear and simple. Give an example of a word that "is not clear how to read."

[geraet4501]

Wikipedia writes: "Although the modern English alphabet contains 26 letters, English orthography is one of the most complex in the world, since according to the most modern research, 1120 graphemes are used to convey the sound of 62 phonemes"

"The English language has the letter ough, which is pronounced in at least ten different ways, six of which are shown in Though the tough cough and hiccough plough him through."

[volodimer]

Once from the "technology of youth" ..
Such a note: In Russian, 96% of words, "can be pronounced as written" and it will be clear, but in English there are no more than 65%. "Dreadnought."..as an example.
The article is gone. Thank you! It will still be?

[Yaroslav Tekkel]

In French, it is usually read according to the rules, it's just that the rules themselves are very numerous and non-humanoid. English - yes, unpredictable.

[sergej_84]

The Germans did not divide their tanks either by weight, or by caliber, or by organizational and staff structures. What happens, they did not have a tank classification at all? There is also such an opinion. The author believes that the Germans still had their own original classification. Its description, however, would require a separate article.

Let's hope that the author will write such an article in the near future, since the issue is really interesting and experts have been studying it for a very long time.
There really was a system, but its use, oddly enough for the German "Ordnung", was not always "systemic". First, changes were often made to the system, the cause and sequence of which is not yet possible to establish. Despite the presence of standard designations, non-standard ones were also used in the documents, which also introduced confusion. In addition, firms - manufacturers of equipment used their own, internal designation system, and these designations also appear in the documents.
In addition, there are many more factors that make it extremely difficult to build a system. For example, the Germans use three terms to refer to a self-propelled artillery mount:
Sturmgeschütze, Panzerjager, Jagdpanzer. However, these terms are not interchangeable. That is, when describing the classification, it will be necessary to explain each.
So the author, if he decides on such a difficult and voluminous work, will have a difficult but interesting task.

[sergej_84]

I understand that for some "readers" the meaning of my comment remained beyond their ability to understand the printed text, which resulted in minus. For the "particularly gifted" I translate - I praised the author and expressed the hope that he would continue the topic.

[geraet4501]

The second article will follow. It was originally conceived as a single whole, but I did not have time to finish it on Warspot. So it will come here in two parts.

First, changes were often made to the system, the cause and sequence of which is not yet possible to establish.

In many ways, this is true. Although if, in parallel with the names, we study the development of the armored vehicles themselves, then a lot becomes clear.

Germans use three terms to designate a self-propelled artillery mount

More. I immediately remember Geschützwagen, Waffenträger, Sturmhaubitze and even just Panzer, for example, Panzer IV / 70 (A), aka Panzerwagen 604/9.

[sergej_84]

Geschützwagen, Waffenträger

These I would generally separate into a separate class. Rather, a kind of weapons transporter than self-propelled guns. Sturmhaubitze - yes, this is a type of Sturmgeschütze.
As for me, in order to understand all these subtleties, two articles are clearly not enough.

[EMMM]

Yes, I suppose if the author has entered this topic, he will have to pull it to the end.

[irontom]

German abbreviations are something, I came across a humorous story with a mockery of the Nazis, consisting entirely of these abbreviations, if my memory serves me right from Olga Tonina.

[place]

IMHO, the classification of tanks is necessary for their use in battles and binding to the tasks of army units. If the author further explains what the Germans came up with, it will be very interesting. It remains only not clear - how did it happen that 80 years have passed, and the question is still in the fog?

If Guderian were still alive, would he explain?

[geraet4501]

classification of tanks is necessary for their use in battles and binding to the tasks of army units

If we talk about classification by weight or by caliber, then it is hardly necessary for this. Let's say the Germans would call Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.F, Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.C and Pz.Kpfw.38(t) light tanks. How would this help you in their combat use?

[EMMM]

When the T-1, bypassing Brest, went through the Belarusian fields against infantry with mosquitoes and peasants, it was an invincible weapon.
And only the hands of Muscovites, the heroism of Moscow cadets and militias saved the Soviet Union at that stage of the War.
And the Petersburgers distracted a significant part of the German forces.

[abc_alex]

Quote: ort

It remains only not clear - how did it happen that 80 years have passed, and the question is still in the fog

What's strange here? During the war years, the concept of using tanks itself changed. Slow-moving infantry monsters are a thing of the past, cruiser tanks needed enhanced armor and armament, and infantry tanks needed high speed and a long range. In the USSR, they understood in principle the need for a future war and created the T-34 universal tank, combining the features of both a cruising and infantry tank with the capabilities of a support tank and a fighter tank. And the Germans went to this for a long time and step by step, using the method of multiple hemorrhoids. Therefore, their products very quickly began to break out of their own classification. For example, the T-4 and T-3, originally a support tank and a destroyer tank, during the course of the war practically became identical to each other in terms of armament, and the T-4 flew out of the classification by role, and the T-3 from the classification by weapons. At the same time, the T-3 also took off from the class of light tanks "by weight".

[geraet4501]

And the Germans went to this for a long time and step by step, using the method of multiple hemorrhoids.

The Germans actually immediately abandoned the division into infantry and cruiser tanks. Rare and very few Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.F and Pz.Kpfw.II Ausf.J, which really looked like infantry tanks, were created as assault tanks.

Therefore, their products very quickly began to break out of their own classification.

Give at least one example of a tank out of their classification. I emphasize: them, and not the one that you compose on the go.

At the same time, the T-3 also took off from the class of light tanks "by weight".

Pz.Kpfw.IV was also light? Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.E/F/G in the basic version weighed 19,5 tons. Produced at the same time Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.B and Ausf.C weighed 18,5 tons.

[Alien From]

Thanks to the author, interesting, learned a lot

[Black cat]

Thank you for the article! Looking forward to continuing!

[abc_alex]

Ahhhh ...
Author - you are a tanker. :)
To start. The usual division into light, medium and heavy, adopted in the USSR, is not a division by mass. This is a division by the level of booking. After, let's say, not the best performance, the T-29 and BT in Spain, where these expensive vehicles made their way into the forehead with a penny German "mallet", it was decided that it was necessary to increase the armor of domestic tanks. Then the classification familiar to us, "light-medium-heavy", appeared. Mass in this case was only a consequence, not a cause. Light armor was calculated against bullets and shrapnel, medium armor against existing infantry anti-aircraft weapons. Then these were anti-tank rifles up to 20 mm and guns 20-37 mm. And heavy armor is against special anti-aircraft weapons and promising infantry anti-tank weapons.
I remind you that the armament of Soviet tanks was unified. These are 7,62 machine guns and 45 and 76 mm cannons. This was already during development, for example, not a "cigarette butt", but a "long barrel" was installed on the T-34. And so they demanded the same as on the T-28.
In the documents of the late 30s, you can find synonyms for "bulletproof" or "cannonproof" armor.
So in the USSR, the division was NOT by mass.
Example:

Decree of the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR No. 443ss “On the Adoption of Tanks, Armored Vehicles, Artillery Vehicles into the Armed Forces of the Red Army and on Their Production in 1940”
19th of December 1939
Top secret.
Based on the review and test results of new models of tanks, armored vehicles and tractors, manufactured in accordance with the decisions of the Defense Committee No. 198ss of July 7, 1938 [1] and No. 118ss of May 15, 1939, the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR decides:

1. Adopt the Red Army:
I. Tank KV - heavy booking, manufactured by the Kirov plant of Narkomtyazhmash according to the tactical and technical requirements of NPO, with the elimination of all defects found during testing.
The tank must be armed with: a) a 32 mm F-76 cannon coaxial with a 7,62 mm machine gun in the turret mask; b) a separate 7,62 mm machine gun at the radio operator and c) one 7,62 mm machine gun in the turret niche.

Quote: Dmitry Zaitsev

On December 20, 1935, a proposal for a new classification was published in the reference book "Main Army Bulletin". If earlier the tanks were called Panzerwagen, Kampfwagen or Panzerkampfwagen, now only the last word remained. In addition, tanks were divided into light, medium and heavy guns in terms of caliber. The lungs were armed with cannons up to 75 mm, medium - from 75 to 105 mm, and heavy - from 105 mm and above. It is doubtful that the myth of classification by caliber arose from here, because in the original there was no question of any heavy tanks with a 75-mm gun.

This is where you are wrong. Firstly, classifiers are not accepted for a year or two. Therefore, we must take into account future developments. And there is no doubt that the classification according to the power of weapons should certainly take into account promising tanks with 75+ weapons.
Secondly, already in 1937, Henschel was given an order for the design of a "breakthrough tank" weighing more than 35 tons. Later became "Tiger". And looking at the fortifications of the Maginot Line, the Germans could well be aware of the need for a large caliber tank.


In general, the classification of German tanks is simplified if we recall the classification of tanks that prevailed in Europe at the end of WW1 into cruising (cavalry) and infantry. And a secondary classification according to "role" on the battlefield: tank destroyers, support tanks, breakthrough tanks (qualitative reinforcement). In this case, the entire tank mess of the Wehrmacht can somehow be put into the system. Otherwise - seams. The abundance of machine-building enterprises and the mass of ready-made solutions gave rise to an irresistible passion for situational design among the Germans. :)

[geraet4501]

The usual division into light, medium and heavy, adopted in the USSR, is not a division by mass. This is a division by the level of booking.

Are these your speculations or do you have original documents and reliable secondary sources at hand? Pasholok wrote about the development of light tanks at the end of the war, the Soviet military wanted a light tank with 90 mm frontal hull armor and up to 200 mm turrets. https://warspot.ru/4367-kak-sozdavalsya-lttb

Then the classification familiar to us appeared, "light-medium-heavy

It is not true. Such a division in the USSR was already in the early 30s: https://dzen.ru/a/YWAQKN8HhSdI0Tpj (see Analysis of sources)

So in the USSR, the division was NOT by mass.

It is by weight, see the link above.

Mass in this case was only a consequence, not a cause.

Mass is not only a consequence of the thickness of the armor, but also the type of weapons, crew composition and mobility requirements, because the gun, ammunition, crew, engine and transmission take up some volume that needs to be booked. With an equal level of protection, the mass depends on the volume.

This is for Soviet tanks, for German I will write a separate comment.

[abc_alex]

Quote from: geraet4501

Are these your speculations or do you have original documents and reliable secondary sources at hand? Pasholok wrote about the development of light tanks at the end of the war, the Soviet military wanted a light tank with 90 mm frontal hull armor and up to 200 mm turrets. https://warspot.ru/4367-kak-sozdavalsya-lttb

I gave you a quote from the Decree of the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR. Of course, this is NOT the original. This is text. I don't have the original order. He's in the archives.
But, in my opinion, the phrase "Tank KV - heavy booking, manufactured by the Kirov Plant ... "is quite unambiguous.
And I wrote about the Germans that during the war the classifications quickly became outdated and the classes of tanks mixed up. We had the same thing, we are no exception. Armored units moved steadily towards the main tank concept.
Your link in the article indirectly confirms my words, we read:

The T-70 was created with the calculation of protecting the frontal projection from the fire of a 37-mm anti-tank gun

This is a light armor tank, but taking into account the realities of the first stage of the war, when it turned out that 37-mm guns were massively present in the Wehrmacht. Yes, and one of the chapters of the article is called "Light tank with heavy armor." Why? The 90-mm frontal sheet, in theory, could withstand shells up to 88 mm. This is "heavy booking".
I repeat again, during the war, the classifications went astray, the idea of ​​unifying weapons quickly became a thing of the past. But in principle, the division by booking remains, although it has shifted a lot. The Wehrmacht has already abandoned 37 mm as the main anti-tank caliber. And after that, the requirements for armoring tanks changed. And after that, the mass went up. I note that the mass is 20, 23, 26 tons, this is almost the mass of the T-34-76 tank of earlier versions.

Quote from: geraet4501

It is not true. Such a division in the USSR was already in the early 30s: https://dzen.ru/a/YWAQKN8HhSdI0Tpj (see Analysis of sources)

True, true :) You just, apparently, are not aware that in the USSR everything was fun with the classification of tanks. It changed so often that it didn't really exist. The Decree of the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR No. 198ss “On the system of tank weapons of the Red Army” dated August 7, 1938 includes the following types of tanks:
Breakthrough tank (PTO fighter) caterpillar type ...
Light tank with reinforced armor...
Floating tracked tank..
For the future T-34, there was no classifier at all, but such exotic definitions as "art tank" and "chemical tank" appeared.
And in the "Reference of the Armored Directorate of the Red Army on the system of armored weapons in the third five-year plan" dated December 15, 1938, even more interesting names appear:
Reconnaissance, Combined Arms, Operational, Tank of high-quality breakthrough enhancement.

And if we roll back deeper into history, in 1933, when, in fact, the only complete classification of the tank fleet of the Red Army was adopted, we will read this:

"1. Main tanks - 5 types:
a) reconnaissance type T-37;
b) combined arms type T-26;
c) operational type BT, hereinafter PT-1;
d) tank of high-quality reinforcement TRGC T-28;
e) a powerful special-purpose tank of the T-35 type.

2. Special tanks - 7 types (on standard chassis with tanks listed above):
a) 3 chemical;
b) 2 sappers;
c) self-propelled artillery mount;
d) control tank.

this is from the "Report of the People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs of the USSR and Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR K. E. Voroshilov to the Chairman of the USSR Defense Commission V. M. Molotov "On the system of tank weapons for the second five-year plan" dated July 16, 1933.

As you can see, there was no "light-medium-heavy" tank in the official classification of tanks in the USSR. Not surprisingly, the tanks in the Red Army were classified within the framework of the European doctrine, that is, according to the type of application.

Quote from: geraet4501

Mass is not only a consequence of the thickness of the armor, but also the type of weapons, crew composition and mobility requirements, because the gun, ammunition, crew, engine and transmission take up some volume that needs to be booked. With an equal level of protection, the mass depends on the volume.

The fact of the matter is that by the end of the 30s, through the efforts of Kulik, a freaky doctrine on the unification of artillery systems was adopted, which limited the calibers of tank guns to 45 and 76 mm. And even Stalin and Grabin failed to break through this crap.
Tanks of light and medium armor were planned to be armed with 45 mm cannons. That is why the T-34-76 has such a cramped turret. It was designed for a 45 mm cannon, then the military, according to the experience of the Finnish war, “stuck” a 76 mm “cigarette butt” into it like the T-28, and then the meringue of altering the turret with a normal long barrel. So it was just the gun that had little effect on the mass of the tank in theory.
T-34 and T-26 were armed in the same way in the project. As in real life, the T-34 and KV-1 were armed in the same way. It was already during the war that the growth of calibers and barrel length began.

[geraet4501]

This is where you are wrong. Firstly, classifiers are not accepted for a year or two

I'm not mistaken. The Germans did not accept this classification. There is not a single name in the documents entered according to this classification. The proposal did not go through. Four months later, a system appeared that was only in a slightly modified form throughout the war.

And there is no doubt that the classification according to the power of weapons should certainly take into account promising tanks with 75+ weapons.

You have no doubts, because you compose for the Germans on the go. At the time of the proposal to classify by caliber, the Germans were finishing the future Pz.Kpfw.IV with a 75-mm gun weighing 18 tons. They had no other promising tanks with this caliber.

Secondly, already in 1937, Henschel was given an order for the design of a "breakthrough tank" weighing more than 35 tons.

You contradict yourself. Firstly, the proposal for the classification of 1935 could not take into account the draft of 1937 in any way. At that time, even the idea of ​​a 30-ton tank with light anti-cannon armor did not exist. Secondly, according to the instructions, the tank weighed 30 tons, as a result, they fit into 32 tons, and on this the project stalled.

In general, the classification of German tanks is simplified

It can only be simplified if you make it up. The classification, such as was used by the Germans themselves, is neither simpler nor more difficult.

if we recall the then dominant classification of tanks in Europe at the end of WW1 into cruising (cavalry) and infantry.

Give at least one real, not fictitious, designation of a German cruising or infantry tank. And even better if you tell us which German tanks were infantry.

[abc_alex]

Quote from: geraet4501

I'm not mistaken. The Germans did not accept this classification. There is not a single name in the documents entered according to this classification. The proposal did not go through. Four months later, a system appeared that was only in a slightly modified form throughout the war.

And it doesn't matter. Classifications do not change every year.

Quote from: geraet4501

You have no doubts, because you compose for the Germans on the go. At the time of the proposal to classify by caliber, the Germans were finishing the future Pz.Kpfw.IV with a 75-mm gun weighing 18 tons. They had no other promising tanks with this caliber.

Do you think that by creating a tank with bОwith a larger caliber, would they begin to change the classification? Are you seriously?

Quote from: geraet4501

You contradict yourself. Firstly, the proposal for the classification of 1935 could not take into account the draft of 1937 in any way. At that time, even the idea of ​​a 30-ton tank with light anti-cannon armor did not exist. Secondly, according to the instructions, the tank weighed 30 tons, as a result, they fit into 32 tons, and on this the project stalled.

And what? Classification is a doctrine. It not only describes the current state of affairs, it is also calculated for the future. Otherwise, what's the point of it at all? Here in small arms, for example, there is a division into machine guns and autocannons. Anything less than 20mm is machine guns, anything larger is autocannon. I note, not exactly 7,62, 12,7, and 14,5. And less than 20. In the future, 5,45, or 6, or 16 will appear - these will all be machine guns. The classification must be flexible. Otherwise, it will have to be constantly changed. Then she's worthless.
Full of classifications that took into account future samples. For example, in aviation. There are fighters, attack aircraft, bombers. And what if a modern fighter is heavier than another WW2 bomber? The same with ships. Modern destroyers are larger than WW1 battleships.

Quote from: geraet4501

It can only be simplified if you make it up. The classification, such as was used by the Germans themselves, is neither simpler nor more difficult.

Are you not imagining? :) You're frankly composing. You mixed everything in your article into some kind of fierce mess. Confused classification and designation. You are seriously trying to explain what and how the Germans classified, based on how they called their tanks.

This --

If the Germans adhered to the mentioned caliber classification, then even a 70-ton Tiger II with an 88-mm gun would be considered just a medium tank. However, this proposal was soon abandoned. Already on April 3, 1936, a new classification was published in the same reference book. In it, the Germans came to the usual designations of the Panzerkampfwagen III (3.7 cm) and Sd.Kfz.141, and the old names are a thing of the past. Note that there is no mention of light, medium or heavy tanks here.

Do you understand that this is nonsense? No? Because you are a tanker :) And it's hard for you to understand that military designations and classification at the level of state defense programs are FUNDAMENTALLY different things. According to your logic, All tanks of the USSR are one class. They are all "T" and "there is no mention of light, medium and heavy tanks here." Why didn't you come up with some version of this? :) Explain, from your point of view, how the designations T-26, T-37, T-50, T-34, T-70, T-80 fit into the division according to the mass of the tank, adopted in your opinion, in the USSR? :)
What about HF and BT?
You're looking under the streetlight because it's lighter there. Not realizing that the marking of tank models can be ANY and have nothing to do with the classification from the word "absolutely". The Germans named their tanks simply in order. T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4... There is no hidden meaning in this. And there are no designations "light-medium-heavy" in these designations either. But not because of what you think. And because the early versions of the tanks, the Germans created within the then dominant classification of tanks in Europe according to the experience of WW1, and the later ones based on the need at the front. And there is no difference whether the Germans called the tanks panzerwagens, or just panzers.

Quote from: geraet4501

Give at least one real, not fictitious, designation of a German cruising or infantry tank. And even better if you tell us which German tanks were infantry.

The T-2 is a classic cruising tank. T-4 - infantry. Instead of inventing entities, it would be better if you delved deeper into the essence of the division into cruising and infantry, their main basic differences. And finally, understand that NO ONE AND NEVER in the army calls tanks "heavy infantry tank model XXXX of the year, model 12, with a XX-mm cannon and two machine guns." :) The shorter the name and the less information it gives to the enemy, the better.
Well, think for yourself, here is the US M1A2 Abrams tank. Where is "US Army main battle tank" encrypted in "M1"? And "A22 Churchill", according to the classification adopted in Britain at that time, is literally Infantry Tank Mk.IV, where is the purpose encrypted in its A22 index?

You have composed an interesting, but completely absurd theory where, in principle, everything has long been decided by historians. You are engaged in what is meaningless in its essence - the search for a UNIFIED classification in German armored vehicles of WW2. Although it has long been clear to all historians, the development of tanks in these few years has proceeded at such a pace that NO classification has kept pace with it. Models and modifications were created for the sake of momentary needs, without regard to class restrictions. Both in the USSR and in Germany, by 1945 the tank fleet consisted of vehicles that would not fit into the classification even at the end of the 30s. And the modern division of Wehrmacht tanks is CONDITIONAL. It is carried out, as a rule, for the sake of comparing the characteristics of machines, which normal historians do not seriously do.

[deddem]

Quote: certero

Thanks, very interesting article! It is especially pleasing that it was written on the basis of German documents.
It turns out that we can conclude that the Germans were the first to come to the concept of a single tank?

Exactly the opposite - they had a zoo of all kinds of specialized tanks.
Formally, the Frenchman Etienne was the first to voice the idea of ​​MBT, but here it should be remembered that his "battle tank" is, in fact, a heavily armored assault self-propelled gun.

1 - Tanks on the offensive.

Tanks should form a general reserve under the direct supervision of the commanders, used for attack or counterattack.
This role, which is exclusively offensive in nature, clearly defines the use of tanks that satisfy two conditions, which, at the current level of technological development, are:
1) Reservation of 5-6 centimeters, necessary to withstand direct fire from guns in defense, which, being well camouflaged, can be detected before opening fire from a distance of no more than 200 meters.
2) A gun capable of destroying field fortifications with a high-explosive projectile and hitting long-term enemy structures and tanks with an armor-piercing projectile, which ultimately requires a caliber of at least 75 mm and a high-level projectile flight path.
Only a battle tank can meet these two requirements.

The weaker armored tanks will not be able to make contact with the enemy: most of them will be disabled by the fire of 25-30 mm anti-tank guns, so you should not count on them when clearing enemy positions that were passed too quickly by battle tanks, and thus who retained at least part of their anti-tank weapons. Thus, the positions must be completely cleared by serious armored vehicles; some lag in this regard, part of the armored vehicles is not a serious problem.

2 - Defense against tanks.

Although today a single division is practically incapable of attacking, relying only on its own means, it must always be ready for defense. Accordingly, it must be equipped on a permanent basis with a large number of anti-tank guns transported by off-road vehicles.
***
Mobile gun emplacements should be placed in carefully selected positions in cover deep enough to leave only the gun on the surface and their weak armour, no matter.
Similar vehicles have already been considered in the development of border defense systems.
In mobile warfare, cover must be dug out by divisional infantry in each position, similar to what was done in the Roman legions.
By assigning to each division a battalion of 36 mobile firing points on the chassis of existing Renault tanks, we will be able to equip 50 divisions, while retaining 1200 Renault tanks for spare parts.
In the future, it is possible to provide for the creation of a whole range of mobile firing points weighing from 6 to 100 tons, while as a means of developing success, one standard vehicle must be adopted, for which the name “tank” should be left without any clarifying definitions.

3 - Quantum of mass.

The minimum mass of a tank capable of conducting all types of offensive (establishing and refining contact, breaking through the front, pursuit, anti-tank combat, attacks on motorized columns of the second echelons, etc.) definitely depends on the power of the enemy's anti-tank weapons. This minimum mass, in physical terms, is the quantum below which the tank's offensive value drops to zero. At present, the quantum of mass is 25-30 tons.

Hack and predictor Aviator

Taking into account the current level of development of weapons and armored vehicles, let's take two armies - A and B, absolutely identical in terms of the quality of human and mechanical material. Each of them spent 500 million: army A - for 500 tanks of 30 tons, and army B - for 1000 tanks of 15 tons, i.e. much lower than the existing mass quantum. The victory of army A is not in doubt, because it will be able to attack with its tanks, while army B can only try to defend itself with its own.

Paris, November 25, 1933.

[Yaroslav Tekkel]

It seems that only for us the question of the average or heavy "Panther" is somehow fundamental. In general, the division into light-medium-heavy in our understanding existed only in the USSR and the USA. The Italians moved it down a step (our medium is their heavy), the British had their own system of infantry and cruising (and how to characterize the Matilda with armor and mobility of the heavy, weight of the medium and armament of the light?), the French have a system resembling English, but aggravated by the presence of cavalry with "automitrals". Moreover, the Americans had heavy tanks almost until the end of the war only in theory (a few dozen experienced M6s do not count).

[barbiturate]

The Germans screwed up ... and they really don’t have any classification
once only a specialist can figure it out, and then with difficulty and not completely

[Von_Schmidt]

Hospade, well, foolishness in the comments, they don’t even enter what the article is about.