Best battle tank of WW2? [Archive]

Firefly

09-13-2005, 06:52 PM

While the frontal Armour, being sloped, was good on the T-34, in all Models, it was however vulnerable at range to many German Tanks.

The first mark of German Tank to be able to fight the T-34 was the Panzer IV F2, the first long barrel 75 on a German tank. At about the same time the same gun was fitted to the Stug. Both guns could penetrate a T-34 at about 1400-2000 meters. The Germans also had superior optics to the Soviets, and indeed the other allies.

The Germans also had a Radio in every Tank while the Soviets didnt. The Germans could fight buttoned more effectively in the early years as opposed to a T-34 because the early T-34 didnt have a cupola and the crew would have to button to fight. This was excaserbated by the fact that the T-34 had a 4 man crew at the time (41-43) and the commander was also the gunner. So a Tank platoon leader had to try and signal his other tanks whislt having a very narrow view and also to try and choose a target. You will agree that this is very ineficient.

So ramming a German Tank, may have been a good idea, but you would have to get past the long range gunnery, the shorter range AT guns, the AT infantry and finally the better handled German armour.

I dont think that apart from Kursk, where the battle and dust was so intense that the ranges came down significantly that the average Soviet tank crew realistically thought their best option was to try to get in for a Ram.

In sum, dont believe all you see on TV.

Im now spoilng my voting for various Tanks in the debate so will shut up!

PzKpfw VI Tiger

09-13-2005, 07:01 PM

Well thanks for clairifing Firefly! :D

BDL

09-14-2005, 05:56 AM

Churchill (UK) vs Fiat M15/42 (Italy)

Churchill VII (UK)

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/can/Canadian-Churchill.gif

Armament - 1x 75mm gun and 2x 7.92mm MGs
Armour - 25mm - 152mm (1 - 6 inches)
Max Speed - 15.5mph (24.8km/h) (Road) 8mph (12.8km/h) (Cross country)
Range - 90 miles (144km)
Vertical Obstacle - 2'6'' (0.812m)
Trench - 10' (3.048m)

The replacement for the Matilda II, the Churchill was an extremely rushed design - the first production tanks were coming off the production line just 11 months after the design started. This meant that early Churchills had many problems. Most of these problems were ironed out within the first few months of operation, and the Chuchill became a reliable tank, although it never really lost its reputation as a fragile and unreliable tank. With a low profile and thick armour, the Churchill was a decent tank, let down by its armament (as with all British tanks). The first marks were armed with the tiny 2pounder gun, and the armament was progressivley upgraded through the 6pounder to the 75mm gun of the later marks. Some were also built as close support tanks, carrying either 1x 95mm or 2x 3inch howitzers.
There was plenty of room in the hull, meaninng that the Mark I could carry 150 rounds of 2pounder and 58 rounds of 3in howitzer ammunition, and still have room for a crew of 5. The Churchill was also the first British tank to have a cupola for the commander, a feature that was common on German tanks and gave the commander all round vision, even when closed down. It also introduced the Merrit-Brown regenerative steering system (the system still universally used by all tank designers), which saved a lot of power when turning and allowed the tank to make neutral turns (ie - turn without having to be moving). The Churchill was also used for many of the 'funnies' - special purpose tanks such as mine clearers, armoured engineer vehicles, bridge layers and flamethrowers. Some of these versions continued in service with the British Army until they were replaced with Centurion AVREs in the early 1960s.

Fiat M15/42 (Italy)

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/5149/m1542014bf.jpg

Armament - 1x 47mm gun, 2x 8mm MGs
Armour - 14 - 42mm (0.55 - 1.65in)
Max Speed - 25mph (40km/h) (Road)
Range - 136 miles (220km)
Vertical Obstacle - 2'8'' (0.8m)
Trench - 6'11'' (2.1m)

The M15/42 entered service in 1943 and fewer than 100 were completed. They mostly saw service with the Ariete Division, which saw action trying to deny Rome to the Germans after the Italian capitulation. Already obsolete when it entered service, the was to have been a stop gap before the heavier P40 tank could enter service, although the war ended for Italy before this tank could enter production. After the Italian surrender, the surviving tanks were confiscated by the Germans as the Pzkpw M15/42 738i. A further 28 were also built for the Germans under this designation. They were issued to three Panzer detatchments and to the 22nd SS Maria Theresa Division in April 1944.

As with the Fighters thread, please give reasoning for your choice - one word answers will be ignored.

Dani

09-14-2005, 07:13 AM

Obviously Churchill VII is by far much better than Fiat M15/42.

Churchill is superior with exception of speed and range (due to weight difference and consumption ratio).

In a battle one by one, Churchill will win. I'm not sure about a Churchill vs. a "bunch" of M15/42....

Anyway, my vote goes 100% to Churchill.

Firefly

09-14-2005, 08:00 AM

No picture for me either, and no contest between the 2 Tanks.

As stated in the text above regarding the Churchill it was constantly upgraded during the war. It was the first British tank that could survive frontal hits from the german 75mm guns. The first British tank fitted witha Cupola. Constantly upgraded, by the time of Normandy it was equipped with both 75 and 90mm guns, as well as flamethrowers, I give you the awesome Crocodile. Its only draw back was its walking pace speed. While not as good as a Panther or Tiger, its protection was possibly the best of any Allied tank in 1944.

As for the other, its an Italian design that was obsolete when made.

The Might Churchill gets my vote.

BDL

09-14-2005, 08:08 AM

I have to go for the Churchill on this one to, better armed, better amoured and better able to be upgraded. It was slow, but it was very heavily armoured for the time (particularly in contrast to American and previous British designs).

3-0 to the Churchill then

Dani

09-14-2005, 08:15 AM

Might be interesting (in German service):

An earlier version of Churchill (aprox. 1943):
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8021/churchill033jt.jpg
From Dr. Werner Regenberger, Horst Scheiben "Beutepanzer unterm Balkenkreuz"

A M15/42 (1944 - stuck on Italian road):
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5348/m1542003sc.jpg
From "Italian medium tanks in action" Squadron/Signal Publication No 39

Edited: So you could see the heights of the tanks!

BDL

09-16-2005, 02:49 PM

Cheers for the pics Dani.

Been a couple of days without any votes now, so I guess this ones dead.

Next one:

Pzkpfw III (Germany) v Valentine (UK)

Pzkpfw III Ausf L

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/armoredforces/german_panzer3_tank_panzer_iii_mark_iii.jpg

Max Speed: 25mph (40km/h) (ROAD) 11mph (18km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Range: 109miles (175km)
Vertical Obstacles: 2' (0.6m)
Trench: 7'6'' (2.3m)
Armour: 1.18'' - 3.15'' (30 - 80mm) - many also had extra armour added in the field
Armament: 1x 50mm gun, 2x 7.92mm MGs

The last 'anti-tank' Pzkpw III (the Ausf M and N were close support versions with a low velocity 75mm gun), the Pzkpw IIIJ and Pzkpw IIIL entered service after the short 50mm gun of the Ausf E, F, G and I was found too be insufficent to penetrate the KV-1 and T-34 of the Soviet army.
All versions of the P-III had good all round vision, with a large 'dustbin' cupola for the commander. The tank was also well laid out, with plenty of room for the crew to function. The P-III also had a very good gearing system, which made is very easy to drive. The gearbox was very complicated though, which made maintenance difficult. The original 37mm gun carried by the earlier marks was not great, often unable to penetrate the heavier British and French tanks, never mind the Soviet heavy tanks. This was replaced with a low velocity 50mm gun, which was an improvement (and outranged the British 2 pounder), but was still not heavy enough to fight heavier tanks with. The P-III could not carry the high velocity 75mm gun, and by 1942 it was really outdated as a combat tank, and was eventually replaced by the P-IV and the Panther.

Valentine XI (UK)

http://www.portsdown-tunnels.org.uk/images/events/portsdown_ww2_photos/1942_valentine_tank_portsdown.jpg

Top Speed: 15mph (24km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 90 miles (144km)
Verticle Obstacle: 3' (0.91m)
Trench: 7'9'' (2.36m)
Armour: 0.31'' - 2.56'' (8-65mm)
Armament: 1x 75mm gun and 1x 7.92mm MG

The Valentine was a private venture by Vickers-Armstrong and was built under the pre-war British concept of 'cruiser' tanks for cavalry type warfare and 'infantry' tanks to support infantry assaults. The Valentine was an infantry tank, which were supposed to be heavily armoured, with performance a secondary condsideration.
The Valentine stayed in production from 1939 to 1944, with 8,275 built. Over 2,000 of these were supplied to the Soviet Union, who disliked the small 2pounder and 6pounder guns and often replaced them with their own 76.2mm anti-tank guns. The Soviets did like the simplicity of the Valentine though and they also liked the reliability and simplicity of the tank.
In British service, the Valentine saw action in North Africa with the Eighth Army, and some were also landed in Tunisia with the First Army. In the desert, the Valentine earned a reputation for being extremely hard wearing, with some reportedly travelling 3,000 miles on their own tracks after El-Alemain. A small number of Valentines also saw action in Burma, the Madagasgar landings and some were landed at Gibraltar to bolster the defences there. Some of the Burma Valentines had their 2pounder gun replaced with a 3in howitzer to provide fire support.
Valentines also took part in the D-Day landings, although they had passed out of use as gun tanks by then. The chassis was used in a variety of roles, including amphibious landing (DD), bridgelaying, flamethrower tank and mine clearance. One was even fitted with rockets in a disasterous attempt to produce a flying tank.
In combat, crews found that the turret was too small on all marks, which no amount of redesign could fix. In some marks with a three man crew, the commander was also overworked having to load the main gun, command the tank, give the gunner targets and operate the radio. It also suffered from poor vision for the crew, particularly the commander who had no cupola, so he had to bob up and down in the turret to get a proper view of the battle - which meant fairly high casualty rates amongst commanders.

Firefly

09-16-2005, 03:36 PM

This is a tricky one because at first glance you would automatically assume the PzIII

The PzIII went through many variations, the 50mm gun in France was the short barrelled version, no worries there as tank versus tank combat wasnt in the german rule book, AT guns were meant to fight tanks. It had a good chassis and powerplant and provided the bulk of German armour in 1940.

When we come to N Africa, the PzIII was again the most numerable tank in the early years. After some difficulties with the matilda it was upgraded to have the 50mm L60 gun, which came as a surprise to the British as it was effective at greater ranges. Indeed the British nicknamed it the PzIII Special.

It was also at the forefront in russia in 1941-42. Although not able to deal with a T-34 or KV frontally, again, this wasnt its primary job. Although when faced with these beasts, many a Vetereran tank crew would aim for the gun of the enemy, or the exhaust. The skill was such in many crews that they achived hits against both.

It was continually upgraded, but by 1943 was pretty much obsolescent against Russian Armour from the front. It also formed the basis of the excellent STUG series, but I digress.

All in all it was the first tank to usher in the basic crew lay-out that we still see in tanks today.

Now, the Valentine. Initially it had the 2 pounder gun, was not relatively well armoured, but it was upgraded. The addition of the 6 pounder gun in the VIII and IX versions actually made it more effective than a Sherman 75. However, to get that gun in there the co-ax MG had to be ditched. Also this meant that it had to revert to a two man turret. They served extensively in italy, the final mark being the XI, which had the same gun as the Sherman (75mm).

All in all the Valetine proved its worth and was upgradeable as I have shown. Althouth it suffered from the above drawbacks.

To conclude, the valentine actually kept pace with the PzIII, but a step behind it in my opinion, its AT capability was considerable especially when it was using tungsten round, which by 1943 were rare in the German inventory, but its armour was just not up to it.

So after great deliberation, I go for the PzIII

Good match up

PzIII for me

BDL

09-17-2005, 08:23 AM

To me, this is a very close call. Although the P-III had heavier armour than the Valentine, the Valentine was better armed (in later 75mm versions, at least). The P-III has the better range and performace, but the Valentine is a better obstacle crosser. Both were very reliable and able to be updated and both were used as the basis of other vehicles afer their time as an MBT had finished.

For me, the P-III just scrapes it thanks to the better lay out and vision. The Valentine did cause a lot of casualties amongst commanders with its lack of cupola, and was a very cramped tank to work in. It's a very close fought match up though.

2-0 to the Panzer III

Dani

09-17-2005, 10:20 AM

Although the P-III had heavier armour than the Valentine, the Valentine was better armed (in later 75mm versions, at least).

Agree with BDL with exception of the emboldment.

PzKpfw III Ausf N had a 75mm L/24 gun, so on last versions (N for Pz III and XI for Valentine) were equal.
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/tfpz3n.htm and http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tanks_medium/pzkpfw_iii.html

PzKpfw III
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/6610/panzer3f2pv.jpg

Valentine
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/2157/valentinetankmk3desert6tw.jpg

My vote goes to PzKpfw III.

BDL

09-17-2005, 12:05 PM

Dani, the 75mm gun on the P-III was a low velocity gun rather than a high-velocity anti-tank gun which the Valentine had. It was designed to high HE rounds rather than to fight tanks.

Dani

09-17-2005, 03:07 PM

Quite true BDL! But I wanted to pointed out that the Germans add a 75 mm gun on PzKfW III.

Anyway, check the PzKfw III Ausf L variant with 50 mm long gun. This gun replaced the shorter 50 mm KwK L/42 gun (a low velocity gun).
http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/6642/pzkwiiiausl28kw.jpg

Also a PzKfw Ill Ausf N with short 75 mm gun:
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/9162/pzkwiiiausfn12mm.jpg

Off-topic: Anyway STUG III was built on PzKfw III chassis:
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8485/stugiii75cm13uj.jpg

Speaking of 75 mm guns used on latest versions, 75 mm OQF gun obviously is better than 75 mm KwK L/241.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/PenetrationTables.htm
and http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns.html

BDL

09-19-2005, 09:19 AM

I'll end this one now, since there's been no votes for a couple of days. P-III goes through.

Next one will be started shortly.

BDL

09-19-2005, 10:17 AM

Pzkpw IV (Germany) v M4 Sherman (USA)

Pzkpw IV Ausf H

http://www.battlefront.co.nz/images/panzer%20iv%20825.jpg

Top Speed: 25mph (40km/h) (ROAD) 12.5mph (20km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Range: 125 miles (200km)
Vertical Obstacle: 2' (0.6m)
Trench: 7'6'' (2.3m)
Armour: 0.79'' - 3.45'' (20 - 90mm)
Armament: 1x 75mm L/48 gun, 2x 7.92mm MGs

The Pzkpw IV was the only German tank of the war to remain in production throughout the war, and was still being used by Syria as recently as the 1967 Arab-Israeli war (in a static role). Originally designed as a support tank, the first P-IVs were armed with a short barelled 75mm gun firing high explosive shells in support of the P-III, which was seen as the main combat tank. Battle experience showed that the P-IV's armour was not thick enough, and it was soon upgraded. It was also given a high velocity anti-tank gun, changing role from support to battle tank. The P-IV began to replace the P-III as a front line MBT from about mid 1941 onwards. Eventually the L/48 gun was fitted, which allowed the P-IV to take on pretty much any tank in the world. In response to the growing numbers of bazooka type weapons being deployed by the Allies, the P-IV was fitted with 5mm thick skirts of armour (Schurzen) designed to detonate the HEAT warheads of these weapons before they hit the main armour.

The Panzer-IV also formed the basis of several self-propelled guns, including the Jagdpanzer-IV, Panzerbefehlswagen (IV) mit 7.5cm KwK L/48 (Command tanks with extra radios) and the Bergepanzer IV recovery vehicle.

M4A3 Sherman (USA)

http://212.84.179.117/i/Sherman%20M4.jpg

Top Speed: 26mph (42km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 100miles (160km)
Vertical Obstacle: 2' (0.6m)
Trench: 7'6'' (2.29m)
Armour: 0.6' - 3.94'' (15mm - 100mm)
Armament: 1x 75mm M3 gun, 2x 7.62mm MG, 1x 12.7mm MG

The most widespread tank of the western Allies in WW2, the Sherman was prduced in massive numbers. Early models had an unfortunate habit of burning easily (the Germans named them 'Tommy Cookers') and although this was improved with water jackets being added around the ammunition, the Sherman never really shook that reputation. Although the armour on the Sherman was no worse than many tanks of the time, the Sherman was a very high tank, making it very easy to target to experienced German anti-tank and tank gunners. Sherman crews often suffered badly when facing Tigers and Panthers, often losing 3 or 4 of their number in order to destroy one German tank. The Sherman was upgraded, both by Britain and the US, with the British 17pounder gun and the American 76mm gun. Although the 76mm gun was a big improvement over the 75mm, it was not as good as the British 17pounder. It did, however, allow the Sherman crews more chance of surviving an encounter with German armour. The Sherman also had the suspension greatly upgraded throughout its career, culminating in the HVSS (Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension) versions which gave an extremely smooth and comfortable ride. Like the P-IV, the Sherman was used widely after the war, particularly with the Israelis, who upgraded their Shermans several times, keeping them in service until the 1970s.

The Sherman was also used in other roles, most famously as a basis for many of the 'Funnies' used by the British at D-Day, as well as a version with a 105mm howitzer for fire support.

Dani

09-19-2005, 10:36 AM

I can't wait! Interesting draw!

I'll post later tonight my choice!

Dani

09-19-2005, 02:56 PM

PzKpfw IV Ausf H - 3774 produced (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/fpz4h.htm

Altough over 49000 Sherman M4s were produced, on M4A3 only 1690 were built. http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/data/m4a3.htm

Pz IV was better armoured (especially on front side) and have as well some protection skirts (it is correct?). Also it have a high velocity gun comparing to Sherman.

My vote goes to PzKpfw IV Ausf H.

As a little bit off-topic, check some pictures with a Pz IV and a Sherman M4 on Soviet side:

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9403/ussrforeignpz41oo.jpg

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9464/shermansoviet1pr.jpg

BDL

09-20-2005, 01:04 PM

I have to go for the P-IV in this one - better gun, better armour and better range. It's also a smaller target, being a whole 2 feet smaller in height (P-IV was 8'6'', M4 was 11'1'') and a foot shorter (19'5'' compared to 20'7'').

2-0 to the P-IV, I'll leave this over night to see if anyone else is interested.

Firefly

09-20-2005, 02:18 PM

I suppose it depended on the Mark of PzIV that the Sherman was fighting. For a while in 1942, the Sherman was the best tank on the N African battlefield and more than a match for the 4.

However, the later marks of 4 could and did kill any allied Tank, from a Sherman to a JS2. That together with the greater experience of your average German crew counts for a lot. Its one thing to go into battle knowing you can effectively kill anythig, and another to know that 4 of your mates will be hit to achieve your aim. Confidence makes up for a lot.

Still, the Sherman had a gyrostabiliser, and while not the most accurrate it could still move and fire, the 4 didnt and couldnt.

After much deliberation I think that the 4 just edges it in performance terms over the Standard Sherman.

PzIV for me, though only in the G-H model.

Hosenfield

09-22-2005, 04:38 PM

i vote for panzer IV, for the above reasons.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

panzer III 96,200 Reichsmarks
panzer IV 103,500 RM
panther 117,000 RM
tiger 250,000 RM

costs of tanks.

I've seen this type of thread several times. Everyone always says the german tanks are the best. Maybe a more balanced approach would be to compare the costs of the tanks?

i don't have the site with me now, but in the past i stumbled on a site that said that the sherman was around the same price as the panzer IV, after conversion to dollars.

convert reichmarks, pounds, and dollars to IE (pounds) and through the price as a comparison.

compare the tanks to their respective class, but also include information regarding their price.

do you agree?

Firefly

09-22-2005, 05:35 PM

A good point, but cost is not a good way to think about it. The US economy especially could afford to spend much more on an individual tank. What was the GDP of Germany in 1944 compared to the US?

SO cost for tanks is relative, its like saying that a Bow costs less to produce than a Crossbow, which is true, but at Agincourt, what was decisive>

Hosenfield

09-22-2005, 06:44 PM

hmm. well, i don't really think its fair to compare crews either.

the soviets t-34 was an outstanding tank but their inferior crews assurred disportionate losses.

I think turret speed was very important too.

for instance the Tiger II could turret traverse 19 degrees per sec, while the orginal tiger could only do 6 degrees per sec.

this explains some of the massive kills achieved by King tiger men in the last months of the war, even better then the orginal tiger. karl koner destroyed 39 soviet tanks in one skirmish, which dwarfed Wittmann's achievement.

Firefly

09-23-2005, 05:24 AM

You are probably right about comparing crews too. And also good points about the Tiger and KT, Im sure you will be using them again in the future when these Beasts are up for the vote.

BDL

09-23-2005, 06:11 AM

4-0 to the P-IV up to now, I'll do a new one tomorrow (I have an exam this afternoon so I don't have time now), I'll leave the vote for this one open until then.

BDL

09-24-2005, 05:48 AM

Voting now closed, new one will be put up some time today, around being on duty.

BDL

09-25-2005, 02:20 PM

Sorry it took a while, someone decided to put his BMW through a tree at 80mph last night while I was on duty, so I couldn't get it done.

Matilda II (UK) v Type 97 (Japan)

Matilda II (UK)

http://users.swing.be/tkimg3/char0/10497.jpg

Top Speed: 15mph (25km/h) (ROAD) 8mph (13km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Armour: 0.55'' - 3'' (14mm - 78mm)
Range: 155 miles (250km)
Height:8'3'' (2.51m)
Width: 8'6'' (2.59m)
Trench: 7' (2.13m)
Vertical Obstacle: 2' (0.61m)
Armament: 1x 2pounder gun or 1x 3in (76.2mm) howitzer and 1x 0.303in (7.7mm) or 0.312in (7.92mm) MG

The Matilda II was designed as a replacement for the Matilda I, an extremely poor tank which was armed with just one machine gun. The Matilda II was a far superior tank, destined to be the only British tank to be in use from 1939 to 1945. The Matilda II first saw action in France in 1940, where it was found that it was virtually invulnerable to the standard German 37mm anti-tank gun and could only be stopped by the 88mm anti aircraft gun. After Dunkirk, the Matilda I was dropped (most had been left in France anyway) and the Matilda II became simply the Matilda. The Matilda also saw action against the Italians in 1940 and 1941, where it proved as invulnerable to the Italian anti-tank weapons as it was to the German weapons. It also earned itself the nickname 'Queen of the Desert' at this time. The happy state of affairs for the Matilda continued until mid 1941, when the Afrika Corps arrived with their 88mm guns.
Attempts were made to up gun the Matilda with the 6 pounder gun, but the turret ring was not big enough to carry the larger weapon, and it was last used as a gun tank at the first Battle of El-Alemain in July 1942, although it continued to be used for special purposes such as mine clearance throughout the war.
The Matilda had a conventional layout, although the turret was very cramped, especially in the Close Support version with the 3inch howitzer. The commander did have a small cupola, but the vision from the Matilda was fairly poor (although no worse than any other tank of the time). It was also one of the first tanks to use a hydraulic system to turn the turret.

Type 97 (Japan)

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/japan/model-97.jpg

Top Speed: 25mph (40km/h) (ROAD)
Armour: 0.3'' - 0.98'' (8mm - 25mm)
Range: 130 miles (210km)
Height:7'4'' (2.23m)
Width: 7'8'' (2.33m)
Trench: 8'3'' (2.51m)
Vertical Obstacle: 2'6'' (0.81m)
Armament: 1x 57mm gun, 2x 7.7mm (0.303in) MGs

Introduced in 1937, the Type 97 was probably the best Japanese tank design of the war. Designed more for infantry support than tank to tank combat (as was the Matilda), the 57mm was a short barrelled, low veolcity weapon, although it was capable of firing armour piercing ammunition. After combat experience against the Soviets in the Nomonhan Incident, the 57mm was replaced with a high velocity 47mm gun in many tanks.
There were also several special variants of the Type 97, including recovery, flail mine clearers, engineer, bridge layers, 20mm and 75mm anti-aircraft, and self propelled guns. These vehicles made very little impact on daily operations owing to their small numbers. Late in the war the Navy installed a 120mm gun in a limited number of these tanks.

Firefly

09-26-2005, 02:07 PM

Well the Matilda (2), was the Tiger of its day and was designed as an anti tank tank. It would have eaten the opponent here for breakfast. The Japanese Tank would not have got penetrations from almost any range whereas the Matilda's 2 pounder AT gun would have sliced through it like the proverbial knife through butter.

The lack of HE ammo was a problem, but in this contest it would have not mattered one tiny bit.

There can be only one!

And in this round the sane vote goes to the Matilda.

PzKpfw VI Tiger

09-26-2005, 05:47 PM

Topor

09-26-2005, 08:49 PM

I'm sure the Matilda was designed as an "I" tank :wink:
Matilda still gets my vote: better gun+better armour= no contest

PzKpfw VI Tiger

09-26-2005, 08:52 PM

So the Matilda II is winning 3 - 0 so far. :lol:

Dani

09-27-2005, 12:54 AM

If could be a challenge between a British equipments and Japanese equipments, in no way should be between tanks.

So my vote goes 100% to Matilda.

Gen. Sandworm

09-27-2005, 02:21 AM

BDL

09-27-2005, 03:47 AM

Ya know I never really studied the Japanese tanks much because they just looked like they sucked. However I guess you would want something kinda small and crappy looking in most of the area's they where fighting in. :?: :!:

Most of them were poor. Apparently they were developing one at the end of the war that would have compared very well with the Sherman, I saw a mention of it while I was researching the T-97.

I have to go for the Matilda as well, better armour, better gun and all round better tank.

Firefly

09-27-2005, 06:19 AM

I'm sure the Matilda was designed as an "I" tank :wink:
Matilda still gets my vote: better gun+better armour= no contest

The Matlida was designed and designated as an infatnry Tank. However the 2 pounder wasnt issued with HE. There was a CS version with a 75mm gun that was more suited to the support role.

BDL

09-28-2005, 04:42 PM

That one's closed then, I'll stick the next one up shortly.

Matilda goes through.

BDL

09-28-2005, 05:47 PM

KV-1 (USSR) v M3 (USA)

KV-1

http://combat1.cool.ne.jp/KV-1.jpg

Top Speed: 21.75mph (35km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 93.2miles (150km)
Height: 8'11'' (2.71m)
Width: 10'11 (3.32m)
Trench: 8'6'' (2.8m)
Vertical Obstacle: 3'8'' (1.2m)
Armour: 2.95'' - 3.94'' (75 -100mm)
Armament: 1x 76.2mm gun, between 3 and 5x 7.62mm MG

The KV-1 entered service in 1940, and was first used in the Winter War against Finland, where not one was lost, despite heavy losses for the previous generation of multi-turretted tanks. By the time of the German invasion in 1941, 636 had been built and proved a great shock to German anti tank gunners and Panzer troops, who found that the 37mm anti tank gun was virtually powerless against it. A close support version, the KV-2 amred with a 152mm howitzer, was also in service, but the massive turret needed for the gun was a big strain for the tank and the KV-2 proved to have a disappointing performance. A lighter, faster version, the KV-1s was introduced in 1942, and the 76.2mm gun was replaced with an 85mm weapon in the KV-85 introduced in late 1943.

M3 Grant/Lee (USA)

http://www.warlinks.com/equipment/grant.jpg

Top Speed: 26mph (42km/h) (ROAD) 16mph (26km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Range: 120 miles (193km)
Height: 10'3'' (3.12m)
Width: 8'11'' (2.72m)
Trench: 6'3'' (1.9m)
Vertical Obstacle: 2'0'' (0.6m)
Armour: 0.47'' - 1.47'' (12mm - 37mm)
Armament: 1x 75mm gun in hull, 1x 37mm gun in turret, 3x 0.3in (7.62mm ) MGs

American observers of the battles in Europe in 1940 saw that the 37mm guns of the tanks then in service with the US would not be powerful enough for modern warfare, so the 75mm Pack Howitzer was mounted in the sponson of an experimental T5 tank. This led to the adoption of the M3 Grant in August 1940. These were first used in combat by the British at the Battle of Gazala (N Africa) and were the first tank to achieve parity with the 75mm armed P-IV, although initial problems with the fuses of the HE shells hampered use at first.
The M3 was eventually declared obsolete in 1943, after seeing service in Africa and the Far East, although the hull lived on in various specialist vehicles, such as self propelled guns.

As with the fighters thread, this one is open until sunday due to me being away over the weekend.

Topor

09-28-2005, 07:36 PM

No contest.
The KV1 has better armour, a much lower profile & the main gun is turret mounted.

BDL

10-01-2005, 03:20 PM

1-0 to the KV-1, I'll add my vote later on.

PzKpfw VI Tiger

10-01-2005, 04:10 PM

No contest.
The KV1 has better armour, a much lower profile & the main gun is turret mounted.

I agree with Topor. KV1 has my vote.

FW-190 Pilot

10-01-2005, 05:22 PM

BDL

10-01-2005, 05:26 PM

how about JS-3
200mm armour max an 120 anti aircraft gun as main cannon
although limited to 28 cannon, it should be consider the most powerful tank in ww2
even the eygpt would use it to attack isreal in 1967 (i believe that is the year)

I don't think the JS-3 was in general use before the war finished mate, the JS-2 is in the competition though.

Firefly

10-01-2005, 06:24 PM

I have to go for the KV here, for the reasons stated previously. It was an innovative Tank for its time and really shocked the Germans. The powerplant may have been a bit weak for the tank, but I think it beats the US Grant hands down.

However, the UK Grant had more front armour. But were not talking about that so:

KV for me.

BDL

10-03-2005, 06:30 AM

I have to go for the KV-1 as well, it has the advantage over the M-3 in pretty much every respect.

This vote's closed then, I'll do the next one tonight (hopefully)

Dani

10-03-2005, 06:58 AM

:oops: Forgot to vote! KV-1.
Sorry!

BDL

10-03-2005, 05:16 PM

Cromwell (UK) v SOMUA S-35 (France)

Cromwell VII (UK)

http://212.84.179.117/i/Cromwell%20Tank.jpg

Top Speed: 40mph (64km/h) (ROAD) 18mph (29km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Range: 173 miles (277km)
Height: 9'3.75'' (2.84m)
Width: 10' (3.94m)
Trench: 7'6'' (2.28m)
Vertical Obstacle: 3' (0.92m)
Armour: 0.4'' - 4'' (10mm - 102mm) (With retro fitted applique armour)
Armament: 1x 75mm gun, 2x 7,92mm MG. Close Support versions carried 1x 95mm Howitzer and 2x 7.92mm MGs

The Cromwell entered service with the British Army in 1942 and was the most numerically important British tank of the war. Originally built with a 6pounder gun, the Cromwell was soon up-gunned after experience in North Africa showed that after the initial breakthrough in an attack, the main targets were anti-tank guns and infantry, needing a good HE shell to engage, rather than just an AP shell.
In combat, the Cromwell proved to be both fast and agile and was very popular with crews. It was also fairly easy to maintain, with the very reliable Meteor engine, developed from the Merlin aircraft engine. It was difficult to escape from in a hurry though, and there was a shortage of stowage space for the crew's gear. The first combat test for the Cromwell was in Normandy in 1944, where it proved as undergunned as the rest of the Allied tanks, although it had to soldier on through to the end of the war. Attempts to mount the British 17pounder gun were unsuccessful although a small number of the 'Challenger' were put into service, despite being too high and unbalanced.

SOMUA S-35 (France)

http://airborn.webz.cz/img/s35.jpg

Top Speed: 23mph (37km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 160 miles (257km)
Height: 8'10'' (2.69m)
Width: 6'11'' (2.11m)
Trench: 7'8'' (2.34m)
Vertical Obstacle: 1'8'' (0.51m)
Armour: 2.2'' (56mm) maximum
Armament: 1x 47mm Gun, 1x 7.5mm MG

The SOMUA S-35 was designed to a French cavalry specification, and was soon adopted as the standard medium tank of the French Army. For it's time, the S-35 had goor armour, armament and mobility, and could match German tanks in a one-on-one situation, although they were abysmally handled tactically. Their main drawback was the use of the commander as both gunner and loader, meaning that he was almost always over worked in combat. The tank was also made up of three sections welded together, a major weakspot in the armour which often resulted in the tank being split wide open if hit by an anti-tank round on one of these joints. A few were used by both the Germans and the Italians after the French capitulation, some even turning up on the Eastern Front.

Topor

10-03-2005, 08:19 PM

Cromwell all the way: Better armour & a better gun, along with a better obstacle climbing ability.
A whole generation of AFV's separate these two, so no wonder the Cromwell is superior.

Hosenfield

10-03-2005, 11:21 PM

no offense to anyone, but I think besides the Panzer IV vs. Sherman matchup, the other matchups have been far too one sided. I think it would be more interesting to compare tanks that are more similiar in capability.

IE>
panzer IV vs. T-34/76

Panther vs. T-34/85

Tiger I vs. JS-II

Tiger II vs. JS-III

Pershing Vs. Tiger I

Cromwell vs. M4 Sherman

Panzer III vs. M5 Stuart

BDL

10-04-2005, 02:06 AM

It's a completely random draw Hosenfield, that's why some of the early match ups are a bit one sided. When we get to the next stage, they will be a lot more even, because most of the tanks there will be of a similar quality.

Dani

10-04-2005, 04:03 AM

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9969/somua040bx.jpg

Somua S-35 was considered the best tank faced by the Germans in the invasion of France.

But comparing to Cromwell, it was inferior in tech specs (there is no wonder, Crowell was developed later than Somua).

My vote goes to Cromwell.

PzKpfw VI Tiger

10-04-2005, 07:39 AM

Cromwell all the way: Better armour & a better gun, along with a better obstacle climbing ability.
A whole generation of AFV's separate these two, so no wonder the Cromwell is superior.

Agreed with Topor. My vote goes to the Cromwell.

Firefly

10-05-2005, 09:23 AM

I also vote Cromwell, there really isnt any other choice in my opinion.

Dani

10-05-2005, 09:27 AM

So it is 4-0 for Cromwell.

BDL

10-08-2005, 06:21 AM

I have to add my vote for the Cromwell, for all the reasons already mentioned. It's a generation better than the French tank, which was a decent tank for its day, but is outclassed in this encounter.

I'll leave this open for a bit longer and do a new one this evening.

BDL

10-08-2005, 04:39 PM

Cromwell vs Somua is now closed, Cromwell goes through, SOMUA burns out slowly at the side of the road.

Next one is being written as you read this.

Dani

10-08-2005, 04:42 PM

Cromwell goes through, SOMUA burns out slowly at the side of the road.

Well said :D :D :D

BDL

10-08-2005, 05:50 PM

From now on, I'll be including a lot more information into my initial comparisons, to give more discussion points on each tank:

BT-7 (USSR) vs Crusader (UK)

BT-7

http://212.84.179.117/i/BT-7.jpg

Max Speed: 33mph (53km/h) (ROAD) *
Range: 270 miles (430km) *
Vertical Obstacle: 1'10'' (0.55m)
Trench: 6'7'' (2m)
Length: 18'7'' (5.66m)
Width: 7'6'' (2.29m)
Height: 7'11'' (2.42m)
Weight: 30,644lb (13,900kg)
Ground Pressure: 11.25lb/sq in (0.79kg/sq cm)
Armour: 0.39'' - 0.87'' (10 - 22mm)
Armament: 1x 45mm M1935 gun, 1x 7.62mm MG coaxial with the main gun
Ammunition: 188x 45mm & 2,142 7.62mm
Service History: Red Army 1935 - 1945

* - the BT-7 could run on just road wheels without tracks - max speed on road wheels = 46mph (73km/h) and max range = 450miles (730km). There is no evidence that this feature was ever used by the Red Army

The BT series of tanks was developed from the American Christie tanks , one of which was purchased in 1930 and shipped to the Soviet Union. After extensive testing, the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR authorised the type for use by the USSR. The first models, the BT-1 and BT-2 were armed with a 37mm gun, but this was replaced by the 45mm weapon in 1932.
The BT tanks were designed for use in the same way as cavalry in past wars, in the rear of the enemy attacking Headquarters, supply dumps etc. to make the best use of its long range and high speed. Large scale exercises showed that these missions would require artillery support, and many BT tanks were modified as self propelled guns with a short barelled 76.2mm gun. A commanders version was also developed.
The BT tanks suffered heavy losses at the hands of the invading Germans in 1941, partly because of a lack of training for crews and the lack of radios, adequate gun sights and other equipment. The BT-7 did lead to the BT-IS (IS = Investigator Tank) which had heavily sloped armour and contributed greatly to the development of the T-34.

Crusader III (UK)

http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/Equipment/Armour/crusader_tank_desert.jpg

Max Speed: 27mph (44km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 100 miles (160km)
Vertical Obstacle: 2'3'' (0.685m)
Trench: 8'2'' (2.59m)
Length: 19'8'' (5.99m)
Width: 8'8'' (2.64m)
Height: 7'4'' (2.23m)
Weight: 44,240lb (20,040kg)
Ground Pressure: 14.7lb/sq in (1.04kg/sq cm)
Armour: 0.28'' - 2'' (7 - 51mm)
Armament: 1x 6pounder gun, 1x 7.92mm MG
Ammunition: ???
Service History: British Army 1939 - 1943

The Crusader was desinged as a Heavy Cruiser tank, although the 2pounder gun, the only weapon available in 1939, was the same weapon as on standard Cruiser tanks (and on the Infantry tanks to). The Crusader I and II had a second 7.92mm MG mounted in a small turret on the front left of the hull, but this was found to be fairly useless and was left out of the Crusader III. The early marks of the Crusader were rushed into service and in their first battle (Op Battleaxe in early 1941) more fell into enemy hands through mechanical break down than through battle damage. The Crusader also had the same drawback of all tanks with a two man turret, in that the Commander also had to work the radio and load the main armament as well as commanding the vehicle. The turret was also relatively small and cramped.
Despite these problems, the Crusader served all through the Desert Campaign, with the Crusader III in service by the time of El-Alemain. The modified mantlet used for the 6pounder versions of the Crusader could also mount a 3in (76.2mm) Howitzer for use as close support, although very few vehicles were armed with this weapon.
By the end of the Desert Campaign the Crusader was outdated and some were converted as anti aircraft tanks or as gun towers, serving in Italy and France.

PzKpfw VI Tiger

10-09-2005, 01:15 PM

Hmmm, interesting match up. Will post answer when I have more time to research it! :D

BDL

10-10-2005, 07:26 AM

I have to go for the Crusader on this one, better armour, better gun, better obstacle crossing and a slightly smaller target (in height, if not in length or width)

Firefly

10-10-2005, 09:44 AM

I have to go with the BT-7 here. It really is the T-34's mother, sloped armour, good ammo load out, awaesome cross country performance matched with speed. It had a good gun for 1940. The drawbacks would have been the lack of radio and the optics which were worse than the Germans (but then whose wasnt).

The Crusader for me, was another example of the British early war tank designs, often made on cost grounds alone. The Crusader became mince-meat for the german guns, the armour was not sloped, although I dont know what its brinnel rating was vis-a-vis the BT-7. Even though it had a radio, the 2 man turret was a draw back.

The nippy little flanker of a BT wins this for me. Its just a pity that in 1941 most of the crews in them were green as a very green thingy.

BDL

10-11-2005, 02:47 PM

1-1 on this one up to now, anymore for anymore before I start thinking of a tie-breaker to seperate these?

Topor

10-11-2005, 04:54 PM

My vote goes to the Crusader here.

The 6 pounder gun fired AP at roughly the same velocity as the 45mm on the BT7 but with nearly double the mass. It could take out the BT7 before it even reached where its gun was effective. The Russian AP was of dubious effectiveness due to the tendency of the projectile's nose to fragment upon leaving the barrel.
The A15 had thicker frontal & turret armour as well.
Both ran on Christie suspension, so they were probably evenly matched cross country.

BDL

10-12-2005, 04:06 PM

2-1 to the Crusader then, since it's close I'll give this one more night before doing the next one.

BDL

10-15-2005, 11:59 AM

1-1 on this one up to now, anymore for anymore before I start thinking of a tie-breaker to seperate these?

Apparently I'll actually give it three nights :oops:

New one will be done this evening. Last tie of the first round.

BDL

10-15-2005, 02:58 PM

Fiat M13/40 (Italy) vs Char B-1bis (France)

M13/40

http://homepages.win.co.nz/bphprint/itpics/itietank.jpg

Max Speed: 20mph (37km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 125 miles (200km)
Vertical Obstacle: 2'8'' (0.8m)
Trench: 6'11'' (2.1m)
Length: 16'2'' (4.92m)
Width: 7'3'' (2.2m)
Height: 7'10'' (2.38m)
Weight: 30,865lb (14,000kg)
Ground Pressure: 13.2lb/sq in (0.92kg/sq cm)
Armour: 0.24'' - 1.65'' (6mm - 42mm)
Armament: 1x 47mm gun, 1x 8mm MG coaxial with main gun, 1x 8mm anti-aircraft MG, twin 8mm MG in hull front
Ammunition: 104x 47mm, 3,048x 8mm
Service History: Entered service with the Italian army in 1940, phased out of service in 1942.

Developed from the short lived M11/39, the M13/40 retained the M11/39 chassis but had a redesigned hull. With only four men in the crew (driver, bow machine gunner, commander and loader) the M13/40 suffered the same problems as all other tanks with a two man turret crew - the commander had to aim and fire the main gun as well as his usual duties, meaning that either the weapon was fired slower than in a tank with a dedicated gunner or that the tank was not properly commanded.
When used against the British in North Africa, the M13/40 was found to prone to breakdown due to not being designed for desert conditions. The M13/40 also suffered from a break down in Italian logistics, meaning that many were captured after running out of fuel. So many were captured that two Allied units were equipped with them for a short time in 1941 due to a shortage of British tanks (6th Royal Tank Regt and Australian 6th Cavalry).

Char B1-bis

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/did.panzer/silhouette%20pz/B1-bis-JBart.jpg

Max Speed: 17mph (28km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 93 miles (150km)
Vertical Obstacle: 3'1'' (0.93m)
Trench: 9' (2.75m)
Length: 21'5'' (6.52m)
Width: 8'2'' (2.5m)
Height: 9'2'' (2.79m)
Weight: 70,548lb (32,000kg)
Ground Pressure: 19.7lb/sq in (1.39kg/sq cm)
Armour: 2.36'' (60mm) maximum
Armament: 1x 75mm gun in hull, 1x 47mm gun in turret, 1x 7.5mm MG coaxial with 47mm gun, 1x 7.5mm MG in hull
Ammunition: 74x 75mm HE, 50x 47mm (HE & AP), 5,100x 7.5mm
Service History: Entered service with the French army in 1936, served until the fall of France in 1940. Also saw some service with Germany after 1940.

Developed from the Char B-1, the B-1bis had an improved engine and heavier armour. The B-1bis had excellent armour which could withstand attack from any German anti-tank gun other than the 88mm Flak, although anti tank gunners soon learned that the radiator grille on the right side of the tank was a serious weak point.
The 75mm was aimed by the driver swinging the whole tank on its axis. It also had an air compressor to blow the fumes from the 75mm gun out of the barrel of the gun, rather than having them escaping into the crew compartment. The B-1bis also only had a 4 man crew, meaning that the commander also had to aim, load and fire the 47mm gun as well as command the tank, causing all the problems described in the M13/40 entry.

The Germans used captured B-1bis' for a variety of roles (although not as battle tanks). Most were used either as driver training vehicles or flamethrower carriers. There was also a self propelled gun version developed, with the hull gun and turret removed and a standard German 105,, howitzer mounted.

Dani

10-19-2005, 06:32 PM

:oops: :oops: :oops: Almost forgot!!!
As soon as possible I'll post!

BDL

10-19-2005, 07:25 PM

:oops: :oops: :oops: Almost forgot!!!
As soon as possible I'll post!

Been busy all week with work anyway Dani, forgot about it myself :lol:

It's open until saturday at least, got a lot of project work to do tonight and friday.

FluffyBunnyGB

10-19-2005, 07:35 PM

Another slightly unjust pairing I feel. Blind chance is a cruel mistress!

Char B all the way for me. Only a tadge slower, armour half as thick again, similar turret main armament, but a much bigger gun as well for HE.

The range isn't as good, but then the Char B was more in the spirit of the Infantry tank than the Cruiser, which I posit is where the Italian tank was.

However, in common with all Italian tanks of that era, it does have more reverse gears :-)

Apologies - an old joke

Firefly

10-20-2005, 07:41 AM

I have to go with the Char as well, an all round more survivable Tank I think, well for 1940 that is, not 44.

Dani

10-20-2005, 01:52 PM

Column of M 13/40. The crews often added sand bags in front of the hull to improve the insufficient protection of the armor plates.
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/6955/99629al.jpg

Char B1 bis:
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/9974/b1bis0jq.jpg

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/1999/b1bis20lt.jpg

My vote goes to Char. Far better armed and protected. In fact belongs to other tank class than M13/40.

BDL

10-25-2005, 07:46 AM

3-0 to the Char B1-bis at the moment. As this is the final match up of the first round, I'll try and get the draw for the second round done tonight.

edit - voting now closed for the first round, will post the second round draw up shortly

The entries for the second round are:

Pzkpw V Panther
Pzkpw VI Tiger
Pzkpw VI Tiger II
Sherman Firefly
Comet
M26 Perishing
T-34
JS-2
Churchill
Pzkpw III
Pzkpw IV
Matilda
KV-1
Cromwell
Crusader
Char B1-bis

BDL

10-25-2005, 02:51 PM

Second Round:

KV-1 v JS-2
Churchill v T-34
Matilda v Pzkpw III
Char B-1bis v Pzkpw VI Tiger II
M25 Perishing v Cromwell
Pzkpw IV v Pzkpw VI Tiger
Pzkpw V Panther v Crusader
Comet v Sherman Firefly

some interesting match ups there, some that should be foregone conclusions.

The first will be done tomorrow - I'm watching the Liverpool match at the moment.

BDL

10-29-2005, 05:20 PM

KV-1 (USSR) vs JS-2 (USSR)

KV-1 (USSR)

http://combat1.cool.ne.jp/KV-1.jpg

Max Speed: 22mph (35km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 156 miles (250km)
Vertical Obstacle: 3'8'' (1.2m)
Trench: 8'6'' (2.8m)
Length: 20'7'' (6.27m)
Width: 10'2'' (3.1m)
Height: 7'11'' (2.41m)
Weight: 104,719lb (47,500kg)
Ground Pressure: 10.68lb/sq in (0.75kg/sq cm)
Armour: 2.95'' - 3.94'' (75mm - 100mm) (Dependant on version)
Armament: 1x 76.2mm gun, 3x 7.62mm MGs
Service History: Served with the Soviet Army from 1940 to 1945

At the outbreak of World War 2, the Soviet Army was practically the only one in the world equipped with heavy tanks. The first of these was the KV-1 which was accepted for sevice on December 1st 1939.

Production began in February 1940 and 243 tanks were produced in that year. A platoon on KV-1s was also sent to Finland for combat testing, taking part in the breakthrough of the Finnish main position. Not a single KV-1 was lost, although the earlier multi-turretted tanks with them suffered heavy losses. The KV-1 also caused a great shock to the German troops invading the Soviet Union in 1941, proving almost invulnerable to the standard 37mm anti tank gun then in service with the German Army as well as being able to destroy any tank in service with the Whermacht.

Other tanks in the KV- range included the KV-2, introduced after combat experience against the Mannerheim Line in Finland. Armed with a 152mm howitzer in a very high turret, the KV-2 was eventually dropped from production because of poor performance. The KV-3 was a prototype when the Germans invaded in 1941, and the invasion interrupted plans for mass production. Combat experience against the Germans showed that the KV-1 was becoming too slow to remain in front line service, so a new lighter, faster version, the KV-1s, was introduced in the second half in 1942. The final version was the KV-85, armed with an 85mm gun adopted in 1943. After this, the KV- series was eventually replaced with the JS- series of tanks.

JS-2 (USSR)

http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is2/is2_4.jpg

Max Speed: 23mph (37km/h)
Range: 94 miles (150km)
Vertical Obstacle: 3'3'' (1m)
Trench: 8'2'' (2.86m)
Length: 32'9'' (10.74m) (INCLUDING GUN)
Width: 10'6'' (3.44m)
Height: 8'1'' (2.93m)
Weight: 101,963lb (46,250kg)
Ground Pressure: 11.25lb/sq in (0.79kg/sq cm)
Armour: 0.75'' - 5.2'' (0.75mm - 132mm)
Armament: 1x 122mm D-25 gun, 1x 12.7mm DShK MG, 1x 7.62mm MG
Service History: In service with the Soviet Army from 1943 to the late 1970s. There are also reports of the JS-2 serving with the North Vietnamese, North Koreans and Cubans

In August 1942 the Soviet high command became aware that the Germans were developing new heavy tanks with thicker armour and better armament than their current tanks. Work therefore began on a new heavy tank, based on experience gained with the KV- series of vehicles. The new design was succesfully trialled and mass production was begun in October 1943.

The new tank weighed little more than the KV-1 (or the German Panther) but had very thick, well shaped armour which gave excellant ballistic protection. It was armed with an 85mm gun in the same cast turret as carried by the KV-85. It was considered inappropriate that the IS- series of heavy tanks should carry the same weapon as the T-34/85 medium tank, so the JS-1 was replaced with the JS-2 carrying the 122mm weapon with 28 rounds.

The JS- tanks were first used in February 1944 at Korsun Shevkenskovsky. During these battles, General Kotin personally observed the JS-2s in action and noted their performance and short comings. These observations led to the JS-3 being introduced in late 1944, with even thicker armour and better shape. Despite these improvements, the weight of the JS-3 still did not exceed that of the German medium tanks.

After the war, the JS- series of tanks stayed in service with the Soviet Army until the late 1970s, although the JS- prefix of the name was dropped after the 'de-Stalinisation' of the Soviet Union in the 1950s.

BDL

10-29-2005, 05:21 PM

Max Speed:
Range:
Vertical Obstacle:
Trench:
Length:
Width:
Height:
Weight:
Ground Pressure:
Armour:
Armament:
Ammunition:
Service History:

Max Speed:
Range:
Vertical Obstacle:
Trench:
Length:
Width:
Height:
Weight:
Ground Pressure:
Armour:
Armament:
Ammunition:
Service History:

Ignore this - leaving myself a template of the layout because I'm sick of typing it out every time.

FluffyBunnyGB

10-29-2005, 05:43 PM

KV 2

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/KW-2_1940.jpg

According to the Wiki page, the IS series were in fact developments of the KV series as opposed to a new design as such. The desigantion was changed from Klimentei Voroshilov to Josef (Iosef) Stalin when KV fell from favour.

Taking that line, we're sort of comparing the the Mk 1 and Mk 5 Ford Escorts here . . . . . .

BDL

10-29-2005, 06:21 PM

Taking that line, we're sort of comparing the the Mk 1 and Mk 5 Ford Escorts here . . . . . .

From what I've read, they developed from experimental models of the KV, plus combat experience with the KV-1 & 2. It was a new design heavily influenced by the experience of the KV.

(if anyone can confirm, feel free)

FluffyBunnyGB

10-29-2005, 06:41 PM

Whichever it was, it's a poor do if the JS/ IS 2 wasn't better all round than the KV then!

I know I'm interfering a bit late here, but should we consider rematching the opponents at this stage to even things up a bit? Perhaps using the same tank more than once? I suggest this because I'm struggling with a match for Char B and Crusader if I've already used up Pz 3. . . .

Perhaps on the basis of tanks of a similar generation & class?

KV-1 v JS-2
Churchill v T-34
Matilda v Pzkpw III
Char B-1bis v Pzkpw VI Tiger II
M25 Perishing v Cromwell
Pzkpw IV v Pzkpw VI Tiger
Pzkpw V Panther v Crusader
Comet v Sherman Firefly

could become, perhaps

JS 2 vs Tiger 2
KV 1 vs Tiger
Char B vs Pz 3
Panther vs T 34
Crusader vs fcuk only knows . . .

edited to correct an insult to the English language :D

BDL

10-29-2005, 07:07 PM

I know I'm interfering a bit late here, but should we consider rematching the opponents at this stage to even things up a bit? Perhaps using the same tank more than once? I suggest this because I'm struggling with a match for Char B and Crusader if I've already used up Pz 3. . . .

Perhaps on the basis of tanks of a similar generation & class?

I'll have a play round and see what I can come up with

DON'T VOTE ON THE KV-1 VS JS-2 - will post a new draw tomorrow

BDL

10-30-2005, 10:30 AM

Ok then, a new more balanced draw:

Char B1-bis v Matilda
Pzkpw III v Crusader
T-34 v Pzkpw V Panther
KV-1 v Churchill
Pzkpw IV v Sherman Firefly
JS-2 v Pzkpw VI Tiger II
M26 Perishing v Comet
Pzkpw VI Tiger v Cromwell

Seems a bit more balanced then before. Not ideal, but should be a bit more equal than last time. Will do the first match up asap.

editted to keep Torpor happy :lol:

Topor

10-30-2005, 12:27 PM

The only thing I would alter in the latest list would be to pit the Pzkpw III against the Crusader & the KV1 against the Churchill - the latter being politically apt :wink:

BDL

10-31-2005, 05:26 PM

The only thing I would alter in the latest list would be to pit the Pzkpw III against the Crusader & the KV1 against the Churchill - the latter being politically apt :wink:

I've editted mate

First second round match up is inbound as fast as I can type

BDL

10-31-2005, 06:32 PM

Char B1-bis (France) vs Matilda II (UK)

[b]Char B1-bis

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/did.panzer/silhouette%20pz/B1-bis-JBart.jpg

Max Speed: 17mph (28km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 93 miles (150km)
Vertical Obstacle: 3'1'' (0.93m)
Trench: 9' (2.75m)
Length: 21'5'' (6.52m)
Width: 8'2'' (2.5m)
Height: 9'2'' (2.79m)
Weight: 70,548lb (32,000kg)
Ground Pressure: 19.7lb/sq in (1.39kg/sq cm)
Armour: 2.36'' (60mm) max
Armament: 1x 75mm gun in hull, 1x 47mm gun in turret, 1x 7.5mm MG coaxial with 47mm gun, 1x 7.5mm MG in hull
Service History: Served with the French Army from 1936 to 1940. Also used by the German Army.

The standard heavy tank of the French Army in the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Char B1-bis was very well armoured and virtually invulnerable to all German anti tank guns other than the 88mm Flak, although there was a weak spot on the right hand side, where there was a large radiator grille.

The tank had a crew of four - driver/gunner, wireless operator, loader and commander (who also had to load, aim and fire the 47mm gun on top of his usual duties). The loader was also overworked, having to load the hull mounted 75mm gun as well as passing 47mm ammunition to the commander.

A further version (the Char B1-ter) was developed, with a mechanic being added to the crew, but only 5 had been completed before the German invasion in 1940. The Char B1-bis was used by the German Army after the French surrender, both as a driver training model (with weapons removed) and as a flamethrower tank (PzKpfw B1 (Flamm)) with the 75mm gun replaced with a flamethrower and the 47mm gun retained to give it some defence against other tanks. There was also a self propelled gun version with the hull gun and turret removed and a German 105mm howitzer mounted on the top of the vehicle.

A few Char B1-bis were also used by the French when they liberated the port of Royan in 1944.

Matilda

http://img499.imageshack.us/img499/6498/mtilda28gc.jpg

Max Speed: 15mph (24km/h) (ROAD) 8mph (12.8km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Range: 160 miles (256km)
Vertical Obstacle: 2' (0.61m)
Trench: 7' (2.13m)
Length: 18'5'' (5.61m)
Width: 8'6'' (2.59m)
Height: 8'3'' (2.51m)
Weight: 59,360lb (26,926kg)
Ground Pressure: ???
Armour: 0.55'' - 3'' (14 - 78mm)
Armament: 1x 2pounder gun, 1x 7.7mm or 7.92mm MG
Service History: Served with the British Army from 1939 to 1945. Also used by the Australian and Soviet armies.

The Matilda II (called the Matilda after the very disappointing Matilda I was withdrawn after Dunkirk) was the first result of a change in approach to Infantry tanks calling for a shell firing gun rather than a machine gun which had previously been considered heavy enough armament for Infantry tanks. At first it was hoped that the Matilda I would be able to be upgunned, but in the end the turret ring was far too small to handle the larger turret and the Matilda II was developed. The tank first went into battle in France in 1940, where the armour proved thick enough to defeat all German anti tank weapons other than the 88mm Flak. It was also used for most of the early battles in North Africa, where it proved as hard for the Italians to destroy as it was for the Germans. The main drawback of the Matilda was the inability of the 2 pounder gun to fire a high explosive shell, which meant that the Matilda could not engage unarmoured targets such as machine gun nests or pill boxes. Attempts to up gun the Matilda with the 6 pounder were unsuccesful and the first battle of El Alemain saw the last use of the Matilda as a gun tank.

Other versions of the Matilda included a Close Support version armed with a 3inch howitzer to provide the HE shells that the battle tank version could not fire. After the withdrawal of the Matilda from front line service the Matilda was considered ideal for special applications, thanks to its reliability and thick armour. These special versions included a flail tank to detonate minefields, anti mine rollers, demolition charge carriers, bridge carriers, Canal Defence Light (carrying a large flickering searchlight to blind the enemy - Canal Defence was a cover name), flamethrowers and even an experimental radio controlled version.

The Australian army used the Matilda in the Pacific campaign and kept them in use for driver training as late as 1953. The Soviets also used it and although they liked the thick armour they despsied the 2 pounder as far too small and there are also reports that the suspension could become clogged with snow.

Although not in use as a gun tank in 1945, the Matilda can lay claim to being the only British tank that served from 1939 through to the end of the war.

FluffyBunnyGB

10-31-2005, 06:51 PM

Based soley on the principle of "which would win in a fight", I think I have to go for the Char B. The 2 pdr shells would bounce off it, but if the Char got an HE shot or two onto the MATILDA that would be end-of-mission.

This assumes it's a standard Char B and MATILDA we're talking about.

This may have already been mentioned, but when the MATILDA was used in the desert, we didn't have an AT gun that could knock it out. A bit awkward when they were captured . . . .

On versatility grounds, it's still a close run thing. IIRC the German Char B with 105 mm was a gopping great beast but then the MATILDA CDL wasn't exactly a thing of beauty!

Topor

10-31-2005, 10:19 PM

Much as it goes against the grain, I would have to give the honours to the Char B in a "one on one" engagement.
Pro: Better main gun(albeit hull mounted), better obstacle clearing & a slightly higher top speed.
Anti: Higher silhouette, hull mount for main gun & short operational radius.

BDL

11-01-2005, 07:30 AM

Don't forget that the 75mm on the Char was a short barrelled HE gun, rather than a long barrelled tank killer - how effective would a comparitively light HE shell be against the Matilda's armour?

Topor

11-01-2005, 02:19 PM

The French 47mm gun was pretty effective for its time too.

Had a womble round the web & found this:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=732424&highlight=&sid=aca355f60af036e730bb0d42b803acdd

Scroll down about halfway to Lehmann's post for an insight into the Char in combat.

Firefly

11-01-2005, 03:16 PM

Well I was frimly on the fence there, but after reading the above, I too will have to go with the Char.

Its only a pity the French didnt embrace the Blitzkrieg ethos, they could have made a diffrence.

Char for me in the end.

BDL

11-01-2005, 04:30 PM

FluffyBunnyGB

11-02-2005, 11:35 AM

Don't forget that the 75mm on the Char was a short barrelled HE gun, rather than a long barrelled tank killer - how effective would a comparitively light HE shell be against the Matilda's armour?

It's not particularly an armour piercing effect that you would find (assuming they didn't have an AP shell for that gun) but HE could degrade the MATILDA to achieve a mobility kill against the tracks/ suspension.

The fragmentation effects can also neutralise armour by destroying comms equipment and periscopes.

Lastly, don't underestimate the effects HE shells bursting on the hull would have on the crew. Tank armour (particularly of that era) is more designed to provide protection against fragmentation and small arms as well as AP shot. The shock effect of HE can be very unpleasant and cause lasting harm.

BDL

11-02-2005, 12:01 PM

It's not particularly an armour piercing effect that you would find (assuming they didn't have an AP shell for that gun) but HE could degrade the MATILDA to achieve a mobility kill against the tracks/ suspension.

The fragmentation effects can also neutralise armour by destroying comms equipment and periscopes.

Lastly, don't underestimate the effects HE shells bursting on the hull would have on the crew. Tank armour (particularly of that era) is more designed to provide protection against fragmentation and small arms as well as AP shot. The shock effect of HE can be very unpleasant and cause lasting harm.

I wouldn't fancy a track bash in the middle of a battle myself :lol:

Didn't think of that to be honest, must learn to think then type

Dani

11-03-2005, 12:06 AM

Char!

BDL

11-14-2005, 03:46 PM

Char goes through then, I'll put the next one up tonight/tomorrow.

BDL

11-16-2005, 02:49 PM

Pzkpfw III (Germany) v Churchill (UK)

Pzkpfw III (Germany)

http://hsgm.free.fr/recent/panzerIII2.jpg

Max Speed: Ausf A - C 20 mph (32km/h), Ausf E - N 25mph (40km/h) (ROAD). All models 11mph (18km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Range: Ausf A - C 94 miles (150km), Ausf D 103 miles (165km), Ausf E - N 109 miles (150km)
Vertical Obstacle: 2' (0.6m)
Trench: Ausf A - G 7'6'' (2.3m)
Length: Ausf A & B 18'6'' (5.7m), Ausg D - G 17'8'' (5.4m), Ausf H 18'1'' (5.52m), Ausf J - N 21'1'' (6.4m)
Width: Ausf A - C 9'2'' (2.8m), Ausf D - G 9'6'' (2.9m), Ausf H - N 9'8'' (2.95m)
Height: Ausf A 7'7'' (2.35m), Ausf B & C 8'4'' (2.55m), Ausf D - G 8' (2.4m), Ausf H - N 9'8'' (2.95m)
Weight: Ausf A - C 33,069lb (15,000kg), Ausf D & E 42,769lb (19,400kg), Ausf F & G 44,753lb (20,300kg), Ausf H 47,619lb (21,600kg), Ausf J - N 49,163lb (22,300kg)
Ground Pressure: Ausf A - C 15.3lb/sq in (0.973kg/sq cm), Ausf D 13.2lb/sq in (0.93kg/sq cm), Ausf E & H - N 13.5lb/sq in, Ausf F & G 14.1lb/sq in (0.99kg/sq cm)
Armour: Ausf A - C 0.57'' - 3.54'' (14.5 - 90mm), Ausf D - G 1.18'' - 3.54'' (30 - 90mm), Ausf H - N 1.18'' - 3.15'' (30 - 80mm) but often with spaced armour retro fitted
Armament: Ausf A - D 1x 37mm kwK L/45 gun, 2x 7.92mm MG34s coaxial with main gun, 1x MG34 in hull. Ausf E - H 1x 50mm KwK L/42 gun, 1x MG34 coaxial with main gun, 1x MG34 in hull, Ausf J & L 1x 50mm KwK L/60 gun, 1x MG34 coaxial with main gun, 1x MG34 in hull, Ausf M & N 1x 75mm KwK L/24 gun, 1x MG34 coaxial with main gun, 1x MG 34 in hull
Service History: In service with the German Army from 1939 to 1945. Also used by Spain and Turkey

One of two medium tanks introduced into the German Army, the P-III was to be the 'anti-tank' vehicle supported by the HE firing P-IV. Originally to be armed with a high velocity 50mm gun, it was decided to fit a 37mm weapon to standardise the supply chain with the infantry, who were equipped with 37mm weapons. A large turret ring was retained though, which allowed the P-III to be upgunned easily.

The P-III was well laid out, with plenty of room for the crew and a large 'dustbin' cupola giving the commander an excellant view. Maintenance was difficult however, mostly due to an over complicated gearbox and the 37mm was not good enough against the heavy British and French tanks such as the Matilda and the Char B1-bis, while the thin armour could not stop British 2-pounder or French 47mm shot. The P-III was upgunned with a low velocity 50mm weapon, which outranged the 2-pounder and fired a useful HE shell.

The P-III was steadily improved with a high velocity 50mm weapon installed after the low velocity gun was found to be useless against the T-34 and KV-1s in the USSR, and armour protection was also steadily increased. Eventually though, the P-III was outclassed as a battle tank, and a low velocity 75mm gun was fitted to allow it to give HE support to the new generation of battle tanks being introduced. These versions carried on fighting until the end of the war

Churchill (UK)

http://www.military.ie/images/churchill.jpg

Max Speed: 15.5mph (24.8km/h) (ROAD SPEED), 8mph (12.8km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Range: 90 miles (144km)
Vertical Obstacle: 2'6'' (0.812m)
Trench: 10' (3.048m)
Length: 24'5'' (7.44m)
Width: 10'8'' (3.25m)
Height: 8'2'' (2.49m)
Weight: 87,360lb (39,574kg)
Ground Pressure: ???
Armour: Churchill I - VI 0.63'' - 4'' (16 - 102mm), Churchill VII & VIII 1'' - 6'' (25 - 152mm)
Armament: Churchill I 1x 2pounder gun, 1x 7.92mm BESA MG and 1x 3'' howitzer in hull, Churchill II 1x 2pounder and 2x BESA, Churchill III & IV 1 6pounder gun and 2x BESA, Churchill IV NA 1x 75mm gun, 1x 0.3in Browning MG and 1x BESA, Churchill V & VIII 1x 95mm howitzer and 2x BESA, Churchill VI & VII 1x75mm gun and 2x BESA, Churchill I CS 2x 3'' howitzers and 1x BESA
Service History: In service with the British Army from 1941 to 1952. Also used by Eire, India and Jordan.

The Churchill was the replacement for the Matilda II. It was originally designed to look like a World War 1 tank, with two side sponsons carrying 2pounder guns. Vauxhall Motors though and took the original design and added a turret. The first prototype was running within 7 months and the first production models came off the line within 11 months. There were some problems with such a rushed design though and the first models were unreliable and overcomplicated. These problems were eventually ironed out, but the Churchill had gained a reputation for fragility that it never really lost.

The armour was undoubtedly the best feature of the vehicle and was very heavy for the time. The Churchill VII was also the first British tank to have a commander's cupola, a great improvement on previous vehicles. The Churchill also had extremely good ammunition stowage, with room for 150 rounds of 2pounder and 58 rounds of 3'' ammunition in the Churchill I. It was also the first tank to use the Merritt Brown regenerative steering system which made the vehicle much easier to drive (it is also the system used by every modern tank).

In combat, the Churchill was used in Tunisia and Italy, as well as in North West Europe and on the Dieppe raids. The thick armour proved very useful, but it suffered from being out gunned by most German tanks. There were also a number of special use vehicles based on the Churchill chassis, including bridge layers, mineclearing, flame throwing, armoured recovery and Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers (AVRE) which stayed in service with the British Army until the early 1960s.

As ever people - please give a reason for your choice - make an effort!

Dani

11-16-2005, 03:48 PM

Ground pressure for Churchill:
Churchill Mk III - 0.92 kg/cm2;
Churchill Mk VII - 0.94 kg/cm2;

FluffyBunnyGB

11-16-2005, 04:06 PM

A tough one.

On the face of it the CHURCHILL is probably the better tank. Better gun (apart from the 2 pdr variants), better armour.

Both these probably a result of it being a younger design.

It was also hugely versatile. Due to it's AVRE variant being used by 79th Armoured I would guess it probably had more special variants than any other Allied tank, with the possible exception of SHERMAN. I'm not going to list them all as I'll be using a few a quiz questions if I ever get another answer right :D

Pz III was outclassed by later CHURCHILL variants, but was still a very useful tank. IIRC it didn't have much of a problem with tanks of the CRUSADER / GRANT era which are perhaps more contemporaneous.

The chassis was also used for plenty of SPGs such as STUG III (iirc, I'm sure someone will correct me if needs be). It could be argued that STUG III would certainly have been a match for CHURCHILL in a shooting match.

A close one, but I'm saying CHURCHILL. Better tank and very versatile.

Topor

11-16-2005, 07:22 PM

Churchill

Better armour & a main gun that kept ahead of the armour on contemporary MkIII's. The 6pdr was a fine weapon against the vast majority of Axis AFV's, right up to the up-armoured MkIV.
The Churchill was also know to be an exceedingly stable gun platform, so reengaging a target for a second shot was very fast.

2nd of foot

11-16-2005, 07:24 PM

Although the Churchill speed was not great its manoeuvrability was excellent and could go places most tanks could not.

Churchill for me.

Hosenfield

11-17-2005, 02:19 PM

tanks are of different classes. In early war years, the churchill was rated as a heavy and had armor that outclassed that of the panzer III .
50mm on the III wasn't very effective either.

he churchill continued to serve even in normandy, while the III was considered obsolete and turned into STUG III assault guns.

Firefly

11-17-2005, 03:49 PM

For this one, and taking onboard what Hosenfield has said, and bearing in mind the premise of this competition.

I would have to go with the Churchill. First introduced at Dieppe, got tangled in the Shingle.

It went on to become a good Tank for the British, many versions were made, not least the Crocodile, which genuinely scared the opposition.

It could survive a frontal hit from a Panther/Stug. It had many gun variations, from the 57mm to the 90mm, though I believe the 75mm was probably the best.

On a frontal 1-1 with a PzIII, no competition.

Drawbacks were the lack of speed, Infantry pace here, and probably the non sloped armour.

My vote goes to the Churchill though, a decent tank and more survivable I think than a Sherman, though if in trouble the speed lack could be fatal.

Churchill for me.

BDL

12-03-2005, 04:06 PM

Churchill goes through then - next one inbound after Pizza King has paid me a visit 8)

BDL

12-05-2005, 03:45 PM

The first true clash of the Titans!

T-34 (USSR) vs Pzkpfw V Panther (Germany)

T-34/85 (USSR)

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/T34/T34_85.jpg

Max Speed: 31mph (50km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 186 miles (300km)
Vertical Obstacle: 2'7'' (0.79m)
Trench: 8'2'' (2.49m)
Length: 24'7'' (7.5m) (Including gun)
Width: 9'7'' (2.92m)
Height: 7'10'' (2.39m)
Weight: 70,547lb (32,000Kg)
Ground Pressure: 11.2lb/ sq in (0.8Kg/Sq cm)
Armour: 0.71 - 2.36'' (18 - 60mm)
Armament: 1x 85mm M1944 ZIS S53 L/53 gun, 2x 7.62mm DT MGs
Service History: In service with the Soviet army from 1940. Still used by many armies today.

In 1936, the young engineer MI Koshkin was transferred to the Komintern tank factory in Karkhov, which was working on the continued modernisation of the BT- series of tanks. In 1937 the factory was reassigned to work on designing a new medium tank, which was to be a wheel-track vehicle known as the A-20. Koshkin however was convinced that wheel/track designs were not going to be succesful and designed a purely tracked version, the A-32, which the Main Military Council of the USSR accepted as a prototype to be compared with the A-20. The T-32 (as the A-32 was known by then) was succesful, although the Armour Directorate recommended heavier armour and the adoption of a heavier gun (the prototype was armed with the same 45mm gun as the BT- series of tanks), these recommendations led to the T-34.

The T-34 design was accepted by the Main Military Council in 1939 and the first production models left the Komintern factory in January 1940, with mass production starting in June 1940 after a series of trials. The T-34 was noted for its well sloped armour which considerably increased the resistance to penetration. The 76.2mm high velocity gun was also a revelation, the heaviest gun that had ever been mounted on a medium tank.

By the time of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, 1,225 T-34s had been produced and came as a complete shock to the Germans, who found that their 37mm anti tank gun was completely useless against the T-34.

By 1943, the 76.2mm gun was proving more ineffectual against the new heavier German tanks, despite an upgrade to a longer gun with higher muzzle velocity in 1941. In order to keep the T-34 effective on the front line, a new 85mm D-5T was adopted, to produce the T-34/85. This tank proved to be one of the best tanks produced by any country during the war, and many are still in front line service with various countries around the world.

Pzkpfw V Panther (Germany)

http://www.hot.ee/relvaleht/tank-5.jpg

Max Speed: 29 mph (46km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 110 miles (177km)
Vertical Obstacle: 3' (0.9m)
Trench: 6'3'' (1.9m)
Length: 22'6'' (6.86m)
Width: 10'10'' (3.3m)
Height: 9'8'' (2.95m)
Weight: 98,766lb (44,800kg)
Ground Pressure: 12.5lb/sq in (0.88kg/sq cm)
Armour: 0.6 - 4.72'' (20 - 120mm)
Armament: 1x 75mm KwK42 L/70 gun, 2x 7.92mm MG34 MGs
Service History: In service with the German army from 1943 to 1945. Also used by the French and Soviet armies after the war.

Until the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the Panzer IV was the heaviest tank in the German army and had proved to be perfectly adequate, however the appearence of the T-34 and the KV-1 proved a nasty shock to the Germans and a new requirement was drawn up for a heavier tank to face the Soviet threat. At first it was proposed to produce a direct copy of the T-34, but German pride was too much to allow that so a new tank was designed incorporating the best of the T-34 design.

MAN were chosen to produce the new tank, although Daimler Benz had to be brought to help production. The first production tank left the factory in January 1943 but production never reached the 600 a month target set by Hitler.

After a poor combat debut at Kursk, caused by being rushed into service, the Panther developed into a fine tank that proved superior to the T-34/76 and was very popular with its crews. It also proved to be superior to all western Allied tanks, with the long 75mm gun proving even more deadly then the Tiger's 88mm gun.

Despite its complexity and high manufacturing costs the Panther was a sucesful design that many consider to be one of the best tanks of the war that was only really defeated by overwhelmingly superior Allied air power.

REMEMBER - JUSTIFY YOUR VOTE, ONE WORD ANSWERS WILL BE IGNORED. PUT SOME EFFORT (AND THOUGHT) INTO IT!!

Dani

12-05-2005, 05:43 PM

In an one to one combat, Panzerkampfwagen V Panther will crush the T34/85.

Reasons: Better armoured, much better gun (75mm KwK42 L/70 gun clearly outperforms the Russian 85 mm and even 88 mm KwK36 L/56 of the Tiger 1 - see http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns.html), more powerful (with more than 100 HP), heavier.

Panther was indeed much expensive than T34 but was a masterpiece of engineering comparing to T34/85.

So:
Panzerkampfwagen V Panther - one;
T34/85 - nil;

Enemy introduced new tank !
Shape roughly similar to 'Tridsatchedverka' (T-34).
Tank is heavily armored, weight is est. 40-50 tons.
Armament is probably 88mm AA gun.
We had losses at combat ranges beyond 2,000m. ..."
Soviet radio message from July 8th of 1943.
Quoted from http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm :lol:

Lemuel

12-05-2005, 06:02 PM

I believe it was general von Runstedt that referred to the T-34 as "the best tank in the world" but I think that was just excuses, like old Herman moaning about not having any Spitfires

1 vs 1 - I would put my money on the Panther, but more than often it would be 3 x T-34s vs 1 x Frozen Panther which is a different story

Interesting to note that the T34 is still in service in some present day military forces. In the year 2000 the North Korean military still had approximately 250 T-34s in service!

Firefly

12-05-2005, 06:22 PM

Well. I'm genuinely torn here. I know on a 1 for 1 the Panther would most likely do better than the T-34/85.

But I'm drawn to the engineering. The Panther, on its day was excellent, but it had to be on its day. The T-34/85 on the other hand had a very reliable powerplant, and one that went on to power numerous post war Soviet Tanks.

The 85mm gun could live with the Panther, the crews maybe couldnt. The Panther wasnt as reliable on any given day as the T-34/85.

But the German optics throughout the war were better. Also the Panther gun was able to take on at range any Allied tank of the war.

But the T-34/85 was designed to last about 20 hours in battle, was rough and ready and in the right conditions a match for any German AFV.

As a specialist weapon, it has to be the Panther, but, as a mass designed and operated weapon it has to be the T-34/85.

The result for me is a draw. I choose neither. I think they are the best Tanks of ww2, both of them.

A draw for me and I urge everyone to look at this one objectively and not subjectively - as in if its Soviet it must be bad - which is just not true, look at it in context.

Hosenfield

12-05-2005, 07:13 PM

you must remember to compare the firing rates and ammunition carrying capacity of each tank as well as turn spinning speed.

Firefly

12-08-2005, 02:58 PM

Time to bump this back up to get more votes going. Come on guys, these are probably 2 of the best tanks of ww2!!!!!!!!!

Also BDL puts a bit of effort in here, so give your answer as much effort please.

BDL

12-10-2005, 08:30 AM

2-0 at the minute then. I'll give it another 24 hours (ish).

For Hosenfield - the T-34/85 carried 55 rounds of 85mm ammo, the Panther had 79 rounds of 75mm.

Cuts

12-10-2005, 09:08 AM

you must remember to compare the firing rates and ammunition carrying capacity of each tank as well as turn spinning speed.

Do you mean turret or track speed ?

FluffyBunnyGB

12-10-2005, 11:43 AM

I'm going for the T34 on the basis that they might not have been the better engineered, but they were the better production design, in that a great tank could be made very quickly and in very large numbers.

As tank vs tank in isolation, the PANTHER would probably win, but it isn't just about that.

A very even match IMHO.

Topor

12-10-2005, 09:09 PM

Based on the initial performance, my vote goes to the Panther:
Better armour.
More reliable main armament(Russki 75 had some serious teething troubles). The high velocity of the German 75mm outweighs the increased mass of the Russki 85.
Better crew accomodation(comfort= performance).

Panther+1

StalingradK

12-10-2005, 11:55 PM

This is immpossible, too many terms have to be involved to choose. Yes the Panther would probably kill a T-34 one on one, but T-34's were never alone, they had friends high and low, and their friends kill all the Panther's friends.

BDL

12-11-2005, 06:00 AM

3-2 to the Panther then, I'll give it a few more hours before closing voting since it's so close.

Cuts

12-11-2005, 07:34 AM

I'll go for the Panther for the reasons already given above. After all we're comparing the tanks themselves rather than the tactics employed.

Otherwise we could compare weapons and the MG42 would lose out to a plastic teaspoon.

BDL

12-11-2005, 11:16 AM

Panther goes through then, one of the truly great tanks of the war goes out.

Next one will be done in a bit

BDL

12-11-2005, 04:05 PM

KV-1 (USSR) vs Crusader (UK)

KV-1

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks_heavy/kv1/kv_1_04.jpg

Max Speed: 22 mph (35km/h)
Range: 156 miles (250km)
Vertical Obstacle: 3'8'' (1.2m)
Trench: 8'6'' (2.8m)
Length: 20'7'' (6.27m)
Width: 10'2'' (3.1m)
Height: 7'11'' (2.41m)
Weight: 104,719lb (47,500kg)
Ground Pressure: 10.68lb/sq in (0.75kg/sq cm)
Armour: 2.95'' - 3.94'' (75 - 100mm)
Armament: 1x 76.2mm gun (various types used), 3x 7.62mm DT MGs.
Ammunition: 114x 76.2mm, 3,024x 7.62mm
Service History: Soviet Army 1940 - 1945

At the outbreak of WW2, the Soviet Army was practically the only one in the world armed with a production heavy tank. Production of the KV-1 began in 1940 and the type was first used in combat in February 1940 when a platoon was sent to Finland for combat testing and took part in the break through the Finnish front line with no KV-1s lost, despite heavy losses to multi-turretted heavy tanks accompanying them.

By the time of the German invasion in June 1941, the Soviets had 638 KV-1s in service and they came as a rude surprise to the Whermacht who were mostly equipped with light 37mm anti-tank guns incapable of harming the KV-1 without a lucky shot.

To provide heavy artillery support to the normal KV-1, a self propelled gun model (KV-2) was produced, mounting a huge box turret with a 152mm howitzer with 36 rounds of 152mm ammunition carried. This turret serverely affected the performance of the tank however and the KV-2 was soon dropped.

The KV-1 stayed in production though, and succesive models received heavier armour and a longer barelled gun. Some welded components were also replaced with casted parts to simplify production.

Front line experience showed that the KV-1 was too slow and a new lighter and faster model, the KV-1s, was adopted in 1942. As the need for heavier armament became apparent, the 85mm gun was adopted in 1943 to produce the KV-85.

Subsequent attempts to improve the KV series led to a large number of experimental tanks, but it was eventually replaced by the IS- series of tanks.

Crusader

http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/Equipment/Armour/crusader_tank_desert.jpg

Max Speed: 27mph (43.2km/h)
Range: 100 miles (160km)
Vertical Obstacle: 2'3'' (0.685m)
Trench: 8'2'' (2.59m)
Length: 19'8'' (5.99m)
Width: 8'8'' (2.64m)
Height: 7'4'' (2.23m)
Weight: Crusader I and II: 42,560lb (19,279Kg), Crusader III: 44,240lb (20,040Kg)
Ground Pressure: 14.79lb/sq in (1.04Kg/sq cm)
Armour: Crusader I: 0.28 - 1.57'' (7 - 40mm), Crusader II: 0.28 - 1.93'' (7 - 43mm), Crusader III: 0.28 - 2'' (7 - 51mm)
Armament: Crusader I&II: 1x 2pounder gun and 2x 7.92mm BESA MG, Crusader III: 1x 6pounder gun and 1x BESA MG
Ammunition: Crusader I: 110x 2pounder and 4,500x 7.92mm, Crusader II: 130x 2 pounder and 4,500x 7.92m, Crusader III: 65x pounder and 5,000x 7.92mm
Service History: British Army from 1939 to 1943

The Crusader was developed from the Convenanter and entered service in 1939. It was fitted with Christie suspension (possibly the best point of the tank) which allowed speeds of much higher than the official top speed of 27mph. In the Western Desert, mechanics often removed the engine governors and let the Liberty engine run as fast as it could, often allowing the tank to travel at 40mph or more, with the crew still being comfortable - although the engine could not take that much strain for too long.

The Crusader was rushed into service too quickly, and the in the first engagements (during Operation Battleaxe in 1941), more Crusaders were lost to mechanical breakdown than enemy action. These problems were eventually ironed out and the Crusader went on to fight in all of the major engagements in the Western Desert. By El-Alemain, the 6pounder armed Crusader III was in service giving the Crusader a better anti-armour performance. There was also a support version, armed with a 3inch howitzer, to give HE support to the combat tanks.

By the end of the desert campaign, the Crusader was outdated as a battle tank, and although a few went to Italy they were gradually phased out. Some hulls did stay in service after 1943 as AA vehicles or gun towers, but they never fought on the front lines again.

Although the Crusader had been a popular tank with its crews, due to the high speeds and comfortable ride, it was always underarmoured and undergunned against German tanks.

Firefly

12-11-2005, 04:48 PM

BDL

12-11-2005, 04:52 PM

No contest here for me. Your well researched information says it all for me. If the Crusader couldnt hold its own with a Panzer III, there was no way it could take on a KV.

For 1940, the KV was a true monster tank and thats the only choice here I can go with.

KV for me. Tough, well armoured, rugged and with a good gun for 1940-41 that outgunned all tanks in those years.

This is the most unbalanced match up of the round, no questions about that.

There's only one winner for me too unfortunately, and the crew smell of vodka and beetroot. The Crusader's outgunned, outarmoured and outclassed, their only hope is to out run the KV-1 and hope they can get close enough to the back to get through the rear armour.

FluffyBunnyGB

12-11-2005, 06:30 PM

KV for me as well.

Obvious really.

Topor

12-11-2005, 08:31 PM

The Crusader is outgunned, lacking in armour & of a different class.

KV1 gets my vote.

Dani

12-12-2005, 12:34 AM

KV 1.

BDL

12-12-2005, 07:32 AM

I'll end this one now then, far too one sided. Next one's coming up soon...

BDL

12-16-2005, 10:46 AM

Thanks to a link Dani posted, a new stat for each vehicle will now be added - aproximate failure range for the main gun. This is the approximate range at which the best anti armour shell fired by the main gun (for each type if more than one gun was used - ie for both the 6 pounder and the 75mm on British tanks) would fail to penetrate the heaviest armour on the opposing tank.

Next match up is being written as you read this (unless you're reading this after I've written the next one, in which case, it's below here somewhere).

BDL

12-16-2005, 10:52 AM

Max Speed:
Range:
Vertical Obstacle:
Trench:
Length:
Width:
Height:
Weight:
Ground Pressure:
Armour:
Armament:
Ammunition:
Service History:
Main Gun Failure Range:

Max Speed:
Range:
Vertical Obstacle:
Trench:
Length:
Width:
Height:
Weight:
Ground Pressure:
Armour:
Armament:
Ammunition:
Service History:
Main Gun Failure Range:

Ignore this - leaving myself a template of the layout with the new category added

BDL

12-16-2005, 01:12 PM

M26 Pershing (USA) v Comet (UK)

M26 Pershing

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2725/m26035cn.jpg

Max Speed: 30mph (48km/h)
Range: 100 miles (160km)
Vertical Obstacle: 3'10'' (1.17m)
Trench: 8' (2.44m)
Length: 28'5'' (8.65m)
Width: 11'6'' (3.51m)
Height: 9'1'' (2.78m)
Weight: 92,355lb (41,891Kg)
Ground Pressure: 13.1lb/sq in (0.92Kg/sq cm)
Armour: 0.51'' - 4'' (13 - 102mm)
Armament: 1x 90mm M3 gun, 1x 0.3in M1919A4 MG coaxial with main gun, 1x M1919A4 in hull front, 1x 0.5in M2 on turret roof.
Ammunition: 70x 90mm, 5,000x 0.3in, 550x 0.5in
Service History: Served with the US Army from 1945, including WW2 and Korea. Served with many foreign armies until the 1960s
Main Gun Failure Range 2,000m+ (90mm HVAP penetrates 154mm at 2,000m)

In 1942, the US Ordnance Dept. was authorised to develope the T20 medium tank, which was planned to be a test bed for a wide variety of different armaments, suspensions and transmissions, as well as an improvement on the M4 series then in service. One of these developments was the T26 with the new T7 90mm gun and used the Ford GAF engine with electric transmission.

Early in 1943, Armored Command decided that the war would be lost or lost with the M4 Sherman, causing the Ordnance Dept. to embark on several improvements to the Sherman, improving crew safety, mechanical reliability and combat efficency. The Armored Command also objected in general to heavy tanks, saying that they were too heavy and large for combat. On the other hand, Army Ground Forces wanted to build 1,000 T-26s and 7,000 T-25s (developed at the same time as part of the same project and mounting the 76mm and 75mm gun respectively), while the Armored Command wanted a tank with the 90mm gun but not either of the new tanks. The Ordnance believed that the best compromise was the T-26E2 with the 90mm gun.

Army Ground Forces decided to delay any standardisation action until after the Armored Board had decided whether the T26 met their requirements. In order to break the stalemate between the various departments, the Secretary of War sent 20 of the new tanks to Europe as 'Zebra Mission' to prove once and for all the battleworthiness of the tank.

In action with the 3rd and 9th Armored Divisions of the US Army, the T-26 proved very succesful in combat and in January 1945 the T-26E3 was adopted as the M26 and named 'Perishing' after General John Perishing.

Although the Perishing was too late to make a major impact on WW2, it did take part in several succesful engagements during the march into Germany, including one were a single Perishing destroyed a Tiger and two Pzkpfw IVs. After the war, the Perishing was quickly reclassified as a medium tank and remained in service for many years, being used widely in Korea as well as being supplied to many Allies of the US.

Comet

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2484/comet060es.jpg

Max Speed: 32mph (51km/h)
Range: 123 miles (196km)
Vertical Obstacle: 3' (0.92m)
Trench: 8' (2.43m)
Length: 25'2'' (7.66m)
Width: 10' (3.04m)
Height: 8'9.5'' (2.98m)
Weight: 78,800lb (35,696Kg)
Ground Pressure: 13.85lb/sq in (0.88Kg/sq cm)
Armour: 0.55 - 4'' (14 - 102mm)
Armament: 1x 77mm gun, 1x 7.92mm BESA MG coaxial with the main gun, 1x BESA MG in the hull.
Ammunition: 61x 77mm, 5,175x 7.92mm
Service History: Served with the British Army from 1944 to 1958. Still in use with Burma in 2000(!).
Main Gun Failure Range 2,000m+ (77mm APDS penetrates 120mm at 2,000m)

Edit - Have been told that the Comet was not used by South Africa at all, which seems to be the case. Apologies for anyone who was misled

After the tank battles in the Western Desert, it was apparent that British tanks did not have the firepower required to take on German tanks equally. The Cromwell had been given too light a gun (6pdr) which was not powerful enough against armour and was unable to fire an effective HE shell, and attempts to upgun it to the 17pdr were unsuccesful (the Challenger).

Leyland were chosen to develop the new tank, and first looked for the best gun that could be mounted on the Cromwell and then build a tank around the gun, using as many Cromwell components as possible to ease production. The gun chosen was a lighter and more compact version of the 17pounder, the Vickers HV 75mm, which fired the same shell as the 17pdr but with a shorter wider cartridge case which was easier to handle in a tank turret. To prevent confusion over ammunition, this new gun was known as the 77mm gun. Although the gun had a slightly lower muzzle velocity than the standard 17pdr, it was still far superior to any gun mounted on any other Allied AFV at the time.

By the time the Comet entered service, it had gone through many redesigns meaning that 60% of the tank as now a completely new vehicle. The fi