# Best Medium-light tank



## MacArther (Feb 3, 2009)

Okay, I know that heading seems confusing, so I'll explain. Anything below a Pnzer IV, Pnzer V, Sherman, Cromwell, or any other classic "Medium" tank in terms of firepower, armor, weight, etc. Also, these would be heavier than something like a Pnzer I, in terms of armament, weight, and armor. An example off the top of my head would be the Pnzer III. I'll let a few of you go first before revealing my "best" tank for this category. Also, I made this poll because although there is a "Favorite Western Tank" poll, there is not much in terms of early-mid war stuff, where as there is plenty of talk about the tanks that carried on into the assault on Fortress Europe.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 3, 2009)

The British Matilda tank seems to have been very popular with its crews, however I don't know much about tanks so cannot justify that, except to say that I've seen it mentioned a lot.

edit, just found out that the Matilda weight 30 tons so 'probably' doesn't qualify. Sorry for making the first reply such a clunker


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 3, 2009)

Well, the Sherman was considered a ‘medium’, as was the T-34. Both of these ended up topping out at over 30 tonnes.

If we are looking at “light mediums” that are around 20 tonnes, then you’d also have to include:

Britain:

Centaur: I-III: 21 tonnes
Valentine I-XI: 17-17.5 tonnes

US:

M-24 Chaffe: 18.5 tonnes (my vote for the best “light” tank);

Russia: 

T-50: 14 tonnes
BT-7: 13.5 tonnes


Japan:

Type 97: 15 tonnes
Type 1: 17 tonnes
Type 3: 18.4 tonnes – no combat use, but theoretically the most powerful “medium” the IJA had at its disposal


Hungary:

Turan: 18.2 tonnes. Well outclassed when it was introduced though...


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Feb 3, 2009)

If we're talking early-mid war, I opted for the Panzer III. I don't believe the Russians had a effective medium-light tank besides the T-34. The KV tanks and SU assualt guns sure, but those were heavier then 30 tons.


----------



## Amsel (Feb 3, 2009)

I agree. The Panzer III lasted the whole war. In the beginning nothing could stop the advance of the Panzer III and short barreled IV. Until the Kv-1. And then the Panzer crews would shoot holes in the barrels of the soviet armor rendering them inefective in armor battles.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Feb 4, 2009)

Definitely Panzer III, very versatile, was the workhorse of the Wehrmacht. Plus after its retirement out of service, it still served as a tank destroyer and mobile artillery until the end of the war. Also I really like how it looks


----------



## dragonandhistail (Feb 4, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I agree. The Panzer III lasted the whole war. In the beginning nothing could stop the advance of the Panzer III and short barreled IV. Until the Kv-1. And then the Panzer crews would shoot holes in the barrels of the soviet armor rendering them inefective in armor battles.


Your characterization of the PZ III and short barreled MK IV is inaccurate. They were easily "stoppable". Just read about what happened to everybody's favorite overrated Nazi Rommel at Arras in 1940 when he ran into well trained British armored forces. They shot the heck out of the 7th Panzer Division and were only stopped by the quick placement of a few 88mm anti-aircraft guns. The PZ III and PZ IV were very lightly armored and easily penetrated by the British 2 pounder, the French 47mm and 75mm. Even the US 37mm penetrated both models at 500 yards in side, rear, and sometimes frontal engagements depending on where they were hit. The Mk III did not have much more armor than a US M5 Stuart. The key to German armored success in the early part of the war was not the vehicles but the tactics, crew training, and the fact that every German tank had a radio in it. They were not unstoppable and in fact were rebuffed on the battlefield quite often. The Matilda, Char B, and Russian T-70 were more than a match for these vehicles if crewed properly. That is why the T-34 and early Shermans were such a shock to MK III and IV crews in Russia and North Africa. By the way, in the initial year of the Barbarossa campaign 1/2 of all German tanks were Panzer IIs. The Germans were successful not because of their vehicles but because of the men and equipment in them.


----------



## dragonandhistail (Feb 4, 2009)

MacArther,

I think you have lumped apples and oranges here together. The M3 grant was a serious medium and not in the category of the Stuart, early PZ IIs or the PZ II. It was a beast in comparison. Choose light or medium not both. Pick a weight threshold as well. A better list of light tanks would have included: Russian T-70 and BT 7, US M3 /M5 Stuart series, PZ II series, British Cruiser tanks, French Hotchkiss, US M-24 Chaffee, Japanese light tank series, etc. Anything toting a 50mm gun or larger should be excluded before 1944. The Crusader, PZ III, M3 Grant were main battle tanks and thus mediums.


----------



## MacArther (Feb 4, 2009)

If I recall correctly, the M3 Grant was based on the body of the M3 Stuart. Also, it had something like 1.9~ inches of armor tops, which is why I lumped it with light mediums. Also, although it had a powerful main gun, it also had shot-traps out the wazoo, and I would imagine that the 37mm gun was used more often than the 75mm gun, at least early on due to the transversing mechanism of the 75mm (see: turn the whole tank towards the target). But yes, I can see how the classification system I used was confusing. Keep in mind though, I have NONE of my military guides, books, etc. with me at the moment, so I'm only able to do vague classifications. As for my choice, M5 Stuart. Yes, it did not have the same hitting power as a M24, but the M5 could load canister rounds, and was sufficient enough for either reconnaissance or light infantry support (so long as it kept its front towards the enemy anyway).



> Turan: 18.2 tonnes. Well outclassed when it was introduced though...



Ah, but wasn't its main gun on the original based off of a German gun design? But yes, I will agree, from the get go, the opponents it faced were far better off.


----------



## Amsel (Feb 4, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> Your characterization of the PZ III and short barreled MK IV is inaccurate. They were easily "stoppable". Just read about what happened to everybody's favorite overrated Nazi Rommel at Arras in 1940 when he ran into well trained British armored forces. They shot the heck out of the 7th Panzer Division and were only stopped by the quick placement of a few 88mm anti-aircraft guns. The PZ III and PZ IV were very lightly armored and easily penetrated by the British 2 pounder, the French 47mm and 75mm. Even the US 37mm penetrated both models at 500 yards in side, rear, and sometimes frontal engagements depending on where they were hit. The Mk III did not have much more armor than a US M5 Stuart. The key to German armored success in the early part of the war was not the vehicles but the tactics, crew training, and the fact that every German tank had a radio in it. They were not unstoppable and in fact were rebuffed on the battlefield quite often. The Matilda, Char B, and Russian T-70 were more than a match for these vehicles if crewed properly. That is why the T-34 and early Shermans were such a shock to MK III and IV crews in Russia and North Africa. By the way, in the initial year of the Barbarossa campaign 1/2 of all German tanks were Panzer IIs. The Germans were successful not because of their vehicles but because of the men and equipment in them.


Your last sentence sums up what I intended to be understood. I know the early panzers were not heavily armored. They were the best small tanks at the time. I have studied the war from both sides and even in North Africa the panzers were feared. I believe my assessment was corrrect but was misinterpreted to believe I meant it could take on everything. It obviously couldn't. Are Shermans on the list?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 5, 2009)

The Sherman was a fast tank, but it wasn't the scariest tank to it's opponents. It couldn't punch holes in the German tank armour very easily, and it caught flame like a stove top. 

In some ways, it was a little like the Japanese Zero, fast and manuverable but vulnerable to enemy fire.


----------



## dragonandhistail (Feb 5, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> If we're talking early-mid war, I opted for the Panzer III. I don't believe the Russians had a effective medium-light tank besides the T-34. The KV tanks and SU assualt guns sure, but those were heavier then 30 tons.




Vassili, 

The T-70 was built in huge quantities and has to be considered for sheer numbers. T-70 Light Tank was the direct heir of the T-60, as it used the same chassis, it was actually a major redesign (two engines instead of the T-60's single one, stronger suspensions and springing, a bigger gun). Production started in 1942 and, between March 1942 and October 1943, more than 8,200were manufactured. The T-70 was seriously overshadowed by the T-34 thus we know little of its operational history. The 45mm cannon was a peashooter but against a MK III on the side or rear it was deadly. Frontally it could penetrate an early MK III. The T-70's major operational limitation was that of every other "two-man-crew" tank; the commander can't command or be situationally aware while acting as a gunner / loader / radio operator as well. That is why light tanks like the US M5 were so successful in the recon role because they had a four man crew. After 1943 the T-70's chassis were adapted for manufacturing ths new self-propelled assault guns like the SU-76. As for best light tank I like the Stuart, but if the Chaffee was on this poll it would have my vote.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Feb 5, 2009)

Cool, thanks for the info! The lack of crew reminds me of the French Char.


----------



## dragonandhistail (Feb 6, 2009)

Vassili,

I misread your initial post. You are certainly correct that the Russians did not have an effective "light" tank. The T-70 was so light it was almost in the tankette category. With masses of T-34s avaialble for use in every role the T-70 was a definite to be relegated to obscurity. THe crew is everything.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Feb 6, 2009)

Hey, thanks for the info anyway, I'm no expert on tanks, so every little bit helps!


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 6, 2009)

The Chaffee would be my pick as well but it isn't on the list. So I voted other.


----------



## dragonandhistail (Feb 6, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Hey, thanks for the info anyway, I'm no expert on tanks, so every little bit helps!



I know a lot about tanks but need to learn a lot more from you guys about planes! I left off that study in my 20s. I look forward to learning more from you.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Feb 6, 2009)

Hey, I don't know a lot about planes either. I've learned a lot on this site.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 8, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> Vassili,
> 
> I misread your initial post. You are certainly correct that the Russians did not have an effective "light" tank. The T-70 was so light it was almost in the tankette category. With masses of T-34s avaialble for use in every role the T-70 was a definite to be relegated to obscurity. THe crew is everything.



Sorry for a belated reply 

If something could be called a tankette, those are Pz-I and Vickers Mk-VI; both mainstay of the tank fleet of their respective countries in the 1st year of WWII. 

T-70 was a proper light tank, with decent armor gun, intended for combat rather then recconaisance . The issue is the 2 man crew. It really plagued the use of the T-70, but e light (under 10t) tank was produced by factories unable to produce medium tanks.

Sure enough, with masses of T-34 available, T-70 T-70A were discontinued in production in 1943. The modified chassis was used for SU-76, a much more useful vehicle.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 8, 2009)

I voted "other". The Souma S35 would have been my pick for the Medium category, though the Char B1 is my favorite but considered a heavy. The only problems with the French tanks was that the one man turrent required the commander to be both operator and loader, plus other manuevering tasks that were required. An inexperienced commander would have found the multi-tasking daunting and exhaustive. However, well trained crews were quite effective against the Panzers IIs and IIIs like at Gembloux and Stonne. 
I have a book by J-P. Pallud, "Blitzkrieg in the West", and it has some interesting photos of what resulted from encounters between Soumas and Panzer 2 and 3. How the Souma could have fared against the Stuarts or Crusaders I don't know.

For sheer speed I probably would prefer the Stuart. I didn't realize the Grant was considered a "medium".


----------



## MacArther (Feb 8, 2009)

Eh, once again, the Grant was something of a "Whoops, probably shouldn't have put that there" thing. The only thing that was driving me to put it on the list was the fact that it had a limited traverse for the 75mm and less armor overall than the Stuart.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Feb 8, 2009)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> I voted "other". The Souma S35 would have been my pick for the Medium category, though the Char B1 is my favorite but considered a heavy. The only problems with the French tanks was that the one man turrent required the commander to be both operator and loader, plus other manuevering tasks that were required. An inexperienced commander would have found the multi-tasking daunting and exhaustive. However, well trained crews were quite effective against the Panzers IIs and IIIs like at Gembloux and Stonne.
> I have a book by J-P. Pallud, "Blitzkrieg in the West", and it has some interesting photos of what resulted from encounters between Soumas and Panzer 2 and 3. How the Souma could have fared against the Stuarts or Crusaders I don't know.
> 
> For sheer speed I probably would prefer the Stuart. I didn't realize the Grant was considered a "medium".


The Sumoa was much better than the Char B1bis. The latter was an outdated design and broke down quickly. I remember reading they lost most of them due to very frequent mechanical breakdowns.


----------



## davebender (Mar 11, 2009)

Profiles of Panzerkampfwagens, Sturmgeschütz, Jagdpanzers, Marders, and other World War II Armor
A Panzer Mk IV Auf G (i.e. high velocity 75mm gun) weighs 23,500 kg. So I will assume that 23,000 kg is the dividing line between "medium" and "light".

I vote for the newer versions of the Panzer Mk III (with 5cm main gun) as they had the whole package of desirable features:
Good firepower (for a tank that size).
Good suspension.
Decent power to weight ratio.
Good armor (for a tank that size).
Mechanically reliable.
Excellent turret design.

French tanks and the Soviet T-70 had poor turrets. A huge problem as most of the work takes place in the turret.

The British Matilda was slow and lacked a HE round for the main gun. That greatly limited tank usefulness.

The M24 Chaffee arrived too late to matter.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 12, 2009)

I disagree about 23 tons being border between light and medium category; even Germans considered Pz-III and -IV medium tanks.

Pz-III and T-70 weren't really competitors; the former weighted double as much as later.


----------



## davebender (Mar 13, 2009)

> Pz-III and T-70 weren't really competitors; the former weighted double as much as later.


I agree. And for the same reason we cannot consider the Panzer Mk IV (Originally designed for 18 tons. Overloaded to 24 tons.) to be in the same class as a 30-35 ton T-34 or Sherman.


----------



## fly boy (Mar 13, 2009)

what was better the US sherman or the firefly


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2009)

davebender said:


> I agree. And for the same reason we cannot consider the Panzer Mk IV (Originally designed for 18 tons. Overloaded to 24 tons.) to be in the same class as a 30-35 ton T-34 or Sherman.



Well, the T-34 sarted with 26 tons, ending with 32. Sherman was a 30 ton vehicle for most of the time (Jumbo being the notable exception). Those two were newer vehicles too, yet another advantage.


----------



## Freebird (Mar 13, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> Your characterization of the PZ III and short barreled MK IV is inaccurate. They were easily "stoppable". Just read about what happened to everybody's favorite overrated Nazi Rommel at Arras in 1940 when he ran into well trained British armored forces. They shot the heck out of the 7th Panzer Division and were only stopped by the quick placement of a few 88mm anti-aircraft guns. The PZ III and PZ IV were very lightly armored and easily penetrated by the British 2 pounder, the French 47mm and 75mm. Even the US 37mm penetrated both models at 500 yards in side, rear, and sometimes frontal engagements depending on where they were hit. The Mk III did not have much more armor than a US M5 Stuart. The key to German armored success in the early part of the war was not the vehicles but the tactics, crew training, and the fact that every German tank had a radio in it. They were not unstoppable and in fact were rebuffed on the battlefield quite often. The Matilda, Char B, and Russian T-70 were more than a match for these vehicles if crewed properly. That is why the T-34 and early Shermans were such a shock to MK III and IV crews in Russia and North Africa. By the way, in the initial year of the Barbarossa campaign 1/2 of all German tanks were Panzer IIs. The Germans were successful not because of their vehicles but because of the men and equipment in them.



Great post Dragon.

I would propose that if the poll only considers "light" tanks it should be < 20 tons.

The Pz III would be a little too heavy, so it would be between:

Chaffee
Stuart
Pz III
Crusader
Valentine
T-70
BT-7



The Chaffe was probably the best in this category, but was introduced in 1943/44, so had several years to improve from earlier tanks.

How about a poll of light tanks, 20 tons or less, and in service 1941 or earlier?
Japan type 97


----------



## futuredogfight (Feb 9, 2012)

Defiinetly the M-24 Chaffee


----------



## mikewint (Feb 9, 2012)

The Panzer III. The J model with the 50mm KwK main gun delt very effectively with the T-34 under 500m and the special tungsten rounds zapped the KVs. The L model with schurzen kept the III as an active MBT until after the battle of Kursk. Then it lived on as the basis of the StuG


----------



## Glider (Feb 10, 2012)

Working on the basis that its a typo and should read Pz II not III then the choice is the Chaffee. This is only to be expected as only the US went with light tanks at the end of the war for recce. The Germans and British equivalents would be large armoured cars such as 234/3 for Germany armed with a 50mm L60 and AEC types II and III armed with a 6pd or 75mm.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 10, 2012)

in the spirit of this thread my vote go to Pz III
just remember that M24 was rushed in combat in Battle of Bulge


----------



## A4K (Feb 10, 2012)

I voted 'other'. 
As much as my heart belongs to the M3 Stuart, her last descendent was apparently a vastly superior design than many of her contemporaries and a very effective weapon - the M-24 Chaffe.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 10, 2012)

are you sure that M24 is a descendent of Stuart? i nevere heard this before, i thinked that Chaffee was a new design
Light tanks contemporaries of M24? soviet stopped lights production in fall '43, the Pz II Luchs was stopped in 1/44 (soviets and II were much lighter of Chaffee)


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 10, 2012)

M-24 was a whole new design, from suspension type to armament installed. Superb tank, at least on paper; it would've qualified as medium at the beginning of the WW2.

M-5 was descendant of M-3 light. The M3A3 was the tank of Tito's partisan's 1st Tank brigade when it was assembled in Gravino (Gravina?), Italy, 1944.


----------



## A4K (Feb 11, 2012)

In some ways ya's are right, and the M5 and M8 were the last of the 'recognisable' Stuart line.
While these were greatly advanced over the M3 designs (minus the good looks  ), according to Squadron/Signal's 'Stuart in action' experience showed an upgunned light tank was essential. It was desired to fit an M3 75 mm tank gun to an M5A1 but she was simply too small and the turret ring unable to accomodate a larger turret.
Tests with a modified M8 HMC were successful, but the exposed turret roof and other features put paid to the project. It was decided a new design was required, and the 'T24' emerged with standard M5A1 Stuart motors and power train, with modified suspension from an M18 tank destroyer. She carried an M5 75 mm gun (as used on the B-25 Mitchell) and later renamed 'M 24 Chaffe'.
While using the same rounds as the Sherman, she had less armour penetration due to the shorter barrel, though according to Squadron she was considered 'the most brilliant light tank design of the second world war. It was low, sleek, well armed and technically state of the art...'


----------



## davebender (Feb 11, 2012)

Therein lies the problem. The M-24 wasn't committed to combat until December 1944 by which time it was hopelessly outclassed by almost everything on the battlefield. So I consider the M-24 to be a bad design which should never have been placed into mass production.

IMO the 21 ton Panzer III ausf F is one of the better examples of the right tank at the right time.
July 1940. Entered production with 5cm KwK 38 L/42 main gun.
3 x MG34 in addition to the main gun. 
5 smoke grenades for defense. One of the first uses on an armored vehicle.
Torsion bar suspension. The U.S. Army liked it so well that it was supposedly copied for M24 and M26 tanks.
30mm front armor. Later upgraded to 60mm.
Stowage bins on rear of turret. Later these would become common for most tanks.

During the fall of 1940 this lightweight and inexpensive (~100,00 RM) tank was probably the best in the world. Armor vehicle technology was advancing so rapidly that the Panzer III was outclassed by 1942. None the less, with continual upgrades the Panzer III provided good service well into 1944. So did the StuG III assault gun which was built on the Panzer III chassis.


----------



## futuredogfight (Feb 11, 2012)

The M-24 could hold its own in a firefight.


----------



## Glider (Feb 11, 2012)

futuredogfight said:


> The M-24 could hold its own in a firefight.



No it couldn't. The 75mm was insufficient by 1944 unless you were very lucky. For an M24 to go toe to toe against a 1944 tank would put it at a severe disadvantage. This is why the M41 came along pretty quickly after the war.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 11, 2012)

part of the problem with this poll is that categorizing tanks by weight pits tanks from different time periods against each other regardless of the intend role they were supposed to play in combat. The German MK III was intended to be the Germans main battle tank, the MK II was a training tank/reconnaissance tank that was pressed into duty as a battle tank in 1939/40 due to a lack of real battle tanks. 

The M3 Grant/Lee was a main battle tank would only be a "light/medium" if you were comparing it to the M6 Heavy tank. same chassis/running gear/drive line as the M 4 Sherman. 

M3/M5 Stuarts were training tank/reconnaissance tanks that were pressed into duty at times. Normal Battalion table of organization shows the difference. One company of Stuarts and 3 companies of Grants/Shermans. The "light tanks" were supposed to find the enemy and then retreat while the mediums did the fighting ( or for the US, somebody called in a tank destroyer battalion) and then move out to sides of the battle to guard the flanks. The were never intended to slug it out toe to toe with the enemy medium tanks. Same goes for the M-24 it's true counterpart in the German forces would be the 8 wheeled armored cars.


----------



## davebender (Feb 11, 2012)

> Same goes for the M-24 it's true counterpart in the German forces would be the 8 wheeled armored cars.


The USA produced over 4,000 M24 tanks. About 40 M24 light tanks per U.S. combat division. How could they all have been assigned to division recon battalions like German 8wd armored cars were?


----------



## A4K (Feb 11, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> part of the problem with this poll is that categorizing tanks by weight pits tanks from different time periods against each other regardless of the intend role they were supposed to play in combat.



Agreed. Same with all the 'best fighter/ bomber/ etc' threads here. No single tank or aircraft was or ever will be good for everything. Each has it's specific role(s), and that only for a limited time and place. 

Take for example my favourite, the M3 Stuart. She was too lightly armed and armoured for effective use against most german equipment. She was however very fast and manoeverable and proved very effective in the jungle fighting against the Japanese. She was also a very effective reconnanissance vehicle with turret removed and extra Mg's fitted. So how do we decide how good or bad she was?


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 11, 2012)

i think the thread is to interpreted like the best battle tank before of "classic" medium tank (Pz IV, T-34, Sherman..), this also explain the absence of M24 in poll. this has some trouble in timeline, (early the common enemy of T-34 was Pz III) but is workable.


----------



## A4K (Feb 11, 2012)

Thanks Vincenzo, needs to be more specified then.


----------



## MacArther (Feb 11, 2012)

A4K said:


> Agreed. Same with all the 'best fighter/ bomber/ etc' threads here. No single tank or aircraft was or ever will be good for everything. Each has it's specific role(s), and that only for a limited time and place.



To be fair...I started this thread way back in the day when I was inept at most military theories and what not...


----------



## futuredogfight (Feb 12, 2012)

Glider: when I say it could hold its own I mean it could keep the Panzers head down so it could get out of the area.


----------



## Glider (Feb 12, 2012)

My misunderstanding.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2012)

MacArther said:


> To be fair...I started this thread way back in the day when I was inept at most military theories and what not...



we all had to start somewhere and most of us are still learning


----------



## davebender (Feb 12, 2012)

M3 Stuart light tank. March 1941. 15 tons. 
37mm main gun. plus 3 .30cal machineguns.
44mm frontal armor.
Two man turret.

All the Sherman medium tank needed was a better main gun. All the Stuart light tank needed was a three man turret. Not sure why the U.S. Army couldn't get these details right. Both tanks had the potential to be world class at the time they entered service.


----------



## Glider (Feb 12, 2012)

In theory I would agree but and its a big but, the US didn't have a better gun than the 75mm, so there was nothing to put in the Sherman. As for the M3 anything with a 37mm wasn't going to be good enough.


----------



## davebender (Feb 12, 2012)

Why could we create an atomic bomb yet be unable to design a tank cannon similiar to the German 7.5cm KwK 40?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2012)

There was nothing wrong the Sherman's gun when the Sherman was introduced. The problem was in keeping it too long. 

Changing to 3 man turrets is sometimes easy and sometimes hard. The hard ones are where you need a bigger turret ring, which needs a bigger hull top plate which may need either a wider hull (or in the case of the M3, a longer one?). In some cases you can get three men into a small, cramped turret without a bigger turret ring. But a 3 man turret is not an automatic big advantage. The layout of the turret can affect each mans efficiency and the provision of adequate vision for the commander is important for getting the best from a 3 man (or even a 1 man) turret.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2012)

davebender said:


> Why could we create an atomic bomb yet be unable to design a tank cannon similiar to the German 7.5cm KwK 40?



We did come up with the 76mm cannon which had superior performance to the German gun. AND we even got it into action ahead of the atomic bomb. Of course the old 3in M7 tank cannon had identical performance to the 76mm but was a somewhat heavier, bulkier weapon. But then it was installed in prototype tanks in the fall of 1941. Isn't that about the time the Germans were fooling around with the 7.5cm KwK 40? Of course the US skipped right over that 7.5cm KwK 37 step.


----------



## A4K (Feb 13, 2012)

MacArther said:


> To be fair...I started this thread way back in the day when I was inept at most military theories and what not...



No worries mate! 
And echo Short rounds post, I'm always learning too...


----------



## davebender (Feb 13, 2012)

76mm Gun M1. HE round contains about .9lb of explosive filler.
7.5cm KwK40. HE round contains about .66kg of explosive filler.
7.5cm KwK40. HEAT round contains about .51kg of explosive filler. 

I disagree and I think the U.S. Army did also. The German tank cannon had a more powerful HE round. Even the German HEAT round contained more explosive filler then the American HE round. Tanks typically fire more HE then AP so a tank armed with the American 76mm Gun M1 was at a serious disadvantage compared to a tank armed with the 7.5cm KwK40 cannon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 13, 2012)

Now you are reaching, and confusing gun design with shell design. While high velocity guns will have less HE filler than low velocity guns there is nothing magical about a 200fps difference (or less) that would mandate such a low He filler weight for the American shell. It simply used an old design from the 3 in AA gun that may have used lower quality steel in the shell body.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 13, 2012)

however the penetration capacity of US 76 and kwk 40 with apcbc shell are similar


----------



## davebender (Feb 13, 2012)

The gun and shell work together to get the job done.

I've got to assume the U.S. Army designed the best possible HE shell for the 76mm gun M1. To do less would be dereliction of duty by U.S. Army Ordnance Department leaders.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 14, 2012)

Quick to indite the US Ordnace officers aren't you. 

US Ordnace, on the whole, did a rather good job in WW II. They screwed up. On occasion, but there were times they had designs in hand and were turned down for production priority by the Army ground forces (the actual users) or by the production planners. 

The US 3 in gun (M7) was an adaptation of an old AA gun which was an adaptation of an old coast defense gun. The 76mm M1 gun was a new gun (and recoil system) that used a new, smaller cartridge case to fire the old projectiles. By the time the 76mm showed up tank battalions were being issued small numbers of Shermans armed with 105mm howitzers for the HE mission. 

Why don't you critique the German ordnance dept for some of their less than steller designs, like the 37mm HE round, the provision of a tear gas pellet in the base of the 7.92 Anti-tank rifle bullet and others.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 15, 2012)

The US-produced ground ordnance of WW2 served fairly well in post-war Yugoslavian army, M7 Priests, M3 M4 tanks, M18 M36 TDs, 105 155mm howitzers (they used many of UK, USSR German pieces, too). M36s were used even in operations of liberation of Southern Croatia in 1992/93. 
So I'd say that US ordnance (and the producers themselves) did quite a good job. That German army was rehearsing for a major was from 1936 in Spain, unlike the USA, need to be taken into account.


----------



## Tante Ju (Feb 15, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Why don't you critique the German ordnance dept for some of their less than steller designs, like the 37mm HE round, the provision of a tear gas pellet in the base of the 7.92 Anti-tank rifle bullet and others.



Because these failings, if you really think so (what was problem with 37mm HE round?) were insignicant compared to the importance of the defective 76mm AP and HE shells. Really, how one can say the importance of a 5 rounds of special (perhaps somewhat naive designed) rifle ammo issued to German infantry, that would be used against occasional armored cars etc. equals the importance that US Tank Destroyers simply couldnt do their job proper against common enemy heavy tanks (Panther, Tiger)...?

Frankly only German ordonance that does not make much sense is the 12.8 cm AT gun - when they had excellent PaK 43 already, 12.8 was a not very usable, and poinltess overkill..

I agree that US ordonance was generally good. Say 105mm infantry howitzer, 60mm mortar was excellent. Other systems, like adoption of the old 75mm French guns, WW1 BARs and Browning MGs were typically mediocre, but at least worked enough well. But the 76 mm was high profile mistake.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 15, 2012)

How come US 76mm shells were defective?? Why would medium powered (NOT the German KwK-42, nor british 17pdr) 3in class AP gun+ammo be that effective vs. heavy tank? German 7,5cm L43 to L48 were as '(in)effective vs. soviet 45-ton tanks as the US 3in or British 77mm vs. Panther*; asking from such kind of guns to defeat a 58-ton tank looks pretty far from reality, something along asking from 3,7cm to defeat T-34 or Sherman. 
The only failing of 3in in US service was that it was not available in better numbers.

Under German ordnance that makes hardly any sense we could include both Tigers JagdTiger.

*IMO German 7,5cm guns (those weaker than Panther's gun) were at even greater disadvantage vs. IS-2, since that one was carrying more armor than Panther.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> Because these failings, if you really think so (what was problem with 37mm HE round?) were insignicant compared to the importance of the defective 76mm AP and HE shells. Really, how one can say the importance of a 5 rounds of special (perhaps somewhat naive designed) rifle ammo issued to German infantry, that would be used against occasional armored cars etc. equals the importance that US Tank Destroyers simply couldnt do their job proper against common enemy heavy tanks (Panther, Tiger)...?



The only problem the German 37mm tank/anti tank shell had was it's low HE capacity of 25 grams, in part because of a large tracer element? Since Mr. Bender seems to believe that lower than average HE content is a crime or near crime for allied authorities why not for the German ones?
The normal German 7.9mm rifle/MG round is not in question evn in AP form. The bullet in question is for the high velocity 7.9mm anti-tank rifles. The tear gas component was about the size of an aspirin tablet and the idea that even multiple penetrations ( from single shot rifles) could actually drive a crew from their vehicle due the effect of the gas seems laughable. British were only aware of it when breaking down captured ammunition for examination. 


The adoption of the 76mm was not a mistake if all factors are taken into account. The delay in it's production and service probably was. One factor glossed over is that while less powerful than the British 17pdr. The 76mm had about double the rate of fire as installed in the tank. The 76mm allowed for more stored ammo. The new turret with the 76mm fit with a minimum of modification onto the existing hull and, indeed, it may have possible to fit into the old turret at depots. The US passed over the uber velocity 75/76 in favor of the 90mm gun (much like the 88/56) which would have been much harder to fit in a Sherman chassis in a closed turret, it was fitted in an open topped turret That also required the sacrifice of a co-ax MG and limited ammo storage.


----------



## Glider (Feb 15, 2012)

I always thought that the main problem with the German 37mm was the same as the US 37mm and the British 2pd. They were to damn small to do what they were needed to do after 1941, namely destroy tanks at a decent combat range.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2012)

Both 37 mm guns saw considerable use as infantry support guns after their best days as AT weapons were behind them. A number of German half- tracks mounted them, usually described as platoon leader vehicles.

Being outmoded doesn't mean a weapon was defective or badly designed. Having short comings in it's intended role at the time of it's introduction ( or for a while after) does raise questions though. Like having bad transmissions in tanks.


----------

