# Best tank in the '39 '40 battles



## Vincenzo (Sep 9, 2009)

What's the best tank in the battles of '39 and '40.


Tank: tracked armoured vehicle with weapons, for direct fire, in closed turret (all agree?)

possible challengers
Pz IVD
Pz IIIF
Pz 38
S 35
B 1 bis
Cruiser Tank mk IV
Infantry Tank mk II (Matilda II)
BT 7
T-28
Type 95
Type 97
M 13/40 (very late challenger fightning only in december)

i put out, form the list for fast work, mg and light guns armed tanks


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Sep 9, 2009)

For me, I think it has to fall under between the Panzer IVD (or even the IIIF) or the Matilda II. 
For the Panzer, that fact that they pretty much all had radios was a big help to the German tactics in France and Belgium, and how they were able to cut off the Allied forces so quickly. 
On the other hand, by itself, I think the Matilda was a pretty good tank during the Battle of France, at least with the earlier models of the Panzers. 
I also believe it was the British tank that led the counter-attack at Arras (please correct me if I'm wrong). Of course, it couldn't stand up the the 88mm cannon, but I think many tanks of WWII (especially on the Allied side), could stand up to the 88.


----------



## davebender (Sep 9, 2009)

Panzerkampfwagen III
By the fall of 1940 the PzKpfw III was being armed with the 5cm/42 main gun. Older model PzKpfw III were upgraded to this standard when due for overhaul. A nice balance of firepower, armor protection, mobility and reliability. At 22 tons it was light enough to use most European road bridges of that era.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 9, 2009)

most unappreciated tank would be the Cruiser MK IV.
With 30mm armour it is certainly no worse than most german tanks in 1939-40. It has a better gun than the MK III German (OK, no HE but the armour pentetraion is almost in a whole other class). One of the best power to weight ratios for good speed and mobility, something the Matlita doesn't have. It does have a radio (if the PTB lift radio silence so they can be tuned.

poorly trained crews and or bad tactics can skew combat results so that a good (OK it wasn't GREAT) tank doesn't give good results. 

Given equel crews it should best the German MK III but the MK IV may be better all around with the 75mm gun.
The French tanks, even with good guns, have too many limitaions with their one man turrets. 

The BT 7 is faster, it's gun might be better but has a two man turret and no cupola or commander postion, also few radios. 
T-28 is a bit slower, a larger target and on the early versions no better armour. The early 76mm gun wasn't that hot for anti armour work either. 
The less said about the Japanese tanks in a tank duel the better. Any tank beats no tank for infantry support.


----------



## imalko (Sep 9, 2009)

davebender said:


> By the fall of 1940 the PzKpfw III was being armed with the 5cm/42 main gun. Older model PzKpfw III were upgraded to this standard when due for overhaul. A nice balance of firepower, armor protection, mobility and reliability. At 22 tons it was light enough to use most European road bridges of that era.



Not much to add, I agree with your assessment Dave. 
Its my opinion too that PzKpfw III was the best battle tank in 1939/40, while PzKpw IV with short barreled canon at that time was still used mainly in support role for which it was designed in the first place.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 9, 2009)

davebender said:


> Panzerkampfwagen III
> By the fall of 1940 the PzKpfw III was being armed with the 5cm/42 main gun. Older model PzKpfw III were upgraded to this standard when due for overhaul. A nice balance of firepower, armor protection, mobility and reliability. At 22 tons it was light enough to use most European road bridges of that era.



afaik the Pz III with 50/42 was not in battles in '40. (and for true it's from julliett)


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 9, 2009)

armour comparation
don't take top and bottom (hard to hit for a tank)
Pz IV D Hull 20/30 mm Turret 20/35 mm
Pz III F Hull 21/30 mm Turret 30 mm
Pz 38 Hull 10/30 mm Turret 15/25 mm
S 35 Hull 25/36 mm Turret 56 mm
B 1 Bis Hull 55/60 mm Turret 56 mm
Cruiser mk IV Hull 14/30 mm Turret 14/30 mm
Infantry mk II Hull 47/78 mm Turret 75 mm
BT 7 Hull 10/22 mm Turret 15 mm
T-28 Hull 10/30 mm Turret 20 mm
Type 95 Hull 6/12 mm Turret 12 mm
Type 97 Hull 9/26 mm Turret 26/33 mm
M13/40 Hull 8/30 mm Turret 25/42 mm

mobility comparation
Pz IV D 15 hp/ton 14.2 psi
Pz III F 15.4 hp/ton 14.4 psi
Pz 38 13.3 hp/ton 8.3 psi
S 35 9.5 hp/ton 12.1 psi
B 1 bis 9.5 hp/ton 12.2 psi
Cruiser mk IV 22.7 hp/ton 12.3 psi
Infantry mk II 7.2 hp/ton 16 psi
BT 7 32.6 hp/ton 10.5 psi
T-28 16.1 hp/ton 9.5 psi
Type 95 15.6 hp/ton 8.9 psi
Type 97 11.3 hp/ton 9.4 psi
M13/40 8.9 hp/ton 13.2 psi

firepower comparation
Pz IV D 1-75/24 2mg (c, b)
Pz III F 1-37/46 2 mg (c, b)
Pz 38 1-37/48 2 mg (c, b)
S 35 1-47/34 1 mg (c)
B 1 bis 1-47/34 2 mg (c, b) and 1-75/17 (hull)
Cruiser mk IV 1-40/52 1 mg (c)
Infanty mk II 1-40/52 1 mg (c)
BT 7 1-45/46 1 or 3 mg (c, aa, tr)
T-28 1-76/26 3/4 mg (c, 2 b, aa)
Type 95 1-37/36 2 mg (b, tr)
Type 97 1-57/18 2 mg (b, tr)
M13/40 1-47/32 3/4 mg (c, 2 b, aa) (the "italian" 47 actually is a bit longer of french)

mg position c for coaxial, b for bow, aa for aa mount, tr for turret rear like japanese tanks


----------



## davebender (Sep 9, 2009)

I have read that early cruiser tanks were unreliable. Supposedly Britain lost more tanks in Greece (spring 1941) from mechanical break down then from enemy action.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 9, 2009)

A lot of peaples tanks were unreliable. The Cruiser MK IV might have been a bit more than some others but in any retreat/rear guard action that last for more than a couple of days a lot of tanks are going to get left behind. 
Check out the number of Tigers that were lost due to mechanical break downs. 

As far as fire power goes. to keep things simple I will stick to the MGs. 

British tanks use either a water cooled Vickers or a Besa gun. Feed from long belts they both have a sustained fire capability that is not matched by most other tanks. The Czech Pz 38 uses the same MGs. THe German tanks use the MG 34 but they may not have quite the same sustained fire capability. 
The Italian tanks certainly don't, even if the guns are reliable using 24 round magazines does limit the amount of rounds that can be fired after a short period of time. 
The Russian tanks use 60 round magazines and I am not sure their barrels will really permit hundreds of rounds a minute for several minutes. 
Japanese are using 20 round magazines on their tank MGs. 

Then there is the ammo supply. The MK IV cruiser carried 3750 rounds of MG ammo for the Vickers and probably close to that for the Besa. 
This is more than some other tanks carried for their multipule MGs.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 10, 2009)

True the cruiser IV have a lot of ammo for the mg (maybe only the T-28 and B 1 bis have more ) but all the tanks with only a mg, commonly this is coaxial, need fire with gun and mg in same direction and this afaik it's not the best


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 10, 2009)

I would like to know what is better than a coaxial?

Certainly this :File:Japanese type 95 3.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the similar set up on the type 97 leave a lot to be desired. 

many bow or hull mounted MGs have rather limited traverse and in the case of the Italian M13/40

File:M13 slash 40 Bovington museum.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the two hull guns can't point in different directions and may be doubled to compensate for the 24 round magazines. 

Hull guns also can't be used from hull down positions. Usually have a rather crappy sighting system and/or feild of veiw.

Russian T-28 can certainly engage multiple targets but just how does the tank commander decide who shoots at what?
http://legion-afv.narod.ru/USSR/Multi-turret/T-28_Moskow_CMMF/T-28_Moskow_CMMF_014.JPG
Please note there is a MG mounted in the rear wall of the turret. 

The hull MG of the French B 1 bis is fixed in traverse and has to be aimed by swinging the tank and according to some acounts is moveable in elevation by using a turnbuckle. 

THe German MK III armed with 37mm guns generally had 3 MGs but two were mounted like this;

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1994-009-17, Griechenland, gefangener Neuseeländer.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the second gun can move indepentently of the 1st MG and main gun, who is aiming it and how?
If it is the loader then he is not loading the main gun or tending to the 1st MG or he is spliting his efforts which reduces the effort of the tank as a whole. 

Is one gun better than two? NO.
But 2 guns (or three) are not twice (or three times) as good as one.


----------



## Glider (Sep 10, 2009)

I have to go with the Matilda II. Its very slow but almost imune to any other tank gun and in this period the 2pd was a very good anti tank weapon.


----------



## joy17782 (Sep 10, 2009)

I would go with the pzkfw 111 , the radio and the fighting compartment were better then anything anybody had , but its the tactics the germans used that really made the most of there tanks. the matlidas were slow yes , undergunned, yes, but I think it was a fine fighting tank. also, the french char b and somnu, i think i got it right, the name, were good tanks too but there crews and leaders didnt know how too fight a mobile war


----------



## davebender (Sep 10, 2009)

Yes it was. However without a HE round it was a poor choice for a tank main gun. Tanks typically spend more time shooting at soft targets then at armored vehicles. That is especially true for a so called "Infantry Support Tank" like the Matilda II. You cannot take out enemy infantry with AP rounds.


----------



## Amsel (Sep 10, 2009)

The PzKpfw III was the best tank during 39'-40'. The three man turret and suspension system put it at an advantage, and the 3.7 cm KwK 36 L/46.5 was good enough for those early campaigns as well. The Panzerkampfwagen IV was really the better tank against all other targets besides tanks due to it's low velocity 75mm. The only reason why it was not the best in armor battles.


----------



## Juha (Sep 10, 2009)

IMHO PzIVD was the best general purpose tank of those mentioned in Vincenzo’s first message. 3 men turret, good HE round, reasonable AP round for its time but low muzzle velocity, radio, mediocrity armour protection and fairly reliable.

As for tank vs tank combat, Matilda II. It also had 3 man turret, excellent armour protection, very good gun for anti-tank work, radio but no HE, not very reliable and slow.

Cruiser Mk IV was on paper more or less equal to PzIII E and F but was a rather unreliable as were all British tanks with Liberty engine, even if IIRC cruisers used in Greece were A9s and A10s.

British had also CS tanks, which at that time had 3” howitzer as armament, bit like PzIV in WM, it had HE and smoke ammo. At that time British counted mg as anti-infantry weapon and bullets of Besa went through German A/T gun shields at distances which were normal battle distances in 39-40.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 11, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I would like to know what is better than a coaxial?
> 
> Certainly this :File:Japanese type 95 3.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



agree 
some note: 
all but japanese have coaxial mg
the Pz III F have no more 2 mg in turret
add the mg eas the only anti infantry weapons on btritish tanks


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 11, 2009)

Juha said:


> British had also CS tanks, which at that time had 3” howitzer as armament, bit like PzIV in WM, it had HE and smoke ammo. At that time British counted mg as anti-infantry weapon and bullets of Besa went through German A/T gun shields at distances which were normal battle distances in 39-40.
> 
> Juha



i read many times that 3'' have only smoke ammo, i'm remmeber wrong?


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 11, 2009)

my list is not closed all the tanks (that were in battles in '39/40) are challengers, i choice the best for country almost afaik (a put out the polish 7tp first for a error, however theuyare inferior a many tanks in the list)


----------



## Thunderbolt56 (Sep 11, 2009)

Pz IVD...hands down the best on the list.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 11, 2009)

for the AT value of guns, the 2 pdr was one of best but don't do confusion with ammos in '39/40 there are only AP ammos.


----------



## renrich (Sep 11, 2009)

Amsel, your "history lesson" at the bottom of your page is hilarious. Well done!


----------



## Juha (Sep 11, 2009)

Hello Vinzenco
3" how. of CS tanks had also HE round, but that was not very effective.
But it seems that Cruiser Mks I, IIA and IV CS tanks were armed with 3.7" mortar/howitzer. I have no info on its ammo.
The 95mm howitzer, it replaced 3" how. as the main armament of CS tanks later in the war, normal ammo load was 10% HEAT, of course that type of ammo wasn't available in 39-40, 57% HE and 33% smoke.

Juha


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 11, 2009)

Matilda II in overall, the only drawback was the bad tactics used by british armored froces in 1939/40.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 12, 2009)

armour penetration 30° at 500 meters 
~ 30 mm: 37 mm german, both the czech, bofors and japanese
~ 35 mm: 47 mm french and austrian, 45 mm soviet, 75 mm french
~ 40 mm: 75 mm german
~ 45 mm: 40 mm british, 75 mm german (with heat)
~ 50 mm: 76 mm soviet (l-10)
~ 25 mm: 76 mm soviet (old)
~ 15 mm: 57 mm japanese

add some ATG were not tank guns
~30 mm: 25 mm french, 37 mm soviet
~35 mm: 47 mm belgian
~45 mm: 47 mm czech
~50 mm: 47 mm french


----------



## Freebird (Sep 12, 2009)

It depends on your criteria for "best"? Which theater? Offensive or defensive? 

If your tank's main purpose is to battle other tanks, the Matilda might come out best, as it's gun could easily penetrate 30mm armout, while the German 37mm tanks antitank guns had great difficulty vs. Matilda's armour (as was found in France)


----------



## parsifal (Sep 13, 2009)

I dont understand why the T-34 is not included in this list. Designed in 1939, entered service in 1940. First Operational units were the 4th Mech Corps, and 10th Tank Divisions. the 10th was shipped to the Far East, where it is highly likely that it fought in a number of minor clashes with the Japanese. According to one of my sources, the Japanese prepred a report, and passed it on to the Germans, forcefully describing the potency of this new weapon. It was ignored, of course. 

If people accept that the T-34 was a 1940 addition, just as deserving to be on the list as the 50mm armed MkIIIs and MkIVDs, (certainly deployed in greater numbers), ther is no contest. The T-34 is the best tank of 1940, and for changing reasons remained so for the rest of the war. A testament to its massive superiority


----------



## Juha (Sep 13, 2009)

Parsifal
was there any tank action along Soviet SE border in 1940, I have thought that after Khalin Gol the area cooled down. Japanese had got the lesson and concentrated in China and to plan the attack to south and to east.

Juha


----------



## Tzaw1 (Sep 13, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I dont understand why the T-34 is not included in this list. Designed in 1939, entered service in 1940. First Operational units were the 4th Mech Corps, and 10th Tank Divisions. the 10th was shipped to the Far East, where it is highly likely that it fought in a number of minor clashes with the Japanese. According to one of my sources, the Japanese prepred a report, and passed it on to the Germans, forcefully describing the potency of this new weapon. It was ignored, of course.


1. The army with the backdrop 1940 accepted only 97 tanks (from 117 made).
2. The training began in spring 1941.
3. 27 October 1940 the 4th Mech Corps had not nary T-34.
4. 10th Tank Division was formed in Złoczew. In March 1941 was subordinated to new formed 15th Mech Corps. But 10th TD stayed in Złoczew. She never was on Far East.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 13, 2009)

too me have no info on tank action on "china"/soviet border after Khalin Gol.
for true the panzer III with 50 is not on list but if you've references on it use in battle please show us


----------



## Tzaw1 (Sep 13, 2009)

> Production of the "ZF" vehicles with the 50mm KwK began with 10 vehicles in June 1940.


"Panzer III Its Variants" by Walter J. Spielberger


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 13, 2009)

the production is not enough need partecipation in battle, as the title


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 13, 2009)

freebird said:


> It depends on your criteria for "best"? Which theater? Offensive or defensive?
> 
> If your tank's main purpose is to battle other tanks, the Matilda might come out best, as it's gun could easily penetrate 30mm armout, while the German 37mm tanks antitank guns had great difficulty vs. Matilda's armour (as was found in France)



too me i'm near to choice the matilda (II)

the trouble are its two large diffect:
no good weapons anti infantry (only a 1 mg, with common ammos reserve, ie not large as cruiser mk IV)
low mobility

the challenger, in my own choice, Pz IV D 
good antiinfantry weapon
AT firepower not enough versus matilda and french tanks (that here)
armour not give enough protection versus tanks


----------



## rgallant (Sep 14, 2009)

Difficult question, partly because at that time the philosophy behind tanks design was not such much generic as build for purpose.

So for an infantry support tank the PzKv IV woudl be my choice of the best, the lack of an HE round makes the Matilda of limited use in that role.

In a pure anti-armour role it is more difficult call. The single man turret of the S35 lets down an otherwise excellent design for the times. But one man can not command load aim and fire the main gun. 

For this one I think the Cruiser tanks A9/A10 would be the best, a good turn of speed, adequate gun and armour for the times. 

The Matilda is simply to slow, at 15 mph it moves at the 1/2 to 3/4's the speed of any of it's opponents

The 38t is also a contender but I was never a fan of riveted armour, otherwise a good well thought out design.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 14, 2009)

rgallant said:


> Difficult question, partly because at that time the philosophy behind tanks design was not such much generic as build for purpose.
> 
> So for an infantry support tank the PzKv IV woudl be my choice of the best, the lack of an HE round makes the Matilda of limited use in that role.
> 
> ...



i'm agree but the armour of A9 (cruiser mk I) was too tiny easy target for AT rifle and 20 mm guns, the armour of A10 (cruiser mk II) it's "regular" (as a panzer) but this is the slow cruiser. also the armour of cruiser Mk III it's tiny, the Mk IV is best not as a panzer but best of fast cruiser

EDIT for clear when i told "is best not as panzer" for cruiser mk IV was not a general comment but only on armour


----------



## proton45 (Sep 14, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> too me have no info on tank action on "china"/soviet border after Khalin Gol.
> for true the panzer III with 50 is not on list but if you've references on it use in battle please show us



Your right...the cease fire was signed on September 15 1939...


----------



## Freebird (Sep 15, 2009)

rgallant said:


> Difficult question, partly because at that time the philosophy behind tanks design was not such much generic as build for purpose.
> 
> So for an infantry support tank the PzKv IV woudl be my choice of the best, the lack of an HE round makes the Matilda of limited use in that role.
> 
> ...




Slow it was, but there is something to be said for being basically immune to the enemy tank guns, while your gun can penetrate any enemy tank



Vincenzo said:


> armour comparation
> 
> Pz IV D Hull 20/30 mm Turret 20/35 mm
> Pz III F Hull 21/30 mm Turret 30 mm
> ...





Vincenzo said:


> armour penetration 30° at 500 meters
> ~ 30 mm: 37 mm german
> ~ 35 mm: 47 mm french and austrian, 45 mm soviet, 75 mm french
> ~ 40 mm: 75 mm german
> ...


----------



## rgallant (Sep 15, 2009)

Hmmm....

Well I guess I look as the Matilda as being able to be bypassed by faster armour leaving it for something else to deal with. But if we assume that the idea is to have a tank that kills other tanks, then I would have to agree that the Matilda is the best tank vs tank.

Just so I am clear this is based on the objective of tank vs tank combat to end up controlling the tactical battlefield at the end of the day. In this case speed is less of an issue than armour and gun. And we are all in agreement that the Matilda had very good armour and as good an anti-armour gun as any other tank. With a multi-crew turret and reasonable communications for the time it would be the clear winner in tank vs tank.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 15, 2009)

rgallant said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> Well I guess I look as the Matilda as being able to be bypassed by faster armour leaving it for something else to deal with. But if we assume that the idea is to have a tank that kills other tanks, then I would have to agree that the Matilda is the best tank vs tank.
> 
> Just so I am clear this is based on the objective of tank vs tank combat to end up controlling the tactical battlefield at the end of the day. In this case speed is less of an issue than armour and gun. And we are all in agreement that the Matilda had very good armour and as good an anti-armour gun as any other tank. With a multi-crew turret and reasonable communications for the time it would be the clear winner in tank vs tank.



it's not only a question of speed it's heaviest ground pressure so more easy remanin stopped in soft terrain and a tank stop it's easy a tank destroyed, the speed it's also usefull in flanking manouvre


----------

