Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[Freebird]

Hello Messy
A34 Comet
Plusses
Excellent gun (almost as good in A/T work as the Panthers 7,5cm KwK 42) with APCBC ammo, with shorter ranges with APDS even better than 7,5cm KwK 42 with APCR shot.
Fast
Very good power weight ratio
Reliable
Reasonable good armour protection

Minusses
old-fasioned boxlike hull
narrow tracks

Juha

And the Comet was probably the first really decent all round British tank.

But since we are talking about the Desert War, how about this - (IMO) In the period January - June 1942 the British Commonealth had THE BEST (non-Soviet) tank, but it was never used in combat.

Instead they used the unrealiable weak Crusader, or the slow Matilda, directly contributing to the defeat at Gazala.

 

[Juha]

Hello Freebird
don't forget Valentine the only British tank the Soviets definitely liked and asked more. It was at least reliable. And its small size was sometimes an advance. As story goes, one soviet tank brigade (T-34-85s) was stopped after loosing some tanks to a PzVI in a good ambust position. After some head scratching the decision was to sent a 6pdr Valentine, of which the recon unit of the brigade still had, to flank the Tiger because Soviets figured that so small tank might by skillful use of terrain got near unnoticed. The Valentine succeeded to get near the tiger and destroyed it by a couple flanking shots.

Juha

 

[vinnye]

The Matilda along with several other early British desgns was for Infantry support. That was why it was slow - it was firew support for attacking infantry to call upon. It had heavy armour protection and a gun that was usually used to fire high explosive shells at enemy strong points. So it was not supposed to be used against other tanks where speed and mobility are advantageous. It is worth ointing out that a counter attack by several Matildas frightenend the German army at Dunkirk. It was the use of the anti aircraft 88mm gun on them that was the only effective weapon the Germans had at the time all other calibres bounced off it. Pretty impressive for a tank that was desgned for other functions!

 

[Vincenzo]

The Matilda along with several other early British desgns was for Infantry support. That was why it was slow - it was firew support for attacking infantry to call upon. It had heavy armour protection and a gun that was usually used to fire high explosive shells at enemy strong points. So it was not supposed to be used against other tanks where speed and mobility are advantageous. It is worth ointing out that a counter attack by several Matildas frightenend the German army at Dunkirk. It was the use of the anti aircraft 88mm gun on them that was the only effective weapon the Germans had at the time all other calibres bounced off it. Pretty impressive for a tank that was desgned for other functions!

matilda have not HE shells... (88 was not the only effective weapon, also 105 howitzer were effective (and all larger artillery), and there are ever other not guns weapons)

 

[parsifal]

matilda have not HE shells... (88 was not the only effective weapon, also 105 howitzer were effective (and all larger artillery), and there are ever other not guns weapons)

Your right to correct Vinnye Vincenzo. The Matilda did not have an HE capability. However, it was impervious to just about all the early war AT weapons except the 88, and would use its MGs to suppress the enemy Infantry, ir CS tanks which were fitted with HE firing weaponary.

Matildas were extremely effective in breaking the Italian defences during O'Connors conquest of Cyrenaica in 1940-41

 

[Vincenzo]

Your right to correct Vinnye Vincenzo. The Matilda did not have an HE capability. However, it was impervious to just about all the early war AT weapons except the 88, and would use its MGs to suppress the enemy Infantry, ir CS tanks which were fitted with HE firing weaponary.

Matildas were extremely effective in breaking the Italian defences during O'Connors conquest of Cyrenaica in 1940-41

for true the 88 was not a AT weapons in eary wwar was AA weapons..

true this is that italian divisional artillery were principally 75mm this aren't enough versus matildas (and also versus T-34 as show in russian campaign), and the AAG were rare and ever 75mm (idk the results of eventually encounter of 75 AA versus matilda)

p.s. when i talking of 75 AAG i'm talking of new 75 AAG not the old (this is surely not enough versus matilda, this was the field gun on AA carriage)

 

[Freebird]

Your right to correct Vinnye Vincenzo. The Matilda did not have an HE capability.

Indeed.
None of the British tanks had HE, (AFAIK) because they all had only the 2 pdr in the first half of 1942. Even though the Grant tank had a 75 mm gun, it was badly hampered by the low-velocity sponson mount.

There was really only one decent Allied tank in the first half of 1942 - the Canadian Ram II (6 pdr) - first production began Jan 1942.

1.) It was the only Allied tank to have the 6pdr gun, as the Crusader Valentine did not get the 6 pdr until the end of 1942 or later. It had HE ammo, unlike the 2 pdr guns

2.) It was capable of 25 mph, as fast as the Pz III or Pz IV, and almost twice as fast as the Matilda II. It was faster than the Axis tanks off-road

3.) It's 6 pdr gun could penetrate any Axis tank.

4.) It's armour was more than double that of a Crusader (87 mm vs 40mm) and more than 50% better than the German tanks. The Ram tank was all but impenetrable by German 37mm guns early 50mm guns

5.) It was much more reliable than the Crusader.


Had the British been smart enough to send these tanks immediately to Africa, they would have been in time for the Battle of Gazala, and the difference would have been dramatic

 

[Soren]

Hey Freebird! Welcome back! Been missing you mate

 

[Freebird]

Hey Freebird! Welcome back! Been missing you mate

Hey Soren, nice to see you.

Am I correct about the German tanks by the way?

IIRC, the AfricaKorps Pz III had only the short barrel 50mm in the first half of 1942, they did not have the L60 until later?

From my reading about Gazala, the critical failure is that the British tanks could not match the Germans in "The Cauldron", as the British 2 pdrs were much less effective vs the Pz IV with 50mm armour, than they had been against the earlier 30mm versions.

On the other hand, the 50mm KwK 38 was much more effective against the Crusader's 40mm armour


Two questions Soren:

1.) At "Gazala" May 1942, did the Germans have some Pz III with the KwK 39 (L60), or was it only the older KwK 38 (L43) model?

2.) Do you have penetration stats for that period?

a. British 2 pdr vs 50mm German armour
b. 6 pdr vs 50 mm armour
c. Axis 50mm (L43) vs 40mm armour
d. 50mm (L43) vs 87mm armour
e. 50mm (L60) vs 87mm armour
f. 75mm (L24) vs 87mm armour

 

[parsifal]

hi Freebird

Welcome back, we have missed you, hope everything is well for you.

Indeed the Ram tank series were a missed opportunity, and the design was a very fine one indeed. But whilst the British Tanks of the period had their faults, they were not failures per se. What caused the repeated British defeats was not the inferiority of their equipment, it was their atrocious tactics and total misuse of their armour.

Contrary to what most people think, Tanks are not the best weapons sytem to engage other tanks, and you dont use ones tanks to chargee, cavalry style, the enmies position. Rommel had this type of madness completely covered ....he would use his limited tank numbers to lure the British tanks out, and draw them over his AT screen of 88s and 50mm guns. That British Taanks would oblige and generall attack, unsupported just made the whole thing an even bigger slaughter. British Armoured Divisions had far too little in the way of indigenous support, and this continued until the latter part of 1942. Once the British realized how to support their armoured formations properly, the superior numbers, and massive artillery advantages within the division, made a British armoured Division a very potent weapon.

RAM Tanks were not actively deployed, but the hull was used to build the Sexton SPG, which I think was far superior to the M7 Priest that it supplanted. Rams were also used in a turretless form as Kangaroo APCs, which offered far better protection to the Infantry than any other APC that I know of for the period. RAMs also were used as ARVs and as mobile observation posts with a turret but a dummy gun. These were attached to the Sexton Batteries in Europe.

 

[Njaco]

hi Freebird

Welcome back, we have missed you, hope everything is well for you.

Indeed the Ram tank series were a missed opportunity, and the design was a very fine one indeed. But whilst the British Tanks of the period had their faults, they were not failures per se. What caused the repeated British defeats was not the inferiority of their equipment, it was their atrocious tactics and total misuse of their armour.

Contrary to what most people think, Tanks are not the best weapons sytem to engage other tanks, and you dont use ones tanks to chargee, cavalry style, the enmies position. Rommel had this type of madness completely covered ....he would use his limited tank numbers to lure the British tanks out, and draw them over his AT screen of 88s and 50mm guns. That British Taanks would oblige and generall attack, unsupported just made the whole thing an even bigger slaughter. British Armoured Divisions had far too little in the way of indigenous support, and this continued until the latter part of 1942. Once the British realized how to support their armoured formations properly, the superior numbers, and massive artillery advantages within the division, made a British armoured Division a very potent weapon.

RAM Tanks were not actively deployed, but the hull was used to build the Sexton SPG, which I think was far superior to the M7 Priest that it supplanted. Rams were also used in a turretless form as Kangaroo APCs, which offered far better protection to the Infantry than any other APC that I know of for the period. RAMs also were used as ARVs and as mobile observation posts with a turret but a dummy gun. These were attached to the Sexton Batteries in Europe.

I seem to remember the Aussies learned that lesson and used it to good use at Tobruk.

 

[Soren]

Freebird,

Yes, the Germans did have Pz.III's armed with the 5cm KwK39 L/60 at Gazala. And it did prove a good weapon, esp. its' accuracy was appreciated. With APCR ammunition it proved capable of taking on even the Matilda, which usually had to be taken care of by the Pak40's, 8.8cm FlaK guns or the longer barreled 7.5cm equipped Pz.IV's when they arrived. But the 5cm KwK39 lacked a good explosive round, and when equipped with HEAT rounds the short 7.5cm KwK37 L/24 gun proved just as good a tank killer as the 5cm KwK39 except when using APCR at close range.

I'll give penetration figures in my next post.

 

[Soren]

5cm KwK39 L/60 penetration performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour:

APC projectile:
100m = 101mm
500m = 82mm
1,000m = 64mm
1,500m = 49mm
2,000m = 38mm
2,500m = 30mm
3,000m = 23mm

APCR projectile:
100m = 149mm
500m = 108mm
1,000m = 72mm
1,500m = 48mm
2,000m = 32mm
2,500m = 21mm
3,000m = 14mm

The above performance was enough to be effective against most Western Allied tanks in 1942 out to 1,000m, beyond that range tanks such as the Sherman were hard nuts to crack with this weapon unless a full broadside was exposed.

 

[Soren]

The US 7.5cm M1 L/31 gun's performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour for comparison:

APCBC projectile:
100m = 78mm
500m = 72mm
1,000m = 65mm
1,500m = 58mm
2,000m = 52mm
2,500m = 47mm
3,000m = 42mm

On top of that an effective HE round.

When one takes into account that the Sherman was designed to combat tanks like the Pz.III one suddenly realizes that the Sherman was no bad tank at all and that it had this role covered. That the Germans came up with the upgunned Pz.IV as quickly as they did no'one involved in designing the Sherman could've predicted.

 

[parsifal]

I seem to remember the Aussies learned that lesson and used it to good use at Tobruk.

Yes, they did, it was the first time since the beginning of the war that the German Panzers had suffered a major defeat on land, unless one wants to claim the counterattacks at Arras or DeGaulles attack near the Somme as some kind of victory....

 

[vinnye]

Thank you for pointing out that the 2 pdr did not have HE rounds. I assumed that as the tank was designed for infantry support it would use HE to take out enemy strong points?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II_(tank)
"Matilda could average only about 6 miles per hour (9.7 km/h). This was not thought to be a problem because the Matilda was specifically designed in accordance with the British doctrine of infantry tanks, that is, heavily-armoured but slow-moving vehicles designed to provide support to infantry. Under this thinking, a speed equal to the walking speed of a man was considered sufficient.
At the time it was designed, this armour protection could not be penetrated by any antitank gun in the world,[15] although early models of German 88mm anti-aircraft artillery was able to defeat the Matilda's armour at short range."
In my previous post I should have written -
It was the use of the anti aircraft 88mm gun on them that was the MOST effective weapon the Germans had at the time all other SMALLER calibres bounced off it!

 

[Soren]

vinnye,

The 8.8cm FlaK18/36 could punch a hole in the Matilda II frontally at ranges well exceeding 2.5km, some were knocked out at nearly 4km range by FlaK18/36's in Africa. And the 7.5cm KwK40 was able to the same out to 2km range. The 5cm KwK39 L/60 was also quite capable out to around 500 to 600m.

 

[Freebird]

The US 7.5cm M1 L/31 gun's performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour for comparison:

APCBC projectile:
100m = 78mm
500m = 72mm
1,000m = 65mm
1,500m = 58mm
2,000m = 52mm
2,500m = 47mm
3,000m = 42mm

On top of that an effective HE round.

When one takes into account that the Sherman was designed to combat tanks like the Pz.III one suddenly realizes that the Sherman was no bad tank at all and that it had this role covered. That the Germans came up with the upgunned Pz.IV as quickly as they did no'one involved in designing the Sherman could've predicted.

Are you sure that is the right version? It looks like the L38, not the L31 version?

M2
A version used on the early Medium Tank M3.

Barrel length: 31 calibres
Muzzle velocity: 588 m/s (1,929 ft/s)
Shell weight (M72 AP): 6.32 kg (14 lbs)
Armour penetration (M72 AP shell, 457 m, at 90 degrees): 60 mm

M3
Longer derivative of the M2. Equipped American and British vehicles such as the Medium Tank M4, the later models of the Medium Tank M3 and the Churchill III/IV (scavenged from General Sherman tanks in the North African theatre).

Barrel length: 38.5 calibres (3 m)
Muzzle velocity: 619 m/s (2,031 ft/s)
Shell weight (M72 AP): 6.32 kg (14 lbs)
Armour penetration (M72 AP shell, 457 m, at 90 degrees): 76 mm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I believe that the Pz IV F2 KwK 40 was not at Gazala, it only began production Mar 42, and if any had arrived in Africa by May, they had not made the trek to the front line

 

[parsifal]

vinnye,

The 8.8cm FlaK18/36 could punch a hole in the Matilda II frontally at ranges well exceeding 2.5km, some were knocked out at nearly 4km range by FlaK18/36's in Africa. And the 7.5cm KwK40 was able to the same out to 2km range. The 5cm KwK39 L/60 was also quite capable out to around 500 to 600m.

At 600metre, the 50mm gun could not be guarateed a sufficient margin of safety as to ensure a kill with every hit. Moreover, at that range the matildas could call in their CS guns or even use their MGs to neutralis the targets.

I accept the lethality of the 88mm, but whilst engagements at 2.5 km did occur Rommel would more often only enagements to occur at closer ranges. I strongly suspect this had something to do with conserving ammunition,and the low probability of scoring a hit. The most extreme range for an 88 to engage British tanks was a little over 1200 metres, with the more usual range for firing to commence. Usually the Germans had predetermined the ranging requirements at those ranges. They would use covering Infantry or their own armour to engage the Charging British Tanks to stop their advance and return fire to the covering forces. Once so halted, they became an easy target for a first round kill from the 88s

 

[Soren]

At 600metre, the 50mm gun could not be guarateed a sufficient margin of safety as to ensure a kill with every hit.

Oh I agree, but it was dangerous out to this distance and beyond, so it was not to be taken lightly.

Moreover, at that range the matildas could call in their CS guns or even use their MGs to neutralis the targets.

You can't really neutralize any armoured thread with MG fire, that would be fruitless.

I accept the lethality of the 88mm, but whilst engagements at 2.5 km did occur Rommel would more often only enagements to occur at closer ranges. I strongly suspect this had something to do with conserving ammunition,and the low probability of scoring a hit. The most extreme range for an 88 to engage British tanks was a little over 1200 metres, with the more usual range for firing to commence. Usually the Germans had predetermined the ranging requirements at those ranges. They would use covering Infantry or their own armour to engage the Charging British Tanks to stop their advance and return fire to the covering forces. Once so halted, they became an easy target for a first round kill from the 88s

Usually fire was opened up at around 1,200m to 1,500m range, and that to ensure the maximum number of hits were obtained whilst at the same time not being in danger of return fire. The British were usually quickly halted once this slaughter started, and it was when they were pulling back that the long range kills were achieved, the 88's not ceasing fire until the British tanks were completely out of sight, knocking out many British tanks at ranges in excess of 3 km. The assistance provided by dedicated range finding equipment also helped ensure very accuracy at long ranges.