Best light AFV of WW2

Hello Tim
Little-John adapter made 2pdr a squeeze gun, similar than German 2.8cm sPzB 41, the conical barrel "squeezed" so called "collars", made from light metal, away around the tungsten core, and so it was possible to achieve very high mv. APCR was the best, but rare, AP ammo for 5cm, it had tungsten core inside light alloy body, it also had high mv but lost its velocity much faster because it was lighter to diameter.

Juha

If you want the Pz II I would more than happily take the Daimler A/C.

I'd prefer the Pz.II Luchs over the Daimler A/C to be honest, gives abit better protection, offroad handling and I dare to say fire power with a 20mm automatic cannon firing at a rate of 460 rpm. A nightmare for any opposing infantry. In a rare one on one duel the Daimler's armour is also so thin than the Luchs will be able to puch rounds straight through from considerable distance, and taking the massive rate of fire of the KwK38 into account the Daimler A/C will quickly turn into a burning wreck. That is ofcourse unless the Daimler gets in the first shot, in which case the 2 pdr has plenty of punch to take out the Luchs at a good distance.

Hello Soren
460rpm for KwK 38 was cyclic, not practical rof.

If we talk light tanks, IMHO M24 was the best, with 2 mgs, plus the .5hmg for the commander, it could produce enough firepower to keep infantry down, and 75mm HE could destroy rather substantial targets. It also had capacity to hurt enemy tanks even if tank duels were not the role of recon troops. But the optium heavy recon vehicle weapon depends on doctrine, UK, USA and USSR in 50s and 60s preferred 76mm gun, Germans stick on the 20mm automatic cannon.

Juha

Juha

Certainly go for the M24 as the best light tank. As for the Daimler vs Pz II its take your pick time. As Soren points out the first on the trigger is likely to win the day

Glider said:

Certainly go for the M24 as the best light tank. As for the Daimler vs Pz II its take your pick time. As Soren points out the first on the trigger is likely to win the day

Click to expand...

M-24 it's out of weight, ... all italian medium tanks are lighter of the "light" M-24 (it's true that development in italy was stopped before of first M-24 was built)


p.s. weight of light AFV change with years, in '40/41 15 tons tank were medium

That 480 rounds per minute slows down an awful lot when the 10 round magazine goes dry.

I think by the time the Daimlers were in Europe they had HE ammunition for the 2pdr. Not great stuff but....

The 5 gears in reverse helps in getting out of trouble too

Juha said:

Hello Soren
460rpm for KwK 38 was cyclic, not practical rof.

Click to expand...

Juha when discussing guns you usually always list the cyclic rate of the weapon, and that quite simply because practical rate of fire is a loose term to say the least. The practical rate of fire of a MP5 might be 120, 200 or 300 rpm, depending on the situation, but the gun cycles the rounds at a rate of 800 rpm, and this last figure is what the manufacturer lists.

If we talk light tanks, IMHO M24 was the best, with 2 mgs, plus the .5hmg for the commander, it could produce enough firepower to keep infantry down, and 75mm HE could destroy rather substantial targets. It also had capacity to hurt enemy tanks even if tank duels were not the role of recon troops. But the optium heavy recon vehicle weapon depends on doctrine, UK, USA and USSR in 50s and 60s preferred 76mm gun, Germans stick on the 20mm automatic cannon.

Click to expand...

You gotta stay within the 15 ton limit Juha.

How about the Hetzer? One source says is was 15tons, another stated it was 16 tons.

Fair enough. Let's pay five times as much and purchas a much more powerful flak panzer. It just barely squeaks under the 25 ton weight limit for a "Light" AFV.


(Leichter) Flakpanzer IV (3cm) Kugelblitz
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/kugel.jpg
25 metric tons.
2 x 3cm Mk103 AA guns in a completely enclosed turret.

3cm Mk103 Autocannon.
MK 103 cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
380 to 420 rounds per minute (per gun)
A single Minengeschoss shell will cripple any aircraft. Also deadly against soft ground targets.

Alternately the AP-T(WC) rounds will penetrate up to 100mm of armor @ 300 meters. At point blank ranges they can defeat even medium tanks like the American Sherman and Soviet T-34.

Unlike the Sdkfz.251, the Kugel Blitz has serious armor protection. As good as a typical WWII era medium tank.

unlucky the limit is 15 tons... (and i continue to think it's too heavy already, oh yes i'm too heavy)

davebender said:

Fair enough. Let's pay five times as much and purchas a much more powerful flak panzer. It just barely squeaks under the 25 ton weight limit for a "Light" AFV.


(Leichter) Flakpanzer IV (3cm) Kugelblitz
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/kugel.jpg
25 metric tons.
2 x 3cm Mk103 AA guns in a completely enclosed turret.

3cm Mk103 Autocannon.
MK 103 cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
380 to 420 rounds per minute (per gun)
A single Minengeschoss shell will cripple any aircraft. Also deadly against soft ground targets.

Alternately the AP-T(WC) rounds will penetrate up to 100mm of armor @ 300 meters. At point blank ranges they can defeat even medium tanks like the American Sherman and Soviet T-34.

Unlike the Sdkfz.251, the Kugel Blitz has serious armor protection. As good as a typical WWII era medium tank.

Click to expand...

Again a great vehicle no doubt, but now the problem is that the weight has to be within 15 tons. And for the third time I wrote 25 tons purely by mistake, 1 is close to 2 you know You gotta read the posts mate

25 tons is within the medium tank range, or atleast very much on boundary, most medium tanks ranging from 25 to 50 tons in weight. A light AFV can't weigh much more than 15 tons.

The specifications keep changing in order to favor certain weapon designs and exclude others that are more capable. You must work for the government.

davebender said:

The specifications keep changing in order to favor certain weapon designs and exclude others that are more capable. You must work for the government.

Click to expand...

Specs only changed once because of a typo.

Weight limit is 15 tons. Now go find your crate

Achtung Panzer! - Prototypes !

In November of 1944, it was accepted to utilize Hetzer's chassis as a base for Flakpanzer 38(t) Hetzer mounted with Kugelblitz's turret, but it was never materialized due to the war situation.

Click to expand...

That should get the weight down to about 15 tons. Less armor then the Panzer Mk IV version but otherwise just as effective. And probably less expensive to mass produce.

Flakpanzer 38 (d) Kugelblitz/Project [KR7238] - 28.90EUR : Tracks&Troops, On-line Shop

A pretty good link to give people something to think about.....

Armoured Cars Equipment Page

I dont think there is a more misunderstood concept than the role of armoured cars. They were not main battle tanks, or even expected to fight it out with the enmy to any great extent. They had to be cheap, yet incorporate into that basic premise a level of survivability. Survivability does not necesarily mean big thick armour, either, in fact in most cases having a massively armoured AC is going to work to the detriment of the more important elements of the role. Generally, the ability to scoot quickly is more important than armoured protection.

This idea of having the biggest meanest AFV has been translated postwar into most of the mechanized armies. At one extreme we have the Bradleys and the Marder III MICV, at the other extreme there are the unarmoured recons like landrovers and the like. Having massively expensive, but well protected MICVs like the Marder means your infantry is somewhat more well protected, but the costs of equipping and fielding Infantry formations goes through the roof. The same argument can be levelled at the SDKFZ 251 and similar. They were well engineered (though they generally required a lot of maintenance, and the half track generally did not do so well in the Russian winters) but in terms of cost, they were just too expensive, for the germans at least. Thats why, on average, only one company per division were equipped with halftracks....the rest were reliant on trucks, and later still, on bicycles

The next most important element was mobility and All terrain capability. They had to get to all manner of positions and observe....that was their role.

Good communications is another element that has to figure highly

The mounting of the biggest, meanest guns is about the lowest priority and the heaviest armour is another idea that runs counter to the whole armoured car concept.

My choice, I think for the best overall, might be some of the less exotic types. Im partial to the Panhard 178 (for its time....1940) or the SDKFZ 231. I like the Italian Autobelinda series as well, though they did suffer from some reliability issues. On the other hand they were easily the most mobile in any of the armies that deployed into the deseert, with those big sand tyres that they used.

Late war, its a bit harder....if the cost issue is ignored, I think it will go to a German type, but if this is included, I think a German type would be my last choice

I don't think that you are going to get a decent tank for 15 tons so its the AEC armoured car with the 6pd if you want a shoot out.
Armour a max of 65mm and a 6pd gun should do the job.

What about the Soviet SU-76, weighs in at 10.2 t, and armed with a variety of weapons, ranging from the 76.2 field gun, the Rumanian 75mm resita gun (they claim is superior to the 75mm fitted to the Mk IV), 57mm AT gun, and I believe quad 20mm AA (but Im not sure)? There are better AFVs, but none were built more cheaply, or went from design to front line service so quickly. They were very versatile, able to provide indirect fire support to the fast moving mech formations, but also able to engage targets with direct fire, including effective AT fire. They are not Recce vehicles, completing a completely different role, but they are nevertheless perhaps the best value light AFVs of the war.

SU-76 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nicknamed 'suka' (bitch)

Click to expand...

I don't think that was a term of endearment. The Su-76 may have been cheap to produce but that was about the only good point.

The 11 ton Wespe SP 10.5cm howitzer (based on Panzer Mk II chassis) was a much more successful light armored vehicle. And it was just as cheap to produce as the Su-76.

davebender said:

SU-76 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think that was a term of endearment. The Su-76 may have been cheap to produce but that was about the only good point.

The 11 ton Wespe SP 10.5cm howitzer (based on Panzer Mk II chassis) was a much more successful light armored vehicle. And it was just as cheap to produce as the Su-76.

Click to expand...

Err., I suggest you learn a a little russian before jumping to the conclusion that this termm, in the context used, is a derogatory term. It is actually a term of endearment in the context used

Also relevantly, the wiki article says this about the Su76...."Crews loved this vehicle for its simplicity, reliability, and ease of use, although it was sometimes nicknamed 'suka' (bitch), 'Suchka' (little bitch) or 'Golozhopiy Ferdinand' (bare-arsed Ferdinand) for its relatively thin rear armour."

The main production type was the Su76M which weighed in at just under 11 tons

By comparison, the Wespe was about the same weight, had better HE capability, and about the same, or worse AT capability. Optics communications and reliability were all better. The SU76 had better range, and had an estimated unit cost about 1/5 that of a Wespe, due to its far lower standards of finish.

It is significant I think to note that whereas only 676 Wespes were produced, over 14000 Su-76s were produced. This was because of the ease of manufacture of these vehicles

Both vehicles were very useful, and I would be the first to admit the Wespe was probably superior to the SU76....but if I could have 5 SUs over one Wespe, I know which vehicle i would choose every time