Best Medium-light tank

[MacArther]

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]

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 The latter was an outdated design and broke down quickly.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]

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]

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]

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]

what was better the US sherman or the firefly

 

[tomo pauk]

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]

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]

Defiinetly the M-24 Chaffee

 

[mikewint]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Glider]

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]

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.