- Thread starter
- #21
Best tank in the '39 '40 battles
- Thread starter Vincenzo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Amsel, your "history lesson" at the bottom of your page is hilarious. Well done!
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
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
Senior Master Sergeant
Matilda II in overall, the only drawback was the bad tactics used by british armored froces in 1939/40.
- Thread starter
- #25
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
~ 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
Last edited:
Freebird
Master Sergeant
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)
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
Colonel
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
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
Tzaw1
Airman 1st Class
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.
- Thread starter
- #30
Tzaw1
Airman 1st Class
"Panzer III Its Variants" by Walter J. Spielberger
- Thread starter
- #32
- Thread starter
- #33
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
Last edited:
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #35
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
Last edited:
proton45
Senior Airman
Your right...the cease fire was signed on September 15 1939...
Freebird
Master Sergeant
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
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #39
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
