Best tank in the '39 '40 battles

[Vincenzo]

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]

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

 

[Juha]

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]

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

 

[Vincenzo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Vincenzo]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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 too 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.

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

armour comparation

Pz IV D Hull 20/30 mm Turret 20/35 mm
Pz III F Hull 21/30 mm Turret 30 mm

S 35 Hull 25/36 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

M13/40 Hull 8/30 mm Turret 25/42 mm

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
~ 45 mm: 2 pdr. british, 75 mm german (with heat)
~ 50 mm: 76 mm soviet

 

[rgallant]

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]

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