Well thanks for clairifing Firefly! 
Churchill (UK) vs Fiat M15/42 (Italy)
Churchill VII (UK)
Armament - 1x 75mm gun and 2x 7.92mm MGs
Armour - 25mm - 152mm (1 - 6 inches)
Max Speed - 15.5mph (24.8km/h) (Road) 8mph (12.8km/h) (Cross country)
Range - 90 miles (144km)
Vertical Obstacle - 2’6’’ (0.812m)
Trench - 10’ (3.048m)
The replacement for the Matilda II, the Churchill was an extremely rushed design - the first production tanks were coming off the production line just 11 months after the design started. This meant that early Churchills had many problems. Most of these problems were ironed out within the first few months of operation, and the Chuchill became a reliable tank, although it never really lost its reputation as a fragile and unreliable tank. With a low profile and thick armour, the Churchill was a decent tank, let down by its armament (as with all British tanks). The first marks were armed with the tiny 2pounder gun, and the armament was progressivley upgraded through the 6pounder to the 75mm gun of the later marks. Some were also built as close support tanks, carrying either 1x 95mm or 2x 3inch howitzers.
There was plenty of room in the hull, meaninng that the Mark I could carry 150 rounds of 2pounder and 58 rounds of 3in howitzer ammunition, and still have room for a crew of 5. The Churchill was also the first British tank to have a cupola for the commander, a feature that was common on German tanks and gave the commander all round vision, even when closed down. It also introduced the Merrit-Brown regenerative steering system (the system still universally used by all tank designers), which saved a lot of power when turning and allowed the tank to make neutral turns (ie - turn without having to be moving). The Churchill was also used for many of the ‘funnies’ - special purpose tanks such as mine clearers, armoured engineer vehicles, bridge layers and flamethrowers. Some of these versions continued in service with the British Army until they were replaced with Centurion AVREs in the early 1960s.
Fiat M15/42 (Italy)
Armament - 1x 47mm gun, 2x 8mm MGs
Armour - 14 - 42mm (0.55 - 1.65in)
Max Speed - 25mph (40km/h) (Road)
Range - 136 miles (220km)
Vertical Obstacle - 2’8’’ (0.8m)
Trench - 6’11’’ (2.1m)
The M15/42 entered service in 1943 and fewer than 100 were completed. They mostly saw service with the Ariete Division, which saw action trying to deny Rome to the Germans after the Italian capitulation. Already obsolete when it entered service, the was to have been a stop gap before the heavier P40 tank could enter service, although the war ended for Italy before this tank could enter production. After the Italian surrender, the surviving tanks were confiscated by the Germans as the Pzkpw M15/42 738i. A further 28 were also built for the Germans under this designation. They were issued to three Panzer detatchments and to the 22nd SS Maria Theresa Division in April 1944.
As with the Fighters thread, please give reasoning for your choice - one word answers will be ignored.
Obviously Churchill VII is by far much better than Fiat M15/42.
Churchill is superior with exception of speed and range (due to weight difference and consumption ratio).
In a battle one by one, Churchill will win. I’m not sure about a Churchill vs. a “bunch” of M15/42…
Anyway, my vote goes 100% to Churchill.
No picture for me either, and no contest between the 2 Tanks.
As stated in the text above regarding the Churchill it was constantly upgraded during the war. It was the first British tank that could survive frontal hits from the german 75mm guns. The first British tank fitted witha Cupola. Constantly upgraded, by the time of Normandy it was equipped with both 75 and 90mm guns, as well as flamethrowers, I give you the awesome Crocodile. Its only draw back was its walking pace speed. While not as good as a Panther or Tiger, its protection was possibly the best of any Allied tank in 1944.
As for the other, its an Italian design that was obsolete when made.
The Might Churchill gets my vote.
I have to go for the Churchill on this one to, better armed, better amoured and better able to be upgraded. It was slow, but it was very heavily armoured for the time (particularly in contrast to American and previous British designs).
3-0 to the Churchill then
Might be interesting (in German service):
An earlier version of Churchill (aprox. 1943):
From Dr. Werner Regenberger, Horst Scheiben “Beutepanzer unterm Balkenkreuz”
A M15/42 (1944 - stuck on Italian road):
From “Italian medium tanks in action” Squadron/Signal Publication No 39
Edited: So you could see the heights of the tanks!
Cheers for the pics Dani.
Been a couple of days without any votes now, so I guess this ones dead.
Next one:
Pzkpfw III (Germany) v Valentine (UK)
Pzkpfw III Ausf L
Max Speed: 25mph (40km/h) (ROAD) 11mph (18km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Range: 109miles (175km)
Vertical Obstacles: 2’ (0.6m)
Trench: 7’6’’ (2.3m)
Armour: 1.18’’ - 3.15’’ (30 - 80mm) - many also had extra armour added in the field
Armament: 1x 50mm gun, 2x 7.92mm MGs
The last ‘anti-tank’ Pzkpw III (the Ausf M and N were close support versions with a low velocity 75mm gun), the Pzkpw IIIJ and Pzkpw IIIL entered service after the short 50mm gun of the Ausf E, F, G and I was found too be insufficent to penetrate the KV-1 and T-34 of the Soviet army.
All versions of the P-III had good all round vision, with a large ‘dustbin’ cupola for the commander. The tank was also well laid out, with plenty of room for the crew to function. The P-III also had a very good gearing system, which made is very easy to drive. The gearbox was very complicated though, which made maintenance difficult. The original 37mm gun carried by the earlier marks was not great, often unable to penetrate the heavier British and French tanks, never mind the Soviet heavy tanks. This was replaced with a low velocity 50mm gun, which was an improvement (and outranged the British 2 pounder), but was still not heavy enough to fight heavier tanks with. The P-III could not carry the high velocity 75mm gun, and by 1942 it was really outdated as a combat tank, and was eventually replaced by the P-IV and the Panther.
Valentine XI (UK)
Top Speed: 15mph (24km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 90 miles (144km)
Verticle Obstacle: 3’ (0.91m)
Trench: 7’9’’ (2.36m)
Armour: 0.31’’ - 2.56’’ (8-65mm)
Armament: 1x 75mm gun and 1x 7.92mm MG
The Valentine was a private venture by Vickers-Armstrong and was built under the pre-war British concept of ‘cruiser’ tanks for cavalry type warfare and ‘infantry’ tanks to support infantry assaults. The Valentine was an infantry tank, which were supposed to be heavily armoured, with performance a secondary condsideration.
The Valentine stayed in production from 1939 to 1944, with 8,275 built. Over 2,000 of these were supplied to the Soviet Union, who disliked the small 2pounder and 6pounder guns and often replaced them with their own 76.2mm anti-tank guns. The Soviets did like the simplicity of the Valentine though and they also liked the reliability and simplicity of the tank.
In British service, the Valentine saw action in North Africa with the Eighth Army, and some were also landed in Tunisia with the First Army. In the desert, the Valentine earned a reputation for being extremely hard wearing, with some reportedly travelling 3,000 miles on their own tracks after El-Alemain. A small number of Valentines also saw action in Burma, the Madagasgar landings and some were landed at Gibraltar to bolster the defences there. Some of the Burma Valentines had their 2pounder gun replaced with a 3in howitzer to provide fire support.
Valentines also took part in the D-Day landings, although they had passed out of use as gun tanks by then. The chassis was used in a variety of roles, including amphibious landing (DD), bridgelaying, flamethrower tank and mine clearance. One was even fitted with rockets in a disasterous attempt to produce a flying tank.
In combat, crews found that the turret was too small on all marks, which no amount of redesign could fix. In some marks with a three man crew, the commander was also overworked having to load the main gun, command the tank, give the gunner targets and operate the radio. It also suffered from poor vision for the crew, particularly the commander who had no cupola, so he had to bob up and down in the turret to get a proper view of the battle - which meant fairly high casualty rates amongst commanders.
This is a tricky one because at first glance you would automatically assume the PzIII
The PzIII went through many variations, the 50mm gun in France was the short barrelled version, no worries there as tank versus tank combat wasnt in the german rule book, AT guns were meant to fight tanks. It had a good chassis and powerplant and provided the bulk of German armour in 1940.
When we come to N Africa, the PzIII was again the most numerable tank in the early years. After some difficulties with the matilda it was upgraded to have the 50mm L60 gun, which came as a surprise to the British as it was effective at greater ranges. Indeed the British nicknamed it the PzIII Special.
It was also at the forefront in russia in 1941-42. Although not able to deal with a T-34 or KV frontally, again, this wasnt its primary job. Although when faced with these beasts, many a Vetereran tank crew would aim for the gun of the enemy, or the exhaust. The skill was such in many crews that they achived hits against both.
It was continually upgraded, but by 1943 was pretty much obsolescent against Russian Armour from the front. It also formed the basis of the excellent STUG series, but I digress.
All in all it was the first tank to usher in the basic crew lay-out that we still see in tanks today.
Now, the Valentine. Initially it had the 2 pounder gun, was not relatively well armoured, but it was upgraded. The addition of the 6 pounder gun in the VIII and IX versions actually made it more effective than a Sherman 75. However, to get that gun in there the co-ax MG had to be ditched. Also this meant that it had to revert to a two man turret. They served extensively in italy, the final mark being the XI, which had the same gun as the Sherman (75mm).
All in all the Valetine proved its worth and was upgradeable as I have shown. Althouth it suffered from the above drawbacks.
To conclude, the valentine actually kept pace with the PzIII, but a step behind it in my opinion, its AT capability was considerable especially when it was using tungsten round, which by 1943 were rare in the German inventory, but its armour was just not up to it.
So after great deliberation, I go for the PzIII
Good match up
PzIII for me
To me, this is a very close call. Although the P-III had heavier armour than the Valentine, the Valentine was better armed (in later 75mm versions, at least). The P-III has the better range and performace, but the Valentine is a better obstacle crosser. Both were very reliable and able to be updated and both were used as the basis of other vehicles afer their time as an MBT had finished.
For me, the P-III just scrapes it thanks to the better lay out and vision. The Valentine did cause a lot of casualties amongst commanders with its lack of cupola, and was a very cramped tank to work in. It’s a very close fought match up though.
2-0 to the Panzer III
Agree with BDL with exception of the emboldment.
PzKpfw III Ausf N had a 75mm L/24 gun, so on last versions (N for Pz III and XI for Valentine) were equal.
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/tfpz3n.htm and http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tanks_medium/pzkpfw_iii.html
PzKpfw III
Valentine
My vote goes to PzKpfw III.
Dani, the 75mm gun on the P-III was a low velocity gun rather than a high-velocity anti-tank gun which the Valentine had. It was designed to high HE rounds rather than to fight tanks.
Quite true BDL! But I wanted to pointed out that the Germans add a 75 mm gun on PzKfW III.
Anyway, check the PzKfw III Ausf L variant with 50 mm long gun. This gun replaced the shorter 50 mm KwK L/42 gun (a low velocity gun).
Also a PzKfw Ill Ausf N with short 75 mm gun:
Off-topic: Anyway STUG III was built on PzKfw III chassis:
Speaking of 75 mm guns used on latest versions, 75 mm OQF gun obviously is better than 75 mm KwK L/241.
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/PenetrationTables.htm
and http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns.html
I’ll end this one now, since there’s been no votes for a couple of days. P-III goes through.
Next one will be started shortly.
Pzkpw IV (Germany) v M4 Sherman (USA)
Pzkpw IV Ausf H
Top Speed: 25mph (40km/h) (ROAD) 12.5mph (20km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Range: 125 miles (200km)
Vertical Obstacle: 2’ (0.6m)
Trench: 7’6’’ (2.3m)
Armour: 0.79’’ - 3.45’’ (20 - 90mm)
Armament: 1x 75mm L/48 gun, 2x 7.92mm MGs
The Pzkpw IV was the only German tank of the war to remain in production throughout the war, and was still being used by Syria as recently as the 1967 Arab-Israeli war (in a static role). Originally designed as a support tank, the first P-IVs were armed with a short barelled 75mm gun firing high explosive shells in support of the P-III, which was seen as the main combat tank. Battle experience showed that the P-IV’s armour was not thick enough, and it was soon upgraded. It was also given a high velocity anti-tank gun, changing role from support to battle tank. The P-IV began to replace the P-III as a front line MBT from about mid 1941 onwards. Eventually the L/48 gun was fitted, which allowed the P-IV to take on pretty much any tank in the world. In response to the growing numbers of bazooka type weapons being deployed by the Allies, the P-IV was fitted with 5mm thick skirts of armour (Schurzen) designed to detonate the HEAT warheads of these weapons before they hit the main armour.
The Panzer-IV also formed the basis of several self-propelled guns, including the Jagdpanzer-IV, Panzerbefehlswagen (IV) mit 7.5cm KwK L/48 (Command tanks with extra radios) and the Bergepanzer IV recovery vehicle.
M4A3 Sherman (USA)
Top Speed: 26mph (42km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 100miles (160km)
Vertical Obstacle: 2’ (0.6m)
Trench: 7’6’’ (2.29m)
Armour: 0.6’ - 3.94’’ (15mm - 100mm)
Armament: 1x 75mm M3 gun, 2x 7.62mm MG, 1x 12.7mm MG
The most widespread tank of the western Allies in WW2, the Sherman was prduced in massive numbers. Early models had an unfortunate habit of burning easily (the Germans named them ‘Tommy Cookers’) and although this was improved with water jackets being added around the ammunition, the Sherman never really shook that reputation. Although the armour on the Sherman was no worse than many tanks of the time, the Sherman was a very high tank, making it very easy to target to experienced German anti-tank and tank gunners. Sherman crews often suffered badly when facing Tigers and Panthers, often losing 3 or 4 of their number in order to destroy one German tank. The Sherman was upgraded, both by Britain and the US, with the British 17pounder gun and the American 76mm gun. Although the 76mm gun was a big improvement over the 75mm, it was not as good as the British 17pounder. It did, however, allow the Sherman crews more chance of surviving an encounter with German armour. The Sherman also had the suspension greatly upgraded throughout its career, culminating in the HVSS (Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension) versions which gave an extremely smooth and comfortable ride. Like the P-IV, the Sherman was used widely after the war, particularly with the Israelis, who upgraded their Shermans several times, keeping them in service until the 1970s.
The Sherman was also used in other roles, most famously as a basis for many of the ‘Funnies’ used by the British at D-Day, as well as a version with a 105mm howitzer for fire support.
I can’t wait! Interesting draw!
I’ll post later tonight my choice!
PzKpfw IV Ausf H - 3774 produced (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/fpz4h.htm
Altough over 49000 Sherman M4s were produced, on M4A3 only 1690 were built. http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/data/m4a3.htm
Pz IV was better armoured (especially on front side) and have as well some protection skirts (it is correct?). Also it have a high velocity gun comparing to Sherman.
My vote goes to PzKpfw IV Ausf H.
As a little bit off-topic, check some pictures with a Pz IV and a Sherman M4 on Soviet side:
I have to go for the P-IV in this one - better gun, better armour and better range. It’s also a smaller target, being a whole 2 feet smaller in height (P-IV was 8’6’’, M4 was 11’1’’) and a foot shorter (19’5’’ compared to 20’7’’).
2-0 to the P-IV, I’ll leave this over night to see if anyone else is interested.
I suppose it depended on the Mark of PzIV that the Sherman was fighting. For a while in 1942, the Sherman was the best tank on the N African battlefield and more than a match for the 4.
However, the later marks of 4 could and did kill any allied Tank, from a Sherman to a JS2. That together with the greater experience of your average German crew counts for a lot. Its one thing to go into battle knowing you can effectively kill anythig, and another to know that 4 of your mates will be hit to achieve your aim. Confidence makes up for a lot.
Still, the Sherman had a gyrostabiliser, and while not the most accurrate it could still move and fire, the 4 didnt and couldnt.
After much deliberation I think that the 4 just edges it in performance terms over the Standard Sherman.
PzIV for me, though only in the G-H model.
i vote for panzer IV, for the above reasons.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm
panzer III 96,200 Reichsmarks
panzer IV 103,500 RM
panther 117,000 RM
tiger 250,000 RM
costs of tanks.
I’ve seen this type of thread several times. Everyone always says the german tanks are the best. Maybe a more balanced approach would be to compare the costs of the tanks?
i don’t have the site with me now, but in the past i stumbled on a site that said that the sherman was around the same price as the panzer IV, after conversion to dollars.
convert reichmarks, pounds, and dollars to IE (pounds) and through the price as a comparison.
compare the tanks to their respective class, but also include information regarding their price.
do you agree?
A good point, but cost is not a good way to think about it. The US economy especially could afford to spend much more on an individual tank. What was the GDP of Germany in 1944 compared to the US?
SO cost for tanks is relative, its like saying that a Bow costs less to produce than a Crossbow, which is true, but at Agincourt, what was decisive>