Best battle tank of WW2?

Site Issues 2006 Archive Room
#41

hmm. well, i don’t really think its fair to compare crews either.

the soviets t-34 was an outstanding tank but their inferior crews assurred disportionate losses.

I think turret speed was very important too.

for instance the Tiger II could turret traverse 19 degrees per sec, while the orginal tiger could only do 6 degrees per sec.

this explains some of the massive kills achieved by King tiger men in the last months of the war, even better then the orginal tiger. karl koner destroyed 39 soviet tanks in one skirmish, which dwarfed Wittmann’s achievement.

#42

You are probably right about comparing crews too. And also good points about the Tiger and KT, Im sure you will be using them again in the future when these Beasts are up for the vote.

#43

4-0 to the P-IV up to now, I’ll do a new one tomorrow (I have an exam this afternoon so I don’t have time now), I’ll leave the vote for this one open until then.

#44

Voting now closed, new one will be put up some time today, around being on duty.

#45

Sorry it took a while, someone decided to put his BMW through a tree at 80mph last night while I was on duty, so I couldn’t get it done.

Matilda II (UK) v Type 97 (Japan)

Matilda II (UK)

Top Speed: 15mph (25km/h) (ROAD) 8mph (13km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Armour: 0.55’’ - 3’’ (14mm - 78mm)
Range: 155 miles (250km)
Height:8’3’’ (2.51m)
Width: 8’6’’ (2.59m)
Trench: 7’ (2.13m)
Vertical Obstacle: 2’ (0.61m)
Armament: 1x 2pounder gun or 1x 3in (76.2mm) howitzer and 1x 0.303in (7.7mm) or 0.312in (7.92mm) MG

The Matilda II was designed as a replacement for the Matilda I, an extremely poor tank which was armed with just one machine gun. The Matilda II was a far superior tank, destined to be the only British tank to be in use from 1939 to 1945. The Matilda II first saw action in France in 1940, where it was found that it was virtually invulnerable to the standard German 37mm anti-tank gun and could only be stopped by the 88mm anti aircraft gun. After Dunkirk, the Matilda I was dropped (most had been left in France anyway) and the Matilda II became simply the Matilda. The Matilda also saw action against the Italians in 1940 and 1941, where it proved as invulnerable to the Italian anti-tank weapons as it was to the German weapons. It also earned itself the nickname ‘Queen of the Desert’ at this time. The happy state of affairs for the Matilda continued until mid 1941, when the Afrika Corps arrived with their 88mm guns.
Attempts were made to up gun the Matilda with the 6 pounder gun, but the turret ring was not big enough to carry the larger weapon, and it was last used as a gun tank at the first Battle of El-Alemain in July 1942, although it continued to be used for special purposes such as mine clearance throughout the war.
The Matilda had a conventional layout, although the turret was very cramped, especially in the Close Support version with the 3inch howitzer. The commander did have a small cupola, but the vision from the Matilda was fairly poor (although no worse than any other tank of the time). It was also one of the first tanks to use a hydraulic system to turn the turret.

Type 97 (Japan)

Top Speed: 25mph (40km/h) (ROAD)
Armour: 0.3’’ - 0.98’’ (8mm - 25mm)
Range: 130 miles (210km)
Height:7’4’’ (2.23m)
Width: 7’8’’ (2.33m)
Trench: 8’3’’ (2.51m)
Vertical Obstacle: 2’6’’ (0.81m)
Armament: 1x 57mm gun, 2x 7.7mm (0.303in) MGs

Introduced in 1937, the Type 97 was probably the best Japanese tank design of the war. Designed more for infantry support than tank to tank combat (as was the Matilda), the 57mm was a short barrelled, low veolcity weapon, although it was capable of firing armour piercing ammunition. After combat experience against the Soviets in the Nomonhan Incident, the 57mm was replaced with a high velocity 47mm gun in many tanks.
There were also several special variants of the Type 97, including recovery, flail mine clearers, engineer, bridge layers, 20mm and 75mm anti-aircraft, and self propelled guns. These vehicles made very little impact on daily operations owing to their small numbers. Late in the war the Navy installed a 120mm gun in a limited number of these tanks.

#46

Well the Matilda (2), was the Tiger of its day and was designed as an anti tank tank. It would have eaten the opponent here for breakfast. The Japanese Tank would not have got penetrations from almost any range whereas the Matilda’s 2 pounder AT gun would have sliced through it like the proverbial knife through butter.

The lack of HE ammo was a problem, but in this contest it would have not mattered one tiny bit.

There can be only one!

And in this round the sane vote goes to the Matilda.

#47

I completely agree with Firefly. The Matilda II has my vote.

#48

I’m sure the Matilda was designed as an “I” tank :wink:
Matilda still gets my vote: better gun+better armour= no contest

#49

So the Matilda II is winning 3 - 0 so far. :lol:

#50

If could be a challenge between a British equipments and Japanese equipments, in no way should be between tanks.

So my vote goes 100% to Matilda.

#51

Ya know I never really studied the Japanese tanks much because they just looked like they sucked. However I guess you would want something kinda small and crappy looking in most of the area’s they where fighting in. :?: :!:

#52

Most of them were poor. Apparently they were developing one at the end of the war that would have compared very well with the Sherman, I saw a mention of it while I was researching the T-97.

I have to go for the Matilda as well, better armour, better gun and all round better tank.

#53

The Matlida was designed and designated as an infatnry Tank. However the 2 pounder wasnt issued with HE. There was a CS version with a 75mm gun that was more suited to the support role.

#54

That one’s closed then, I’ll stick the next one up shortly.

Matilda goes through.

#55

KV-1 (USSR) v M3 (USA)

KV-1

Top Speed: 21.75mph (35km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 93.2miles (150km)
Height: 8’11’’ (2.71m)
Width: 10’11 (3.32m)
Trench: 8’6’’ (2.8m)
Vertical Obstacle: 3’8’’ (1.2m)
Armour: 2.95’’ - 3.94’’ (75 -100mm)
Armament: 1x 76.2mm gun, between 3 and 5x 7.62mm MG

The KV-1 entered service in 1940, and was first used in the Winter War against Finland, where not one was lost, despite heavy losses for the previous generation of multi-turretted tanks. By the time of the German invasion in 1941, 636 had been built and proved a great shock to German anti tank gunners and Panzer troops, who found that the 37mm anti tank gun was virtually powerless against it. A close support version, the KV-2 amred with a 152mm howitzer, was also in service, but the massive turret needed for the gun was a big strain for the tank and the KV-2 proved to have a disappointing performance. A lighter, faster version, the KV-1s was introduced in 1942, and the 76.2mm gun was replaced with an 85mm weapon in the KV-85 introduced in late 1943.

M3 Grant/Lee (USA)

Top Speed: 26mph (42km/h) (ROAD) 16mph (26km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Range: 120 miles (193km)
Height: 10’3’’ (3.12m)
Width: 8’11’’ (2.72m)
Trench: 6’3’’ (1.9m)
Vertical Obstacle: 2’0’’ (0.6m)
Armour: 0.47’’ - 1.47’’ (12mm - 37mm)
Armament: 1x 75mm gun in hull, 1x 37mm gun in turret, 3x 0.3in (7.62mm ) MGs

American observers of the battles in Europe in 1940 saw that the 37mm guns of the tanks then in service with the US would not be powerful enough for modern warfare, so the 75mm Pack Howitzer was mounted in the sponson of an experimental T5 tank. This led to the adoption of the M3 Grant in August 1940. These were first used in combat by the British at the Battle of Gazala (N Africa) and were the first tank to achieve parity with the 75mm armed P-IV, although initial problems with the fuses of the HE shells hampered use at first.
The M3 was eventually declared obsolete in 1943, after seeing service in Africa and the Far East, although the hull lived on in various specialist vehicles, such as self propelled guns.

As with the fighters thread, this one is open until sunday due to me being away over the weekend.

#56

No contest.
The KV1 has better armour, a much lower profile & the main gun is turret mounted.

#57

1-0 to the KV-1, I’ll add my vote later on.

#58

I agree with Topor. KV1 has my vote.

#59

how about JS-3
200mm armour max an 120 anti aircraft gun as main cannon
although limited to 28 cannon, it should be consider the most powerful tank in ww2
even the eygpt would use it to attack isreal in 1967 (i believe that is the year)

#60

I don’t think the JS-3 was in general use before the war finished mate, the JS-2 is in the competition though.