I have to go for the KV here, for the reasons stated previously. It was an innovative Tank for its time and really shocked the Germans. The powerplant may have been a bit weak for the tank, but I think it beats the US Grant hands down.
However, the UK Grant had more front armour. But were not talking about that so:
KV for me.
I have to go for the KV-1 as well, it has the advantage over the M-3 in pretty much every respect.
This vote’s closed then, I’ll do the next one tonight (hopefully)
:oops: Forgot to vote! KV-1.
Sorry!
Cromwell (UK) v SOMUA S-35 (France)
Cromwell VII (UK)
Top Speed: 40mph (64km/h) (ROAD) 18mph (29km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Range: 173 miles (277km)
Height: 9’3.75’’ (2.84m)
Width: 10’ (3.94m)
Trench: 7’6’’ (2.28m)
Vertical Obstacle: 3’ (0.92m)
Armour: 0.4’’ - 4’’ (10mm - 102mm) (With retro fitted applique armour)
Armament: 1x 75mm gun, 2x 7,92mm MG. Close Support versions carried 1x 95mm Howitzer and 2x 7.92mm MGs
The Cromwell entered service with the British Army in 1942 and was the most numerically important British tank of the war. Originally built with a 6pounder gun, the Cromwell was soon up-gunned after experience in North Africa showed that after the initial breakthrough in an attack, the main targets were anti-tank guns and infantry, needing a good HE shell to engage, rather than just an AP shell.
In combat, the Cromwell proved to be both fast and agile and was very popular with crews. It was also fairly easy to maintain, with the very reliable Meteor engine, developed from the Merlin aircraft engine. It was difficult to escape from in a hurry though, and there was a shortage of stowage space for the crew’s gear. The first combat test for the Cromwell was in Normandy in 1944, where it proved as undergunned as the rest of the Allied tanks, although it had to soldier on through to the end of the war. Attempts to mount the British 17pounder gun were unsuccessful although a small number of the ‘Challenger’ were put into service, despite being too high and unbalanced.
SOMUA S-35 (France)
Top Speed: 23mph (37km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 160 miles (257km)
Height: 8’10’’ (2.69m)
Width: 6’11’’ (2.11m)
Trench: 7’8’’ (2.34m)
Vertical Obstacle: 1’8’’ (0.51m)
Armour: 2.2’’ (56mm) maximum
Armament: 1x 47mm Gun, 1x 7.5mm MG
The SOMUA S-35 was designed to a French cavalry specification, and was soon adopted as the standard medium tank of the French Army. For it’s time, the S-35 had goor armour, armament and mobility, and could match German tanks in a one-on-one situation, although they were abysmally handled tactically. Their main drawback was the use of the commander as both gunner and loader, meaning that he was almost always over worked in combat. The tank was also made up of three sections welded together, a major weakspot in the armour which often resulted in the tank being split wide open if hit by an anti-tank round on one of these joints. A few were used by both the Germans and the Italians after the French capitulation, some even turning up on the Eastern Front.
Cromwell all the way: Better armour & a better gun, along with a better obstacle climbing ability.
A whole generation of AFV’s separate these two, so no wonder the Cromwell is superior.
no offense to anyone, but I think besides the Panzer IV vs. Sherman matchup, the other matchups have been far too one sided. I think it would be more interesting to compare tanks that are more similiar in capability.
IE>
panzer IV vs. T-34/76
Panther vs. T-34/85
Tiger I vs. JS-II
Tiger II vs. JS-III
Pershing Vs. Tiger I
Cromwell vs. M4 Sherman
Panzer III vs. M5 Stuart
It’s a completely random draw Hosenfield, that’s why some of the early match ups are a bit one sided. When we get to the next stage, they will be a lot more even, because most of the tanks there will be of a similar quality.
Somua S-35 was considered the best tank faced by the Germans in the invasion of France.
But comparing to Cromwell, it was inferior in tech specs (there is no wonder, Crowell was developed later than Somua).
My vote goes to Cromwell.
Agreed with Topor. My vote goes to the Cromwell.
I also vote Cromwell, there really isnt any other choice in my opinion.
So it is 4-0 for Cromwell.
I have to add my vote for the Cromwell, for all the reasons already mentioned. It’s a generation better than the French tank, which was a decent tank for its day, but is outclassed in this encounter.
I’ll leave this open for a bit longer and do a new one this evening.
Cromwell vs Somua is now closed, Cromwell goes through, SOMUA burns out slowly at the side of the road.
Next one is being written as you read this.
Well said 
From now on, I’ll be including a lot more information into my initial comparisons, to give more discussion points on each tank:
BT-7 (USSR) vs Crusader (UK)
BT-7
Max Speed: 33mph (53km/h) (ROAD) *
Range: 270 miles (430km) *
Vertical Obstacle: 1’10’’ (0.55m)
Trench: 6’7’’ (2m)
Length: 18’7’’ (5.66m)
Width: 7’6’’ (2.29m)
Height: 7’11’’ (2.42m)
Weight: 30,644lb (13,900kg)
Ground Pressure: 11.25lb/sq in (0.79kg/sq cm)
Armour: 0.39’’ - 0.87’’ (10 - 22mm)
Armament: 1x 45mm M1935 gun, 1x 7.62mm MG coaxial with the main gun
Ammunition: 188x 45mm & 2,142 7.62mm
Service History: Red Army 1935 - 1945
The BT series of tanks was developed from the American Christie tanks , one of which was purchased in 1930 and shipped to the Soviet Union. After extensive testing, the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR authorised the type for use by the USSR. The first models, the BT-1 and BT-2 were armed with a 37mm gun, but this was replaced by the 45mm weapon in 1932.
The BT tanks were designed for use in the same way as cavalry in past wars, in the rear of the enemy attacking Headquarters, supply dumps etc. to make the best use of its long range and high speed. Large scale exercises showed that these missions would require artillery support, and many BT tanks were modified as self propelled guns with a short barelled 76.2mm gun. A commanders version was also developed.
The BT tanks suffered heavy losses at the hands of the invading Germans in 1941, partly because of a lack of training for crews and the lack of radios, adequate gun sights and other equipment. The BT-7 did lead to the BT-IS (IS = Investigator Tank) which had heavily sloped armour and contributed greatly to the development of the T-34.
Crusader III (UK)
Max Speed: 27mph (44km/h) (ROAD)
Range: 100 miles (160km)
Vertical Obstacle: 2’3’’ (0.685m)
Trench: 8’2’’ (2.59m)
Length: 19’8’’ (5.99m)
Width: 8’8’’ (2.64m)
Height: 7’4’’ (2.23m)
Weight: 44,240lb (20,040kg)
Ground Pressure: 14.7lb/sq in (1.04kg/sq cm)
Armour: 0.28’’ - 2’’ (7 - 51mm)
Armament: 1x 6pounder gun, 1x 7.92mm MG
Ammunition: ???
Service History: British Army 1939 - 1943
The Crusader was desinged as a Heavy Cruiser tank, although the 2pounder gun, the only weapon available in 1939, was the same weapon as on standard Cruiser tanks (and on the Infantry tanks to). The Crusader I and II had a second 7.92mm MG mounted in a small turret on the front left of the hull, but this was found to be fairly useless and was left out of the Crusader III. The early marks of the Crusader were rushed into service and in their first battle (Op Battleaxe in early 1941) more fell into enemy hands through mechanical break down than through battle damage. The Crusader also had the same drawback of all tanks with a two man turret, in that the Commander also had to work the radio and load the main armament as well as commanding the vehicle. The turret was also relatively small and cramped.
Despite these problems, the Crusader served all through the Desert Campaign, with the Crusader III in service by the time of El-Alemain. The modified mantlet used for the 6pounder versions of the Crusader could also mount a 3in (76.2mm) Howitzer for use as close support, although very few vehicles were armed with this weapon.
By the end of the Desert Campaign the Crusader was outdated and some were converted as anti aircraft tanks or as gun towers, serving in Italy and France.
Hmmm, interesting match up. Will post answer when I have more time to research it!
I have to go for the Crusader on this one, better armour, better gun, better obstacle crossing and a slightly smaller target (in height, if not in length or width)
I have to go with the BT-7 here. It really is the T-34’s mother, sloped armour, good ammo load out, awaesome cross country performance matched with speed. It had a good gun for 1940. The drawbacks would have been the lack of radio and the optics which were worse than the Germans (but then whose wasnt).
The Crusader for me, was another example of the British early war tank designs, often made on cost grounds alone. The Crusader became mince-meat for the german guns, the armour was not sloped, although I dont know what its brinnel rating was vis-a-vis the BT-7. Even though it had a radio, the 2 man turret was a draw back.
The nippy little flanker of a BT wins this for me. Its just a pity that in 1941 most of the crews in them were green as a very green thingy.
1-1 on this one up to now, anymore for anymore before I start thinking of a tie-breaker to seperate these?
My vote goes to the Crusader here.
The 6 pounder gun fired AP at roughly the same velocity as the 45mm on the BT7 but with nearly double the mass. It could take out the BT7 before it even reached where its gun was effective. The Russian AP was of dubious effectiveness due to the tendency of the projectile’s nose to fragment upon leaving the barrel.
The A15 had thicker frontal & turret armour as well.
Both ran on Christie suspension, so they were probably evenly matched cross country.