I’m using american classification of tanks. PzKw -III and IV was less than 20-tonns mass and attached to light tank class… Later models of PzKw-IV was about 21 tonns, but cost of increase armor was a speed and maneurability. I can’t count it like a medium tank also…
OK.
Anyway I still disagree with you in ideea that BT is much better than PzKw III.
See this:
Tank: PzKw III PzKwIV BT-5 BT-7
Weight : 15,4 t 18,4 t 12,6 t 14,7 t
Gun : 37 mm (medium) 75 mm (short) 45 mm(short) 45 mm (medium)
Miniguns: 2 2 1 2
Armor : 15 mm 20 mm (lasted version of 1942 - 50 mm)
17 mm 25 mm
Engine : 250 h.p. 250 h.p. 300 h.p. (diesel) 360 h.p.(diesel)
Speed : 35 km/h 31 km/h 45 km/h 52 km/h
Can you call PzKw III better than BT-7 or BT-5? Only PzKw IV was better than BT-5, but because shortened gun in firepower was equal with BT-7. But speed characteristic of BT was much better…
BTW, is this theme for discussion in BRITISH military forum? 
Right, we have to discuss it in German Military or in Russian Miltary section.
And to continue British theme - they have no need tanks in the defense war, and have no good prototypes to produce them. Even now Britain have no big tank forces with such reason: have no need in them. More strange in preparations to war was position of France - they need a tanks… but not made them. In a real, I can’t understand why Britain didn’t send amount of forces to France in the first days if war…
Ya of course, Id have to agree with you guys that the American and British tanks, were nothing compared to the German and Soviet tanks. It is interesting to know, that I think the British were the first to invent tanks, right? How come they didnt keep up with the technology and research. Anyway the main reason why Britain doesnt have such a large tank force today, is 1. Britian today, is not interested much with war (besides Tony Blair lol). Theve already stripped their air force by alot. They also dont have such a big budget, almost nothing compared to the U.S. and they are pretty low compared with other countries. But they always focuse on quality, and top technology, which still makes them a pretty mean fighting force. 2. Their population is also quite small. But i might be going off topic.
Yep. First time tanks in war was used by British in the WW1 at river Somma. But Britain simply havn’t enough space for tank wars? they no need in them. BTW, first tanks was prected by Leonardo Da Vinchi… He draw the schemes of them, but they wasn’t used til XX century…
Not enough space? Well I doubt they would be having tank battles on Britain, the Royal Navy and Royal air force will take care of who ever thinks of dropping off a tank. Ya alot of technology was imagined by some guy, and then made possible, with new technology. There was this one guy long time ago who predicted that we should go to the moon and launch at Florida, becuase it was closest to the equator and therefore the closest spot to get to the moon. Thats why NASA uses the space station in Florida.
That is what I told. Britain was fully trusted to Navy and airforces and don’t believe in war on Britain territory. In such case, why Britain must have a tanks?
I guessed they learned pretty quickly why they needed tanks. Again it would appear assumption was wrong. 
how about the sharmen tank late in the war equipped with 90mm cannon, it did take out some of the tiger tanks, plus their speed is very fast, which means they are very mobile (at least better than the one offered by the germans)
Alot of times the Sherman(s) had to get behind the tiger. If a group of 6 Sherman came upon a tiger usually 3 or 4 would be taken out by the time the others got around to hit it in the back to take it out. The Sherman was an engineering disaster but was somewhat effective because of the huge numbers of them that were produced.
Mobility was always weak point of germans tank. Sherman - really not bad tank equal to good medium tanks of ww2. But he was produced enough late and not in a quanity for for war.
I guessed they learned pretty quickly why they needed tanks. Again it would appear assumption was wrong. :([/quote]
Yes i suppose, they never thought that anyone could pull up such a force after WW1.
For real, that was a good point. SU initualy sold tonns of gold to create such good tanks like T-34 or KV. But they would be out of date in the end of war without modifications. Progress in war very fast and always hold new tech is very expensive.
Britain does or at leats did have recently a large tank force based in Germany which is where the tanks went from to the gulf.
I think Britain has finally cut it’s forces too far as We will now struggle to keep up with commitments
And let’s not forgot that in the late 1930s a full half of the British Army was in Palestine trying to keep the Zionists and the Palestinians from ripping each other’s throats out…
British doctrine was to design and employ tanks as infantry support. The idea of the tank as heavy cavalry did not feature.
Ummm, a few points here.
-
Germany did not have any naval attack aircraft, nor any air dropped torpedoes. What they used at Dunkirk and in the Channel was Stukas equipped with 200lb bombs. At Dunkirk, against destroyers stationary in a harbour the Luftwaffe scored 6 hits in hundreds of sorties. A similar result was seen at Norway. In the early Battle of Britain they had great trouble hitting 6kt merchants. I would not place any faith in the Luftwaffe’s capacity to attack a Task Force travelling at 25kts, with irregular course changes defended by several hundred anti-aircraft guns.
-
In the early war, the allies had more and better tanks than the Germans at the time of the Battle of France (3,384 allied tanks vs 2,445 German and Italian tanks). It was their method of use that was interesting, as a mobile force applying strength against weakness.
Someone mentioned the Germans invading Britain, so here’s my take on that.
Operation Sealion (invasion of Britain) was canned by Hitler right after Germany’s worst day in the battle of Britain. Britain’s RAF ruined the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe, and so Hitler decided to bomb the cities. Operation Sealion was dropped BEFORE the decisions was made to switch to bombing Britain’s cities. When the heavy bombing of Britain’s cities ensued, Operation Sealion, and hopes of invading Britain by sea, were already squashed. The German’s knew that with the terrible losses to the Luftwaffe, an invasion of Britain would not be impossible, largely because the Royal Navy was still very strong and defeating it without the air superiority that the Luftwaffe once possessed, it would not be possible.
By this time, Germany’s Wolf Packs of submarines were dwindled, and of little use to taking out the Royal Navy. There was nothing the German’s could have done to invade Britain after the terrible losses to the Luftwaffe.
I suppose you could say that the RAF prevented a possible invasion of Britain before it could happen.
There is an article on the BBC’s web site that explains this, but I don’t have the link right now.