Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums
 



Go Back   Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > World War II - Aviation > Polls

Polls Polls and discussion on their results.

View Poll Results: Best Medium-Light Tank
M5 Stuart 6 11.11%
M3 Grant/Lee 1 1.85%
Pnzer II 0 0%
Pnzer III 27 50.00%
Crusader series 3 5.56%
Russian tank 9 16.67%
Other 8 14.81%
Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-03-2009, 05:36 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
MacArther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 876
Send a message via Yahoo to MacArther
Best Medium-light tank

Okay, I know that heading seems confusing, so I'll explain. Anything below a Pnzer IV, Pnzer V, Sherman, Cromwell, or any other classic "Medium" tank in terms of firepower, armor, weight, etc. Also, these would be heavier than something like a Pnzer I, in terms of armament, weight, and armor. An example off the top of my head would be the Pnzer III. I'll let a few of you go first before revealing my "best" tank for this category. Also, I made this poll because although there is a "Favorite Western Tank" poll, there is not much in terms of early-mid war stuff, where as there is plenty of talk about the tanks that carried on into the assault on Fortress Europe.
__________________
http://www.fictionpress.com/u/478009/
Hillary 2012: The world has to end sometime!

Last edited by MacArther; 02-03-2009 at 06:14 PM. Reason: trying to fix something on the poll itself
MacArther is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2009, 07:16 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 914
The British Matilda tank seems to have been very popular with its crews, however I don't know much about tanks so cannot justify that, except to say that I've seen it mentioned a lot.

edit, just found out that the Matilda weight 30 tons so 'probably' doesn't qualify. Sorry for making the first reply such a clunker
__________________
BlondeValkyrie - Bugger off and host your OWN pictures you thieving twat

Last edited by Waynos; 02-03-2009 at 07:21 PM.
Waynos is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2009, 10:08 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 494
Well, the Sherman was considered a ‘medium’, as was the T-34. Both of these ended up topping out at over 30 tonnes.

If we are looking at “light mediums” that are around 20 tonnes, then you’d also have to include:

Britain:

Centaur: I-III: 21 tonnes
Valentine I-XI: 17-17.5 tonnes

US:

M-24 Chaffe: 18.5 tonnes (my vote for the best “light” tank);

Russia:

T-50: 14 tonnes
BT-7: 13.5 tonnes


Japan:

Type 97: 15 tonnes
Type 1: 17 tonnes
Type 3: 18.4 tonnes – no combat use, but theoretically the most powerful “medium” the IJA had at its disposal


Hungary:

Turan: 18.2 tonnes. Well outclassed when it was introduced though...
Jabberwocky is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2009, 10:25 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Vassili Zaitzev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Stafford Springs, Connecticut
Posts: 2,221
If we're talking early-mid war, I opted for the Panzer III. I don't believe the Russians had a effective medium-light tank besides the T-34. The KV tanks and SU assualt guns sure, but those were heavier then 30 tons.
__________________
"Never was so much owed by so many to so few"- Winston Churchill.
Vassili Zaitzev is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2009, 10:53 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Amsel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,738
I agree. The Panzer III lasted the whole war. In the beginning nothing could stop the advance of the Panzer III and short barreled IV. Until the Kv-1. And then the Panzer crews would shoot holes in the barrels of the soviet armor rendering them inefective in armor battles.
__________________


'Live Free or Die'
Amsel is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2009, 01:08 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Konigstiger205's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 907
Definitely Panzer III, very versatile, was the workhorse of the Wehrmacht. Plus after its retirement out of service, it still served as a tank destroyer and mobile artillery until the end of the war. Also I really like how it looks
__________________
These airplanes we have today are no more than a perfection of a child's toy made of paper."Henri Coanda"
Konigstiger205 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2009, 04:09 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
dragonandhistail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amsel View Post
I agree. The Panzer III lasted the whole war. In the beginning nothing could stop the advance of the Panzer III and short barreled IV. Until the Kv-1. And then the Panzer crews would shoot holes in the barrels of the soviet armor rendering them inefective in armor battles.
Your characterization of the PZ III and short barreled MK IV is inaccurate. They were easily "stoppable". Just read about what happened to everybody's favorite overrated Nazi Rommel at Arras in 1940 when he ran into well trained British armored forces. They shot the heck out of the 7th Panzer Division and were only stopped by the quick placement of a few 88mm anti-aircraft guns. The PZ III and PZ IV were very lightly armored and easily penetrated by the British 2 pounder, the French 47mm and 75mm. Even the US 37mm penetrated both models at 500 yards in side, rear, and sometimes frontal engagements depending on where they were hit. The Mk III did not have much more armor than a US M5 Stuart. The key to German armored success in the early part of the war was not the vehicles but the tactics, crew training, and the fact that every German tank had a radio in it. They were not unstoppable and in fact were rebuffed on the battlefield quite often. The Matilda, Char B, and Russian T-70 were more than a match for these vehicles if crewed properly. That is why the T-34 and early Shermans were such a shock to MK III and IV crews in Russia and North Africa. By the way, in the initial year of the Barbarossa campaign 1/2 of all German tanks were Panzer IIs. The Germans were successful not because of their vehicles but because of the men and equipment in them.
dragonandhistail is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2009, 04:29 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
dragonandhistail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 26
MacArther,

I think you have lumped apples and oranges here together. The M3 grant was a serious medium and not in the category of the Stuart, early PZ IIs or the PZ II. It was a beast in comparison. Choose light or medium not both. Pick a weight threshold as well. A better list of light tanks would have included: Russian T-70 and BT 7, US M3 /M5 Stuart series, PZ II series, British Cruiser tanks, French Hotchkiss, US M-24 Chaffee, Japanese light tank series, etc. Anything toting a 50mm gun or larger should be excluded before 1944. The Crusader, PZ III, M3 Grant were main battle tanks and thus mediums.
dragonandhistail is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2009, 05:42 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
MacArther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 876
Send a message via Yahoo to MacArther
If I recall correctly, the M3 Grant was based on the body of the M3 Stuart. Also, it had something like 1.9~ inches of armor tops, which is why I lumped it with light mediums. Also, although it had a powerful main gun, it also had shot-traps out the wazoo, and I would imagine that the 37mm gun was used more often than the 75mm gun, at least early on due to the transversing mechanism of the 75mm (see: turn the whole tank towards the target). But yes, I can see how the classification system I used was confusing. Keep in mind though, I have NONE of my military guides, books, etc. with me at the moment, so I'm only able to do vague classifications. As for my choice, M5 Stuart. Yes, it did not have the same hitting power as a M24, but the M5 could load canister rounds, and was sufficient enough for either reconnaissance or light infantry support (so long as it kept its front towards the enemy anyway).

Quote:
Turan: 18.2 tonnes. Well outclassed when it was introduced though...
Ah, but wasn't its main gun on the original based off of a German gun design? But yes, I will agree, from the get go, the opponents it faced were far better off.
__________________
http://www.fictionpress.com/u/478009/
Hillary 2012: The world has to end sometime!

Last edited by MacArther; 02-04-2009 at 05:50 PM.
MacArther is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2009, 09:21 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Amsel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonandhistail View Post
Your characterization of the PZ III and short barreled MK IV is inaccurate. They were easily "stoppable". Just read about what happened to everybody's favorite overrated Nazi Rommel at Arras in 1940 when he ran into well trained British armored forces. They shot the heck out of the 7th Panzer Division and were only stopped by the quick placement of a few 88mm anti-aircraft guns. The PZ III and PZ IV were very lightly armored and easily penetrated by the British 2 pounder, the French 47mm and 75mm. Even the US 37mm penetrated both models at 500 yards in side, rear, and sometimes frontal engagements depending on where they were hit. The Mk III did not have much more armor than a US M5 Stuart. The key to German armored success in the early part of the war was not the vehicles but the tactics, crew training, and the fact that every German tank had a radio in it. They were not unstoppable and in fact were rebuffed on the battlefield quite often. The Matilda, Char B, and Russian T-70 were more than a match for these vehicles if crewed properly. That is why the T-34 and early Shermans were such a shock to MK III and IV crews in Russia and North Africa. By the way, in the initial year of the Barbarossa campaign 1/2 of all German tanks were Panzer IIs. The Germans were successful not because of their vehicles but because of the men and equipment in them.
Your last sentence sums up what I intended to be understood. I know the early panzers were not heavily armored. They were the best small tanks at the time. I have studied the war from both sides and even in North Africa the panzers were feared. I believe my assessment was corrrect but was misinterpreted to believe I meant it could take on everything. It obviously couldn't. Are Shermans on the list?
__________________


'Live Free or Die'
Amsel is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2009, 11:45 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Soundbreaker Welch?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,893
The Sherman was a fast tank, but it wasn't the scariest tank to it's opponents. It couldn't punch holes in the German tank armour very easily, and it caught flame like a stove top.

In some ways, it was a little like the Japanese Zero, fast and manuverable but vulnerable to enemy fire.
__________________

"His motor's conked out!"
"What's the differance, they're all Nazis!"
"Luke, shut up!"
"Fear the hook!"
"Oh.....I wanna fly."
"You mean the kind that go under water and fly up the stairs?"
"What you doing? Oh Nooooo!"
Soundbreaker Welch? is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2009, 09:01 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
dragonandhistail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 26
Smile T-70?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vassili Zaitzev View Post
If we're talking early-mid war, I opted for the Panzer III. I don't believe the Russians had a effective medium-light tank besides the T-34. The KV tanks and SU assualt guns sure, but those were heavier then 30 tons.

Vassili,

The T-70 was built in huge quantities and has to be considered for sheer numbers. T-70 Light Tank was the direct heir of the T-60, as it used the same chassis, it was actually a major redesign (two engines instead of the T-60's single one, stronger suspensions and springing, a bigger gun). Production started in 1942 and, between March 1942 and October 1943, more than 8,200were manufactured. The T-70 was seriously overshadowed by the T-34 thus we know little of its operational history. The 45mm cannon was a peashooter but against a MK III on the side or rear it was deadly. Frontally it could penetrate an early MK III. The T-70's major operational limitation was that of every other "two-man-crew" tank; the commander can't command or be situationally aware while acting as a gunner / loader / radio operator as well. That is why light tanks like the US M5 were so successful in the recon role because they had a four man crew. After 1943 the T-70's chassis were adapted for manufacturing ths new self-propelled assault guns like the SU-76. As for best light tank I like the Stuart, but if the Chaffee was on this poll it would have my vote.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg T-70.jpg (14.1 KB, 4 views)

Last edited by dragonandhistail; 02-05-2009 at 09:04 PM. Reason: Add picture
dragonandhistail is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2009, 10:03 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Vassili Zaitzev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Stafford Springs, Connecticut
Posts: 2,221
Cool, thanks for the info! The lack of crew reminds me of the French Char.
__________________
"Never was so much owed by so many to so few"- Winston Churchill.
Vassili Zaitzev is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2009, 12:41 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
dragonandhistail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 26
Vassili is probably right

Vassili,

I misread your initial post. You are certainly correct that the Russians did not have an effective "light" tank. The T-70 was so light it was almost in the tankette category. With masses of T-34s avaialble for use in every role the T-70 was a definite to be relegated to obscurity. THe crew is everything.
dragonandhistail is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2009, 01:41 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Vassili Zaitzev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Stafford Springs, Connecticut
Posts: 2,221
Hey, thanks for the info anyway, I'm no expert on tanks, so every little bit helps!
__________________
"Never was so much owed by so many to so few"- Winston Churchill.
Vassili Zaitzev is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger
Design by HTWoRKS


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118