ADS NOT DISPLAYED TO REGISTERED USERS.

View Poll Results: Best Medium-Light Tank

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • M5 Stuart

    6 8.70%
  • M3 Grant/Lee

    1 1.45%
  • Pnzer II

    0 0%
  • Pnzer III

    34 49.28%
  • Crusader series

    6 8.70%
  • Russian tank

    10 14.49%
  • Other

    12 17.39%
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 65
Like Tree1Likes

Best Medium-light tank

Polls Discuss Best Medium-light tank in the World War II - Aviation forums; Okay, I know that heading seems confusing, so I'll explain. Anything below a Pnzer IV, Pnzer V, Sherman, Cromwell, or ...

  1. #1
    Senior Member MacArther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,126
    Country
    United States

    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.

    Last edited by MacArther; 02-03-2009 at 05:14 PM. Reason: trying to fix something on the poll itself
    http://www.fictionpress.com/u/478009/
    Hillary 2012: The world has to end sometime!

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,286
    Country
    United Kingdom
    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
    Last edited by Waynos; 02-03-2009 at 06:21 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    912
    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...

  4. #4
    Senior Member Vassili Zaitzev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, United States
    Posts
    2,951
    Country
    United States
    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.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Amsel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,857
    Country
    United States
    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Konigstiger205's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bucharest
    Posts
    915
    Country
    Romania
    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"

  7. #7
    Member dragonandhistail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    31
    Country
    United States
    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.

  8. #8
    Member dragonandhistail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    31
    Country
    United States
    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member MacArther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,126
    Country
    United States
    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).

    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.
    Last edited by MacArther; 02-04-2009 at 04:50 PM.
    http://www.fictionpress.com/u/478009/
    Hillary 2012: The world has to end sometime!

  10. #10
    Senior Member Amsel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,857
    Country
    United States
    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?

  11. #11
    Senior Member Soundbreaker Welch?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,898
    Country
    United States
    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!"

  12. #12
    Member dragonandhistail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    31
    Country
    United States

    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 Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Best Medium-light tank-t-70.jpg  
    Last edited by dragonandhistail; 02-05-2009 at 08:04 PM. Reason: Add picture

  13. #13
    Senior Member Vassili Zaitzev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, United States
    Posts
    2,951
    Country
    United States
    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.

  14. #14
    Member dragonandhistail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    31
    Country
    United States

    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.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Vassili Zaitzev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, United States
    Posts
    2,951
    Country
    United States
    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.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

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