Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of early World War II tanks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additions

[edit]

This page could do with the addition of tanks from other countries such as the early British () and french tanks (). But if this is done, won't the table become too big? -- Cabalamat 02:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would become too wide. Also, I added only the tanks that actually fought in early WWII and only light tanks (PzIII is added for comparison only, to show the difference in class between light and medium tanks). Perhaps if you think it's needed you could add French and British tanks below? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 06:52, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Most of the tanks I listed above did fight in early WW2. As to your suggestion, perhaps I will. -- Cabalamat 01:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So...? Halibutt 11:51, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Does it make sense to create a table for medium & cruiser tanks, and another for heavies? Which tanks are representative (feel free to update the list of candidates below)? —Michael Z. 2005-10-17 15:03 Z

Light tanks

Medium/cruiser tanks

Heavy tanks

It makes some sense to me. Of course, as I already noted, the PzIII is here only for comparison of the class (and since it's been used during the Polish Defensive War to some extent). However, it should definitely be moved to a heavier category if such is created. As to other suggestions - be sure to place T-26, Vickers E and 7TP close to each other. Halibutt 15:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right; moved the Vickers (1928) to the top of the list.
Does it make any sense to subdivide by intended role rather than weight class? E.g., some of the light tanks were intended to be infantry tanks, and it may be valuable to compare them to the Matilda.
It may be easier to read if each is a separate article; the reader won't get lost in the long scrolling tables:
Additionaly, it may be useful to create a very long table with many tanks on the left side, and just the vital stats for comparison (weight, speed, gun calibre, range, maximum armour). See for example, the table of models in T-34#Soviet medium tank models of World War Two—turn it sideways and add more tanks; put a national flag next to each. —Michael Z. 2005-10-17 15:45 Z


you miss the Pz IV, a large miss --79.49.211.141 (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You've also missed out the Vickers Light Tank Mk VI, which I've added to the list above. It's WP page points out that it was the most common tank in the British Army in 1939/40 and was used by the BEF in 1940 and in North Africa and Greece, as well as "Being widely used by the British Army, the tank participated in several other important battles." Scartboy (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extension to UK/French vehicles

[edit]

I suggest that the page contains two tables to cover the two fronts of the early part of the war.

1st table - tanks operating in the East, Invasion of Poland, Finnish war etc

2nd table - tanks operating in the West for the Invasion of France and the low countries.

A third table could be used if required to inlcude tanks that were availbe but did not take part eg where the invaded nation capitulated.

GraemeLeggett 11:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that there was no fighting in the west early in the war. Also, the French tanks were also used in Poland so we'd have to list them in two places. Halibutt 05:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that May 1940 counts as quite early in the war. There is no need to list the French tanks that had already faced the various German types since that comparison would be in the other table, and a simple statement to that account would be sufficient. GraemeLeggett 10:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But still I likes Michael's proposal more sensible. For me it makes more sense to compare tanks within a certain class, not just all tanks that took part in certain conflict, at least when it comes to WWII. Otherwise we'll end up comparing Maus with Sherman. It might be fun (well... comparing Maus with anything is fun actually), but it will not be as informative. Halibutt 13:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superstructure armor

[edit]

Do we need to include the superstructure armor, or is that pretty much a non-factor? Oberiko 13:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that the top armour is largely irrelevant most of the time. What do you exactly mean by "superstructure" ? GraemeLeggett 14:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure, best definition I've heard is that it's a part of the AFV that's mounted unto the hull. I do know that several sites (such as [www.onwar OnWar], [www.achtungpanzer.com Achtung Panzer!], [www.panzerworld.net Panzer World] etc.) include the superstructure armor as part of their tables though. Oberiko 14:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe more Soviet tanks should be added because the T-26 was neither the most numerous nor the most advanced of Soviet tanks. I would consider adding the BTs, as well as the T-34 and KVs. All of these saw considerable action in 1941.

Although this is an excellent idea, the T-26 if fact was the most numerous early in the war — indeed of all tanks :o)--MWAK 13:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Number of tanks in service

[edit]

It would be nice to be able to compare the numbers of these tanks in service when the war started, or if that's not available then perhaps total production of each model. —Michael Z. 2005-10-16 17:13 Z

I guess each article mentions the total production. However, I'm not sure what would it give to quote such data here. After all this article is about comparison of technical details rather than industrial capabilities of countries that made them. Halibutt 21:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it may give some indication of the AFV's historical importance, and it is a single hard figure.
Suspension should probably be added, since it's made it into the info-box. —Michael Z. 2005-10-17 14:27 Z

Does the Matilda II belong here? According to the article, there were two (2) in service when the war broke out. —Michael Z. 2005-11-22 07:28 Z

Two in service when the Germans invaded Poland, but more in service when they invaded France and the Low Countries.GraemeLeggett 10:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Which were the most common British tanks at the time? —Michael Z. 2005-11-22 17:17 Z
The Cruiser IV was in France with the 1st Armoured Division. May have numbers somewhere.GraemeLeggett 20:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Table layout

[edit]

Right now we have two tables, with five out of seven columns duplicated. Would anyone object to making this one wide table, which may require the page to scroll? The Western and Eastern tanks could be on the left and right sides, with the Axis in the centre for easy comparison. I guess the problem is that it would scroll both vertically and horizontally. Duplicating the header row in the middle may help. —Michael Z. 2005-11-22 17:21 Z

T-34

[edit]

I've added the T-34. Although it outclasses every other tank on the page, I think it's a fair and instructive comparison, because, this model was in service when the USSR entered WWII, and was pitted against the Axis tanks listed here. The BT-8 and T-26 serve to balance out the Soviet arsenal, and help show the contrast between the old and new ideas in Soviet tank design. —Michael Z. 2006-07-25 07:30 Z

then where's the panzer IV?

Bias

[edit]

Perhaps it's just me, but I still perceive a certain anti-French bias :o)--MWAK 19:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just reading an analysis of the Fall of France in 1940 and have also looked into the armour technolgies there, mostly on Wikipedia, and there is a significant problem with the use of too many compromise tanks by the French, small numbers of lots of different tank types, poor crew ergonomics (such as the use of a one-man turret to the Panzer III's three-man turret) and poor organisational and tactical deployment. The book I am reading is Alistair Horne's To Lose A Battle France 1940 81.154.68.66 12:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC) doctormonkey[reply]

Horne is a great narrative history but also quite dated. People made a lot of assumptions back then about the macrocosmic meaning of the fall of France that are now pretty out of fashion. The "operational debacle" school tends to think that whatever the French defects, the main thing is there was just no room in Northeastern France for disasters like Gazala, Kasserine, Kiev, Kharkov etc.
That isn't to say you have to buy the whole revisionist package, as put forth most strongly in, say Ernest May's Strange Victory (ie "The allies should have won.") But it is a useful corrective to the sometimes purple prose of Horne about "lotus-eating mandarins lapsing into desuetude." - JT 142.177.44.71 23:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't know if it's bias, ignorance or what, but this whole page is very skewed. There were only 2 operational Matilda II's in the invasion of france, and yet its listed, but there are no French tanks listed?! What exactly is this page supposed to be comparing? 64.174.34.250 17:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comparison of the operational tanks at the beginning of the war. Sounds like French tanks ought to be added. Which French models are representative? —Michael Z. 2007-06-24 18:36 Z
Late comment, I know. But it's only two Matilda IIs in September 1939 and 23 with the BEF. But the counter-attack at Arras makes them worthy of inclusion.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Tanks?

[edit]

I'm also wondering why there are no American Armor listed? I'm sure that the other tanks need be mentioned but a bulk of the WWII tanks to see action were American.

Geroxx 13:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does say "early WWII tanks" - the American tanks did not come in until lend lease began (I think). Not sure that a simple comparison of all WWII tanks would not be better in a rotated table. --Purple Aubergine 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. tanks didn't show up at the beginning of the war. —Michael Z. 2007-06-24 18:37 Z

The context of "early war" depends on one's perspective. It could be argues that for China the war lasts 10 years (longer if you include the post '45 stuff), for the Czechs, it lasts 7 years, for the Poles, British and french, it lasts 6 years, for the Soviets it lasts 4-and-a-bit years. while for the Americans it lasts a bit under 4 years. So, for example, a split of early, mid, late war from a British perspective might be: early: 39-41, Mid:42-43, Late: 44-45 But from a US perspective the split might be Pearl Harbour to Midway, Midway to D-Day, D-day to VJ Day.. Of course, slight variations can occur: the British view can also be Invasion of Poland-(2nd) El Alamein, (2nd) El Alamein - D-day, D-Day to VJ Day.

Whether US tanks count as "early" or not depends on whether "early war" stops by 41, or whether it continues as far as El Alamein, by which time US-made Grant/Lee tanks were in use.

Of course, the US perspective would also be valid as pearl-harbor - coral sea, coral sea - d-day, d-day to VJ day. or even pearl harbour to torch, torch to battle of the bulge, battle of the bulge to VJ day.

There are also other valid interpretations of "early, mid, late" as well. But the majority of interpretations would put the US tanks that saw service as being in the "mid-WW2" category, not the "early-WW2" category.

too many missing

[edit]

such a list with all these missing is unnecessary or is complete or delete the article. just for eample all french and italian tanks, british cruiser tanks, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.49.21.96 (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French tanks... again

[edit]

If the table is said to include tanks involved in the Battle of France, there really ought to be at least one French tank. Because the table is too wide as it is, it may be best to consider this a general overview of tanks in early WW2, and then have separate pages representative of the armor present for the Polish Campaign (represented fairly well here), the Battle of France and Operation Barbarossa. That way there could be manageable-sized tables for each part of the conflict.

Roches (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Char B that caused the Germans to first use 88mm flak against tanks. Significant enough for it to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.191.120 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More Tanks

[edit]

There are a number of different ways tanks could be organized such as by weight, role, time frame, theater, campaign, etc. However given the limited size of the table that would more than likely involve creating new tables and links. Given how many different tank types the French operated that could fill a table by itself!

Idsnowdog (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the "best of the rest", without making the table too wide

[edit]

The two glaring ommisions from the table are the British Light Tank Mark VI and the French Somua S35. There were (according to wikipedia) 288 S35s in front-line service at the start of the Battle of France. They fought at both Hannat and Arras. "The German PzKpfw III and IV were the only German tanks that could outmatch the SOMUA S35 in battle. The SOMUA S35 was generally considered to be one of the most formidable tanks during the campaign in the west." (from wikipedia's Battle of Hannut entry) The S35 was, imho, much more significant than the Matilda MK I. The Matilda one seems to rely on having 58 at Arras. "The British Army lost 331 Mark VI light tanks in the Battle of France of 1940." and "... when the Second World War began in September 1939, the vast majority of the tanks available to the British Army were Mk VIs; there were 1,002 Mk VI Light Tanks, 79 Mk I (A9) and Mk II (A10) Cruiser Tanks and 67 Matilda Mk I infantry tanks." (wikipedia, Light Tank Mark VI). Whether the Light Tank Mark VI was any good is another question, but any comparison of "Early WW2" tanks that omits it seem remiss. Interesting to notice that the A9 and A10 aren't in the list either, but somehow the Matilda I is!

So I propose adding the Somua S35 and the MK VI, and, if space is too tight, dropping the Matilda I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.90.25 (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The table also omits any British cruiser tanks, or the French R35 of which 1000 were in use. One possiblity is to split off "light tanks" into a separate table. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably be the best solution. Kierzek (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_early_World_War_II_tanks&oldid=1206764677"