Best Tank of WW2??????

T.A. Yes the Optics on early Russian tanks were of poor manufacture and as I said, I understand why you say the Matilda was a fiercer opponent. However, The Matilda also had a two man crew and I think that the T-34 mobility was really a plus. And not to mention that the T-34 had a high probability of surviving a low velocity 75mm round as the Germans found out for themselves
The hollow charges in 41 were not that effective I believe.

I'm using T. Jentz Tank Combat in North Africa. it's for a 30 degree angle btw.
Still, it's in line with the other 37mm of the time.



Cheers...

 

Otto Carius thought very highly of the JS-2 and I respect his opinion as he fought on both fronts.

 

The Matilda II, the one in question here, had a three man turret and a driver for a four man crew. The Matilda I with just a machine gun and two man crew only saw brief service in France in 1940.

 

Jentz can be weak on Allied kit (especially if he's saying that the Matilda had a two man crew!), the 2pdr was considered to be one of the finest AT guns of the early part of the war and was far more powerful than the equivalent German gun.

The tables I use from the likes of Chamberlain, Fletcher, etc has the 2pdr penetrating 40-42mm from 1000m @ 30 degrees. I wouldn't rely on Jentz for Allied equipment, IMO.

 

Heresy!

I think I'd put any 'strangeness' more down to Schiffer's often dodgy proof-reading... but that may just be loyalty speaking .

Ooh... you'll be picking on Fletcher next...

Cheers,
Adam.

 

To be fair to Jentz, he's worse on French gear than he is on British

Fletcher's 2pdr penetration table @ 30 deg using vanilla AP - in yards.

500yds - 57mm 1000yds - 52mm 1500yds - 46mm 2000yds - 40mm

So it could in fact penetrate the lower side hull of a Tiger from something like 800m. Not much use if you're in front of it, mind.

 

Even with those values, it couldn't pierce 50mm face hardened armour at 1000m as you stated.
Still, I found this good website after finding the values too different.

Anti-Tank, Anti-Aircraft, & Artillery Database

Apparently, Jentz states AP ability vs face hardened armour while your values are against rolled homogeneous armour. The PzIV E had face hardened so my values are the more accurate. So, the weapon in the Matilda is pretty much useless against a PzIV.



Cheers...

 

Cheers to you too, but that's rubbish.

Tarrif plays pretty fast and loose with penetration values, and he's a big Axis fanboy. His 6pdr penetration values were just palpable nonsense last time I looked and his entire site is pretty unreliable, IMO. Time to find more sources, i'd suggest.

Face hardened armour is not the titanium you seem to think it is, btw.

 

Sir, how do you purport to comply with movement techniques such as :





etc, etc.

From US Army Field Manual 17-15 Tank Platoon

 

You don't. You just get hundreds of them and move them all about as one great splodge on the countryside so their guns are pointing in every direction.

 

ar from it actually. Against APC shots, it performed worse than the rolled armor. I'm usually very critic regarding web info however, this falls in line with the Jentz values so I don't think it's that wrong.
As I said, they seem to be in order with other 37mm of the time. And, I'm yet to hear a report of a Matilda knocking off a PzIV at 1000m.



Cheers...

 

Psst, Joe, unless you do something really weird to the running gear your idea
isn't going to work very well, this is a Stridsvagn 103 Swedih turretless tank...

 

I remember seeing a plate in Zaloga's Battle of the Bulge book, which shows a knocked out Pz. Jgd. IV with GI graffiti scrawl all over its hull: "THIS DON'T WORK NO SPEARHEAD" and a couple of inches under, "CAUGHT IT--TOO BAD".

 

Castors! that's the answer.
Really big castors...
Ikea sell them, handy for the Swedes.

 

It is wrong, and you can bet your arse that they're similar to Jentz's figures because they are Jentz's figures. Jentz being Tarrif's bible. I find it pretty comical that you casually dismiss the figures given by the head of the Tank Museum at Bovington while happily lapping up Jentz's shakey grasp on anything that isn't a Tiger and "some knob off the internet" (since that is what Tarrif is, after all).

You've got some brass neck for someone who thought the Matilda II had a two-man crew, I'll say that for you.

A Matilda II may never have taken out a PzIV @ 1000 yds, I'm saying that it would be capable of it.

 

Whoa there! Calm down m'a boy! This is a discussion so I'm showing you my PoV and you show me yours. What do you want me tos say?? That you're right? I can if you want to but I don't know how dismissing you will bring any good to this discussion.
Now, as for the Matilda having a two men turet crew, my bad. I thought I apologised for that in my previous post but apparently I haven't so let me apologise for that now. there are just so many tanks that one gets confused sometimes...
Now, what I was trying to do was reaching a consensus on why the disparity of values. Tough I never dismissed the values you provided as wrong, you clearly are doing it to mr Jentz values. Not that I don't believe you. I do however, I was trying to understand why the huge disparity of values and quite frankly, I think the RHA vs FHA is a good explanation even if you don't seem to think so. Let's try to understand why shall we?

1st it's not the total Kinetic energy that matters when facing FHA. It's the final muzzle velocity and to a way smaller factor the weight of the shell. THe only weight that matters is the front of the projectile and the objective of FHA is to reflect a lot of the kinetic energy back to the projectile thus reducing it's penetration effeciency, deforming or shattering the projectile. Thus, as someone mentioned, the shattered projectiles at long distances. The back of FHA is like a shock wave cushion that is there to absorb the shockwave and prevent the metal to stress and break.

The point is with smaller crossection calibers such as the 2pdr, the ability for them to pierce FHA will in theory (and Physics backs me up on this one!) be much reduced. So I don't think that mr Jentz values are that wrong. Still, I have only physics to back me up so I may be wrong.

Oh another mistake I made, it was not APHE that defeated FHA it's APC or APCBC.




Cheers...

 

I think you have to do a hell of a lot of research before you post again, frankly.

Edit: and by research I mean not just reading books or internet sites that agree with your personal opinions.

 

I think you are being a little self centered mate. Miguel has agreed with you on some of your points and disagrees with others and all you can do is put him down. So he makes a few mistakes big deal, is is like the rest of us only human. So why not instead of putting him down and criticizing, why not offer some constructive criticism and not be so rude.

Now just because the 'values' you guys keep preaching about don't agree with each other, doesn't make it automatically wrong, who says a Matilda can't knock out a Pz IV from 1000 yards, you guys? Well I bed to differ, because, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Not everything is in a book or has a reference and neither of you or anyone here can so it never happened, why? because none of us know the details on every single battle that ever happened between these two types of tanks and therefore you should stop arguing about it and move on. If you cant agree then agree to disagree and get over it.

 

Y'see, If we stuck to 'favourite' rather than 'best' all this male obsession with 'penetration' couldn't develop into arguments .

These detailed penetration/ammunition/gun things will never really be properly & fully settled until a complete array of ww2 guns and ammunition is tested in a scientific way in one place against identical targets; assorted past trials and the complications of years of interpretation & reinterpretation make them often too iffy - I'll be in touch when I've got a few million quid spare...

Ah, hang on.
I'll save my money, as I remain unconvinced by too much statistical analysis of a world of steel, blood, fear, surprise, weather, gun-sights, supply, ground, etc. etc. etc.
Bald statistics are often interesting as a start point but not purely on their own an overly worthy basis to make too many clear-cut judgements.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Good point mate. The Statistics were also created many years after the war, which makes them second hand and possibly unreliable. Who is to say that a Stuart cant take out a MkIV?