Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Tank Battles thread

Discussion in 'Armor and Armored Fighting Vehicles' started by T60 gunner, Aug 31, 2009.

  1. T60 gunner

    T60 gunner recruit

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've found out that some tanks are similar to each other. For example, the Panther and the Churchill are quite alike, considering they were both nearly 40 tons, and had a 75mm gun (I sort of remember a Panther being captured by the Brits and include them in their Churchill platoon...)

    Anyways, here are a few tanks that have some interesting similarities:

    Churchill vs Panther
    Tiger vs KV-1
    King Tiger vs IS-2
    Sherman vs Type 4 (japanese tank)
    Pershing vs Churchill
    Jadgpanzer vs SU-76
    JSU-152 vs Jadgtiger
    M.22 Locust vs Type 95 Ha-go

    Feel free to post any other pairs.
    Feel free to comment on which tank would win in each pair.

    or whatever :p
     
  2. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,346
    Likes Received:
    2,041
    Location:
    Alabama
    vehicle weight and diameter of a weapon do not make differing tanks similar.

    e.g. The JSU-152 was an assault gun and the Jadgtiger was intended to engage other armored vehicles. Other than they both had tracks, slabs of armor and a long gun barrel sticking out the front, the similarities of the two vehicles were slim to none. The same applies to most of the other examples offered.
     
  3. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    885
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    I really do not see the similarities in the list you provided. If anything, only very small similarities (mostly estetic) but nothing else. Provide the list of similarities that you see between these vehicles
     
  4. fischer

    fischer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    33

    The JSU-152 was actually used in several battle roles. As you state it was used as an Assault Gun but also it was used as a self propelled howitzer and a tank destroyer.

    As the Jagdtiger used a 12.8 self propelled antitank gun and was used in the Jagdpanzer or tank destroyer role, I can see where one would find similarities between the two.

    Best Regards, fischer
     
  5. moutan1

    moutan1 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    1
    There is a huge different between this tanks
    plz can you write the armor and armor pentration and speed numbers of this tanks to understand my point
    Ok what about?
    M1(Abrams) vs Tiger(60t)
    T90 vs Panther(45t)
    they had the same weight ,who will win ;)
     
  6. T60 gunner

    T60 gunner recruit

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks; the similarities are, as I can see:

    Churchill vs Panther - roughly the same weight and bore
    Tiger vs KV-1 - I think they performed roughly the same time. Although the Tiger is far heavier the KV-1 was said to defend from 88 mm shots.

    King Tiger vs IS-2 - In my opinion they are very close; IS-2, although more modern and with a larger cannon, is still more lightly armoured.
    Sherman vs Type 4 - Same weight and same firepower (correct me if I'm wrong)
    Pershing vs Churchill - Roughly same weight, but the Pershing has a larger gun
    Jagdpanzer vs SU-76 - Both tank destroyers with roughly the same bore
    JSU-152 vs Jadgtiger - Jadgtiger has a thicker armor, but still not as firepowerfully strong as the 152.
    M.22 Locust vs Type 95 Ha-go - Same weight, same firepower.
     
  7. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266
    After reading the opening post several times, I am still trying to fiqure out exactly what this thread is all about considering it is titled "Tank Battles thread" and yet the opening post is to do with tank similarities, which as far as I can tell is virutally nothing that would be considered really similar.

    In fact how are any of these examples similar? Except for the fact that they are all tanks with guns, armour and tracks, which by the very definition, is a tank.
    Yet some of your examples don't even fit into the catagory of being tanks, considering that for example the Su 76 isn't a tank it is a Self Propelled gun, just like the StuG.

    So can somebody please explain this thread to me?
     
  8. sniper1946

    sniper1946 Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    12,560
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    exuberance of youth? and willing to post without thinking it through! maybe tomcat,ray..
     
  9. moutan1

    moutan1 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hello T60 gunner
    sorry,That is not true
    the two tanks had 75mm gun but the difference between the two guns is the anti-tank capability

    the major difference was the muzzle velocity of the gun due to the ammunition type and length of the gun , every increase in length of the gun means increasing armor penetration and increasing muzzle velocity of the gun

    Panther gun was ( 75mm L70) that means the length of the gun was 75*70=5250mm
    and that gun able to penetrate 175mm at 0m
    so Panther could destroy Churchill( Churchill front armor was 100mm thickness) at 1000m

    while Churchill gun was M3(75mm L40 ) that means the length of the gun was 75*40=3000mm and that gun able to penetrate 85 mm at 0m , so from the middle of the war Churchill gun was no longer effective in the anti-tank role, due to its low muzzle velocity and could not destroy Panther front armor (Panther front armor was 100mm thickness)

    so Panther could easily destroy 5 Churchills before it destroy

    and that is true for the rest
    IS2 gun(122m) able to penetrate 165 mm at 0m
    Pershing gun able to penetrate 185 mm at 0m
    while KingTige gun able to penetrate 230mm at 0m the most powerful tank gun in ww2
     
  10. Drucius

    Drucius Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    16
    No, the only Churchill with a 75mm gun was the Churchill VII and the front turret/upper hull was 152mm. No part of its armour was 100mm. You may be thinking of the Churchill III/IV which had a 6pdr instead of the lower velocity 75mm gun.

    Furthermore, the Panther never had more than 80mm armour on the front hull, you may be thinking of the Tiger. With the Panther's weak side armour the Churchill would have to wait for a side shot, but the early Panthers also had a shot trap below the gun which sent a shell careering through the roof of the drivers compartment which meant that some Panthers were indeed lost to 75mm QF guns from the front.
     
  11. moutan1

    moutan1 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    1
    I forgot that but there is a Churchill Mk VI which had a 75mm gun .with 100 mm frontal turret/upper hull armor
    you are right ,but my meant that 80mm@35° that equal more than 105mm frontal armor

    Churchill was an infantry tank did not design to deal with cats so it was easy target to cats
     
  12. Drucius

    Drucius Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    16
    Actually, it was one of the best tanks of the war with an excellent survival record. The Churchill VII wasn't an easy target for anything.
     
  13. moutan1

    moutan1 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    1
    HI Drucius
    IT was an easy target because its speed was (20 km/h) so it was a slow target
     
  14. Drucius

    Drucius Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    16
    I understood the OP meant an easy target as in an easily destroyed tank. Practically any heavy tank is an "easy target" as none of them were exactly speedy.
     
  15. Miguel B.

    Miguel B. Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Messages:
    956
    Likes Received:
    67
    actually, 80mm at 55º is equvalent to 14õmm of armour.
     
  16. Hufflepuff

    Hufflepuff Semi-Frightening Mountain Goat

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Sewanee, Tennessee, USA
    true, because of the sloped sides.
     
  17. moutan1

    moutan1 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    1
    Right, 80/sin(35)= 139mm it is true if the shell motion was horizontal and did not own any horizontal or vertical angle before hitting the Panther
    see
    Relative armour thickness calculator
     
  18. moutan1

    moutan1 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    1
    true ,all heavy tanks were slow,but I think that the difference was in the armament
    ex. Churchill tank vs KingTiger
    same speed but Kingtiger able to fire at long range ,I think it is successful defense tactic while the Churchill had a poor armament for a heavy tank
     
  19. Drucius

    Drucius Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    16
    The Churchill was an infantry support tank, it wasn't meant to be a tank killer. Essentially it was expected to encounter anti-tank guns, artillery and fixed positions. Therefore it required a good HE performance, which is why they replaced the 6pdr which was standard on the III/IV with the 75mm QF. The Firefly, Achilles and Archer were the main British anti-tank AFVs, but essentially the British relied on their anti-tank guns for defence against the German tanks. The Tiger II while it had an excellent gun and superlative armour was a heap of junk mechanically and too unreliable whereas the Churchills did their job reliably. The bottom line is that they had very different roles and aren't really comparable.
     
  20. Domen121

    Domen121 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    7
    In Poland in 1939 there were only two tanks vs tanks battles involving battalion-sized units on the Polish side.

    1st was counterattack of 2nd light tank battalion near Piotrkow on 5 September (vs tanks of 1. and 4. Pz.Div.).

    2nd were combats of tanks from improvised armoured grouping of mjr. Majewski (from Warsaw Armoured-Motorized Brigade) near Tomaszow Lubelski on 18 September against tanks of German 4. Lei.Div. and 2. Pz.Div.

    Other tanks vs tanks skirmishes involved smaller units (most often platoon-sized) on the Polish side.

    The Polish attack at Piotrkow was initially successful but ultimately halted by AT defence and tank reinforcements. At Tomaszow the attack against AT defence and tanks of 4. Lei.Div. was - in good part - successful, but the subsequent flanking counter attack of Panzer-Brigade (less one battalion) of 2. Pz.Div. forced the Poles to withdraw.

    Commander of 4. Lei.Div. wrote about experiences with Polish armour in the campaign:

    "Wherever Polish tanks appeared - it was in smallest units of platoon, at most company, strength. Only at Tomaszow tanks were used in larger number. Their attack, outpacing infantry yet on medium distance (700 m.) and rousing it to fast advance, brought some success against a weak line of own guards and a widely over-extended defence."

    He exaggerates a bit. Compared to strength of attackers, German defence was strong.

    On 18 September 4. Lei.Div. lost ca. 79 killed and many WIA. Poles also captured at least 160 POWs.

    What is interesting Polish sources mention that POWs taken near Tomaszow on 18 September during investigation said that they didn't know anything about the fact that France and England declared war on Germany.

    In combats near Piotrkow on 5 September Polish 2nd light tank battalion was credited with knocking out 15 - 16 tanks and armoured vehicles, destroying 2 AT guns and 6 motor vehicles and capturing ca. 70 POWs. Losses of the battalion were 5 tanks irrecoverably lost, 5+ damaged, 4 KIA, 9 MIA, 10 WIA, 2 ammo/fuel cars destroyed.

    ============================================

    Polish tanks after the battle of Tomaszow Lubelski:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Panzerkampfwagen III knocked out near Piotrkow:

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page