Tank Battles thread

[T60 gunner]

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

[Slipdigit]

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.

[PzJgr]

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

[fischer]

Originally Posted by Slipdigit

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.

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

[moutan1]

Originally Posted by T60 gunner

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

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

[T60 gunner]

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.

[Tomcat]

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?

[sniper1946]

exuberance of youth? and willing to post without thinking it through! maybe tomcat,ray..

[moutan1]

Originally Posted by T60 gunner

Thanks; the similarities are, as I can see:

Churchill vs Panther - roughly the same weight and bore
r.

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

[Drucius]

Originally Posted by moutan1

so Panther could destroy Churchill( Churchill front armor was 100mm thickness) at 1000m

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.

[moutan1]

Originally Posted by Drucius

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.

I forgot that but there is a Churchill Mk VI which had a 75mm gun .with 100 mm frontal turret/upper hull armor

Originally Posted by Drucius

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 w.

you are right ,but my meant that 80mm@35° that equal more than 105mm frontal armor

Originally Posted by Drucius

hich meant that some Panthers were indeed lost to 75mm QF guns from the front

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

[Drucius]

Originally Posted by moutan1

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

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.

[moutan1]

Originally Posted by Drucius

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.

HI Drucius
IT was an easy target because its speed was (20 km/h) so it was a slow target

Originally Posted by 0

Because the engines on the Churchill were never upgraded, the tank became increasingly slower as additional armour and armament was equipped and weight increased; while the Mk I weighed 39,118 kg and the Mk III weighed 39,626 kg, the Mk VII weighed 40,643 kg. This caused a reduction in maximum speed of the tank from its original 26 km/h down to 20.5 km/h. The engines also suffered from many mechanical problems
Churchill tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.

[Drucius]

Originally Posted by moutan1

HI Drucius
IT was an easy target because its speed was (20 km/h) so it was a slow target

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.

[Miguel B.]

actually, 80mm at 55º is equvalent to 14õmm of armour.

[Hufflepuff]

Originally Posted by Miguel B.

actually, 80mm at 55º is equvalent to 14õmm of armour.

true, because of the sloped sides.

[moutan1]

Originally Posted by Miguel B.

actually, 80mm at 55º is equvalent to 14õmm of armour.

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

[moutan1]

Originally Posted by Drucius

Practically any heavy tank is an "easy target" as none of them were exactly speedy.

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

[Drucius]

Originally Posted by moutan1

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

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.