Talk:Comparison of early World War II tanks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Additions

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)
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:
  • Comparison of early World War II light tanks
  • Comparison of early World War II medium tanks
  • Comparison of early World War II heavy tanks
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

[edit] Extension to UK/French vehicles

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Superstructure armor

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)

[edit] Number of tanks in service

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Table layout

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

[edit] T-34

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?

[edit] Bias

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

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

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)

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)

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

[edit] American Tanks?

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)

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)

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