Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 4

[JWilly48519]

Given the enthusiastic reception the Honey got in North Africa, it may not take a vast improvement to make it a very competitive light/medium tank.

Note that the British, after initially "enthusiastically" welcoming the Honey's mobility and reliability, then tried to use them in combat, took losses they regarded as unacceptable, and relegated them to screening, or even removed their turrets entirely and used them for recon or as Kangaroo-type APCs.

 

[JasTysoe]

Note that the British, after initially "enthusiastically" welcoming the Honey's mobility and reliability, then tried to use them in combat, took losses they regarded as unacceptable, and relegated them to screening, or even removed their turrets entirely and used them for recon or as Kangaroo-type APCs.

The British also took severe losses with their other tanks during Crusader, largely due to tactics and doctrine. And the 13 ton M3A1 in November 1941 is a very different tank fighting against very different opponents than a possible 18 tonner would have faced earlier in the war.

The US could have made a series of tanks as heavy as early-war PzIIIs and PzIVs without having to upgrade their bridging equipment. Yes, if money was no object a 25 tonner may have been a better tank in the battlefield but money and resources were scarce for most of the pre-war period, and the 28 ton Char B1 and the even bigger T28 weren't exactly hugely successful anyway.

 

[JWilly48519]

I'll concede that arguably the best tank of May-June, 1940 was the officially-"light"-but-used-as-a-medium, 11-tonne Czech 38, because of its automotive mobility and reliability.

 

[RedSword12]

I'll concede that arguably the best tank of May-June, 1940 was the officially-"light"-but-used-as-a-medium, 11-tonne Czech 38, because of its automotive mobility and reliability.

IMHO the Panzer III was overall better. It was reliable, better-armored and better-armed, and was more ergonomic for the crew. The Panzer IV comes second, then, I would agree, comes the Panzer 38(t). This is not to say the 38(t) wasn't a great tank for its time, of course. It was certainly the best light tank in 1940.

 

[cortz#9]

IMHO the Panzer III was overall better. It was reliable, better-armored and better-armed, and was more ergonomic for the crew. The Panzer IV comes second, then, I would agree, comes the Panzer 38(t). This is not to say the 38(t) wasn't a great tank for its time, of course. It was certainly the best light tank in 1940.

IMO the Pz.IV is the most underrated tank of WWII. It was the only tank in either the Axis or Allied arsenal that fought from the first day of the war to the last.

 

[Hammerbolt]

IMO the Pz.IV is the most underrated tank of WWII. It was the only tank in either the Axis or Allied arsenal that fought from the first day of the war to the last.

One of my favourites too. Solid, reliable, upgradable and, right to the end, you'd underestimate one at your peril. A late model could ruin the day of most allied tanks, short of an IS or ISU. And even those better keep their traks safe...

 

[RamscoopRaider]

IMO the Pz.IV is the most underrated tank of WWII. It was the only tank in either the Axis or Allied arsenal that fought from the first day of the war to the last.

No that's the T-26, served in the Spanish Civil War before the Panzer IV entered service, served in August Storm after the Panzer IV stopped fighting

If you mean produced then the Panzer IV still falls several months short of the end of the war

 

[cortz#9]

No that's the T-26, served in the Spanish Civil War before the Panzer IV entered service, served in August Storm after the Panzer IV stopped fighting

If you mean produced then the Panzer IV still falls several months short of the end of the war

Wow! were the crews forced at gunpoint to ride into battle in those things after 43?

 

[cortz#9]

No that's the T-26, served in the Spanish Civil War before the Panzer IV entered service, served in August Storm after the Panzer IV stopped fighting

If you mean produced then the Panzer IV still falls several months short of the end of the war

The T-26 may have had a longer career but I still say say the Pz.IV is the most underrated.
I would have gone into battle in a Pz.IV after 43 but no way in hell in a T-26, unless maybe against the Japanese.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

The T-26 may have had a longer career but I still say say the Pz.IV is the most underrated.
I would have gone into battle in a Pz.IV after 43 but no way in hell in a T-26, unless maybe against the Japanese.

I meant it more in the sense that the Panzer IV did not actually fight until the end of WWII, and by some definitions did not even fight at the beginning (1937), while the T-26

By longevity nothing is likely beat the FT-17 seeing combat in 1917 and the 1990's, save potentially the L3/35, which might have seen combat in 2021 after first tasting action in 1935

 

[cortz#9]

I meant it more in the sense that the Panzer IV did not actually fight until the end of WWII, and by some definitions did not even fight at the beginning (1937), while the T-26

By longevity nothing is likely beat the FT-17 seeing combat in 1917 and the 1990's, save potentially the L3/35, which might have seen combat in 2021 after first tasting action in 1935

I see your point but I was only referring to the tanks of WWII and their service time during the second world war only.
The Pz.IV also served in the Six Day War in 1967 but I'm not counting that.

 

[tomo pauk]

I meant it more in the sense that the Panzer IV did not actually fight until the end of WWII,

Come again?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Come again?

Panzer IV didn't have any combat operations after May 1945 until the Arab-Israeli wars, WWII ended in August/early September 1945

 

[tomo pauk]

Panzer IV didn't have any combat operations after May 1945 until the Arab-Israeli wars, WWII ended in August/early September 1945

When the ww2 started then?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Yes, for the mid- to late-war period an 18 tonner won't cut the mustard. But the success of the early PzIII and Pz IV, the Somua S35 and other smaller tanks in the early war period shows that an 18-19.5 ton tank was capable of front line service with success at that time. The 18 ton bridge limit was therefore not going to stop the US from designing tanks that could serve well from 1927 up till about 1941.

Another point is that a US tank isn't just aimed at ETO combat, of course, and a good line of 18 tonners would seem to have been very useful in the PTO.

Oh totally but not with a 30 to 40 calibre 75mm gun on it!

Now the USA in the 30s is almost certainly looking at the defence its Southern boarder where Horse Cavalry makes a lot of sense given the terrain and lack of infrastructure that a unit with heavy vehicles such as tanks and supporting vehicles would require would cause all sorts of issues and even as late as 1941 there were those Cavalry officers in the US Military not then yet fully sold on tanks and Mechanisation over Horse Flesh.

Any Vickers 6 tonner design (which was copied or heavily adapted by so many nations) is likely to serve well into the late 30s

 

[cortz#9]

I meant it more in the sense that the Panzer IV did not actually fight until the end of WWII, and by some definitions did not even fight at the beginning (1937), while the T-26

By longevity nothing is likely beat the FT-17 seeing combat in 1917 and the 1990's, save potentially the L3/35, which might have seen combat in 2021 after first tasting action in 1935

The official start of WWII is September 1st 1939 not 37 and it did fight for the entire length of the European war.

One of my favourites too. Solid, reliable, upgradable and, right to the end, you'd underestimate one at your peril. A late model could ruin the day of most allied tanks, short of an IS or ISU. And even those better keep their traks safe...

Completely agree.

 

[Hammerbolt]

Funy sidenote/coincidence: this old add just fell into my feed!

 

[RamscoopRaider]

When the ww2 started then?

The official start of WWII is September 1st 1939 not 37 and it did fight for the entire length of the European war.

I was typing with a finger blister right before bed, I screwed up and didn't type everything I meant to. WWII by most opinions starts 9/1/1939 going MM/DD/YYYY, but there is a significant minority that starts it with the Second Sino Japanese War in 1937

I find it hard to call the Panzer IV underrated, every discussion I see it in generally mentions it positively with the worst complaint being that it maxed out with the Aufs H. When most of the discussions I've seen call it the best German tank of WWII, I don't think it's underrated

 

[tomo pauk]

I was typing with a finger blister right before bed, I screwed up and didn't type everything I meant to. WWII by most opinions starts 9/1/1939 going MM/DD/YYYY, but there is a significant minority that starts it with the Second Sino Japanese War in 1937

Second Italo-Ethiopian war from 1935 could also qualify as a start then, no?

 

[Hammerbolt]

I was typing with a finger blister right before bed, I screwed up and didn't type everything I meant to. WWII by most opinions starts 9/1/1939 going MM/DD/YYYY, but there is a significant minority that starts it with the Second Sino Japanese War in 1937

I find it hard to call the Panzer IV underrated, every discussion I see it in generally mentions it positively with the worst complaint being that it maxed out with the Aufs H. When most of the discussions I've seen call it the best German tank of WWII, I don't think it's underrated

I've heard of that argument, but that's political semantics. It's World War... japanese vs chinese is hardly a "world war".