Daniels
Member
So given the opportunity to develop a display of 10 tanks pairs, U.S. vs threat tanks over the last 100 years what would people like to see?
Need some help in paring US vs. threat tanks over the last 100 years
- Thread starter Daniels
- Start date
Justiciar
Elder Member
This is right up Paul M. Weir's ally. Give him the sun cycle to get back to you.
von Marwitz
Forum Guru
- German Panther vs. Sherman
- US 'something' vs. Russian T-54
- M1 Abrams vs. Iraqi stuff (T-72?)
- US 'something' vs. T-34/85 (Korea)
- US Grant or Lee (can't remember which one) vs. German PzKw IVF2 (long gun, North Africa)
- US Stuart vs. some Japanese stuff
- US built M-48 vs. something 'arabic' in the Middle East
Last edited:
Yuri0352
Elder Member
Sounds like you're describing the Osprey 'Duel' series of books. There are some interesting pairings in those volumes.
Yuri0352
Elder Member
A couple of suggestions to fill in the blanks on the 'somethings'...
U.S. M-60 vs Russian T-54/55
U.S. M-4A3E8 vs N. Korean T-34/85
British M-3 Stuart vs Japanese type 95 Ha-Go
Jordanian M-48 vs Israeli Centurion
KhandidGamera
Member
Certainly a M4A3(76)w verses a Panther.
M60A1 verses T62.
M60A1 verses T62.
Yuri0352
Elder Member
Soviet T-10m vs U.S. M-103
OK, sorry folks I was busy setting up a new laptop and am still am chest deep in the setting up to my taste and migrating many applications (this reply was done on the new one). justicar alerted me to this and I will give sporadic posts, maybe not up to my usual speed but I must ask for some patience.
Unless someone has objections, I will not consider prototypes or trivial trial numbers production vehicles.
WW1:
The US only had British and French designed and built tanks in WW1 service, the Mark V and V* (few) and the FT-17 (most) respectively. The very ambitious plan to build the joint US-British Mark VIII was ended by the end of the war. Ditto the FT rough copy, the M1917, did not see overseas service until Tientsin, China 1927. The Germans had their own A7V and captured, mainly British, tanks, in fact I think more captured than built. So for the US side it has to be the FT. There are no surviving A7V, the one in Munster is a late '20th century clone, if I remember correctly, built by some combination of rich enthusiasts and German tankers. It's been over 10 years since I was there (much thanks to a friend who drove me there when we were in Hamburg), so my memory of the name/description/dedication plaque is a little hazy, but I am dead certain it is not an original. So you are only left with a British tank (any WW1 one will do) in German markings. So Ideally a FT-17 vs A7V, failing that a FT-17 vs a captured British tank. However as tank vs tank combat was exceedingly rare in WW1, a truer comparison is a FT-17 vs a MG or artillery emplacement. The only alternative to the FT would be a Mark VIII, though that would really be the immediate post-WW1 period.
Post-WW1 to 1935.
I pick 1935 as a break point as it's only about then that most nations even started properly to gear up for war.
The US only produced little more than trial numbers, at least in comparison to its economic power, until the very late '30s, the first new gun armed tank was the M2A4. So all you have on the US side are the M1/M2 light tanks and the M1/M2 combat cars, all with only a 0.50" MG as the heaviest weapon. Else where in the world? The British Vickers Mediums and their export success, the 6 Ton, was their best, though they produced fairly large numbers of MG armed tin cans in the form of the Light Tanks I-VI. The Italians had the toy CV-33/35 series and the Japanese had a liking for their various tankettes. The Japanese had 3 decent (for that time) tanks, the Types 89 (I-Go), 95 (Ha-Go) and 97 (Chi-Ha) by '40, but only the Type 89 (based on a Vickers Mark C prototype) would fit this time frame. Germany only started with the Pz I in 1932. The French continued to upgrade the FT-17 (lukewarm Char D1 & D2) and produced the AMR 33/35 series.
That leaves us really only with 2 lines. The Vickers 6 Ton and the Christie lines. The Vickers 6 Ton, not only had (for then) remarkable export success but gave rise to the Soviet T-26, the Polish 7TP and some features were used in US experiments and the later Italian M11 & M13 lines. The Christie prototypes resulted in the Soviet BT line, a too late Polish 10TP/14TP and the British Cruisers Mk III to the Comet. They were the most influential of the late '20s to mid '30s.
So anything Light Tank/Combat Car M1-M2A3 vs a CV-33, a Pz I, a Type 89 (or Type 92 Heavy Armoured Car, really a light tank) for potential real national opponents. However I would recommend something like any of the Vickers 6 Ton or descendant lines or the BT series as they were the cutting edge of the late '20s or early '30s. In the interwar period, I think a comparison to other's technical trends is more important than whether they could meet in combat.
I will leave you with that for the moment, as I am somewhat distracted right now and need to think deeply for the crucial mid '30s to Fall of France as that is more complex. Some tanks like the French S-35 just touch the above period but really more fit into the late '30s.
With everybody's patience I will add over the next few days.
I have one question. Do you want matching on the basis of roughly equal combat capability or as based upon (possible) meeting in combat, IE contemporaneity.?
EDIT: At justicar's suggestion I have bolded the vehicle names so they stand out from my, as usual, voluminous blather.
Unless someone has objections, I will not consider prototypes or trivial trial numbers production vehicles.
WW1:
The US only had British and French designed and built tanks in WW1 service, the Mark V and V* (few) and the FT-17 (most) respectively. The very ambitious plan to build the joint US-British Mark VIII was ended by the end of the war. Ditto the FT rough copy, the M1917, did not see overseas service until Tientsin, China 1927. The Germans had their own A7V and captured, mainly British, tanks, in fact I think more captured than built. So for the US side it has to be the FT. There are no surviving A7V, the one in Munster is a late '20th century clone, if I remember correctly, built by some combination of rich enthusiasts and German tankers. It's been over 10 years since I was there (much thanks to a friend who drove me there when we were in Hamburg), so my memory of the name/description/dedication plaque is a little hazy, but I am dead certain it is not an original. So you are only left with a British tank (any WW1 one will do) in German markings. So Ideally a FT-17 vs A7V, failing that a FT-17 vs a captured British tank. However as tank vs tank combat was exceedingly rare in WW1, a truer comparison is a FT-17 vs a MG or artillery emplacement. The only alternative to the FT would be a Mark VIII, though that would really be the immediate post-WW1 period.
Post-WW1 to 1935.
I pick 1935 as a break point as it's only about then that most nations even started properly to gear up for war.
The US only produced little more than trial numbers, at least in comparison to its economic power, until the very late '30s, the first new gun armed tank was the M2A4. So all you have on the US side are the M1/M2 light tanks and the M1/M2 combat cars, all with only a 0.50" MG as the heaviest weapon. Else where in the world? The British Vickers Mediums and their export success, the 6 Ton, was their best, though they produced fairly large numbers of MG armed tin cans in the form of the Light Tanks I-VI. The Italians had the toy CV-33/35 series and the Japanese had a liking for their various tankettes. The Japanese had 3 decent (for that time) tanks, the Types 89 (I-Go), 95 (Ha-Go) and 97 (Chi-Ha) by '40, but only the Type 89 (based on a Vickers Mark C prototype) would fit this time frame. Germany only started with the Pz I in 1932. The French continued to upgrade the FT-17 (lukewarm Char D1 & D2) and produced the AMR 33/35 series.
That leaves us really only with 2 lines. The Vickers 6 Ton and the Christie lines. The Vickers 6 Ton, not only had (for then) remarkable export success but gave rise to the Soviet T-26, the Polish 7TP and some features were used in US experiments and the later Italian M11 & M13 lines. The Christie prototypes resulted in the Soviet BT line, a too late Polish 10TP/14TP and the British Cruisers Mk III to the Comet. They were the most influential of the late '20s to mid '30s.
So anything Light Tank/Combat Car M1-M2A3 vs a CV-33, a Pz I, a Type 89 (or Type 92 Heavy Armoured Car, really a light tank) for potential real national opponents. However I would recommend something like any of the Vickers 6 Ton or descendant lines or the BT series as they were the cutting edge of the late '20s or early '30s. In the interwar period, I think a comparison to other's technical trends is more important than whether they could meet in combat.
I will leave you with that for the moment, as I am somewhat distracted right now and need to think deeply for the crucial mid '30s to Fall of France as that is more complex. Some tanks like the French S-35 just touch the above period but really more fit into the late '30s.
With everybody's patience I will add over the next few days.
I have one question. Do you want matching on the basis of roughly equal combat capability or as based upon (possible) meeting in combat, IE contemporaneity.?
EDIT: At justicar's suggestion I have bolded the vehicle names so they stand out from my, as usual, voluminous blather.
Last edited:
Daniels
Member
Paul, To answer you question I'm trying to match vehicles that did or could have meet in combat, my only limitation is what is in inventory
I pretty sure I can do:
U.S. M1A1 Abrams vs Iraqi T-72m
U.S. M60A1 vs T62
U.S. M-48A5 vs Russian T-54/55
U.S. M-4A3E8 vs N. Korean T-34/85
U.S. M26 vs Jadpanther
U.S. M4A3(76)vs Panther
U.S. M3 vs PzKw IVF2
May be able to do von Marwitz, suggestion of a M3A2 vs TYPE 59.
I pretty sure I can do:
U.S. M1A1 Abrams vs Iraqi T-72m
U.S. M60A1 vs T62
U.S. M-48A5 vs Russian T-54/55
U.S. M-4A3E8 vs N. Korean T-34/85
U.S. M26 vs Jadpanther
U.S. M4A3(76)vs Panther
U.S. M3 vs PzKw IVF2
May be able to do von Marwitz, suggestion of a M3A2 vs TYPE 59.
Thanks, that gives me a much clearer idea of what you want. I would still suggest some technical type matching/comparison for the interwar period, maybe just one pair, as there was very little tank vs tank then and the US really only had Japan as a potential enemy. Though your customers, museum visitors I assume, might not be very interested in the interwar, still one entry entry will bridge the gap between WW1 and WW2.
Blackcloud6
Elder Member
Actually, the more common threat to the M4A3 is the Stug III.
KhandidGamera
Member
If your doing Jagdpanther - then I'd vote for M36 verses Jagdpanther - I made tee shirts of each from pics taken when there was one of each at Aberdeen about 20+ years ago.
Pinnacles of their respective types.
SP even did a scenario of an encounter between them: SP217 The Go Devils.
I think this might confirm the pic below was from that encounter, just don't have scenario card in front of me, if I'm reading right both are knocked out:
https://tanks-and-support-vehicles-1925to1950.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-german-jagdpanther-destroyed-by-us.html
Last edited:
GeorgeBates
Elder Member
Ouch. I'm sure somebody wished they had a turret.
Yuri0352
Elder Member
There appear to be multiple large caliber penetrations on the front glacis of the M-36, with each hole outlined in white chalk or paint.
von Marwitz
Forum Guru
I let the '35-'40 period stew in my mind, but was getting nowhere fast until I remembered the limiting factor would be US vehicles of that time. Simple, there were only 2.
M2A4 Light Tank. As only used in Guadalcanal then a Japanese Type 95 "Ha-Go". Apparently only 1 independent company (9 tanks?) were delivered. Though I have no idea of what type, but given the unit size the Ha-Go would be a safe bet. For potential enemies then either a Pz 38(t) or a Panzer III E/F.
M2/M2A1 Medium Tank: Never saw combat so any rough equivalent will have to do. Possible matches are Pz IV A-D or a Japanese Types 89 (I-Go) or Type 97 (Chi-Ha).
Of course the Italian M11/39 would do for either, but good luck finding one of them.
M2A4 Light Tank. As only used in Guadalcanal then a Japanese Type 95 "Ha-Go". Apparently only 1 independent company (9 tanks?) were delivered. Though I have no idea of what type, but given the unit size the Ha-Go would be a safe bet. For potential enemies then either a Pz 38(t) or a Panzer III E/F.
M2/M2A1 Medium Tank: Never saw combat so any rough equivalent will have to do. Possible matches are Pz IV A-D or a Japanese Types 89 (I-Go) or Type 97 (Chi-Ha).
Of course the Italian M11/39 would do for either, but good luck finding one of them.
djohannsen
Senior Member
Sad, but I'm sure true. In fact, the interwar period is absolutely fascinating!
bendizoid
Official ***** Dickweed
Spainish Civil War: Tank Nation of origin Number supplied Side supplied to
BT-5[24] Soviet Union 50 Popular Front
Renault FT[16] France & Poland 64[25] Popular Front
L3/33 / L3/35[26] Italy 155 Nationalist Front
Panzer I[27] Germany 122 Nationalist Front
T-26[28] Soviet Union 281 Popular Front
Vickers Six-Ton[29] Paraguay 1
BT-5[24] Soviet Union 50 Popular Front
Renault FT[16] France & Poland 64[25] Popular Front
L3/33 / L3/35[26] Italy 155 Nationalist Front
Panzer I[27] Germany 122 Nationalist Front
T-26[28] Soviet Union 281 Popular Front
Vickers Six-Ton[29] Paraguay 1
Justiciar
Elder Member
Just by way of perspective...and here disclaimer about 'based on historical events' type line in films...but this is, I rate, worth watching.
"In Pursuit of Honor", 1995.
The interface between man...and beast...and the new mount.
djohannsen
Senior Member
Wikipedia (how's that for a source?) seems to dispute the destruction of horses, but if you say it's worth watching that's a pretty good endorsement in my book.
Tanks and armor doctrine, amphibious doctrine, aircraft and airpower doctrine, the aircraft carrier, on and on. The rate of technological change and the scramble of institutions to adapt in what amounts to only a period of two decades is truly fascinating. I haven't read nearly as much on this period as I ought to.