WW2 tank history buffs..

[crockett]

I'm wondering what the opinion is on the match up between the early war Pzkpw II, say a F model vs the Soviet BT-7. Do you think the two tanks were a pretty good mach up to each other in a head to head battle?

The BT-7 was faster and had a better gun, but was lightly armored compaired to the Pzkpw II. The panzer only had a 20mm gun but used 10 round clips if I'm not mistaken, but the BT-7 had a 45mm gun. You think that was a even trade off in a match up between the two?

or.. do you think the BT-5 or the T26 would be a more fair match up in a head to head with the Panzer II?

 

[Rino]

     Are you talking single tanks or unit action?  I'd think the germans would have
the edge in communications and tactics at the unit level. 

     That aside, the II was really not supposed to be an anti-armor panzer, thus the
same 20mm as their armored cars mounted.

[442w30]

Tough question and you are likely to get a wide variety of responses. 

As Rino said if communications are required the Panzer unit would have an edge.  Otherwise I'd have to take the BT7.  That was a pretty anti-armor gun for such a small calibre.  Not as good as the German 50mmL60 but about as good as the German 50L42.  The PZKWII suffered from a poor main gun and like so many German tanks, poorly sloped armor.  One on one it would have have been challenged to defeat the BT7.  I am not as familiar with the BT5 or T26 so will not render an opinion on those.

[E25280]

I think the PzkwII would be at a heavy disadvantage because of the gun.  This would hold true of the BT-5 and T-26 as well.  At least in a head-to-head match up when both sides knew the other was there -- as was pointed out, the Germans had an advantage in being able to better coordinate as most of the early Russian tanks were without radios.

A more "fair" match up for the PzkwII IMO would be a Russian T-40 or T-60 (also armed with 20mm guns).

Looking the other way, A Pzkw38 (with a 37mm gun) would IMO be a more "fair" match up with the BT-7.  Perhaps an early PzkwIII (say D or earlier), but IIRC the IIIs were a bit heavier / better armored.

Generally speaking, the Germans seemed to prefer very light armament on their light tanks, while the Russians liked to give theirs a little more punch with the 45mm. 

[rstel01]

Its a hard question.

Historically there were Mk 2 (Ausf A-E since only limited F's were availibile since Ausf F production began March-June 41) versus BT 5 and 7 duels during the opening of Barbarorsa.

The outcome was very one sided but, you had the height of the Stalanist Purges through the Soviet Mech Corps and the Germans utilized combined arms. Take it back to the Spanish Civil war where the BT family was used by Republican Forces and Mark 1 and 2 (roughly to Ausf B/C) by the Nationalist forces. Advantage BT family but, the Nationalist Tanks were more crewed by poorly trained Spanish troops as opposed to the "Condor Legion" for Air Combat.

The BT family had the advantage for the Cross-Country mobility due to the Christie Suspension. Dont forget that the Auf F and below family had a very short service life and was majorly outclassed by the 35 and 38T Skoda, which Germany aquired during the annexation. Except for the opening of Barbarosa, Ausf F and below were done by the Polish Campaign. The operational service by D.A.K. is also hard to judge, although it did do well in that theater.   

However, if you get to Ausf H/M and especialy Ausf L (The Lynx) the Mark 2 outclasses the BT in every way.           

[NEARY]

  english?

[E25280]

english?

What?  You don't speak it?

[crockett]

I was thinking head to head single tank vs single tank, so radios wouldn't be as much of a concern. I was wondering what the opinion of the faster reload times might make for the PII even with the smaller gun. It seems being the PII was largely used as a reconnaissance tank on the Eastern front and it must have come head to head early in the war, with the Soviet BT's & the T-26. I'd say especially with the BT-5 because if I'm not mistaken they were spread out with the Russian infantry.

Even though the BT's had the bigger gun their armor wasn't as thick at least on the sides if I'm not mistaken, so I was thinking maybe that could make for a closer match up.

As a side note while doing research it seems there are far more pictures of captured Russian BT's in the hands of the Axis vs having Russian markings. It seems the Russians didn't like the idea of sticking around and fighting in them.

[E25280]

Faster re-load time (if you can call it that when using an autocannon) doesn't help if you can't hurt your opponent, and only helps if you miss.

Armor for the BT-7:
Hull Front (Upper) : 30mm @ Round
Hull Front (Lower) : 22mm @ 72°
Hull Sides (Upper) : 13mm @ 90°
Hull Sides (Lower) : 13mm @ 90°
Hull Rear : 13mm @ 80°
Hull Top : 10mm @ 0°
Hull Bottom : 6mm @ 0°
Turret Front : 15mm @ 78°
Turret Mantlet : 15mm @ Round
Turret Sides : 15mm @ 78°
Turret Rear : 15mm @ 75°
Turret Top : 15mm @ 0°

vs. the gun of the PzkwII(F) (the version you mention specifically).

Penetration Data for the 20mm Kw.K. 30 L / 55
Pz.Gr. ( Armor Piercing )
Weight   Velocity    100 m        500 m          1000 m       1500 m       
0.148 kg 780 m/s    20 / --mm  14 / --mm   9 / --mm     -- / -- mm   

So, must be about 500 meters to have any hope of penetrating the side or rear armor, closer to hurt the turret of the BT-7.  Penetration of the hull front theoretically not possible.


The reverse:
Armor for the PzkwII(F)
Hull Front (Upper) : 30mm @ 80°
Hull Front (Lower) : 35mm @ 77°
Hull Sides (Upper) : 20mm @ 90°
Hull Sides (Lower) : 20mm @ 90°
Hull Rear : 15mm @ 81°
Hull Top : 15mm @ 0°
Hull Bottom : 5mm @ 0°
Turret Front : 30mm @ 0°
Turret Mantlet : 30mm @ Round
Turret Sides : 15mm @ 69°
Turret Rear : 15mm @ 69°
Turret Top : 10mm @ 0° - 13°

vs. the gun of the BT-7.

Penetration Data for the 45mm 20K Model 1934 L / 46
BR-240 SP ( Armor Piercing Ballistic Cap )
Weight     Velocity     100 m           500 m        1000 m         1500 m       
2.45 kg     759 m/s   43 / 33 mm    31 / 25 mm   20 / 17 mm   14 / 12 mm

Can defeat the side armor at 1000 meters, front armor at 500 meters.

Source linky.

The site unfortunately does not have the BT-5, but it had the same gun.

Since the BT-7 can kill the II from farther away (especially with a front shot), I would have to give it the edge in a pure one-on-one duel.  But who knows -- if the gunsights on the BT-7 were absolute crap, the II might survive long enough to get close enough.

[crockett]

Since the BT-7 can kill the II from farther away (especially with a front shot), I would have to give it the edge in a pure one-on-one duel.  But who knows -- if the gunsights on the BT-7 were absolute crap, the II might survive long enough to get close enough.

Yea that is what I came up with from the stats as well, I just figured I'd ask to see if there might be something I wasn't finding. I'm thinking along gaming lines what might be a fun and a fairly even match up with the early war tanks. I just think the typical T34 vs late model panzer is a bit over done, so I was looking at the light tanks as something different.