Early War Tanks

[SmokinLoon]

did you notice the size of the gun on the bt7?

semp

Most of the Soviet EW tanks had the 45mm 20K Mod 34, L/46, while it is on the bottom of the pile in relation to other main guns of EW tanks, it certainly is within the ballpark of the smaller calibers.  At 1500 yards it can penetrate 15mm of armor, not much but vs other typical light tanks of the EW era... adequate.  The German 37mm Kw.K. 36 L/46.5, British 40mm Q.F. 2 Pdr Mk.IX L/50, and the US 37mm M6 L/53 all are in the same category but with slightly better numbers.  Step up to the German 50mm and British/US 57mm and we're talking even better AP numbers and longer ranges typically. 

[E25280]

I am only comparing wot and ah because this ideas for tanks are coming from wot.  you cannot tell me that all of a sudden people starting researching tanks. 

You have a very short memory.  Requests for earlier tanks have peppered this forum regularly since well before WoT came along.  PzIII, BT-7, French and Brit tanks were all regularly requested even well before we had the Sherman.

But, if you insist on comparing to WoT, one thing you fail to consider in a theortecial M3 Lee vs. Panther scenario is that in AH, one shot that penetrates will KO a tank.  "Tiers" make no difference.

[E25280]

oh btw didnt us called that m3 grant and the british call them lees?

The US called them "Medium Tank, M3."  Lee and Grant (like "Sherman" to come after) were British nicknames that eventually caught on because names are more easily remembered than numbers.  The Brits requested a redesigned turret very early on, and the M3 was called either a Lee (US turret) or Grant (Brit turret) based on that.

[vonKrimm]

did you notice the size of the gun on the bt7?


semp

did you ever see a 37mm manned gun firing HE kill a T-34, how about an M-8?  I have.....from all four sides; I have no doubt that a fair-to-good AH tanker will be able to use that 45mm on the BT-7 to good effect against a T-34 in the EW arena. As some others have suggested, I will reiterate: stop comparing AH to WoT. AH= Actual History, WoT = World of Fantasy tanks.

[Tank-Ace]

Killed Panther tanks with an M8. Killed T-34's with M8's. Killed Tiger I's with M4(75)'s. If I could manage that, then I would have no problem using a 45mm gun to kill a Panzer III, or an M3 Stuart, or even the rare T-34.

[guncrasher]

Killed Panther tanks with an M8. Killed T-34's with M8's. Killed Tiger I's with M4(75)'s. If I could manage that, then I would have no problem using a 45mm gun to kill a Panzer III, or an M3 Stuart, or even the rare T-34.

those were offline and were not shooting back


semp

[Tank-Ace]

How are the Panzer III and M3 offline if we don't even have them? And how did their existence get changed from the future tense to the past tense?

[stabbyy]

did you notice the size of the gun on the bt7?


semp

first off please don't EVER compare wot to AH 

secondly from my understanding wot is arcade'ish style shoot em up with levels tiers and modifying your tank so it can 1 shot tigers in Sherman's.. they cant even get they're ads right saying a d-eagle is a 9mm when in reality its a 50 cal or that a t34/75 has a 85mm gun(and Your going to use them for facts/points?)

its honestly like saying we shouldn't have the HE 111 because the deathstar can destroy the map in 1 shot just  or replace the p51D with an X wing because they share guns/treads/names(type of vehicle) does not mean they are anything alike get the hint

but for someone who has 161 gv kills most notable using a tiger 2 and other heavy tanks in the last 3 tours i would not expect you to understand the complexity of an offset gv battle a bigger gun is not always better...

honestly i could do without the bt7/Matilda but they have bigger guns then the m8 and more armor and the m8 does a fine job at bringing anything smaller then a tiger down and the newer panzer is actually more durable in some situations then the later model even though it may punch threw less armor

as for killing buildings... today i dropped a HQ with an m16.. there was also m3s m8s and lvt4s present so other tanks would have little trouble killing a buildings

but your right lets forget how many we're made they're impact on war and how famous of a tank they are or they're effectiveness/relevance and that the guns just aren't big enough.....

we need bigger tanks the tiger II is child's play lets have this instead


Armour 460 mm (18 in) (in the area of the Mantle)
250 mm (9.8 in) (mantlet)
240 mm (9.4 in) (turret front)
220 mm (8.7 in) (turret side and rear, and hull front)
210 mm (8.3 in) (turret front behind the mantlet)
190 mm (7.5 in) (hull side and rear)

Main
armament 128 mm (5 in) KwK 44 gun L/55
(32 rounds)

Secondary
armament 75 mm (3 in) KwK 44 gun L/36.5
(co-axial) (200 rounds)
7.92 mm MG34 machine gun

but hell since we are at it and comparing day and night might as well go all out



Armor 150–360 mm (5.9–14 in)

Main
armament 2x 280 mm(11") 54.5 SK C/34

Secondary
armament 1x 128 mm KwK 44 L/55
8x 20 mm Flak38
2x 15 mm MG 151/15


or this..you know which ever


Armor 250 millimetres (9.8 in) (hull front)

Main
armament 1x 800 mm 31.5" K (E) gun

Secondary
armament 2x 15cm sFH 18/1 L/30 (howitzer)
Multiple 15 mm MG151/15


in case anyone is possibly this oblivious only 1 of these tanks nearly reached production and if you have not caught on yet i say +1 to earlier tanks they could add many things but honestly id be fine without a bt7(t34 has enough trouble with hills) bigger gun is not needed nor is armor or speed just a good driver