What's the difference between "heavy", "medium" and "light" tanks
BHardy1968
I've been trying to do a HyperStudios project on tanks of World War
2 and keep
running into the abovementioned names. Well, obviously a Medium T-28 Tank
weighs less than an IS-2 Heavy Tank but I was wondering if the Soviet, US,
UK
and German had definate cut offs for what was a heavy, medium and light
tank.
Also, any great on-line sources for tank photos or animations?
Thanks a lot.
Brian
David Thornley
BHardy1968 <bhard...@aol.comNOJUNK> wrote:
>weighs less than an IS-2 Heavy Tank but I was wondering if the Soviet, US,
>UK
>and German had definate cut offs for what was a heavy, medium and light
>tank.
Speaking for the US, no. There were reclassifications from class to
class reflecting somebody's perception that a given tank was getting
rather heavy (M7 light to medium) or possibly for morale purposes
(M26 from medium to heavy). The UK did not have that classification
officially, having an infantry (slow and well-armored), cruiser (fast),
and light classification instead. These were pretty well-defined.
The infantry tanks would tend to be heavier than the cruisers, but
were not necessarily true heavy tanks.
The Soviets pre-war also had the "fast" tank category, which tends to
be lumped into medium or light.
I think you're trying to see things as more organized than they really
were. Remember that there was a good deal of experimentation going
on, and that tank designs standardized a lot by the end of the war.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
moses
tank in service at that time. For instance, a T-34 when it came out, would be
a pretty heavy tank. It might be, in 1940, designated a Heavy Tank, and then
the IS-2 comes about making it a Medium tank and the IS-2 a Heavy tank. The
T-60 and T-70 however would remain a light tank no matter what.
Ian
Osmo Ronkanen
moses <ian.n...@no.spam.please.usa.net> wrote:
>The easiest way to think of it is what is the heaviest tank, and the lightest
>tank in service at that time. For instance, a T-34 when it came out, would be
>a pretty heavy tank.
NO NO NO. Heavy, medium and light are clear tactical decisions. T-34 was
nothing resembling heavy tank. In fact soviets had much heavier tanks
even before like T-35. Early heavy tanks often had multiple turrets and
guns, but pretty weak armor. They were slow, basically moving
fortresses. Heavy tanks adopted during WWII were on the other hand more
conventional, they just had strong armor and large gun.
Osmo
Tero P. Mustalahti
thor...@visi.com (David Thornley) writes:
> The infantry tanks would tend to be heavier than the cruisers, but
> were not necessarily true heavy tanks.
The again, what was a true heavy tank if there were no common rules?
The Italians thought that the P26 was a heavy tank, although it weighed
only 26 metric tons, which would have been a very typical weight for a
mid war medium tank in other countries. The Italian tanks tended to be
lighter in general -- the L3 (CV-33) series "light tanks" were in fact
tankettes that proved to be vastly inferior to the otherwise less than
spectacular British Light Tank Mk. VI. The Italian medium tanks
weighed less than 15 tons, while German and Soviet medium tanks
weighed more than 20 tons even in 1941.
In my opinion the British Churchill infantry tank could be considered
a heavy tank, because it had roughly the same mission as the heavy
tanks in German and Soviet service.
> The Soviets pre-war also had the "fast" tank category, which tends to
> be lumped into medium or light.
Well, the early BT series tanks weighed about the same as the T-26, so
they have to be considered light tanks. The BT-7 was heavier, but
because it was still much lighter than the T-28, which was the true
Soviet pre-war medium tank, it has to be classified as a light tanks
as well. In many ways the BT series tanks resembled the late and
post war light tanks (markedly the M24 Chaffee and the PT-76): they
were fast, lightly armored and had a medium caliber main gun.
Tero P. Mustalahti
David Thornley
Tero P. Mustalahti <term...@utu.fi> wrote:
>In article <mLbp5.7539$6E.18...@ptah.visi.com>,
> thor...@visi.com (David Thornley) writes:
>
>> The infantry tanks would tend to be heavier than the cruisers, but
>> were not necessarily true heavy tanks.
>
>The again, what was a true heavy tank if there were no common rules?
Well, yes. There really is no such thing as a "true" heavy tank,
and not all nationalities used such a classification. The British
in particular had "infantry" and "cruiser" tanks rather than "heavy"
and "medium".
>In my opinion the British Churchill infantry tank could be considered
>a heavy tank, because it had roughly the same mission as the heavy
>tanks in German and Soviet service.
>
Um, not really. The German and Soviet heavies had more powerful armament
than their medium tanks, whereas the British infantry tanks had pretty
much the same armament as their cruisers. FWIW, the 17pdr was fitted
on the Sherman and Challenger in 1944, and a slightly cut-down version
in the 1945 Comet, all cruiser tanks, while the 17pdr-armed infantry
tank, the Black Prince, was not completed during the war.
>> The Soviets pre-war also had the "fast" tank category, which tends to
>> be lumped into medium or light.
>
>Well, the early BT series tanks weighed about the same as the T-26, so
>they have to be considered light tanks. The BT-7 was heavier, but
>because it was still much lighter than the T-28, which was the true
>Soviet pre-war medium tank, it has to be classified as a light tanks
>as well.
Why does it "have" to be classified that way? You can certainly
classify it so, with a good deal of justification. (It seems to
have been rather jumbled in with the T-26 in the actual tank
inventories of 1941 tank divisions; Sharpe's OOB often lists
things like "30-40 T-26s and BTs".) It was not formally classified
that way by the Red Army, and Milsom in his book on Soviet tanks
puts the BTs in the medium chapter.
If you are determined to classify every tank as light, medium, and
heavy, then you can call the British infantry tanks heavy and the
Soviet fast tanks light. I think this tends to gloss over the very
real differences various armies had about the roles and uses of
various sorts of tanks.
In many ways the BT series tanks resembled the late and
>post war light tanks (markedly the M24 Chaffee and the PT-76): they
>were fast, lightly armored and had a medium caliber main gun.
>
No, the BTs tended to have a large caliber main gun. The early ones
had 37mm guns at a time when pretty much nobody had a bigger
high-velocity gun on a tank, and the later ones had 45mm guns, which
were about the best tank guns anywhere at the time.