Talk:Comparison of early World War II tanks

message: I suggest that the page contains two tables to cover the two fronts of the early part of the war.
1st table - tanks operating in the East, Invasion of Poland, Finnish war etc
2nd table - tanks operating in the West for the Invasion of France and the low countries.
A third table could be used if required to inlcude tanks that were availbe but did not take part eg where the invaded nation capitulated.
GraemeLeggett 11:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that there was no fighting in the west early in the war. Also, the French tanks were also used in Poland so we'd have to list them in two places. Halibutt 05:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that May 1940 counts as quite early in the war. There is no need to list the French tanks that had already faced the various German types since that comparison would be in the other table, and a simple statement to that account would be sufficient. GraemeLeggett 10:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But still I likes Michael's proposal more sensible. For me it makes more sense to compare tanks within a certain class, not just all tanks that took part in certain conflict, at least when it comes to WWII. Otherwise we'll end up comparing Maus with Sherman. It might be fun (well... comparing Maus with anything is fun actually), but it will not be as informative. Halibutt 13:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extension to UK/French vehicles 

message: Do we need to include the superstructure armor, or is that pretty much a non-factor? Oberiko 13:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that the top armour is largely irrelevant most of the time. What do you exactly mean by "superstructure" ? GraemeLeggett 14:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not exactly sure, best definition I've heard is that it's a part of the AFV that's mounted unto the hull.  I do know that several sites (such as [www.onwar OnWar], [www.achtungpanzer.com Achtung Panzer!], [www.panzerworld.net Panzer World] etc.) include the superstructure armor as part of their tables though. Oberiko 14:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Although this is an excellent idea, the T-26 if fact was the most numerous early in the war — indeed of all tanks :o)--MWAK 13:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Superstructure armor

message: such a list with all these missing is unnecessary or is complete or delete the article.
just for eample all french and italian tanks, british cruiser tanks, etc...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.49.21.96 (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  too many missing

message: If the table is said to include tanks involved in the Battle of France, there really ought to be at least one French tank. Because the table is too wide as it is, it may be best to consider this a general overview of tanks in early WW2, and then have separate pages representative of the armor present for the Polish Campaign (represented fairly well here), the Battle of France and Operation Barbarossa. That way there could be manageable-sized tables for each part of the conflict.
Roches (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the Char B that caused the Germans to first use 88mm flak against tanks. Significant enough for it to be included.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.191.120 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  French tanks... again 

message: There are a number of different ways tanks could be organized such as by weight, role, time frame, theater, campaign, etc.  However given the limited size of the table that would more than likely involve creating new tables and links.  Given how many different tank types the French operated that could fill a table by itself!
Idsnowdog (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Tanks 

message: The two glaring ommisions from the table are the British Light Tank Mark VI and the French Somua S35.
There were (according to wikipedia) 288 S35s in front-line service at the start of the Battle of France. They fought at both Hannat and Arras.
"The German PzKpfw III and IV were the only German tanks that could outmatch the SOMUA S35 in battle. The SOMUA S35 was generally considered to be one of the most formidable tanks during the campaign in the west." (from wikipedia's Battle of Hannut entry)
The S35 was, imho, much more significant than the Matilda MK I. The Matilda one seems to rely on having 58 at Arras.
"The British Army lost 331 Mark VI light tanks in the Battle of France of 1940." and "... when the Second World War began in September 1939, the vast majority of the tanks available to the British Army were Mk VIs; there were 1,002 Mk VI Light Tanks, 79 Mk I (A9) and Mk II (A10) Cruiser Tanks and 67 Matilda Mk I infantry tanks." (wikipedia, Light Tank Mark VI).
Whether the Light Tank Mark VI was any good is another question, but any comparison of "Early WW2" tanks that omits it seem remiss.
Interesting to notice that the A9 and A10 aren't in the list either, but somehow the Matilda I is!
So I propose adding the Somua S35 and the MK VI, and, if space is too tight, dropping the Matilda I.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.90.25 (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The table also omits any British cruiser tanks, or the French R35 of which 1000 were in use. One possiblity is to split off "light tanks" into a separate table. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably be the best solution. Kierzek (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding the "best of the rest", without making the table too wide