Edit | Leave a Comment | Favorite
More Like This: (Beta Temporary Feature)
User Comments:
Anonymous commented at 2016-08-03 14:16:17 » #1997475
The Semovente 75 was a very effective tank destroyer, to the point the Germans had Italy produce several for them. It was comparable to the Stug 3 but smaller and with better armour.
The P40 on the other hand would have been one of the best tanks had it come out when it was supposed to (1939 or early 1940) in useful numbers.
It was something of a cross between a Panther and a Tiger I. Well armoured, decent speed and an effective gun.
7 Points
Flag
The Semovente 75 was a very effective tank destroyer, to the point the Germans had Italy produce several for them. It was comparable to the Stug 3 but smaller and with better armour.
The P40 on the other hand would have been one of the best tanks had it come out when it was supposed to (1939 or early 1940) in useful numbers.
It was something of a cross between a Panther and a Tiger I. Well armoured, decent speed and an effective gun.
7 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2016-08-04 14:12:16 » #1998075
The Semovente is not really comparable to the StuG III.
For example, the Armor, although being 42mm thick on the front of the fighting compartment, was flat, unlike the STuGs (depening on the version) "effective" 50 and more of back-angled armor on the front of the fighting compartment and again 50-80mm on the parts below it.
The gun of the Semovente 75/34 was quite good, but, once again, outclassed by dedicaded tank destroyer versions of the STuG III (Since Girls und Panzer used the Semovente 75/18, that thing got about the same gun as the STuG A which was basically called "Shorty" by the germans and made fun of as an anti-tank weapon).
The StuG was also superior in mobility, although being bigger, thanks to a better engine, giving earlier versions more than 15 Horsepower per ton (later ones still had over 12.5) and a top speed of 40 km/h, whereas the Semovente had just above 10 HP/T and only got up to 32 km/h.
Also, comparing the P40s gun and armor to either the Tiger I or the Panther is quite... weird.
It's Ansaldo 75mm gun, was the same gun used on the Semovente 75/34, that, as we learned earlier, was outclassed by the STuG IIIs (let's get technical) 7,5-cm-StuK 40 L/43, a gun also used by the Panzer IV F and all Versions after it.
So it's firepower is more on the "ok-ish" side compared to the Panthers 7,5-cm-KwK 42 L/70, which was twice as long as the P40s gun, giving it way more shell-velocity and destructive power. And let's not talk about the Tiger and it's "Imma shoot me some tanks" 88mm gun.
The armor is, once again, more comparable to the later Panzer IVs than to the Panther or Tiger. Sure, it had decent protection, especially for 1939, but not comparable to a Panther or Tiger.
Mobility wise... once again, more or less like a Panzer IV. The engine only gave the P-40 about 11.5 HP/T to accelerate to it's maximum of 40 km/h.
To compare, the Panther's engine accelerated that thing, although being almost 20 tons heavier with (let's round it, since it depends on the type again.. silly germans and their tank versions... ) 16 HP/T up to 46 km/h.
The P40 was basically a Panzer IV F before the Panzer IV F was even a thing (it was produced in 41 and 42)... just smaller.
2 Points
Flag
The Semovente is not really comparable to the StuG III.
For example, the Armor, although being 42mm thick on the front of the fighting compartment, was flat, unlike the STuGs (depening on the version) "effective" 50 and more of back-angled armor on the front of the fighting compartment and again 50-80mm on the parts below it.
The gun of the Semovente 75/34 was quite good, but, once again, outclassed by dedicaded tank destroyer versions of the STuG III (Since Girls und Panzer used the Semovente 75/18, that thing got about the same gun as the STuG A which was basically called "Shorty" by the germans and made fun of as an anti-tank weapon).
The StuG was also superior in mobility, although being bigger, thanks to a better engine, giving earlier versions more than 15 Horsepower per ton (later ones still had over 12.5) and a top speed of 40 km/h, whereas the Semovente had just above 10 HP/T and only got up to 32 km/h.
Also, comparing the P40s gun and armor to either the Tiger I or the Panther is quite... weird.
It's Ansaldo 75mm gun, was the same gun used on the Semovente 75/34, that, as we learned earlier, was outclassed by the STuG IIIs (let's get technical) 7,5-cm-StuK 40 L/43, a gun also used by the Panzer IV F and all Versions after it.
So it's firepower is more on the "ok-ish" side compared to the Panthers 7,5-cm-KwK 42 L/70, which was twice as long as the P40s gun, giving it way more shell-velocity and destructive power. And let's not talk about the Tiger and it's "Imma shoot me some tanks" 88mm gun.
The armor is, once again, more comparable to the later Panzer IVs than to the Panther or Tiger. Sure, it had decent protection, especially for 1939, but not comparable to a Panther or Tiger.
Mobility wise... once again, more or less like a Panzer IV. The engine only gave the P-40 about 11.5 HP/T to accelerate to it's maximum of 40 km/h.
To compare, the Panther's engine accelerated that thing, although being almost 20 tons heavier with (let's round it, since it depends on the type again.. silly germans and their tank versions... ) 16 HP/T up to 46 km/h.
The P40 was basically a Panzer IV F before the Panzer IV F was even a thing (it was produced in 41 and 42)... just smaller.
2 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2016-08-10 09:02:28 » #2001113
Since the P40 was produced in 43 and 44 (not designed, that was in 40), the same years the Panzer IV G, H and J were build the comparison to those made sense to me. (I also stated that only specific versions got that 80mm of armor)
Just that those also had more mobility and firepower. (This also includes the F-Version)
The reasoning I chose the Panzer IV to begin with was that it compares the most to the P40, instead of the Panther or the Tiger, like the OP posted.
You may consider looking at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carro_Armato_P_40 . The "Tanks of comparable role, performance, and era"-Section also puts it next to the Panzer IV.
0 Points
Flag
Since the P40 was produced in 43 and 44 (not designed, that was in 40), the same years the Panzer IV G, H and J were build the comparison to those made sense to me. (I also stated that only specific versions got that 80mm of armor)
Just that those also had more mobility and firepower. (This also includes the F-Version)
The reasoning I chose the Panzer IV to begin with was that it compares the most to the P40, instead of the Panther or the Tiger, like the OP posted.
You may consider looking at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carro_Armato_P_40 . The "Tanks of comparable role, performance, and era"-Section also puts it next to the Panzer IV.
0 Points
Flag
1