Your Favourite Tank In WW2

Good gosh, an idea springs to mind, mucho gratitude Prince.

Wait wait wait I change my tank to a T-34 with MiG-21 engines on it!

Mother of god. *Removes sun glasses*

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

BlackPrince2 wrote:

I guess you like this one too

That is a SPG, not a tank.

How do you define 'tank'?

A KV2 has a howitser, not a high-speed anti-tank gun. That would make it a SPG too, not a tank.

Is a SU152 a tank (same gun)?

Or a StuG, or a Jagdpanther? They do have 'proper' tank guns, but no turret.

And how about a Jackson; thats almost a sherman, but no tank?

a heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track.

"they made use of tanks, artillery, and heavy weapons"

A self-propelled gun (SPG) is a form of self-propelled artillery, and in modern use is usually used to refer to artillery pieces such as howitzers. Self-propelled guns are mounted on a motorized wheeled or tracked chassis.

The KV-2 has thick armour. The SU-100Y doesn't.

KV2 has 75mm armor, SU100Y and Bishop have 60mm.

Not that much difference imho.

BlackPrince2 wrote:

KV2 has 75mm armor, SU100Y and Bishop have 60mm.

Not that much difference imho.

Early war most tanks had less than 50mm, so 75mm was considered thick armor. Early AT guns like the 37mm couldnt penetrate it.

Late war 75mm is only average, at best. Few people will state that the Sherman was brutal or tough, at the same 75mm armor. The 75mm or 88mm AT guns had little trouble penetrating it.

Well, the KV-2 came out in 1939 so that would be pretty thick armour, especially at the start of the war.

Ok.

So KV2 is a heavy tank. Why is the Bishop 'only' a SPG, not a tank?

Hang on a moment. I'm not too much into SPG's so let me do a little research.

A few reasons:

1. It was designated as a SPG

2. It had thickest hull armour of 60mm while the box reached a max of 51mm while the KV-2 ranged from 60-110(yes, 110)mm thick

3. Despite it having a big gun, it was rarely/never used as an anti-tank weapon

4. It would fire high explosive ammunition, not very good against tanks, while the KV-2 and other tanks would usually use stuff that penetrated better like AP, APCR, HEAT and APDS rounds. None of which popped like a HE(well, maybe the HEAT but still) but would tear through armour like a hot knife through butter.

Bishop had a 25 pdr which, while it gave sterling service as an AT weapon in the artillery units, IMHO, was never used in this role with the Bishop - I would guess that the huge height of the Bishop made it difficult to conceal in the Western Desert and, of course, the British Army was quite hidebound at that time - they had a better AA gun than the 88mm FlaK in the 3.7" HAA gun but this was never used in the AT role

I think the difference isnt the armor. A chafee has less armor and is considered a (light) tank.

Imho the difference is the gun, or the way it is used, to classify as a tank.

A KV2 does not have HEAT. The BP-540 round was only introduced in the 50's. A KV2 has HE and low-velocity AP.

The Bishop could fire HE, AP or APBC. The latter had better armor-penetration than the 152mm AP.

KV2 was primarily used against bunkers etc. Of course a 152mm HE round can blow up a light tank like a panzer II or panzer III, wich it was likely to encounter in '41. But that is just convenience, not its intended use.

Bishop was for artillery support, direct or indirect. And it was supposed to engage light tanks (mainly Italian crap in the dessert).

There really isnt all that much difference between the two.

I wouldnt classify the Bishop as a tank myself. But neither is the KV2. I consider it an assault gun.

Captured KV2's were used by the germans in an artillery role, rarely for direct fire. Same as the intended use of a Bishop.

i love the KV-2 in war thunder one shot killing tigers 1 is so fun

i also really like the old KV-1S from World of tanks

BlackPrince2 wrote:

There really isnt all that much difference between the two.

I wouldnt classify the Bishop as a tank myself. But neither is the KV2. I consider it an assault gun.

It was not designed as a heavy tank. KV1 is a heavy tank. KV2 just puts a big ass gun on the same chassis.

KV2 has a howitser for use vs fortifications.

The turret can actually turn only very little, to adjust the aim at targets that are already in front of the vehicle. Good enough to target bunkers that dont move about much. And it cant turn at all if the vehicle isnt perfectly level. Not much good for a 'heavy tank'.

Judging by it's track record I would say the KV-2 did a very good job.

I disagree.

Only few were produced, mainly due to its combat ineffectiveness. It was slow, big target with limited tactical use.

Out of a total of 4.075 heavy SPG's only 334 were KV-2's.

BlackPrince2 wrote:

Out of a total of 4.075 heavy SPG's only 334 were KV-2's.