HOME | DD
Sanity-X β WW2 Tank Size Comparison Chart
by-nc-sa
Published: 2006-08-04 13:57:36 +0000 UTC; Views: 164348; Favourites: 809; Downloads: 62146
Redirect to original
Description
I was doing some research for my Cartoon Character Design class (I'm cartoonifying tanks! XD) and I needed some way to see the differences in size between the different types of tanks. Thing is, I couldn't find any online!! (Either that, or I'm really not that good at net sourcing lol)Anyway, here's what I've managed to put together with the resources from www.the-blueprints.com and www.wwiivehicles.com . I think this should be preeetty accurate... If anyone notices anything ackward do
tell me lol~
Well, heres hoping this helps you as much as it helped me~
The scale on this chart is compatible to my Modern tank size chart, so you can cross reference between the two if you feel so inclined. ^_^
Modern Tank Comparison Chart - sanity-x.deviantart.com/art/Moβ¦
-----
=Version 1 (2006)=
Original chart created for Treadhead project, due to the lack of similar charts online at the time. sanity-x.deviantart.com/art/Thβ¦
- Klimenti Voroshilov-2
- M4 Sherman
- PzKpfw VI Ausf E Tiger
- Cruiser Mk VI, Crusader II
- Type 97 Chi-Ha
-Carro Armato M13/40
=Version 2 (2006)=
Continuation of my curiosity with World War 2 tanks, spurred on by my introduction to Flames of War.
- Infantry Mk III, Valentine Mk I
- Semovente 90/53
- T-34/76B, obr 1941
- BT-7, obr 1936
- PzKpfw IV Ausf E
- Klimenti Voroshilov-1
- Renault R-35
- PzKpfw VI Ausf B Konigstiger
=Version 3 (2006)=
Spurred on by my own interests, along with the overwhelming interests of like-minded netizens, expanded the chart further. Added a sports car and 2 modern tanks, to give us an idea of how large tanks are in comparison with contemporary machines we may be familiar with.
Also added nation tags, to aid in the recognition of these vehicles origins.
- Nissan Skyline BNR-34
- Ford GP
- BA-64
- T-60 obr 1942
- Panzer II Ausf C
- T-26 obr 1939
- T-70 obr 1943
- M3 Stuart I
- M3 Grant
- Char B1 bis
- M26 Pershing
- Iosef Stalin-2
- Iosef Stalin-3
- Char 2C
- Infantry MKIV, Churchill VII
- T-35
- PzKpfw Maus
- M1A1 Abrams
- T-72
=Version 4 (2008)=
Added a few extra tanks, thanks to some feedback. Removed the modern tanks, because of the creation of the modern tank comparison charts.
- Fiat L6/40
- Type 95 Kyu-Go
- Somua S-35
- Panzer III Ausf. G
- Cromwell Mk. IV
- Panzer V Ausf. G, Panther
- Karl Gerat
Also added the weight of all tanks for a better picture of the mass of some of these things. (70 ton King Tiger?! O_o?!)
=Version 4.5 (2013)=
A very long overdue fix of the scale bar. Just a quick fix really, just so I could get that off my mind.
I have lost the original files for this chart, so if I update it it will probably have a new layout very much like the Modern Tank Scale chart.
-----
Please download for full size~ ^_^
Related content
Comments: 205
Glad you found it useful~ ^_^
π: 0 β©: 0
The E-100 is the better Super Heavy, even if it didn't go as far as the Maus, but the Brits said it would have a weight of 130 tons compared to 188 tons of the Maus, plus it was faster at 30-40kmph (some like 20-24mph) but the E-100s armor is lighter but still better then most tanks of the time. In the end the E-100 would have been a mean tank on the Eastern and Western fronts.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, it would've been helluva monster. ^_^
We'll see if I decide to add prototypes to this list, but I actually prefer things that at least have seen active duty. Data like schematics and dimensions are much more accessible that way~ ^_^
π: 0 β©: 1
this might help its a 5 view pic of the E-100.
[link]
still its up to you.
π: 0 β©: 0
You missed out the churchill.
π: 0 β©: 1
There's a Churchill near the bottom, just under the IS-3 and above the Char 2C~ ^_^
π: 0 β©: 1
So there is. Soory I missed it.
π: 0 β©: 0
favourite tank of all time: karl-gerat lol nice work man, i would suggest though for an updated version to have a comparison with a man beside each tank but very good
π: 0 β©: 1
Heheh, in time. I'll probably use the same system I use for my Modern Tank chart, it's less clutter than having so many men everywhere~ ^_^
π: 0 β©: 0
Wow! I searched sth like this for years! Wonderful, amazing etc
Absolute great!
π: 0 β©: 1
Haha, so did I! Glad it's useful to you~ ^_^
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah... absolutely
π: 0 β©: 0
Very interesting and kind of impressive creation, mortar "Karl" gives a good idea of the Maus' huge dimensions.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes it does, doesn't it? The Maus is one mahoosive tank, if I may say so myself~ ^_^
π: 0 β©: 0
I love these tanks. Why don't you make the comparison chart of WWII battleship?
(btw how and where did you get data about those tanks?)
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm more of a tank person, so I'll more likely do one about planes before I do battleships, which might be a while~
As to where I get my data, I compile data from a few different sources before settling on what seems most accurate. I used to have a list of those sites, but I'll have to search for them again since my comp exploded last week~
π: 0 β©: 0
You missed the Jagdpanther Panzer I think
π: 0 β©: 1
Mmmm, Assault guns... Since they share the same frames as the tanks they're based on (like the Jagdpanther and the Panther) I left most of them out till I've compiled enough tanks to cover most of the contemporaries.
Which I think I already have actually... So maybe sometime in the future, eh? ^_^
π: 0 β©: 0
i don't aprove war... i kust like violent games ^^
π: 0 β©: 0
I love this! Really comprehensive comparison!
Thanks a lot!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks, glad you like it~ ^_^
π: 0 β©: 0
This confirms something I had always feared, but never bothered looking up--for such a thin-skinned, "medium" or cavalry tank, the Sherman is ridiculously, even comically tall.
Well, I guess it gives the crew a good view. Another excellent chart!
π: 0 β©: 0
Nice charts.
My gaming history and a few comments on earlier posts:
I started off playing Panzer Blitz in the late 60's ... well no ... thats not true ... I started off playing with my models in the back yard ...
Then we had some miniatures in the late 70's.
Steel Panthers in the mid 90's.
WWII Online for a couple of months a year and a half ago.
Played Planetside for 4 years .... mostly a tanker ... well ... no .... I spent most of my time as a combat engineer ... I just preferred being a tanker.
Matthew Cooper's book on the German Army goes into their logistics and production problems. Essentially, his generals told Hitler Germany couldn't support an Army as big as he wanted before the war but he wouldn't listen to them. So they spent the entire war short of supplies and equipment.
Part of the German's production problems stemmed from the fact that they chose heavy equipment manufacturers who were used to small production runs to build their tanks. The American's chose car companies.
Yeah, the German's biggest mistake (besides going to war with the west in the first place) was going to war in the east afterwards. Once they'd gotten into it with Britain they should have concentrated on the Med & Africa in '41. If they'd put anywhere near the resources into that they put into Barbarossa they'd have gone all the way to Burma and met the Japanese there. That would have given them all the oil they could ever have used and deprived it to the allies.
Of course ... the Japanese hood winked them into declaring war on the Americans too. Apparently they told the Germans that if the Germans would declare war on the American's that ... once they'd cleared up a few problems in the Pacific ... they'd declare war on the Russians ... Never happened. In any case ... trading the help of the Japanese for an enemy like the US was no bargain. Of course Roosevelt had been trying to get us into a war with the Germans to help Britain since it started but the isolationists were to strong. One of the great unanswered questions of history is what would have happened if Hitler hadn't declared war on the US. *shrug*
The thing with taking the med though is symptomatic of the thinking of a land power. Land power's just don't have that good a grasp of global strategy whereas Naval Powers do. Hitler was thinking of oil and such when he attacked the Russians but ... it would have been a lot easier to get from the mid-east. There were a lot of other resources he had in mind but none that compared to oil in importance.
Eh ... I could go on and on ...
The Nazi's were idiots and ... surprise! surprise! they acted like idiots!!
*shrug*
π: 0 β©: 1
Whoa, that's some repertoire~ O_o I only started dabbling in war and wargames in umm...1998 onwards, I guess. Have you heard of Flames of War though? I've only just started, but as a WW2 tabletop game, it looks pretty promising~ ^_^
1. I reckon they were short of equipment. The economic collapse probably didn't help that, and neither did Hitler's over-ambition for his little country.
2. Is that so? I've never heard of that one. While it seems like a good idea to put heavy equipment manufacturers to build heavy tractors with guns, the idea of putting the car industry, an industry readily established to cater such quantitative demands, to build tanks was nothing short of genius. I wonder if Germany could possibly have had any industry comparable in scale to America's car industry?
3. That was a grave mistake. Hitler underestimated the Russians tenacity despite their terrible tactical aptitude due to Stalins irrational purges. Their mistake of waking the Russian Bear from it's slumber was as bad a mistake as the Japanese awakening the American Eagle. Or Giant, you take your pick~ ^_^
In retrospect, he should've ended Britain as soon as he could, the rest would've fallen right in place. But then again, there was talk of him fearing the Soviet Union as his direct rival in the continent, boasting the largest tank force in Europe (albeit rather outdated) and possibly some of the largest infantry formations in the world. Maybe that's what made him invade them, while they seemed to be at their weakest?
4. I guess the Japanese feared the United States too, since they we're only a sea apart. Since Germany seemed so strong in Europe, I guess the Japanese thought the Americans wouldn't risk all out war in the Pacific if the threat of Germany was all too present. And I guess Pearl Harbor was meant to solidify that, to cripple the Pacific Fleet so badly that they really would stay out of the Japs hair.
Once again, they underestimated America's determination to get into the conflict and overestimated Germany's commitment to help them, since they we're themselves getting bogged down in their own Russian folly.
5. I guess it's hard not to be a land power, since Europe, Africa and Asia is basically one big island. Probably reason why the Anglo-American beach landings did so spectacularly. Germany and Italy had walled it's beaches up, but I guess they failed to stop them at the one place the Allied landing forces were truly vulnerable, at sea. Preventing something from even landing is way better than trying to cure it when it's already on your beaches and in your bocage, lol~ ^_^
Don't forget over-ambitious! Idiotic over-ambitious Nazis~ Their whole 'master race' angle was just so flawed in so many ways.
Thanks for that very informative and thought-provoking comment. It really gave my brain a real workout, and broadened my knowledge of the last great war of our time. Thanks again! ^_^
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey.
Nice response.
I'm pretty much done with board or table top gaming. One of the things that happens as you get older is that you start having trouble getting together a group to play. When I was in college, me and my buddies met every friday night at this hobby shop one of them owned, then walked down the sidewalk in the mall to a bar where we drank beer and solved all the worlds problems until 2 am - then we went to Denny's sometimes and had an early breakfast while we finished off any problems that were left for that week ... 
To respond to your post:
2. As you said in 1 above Germany was a small country. No matter what they did they'd never have come close to matching the production of either of the US or USSR ... much less both of them. That and they just didn't have the people. The Russians had a gigantic reserve force of like 35 million people with a modicum of military training at the beginning of the war. The Germans put a big dent in that but as the German Army succumbed to Hitler's increasing interference it adopted strategies it's WWI Corporal Leader understood. Hitler had actually risen to power because the WWI peace treaty gave him a cause. An irresponsible moron, he was willing to risk Germany being attacked to abrogate the treaty - and got away with it. The first put him into power as he told the German People what they wanted to hear, much as Ronald Reagan did in the 80's. Not that Reagan was a Nazi but both men were attuned to the emotions of their people and said the right things. Next, because of the spinelessness of the former WWI allies - he became a hero to his people. The thing is, Hitler didn't understand that he got into power as a fluke. He thought it was his own "indomitable will" that had caused him to succeed. Yes - he didn't give up - but it was the situation the Allies created after WWI that gave him the opportunity, not anything he had done. So, Hitler's answer to everything was - Will. He even had that documented in the film "Triumph of the Will" made in the 30's. Unfortunately (for him), Hitler's will wasn't as strong as the man power and material resources of the US & USSR so all he did was shorten it. Where the Germans needed flexible tactics like those advocated by some of his generals Hitler's response was to just stand fast and lose people when they got cut off. He couldn't have helped the Allies more if he'd been trying.
3. Hitler attacked the Russians - it was all HIS idea - because he wanted their land and resources and because he thought they were going to attack him. Which they might well have done eventually but not in 1941. He had no idea their army was as large as it was, much less their reserve force. So he did underestimate them.
4. Japan and the US went to war over Vietnam. Well ...actually it was the Japanese actions in China that started the problem. The Chinese were getting supplies through the southern part of their country. When France fell to the Germans, the Japanese got them to lean on the Vichy French Government so it would allow them free access to Indo China (Vietnam, Laos & Cambodia) to cut off the Chines supplies. When they did that - Roosevelt told them to get out and imposed a trade embargo on the. Since Japan had no oil and was in fact getting it from the US this ended Japan's oil imports. They believed they either had to back down or go to war with us. They had managed to avoid becoming a colony like most of the rest of Asia but thought if they ever backed down to a colonial power they'd be on the slippery slope to becoming one. Of course that time had passed but they didn't see it. So - they attacked us and the rest is history. Their strategy was the same as that of the North Vietnamese. They knew they beat us but they thought that by taking all these islands across the Pacific they'd wear us down and we'd quit. Unfortunately (for them) we had Roosevelt as a leader instead of LBJ and we finished them off before the US public got bored with the war and quit. The fact that they'd attacked us was a factor too but then we did fight in Vietnam for 10 years or so. What the American people would have done after ten years of Iwo Jima's and Okinawa's is hard to say.
5) Yes. Germany didn't really have any choice about being a land power. Britain, the US, Germany and the USSR had their priorities straight The US & UK had substantial water barriers/highways to protect them and facilitate their access to the world where as the Germans and Russians didn't. Thus the US & UK had the worlds best Navies where as the Germans and Russians had the best and biggest Armies. The German Army was best because of it's tactical doctrine and General Staff - not it's equipment. In the US & UK the smartest people went into the Navy. That isn't to say we didn't have smart people in the Army it's just that more of our talent went into the Navy. Also, Navies being more technical than Armies they tend to have less room for unsophisticated people. Again, both services have their dummy's but it's easier for a dummy to get by in the Army than the Navy. There's just less work for them in a Navy, it tends to be smaller and the dummy's get forced out. Now the Japanese had a fairly good Navy (they based it on the British) but it had only been in existence since 1870. Largely they ... just didn't understand what they were doing. In Japan, they have a saying that "The nail that sticks out gets hit on the head" which illustrates much about their society. Their heroes are rebels and non-conformists but that's because most people are more interested in being entertained by stories about them than by being free thinkers themselves. Because of things like that, Japan has had a lot of trouble developing things on their own. They tend to look at what someone else has done, change it to fit Japan and then use that - and they are very good at that. However they really lack a fundamental understanding of what underlies what they are doing. They know what to do - they just don't know why they are doing it. They like to figure everything out in advance, then act. The problem is, when things don't go well, it takes them a good long while to realize that they need to change what they are doing, much less actually implement change. Thus, their conformity and cooperation make them really good at implementing a plan once they've figured out what to do but they are extremely resistant to change. Thus, you have Japanese submarines out chasing US warships instead of preying on merchant convoys. The whole point of warships is to protect the merchantmen. It isn't the warships that are valuable - it's the commercial vessels. But the Japanese didn't understand that. Unfortunately (for them) our torpedoes malfunctioned at the beginning of the war (when they should have been starting to develop their ASW) so our sub force wasn't much of a threat. When we got our torpedoes fixed in 1944 we had all these submarines built and all of a sudden they were faced with an overwhelming problem without the training (or resources) to deal with it. The US & UK had terrible problems with the German U Boats in the Atlantic at the beginning of the war and put tremendous resources into defeating them. Thus, even though the Germans built more and better subs we'd learned how to beat them and our material superiority came to bear. The Japanese just didn't have the time left to fix their ASW problems when the US subs became effective, we began to strangle them and everything just fell apart.
Yeah, this is the kind of stuff me and my buddies used to talk about over our beers back in my youth ...
*shrug*
π: 0 β©: 1
Eh ... had trouble previewing that and left in some typos. The worst was leaving out a word ...
Here is the correct line:
"They knew they COULDN'T beat us but they thought that by taking all these islands across the Pacific they'd wear us down and we'd quit."
That's one thing I hate about these DA posts ... you can't edit the damn thing once you send it ...
π: 0 β©: 0
That's large list
Very nice work putting everything up together
π: 0 β©: 1
Neat!!! It's been awhile since you've made one of these! Hope to see threadheads next! XD Keep up the great work!
π: 0 β©: 0
Yes 70 ton Tiger. Few bridges in Europe could actually support it. But the original Tiger was not much better in terms of bridge crossability. And when you factor in the low speed and lack of range...
PFfffffBBBbbbttt.
Its a loser.
Actually the Somua S-35 was a far better tank, and if they had made a few more of them and used them better, they would have been more than a match for the Panzers.
π: 0 β©: 1
The weight of the King Tiger was merely surprising to me, considering it's almost two times the weight of most contemporary medium tanks. To call it a loser is rather mean, considering it's abilities over it's obvious faults.
Abilities like it's 88mm high-velocity gun, nigh impenetrable armour, superb crew training and the sheer terror it caused; over it's unreliability, slow speed, low maneuverability and it's heavy toll on german war production and resources.
And I think the Somua S-35 was an excellent tank, as are most tanks in this chart I have grown quite fond of. Brilliant people poured their hearts and souls designing and building these machines, whilst brave souls drove them into battle to fight for what they believed in.
Some may have been unrealistically idealistic, some superbly practical; but men and women have fought and died riding these steel beasts into the flames of war, and they all deserve some respect. Peace out~ ^_^
π: 0 β©: 0
Look up the JadgeTiger, I think that was 71 tons of shear rape
π: 0 β©: 1
Hehe, sheer rape indeed. The Jagdtiger was a real monster, that one~ ^_^
π: 0 β©: 0
Hey, what about the polish 7 TP 
π: 0 β©: 1
Hehe, maybe in the next update~ Though, finding any schematics of the 7TP is going to be a challenge, since it's one of the lesser known tanks of the war...
π: 0 β©: 0
Char 2C, best tank in the French Army that time but not powerful enough to counter attck the germans
π: 0 β©: 1
Sadly so~
It was a monster though, huge as hell haha!
π: 0 β©: 0
Slightly disappointed by the lack of a Somua though
π: 0 β©: 1
Just added it~
Sorry it wasn't there earlier, I can only add so much to this chart at a time~ ^_^
π: 0 β©: 0
Nice collection of WWII tanks, especially my favorite M26 Pershing. ^^
π: 0 β©: 0
woah tha must of taken a long time
π: 0 β©: 1
It took quite a while actually, but I guess it's all good. I certainly benefited much from this exercise, and I hope it helps other people who share my interests! ^_^
π: 0 β©: 0
Hmmmm.........well, other than a few of these being armored cars & artillery pieces, it's good
π: 0 β©: 1
Heheh, it needed some variety~ ^_^
π: 0 β©: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>