PDA

View Full Version : Most succesful british tank.



Panzerknacker
12-13-2006, 05:28 PM
Wich was the most effective tank of the british armor, the cruisers, the Infantry vehicles or the imported Shermans ?


http://i11.tinypic.com/2rrqrdy.jpg

BDL
12-14-2006, 02:31 AM
For me probably the Sherman Firefly with the 17lb gun. The only Allied tank that could realistically take on the Panther/Tiger from a safe range and have a hope of hurting them that was produced in any numbers. Comet and Centurion were both fantastic tanks too, but came too late to have too much effect on the war.

2nd of foot
12-14-2006, 07:02 AM
I would also add that it would depend on date as a lot changed between 39 when 40mm was seen as suitable and 45 when the need for 100mm was on the cards.

At the start the Matilda was capable of taking on all comer but well out of date two years later. If we had not had truckloads of M4s then the Cromwell would have made a better showing in Normandy.

The Churchill’s mobility and armour made it good but its gun was its let down.

The Comet is the culmination of a long design lesson where production quality, interservice rivalry and service requirement were finally met.

Another one of the “ I like the Mk5 best”.

BDL
12-14-2006, 07:05 AM
I would also add that it would depend on date as a lot changed between 39 when 40mm was seen as suitable and 45 when the need for 100mm was on the cards.

At the start the Matilda was capable of taking on all comer but well out of date two years later. If we had not had truckloads of M4s then the Cromwell would have made a better showing in Normandy.

The Churchill’s mobility and armour made it good but its gun was its let down.

The Comet is the culmination of a long design lesson where production quality, interservice rivalry and service requirement were finally met.

Another one of the “ I like the Mk5 best”.

Would agree with that - up until 1941 the Matilda was invulnerable to anything but the 88 Flak and they managed to break an entire SS Division in France before Rommel restored order with 88mm Flak and artillery firing at point blank range.

2nd of foot
12-14-2006, 08:06 AM
I would also add that in many cases you are not comparing like with like as the design concept for British tank was different.

Infantry tanks needed good protection as speed (to keep pace with the PBI) was not seen as a requirement. With cruisers it was different as speed was seen as more important than armour as speed was seen as amour. This concept resulted in lots of different tanks to do, what was seen as different jobs. The US saw tanks as light cavalry with the purpose of running around. They had never has a history of heavy cavalry and saw no need for infantry support just dash and so had a couple of designs. The Germans used a similar system to the UK but the army was king and got what it wanted without having to fight with the air force or navy for cast offs.

It may be better to say what tank was a total waste on time, money and lives not what is best.

Panzerknacker
01-09-2007, 05:56 PM
A interesting reading, extracted from "British tanks in WW2 second Part" By David Fletcher.

http://i14.tinypic.com/450njw5.jpg

VonWeyer
01-10-2007, 07:12 AM
Some interesting point's guy's.
The Sherman. The rest is history.

ww2admin
01-12-2007, 08:24 PM
Thanks panzerknacker! Good stuff.

rascman
01-18-2007, 01:26 PM
Hi All,
Interesting answers to a good question.
Myself, I've gone with the churchill, Ok, certainly not a perfect tank, esp when used in non infantry support role,.....not fast enough, etc, but when used in the role intended, ie, infantry support, and when able to make use of its excellent climbing and x country ability, was certainly a match for the smaller panzers,......by this I'm excluding the panther and tiger, (& varients).
In respect of the above mentioned tank, I'd whole heartedly recommend the following book,
The Churchill. by Bryan Perrett. ISBN 0 7110 0533 8

As an aside, he's also published a book on the Matilda.


All the best,

Andy

Panzerknacker
01-18-2007, 06:03 PM
I almost agree, the Churchill cocodrile for example was very effective attacking the german garrisons along the French coast in 1944-45.

2nd of foot
01-20-2007, 07:11 AM
To answer this it may be better to divide the tiem into 4 parts.

France pre war to 1940
Northeast Africa
Late Northeast Africa and Italy
Normandy to end of the war.

It may also be useful to look at how other armies saw and used these tanks and I am manly thinking of Russia.

For France the Matilda 2 will beat all comers. Its armour is proof against all Axis tank on font and sides. The 2 pdr would kill all axis tanks of that time before they could get within effective range. Its only draw back is its lack of HE capability and speed.

Fro NA you have a choice of Matilda 2 or Valentines. Both with 2 pdrs but the Valentines where more reliable and more importantly it had a lower silhouette. It was the most produced of British tanks with large numbers going to Russia were it was liked very much. It was capable of being up gunned and the 6 pdr version was very effective. It suffered initially from poor transit packaging with many arriving in NA with salt water inside the tanks.

Although the arrival of US equipment had started and the M4 was more reliable than some of the other British tanks it suffered from a very poor AT gun. Its advantage over the Matilda was reliability, an HE gun and speed. With the arrival of the Churchill with 6 pdr the good points of the M4 were being out weighed by its bad. At this time it would be the Churchill that was the best and capable of taking on most of the opposition. With the introduction of APDS ammo it was a match for all comers.

It has been said that if the British had not had so many M4s the Cromwell would have been the most numerous tank in Normandy. But as most regiments had M4s the cost of re-equipping them with Cromwells could not be justified. The Cromwell was a better tank than the Churchill. It was more reliable, it had a better engine, suspension, speed and the same gun. It’s only down side was its armour. A problem that was later fixed but the lack of sloping armour in British tank design would continue.

So each of the periods I would place

Matilda
Valentine
Churchill
Cromwell (Comet although far better did not see sufficient service)

Nickdfresh
01-20-2007, 12:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_tank

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Comet_tank_1.jpg/800px-Comet_tank_1.jpg

Like the Centurion, the Comet seems to have arrived to late to have had a major impact, though unlike the Centurion, she did see some wartime operational use...

Panzerknacker
01-20-2007, 06:09 PM
Nice tank, but still uncapable of bear the 17 pounder.


Fro NA you have a choice of Matilda 2 or Valentines. Both with 2 pdrs but the Valentines where more reliable and more importantly it had a lower silhouette. It was the most produced of British tanks with large numbers going to Russia were it was liked very much. It was capable of being up gunned and the 6 pdr version was very effective. It suffered initially from poor transit packaging with many arriving in NA with salt water inside the tanks.


thanks for the info, funny the Valentine was lighter and armed with 6 pounder. I think I going to vote for it. ;)

2nd of foot
01-20-2007, 06:28 PM
Nice tank, but still uncapable of bear the 17 pounder.

my bold

can you explain please?

Panzerknacker
01-20-2007, 07:24 PM
The Comet did not carry the 17 pounders gun but one called 77mm O.Q.F in this the cartrigde case lenght was shorter wich affected the muzzle velocity and off-course the energy to defeat german armor.

Nickdfresh
01-20-2007, 09:49 PM
The Comet did not carry the 17 pounders gun but one called 77mm O.Q.F in this the cartrigde case lenght was shorter wich affected the muzzle velocity and off-course the energy to defeat german armor.

Yes, but I don't think it was a very big drop off...

George Eller
01-20-2007, 10:54 PM
-

01
Matilda I
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/233/matildai4qw.jpg
http://www.europa1939.com/tanques/tanques/matilda.html

Matilda II
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/4515/matildaii2if.jpg
http://www.europa1939.com/tanques/tanques/matilda.html

Valentine I
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/8517/valentinei8ig.jpg
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 789

Valentine I
http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/5483/valentinei022xy.jpg
World War Two Tanks, George Forty, Osprey, 1995, p 38


(CONTINUED BELOW)

-

George Eller
01-20-2007, 10:54 PM
-

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

02
Churchill IV
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/191/churchilliv9rd.jpg
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1066

Churchill VII
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/7219/churchillvii5hp.jpg
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1459

Churchill VII Crocodile
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/8628/churchillviicrocodile7ur.jpg
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1458

Churchill Carpet Layer
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/197/churchillcarpetlayer9po.jpg
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1486

(CONTINUED BELOW)

-

George Eller
01-20-2007, 10:55 PM
-

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

03
Crusader I
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6648/crusaderi0mc.jpg
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 625

Cromwell VI
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/4027/cromwellvi3up.jpg
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 2167

Sherman II
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/7847/shermanii4jd.jpg
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 877

Sherman VC Firefly
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5026/shermanvcfirefly8gb.jpg
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1957

(CONTINUED BELOW)

-

George Eller
01-20-2007, 10:56 PM
-

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

04
Sherman DD (Duplex Drive)
http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/3179/shermandd6kk.jpg
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1484

Sherman Tankdozer
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/9396/shermantankdozer7mm.jpg
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1557

Sherman Crab Mine-clearing flail tank
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/9971/shermancrab3wb.jpg
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1487

Churchill AVRE and Sherman Crab
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/4926/churchillavreshermancra4pu.jpg
D-Day Spearhead of Invasion, R.W. Thompson, Ballantine Books, 1968, p 40

-

Digger
01-21-2007, 01:14 AM
It was amazing how slow the British were to fully develop the 17pdr as a main gun for armour. Obviously the demand as an AA weapon was a number one priority.

The Australian Cruiser tank (AC1) was a medium tank of sound design which entered production in 1942. Originally armed with a 2pdr, then 6pdr gun which were deemed ineffective by Australian experiences with German armour. the 17pdr gun was mounted. When built this version the AC3 was the most powerful battle tank in the armoury of the Western Allies. The entire project fell aprt due to political interference, military inefficiency and some technical problems.

When designer A. R. Code and Colonel Watson approached the relevent British authorities with their experiences with the AC1 and AC3 developments. From the Australian success of fitting the 17pdr with a suitable recoil system the British were convinced to adapt the 17pdr to their own Shermans. The rest is history.

Source: Armed And Ready-The Industrial development and Defence Of Australia 1900-1945 by A.T. Ross ISBN 0 908031 63 7

Regards Digger.

Panzerknacker
01-21-2007, 05:57 PM
I think that there were just 3 types of british tanks with that high velocity 76,2mm gun, The challenger, the Black Prince ,and the Firefly.

The Challenger is a 1942 design in reply to the call for a tank with a gun that could take on any German tank. The chosen gun was the excellent 17pdr. Attempts to use the A27 design showed that it was too small and light to accept the new gun and so a complete tank was designed around it. This tank only saw limited service owing to the numbers of available Sherman Firefly available.




http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-Cruiser-Challenger-A30.jpg

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/BritishCruiserTanks.html




Yes, but I don't think it was a very big drop off...



about 15-20 % less, the energy was very similar to the german 75 mm KwK 40 of the Panzer IV G,H

GermanSoldier
01-23-2007, 05:52 PM
The Crusader was a very good tank. So it has my vote.

Strina-Croatia
01-24-2007, 11:20 AM
For me the most succesful british tank is the Churchil because of his strong gun and armor.I dislike the Matilda mk 2 tank because it was very slow with a relativly weak gun.And a litlle iff toipic models of british tanks and wehicles are SF to find and build which i find rather dissapointing!

Panzerknacker
01-24-2007, 09:28 PM
A collection of the british tanks used in Afrika in 1940-41, relatively succesful but only agaisnt the unimpressive italian vehicles. The A9 and A10 were weakly armored with only 14-22 mm plates.

http://i16.tinypic.com/2vb5vy8.jpg


http://i18.tinypic.com/4g8t2ec.jpg


http://i14.tinypic.com/3yqqmvl.jpg


http://i12.tinypic.com/2a79640.jpg

GermanSoldier
01-29-2007, 05:59 PM
The crusader was a good tank. So was the Sherman but my vote goes to the Crusader.

Panzerknacker
02-03-2007, 03:27 PM
Two images of the Infantry Valentine Mk.II tank. Only 3 man crew.

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/2104/valentine1kc2.jpg


The tank commander was also the loader of the O.Q.F 40 mm gun.

http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/602/valentine3sj2.jpg


The armor was aceptable with 40-65mm. The compact design result in a relative small weight of 17 tons. It was equipped with a 135 hp engine and it can reach 25 km/h.

George Eller
02-06-2007, 11:25 PM
-

01
Australian AC1 Sentinel Cruiser Tank

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5236/ac1sentinel018op.jpg
British and American Tanks of World War II, by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, p 179

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9311/ac1sentinel022fy.jpg
British and American Tanks of World War II, by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, p 180

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6106/ac1sentinel039hq.jpg
British and American Tanks of World War II, by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, p 181

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/379/ac1sentinel042tj.jpg
British and American Tanks of World War II, by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, p 182

(CONTINUED BELOW)

-

George Eller
02-06-2007, 11:27 PM
-

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

02

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4605/ac1sentinel054rz.jpg
World War Two Tanks, George Forty, Osprey, 1995, p 59

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7752/ac1sentinel061ye.jpg
World War Two Tanks, George Forty, Osprey, 1995, p 60 -61

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8444/ac1sentinel07cd4.jpg
World War Two Tanks, George Forty, Osprey, 1995, p 62

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8811/ac1sentinel08of0.jpg
World War Two Tanks, George Forty, Osprey, 1995, p 63

(CONTINUED BELOW)

-

George Eller
02-06-2007, 11:28 PM
-

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE / PREVIOUS PAGE)

03
Australian AC1 Sentinel Cruiser Tank

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/2391/ac1sentinel09vn2.jpg
Tanks of World War II, Chris Ellis, Chancellor Press, 1997, p 141

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8705/ac1sentinel10px4.jpg
Sources:
AC1 Sentinel
http://www.clubi.ie/exalted/ac1.htm
http://www.matadormodels.co.uk/76au/lists.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sentinel_%28AWM_101156%29.jpg
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-armour/allied/museum.htm

SEE ALSO:

Sentinel tank
http://www.answers.com/topic/sentinel-tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank

The AC 1 Sentinel Cruiser Tank
http://books.lulu.com/content/163762
http://books.lulu.com/browse/preview.php?fCID=163762
http://www.awm.gov.au/underattack/enlarge.asp?image=3/5/1/6

-

Panzerknacker
02-07-2007, 07:09 PM
Interesting desing, it seesm a mix of Crusader turret, valentine chassis and Sherman shock absorbers. Thanks for your info george.

George Eller
02-07-2007, 09:48 PM
Interesting desing, it seesm a mix of Crusader turret, valentine chassis and Sherman shock absorbers. Thanks for your info george.
-

Thanks Panzerknacker,

It was an amazing accomplishment for a small country with no prior experience building tanks. A lot of castings were used such as on the hull and turret. Originally, vertical volute bogies of M3 type suspension were planned, but changed to HVSS horizontal volute pattern of the French Hotchkiss type (according to the articles).

-

Panzerknacker
04-02-2007, 07:01 PM
Challenger vs Tiger comparison, note that despite the german tank used a larger ammo and heavier gun the turret profile is much lower.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2972/challetigeraf1.jpg

Chevan
04-03-2007, 01:51 AM
Challenger vs Tiger comparison, note that despite the german tank used a larger ammo and heavier gun the turret profile is much lower.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2972/challetigeraf1.jpg
That's funny photo
Well i have to conclude the british tank - most ridiculous tanks in the WW2 ;)
The best british tank was Centurion.

Cheers.

Panzerknacker
04-03-2007, 06:56 AM
Well, I dont know if ridiculos is the word, but still sems too truoble for a gun of a caliber relatively small as 76mm, just imagine what turret they would use for a 122 mm like the Iosif Stalin tank.

cooke24
04-08-2007, 02:55 AM
all british tanks sucked except for the Sherman Firefly which technically wasnt theirs. should of stole some of the ideas of the sherman and made thier own.

Chevan
04-11-2007, 04:08 AM
The british toy Mk VII
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/MkVII/mkVII_5.jpg
That's uber-tank could move with speed of 64 km/h !!! - the one of the most speedest tank of WW2.

Panzerknacker
04-11-2007, 09:47 PM
:mrgreen: That is a pocket sized tank

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-VickersLightTank-MarkVII-a.jpg






The Mark VII was a radical and new light tank design by Vickers intended for private sales in 1938. An interesting innovation was Christie road wheel concept and suspension. The British army was quick to see the important improvements in this model and procured the plans. Delays occured in production due to the poor showing of light tanks in the Spanish Civil War. The tank went into production (July 1940) too late to affect the Battle of France but at a time when any tank was considered a plus considering the huge material loss by the British. A large order was initially placed with Vickers, but, the events that occured in 1940 during the Battle of France that showed that light tank was a concept that needed to be rethought and that order was recinded. Light tanks in general, and all tanks armed only with machine guns fared so poorly in France that this model was very nearly scrapped out of hand.

The Mark VII was a simply a case of a good design that appeared at the wrong time. If this model, and not the Mark VIB had been available in France, and in numbers, some different results from encounters would have occured when the Germans met the British. The Battle of France (1940) convinced nations to move away or redesign the light tank concept. Indeed, many light tank designs that survived the first years of WW2, and continued production until 1945, would actually become more powerful and better protected than most pre war heavy tanks! This tank saw limited action during the Madagascar campaign. Around this time, the tank was (again) almost religated to the scrap pile when a new need arrose. Airborne forces were being developed during the war years and consideration was given to providing armor support.

The Mark VII now had a new role and a new name - "Tetrarch". The tank was used on a limited basis with airborne troops during the D Day invasion (1944) and the Rhine crossings (1945). Some of the tanks were refitted as a close support version (Tetrach 1CS) by mounting a 3" howitzer in place of the 40mm gun. An experiment was tried in 1941 (pre Valentine DD) to use the Straussler system to make the tank a DD (duplex drive) for river crossings. One squadron of these tanks remained in service until 1950 - by then gliders had been dropped from military use. The USSR employed this vehicle through "lend lease".


I guess that the paratroopers prefer to have a Tetrarch that to have not armor at all.

Winters
05-14-2007, 05:56 AM
most people i know would say the sherman , probably because they were mass produced and used on most if not all britsh fronts after 1941-42 but my personal choise would be the cromwell , nice heavyweight tank good al round performance , only down side being the main gun being to small a caliber , altho i found that a common problem on most british war tanks.

Panzerknacker
05-14-2007, 12:06 PM
but my personal choise would be the cromwell

At last somebody take the risk to choose a british, I mean real british tank design, I made a mistake, I shouldnt includ the Sherman in this poll.

Winters
05-14-2007, 12:48 PM
yes of course , but it did have a few design faults but i still love it a proper british fighting vehicle.

Panzerknacker
10-15-2007, 08:00 PM
Interesting review of David Fletcher and others about british tanks used in the battle of France, 1940.http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=egDuqhVMYaA

Mk VII
10-26-2007, 06:11 AM
We didn't get a truly decent tank until the Centurion came along.

kallinikosdrama1992
10-26-2007, 11:00 AM
i think the firefly with 17pdr was the best but even this wasn't good enough . it couldn't breach the panther's armor so the same about the armor . but is there any one know about the fights between the crusader vs tiger II and other panzer divisions tanks

2nd of foot
10-26-2007, 04:14 PM
We didn't get a truly decent tank until the Centurion came along.

The Comet and the Cromwell were excellent tanks and far better than the Sherman. But we had thousands of Shermans. The Cent is a direct line from them.

The Matilda was also very good for its day and there was nothing in France that could out gun it or had better protection. pit any German tank Bn of 1940 against a Matilda Bn and you would be looking at burning grey hulks. even a Sqn of Matildas would take them apart.

2nd of foot
10-26-2007, 04:19 PM
i think the firefly with 17pdr was the best but even this wasn't good enough . it couldn't breach the panther's armor so the same about the armor . but is there any one know about the fights between the crusader vs tiger II and other panzer divisions tanks

Well as the Panther had 120mm and the 17's APCBC had 140 at a 1000yds not too much of a problem and if the fired APDS it was 160 at 2000yds. the 77mm firing APDS could penetrate 160 at a 1000.

2nd of foot
10-26-2007, 04:22 PM
But I am repeating myself :D

M1 Garand
11-18-2007, 08:53 AM
All of the above is quite correct, except the most successful Tank in British service was the Cromwell tank, which was the british equivalent to the King Tiger.

Nickdfresh
11-18-2007, 12:57 PM
All of the above is quite correct, except the most successful Tank in British service was the Cromwell tank, which was the british equivalent to the King Tiger.

I don't know about that. A Cromwell vs. a King Tiger, or even a Tiger II. I'm pretty sure I'd rather be in one of the Tigers...:D

A Cromwell was no more combat effective than a Sherman...

I think you might be thinking of the A34 Comet tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_tank), which while a decent tank on paper is one that had a lot of teething problems and was largely made irrelevant by the introduction of the Centurion as Britain's, as well as many other countries', primary post war MBT...

Panzerknacker
11-18-2007, 03:35 PM
All of the above is quite correct, except the most successful Tank in British service was the Cromwell tank, which was the british equivalent to the King Tiger.



Hu ? This is a canadian joke ? :shock:

The King Tiger was heavy breaktrough tank and the comet a fast cruiser tank no match, and noi comparatives wathsoever.

This was the british equivalent to king Tiger but never entered service:

A 39 tortoise.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-HeavyAssaultTank-Tortoise-A39.jpg

Nickdfresh
11-19-2007, 01:37 PM
LOL I edited the Wiki page for Comets and Centurions...:D (only making subtle changes in some of the wording and correcting a misconception)

Panzerknacker
11-19-2007, 05:25 PM
Might the good God save us from some new tank experten here. :roll:

Nickdfresh
11-19-2007, 06:06 PM
Might the good God save us from some new tank experten here. :roll:

LOL I rewrote a comment that was "flagged" unfairly as "weasel words" by some overcritical Wiki asshat, so I quoted almost verboten out a book to proof and tweak the statement, which was essentially correct; that the Centurion was "thought by some" to be to most successful British tank of all time...

PK, are you dating a panzer? :D

Incidentally, I also pointed out that the Centurion was developed in WWII prior to its official adoption. On has to hardly be an "expert" to know that...

Panzerknacker
11-19-2007, 07:00 PM
LOL I rewrote a comment that was "flagged" unfairly as "weasel words" by some overcritical Wiki asshat, so I quoted almost verboten out a book to proof and tweak the statement, which was essentially correct; that the Centurion was "thought by some" to be to most successful British tank of all time...

I was talking about our new canadian friend. :)

No dating, I am driving one.

Nickdfresh
11-19-2007, 08:45 PM
I was talking about our new canadian friend. :)

No dating, I am driving one.

LOL



Hu ? This is a canadian joke ? :shock:

The King Tiger was heavy breaktrough tank and the comet a fast cruiser tank no match, and noi comparatives wathsoever.

This was the british equivalent to king Tiger but never entered service:

A 39 tortoise.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-HeavyAssaultTank-Tortoise-A39.jpg

The Tortoise, big and completely impractical. Much like the American T-95 assault gun project...

But it would have been interesting to have seen the the British Army try to work more with the 3.7inch gun as a tank cannon...Though in 1941-1942, they were probably more worried about just getting a tank off the assembly line that was at all able to keep up with the panzers...

And the 3.7" was probably extremely difficult to develop a workable turret for...

Churchill
02-08-2008, 07:20 PM
http://http://www.battletanks.com/images/T-28-1.jpg

American T-28s anyone? They were like KV-2s. Big, strong, and butt ugly.

tankgeezer
02-08-2008, 08:00 PM
http://http://www.battletanks.com/images/T-28-1.jpg

American T-28s anyone? They were like KV-2s. Big, strong, and butt ugly.
Check out the pics for the T-28/95 there are plenty here just search for them.

Churchill
02-09-2008, 10:38 AM
*hangs head in shame*

But I shall never, never, never give up.

Panzerknacker
02-09-2008, 03:25 PM
American T-28s anyone? They were like KV-2s. Big, strong, and butt ugly.

And what about British Tanks ?

And I could dispute that last afirmation, not all the butts are ugly. :rolleyes:

Churchill
02-09-2008, 07:09 PM
True enough, Winston Churchill reportedly hung out in the nude often enough at his place of residence, or so I heard.

Nickdfresh
02-09-2008, 10:02 PM
*hangs head in shame*

But I shall never, never, never give up.


Yeah but, what's your point? That's all covered in the American ETO forum...

Nickdfresh
02-10-2008, 07:52 AM
It seems the basic problem with most British tanks in WWII is the narrow hull designs which inhibit the upgradability of the vehicles by hindering the placement of a larger turret, hence gun, on them...

gumalangi
02-28-2008, 12:54 AM
I like churchill,.. I knew one vets who knocked a phanter with a Churchill

Major Walter Schmidt
02-28-2008, 01:11 AM
Only british tank that counts is UKsherman.

Nickdfresh
02-28-2008, 06:50 AM
I like churchill,.. I knew one vets who knocked a phanter with a Churchill

The Churchill was a very good infantry tank. As far as killing other tanks? Well, the 6pdr. gun was pretty much obsolete by 1942 if not 41'. Attempts to put a 17pdr. came to nothing for reasons mentioned already. But the tank was adaptable to a number of roles and was almost perfectly suited for Asia as the Aussies found, especially as a flamethrowing tank.

Does anyone know if the US Army or Marines used the Churchill?

gumalangi
02-28-2008, 09:50 AM
The Churchill was a very good infantry tank. As far as killing other tanks? Well, the 6pdr. gun was pretty much obsolete by 1942 if not 41'. Attempts to put a 17pdr. came to nothing for reasons mentioned already. But the tank was adaptable to a number of roles and was almost perfectly suited for Asia as the Aussies found, especially as a flamethrowing tank.

Does anyone know if the US Army or Marines used the Churchill?

yes sir, infact i do like churchill same as you stated there,.. russians love this tank much than other lend lease tanks,..

as for addition of a churchill knocked a panther tank,. just an addendum,.. with some skills it able to brought down a beast...

Eoin666
03-28-2008, 06:37 AM
Hi all

I know it's a best tank thread, but for a minute lets look at innovations to armoured warfare in WWII.

Germany was without doubt the leader in tactical doctrine, and had their industry been geared for total war early enough and stuck with producing realistic tanks, panthers and mkIV's rather than gigantic, unreliable, fuel consuming bohemoths....who knows.

Russia, lost most of it's pre-war rubbish early on, it's new designs, KVs and T-34s were superb in each of the 3 ideals of tank design, only really let down by poor crew training, then set the standards for years to come with the later IS series and T44-54-55s etc.

UK, pre-war had some of the most forward thinking tactical armoured warfare specialists, but designs were bogged down in misguided, infantry/cavalry (cruiser) thinking, poor reliability, and being stuck by limitations of railway gauge dimensions (limiting hull/turret rings mainly) etc. However one area I think the UK reigned supreme was in design of specialist armoured engineer vehicles, without which, amphibious landings, beach clearance, mine clearance, normandy hedgerows and rhine crossings would have been much more difficult.

US, initiated mass production techniques from the automotive industry, but US tanks although reliable and available in vast numbers were certainly not outstanding in any area-armour, gun or manoeuvreability, US doctrine stated that tanks were be engaged by specialist tank destroyers, not other tanks.

So for me Hobart's Funnies......otherwise the cromwell, fast, excellent engine/suspension, low silhouette, half decent armour (but not sloped), same gun as the sherman, which like a double decker bus in height it beats in almost every respect, but required major re-design to up-gun. One thing I always wonder however, following the defeats in north africa against the Afrika Korps armour, why we never followed the German practice of placing anti-tank/aircraft guns in older tank hulls for use as SP guns (to get vehicle output increased), if they couldn't be mounted in turrets, apart from the Archer conversion I can't think of any others?

Churchill
03-29-2008, 09:34 AM
I was wondering that myself. I mean, the Soviets put their artillery guns in tanks, such as the SU-122 and SU-152, so why not the English...? Unless you count the self propelled artillery gun the Canadian made, the Sexton, but then you would need to count the Canadians as the English when the weren't.

Eoin666
03-30-2008, 06:10 PM
I was wondering that myself. I mean, the Soviets put their artillery guns in tanks, such as the SU-122 and SU-152, so why not the English...? Unless you count the self propelled artillery gun the Canadian made, the Sexton, but then you would need to count the Canadians as the English when the weren't.

The Archer was a 17pdr AT-gun mounted firing to the rear in a Valentine chassis, there was also the Avenger, a cromwell chassis mounting the 17pdr. Although appearing cumbersome firing to the rear, it actually avoided the main disadvantage of vehicles like the Soviet Su85, Su100, and German Jagdpanzer IV, where the long barrel caused a considerable overhang which limited cross-country manouevreability and turning circle when mounted low in the chassis. They were also able to reverse into ambush postion and then drive away after firing. Though with the shortage of vehicles in N.Africa I'm surprised they couldn't cobble together mounting some AA gun (the 3.7 inch AA gun which later became the 32pdr AT gun) in some chassis or other?

By "English"....I think you mean British, and no Cannucks aren't Brit's, neither are they Americans ;) :rolleyes:....But you're right the sexton virtually replaced the american built priest in British and Canadian armies as SP artillery.

Mk VII
03-30-2008, 06:48 PM
The Bishop was a 25-pndr in an armoured box on a Valentine hull (with too limited elevation).
Keep on saying 'English' for 'British'. The rest of the non-English-speaking world does. And, if nothing else it annoys the Taffs and the Micks and the Sweaties, which can't be bad.

Churchill
03-30-2008, 07:56 PM
That depends if you're a Taff, Mick, or Sweaty...

The limited cross-country preformance was a drawback for the Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger, but for the Germans, putting the gun on the back of the tank wouldn't have worked for their thick, sloped armour. If they put the gun on the back, that would have changed the already complex layout for their tanks into something even more complex; like putting the engine in the front of the tank, when that was the crew area of the vehicle.

Eoin666
03-31-2008, 03:13 AM
That depends if you're a Taff, Mick, or Sweaty...

The limited cross-country preformance was a drawback for the Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger, but for the Germans, putting the gun on the back of the tank wouldn't have worked for their thick, sloped armour. If they put the gun on the back, that would have changed the already complex layout for their tanks into something even more complex; like putting the engine in the front of the tank, when that was the crew area of the vehicle.

They did more or less try with the Elefant, shoving the gun into a rear superstructure, but at 70 tons, was more like a pill box on tracks........"sweaty sock", haven't heard that for ages

Nickdfresh
03-31-2008, 07:44 AM
...Though with the shortage of vehicles in N.Africa I'm surprised they couldn't cobble together mounting some AA gun (the 3.7 inch AA gun which later became the 32pdr AT gun) in some chassis or other?
....

They did, it was called the Tortoise and like its US counterpart, the T-28, it wasn't ready until after the War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_heavy_assault_tank

The 3.7" was an excellent gun though and could have been used in a greater AT role than it was...

My source states that the Tortoise could have been developed into a proper tank, but was thought of in terms of attacking fortifications like the Siegfried Line in the archaic role as an infantry tank/assault gun (much like the American T-28 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-28_Super_Heavy_Tank)). When developed, there was little need for this role so development languished as its power as a battle tank with a real turret was thought to not be needed and too expensive to produce, so by the time Britain began encountering Tigers, the project was too far behind to have been developed into a proper tank...

Eoin666
04-01-2008, 09:57 AM
They did, it was called the Tortoise and like its US counterpart, the T-28, it wasn't ready until after the War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_heavy_assault_tank

The 3.7" was an excellent gun though and could have been used in a greater AT role than it was...

My source states that the Tortoise could have been developed into a proper tank, but was thought of in terms of attacking fortifications like the Siegfried Line in the archaic role as an infantry tank/assault gun (much like the American T-28 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-28_Super_Heavy_Tank)). When developed, there was little need for this role so development languished as its power as a battle tank with a real turret was thought to not be needed and too expensive to produce, so by the time Britain began encountering Tigers, the project was too far behind to have been developed into a proper tank...

Yeah knew about the late war Tortoise, but earlier in the war with the desperate situation in N.Africa I surprised they didn't knock up something like the German Marder or Stug in any old Valentine/Matilda chassis, I'm sure the army engineering workshops out in Egypt could even have fabricated something?? Didn't the allies achieve air dominance in Africa by '42ish? Could that have freed up the AA guns?.......all hypothetical what if's, sorry.

Surprised to read that the 3.7 inch (94mm) and the US 90mm AA guns were superior to the German 88mm as AA guns, altitude, range, weight of shell....and on a par with, as AT guns, however, they were both twice the weight and produced in relatively low numbers compared to the 88.

wlee15
04-03-2008, 08:49 PM
Yeah knew about the late war Tortoise, but earlier in the war with the desperate situation in N.Africa I surprised they didn't knock up something like the German Marder or Stug in any old Valentine/Matilda chassis, I'm sure the army engineering workshops out in Egypt could even have fabricated something?? Didn't the allies achieve air dominance in Africa by '42ish? Could that have freed up the AA guns?.......all hypothetical what if's, sorry.

Surprised to read that the 3.7 inch (94mm) and the US 90mm AA guns were superior to the German 88mm as AA guns, altitude, range, weight of shell....and on a par with, as AT guns, however, they were both twice the weight and produced in relatively low numbers compared to the 88.

The British did developed the Archer tank destroyer that mounted a 17 Pounder gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_%28tank_destroyer%29

Nickdfresh
04-04-2008, 04:59 AM
Yeah knew about the late war Tortoise, but earlier in the war with the desperate situation in N.Africa I surprised they didn't knock up something like the German Marder or Stug in any old Valentine/Matilda chassis, I'm sure the army engineering workshops out in Egypt could even have fabricated something?? Didn't the allies achieve air dominance in Africa by '42ish? Could that have freed up the AA guns?.......all hypothetical what if's, sorry.

Surprised to read that the 3.7 inch (94mm) and the US 90mm AA guns were superior to the German 88mm as AA guns, altitude, range, weight of shell....and on a par with, as AT guns, however, they were both twice the weight and produced in relatively low numbers compared to the 88.


The 90mm did become the main US tank gun once the idiocy of perpetuating the "tank destroyer" doctrine as it was erroneously conceived was finally realized. This is due largely to the efforts of the Ordinance Dept. --the US Army branch that kept making some very good weapons designs only to be continually overruled by Army Ground Forces Command-- despite much confusion, intercedent conflict, and factionalism in the US planning of AFV production. But yes, the weapons were not as mobile in their towed configuration as the 88mm was, but the rare "Super-Pershing's" modified 90mm gun exceeded any tank weapon on the battlefield by 1945. And US tank destroyers were essentially being used as mobile anti-tank guns by the end of the War despite the inexplicable decision to try to use more towed guns (and yes, a 90mm prototype was produced)..

As for the British 94mm, I suppose they felt that the 17pdr was good enough and probably cheaper than developing and mounting a version of the 3.7" gun for tanks, and they were having problems just making enough of those to go around. But I believe the main problem of the British Army using the 3.7 AA in a ground role was as organizational as it was equipment. They simply had a much stricter division between air defense artillery troops and direct infantry support artillery than did the Wehrmacht...

Nickdfresh
04-06-2008, 01:13 PM
Excellent find! I posted a pic of one here. (http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/files/m26a1e2.jpg)

Mod note: post moved to that thread, as it is a pretty good one...

Churchill
04-06-2008, 01:36 PM
Sweet.

Could that be a match for the JS2's and JS3's? The armour probably wouldn't be thick enough to protect from the JS's guns.

Nickdfresh
04-06-2008, 05:50 PM
Sweet.

Could that be a match for the JS2's and JS3's? The armour probably wouldn't be thick enough to protect from the JS's guns.

It was for the King Tiger; as were several prototypes like the US T-29/34 projects...

The JS2 was never really all that combat effective in an anti-tank role and was used primarily as an assault gun...

There's a big thread here on the Pershing an the US prototypes that never made it into the War:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4730

Churchill
04-06-2008, 07:05 PM
Right. I didn't know much about the JS's, so that helps a lot.

gumalangi
05-02-2008, 04:43 PM
Sweet.

Could that be a match for the JS2's and JS3's? The armour probably wouldn't be thick enough to protect from the JS's guns.


I was wondering,..

As people likes to compare the IS2-3 to their heaviest favorites (king tiger, Tiger, Pershing and now,..the brits armor)

I still see IS2-3 is an overly graded weapon in terms of quality, much so, after what explained by one experienced member in this forum, mr Tankgeezer,..

The gun,.. people made big fuzz about its gun,.. but the 122 of IS2-3 Velocity to the 88 or 90's US are lower, therefor the penetrating force of its shells are inferior. On the top, the inferior optic of the beast was not a help either.

The first engagement of King tiger and IS2 recorded as the IS2 the victor,.however it was 4 down to King tiger and 3 down plus 7 damaged to IS2, despite, The King tigers are blocking the way of the Russians Advance. this should gave the Russian upper hand situation whereas they should had aim the Ktigers before just jump into action, and reduced their own attrition.

The Germans abandoned their Ktigers as well due to the fact the force behind thos IS2 are overwhelming, and they had no chance in repairing or salvaging their downed armors.

Cheers
G

redcoat
05-02-2008, 06:49 PM
Well, the 6pdr. gun was pretty much obsolete by 1942 if not 41'.
The 6 pdr didn't come into service until 42, and was a powerful anti-tank gun for its size ( it could penetrate 81mm of armour at 1,000 yards, the 75mm gun on the Sherman could only manage around 64mm). In May 44 the British introduced APDS ammo for this gun which gave it the ability to penetrate 106mm of armour at 1,000 yards









Does anyone know if the US Army or Marines used the Churchill?The only British AFV used by the Marines was a small number of Bren Carriers used in one of the Pacific campaigns

redcoat
05-02-2008, 06:58 PM
As for the British 94mm, I suppose they felt that the 17pdr was good enough and probably cheaper than developing and mounting a version of the 3.7" gun for tanks,
The 17 pdr had more penetration power than the 88 L56 fitted to the Tiger I and with APDS ammo was as good as the 88 L71 fitted to the Tiger II, it also had the advantage in that it was lighter and more compact than the 94mm

Eoin666
05-05-2008, 08:32 AM
The 17 pdr had more penetration power than the 88 L56 fitted to the Tiger I and with APDS ammo was as good as the 88 L71 fitted to the Tiger II, it also had the advantage in that it was lighter and more compact than the 94mm

The discarding sabot round while having better penetration caused less damage due to the smaller hole (sounds odd, better penetrative ability but less damage) it was also more inaccurate than the more common capped AP round, so was therefore used less.

Churchill:

The IS-3 (and previous IS-2) were assault/breakthrough tanks the D-25 122mm gun was really designed to destroy pill boxes and bunkers rather than engage enemy armour, although the sheer weight of shell could knock out most tanks in late WWII/1940's (a D25 in tests from 1500m fired an AP round through the front glacis plate of a Panther, through the engine block and out through the rear armour), the irony is that the Russians after all the hard fighting on the eastern front had come to adopt the tactics of heavy, slower infantry assault tanks and faster, medium tanks (T-34, T54 etc) the same as the ideas employed somewhat disasterously by the British (infantry and cruiser tanks) thoughout the early part of the war. The Russian D10, 100mm guns fitted to the Su100 and later T-54/55 had a much better anti-armour performance than the 122mm. But the IS-2 and IS-3 still to me, look the most intimidating of all tanks.

As a little aside I found this amusing, the D10 fitted to a T55 can fire the AT10 Stabber missile, however, each missile is reported to cost half as much as the T55 itself.