Was there a good "british" British tank in WW2?

[zack1234]

If the Finns can have the brewster can we have a British tank.
Is this thread Brit bashing or a talk about tanks.
To set the record staight British people are generally pro American which is a lot more than the rest of Europe who are generaly pro kraut, goto France they are openly and politically anti American.
By the way the majority of British people do not class themselves as europeans 
I am not to sure about London though 

[OOZ662]

But your right, ignore the History channel, chances are they are wrong   

Actually, the chances are very high. The Discovery and History channels are two of the least reputable sources of "facts" known, besides those that try to outright lie.

[Die Hard]

"The Cromwell featured five road wheels to a side with no side skirts and some frontal protection. Design was such that it offered a lower profile when compared to the Sherman and armor protection was at least as much as offered on the American tank though the Cromwell's configuration was made up of flat faces - not offering much in the way of blast deflection from enemy rounds. In contrast, the Sherman featured sloping armor, adding to at least some additional degree of survivability when facing off with the potent German guns."

Sounds like minus the sloping armor, it was a good tank in later designs, its just boat loads of Shermans showed up every day, and that pretty much put every tank in reserve roles. The Sherman was either better, or simply was stacked up on the docks like match sticks... so they used them.

Sloping armor is overrated. For reasons not fully understood during the war, a thin sloping plate is not as good as a thick flat one. The Cromwell fully equipped the British 7th Armor Division (the famous Desert Rats) in France and was in no way relegated to "reserve roles".

[Oldman731]

It was not a main battle tank, it was the size of a small country, was an infantry support vehicle,

The Churchill really isn't all that big when you see one (and the Panther is a lot bigger than most people expect).  But I'll go with your analysis that the Brits didn't come up with a useful main battle tank design until the Centurion (which saw no combat in WWII).

- oldman (odd, they made such nice airplanes)

[Die Hard]

But I'll go with your analysis that the Brits didn't come up with a useful main battle tank design until the Centurion (which saw no combat in WWII).

"Main battle tank" is a postwar classification first used in the 1960s. There were no MBTs in WWII. How does the Cromwell not qualify as "useful"?

[Wreked]

Sloping armor is overrated. For reasons not fully understood during the war, a thin sloping plate is not as good as a thick flat one.

HUH??  I think many Armour Design teams up to the 1970's might totally disagree with you. The benifits of "sloped armour" was well known as early as the American Civil War when it was implimented regularily in naval construction. The advent of the sloped armour on the Russian T-34 on the battlefiled was of great concern to the Germans - their AT guns just bounced off - scared the hell outa them and started major upgun design and new slopping techniques for themselve (AT guns & Panther). It has only been the introduction of "long-rod" projectiles well after WWII that the benifit of slopped armour had majorly been negated and seen the introduction of "bumpy" or "reactive explosive" armour.

There is a "ton" of information out there supporting this - it WAS a well known and understood technology throughout WWII - use of it on the other hand had other considerations of a production nature - it was far easier to fabricate flat armour - check it out sir .

cheers eh!

[Die Hard]

HUH??  I think many Armour Design teams up to the 1970's might totally disagree with you.

I doubt it. A 102 mm flat plate (Cromwell and Tiger I) is far better than a 51 mm sloped plate at 34 degrees from horizontal (M4 Sherman), even if by the theories of the day the 51 mm sloped plate should offer similar protection. That is why the Tiger was very difficult to defeat while the M4 Sherman was not.

Read this thread please: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,256710.0.html

[OOZ662]

Mathematically, sloped armor is more efficient. Yes, sloping a piece of tinfoil isn't going to be as strong as a flat piece of cast/hardened armor. If you take two equivalent plates, place one flat, and place one sloped, the sloped one will offer better protection. The round has to travel through more metal and its tendency to curl off is greatly increased.

You're not taking into consideration that the German tanks facing the Sherman were facing a tiny, worthless infantry support gun while the Sherman ran into nothing but "tank destroyer" guns.

[TEShaw]

"ment"

"conformation"

"sheman"

"nemisis"

[Die Hard]

Mathematically, sloped armor is more efficient. Yes, sloping a piece of tinfoil isn't going to be as strong as a flat piece of cast/hardened armor. If you take two equivalent plates, place one flat, and place one sloped, the sloped one will offer better protection.

Under most circumstances yes. However, surprisingly for the laymen, not always. If the incoming shell greatly overmatch the armor (shell diameter > armor thickness) sloped armor actually offers less resistance than a flat plate because of the uneven distribution of kinetic force at the impact point. The German 88 mm L56 was so very effective in WWII because it greatly overmatched almost all Allied armor and thus nullified the effects of sloped armor.

You're not taking into consideration that the German tanks facing the Sherman were facing a tiny, worthless infantry support gun while the Sherman ran into nothing but "tank destroyer" guns.

The U.S. 75 mm gun M3 was not a worthless infantry support gun. It was every bit as effective as the 76.2 mm F34 gun on the T-34. However U.S. ammunition was somewhat defective and would shatter at high impact velocities, reducing the gun's effectiveness at short range.

[Sharrk]

|Nemisis, you just want hear that the US had the greatest tanks ever, which is great, so just piss off now before the actual facts surface for you to see.

The M4 sherman was over powering due to its numbers, the Firefly would have been better if it was there in greater numbers.
The T34 was even better due it its production rate.

The British produced some good Armourerd vehicles but if you arent willing to look around with an open mind by all means argue the point of the History Channel(banana).

[Nemisis]

what about tank destroyers? Ill look them up. This was american  the M-18 Hellcat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PTOTF5BMcs

Tank destroyers are pretty much tank hunters with a turret.

[Oldman731]

"Main battle tank" is a postwar classification first used in the 1960s. There were no MBTs in WWII. How does the Cromwell not qualify as "useful"?

Fine.  The description is apt, nonetheless.  The Cromwell's principle problem was its rivetted turret which created an unnecessary hazard for the crew.  Given the weight penalty of any armor plate, its complete lack of sloped armor was behind contemporary designs.  In keeping with British tradition it was undergunned for the time (remedied by the Comet - far too late).  It was so useful that only one division was equipped with it.

- oldman

[Die Hard]

Again that's a production issue. The U.K. is slightly smaller than Oregon, and they only had four armored divisions in France. The Desert Rats were considered elite and were given the Cromwells.

"Behind contemporary designs" is irrelevant when judging "usefulness". The Tiger I was a prewar design and had been in service longer than the M4 Sherman, but in 1944 it still dominated the battlefield in France. It was quite "useful" I'd say.

[Nemisis]

"ment"

"conformation"

"sheman"

"nemisis"

Who are you talking to?