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

[fudgums]

The mustang had a merlin engine, is that an American aircraft or a British aircraft?

American Design...

[A8HatTrick]

I believe the topic of this thread was "Was there a good "brittish" Brittish tank in WW2?"

The answer was "Yes" as far as the Cromwell and later the Comet, but as far as a "Significant" tank, or a tank likely to be placed in this game, the answer was "No" in my opinion as to the state reasons I gave. Roughly the same catagories used on the Military Channel's "Top 10 Tank" episode.

Here is an excerpt for the T34:

First produced in 1940. Top speed: 34 mph. Range: 268 miles. The four-stroke 12-cylinder diesel engine gives a power-to-weight ratio of 15.87 horsepower per ton. Armor thickness: 65 millimeters Primary armament: 76.2-mm gun.

The T-34 scores near to full points for firepower, mobility and protection. It surpasses any other tank for ease of manufacture - gaining full points in the production category. The tank's fear factor would have been immense, and it was awarded just short of the maximum in that category.

[Flipperk]

The Churchill MK VII




1 75MM Main Gun
2 x 7.62mm Machine Guns
152mm frontal armor
38.5 Tons
top speed of 15mph

Production of the churchills began in 1941 all the way til the end of the war

British design, and a great tank in early to mid war.

Read it and weep

[A8HatTrick]

what about tank destroyers? Ill look them up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M10_tank_destroyer

The M10

The Ferdinand Elephant however was horrible. Slow, no turret and impossible to work on in the field.  

[A8HatTrick]

The Churchill MK VII

Read it and weep

It was not a main battle tank, it was the size of a small country, was an infantry support vehicle, and the one Tiger it managed to
"kill" during the war, was simply because the round lodged itself between the turret ring and the turret, the crew abandoned it and it was found weeks later by the British and "Captured".

It was meant to take a beating from Anti Tank Guns, which it did extremely well, but was to slow for front line use in main tank battles, the Canadians dumped the Churchill including the VII variant in favor of the Sherman.  However I have read that between its ability due to its length to slosh through just about any terrain, and its massive armor, it was a favorite amongst tankers for its survivability. But in a tank vs tank battle, it could not maneuver, flank, chase or run away, it simply was too cumbersome and slow.

"The top speed for the 40 ton Churchill was approximately 12 mph, driven by a Bedford 12 cylinder power pack of 350 hp."

[Flipperk]

It was not a main battle tank, it was the size of a small country, was an infantry support vehicle, and the one Tiger it managed to
kill" during the war, was simply because the round lodged itself between the turret ring and the turret, the crew abandoned it and it was found weeks later by the British and "Captured".

"The top speed for the 40 ton Churchill was approximately 12 mph, driven by a Bedford 12 cylinder power pack of 350 hp."

Maybe you dont get the meaning of good...just cause it couldnt kill One tank in the war doesn;t mean its not a good tank. Against panzers up the Panzer G series it was effective and as an anti-personel vehicle it was also very effective. He just asked for a good british tank.. in 1941-til late 43 it was a great british tank,

[Die Hard]

No, none that held even remotely their own.

Crusader series - Medium cruiser tank. Plagued with mechanical problems. 1940-1943
Cromwell - Medium tank. Equal or better than the M4 Sherman. 1943-
Challenger - Medium tank. Better than the Sherman VC Firefly (same gun, better armor) 1943-
Comet - Medium tank. Improved, up-armored Cromwell. 1944-
Matilda series - Infantry tank. Heavy armor. 1938-1943
Valentine series - Infantry tank. Heavy armor. 1940-1942
Churchill series - Infantry tank. Heavy armor. 1943-

None of these tanks will match the M4 Sherman in production numbers, only the T-34 can do that. However, that is the result of the superior U.S. production capacity, and quite irrelevant.

Yes, there was a "good" British tank. In fact there were several.

[A8HatTrick]

Crusader series - Medium cruiser tank. Plagued with mechanical problems. 1940-1943
Cromwell - Medium tank. Equal or better than the M4 Sherman. 1943-
Challenger - Medium tank. Better than the Sherman VC Firefly (same gun, better armor) 1943-
Comet - Medium tank. Improved, up-armored Challenger. 1944-
Matilda series - Infantry tank. Heavy armor. 1938-1943
Valentine series - Infantry tank. Heavy armor. 1940-1942
Churchill series - Infantry tank. Heavy armor. 1943-

None of these tanks will match the M4 Sherman in production numbers, only the T-34 can do that. However, that is the result of the superior U.S. production capacity, and quite irrelevant.

Yes, there was a "good" British tank. In fact there were several.

Again, I based "MY" opinion the following criteria:

1. Appeared in significant numbers to make a difference
2. Easy to maintain in the field
3. Fast and Manueverable
4. Fielded a gun of significant caliber to penetrate enemy armor
5. Had significant Armor thickness to help crew survivability
6. Was designed and fielded by the British

No Tank in WWII Meets at least 4 of the 5 while holding #6 as its requirement.

The Sherman, the Panzer and the T34 hold at least 4 of 5 points if not all 5 while being designed and fielded by their respected countries.

In my humble opinion.

[Flipperk]

Again, I based "MY" opinion the following criteria:

1. Appeared in significant numbers to make a difference
2. Easy to maintain in the field
3. Fast and Manueverable
4. Fielded a gun of significant caliber to penetrate enemy armor
5. Had significant Armor thickness to help crew survivability
6. Was designed and fielded by the British

No Tank in WWII Meets at least 4 of the 5 while holding #6 as its requirement.

The Sherman, the Panzer and the T34 hold at least 4 of 5 points if not all 5 while being designed and fielded by their respected countries.

In my humble opinion.

 stop with the history channel style criteria, a good tank is a tank that does its job, is reliable, and can stand on its own. The churchill MK VII from 41 to 43 did exactly that, all except for number 3, and even the tiger did poorly in that category and even worse in number 2.

[A8HatTrick]

I didn't say the Tiger was/was not a good tank.

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

[Die Hard]

Cromwell
1) 4,000 built from 1943 onwards.
2) Powered by a Rolls-Royce Meteor engine. Very reliable.
3) Fastest tank of the war at 40 mph and very agile.
4) Equal or better gun (6 pounder and QF75) than the M4's 75 mm.
5) Better armor than the M4 with a maximum armor thickness of 102 mm (that's Tiger territory).
6) British.

[crazyivan]

the M18 hellcat was faster at 60mph.

[Die Hard]

The M18 wasn't a tank. It was a gun motor carriage.

[BaldEagl]

From a little research project I was doing a while back.  These were probably the best of them:

Valentine
Great Britan 1939-1945
Production:  7,300-8,275
Armor: 8-65mm
Range:  90 mi.
Speed:  15 mph (24 km/h)
Armament: QF 2-pounder + 7.92mm machine gun

QF 2-pounder:
Caliber: 40mm
Elevation:  -13 to +15 degrees
ROF:  22 rounds/min
Muzzle velocity: 26 ft/sec
Effective range:  1000 yards

The most numerous British manufactured tank of World War II, the Tank, Infantry, Mk III, Valentine was known mainly for its low cost and high reliability.  Although criticized for its speed and its weak gun, the Valentine was liked due to its small size, reliability and generally good armour protection.




Crusader
Great Britan 1940-1943
Production:  5,300
Armor: 32mm
Range:  322 km.
Speed:  24-42 km/h (off-road/road)
Armament: QF 2-pounder (65 rounds) + 7.92mm machine gun (5,000 rounds)

QF 2-pounder:
Caliber: 40mm
Elevation:  -13 to +15 degrees
ROF:  22 rounds/min
Muzzle velocity: 26 ft/sec
Effective range:  1000 yards

One of the primary cruiser tanks of the United Kingdom during World War II, the Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI Crusader (A15) was perhaps the most important British tank of the North African Campaign.  Although the Crusader was faster than any tanks it opposed, its potential was limited by a relatively light 2-pounder gun, thin armour and mechanical problems. A particular tactical limitation was the lack of an High Explosive (HE) shell for the main armament - these existed but were never supplied.




Churchill
Great Britan 1941-1945
Production:  7,368
Armor: 16-102mm
Range:  90km
Speed:  24 km/h (15 mph)
Armament: QF 6 Pounder + 2 machine guns

QF 6 Pounder:
Caliber: 57mm
Elevation: 15 degrees
ROF:
Muzzle velocity:  800-900 m/s
Effective range: 
Maximum range: 5,000 yards (4,600 m)

During the Second Battle of El Alame a select group of five Mk III's, known collectively as 'King Force' went into battle. All were heavily shelled by German anti-tank guns, all but one Mk III made it back with little damage, one tank was said to have been struck up to 80 times. In the following Tunisia and Italian campaigns, the Mk III and its immediate successors continued to prove their usefulness.

[A8HatTrick]

"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.