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

[iTunes]

I think the easiest answer to the original question would be to ask the British tank crews that were active during the second world war. Everything else is speculation.

[E25280]

LOL <shrug> reading your own propaganda reports too much??

 

Why don't you read some of the words straight from a Soviet tanker that used Lend-Lease Shermans.  He has no reason to spout "propaganda", right?

linky (and hopefully the translator works because the original site is Russian).

This part near the beginning pretty much sums it up . . .

When someone says to me that this was a bad tank, I respond, "Excuse me!" One cannot say that this was a bad tank. Bad as compared to what?

Personally, I think the quote could just as easily be applied to the Brit's Cromwell.  It had it's shortcomings as any tank did, but for a medium tank it was adequate.  In AH game terms it would probably be comparable to the T-34/76, so it would get its share of use.

[Die Hard]

Nemisis asked if the British had a tank equal to the Sherman. This however does not mean the same as a "good" tank in 1944; let me just make that clear. I think the Cromwell was a little better with its uprated 102 mm front armor (similar to Tiger I), however its side armor was a different story.

All in all I think this quote from an Allied tanker on the Normandy front says all that needs to be said on the subject of Allied vs. German armor in 1944:

"As we go now each man has resigned himself to dying sooner or later because we don’t have a chance against the German tanks. All of this stuff that we read about German tanks being knocked out makes us sick because we know what prices we have to pay in men and equipment to accomplish this."

[Slate]

 We really need to ask: was there any tank that could stand up to the HTC Sherman. 

[Wreked]

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

Well I missed this llittle gem. What on earth are you going on about??  No one(with the exception of perhaps yourself) was ever under the misconception that Sherman 51mm (2") sloped armour was ever the equivalent of Tiger 102mm (4") verticle armour. Even taking into account the relationship of armour thickness to ammunition mass/size ratio - rolled steel vs cast - brinell hardness ratings etc. etc.

The Sherman armour was designed to combat the AT weapon of its era - the 50mm. As all wars have shown upgunning and defensive strength increase advances take place pretty quickly - by the time the Sherman went into major action it was being passed by by those increases.

Even the math does not support you - Sherman armour only affords a protection value in the 82-85mm range - I did it out 1st at 37° and later at 34° - pardon my crppy writing.



you're comparing Big apples to small apples - get it right eh!

cheers eh!

PS- more to say later when I have time about some more of your comments - some people DO have a life outside of here  heheh

[Die Hard]

I was comparing the Cromwell and the Sherman. The uparmored Cromwell IV (1944) had 102 mm of front armor (yes, same as Tiger I). So I'm not comparing apples and oranges; I'm comparing medium tank and medium tank. If you're going to rebuke me at least get your facts straight.

Your drawing skills notwithstanding, the Sherman's 51 mm plate angled 34 degrees from horizontal offered the theoretical protection similar to a 91 mm flat plate. It is not only the increase in actual thickness, but also the ricochet effect. I consider a difference of ~10% to be similar.



While the sloped armour seems superior in terms of relative thickness alone, this does not justify the use of sloped armor to same steel, as the same amount of steel is needed to achieve the same protection. This is because the sloped armor plate will have to be longer to cover the same height. In addition, the other armor plates will have to be larger as well to join up.

Here's a nice online tool for calculating effective(theoretical) relative armor thickness: http://www.panzerworld.net/armourcalculator

However, as I explained earlier an overmatching shell reduces the effects of slope, and that is why the German 88 was so effective even beyond the range where the Sherman's (and T-34's) armor should theoretically stop it.

[Squire]

As long as you understand that the armor thickness graph and calculator (both) are only showing the increase in THICKNESS, ie: 30 degrees from horizontal with 45mm of armor gives 90mm (im using the T-34). That is only showing that at that angle...the shell actually *passes through* 90mm or armor, because of the angle of the slope. It does NOT also include any benefit from the "ricochet effect", ie; the shells energy being partially deflected away.

Non-sloped armor has the DETRIMENT of the shell hitting with *100 percent of its force on the armor*, where a sloped plate has the BENEFIT of partially deflecting that energy. That is why, among other reasons, sloped armor was seen, correctly, as a superior method of protection.

Your quote:

"It is not only the increase in actual thickness, but also the ricochet effect."

Correct. It does both. Just understand what the calculator is providing. Just the former, not the latter.

If you dont beleive me, get a peice of paper and measure it out, a straight line through 4.5cm thickness at 30 degrees from the horizontal will measure 9cm. Its thickness only. Its a simple test, it will take you 5 minutes.

And no, im not saying that thats the be all end all in calculations, im just pointing out the flaw in talking about sloped armor as if its the same as slab sided.

[Die Hard]

Your quote:

"It is not only the increase in actual thickness, but also the ricochet effect."

Correct. It does both. Just understand what the calculator is providing. Just the former, not the latter.

Yes, I see that what I wrote was ambiguous. Let me rephrase: The Sherman's 51 mm plate sloped to 34 degrees from horizontal presents the same thickness in the horizontal as a 91 mm flat plate. Add the ricochet effect and it is similar in protection to the 102 mm (nearly) flat plate on the Tiger/Cromwell. However as I also wrote, an overmatching shell reduces the effects of slope (even to the point where a sloped plate is worse than a flat plate of the same thickness), so WWII sloped armor is somewhat overrated in the popular media (History Chanel etc.)