Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Nemisis on August 07, 2009, 03:04:33 PM
-
I'm not sure but I always understood that the main tanks on the western front were Shermans and their varients, and VC's. Not many churchills (not sure how you spell it), or crusader tanks.
Well anyway, my question is did the british have any designes equivelant to the Sherman or VC? I know the VC is sometimes considered british, but did they have any of their own design?
-
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/ww2-british-tanks.asp
-
The Comet was a British late war tank.
I will let others elaborate. :salute
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Comet_tank_1.jpg/800px-Comet_tank_1.jpg)
-
The Comet - came into action late in the war - likely was better than the Sherman (the Ronson) by a fair bit - what the Sherman had going for it was sheer #'s available and ease of field maintenance.
-33 tons
-77mmHV cannon / 2x 7.92 BESA mg's x 4" armour
-crew of 5
-top speed 32 mph
Comet saw service well into the late 1950's as did of course the Sherman as upgunned/improved by the IDF.
(http://i579.photobucket.com/albums/ss240/dansky69/800px-Comet_tank_1.jpg)
-
I probably should have been clearer, sorry about that. What I ment was... Did the British build any tanks of their own design, that came in early enough for D-day or at least Oct. 1944, that were equivelant of the Sherman or the VC?
-
No, none that held even remotely their own.
-
HA! I knew it. I just wanted conformation. Thank you all.
-
The Comet - came into action late in the war - likely was better than the Sherman (the Ronson) by a fair bit - what the Sherman had going for it was sheer #'s available and ease of field maintenance.
-33 tons
-77mmHV cannon / 2x 7.92 BESA mg's x 4" armour
-crew of 5
-top speed 32 mph
IMHO. If it saw action in ww2 and is well known. We should have it in the game. Along with the Panther. :pray
-
I probably should have been clearer, sorry about that. What I ment was... Did the British build any tanks of their own design, that came in early enough for D-day or at least Oct. 1944, that were equivelant of the Sherman or the VC?
Actually, yes as far as capabilities...not as far as service time or numbers.
According to the information on that website that crazyivan posted the link to:
"The Centaur IVs would make a contribution to the D-Day landings in June of 1944 and some time afterwards as well."
"The Cromwell saw first action in the Invasion of Normandy with the 7th Armored Division and played a successful role in the event and the inland attacks to follow."
So yes and no???
-
Shirman Firefly ?
-
I said other then the VC, as it used our (U.S.'s) tank chassis, looks like turret...hell, looks like they just upgunned a sheman.
-
Yep, Churchill infantry tank, very tough customer, but slow as hell...
and Cromwell, not too bad, fast moving, with decent gun....
Like to see both in the game, both were used in large numbers...
-
No British designed top to bottom tank appear in significant numbers AND was considered comparable to others in its class and found success on the field of battle in WWII.
Yes there are some exceptions, but none that fit the rules:
1. Appeared in significant numbers
2. Easy to maintain in the field
3. Fast and Manueverable
3. Fielded a gun of significant caliber to penetrate enemy armor
4. Had significant Armor thickness to help crew survivability
4. Was designed and fielded by the British
And most American tanks where not all that great either to be honest, just we had a ton of them.
-
The British 17 pounder anti-tank gun was the best allied gun produced hands down, it was used on a variety of chassis for that very reason.The mustang had a merlin engine, is that an American aircraft or a British aircraft?
-
And most American tanks where not all that great either to be honest, just we had a ton of them.
what about tank destroyers? Ill look them up. This was american the M-18 Hellcat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PTOTF5BMcs
-
The mustang had a merlin engine, is that an American aircraft or a British aircraft?
American Design...
-
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.
-
The Churchill MK VII
(http://www.militaryhobby.ru/hobby/models/crus/churchill_mk_vii_01.jpg)
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
-
what about tank destroyers? Ill look them up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M10_tank_destroyer (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.
-
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."
-
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,
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I didn't say the Tiger was/was not a good tank.
But your right, ignore the History channel, chances are they are wrong :confused:
-
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.
(http://www.panzerdepot.com/Images/Cromwell-latrun-2.jpg)
-
the M18 hellcat was faster at 60mph.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc29/dickeypoo/PhotoTankTown-1.jpg)
-
The M18 wasn't a tank. It was a gun motor carriage.
-
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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/IWM-KID-652-valentine-mkII.jpg)
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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/IWM-MH-9292-Crusader.jpg)
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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Churchill_IV.jpg)
-
"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.
-
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 :aok
I am not to sure about London though :x
-
But your right, ignore the History channel, chances are they are wrong :confused:
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.
-
"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".
-
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)
-
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"?
-
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 :D.
cheers eh!
-
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
-
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.
-
"ment"
"conformation"
"sheman"
"nemisis"
-
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.
-
|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).
-
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.
-
"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
-
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.
-
"ment"
"conformation"
"sheman"
"nemisis"
Who are you talking to?
-
Can't believe none of you popped this lil booger into the conversation.
Bren Gun Carrier, would be fun to drive .
(http://www.olive-drab.com/images/id_t16_full.jpg)
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_bF5n5X1KuZcAPgujzbkF/SIG=11sacsgvg/EXP=1249851111/**http%3A//www.midwestmil.com/brenhomepg.jpg)
-
Tank destroyers are pretty much tank hunters with a turret.
No watermelon ?
-
Can't believe none of you popped this lil booger into the conversation.
Bren Gun Carrier, would be fun to drive .
(http://www.olive-drab.com/images/id_t16_full.jpg)
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_bF5n5X1KuZcAPgujzbkF/SIG=11sacsgvg/EXP=1249851111/**http%3A//www.midwestmil.com/brenhomepg.jpg)
why for target practice ?
-
"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.
True enough. Unless I missed something big, the Cromwell did not dominate the battlefield in France.
- oldman
-
It might be worthwhile if the op gave his definition of his original post so that the point can be discussed. Otherwise, this thread is pointless as there are so many different claims, assumptions and inferrences going on that a reasonable discussion is impossible.
In other words, define "good" and "British". That should help to keep this discussion on track as we will have a benchmark.
-
True enough. Unless I missed something big, the Cromwell did not dominate the battlefield in France.
- oldman
No allied tank did.
-
It might be worthwhile if the op gave his definition of his original post so that the point can be discussed. Otherwise, this thread is pointless as there are so many different claims, assumptions and inferrences going on that a reasonable discussion is impossible.
In other words, define "good" and "British". That should help to keep this discussion on track as we will have a benchmark.
He did:
Well anyway, my question is did the british have any designes equivelant to the Sherman or VC? I know the VC is sometimes considered british, but did they have any of their own design?
-
At least read the first few posts to get an idea of what you are talking about itunes :furious :furious.
-
The definition of "Good" and "British" is " equivalent to the Sherman or VC?" ?
And Nemesis, I have a very good idea of what I'm talking about, you asked: " Was there a good "British" British Tank in WW2" I asked if there was a definition of "good" and "British."
Die hard wrote that there is: "Equivalent to the Sherman or VC"
Good and British equals "equivalent to a Sherman or VC"
Or it could read that a Sherman and VC equals a Good British Tank, after all die hard gave us the definition so it follows that the same could be true of the reverse. I merely asked for clarity.
-
No, Nemisis gave us that definition in his initial post. I quoted him. He's asking if the British had a home grown tank that was equal to the Sherman. It is really not that difficult to understand. Really.
-
The Cromwell was at least the equal of the Sherman, possibly a bit better, but not enough to warrant a change in strategy (swamp 'em with numbers!). If it had've been, the production may have been ramped up more - though unlikely as the capacity wasn't there in Britain.
If the Comet, or better still the Centurion with its 20lber (production started in January 45) was ready, we may have gone with the better designs capable of taking on the German armour.
As has been said, all our tanks were inferior in June 1944.
-
***The definition of "Good" and "British" is " equivalent to the Sherman or VC?"
***The Cromwell was at least the equal of the Sherman, possibly a bit better, but not enough to warrant a change in strategy (swamp 'em with numbers!). If it had've been, the production may have been ramped up more - though unlikely as the capacity wasn't there in Britain.
Well it is a good thing then. If it had of been "equivalent to the T-34" then not even the Sherman would have been able to compete. :)
Not even in the same ball park.
Shermans sent to Russia Lensd Lease? - a paltry 3600
Tank production all types WWII :aproox.((within a 1,000 or 2 - hehehe)
Russia -55,000
USA - 61,000
UK - 23,000
Germany - 20,000
Italy - 4,600
Japan - 2,500
Without a doubt the death nell to German Armour was delivered at Kursk - from then on except in the West(where they had some continued measure of success) - German Armour was on a downward loosing spiral up to the entrance of Russian armour into Berlin April 1945.
And the MAIN reason for their success???....the T-34.
cheers eh!
-
You obviously don't know much about WWII armor; the M4 Sherman and the T-34 were very similar in performance. The western Allies could have rolled onto the Normandy beaches in T-34s and it wouldn't have changed a thing.
The Sherman entered service two years later than the T-34, and that is the main reason everyone praises the T-34 and laments the Sherman. Add to that the Sherman didn't get a proper gun (76 mm) until mid-1944. When the Germans met the T-34 in 1941 it was revolutionary, and outclassed the PzKw III and PzKw IV in service at the time. When the Sherman entered service in 1942 the Germans had already begun up-armoring their tanks (in response to the T-34) and they had just fielded the new PzKw VI Tiger I.
(http://flabbergastedly.com/wp-content/uploads/Chatbilleder/stay%20on%20topic.jpg)
-
LOL <shrug> reading your own propaganda reports too much??
-
My own propaganda?
Ok then, in what way was the T-34 superior to the M4? Let's see if you have the brain power to back up your opinions with facts.
-
My own propaganda?
Ok then, in what way was the T-34 superior to the M4? Let's see if you have the brain power to back up your opinions with facts.
Main gun...armor configuration...armor thickness...speed...range...b attlefield profile...survivablility.
Any other questions?
-
Yes. Those are just your opinions, not facts. Give me the relevant armor statistics; the thickness and angle. Penetration data on the gun. Come on, you can do it.
-
Thought so... Let me provide the facts then.
T-34/76 Model 1943 (Kursk)
Speed off road: 24 mph
Range off road: 136 miles
Armor
Front hull: 45 mm @ 30° (theoretical 90 mm)
Front turret: 70 mm round
Gun mantlet: 40 mm @ 30-90°
76.2 mm F34 L42.5 gun, penetration against armor plate at 30°
BR-350(A) APHE at 500 yards: 69 mm
M4 Sherman (1943)
Speed off road: 25 mph
Range off road: 130 miles
Armor
Front hull: 51 mm @ 34° (theoretical 91 mm)
Front turret: 76 mm @ 60°
Gun mantlet: 89 mm @ 90°
75 mm Gun M3 L40 penetration, against armor plate at 30°
M72 AP at 500 yards: 76 mm
It’s the same when you compare the late 1944 T-34/85 and M4A3(76)W HVSS Sherman; they are virtually identical in performance.
-
Die Hard is essentially correct. The T-34/76 is just as weak, save speed, as the M-4 (75mm) against 1944 German armor and both would have been just as much of a shock to the Panzer III and Panzer IV D equipped Germans in 1941, but only one of them got to be there. I do think the T-34/85 is better than any US gunned M-4, though clearly inferior to the M-26 Pershing and not so much better than the M-4E8 that better tactics couldn't compensate. The Firefly VC is superior to any T-34 simply due to the gun.
It should be noted that the T-34's ground PSI is much lower and it would be at a major advantage over the M-4 in muddy enviornments.
Another curiosity, people have commented on the Churchill's slow speed, but it was actually the prefered tank for attacking uphill in North Africa because it was the fastest when going uphill due to its gearing.
-
The Soviet 85 mm ZiS-S-53 is actually slightly inferior to the U.S. 76 mm Gun M1A1.
-
Also remember....T-34/76 had a two (2) man turret. MUCH MUCH MUCH less efficient than the Ronson's. The Russ got it right with the 3man turret on the /85. /76 never had the radios of the allied an Herman tanks....another minus there. as to the merican 76mm...........they should (hindsight is 20/20 after all) have abandoned that piece of junk an adopted the Brit 17lbr. My opinion only on that last. :x
-
Everything I know about Tanks in WWII I learned from Sgt. Odball
Kelly: Well Oddball, what do you think?
Oddball: It's a wasted trip baby. Nobody said nothing about locking horns with no Tigers.
Big Joe: Hey look, you just keep them Tigers busy and we'll take care of the rest.
Oddball: The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to LET THEM SHOOT HOLES IN ME!
Crapgame: Hey, Oddball, this is your hour of glory. And you're chickening out!
Oddball: To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Tigers.
Kelly: Nobody's asking you to be a hero.
Oddball: No? Then YOU sit up in that turret baby.
Kelly: No, because you're gonna be up there, baby, and I'll be right outside showing you which way to go.
Oddball: Yeah?
Kelly: Yeah.
Oddball: Crazy... I mean like, so many positive waves... maybe we can't lose, you're on!
-
Gotta LOVE "Kelly's Heros"!
-
Although just too late for WW2, the British Centurion was probably the best tank of the immediate post-war era.
-
T-34 was about equivelant to the sherman. Sherman had a 75mm gun while the T-34 had a 76mm gun (about even). Not sure about armor, probably in the same ballpark. Hell, probably on the same base if what you guys are saying is true.
Just let the thread DIE!!!!!!
-
Why?
-
Although just too late for WW2, the British Centurion was probably the best tank of the immediate post-war era.
IS2 (Russian), King Tiger, Pershing M-26 (US) are all contenders as well.
-
Die Hard do you have comparisons on all the Tanks we have in game?...I would like to see the Velocity of the differant shells....
<S>.
-
I do, but there are good online sources too.
www.onwar.com is a great site for quick armor statistics.
<S>
-
Agree completely. There is simply no data that shows the T-34 series is much different at all to a Sherman series, and vice-versa. The T-34/76 is very close to the 1942-43 versions of the Sherman, and the later T-34/85 is very close to the 1944-5 versions of the Sherman (the 76mm armed ones). Despite some of the extremely nationalistic bias in some posts, that are not based in fact, but what country we "dont like".
You can quibble about a few mm or armor, or maybe the crew ergonomics and radios, but past that, there isnt much there. Both tanks had their strong points and weak points, which have been endlessly discussed and pointed out. Almost none of the differences ammounted to much on the real battlefield.
-
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.
-
LOL <shrug> reading your own propaganda reports too much??
:rofl
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 (http://www.iremember.ru/content/view/85/19/lang,en/) (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.
-
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."
-
We really need to ask: was there any tank that could stand up to the HTC Sherman. :D
-
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.
(http://i579.photobucket.com/albums/ss240/dansky69/51mmX37.jpg)
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
-
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.
(http://www.panzerworld.net/pictures/relativearmourgraph.png)
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.
-
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.
-
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.)