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

[TUK]

Can't believe none of you popped this lil booger into the conversation.
Bren Gun Carrier, would be fun to drive .

[crazyivan]

Tank destroyers are pretty much tank hunters with a turret.

No watermelon ?

[crazyivan]

Can't believe none of you popped this lil booger into the conversation.
Bren Gun Carrier, would be fun to drive .
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

why for target practice ?

[Oldman731]

"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

[iTunes]

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.

[Die Hard]

True enough.  Unless I missed something big, the Cromwell did not dominate the battlefield in France.

- oldman

No allied tank did.

[Die Hard]

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?

[Nemisis]

At least read the first few posts to get an idea of what you are talking about itunes .

[iTunes]

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.

[Die Hard]

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.

[Baggy]

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.

[Wreked]

***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!

[Die Hard]

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.

[Wreked]

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

[Die Hard]

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.