Tanks Thread

>>31515611
It was an excellent infantry support tank. And when it did encounter a tank it had the armour and gun to deal with it.

>>31515611
Do you not mean it only really got good in 1944?

Crocodile (probably slightly before 1944 but whatever), better turrets, a slightly competitive 75mm gun... earlier ones with the 2/6 pounders could climb hills but that's about it

at least a crocodile could climb a hill then incinerate everyone at the top of it

>>31517006
like some of the bigger infantry tanks, it was good against other infantry tanks but i wouldnt want to be in one if a panther,tiger or IS series was about

>>31518335
it could take a hit from a tiger (from the front) and as such it could take a panther too, don't know about IS - only issue is it can't pen a tiger from the front either

Though Tiger 131 was taken out by a Churchill, a fluke, but still...

>>31518421

> only issue is it can't pen a tiger from the front either

It certainly could. 6-Pounder APDS was easily enough.

Tiger's front armor really isn't as tough as a lot of people think.

>>31515611
it was a bogcrawler
it was the best bogcrawler really
in every other environment it was worse than the contemporary tanks.

>>31520535
yeah lower plate could be penned by late war 76mm like butter. only problem was the tiger could kill the shermans from 2 miles and the shermans had to get up to a few hundred meters to kill it. you needed like 20-30 shermans to do this if the terrain was shit.

>>31520542
Serious dude?

>>31520535
>6-pounder APDS
that ammo that was so scarcely handed out it was almost never used?

>>31520547
i'm dead serious a single tiger killed about 30 t-34s when it was in a good spot and they approached it on the open (russians being russians they tried to zerg it), but up close the armor was not good. it was over matched by 76mm apfsds up to 400 meters or more.

>>31520542
Actually not.

M1 Abrams is actually dressed-up tiger. When zorgs invaded the Earth during Roswell incident Humanity used Tiger tanks against them and even mega-lazzor kannons couldn't penetrate it while it could destroy enemy starships hanging on the orbit.

IF you think that it could beat Sherman only at 2 miles then you're dead wrong.

>>31520560

Just like the Tiger which was scarcely handed out and rarely encountered, right?

File: teeing-off-head-of-caddy-underwood-archives.jpg (112KB, 671x900px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 671x900px

>>31515611
>Was the Churchill really ever any good past 1944?

It was certainly better than the initial rushed versions by 1944, but the concept of 'heavy' tanks died with WW2, so no.

>>31520761

Except that it served with distinction for well over a decade after it in various combat engineering versions?

>>31517006
biggest nope

britain had very good light tanks
Heavies were shit except for the matilda murderboss tank

>>31520809
>combat engineering versions

Being turned into and used as tractors because of available stock =/= good

>>31520818

Vickers didn't even big on the Churchill contract because he knew it'd be a crapshoot.

>>31520855
*bid

>>31520849

They were already AVREs, Bridgelayers and suchlike all during the war.

They continued to serve well.

If you think that the ability to be converted and work with various equipments isn't "good" then clearly you don't understand the logistics of how wars work.

>>31520939

>Clearly a tanks as fighting vehicles thread.
>On a weapons board.
>b...b...but... bridges

Keep moving those goalposts.

>>31520946

>Thinking that only the sexy ones that shoot matter
>S-stop talking about the full vehicle, only the ones I want! M-muh topic