Why was the Churchill the best tank of the world war two?

same reason that the Bren was better than the Spandau

>>32374291
Because it was slow, heavy, had a mediocre as fuck gun and was designed for trench warfare.

File: (You).jpg (114KB, 1204x680px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1204x680px

>>32374291
...because a half-witted, ethnocentric Brit parades on Youtube as some sort of authority on the matter by having an accent and not showering.

Is lindyposting becoming a thing?

Did they bother putting a steering wheel in it
you can only look straight ahead

>>32374291
Because it didn't do anything and the bulk of the heavy lifting done by the Brits was still handled with Lees and Shermans.

>>32374335
>lindyposting
who?

File: 1480310622343.jpg (55KB, 899x960px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 899x960px

>>32374381
nice try lindy

>>32374335
>Unironically using ethnocentric
Kill your self for real.

>>32374397
pathetic

>>32374394
>lindy

literally who?

>that fucking transmission
kys senpai as reliable as panther

>>32374428
258 Churchills compared to 2074 Valentines and 832 Matildas. +4000 Shermans from the US.

>>32374407
He goes by the real name Lloyd.

>>32374291
It had some impressive soft stats, like it's ability to climb steep grades most tanks simply could not, least of all a goddamn heavy.


It was also an impressive chassis for secondary roles such as engineering vehicles.


I don't know about it being the best, but it was certainly a capable work horse and one of the better examples of what was initially a shitty tank- unreliable, designed with WW1 trench clearing in mind- and ending with a fairly competent one.

File: Lindy1.png (697KB, 832x753px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 832x753px

>>32374291
Get out.

>>32374428
No Churchills were sent in 1941.

File: Churchill driver station.jpg (312KB, 886x627px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 886x627px

Maybe not the best (Too slow, heavy, and hard to make compared to British Cruiser tanks or the American M4- the best tank of the war overall)
But praise where praise is due: Great armor, good crew layout, really good at overcoming obstacles/inclines, and extremely modifiable for nearly any purpose.

>>32374338
They had some weird upside down bicycle bar looking thing instead of levels or a wheel.

>>32374489
Nevermind, youre right. Churchill was shit.

It did climb well, though.

File: KING-TIGER.jpg (62KB, 600x386px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x386px

>>32374291

>>32374407
A discredited academic

File: pushing-broken-down-car.jpg (47KB, 700x488px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 700x488px

>>32374569

File: KING-TIGER-MERELY-RESTING.jpg (89KB, 1200x627px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1200x627px

>>32374591

>>32374569
Not a bad tank once the initial problems with the engine were worked out.
But was there really a point to Tiger II? Improved armor but at the cost of more weight and more resources used.
Seem likes Tiger I could do the same role for less.

>>32374633
Tiger I could easily be penetrated by Soviet tanks later in the war, whilst the Tiger II was not penetrated frontally even once during the war. It essentially filled the role the Tiger I had a few years earlier.

>>32374654
Could it stop the 122m? Or a 152mm, which would just crack the seams.
Had it been made earlier in the war, Tiger II could have been amazing. But by the late point it came about Germany was in a bad situation with its pools of resources and trained manpower.
As stuff like the Jagdtiger shows, no amount of armor or gun can save a poorly trained crew.

>>32374685
>Could it stop the 122m? Or a 152mm
Yes, absolutely. The 100mm BS-3 could technically penetrate the turret at ideal conditions, but the tank was in fact never penetrated frontally during combat. Not that it had to, serious hits would cause major spalling that would disable the tank and have it destroyed by its own crew.

>>32374754
That's why I question if the heavy frontal armor and all that setbacks that came with it was worth it. Spalling would fuck the crew up and the armor wouldn't stop hits from the side or rear.
But admittedly I am looking at it in more modern terms with the benefit of hindsight. Where the most important part of a tank's defense is not getting hit in the first place.

>>32374569
Worst tank of the war.
-Less then five hundred were built due to hilariously costly and complicated construction.
-Extremly prone to mechanical failure of the steering gear and drive train, both of which are impossible for the crew to affect repairs of in the field. Also leaky fuel systems resulted in many combat unrelated fires.
-Built too wide to be transported by train and to cross many existing bridges.

File: Super_Pershing.jpg (174KB, 800x359px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 800x359px

>>32374654

Wasn't a tiger 2's lower glacis penetrated by a spershing?

>>32374984
No.

>>32374633
The problems were never worked out, it had a 690hp engine for a 70+ ton tank. It was chronically under powered and had inexcusable fuel consumption during a point in the war where the Germans had no fuel. It shit tank and a terrible idea in general.

File: Ardennes Tiger II.jpg (63KB, 639x426px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 639x426px

>>32374654
That isn't true at all.

>>32375016
Not penetrations.

>>32374995

https://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/8770/king-tiger-versus-super-pershing

>>32375046
Duel at Dessau is propaganda and has no actual evidence to back it up.

>>32375052

I'm not sure I believe you

>>32375070
Literally zero evidence exists for it. Not even the guy who wrote about it talks about a Tiger II, nevermind the fact that no Tiger IIs were at Dessau. It is complete bullshit.

>Quote But my own experience proved the myth to be exactly that. On the other hand, I could not free myself of a fear of the giant Tiger, Germany's awesome heavy tank. I knew of its firepower and heavy armor. But I had also learned of one of its weaknesses -- its slow turret traverse. Unlike our Shermans and Pershings, the Tiger had a manual rather than a power traverse. It was a weakness I had learned to exploit. And I got my chance all too soon. Our tanks entered the city slowly and spread out along different streets, alert to any sudden appearance of German firepower. The half-tracks behind us stopped, and the armored infantry doughs dismounted and began to move with the tanks. Fortunately, Pete had loaded our cannon, for as we turned the corner onto a street, we were confronted with a Tiger, and it was ready for us. The gunner fired at us as we rounded the corner, but missed us completely. The shell went high, over our tank. I returned fire point-blank at the royal monster, but saw the tracer of my shell ricochet off the front armor and take a course of its own skyward . Pete slammed another round into the breech, and at that same moment we heard a thud on the turret. But I took aim and fired again, and this time the shell penetrated the thin armor on the Tiger's exposed underbelly as it attempted to climb over some rubble. The ammo, located in the turret floor, exploded, leaving the burning hulk of the Tiger obstructing our path.

>>32374654
The fact that its frontal armor was difficult to penetrate wasn't helpful considering that Germany needed a more mobile vehicle to fulfill the need for flexible defense. It doesn't help if your super heavy tank can easily be flanked by the enemies slowest vehicles.

>>32374291
It'd be much better if they had given it a new engine.

>>32374569

>im huge

>>32375016
tank was disabled by de-tracking not by non-penetrations... It's called a mobility kill, in a winning war where your forces are pushing up that tank would be back in action within a few hours, in a retreating war that tank is abandoned like pictured.

>>32375101
Tiger 1 manual traverse... nigga please, Author sounds like captain bullshit trying to make himself sound like a badass, more likely probable is that he shot a PzKpfw IV Ausf J which was only equipped with manual traverse to save on production costs

>>32374476
theoretically able to climb steep grades

in reality it got stuck on flat ground with no obstacles, just pebbles

>>32374612
what could do this to a king tiger? 1000lbs bomb?

>>32374654
King Tigers lower glacis was penetrated by a Pershing

>>32375006
these are myths that have been dispelled
the Tiger II had better cross country performance than a Panther, which was much better than something like a Sherman, its fuel consumption was slightly more than a Pershing which weighed 25 tons less

File: d5c.jpg (36KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 625x626px

>>32375858

File: Being Speer is Suffering.jpg (37KB, 395x599px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 395x599px

>>32374633
Given that the 88mm KwK 43 could apparently be mounted in the Tiger I turret without too much difficulty, not really.

Up-gunning the Tiger I, altering the front armor to a sloped plate, and switching to overlapping rather than interleaved road wheels should have been the entirety of the Tiger II project.

But of course the Fuhrer needed to mandate bigger and wouldn't compromise. Again.

>>32375871
Tiger II - Maximum Speed = 41.5 km/h, Road Speed = 38 km/h, Cross Country Speed = 15-24 km/h

Panther - Maximum Speed = 46 km/h, Road Speed = 30-35 km/h, Cross Country Speed = 20 km/h

Pz.IV - Maximum Speed = 38-42 km/h, Road Speed = 25 km/h, Cross Country Speed = 20 km/h

StuG - Maximum Speed = 40 km/h, Road Speed = 20 km/h, Cross Country Speed = 12-15km/h

T-34 - 53.5 km/h Cross Country Speed = 18 km/h
Sherman - 38-46 km/h (dependent on the variant) Cross Country Speed = 18-20 km/h

T-34/85 = 1.8 l/km
Sherman = 2.0 l/km
Panzer IV = 2.35 l/km
Panther = 2.8 l/km

Heavy
IS2 = 3.5
Pershing = 4.32
Tiger II = 4.8

>>32375858
It was a frivolous use of resources that could not be justified in any way, and comparing it to the Pershing doesn't mean anything because the Pershing wasn't actually very good.

>>32375838
A bomb detonating right underneath and next to it. Or a screw up loading it for transport but I don't see any railroad tracks in the image.

>>32375910
That sounds awesome. I would love to see that. Tiger I hull with a sloped front, buffed up turret armor, and the longer 88.

>>32375858
It looks better on paper and on testing grounds, its actual combat performance was underwhelming. It was chronically under powered and unreliable, it used the engine and drive train from a tank that weighed twenty tons less, not to mention that the lighter tank also suffered from reliability due to the drive train and engine being over taxed.

The Tiger had loads of reliability problems and was maintenance intensive, the Tiger II used the same engine and transition further taxed by twenty tons.

>>32375941
Seem to recall the pick is of a certain Schweer Abteilung in Normandy that got bombed by the RAF. There are some other pictures floating around taken in an orchard where there a re multiple upturned tanks. Pretty impressive.

>>32375913
"Panther had much better cross country than sherman"=Same as and it also consumed more fuel than the pershing so thank you for disproving your own post?

>>32376006
*almost half a liter more which is more than "slightly"

>>32374685
Outside of wehraboo fantasies, no it couldn't. Fuck, 122 or 152 HE shells would cause fist-sized portions of the plates to spall inside and rupture all the goddamn welds even without penetrating.

>>32376006
Sherman
wt. 30.3t
1.175mpg on road, .498mpg on cross country

Panther
44.8t
.67mpg on road

Pershing
46t
.45mpg on road

yeah Panthers were "bad" in fuel consumption

>>32376083
Same poster, note Panthers had 720liter fuel tank vs 832liter fuel tank in the Pershing.

>>32376083
A little under half a mpg less than the Sherman, its not bad but its less than the Sherman.

>>32376083
The tiger II consumed almost half a liter more than the Pershing, should have made that clearer

>>32376090
comparing a 14t lighter vehicle to a panther...

Just for curiosity sake can you cite any 40t vehicle that is as efficient as the Sherman? or is it physically impossible and thus a asinine comparison to make?

41.9t M4A3E2 (sherman jumbo)
175gallons
100 mile range
.57mpg
Muh Sherman so Efficient, muh panther such gas hog!!!

>>32376473
There isn't necessarily that close a correlation between weight and fuel efficiency in regards to medium tanks, especially not one that is a linear progression.

>>32376497
okay, now I'll destroy the Pershing being so good, (hint its not considering its lighter than the panther)

Panther
44.8t, 44.1 long tons, 49.4 short tons
.67mpg on road

Pershing
wt. 46short tons (41 Long tons)
832 liters
(219US gallons, 182.356 imperial gallons)
Operational range 100mi
.54mpg on road

Tiger II
wt. 69.8t Long tons
860 liters
(190 imp gallons)
110 mi range on road
.57mpg

>>32376706
The Pershing was never good, it was just an awkward stepping stone from the M4 to the M48. Hell, even in Korea many tankers preferred the Sherman.

>>32376724

.57mpg = less fuel consumption than Pershing
.54mpg = Pershing using more fuel than Tiger II

statement was that the Tiger II used 1/2 a liter more then the Pershing, statement is false

>>32376706
The Pershing's performance was massively hamstrung by it's under-powered engine.

>>32376826
I was referring to the fact that you stated that the Pershing was by some metric a good tank, it wasn't and neither was the Tiger II. Both were fairly frivolous uses of valuable resources that should've never seen mass production. The M26 Pershing should've remained a prototype until the M46 was developed, however its production had little affect considering the tank was built and fielded almost entirely during peacetime. The Tiger II was a waste of valuable resources and manpower, Germany had no need for easily flanked, fuel consuming heavy tanks during a defensive war, their Generals shouted for lighter and more maneuverable tanks for years but the leadership felt that thicker armor was the way to go.

The M26 should've really received limited production at the most, the Tiger II should've stayed on the drawing board where it belonged.

>>32374291
it wasnt.

however once the teething troubles were past it did prove to be a good tank, slow but well armored and reliable and able to adapt to many different roles

File: 1416895110667.jpg (35KB, 560x420px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 560x420px

>>32378188
The only thing the Churchill could do that was even marginally superior to any other tank was that it could climbs hills fairly well, but it was otherwise deficient in most other categories, most notably those relating to its primary job, infantry support. While it could boast good protection its armament was pitiful for infantry support, the gun's small caliber meant its HE yield was comparatively low (the 75mm variant first saw service in the summer of '44).

The only remarkable features about the Churchill are its heavy armor and its ability to traverse rough ground (which wasn't that great), but the fact that it was pitifully under armed and had poor mobility meant that the tank wasn't able to make use of its strengths.

Also any tank can be modified to perform a specialized task, it doesn't make the Churchill any better.

The T-34 was not a great tank in terms of its true performance, but it can still do damn near anything if you're creative enough. It can be fitted with flamethrowers like in pic related, it can be made into a recovery vehicle, can be converted to a tank destroyer (Su-85/100), and you can even put MiG-21 engines on it and use it to put out oil fires.

>>32374291
Why didn't they use that space in front of the turret for something? Maybe extra fuel or ammo?

File: Churchill ARKs in Italy April 1945 IWM.jpg (136KB, 800x789px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 800x789px

>>32378406

> but it was otherwise deficient in most other categories, most notably those relating to its primary job, infantry support.
>While it could boast good protection its armament was pitiful for infantry support
> the gun's small caliber meant its HE yield was comparatively low

It's almost like you've never heard of the Mk4 with 95mm CS, NA75, AVRE or Crocodile or something. Churchill was great at its role.

>Also any tank can be modified to perform a specialized task, it doesn't make the Churchill any better.

The amount of tasks, their success at those tasks and the inventiveness sure does change per platform. Platform viability is hugely important in variant design, whether the platform has the support for it, or the layout to accept it. There's a reason it had massive success in a combat engineering role, you could put almost anything on the chassis. Bridgelaying for example, being able to carry larger bridges on the heavier vehicle to make stronger bridges, or the Ark, which turned ther long chassis into a literal bridge for itself. Pic related, not many tanks could handle that sort of utility stacking.