>Flat armor >riveted hull >Even the British use the

>>32974768
British tank design of WW2 was nothing but failure

It was a reasonable stepping-stone to the Comet. The Brits were hampered by their design philosophy. Though the Infantry and Cruiser concepts were superior to the land battleship concept that most all the european powers played with at some point.

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-12 at 10.42.30 PM.png (838KB, 2476x1156px) Image search: [Google]

838KB, 2476x1156px

some butthurt brit had to edit wiki

>>32974808
em...they invented the MBT.

File: download.jpg (8KB, 290x174px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 290x174px

>>32974948

Try explaining to a Britbong that their tanks suck. LAst time I did he just ranted about how Shermans catch on fire and Russian tanks we're only good because there was a lot of them.

>>32974982
>Centurion
>WW2

Enter a coin and try again

>>32974992
This. Brits cant manufacture anything

>>32974768
It was okay, as long as it was only be used as infantry support. The main reason it was in service was because brits needed to produce domestic tanks but didn'h have the time or resources to developed new designs and retool old assembly lines, so they just threw together an updated version of an old design type the factories in the UK could make. The brits were importing as many Shermans as possible, and they would make sure those would go into roles Brit tanks would be sub-par at, such as tank combat. But you didn't need a top-of-the-line design for infantry support, so Cromwells worked well enough.

File: poshbritishexpert.jpg (32KB, 540x325px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 540x325px

>>32974768
>Actually, the Cromwell was the single greatest tank of the war. Rivets are much superior to welds, and sloped armor has too many drawbacks compared to flat, proper, armor to be worth it. Additionally, British guns were the best of the war, and could chew right through anything the Germans could offer. Perhaps the only tank superior to the Cromwell in the Second German Curbstomp Party was the Churchill.

>>32975177
Oh fuck man I was waiting for that. Let's not start a conversation about the 'Spandau'.

File: Churchill_III_tanks_of_'Kingforce',_1st_Armoured_Division,_in_the_Western_Desert,_5_November_1942._E18991.jpg (72KB, 800x796px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x796px

>>32974808
Don't talk shit about the Churchill!
Okay, the early versions were crap, but after Dieppe they became great heavies.

>>32975315
Poor crew survivability.
Ungodly hot
Tiny hatches

Again another failure of British tank design in WW2

>>32974768
>75 mm gun
>first sees action at Normandy
good planning

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

312KB, 886x627px

>>32975336
What's your sources for the poor crew survivabilty or tiny hatches? Churchills were tough nuts to crack and had plenty or ways for the crew to bail if needed.

As for being "ungodly" hot, that's any tank.They could also be freezing cold when on the Eastern front. No tank, that I'm aware of, from that time had heating/AC for the crew.

cruiser tanks are h*cking cool and they are super fast and also it had a better gun than the german

also I dont think you understand the benefits and drawbacks of sloped armour

protip to get you started: no it doesnt give you more effective thickness per lb (look at the surface area covered by an inclined plate)

>>32976231
>also it had a better gun than the german
you do understand we're talking about the Cromwell here

>>32976353
I meant sherman

>>32976378
>I meant sherman
you do realize we're talking about the Cromwell here

File: Eternal Anglo.gif (65KB, 501x504px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 501x504px

>>32974768
Everything the Anglo touches turns to shit

>>32976400
no bully

>>32976411
pointing out the Cromwell didn't have a better gun than the Sherman is bullying?

>>32974982
wouldn't the Panther be the first real MBT?

>>32976447
the panther was a medium tank

>>32976378
Relax World of Tanks. .

>>32976455
Only be German WW2 defintion, it was as heavy as any other countries heavy tank while retaining a balance of armour gun and mobility, it is a MBT.

>>32976491
ok you got me

Anyone who has played World of Tanks knows the Cromwell was the best tank of the war.

>>32976491
Gun not versatile enough to be considered a universal tank/MBT. It was high-velocity shot with a useless explosive shell.
Plus everyone but the commander and driver were pretty much blind so the crew did not have enough awareness to be used like an MBT. Mobility is under the most ideal circumstances, as everyone knows the Panther had some serious problems with driving long distances or going full speed.

>>32976455
>the panther was a medium tank

Hahahahahahahahahaha
>45 tons
>medium tank

>>32977287

Shermans could weigh up to 42 tons, what's your point?

>>32977322
Not him but

>up to 42 tons


It was ONE Sherman version that was that heavy - the Jumbo or M4A3E2. And that one was, when it came to glacis and turret front armor, equal to the Tiger - a heavy tank just in case you forgot.

>>32974992
Every tank in WW2 was objectively shit. Turds with pink sprinkles or chocolate sprinkles are still turds, it doesn't matter what you put on it, it's still shit.

The Sherman was shit.

The T-34 was shit.

The Pz.III\IV was shit.

Tiger 1 was only "good" because ally tanks weren't "up to date."

>>32974768
>ITT people asshurt over bongs defending a shitty tank
>literally not a single bong in the thread defending the tank
>people continue to talk about "lel bongs r defendin this bad tank xDD"

good going, retards

>>32977666
Tiger I was good, but required a crazy array of resources and infrastructure.
Sherman was legitimately the best tank of the war and served effectively after it.

Pz III and IV were decent but quickly started becoming obsolete to be expected to fight heavy Soviet armor.
T-34 had good armor and mobility upon its introduction, but always had shit reliability and crew layout.

Most of British soldier portray there tanks as obsolete.

>Please convince me that the Cromwell wasn't a fucking failure of monumental proportions.

Sure.

>Brits need tanks
>Americans supply tanks
>Brits need more tanks though
>Build something based around the constraints of british industry
>nearly as good as a sherman in most aspects, lower profile, and fast as the blazes to boot.

Crew complaining about poor ergonomics?
Crew complaining about mediocre front armor?

Would they rather take on a pz.III with no tank? Thought so.

>>32975607
The Honey's were airconditioned.

>>32975607
I remember reading that the US tanks with radial engines, being air-cooled ofcourse, would draw its air in through the fighting compartment. Imagine that being nice on a crisp december morning in the Ardennes,,,