The Churchill was the best tank of WW2 prove me wrong you can't

>>33530710
How so? Genuinely interested in your arguments for it.

File: 01825.95.T.jpg (106KB, 560x369px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 560x369px

[laughs in Russian]

File: strv_m42-6.jpg (176KB, 850x542px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 850x542px

It isn't either this or an M4 Sherman.

File: British_Sherman_Firefly_Namur.jpg (12KB, 300x229px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x229px

>>33530710
Well for starters, the Brits barely used them.

>>33530724
it had better armor

and a good gun

Love the Churchill, and it sure could a hit, but based on combat usage, I'm not sure that you could call it the best.

>>33530745
the mobility was no good my man

>>33530745
The tiger had a good gun, but that wasn't always enough. I'll give you that the churchill is very underrated, though.

File: Churchill AVRE.jpg (198KB, 1296x972px)

198KB, 1296x972px

>>33530710
>>33530745

Obvious bait posting.

Churchill was a solid tonk though. Great survivability, great on very tough terrain, reliable and you could modify it into literally anything.

Also 290mm of GET FUCKED JERRY in the AVRE variant.

>>33532285
>great on very tough terrain
Meanwhile, at Dieppe...

File: 1434215196146.jpg (85KB, 795x800px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 795x800px

Probably not the best in any regard (Best heavy you're going to get is Tiger I or II, best medium is M4)
Definitely one of my favorites though.

>>33532312
Don't judge the entire tank based on its terrible debut at Dieppe. Everyone, British and German, realized the first variants had a lot to be improved. And it was improved.
The Churchill after that was very good at going over large gaps or inclines.

The Black prince was a nice Tank.

The Churchill was damn good at hill climbing and was worth taking to Korea.

>>33530710

Just a copy of the older French B1.

File: bt42.jpg (84KB, 800x546px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 800x546px

Actually the best tank of ww2.

>>33530710

The Churchill was the last and arguably the best of the British infantry tanks, it was probably not the best tank of the war judging by other factors including firepower, mechanical reliability, overall maneuverability, and cross country mobility.

Like the Brit cruiser tanks- Churchill suffered from a small turret ring however, it was just large enough to support a 75mm medium velocity gun (really a bored out 6 pdr). And while the M3 75mm was fairly hohum in terms of armor penetration- the HE round was very good for its day (and a reason why British cruiser tank regiments kept a mix of 75mm gun tanks and Fireflies).

File: Grizzly%2B013%2Bskink2[1].jpg (82KB, 1008x644px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1008x644px

Sherman represent

>>33530724
iiirc Churchill crews had the lowest loss rate of any tank on the Western Front.

>>33532876
The 75mm is a totally respectable gun. Worked fine on the Sherman and worked fine on the Churchill. Good HE round for infantry support and adequate AP for most things. As you said, for the heavier armor there would be Fireflies (Kind of used like how the Americans used their Tank Destroyers: Generally held in reserve and uses for defense if an enemy started breaking through.)

Seems like a lot of the time, people think 'Heavy Tank = Big, high-velocity, gun', but they're missing the point that the British had a very specific mission in mind for their Heavy (Infantry) tanks. Glad to see some realize the truth and understand what British Armor Doctrine was.

>>33532959
Too slow to ever reach the front.

File: A_Churchill_tank_of_7th_Royal_Tank_Regiment,_31st_Tank_Brigade,_supporting_infantry_of_8th_Royal_Scots_during_Operation_'Epsom',_Normandy,_28_June_1944._B6124.jpg (254KB, 1280x804px)

254KB, 1280x804px

>>33530710

It can't be the best tank overall if it only supports infantry.

The suspension was awkward to maintain and the armour would have been better with an external gun mantlet and single piece angled UFP. The underpowered engine was essentially a cost saving measure too. It required the support of Achilles tank destroyers which had no interchangable parts making logistics less efficient.

The only real standout feature was the amount of protection the Mk VII offered for a vehicle of its small size while maintaining a relatively spacious interior.

I like how it looks, but it isn't a 'best design'.

>>33533032
nothing beat it in a bog but on decent terrain just about anything contemporary is better.

File: churchill_forest.jpg (113KB, 405x423px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 405x423px

>>33533049

I forgot that.

It could climb hills and pass terrain that other tanks couldn't.

File: Cent.jpg (16KB, 548x295px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 548x295px

Six landed in Europe and Germany surrendered.
Coincidence ?

>>33533121
"We're not fighting something THAT ugly. We give up."

>>33533121
What the hell is that co-axial?

>>33533033
The Crocodile flame tank was so terrifying it induced entire companies of German infantry to surrender just by rocking up and giving a demonstration. Hitler was so buttmad he ordered that any captured crews must be shot.

>>33533535
It's a 20 mm.

IIRC there was still a Churchill AVRE with the bong army in the first Gulf War. Strangely good design with an inauspicious debut at Dieppe. When the Germans examined them Mk 1 Churchill's after the battle they concluded the British must have sent them because they considered them so bad as to be expendable.

>>33533552
Often the Crocodile would be paired up with an AVRE.
Some Churchill crews said just turning up would make the German surrender. If they didn't give up, then they got a 290mm mortar bomb delivered to their emplacement followed by a spraying by the Croc's flamer.
I'd say that's pretty good motivation to throw in the towel.

>>33533535

20mm Oerlikon.

>>33533579
I think you're mistaking it with the Centurion Mk 5 AVRE. Those were still used in Desert Storm.

>>33530710

The suspension was literally WW1 tier.

>>33533552

Sounds like a retarded urban legend.

>>33532285
How come the 290mm has such a small barrel? Is it used as artillery?

April 29 is Tiger day at Bovington.
If you want to see THE Tiger running pay up now.
The Tank Museum is a collection of armoured fighting vehicles at Bovington Camp in Dorset, South West England. It is about 1 mile north of the village of Wool and 12 miles west of the major port of Poole.
Way cool.
Pay up and rock up. :)

>>33533678
That's basically for fcuking walls up. Direct fire into defences.

>>33533668
If an urban legend then one from all areas of conflict.

>>33533021
and not a heck of a lot of them. It was an Infantry tank, like the Matilda.

File: 2-russische-panzer-engl.-herkunft.jpg (183KB, 1524x992px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1524x992px

>>33533857

>>33530710
Give it a new engine and suspension and it'd be a contender.

>>33533535
>>33533605
It's actually a 20mm Polstrn, although that is in effect a simplified oerlikon iirc.
>>33533678
It was a spigot mortar, not really a gun as such.

File: image001[1].jpg (44KB, 680x381px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 680x381px

>>33533907
Too heavy.
Best WW2 Tank is either the Panther or the T34.

File: 3527616f7ba6a379583570d4e0e54718.jpg (106KB, 1000x722px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1000x722px

>>33533991
Tank destroyers didn't need tracks.

>>33532285
FIRE THE DUSTBIN

>>33533991
T 34 was an ergonomic nightmare for the crew and many of them had engine reliability problems there's a reason the home guard loved their shermans. The panther had poor final drives that broke way too often for it to be a real contender. Admittedly when it was working it was pretty damn fearsome.

>>33534043
The ability of air power to reliably destroyer tanks in WW2 is vastly overstated.

File: 113135.jpg (74KB, 640x428px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x428px

>>33533678
It's not a gun/howitzer. It's a mortar that lobbed the bomb at the target.
It was reloaded by unhinging the barrel and pointing it vertical, and then the loader inserted a new bomb from a hatch added in the hull. Put bomb in and secure it, close up the system, fire.

File: P-47.jpg (143KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1152x864px

>>33534496

Is that so?

File: Troops2008_0001-13.jpg (36KB, 480x333px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x333px

Make way boys

>>33530733
Is that a T-34-85? It looks....off compared to the one behind it.

>>33535484
Considering the P-47 was an escort fighter, it is.
Aircraft like the P-47, P-51. and Typhoon were pressed into the ground-attack/anti-armor role, but it was never what they were best at.
The best thing for killing tanks in WW2 were other armor or anti-tank guns. Things made for that purpose.

>>33535749
Only difference I see is maybe the mantlet and how much of the turret ring is exposed. Just looking at Google, there appears to be a few style of matlet and turret front. Other than that, they both look like T-34-85s.

>>33530710
>best

that's a funny way to spell worst op

>>33532312
The beaches of Dieppe were not a good place for any tank.

>>33535533
>Leopard Prototype
>WWII

You can pick one, anon, and only one.

File: Sempl_2.jpg (49KB, 400x342px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 400x342px

actual best tank coming through

File: 104FA660-B3E6-428C-936E-736899EE4F0F-1599-000002E396CC8C3B.jpg (448KB, 2167x1554px)

448KB, 2167x1554px

>no love for the only self propelled gun with enough armor to protect the gunners
>110mm of solid steel protection
>not having a gun with 152.4 mm ammo
>not having a gun that shoots TWELVE AND A HALF KILOMETERS
>not having a tank tall enough to shoot over buildings and trees

File: 1485076743950.png (227KB, 1304x892px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1304x892px

Hello lindy

>>33539317
>turret traverse mechanism often broke if the turret needed to move while up an incline
>firing 90 degrees to the left or right risked toppling the tank
>awful stability going over uneven terrain
>huge profile standing at 16 ft
>transmission problems of the KV-1 inherited and worsened
>shit ass tank with only ~200 manufactured ending in '41
>slow as fuck, <8 mph off road, 15 on road
>gun was inaccurate at range, 12.5 km doesn't mean shit if you can't hit anything
>early turrets were cramped making life even harder for the loaders

It was a sudden shock when it arrived but it was by no means a good tank when you look past the memes

>>33533991
Had the Germans put a simple periscope for the gunner to use, it would have been a the greatest.

>>33532906
Imagine having a battalion of these and some big-ass searchlights while protecting the Chosin Reservoar or some shit.
Gonna burn out a few of those mg's, but it would be fucking glorious

>>33533033
One would imagine this tank being perfect for the Pacific island fighting
-Slow as fuck, but it dont matter
-Flames for extra fried rice
-Heavy armour, perfect againt sneeky enemy with suicide tactics
-Pretty damn good of-road capability for its size

>>33534766
that is cool as fuck.

>>33535484
Yes
BDA conducted after strikes came to something like 5% of claimed kills actually happened.
However, the effect of interdiction on supply convoys, forcing heavy vehicles in and out of cover (bc who the fuck wants to be strafed anyway?), restricting movement to night-time and generally harassing and making life miserable for anyone close to a road, should not be understated, and in that way they did "knock out" a lot of tanks, ie keeping them away from the fight, or showing up late/worn down

>>33530710
I new a former driver for a mk.1 Churchill.

He called it a wonderful machine that never gave up. Then it got stuck in gravel. And after it ran out of fuel & ammo, the crew surrendered.

He spent 4 years in a POW camp, cats taste better than rats. RIP old friend.

>>33540225
How the hell did he spend 4 years in a PoW camp when the Churchill tank wasn't first used in action until August 1942 and the war ended in May 1945?

>dude let's design a WWI infantry tank in a world where blitzkrieg rules

GENIUS.

>>33541448
Are you being serious?

>>33541448
>Churchill is now TOG

>>33534379
So what was the Sherman the best medium tank then?