British tanks

>>33716897
>>>/vg/wotg

>>33716913
That's for video games. We're talking weapons of war here.

>>33716897
The Cromwell was generally considered supbar to other tanks.

So probably something like this:

T-34 > Sherman > Panzer IV > Cromwell

File: UNIVERSAL.jpg (6KB, 274x184px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 274x184px

>>33716897
>Square turret
>Barely any sloped armor
>Gay looking hull mounted MG

How unaesthetic
>Best brit vehicle coming through

File: d5kcNVlh.jpg (101KB, 1024x818px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x818px

>>33717391

U wot m8

>>33717391
>sloping armour
overrated

File: CONCENCHE.jpg (31KB, 688x255px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 688x255px

>>33716897
Which cromwell compared to Which T34, which PZ4 and which Sherman? There are dozens of varinats of each bar Cromwell.

British tanks generally played catch up - there were however very capable platforms despite their flaws, matilda and Churchill for example . Air/Naval power was the focus of the UK.

Towards the end of the war they tried to rectify this with Cromwell, Comet, Centurion and Conqueror. The last two should say everything you need to know about how they managed to catch up.

>>33716897

>low profile
>cheap
>fast
>good optics and armament
>erganomic interior

It was a good tank.

File: Lets attach rockets to our tiny ass tank.jpg (36KB, 650x399px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 650x399px

>>33717407
>Blocks your path for approximately five seconds

File: Rebel Cromwell.jpg (113KB, 1386x1103px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1386x1103px

>>33716897

Gun did its job. Very mobile. Armor ranged from below average to above average depending on model. Reliable (but maintenance heavy). Nice interior (but poor hatches). Low sillhouette.

Decent tank for its time and served well, but outside its fantastic mobility nothing particularly special.

File: An-AC-1-Sentinel.jpg (269KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1200x798px

>>33717391
>>Gay looking hull mounted MG
Please

File: 1491742716939.png (9KB, 642x371px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 642x371px

>>33717870
hahaha Benis

>>33717351
>The Cromwell was generally considered supbar to other tanks.
>So probably something like this:
>Sherman > T-34 > Panzer IV > Cromwell

FTFY

>>33718101
Well thats going to depend on the Sherman isnt it?

>>33718101
If we're being honest there wasn't ever really a point in WWII where the Sherman surpassed the T-34.

M4 Sherman was a fucking infantry support tank used to blow up infantry with HE, what the fuck are you dumb spastics on about?
M4A3 76 is GOAT
M18 Hellcat is by far the best tank/tank destroyer of WW2 anyway
Also British tanks sucked most of the war because they focused on aircraft their navy for obvious reason, late war British tanks were very good tanks, post war British tanks were great

>>33718153
You know, besides when it was introduced.

2 man turrets are shit.

>>33718153
Having radios in each tank is a pretty important upgrade you dumb fucking cunt

>>33718241
M4 Sherman was a Medium tank used to blow up infantry with HE and destroy armored vehicles with AP using its dual purpose gun.

The M4A3 76 is a good medium tank with better AT role.

FTFY

>>33718153
Except
You know
All points

Better optics (always)
Better radio (always)
Better transmission and final drive (always)
Better survivability for crew when hit (always)
Better hatches (always)
Better gun (always)
Better stabilizer (always)
More reliable (always)
Far superior cross country mobility (always)
Better maintenence access to driveline and other components (always)
Turret traverse that isn't a fire hazard (always)

>>33718310
You forgot most importantly better crew.

>>33717732
>British tanks never gained the ability to perform multiple, simultaneous, and devastating defensive deep strikes
A true shame

>>33718268
Having guns that penetrate the armor of your opponents, engines that don't catch fire so quick you're nicknamed after a cigarette lighter, sloped armor that deflects incoming rounds, and more is a pretty important thing too. Why are you calling names? Do you have tourettes syndrome or something?

Find me a Sherman whose opponents had this to say about it:
>German tank general von Kleist called it "the finest tank in the world"[7] and Heinz Guderian confirmed the T-34's "vast superiority" over existing German armour of the period

>>33718310
Citations for all of these.

>>33718278
At its introduction the M4 was much more multipurpose in its use, while in Africa anyway, however later on with more varients of the M4 all over and the expanded doctrine of the US armored forces meant the M4 most certainly went into an infantry support role to counter emplacements by blasting them with HE

>>33718310
You forgot production quality.

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/2544483014

Have some comedy.

>>33718364
>Germany has literally no tanks to fight
>Tank moved into a mobile HE slinger role

No shit.

>>33718347
You realise that non penetrating hits more often than not still put tanks out of action? You realise that when the shells bounced off the super sloped Russian armor it usually caused a major amount of spalling, that would shred the crew apart
Even worse when Russian tanks had by far the worst ergonomics and the tankers were crammed into the tanks like sardines in a can
But yeah, carry on talking memes and

>>33718347
Senpai.

T34 saw service in 40. Sherman didn't get in the fight til 42. Those quotes are referring to 40 when the German's best tank for AT purposes was the panzer 3, and not even with the long 50.

Now for the rest.

>Having guns that penetrate the armor of your opponents,

75mm was perfectly good against most opponents, it wasn't til Panthers started popping up everywhere that it wasn't enough anymore. Tigers were rare enough to be not be a significant factor.

Also, the 76 on the t34 was just as incapable of dealing with heavy tanks at combat range.

>engines that don't catch fire so quick you're nicknamed after a cigarette lighter,
Meme

> sloped armor that deflects incoming rounds

Have you...ever looked at a Sherman? Noticed something about the shape of its hull?

>>33718396
>Germany has literally no tanks
Really gets the neurons charged

>>33718400
>all dem hot citations
Yeah you're the memelord here alright.

File: 1466893719003.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

Gentlemen, can we please stick to the topic and discuss British tanks?

Perhaps take this Sherman v. T-34 debate elsewhere? Please?

>>33718123
No.

>>33718439
>Sherman V
>Not a British Tank

M8.

>>33718417
Literally just Google it you cum guzzling fuck, I'm not spoon feeding a spastic cunt like you, I'm just going to point out how wrong and retarded everything you say is

File: 1471647389191.jpg (104KB, 777x799px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 777x799px

>>33718456
British-made tanks.

Given the OP is comparing a British-made tank to the Sherman, after all.

>>33718439
What tanks would you like to discuss and what aspects?

>>33718469
>make claims with citations
>call names when told to back your word up
Top kek. Spotted /pol/.

>>33718493
You didn't make claims with citations, you made claims that are wrong, unlike mine, which are right, then gave a quote that's irrelevant to the discussion due to the time of said quotes
Also just because a soldier says something it doesn't make him the 100% end all on a subject

>>33718493
>make claims with citation

Fixed that for you.

And it was a fucking quotation referring to a time that wasn't even relevant to the comparison. It didn't even mention anything as to why they thought the t34 was good, just that they did.

File: boys-rifle-armed-bren-gun-carrier.jpg (71KB, 650x469px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 650x469px

No tears, only Brens now

>>33718490
I'm interested in the Cromwell and Churchill tanks. How they handled against their German opponents and, in the even of some Operation Unthinkable, how they would have handled against the Soviet Union.

And perhaps how further developments like the Comet and Black Prince (which I understand was based on the Churchill) performed. As far as I can find the BP was only ever a prototype and never saw action.

>>33718347
You just implied that the Ronson meme is real and not attributable to a SOLE, SINGLE SOURCE that has never been substantiated by a single other person making the majority of your claims moot. In additon, Kleist and Gudarian were completely unaware of the problems regarding the INSIDE of the tank, primarily regarding the fact that the clutchless five-speed transmission was the worst one of the war requiring a sledgehammer to shift while simultaneously putting out Panther-tier failure rates and the fact that a disabling hit usually resulted in the loss of the entire crew.

Contrast this with gunner-commander integration of sighting implements that often meant Shermans fired first against any German tanks, the ability to drive on its own treads from Normandy to the Rhine without service, the fact that a 'destroyed' Sherman could be returned to service within 24 hours and the fact that 4 out of 5 of the crew that were in it when it bit it probably got out alive and all that adds up to is the usual "we thought they had a great idea until we actually fucking saw one up close" aire of false superiority that the Russians have relied upon since the first tank they ever built.

And on top of all that, Aberdeen insisted that the air intake and filters had been designed by a saboteur.

>>33717452

What are you talking about, Crusaders, Valentines, Churchills were all bretty gud tanks. Matildas were good early war, just lacking in HE.

>>33718559
I would recommend that you read

The Great Tank Scandal: British Armour in the Second World War - Part 1
Universal Tank: British Armour in the Second World War - Part 2
Mr. Churchill's Tank: The British Infantry Tank Mark IV.

By David Fletcher (Historian at Bovington Tank Museum) one of the foremost authorities on British armour during WW2.

I'd also recommend reading the various Osprey Vanguard & New Vanguard books on the vehicles you like.

>>33718559
The problem you have is that even if you make it past the tons of Nazi fanboys, the British used their tanks completely differently to the Germans throughout the war.

File: Centurion Mk1.jpg (123KB, 944x666px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 944x666px

>>33718559

Both of them were predominantly equipped with the QF 75mm, the 6-Pounder (Churchill only) and the 95mm Howitzer around that time. Those three guns are more than enough for 90% of the German tanks in service at the time. Hell, the 6-Pounder with its late war APDS could penetrate the front of a Tiger.

Unthinkable wouldn't be much different, especially as by that time, the 77mm HV and 17-Pounder were pretty much becoming the "main" guns if the war continued, which would have been on the Comet and the Centurion, along with all the leftover Fireflies, Challengers, Archers and Achillies'.

British had some pretty serious anti-tank capabilities around the end of the war. They were even creating 2-Pounders with compressed bores for disproportionately high penetration (88mm on a 30 degree slope at 450m) to put on all the armored cars. Never got around to needing it, but Unthinkable would have undoubtedly had them do it.

>>33718676
Do you know if any of those are available online or do you have pdfs to share?

>>33718715
You can get the osprey vanguards quite easily on the net. I have found copies of Mr. Churchills tank on various sights.

The Great Tank Scandal & Universal Tank are more difficult to find.

I would give links to pdfs but my upload is dial up tier.

>>33718709
This.

For example their platoon structure used fewer tanks and thus operated differently.

>>33716897

The Cromwell traded the Sherman's magnificent crew ergonomics for being flat and more mobile (could turn on a dime and also was a good deal faster) but of course had no sloped armor and was more unreliable.

I'd say it does pretty well in comparison to the other standard tanks, would take a Comet over all of them any day though

>>33718711
Bong tank design after they didn't have to constantly focus almost all efforts on aviation and their navy was pretty damn cool
Chieftains are GOAT

>>33718849

As soon as they ditched the infantry/cruiser classification it became glorious, I find it interesting how tanks took the same route as the dreadnought/battlecruiser classes there.

Despite the fact that the Matilda could block most contemporary ordnance they really let tank production slide after the great war. The A1E1 tanked despite being copied by the Germans and Russians, they only got the Christie suspension from inspecting Soviet BTs, and the Germans were far ahead of them in doctrine as they had ditched the cruiser/infantry classification by using a lighter mobile chassis for the anti armor (Panzer III) or infantry support (Panzer IV) role.

>>33718709
>>33718792
What was the difference? How did British tanks get organised?

>>33718711
Silly/dumb question but why didn't the Comet mount the 17-pdr? Turret too small?

And how different in effectiveness was the 77mm?

>>33718821
Could you give me an example in the difference of the ergonomics?

>>33719075

Haven't got exact numbers at the moment, but the 77mm HV was somewhere between the 76mm M1 and the 17-Pounder in terms of shell power. In some ways it was a very nice middle ground between the more reliable, accurate M1 and the bigger, more powerful 17-Pounder.

Comet turret ring was indeed too small to fit it nicely.

>>33719438
The fact they got it in a Sherman was pretty remarkable in itself

File: Cromwell 001.jpg (708KB, 2304x1728px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 2304x1728px

honk honk

>>33719559
That's what I found weird. That the Sherman could mount it but the Comet that came later couldn't.

File: Matilda 002.jpg (653KB, 2304x1728px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 2304x1728px

I really wish they'd do a Churchill and a Lee/Grant

>>33717452
The Black Prince was a short-lived attempt in there as well.

>>33718400
Shermans had the exact same spalling problem so it's a moot comparison.

File: ShermanFirefly 001.jpg (699KB, 2304x1728px) Image search: [Google]

699KB, 2304x1728px

Last 'Brit' tank I have.

>>33718153
Russian crews preferred it

>>33719789
Literally all tanks suffer from spalling, the crew compartments of the Russian compact tank design meant that hits more often led to larger amounts of the crew suffering from it

>>33719659
>>33719755
>>33719775
>>33719801
These are neat

File: T34-85 002.jpg (719KB, 2304x1728px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 2304x1728px

>>33719859
Cobi do good stuff. Prices are decent too.

>>33719690
I remember reading that the smaller Guage of the british railways dictated the size of their tank hulls which in turn limited the turret size. It explains why they stuck with the 2 and 6 pounder guns for so long.

>>33719775
Thats a fat tildy

File: ridehappy.png (212KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 400x400px

>>33719875
You should make some Warhammer 40k tonks.

File: Jagdpanther 002.jpg (816KB, 2304x1728px) Image search: [Google]

816KB, 2304x1728px

>>33719955
too expensive and I have no skill in painting.

>>33719062
Shermans / Cromwells

Squadron HQ

4 Sherman 75

3 Troops of:

3 75mm Cromwell / Sherman
1 Firefly / A30 Challenger

Churchills

HQ

1 Churchill 75mm (VI or VII)
2 Churchill V (95mm Howitzer)

5 Troops of:

1 Churchill 6pdr (III or IV)
2 Churchill 75mm (VI or VII)

>>33719082

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-h7K-oYYwk

This one showcases it very well despite being WoT. The side hatches of the crew, the optics, and the cramped interior as a whole weren't really fine to work with in comparison with, say, a Sherman or Panzer IV.

File: 448.jpg (18KB, 373x344px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 373x344px

>>33719659
>>33719755
>>33719775
>>33719801
>>33719875
>>33719990

>>33719990
I think he means with LEGO

Are those kits a 3rd party sells?

>>33720206
oh, my mistake.

It's all Cobi, a Polish company.

http://cobi.pl/en/toys/

File: Cruiser Mark 8 Cromwell.jpg (58KB, 659x479px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 659x479px

>>33719690

The Comet could have mounted it, but they figured the 77mm HV fitting better was more advantageous overall for overall tank operation. They knew they had the Centurion coming along that could get both worlds.

>>33719856
The issue was the quality of Russian steel. They didn't have the metallurgy to mitigate it. Sherman armor was very, very good. The US had the know-how to find the best balance of ductility and rigidity and the resources to produce the steel. The Russians did not have that knowledge (and still trail far behind in it today) so you ended up with either soft hulls or softball-size spall. The Germans simply ran out of and lost access to the necessary steel additives.

>>33718347
Are you trying to list every single meme about shermans in a single setting or what?

Shemanboo's are really the worst.

Sherman was a medicore tank at best and no amount of repeating the ''fact'' that it was good will ever change that. Search your soul and you'll know this to be true.

Also the Crusader is the coolest British tonk even if it broke all the time.

>>33719082

Here's a comparison of how easy it was to get in/out of the tanks, very important for crew survivability.

Getting into the Comet's Driver position

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNM3stQwg9U

Starts at :20

Getting out of the Sherman's driver position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PS1Pka7lBQ

starts at 25:00

>>33719659
It sucks they don't make this in green anymore.

>>33720522
Thanks

File: 1463559066146.gif (4MB, 327x194px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 327x194px

>>33717870

Sherman>Panzer IV>Cromwell>T34

>>33722488
Why?

>>33722494
Not that poster, but I could see how one could make the argument. Certainly from a purely anti-tank performance point of view, the KwK 40 L/43 and L/48 guns had an edge over the Sherman's 75mm M3 or the T-34-76's F-34. That being said, as we're all aware the Sherman and T-34 continued to evolve, while the Pz.IV was always capped out with the KwK 40 (self propelled gun and tank destroyer variants excluded, of course)

On that note, it might also be worth noting the Pz.IV's versatility as a chassis. Fair enough, the Sherman and T-34 had a fair number of vehicles based on their hulls, but the Pz.IV (mainly through Germany's need to make the most of limited hulls) saw an impressive number of vehicles based on it's hull (StuG IV, JPz IV, several Flakpanzer vehicles, recovery vehicles, munitions carriers, combined with Pz.III components in the Hummel and Nashorn, the Brumbar. You get the point.)

All this being said, I think the post in question is shit bait, and that there is no way in hell the Cromwell isn't the overall worst of the bunch there.

>>33718559
>>33719777
>Churchill Black Prince
>CoH2 god damnit

The black prince was a testbed adaptation of the glorious Churchill Crocodile. The chief difference being a new primary gun. I believe it was the QF-17 pounder replacing the 75mm main gun. They still used the same forward mounted ronson flamethrower with a towed, armored fuel tank. Some 550 Churchill crocodiles were adapted out of Churchill Mk VI and Mk VII tanks with roughly 250 modification kits held in reserve just in case the brits had to go fight Japan.

The Black Prince was grossly underpowered and got superseded by late war requirements that made the Sherman firefly and the comet tank more necessary than yet another infantry tank crawling along slowly.

>>33722194
As a decommissioned tank, I wish it fired confetti out of its penis.

>>33722618
But why would the Cromwell be the worst? It came about last of the four and should have been able to learn from their mistakes.

File: 1486338102737.jpg (526KB, 1353x1080px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1353x1080px

>>33718241
>M18 Hellcat is by far the best tank/tank destroyer of WW2 anyway

I like you style dude...

>>33722693
Not the other anon, but it was criminally underarmed in every iteration. It was a high speed cruiser tank but its armament was more fitting to an infantry tank. Suspension was also inefficient for its high mobility. It would have been phenomenal if it were used for scouting or long range patrols but it was never able to mount a high velocity cannon, making it woefully underpowered against hard targets like tigers and PzKpfw V

>>33718241
>>33722737
Anons, I respect your love for the M18 but the M36 Jackson gets my dick hard for that big bore cannon. Nothing could compare to that hellcat's speed though.

>>33722816
>It would have been phenomenal if it were used for scouting

It literally was used for that

>>33716913
neck yourself faggot

>>33722868

Super Hellcat, M18 hull with M36 Turret and 90mm in one, only 1 tested and basically was said, hey the people can do the modifications in the field. But then the war ended. Additionally, there was an amphibious model in the works but that got canned too. What a shame. At least it was the precursor to the M113 series

>>33717870
>Aussies literally designed the benis tank

they were fucking irl shitposting in 1942

>>33722816

>but it was criminally underarmed in every iteration

Except it wasn't. The QF 75mm was entirely capable of taking on high 90 percentage of anything it could encounter. PzIII, PzIV, StuGs, Hetzers, Marders, armored cars what have you. The obsession with "EVERY TANK WAS A KING TIGER AND IT TOOK 5 ALLIED TANKS TO BEAT IT!" is both inaccurate and silly. Even Panthers and Tiger I's it could easily handle on anything but the very heaviest of the frontal armor sections, and they did, especially given their speed to outflank positions on a wider, strategic scale.

>Suspension was also inefficient for its high mobility

It had excellent off road ability. Hell there's comparitive footage of it handling higher obstacles than the M4 did.

>It would have been phenomenal if it were used for scouting or long range patrols

And it did.

>>33722618
The Panzer IV sounds pretty good.

>>33726141

QF 75mm is literally the 75mm M3 gun that was found to be lacking on the Sherman and was replaced with the 76mm M1 starting in 1943.

File: Oh oh!.jpg (92KB, 872x715px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 872x715px

>>33719990
>>33719875
>>33719801
>>33719775
>>33719755
>*He makes toys in his spare time*

>>33726668
>*asterisks*
Back to wherever you came from, trash.

>>33726683
I'm from /his/, the best board on the site.

>>33726653

>QF 75mm is literally the 75mm M3 gun

They are completely separate guns that performed pretty much identically.

>that was found to be lacking on the Sherman

Except it wasn't. The 75mm M3 was an excellent gun. It could handle most of anything that came at it.

Again, the wehraboo obsession of "every tank was a big cat in the German Army" is just not true. The 75mm M3 and QF 75mm could handle near enough everything thrown at them, and had better HE performance than the 76mm M1 and 17-Pounder for all other tasks.

>>33717490
they're all good tanks Brent

>>33726904
/his/ is fucking shit, kill yourself, what a waste of what could be a good board, but it's ruined by morons/humanities

>>33726668
>he posts on 4chan in his spare time

It's a race to the bottom, anon. We're all a bunch of crazy niggerfaggots here; don't pretend you're any better.

>>33716897
ew

>>33734027
lol