Best British made tank of WW2? (1 Viewer)

[uksubs]

Just wonder witch was the best British tank of WW2 and give your reasons?

 

[Jack]

Just wonder witch was the best British tank of WW2 and give your reasons?

I'm following you around the forum UKsubs! I am not a tank man myself, but I have always liked the Matilda. Happy to be proven wrong, but were those early tank battles the only time a British made tank could hold its own qualitatively? If I am off the mark and a forum member needs to tell me, I'm very sensitive, so be gentle!

 

[uksubs]

I'm following you around the forum UKsubs! I am not a tank man myself, but I have always liked the Matilda. Happy to be proven wrong, but were those early tank battles the only time a British made tank could hold its own qualitatively? If I am off the mark and a forum member needs to tell me, I'm very sensitive, so be gentle!

Good call ,problem with the tank was it main gun could not fire HE to take out anti tank gun placement. I'm for the Churchill tank saw action in 1941 till the Korea war , first tank to take out a Tiger tank and a good all rounder in all it versions

 

[larso]

"main gun could not fire HE to take out anti tank gun placement"

I wonder if this might only have been early versions? The Matilda was used a lot by Australian tank units in the islands against the Japanese and the way they constructed their bunkers, I can't help but think HE had to have been available?

 

[Mitch]

Neil..

Mate some good threads your posting here. I would go for the Matilda first as it was a shock to the germans when they came upon it. Heavy armour and, a decent gun for the german tanks it then faced. Gave the ghost division a right old shock.

It just went out of fashion so, to speak as it could not be easily upgunned and, was slow. Have to agree about the Churchill being overall the best tank for the brits. Heavy armour good gun and, could be adapted into many variants and, had superb climbing ability which, as you mentioned was put to very good use after WWII in other combat zones.

Lots think of it as a failure because of Dieppe but, it was used wrongly. There are pics of them being used by the Russians at Kursk and, they have taken a right battering from the german 75 and 88mm guns and, still in decent shape considering. Russians thought they were to slow but, never nicknamed them as derogatorily as the five man coffin like the shermans
Mitch

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

The Tank I would say was the best is the Comet (A34) cruiser tank. It was designed to provide greater anti-tank capability to Cromwell tank squadrons. It was armed with a 77mm HV, a modified 17 pounder, with the result it was one of the few British tanks with the firepower to challenge late war German designs. It also saw action during the Korean war, the Comet remained in British service until 1958. The 2 main reasons I think are key to this being the best are Main Gun and Speed which were both exploited in the assault into German.

Dave

 

[uksubs]

Hi Guys,

The Tank I would say was the best is the Comet (A34) cruiser tank. It was designed to provide greater anti-tank capability to Cromwell tank squadrons. It was armed with a 77mm HV, a modified 17 pounder, with the result it was one of the few British tanks with the firepower to challenge late war German designs. It also saw action during the Korean war, the Comet remained in British service until 1958. The 2 main reasons I think are key to this being the best are Main Gun and Speed which were both exploited in the assault into German.
Dave

I would go for that but to little to late, did not see action till Jan 45

 

[Jack]

Good call ,problem with the tank was it main gun could not fire HE to take out anti tank gun placement. I'm for the Churchill tank saw action in 1941 till the Korea war , first tank to take out a Tiger tank and a good all rounder in all it versions

Not a bad post by me after all! I think I may have slandered British tanks in the past because I did not realise that the Churchill was held in much regard when it appears to have been a pretty decent tank. I suppose all the talk of Panthers and Tigers obscure the qualities of the opponents. I assme, though, if a Churchill and a Tiger had a bit of a biff, generally the Tiger came out a bit better?

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Not a bad post by me after all! I think I may have slandered British tanks in the past because I did not realise that the Churchill was held in much regard when it appears to have been a pretty decent tank. I suppose all the talk of Panthers and Tigers obscure the qualities of the opponents. I assme, though, if a Churchill and a Tiger had a bit of a biff, generally the Tiger came out a bit better?

The Churchill had thick armour but it wasn't sloping and it's 6 pdr gun would have a tough time penetrating the frontal armour of a Tiger except at close - medium range and once the 6 pdr got APDS rounds.The Churchill that took out a Tiger in Tunisia got a one in a million shot. The anti-tank round wedged itself between the Tiger's turret track and the turret making the traverse inoperable. The Tiger crew abandoned the tank.

By Normandy, later versions of the Churchill were up armoured with welded on plates making it very difficult for a Tiger to penetrate the front of a Churchill at medium - long range. But the Brits also replaced the high velocity 6 pdr with a low velocity 75mm gun for better infantry support and could no longer penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger.

So the Tiger I could destroy early mark Churchills much longer ranges than Churchills could kill Tigers until the British 6 pdr got APDS rounds and then they could kill each other at medium range. But once the Churchill was uparmoured and got the 75mm gun, the Tiger and Churchill could blast away at each other at medium range with little effect. Churchills were meant to be for infantry support and were in tank regiments and battalions etc. Shermans and Fireflies were not in tank units - they were in armoured units.

Terry

 

[uksubs]

The Churchill had thick armour but it wasn't sloping and it's gun would have a togh time penetrating the frontal armour of a Tiger. The Churchill that took out a Tiger in Tunisia got a one in a million shot. The anti-tank round wedged itself between the Tiger's turret track and the turret making the traverse unoperable. The Tiger crew abandoned the tank.

Terry

Spot on Terry , think that Tiger was the one the British took back to the UK and run test on and could be the same one at the Tank museum today

 

[Jack]

The Churchill had thick armour but it wasn't sloping and it's gun would have a togh time penetrating the frontal armour of a Tiger. The Churchill that took out a Tiger in Tunisia got a one in a million shot. The anti-tank round wedged itself between the Tiger's turret track and the turret making the traverse unoperable. The Tiger crew abandoned the tank.

Terry

You'd buy a lotto ticket after that wouldn't you. We had a Wirraway bounce a Zero and shoot it down with similar odds and thought so much of it we put the plane in the Australian War Memorial.

You imagine that poor tank crew in the Mess that night - 'Got done in by a Churchill, but you should have seen it - there were hundreds of them'!

 

[Phantom Warrior]

You'd buy a lotto ticket after that wouldn't you. We had a Wirraway bounce a Zero and shoot it down with similar odds and thought so much of it we put the plane in the Australian War Memorial.

You imagine that poor tank crew in the Mess that night - 'Got done in by a Churchill, but you should have seen it - there were hundreds of them'!

Tank vs tank is complicated. There are penetration tables which estimate the penetration of various guns at various distances for each type of round that gun could fire. Then based on the thickness of the armour and whether it was sloped or not, it was possible to theorize tank vs tank at different ranges with front, side or rear hits. The tankers didn't know that stuff. They had rules of thumb like a Sherman's 75mm could not penetrate the front of a Tiger at any range using any common round but a Tiger could penetrate a Sherman with any anti-tank round at more than 1000 metres. So Shermans tried not to fight tigers front to front.

Terry

 

[Jack]

Tank vs tank is complicated. There are penetration tables which estimate the penetration of various guns at various distances for each type of round that gun could fire. Then based on the thickness of the armour and whether it was sloped or not, it was possible to theorize tank vs tank at different ranges with front, side or rear hits. The tankers didn't know that stuff. They had rules of thumb like a Sherman's 75mm could not penetrate the front of a Tiger at any range using any common round but a Tiger could penetrate a Sherman with any anti-tank round at more than 1000 metres. So Shermans tried not to fight tigers front to front.

Terry

Amazing - in a war driven in part by technological innovation tankers were not privy to that kind of information. Was it because of the need to train many thousands of crewmembers quickly or was it deemed unneccessary to go into that detail? If it was deemed unnecessary, it contrasts with the experience of at least some aircrew (two gunners, but I assume that their experience was not completely atypical) who I have met who joined in 1941 but did not fly operationally until late 1944. It is sad to think that a number of 20 year old Sherman crewmembers died establishing the rule of thumb you have mentioned.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Amazing - in a war driven in part by technological innovation tankers were not privy to that kind of information. Was it because of the need to train many thousands of crewmembers quickly or was it deemed unneccessary to go into that detail? If it was deemed unnecessary, it contrasts with the experience of at least some aircrew (two gunners, but I assume that their experience was not completely atypical) who I have met who joined in 1941 but did not fly operationally until late 1944. It is sad to think that a number of 20 year old Sherman crewmembers died establishing the rule of thumb you have mentioned.

There were too many unknowns. Armour thickness and the type of anti-tank rounds changed quickly during the war. There was an ebb and flow to tank domination. And it was impossible for a tanker to know what version of tank he was facing, whether it was up-armoured, what anti-tank round it was using or often even what gun he was facing. Try and tell what gun a Churchill had at 1000 metres in combat in a few seconds. Was it the 6 pdr with an APDS round or a 75mm low velocity gun.

Terry