roqf77

It's simply clear we dont see eye to eye on this. But it is nice to have a discusion with someone willing to think through there argument. If you could please answer the two questions i asked you previously. We may get this conversation going somewhere again. [ October 07, 2005, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: roqf77 ]

and yes the churchills did hve 152mm all the way round. According to both osprey's d-day and churchill infantry tank book. The turrets were added prior to normandy. Although they were used in france and italy. But like i said by bhn 250 as used on all us tanks from 44-45 that would be like 190mm or so. Like i said the jumbo was a tough tank, but i dont think it is tougher than the churchill. Not the uparmoured marks for it. Battlefront dont seem to think so either, from my memory in cmbo the churchill was tougher than the jumbo. One of the most confusing points ive heard against , the us constructing more jumbo's was infact 2 part. 1. Not enough steel could be located. 2. They were to big for us landing craft. To me this sounds like a load of old cobblers. you seeem to be very informed on us afv's could you shed any light? [ October 07, 2005, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: roqf77 ]

this may be correct, but the german used 90 degree's as no slope. I.e the round would impact the armour at a right angle, i.e 0 angle of impact. The western allies refered to it differnently, so obviously the site is mistaken, But in the german way which this site is using 90 degree's is no slope.

just a note, the url i posted above says in the german fashion the 114mm-140mm hull was sloped 34-90°. 90 being considered no slope by western allied calculations. The bhn was 250 for sure, it was the us standard produced at the time for all vehicles, it is possible that it was better on the jumbo but it would of been a higer standard than any other tank including the pershing. The churchills in france and some in italy got new cast turrets that were 152mm(190mm by 250 bhn) all the way around. So were its front hull and its lower hull 140mm(173mm by 250 bhn). As for the 17 pounder it was offered as early as march 43 and again in december. Both were early enough for the us to overcome the logistical problems, Bradley asked for firefly's and achilles after normandy. This was turned down as the british army had grown accustome to a certain number of these vehicles. Had the us army taken the 17 pounder on board when offered they would have had just as long to work the guin into the sherman as the uk did. This could of been very good, lots n lots of firefly's and achilles, Possibly the saving in industrial capacity in the uk could of lead to the development of the centurian/comet possibly even the black prince(churchill with the 17 pounder sooner). But i think we are in general agreement, th jumbo was one of the toughest tanks in the war. But even with a us 76mm with hvap at least in terms of fire fight it was no match for a king tiger.

but how effective are these "hard kill" systems realy? As all the countires with the choice of these systems and chobbam take chobbam?

as far as i know, all us rha was a bhn of 250. The resistance difference is about 25% between the churchill and the jumbo(by bhn). 152mm at 315 bhn equals about 190mm by bhn 250, So i would say they were similar. Plus us rha plates over 124mm were at bhn of 220. http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/fm4a3e2.htm turret and the 114-140mm section were not massivly sloped. Im not using an armour calculater, im uding a ww2 british war office armour curve. Normaly the mantel calculation i.e thickness includes the turret behind it, so i dont think it is 152 + 178mm of armour. Other wise the 17 pounder could not penetrate the panthers mantlet and it could do to over 1,000 yards quite easily. Also in real life the integrity of the internal structure, i think in the case of the churchill. It could take a great deal of punishment. But yes i do think that the jumbo was a very tough tank. Its a shame the us didnt produce more. Im not sure if a jumbo firefly would of been possible but it would of been a great tank to have.

is that a lie, a damn lie, or a statistic?

well if you compare armour qaulity, i.e bhn etc You will see that the churchills 152mm(bhn average of 315, compared to about 250 of the jumbo) that it probably isnt the toughest. (by my calculations 102mm by 47 degree's should be 183mm). The transmission was very tough, and the sherman jumbo was a tough tank, but i think that the churchill and russian js tanks were atleast very similar.

i joined up to get away from home. After some time and some tours, some i can talk about and some others i cant. Including siera lieone, they realised i wasnt old enough and kicked me out.

er the sherman jumbo,s front hull was 92mm sloped to 55 degree's. So about a vertical equivalent of 190mm, us tests put the penetration of the l70 75mm at 210mm at 100 yards with a apcbc round. So it could penetrate the upper hull at close range maybe medium. Its important to compare test methods when comparing digures. German guns were tested against higher quality armour than that used by us armoured vehicles. But your pretty much there, Hvap put the us 76mm on the same level with 17 pounder apcbc.

well the problewm with the jumbo is, it couldnt penetrate the tiger at much range either. I have read one acount at a range of 500 yards about 5-6 sherman 76's and 4 75mm managed 23 hits against a tiger. 0 penetrations, and the 2 tigers knocked out all the shermans. A jumbo was tough but the 88mm must of been the l56 flak 88mm, not the pak 43 88mm. Also the l70 75mm off the panther would have a good chance.

1. hvap was first produced by the us from september 1944. 2. It was issued at a rate of 1-3 rounds a month per sherman tank. And 5-10 for each TD. So a hellcat would not have alot of hvap, although they did tend to pool Hvap i.e pass it to units that would stay in positions whilst others would flank. 3. The rearming of the 75mm to 76mm was in shock of the normandy and mid 44 engagments(not that us had no tank wins mind). Where the m3 75mm proved totaly ineffective against the german heavies frontaly. And in some cases marginal to the sides. 4. Problem with m62 apc ammo was it was prone to shatter gap failures, search for posts by rexford for a better explanation. But the 76mm only penetrated the tiger from 50m and the panther mantlet from 200m. The nose was only able to be penetrated if it were a 50mm model. This was fixed in about september i think when longer primers were issued with the round. and i believe the cap was hardend to increase performence, but the us 76mm was inferior to the l56 88mm on the tiger and 17 pounder. Hvap improved this but was only availble in incredibly small quantities. 5. The shift in tactics was more like to use where possible(only about 250 jumbo's were made and only about 100 were rearmed with 76mm guns)to lead the front of a column as it was frontlay invunerable to l48 75mm fire. However engaging tigers and panthers was not easy as it did not have the firepower to deal with them. 6. As for hvap i realy have no idea how much they would get.

and in cmak.

just to point out it was not just churchill who opposed appeasement. This is from page 40 of guess what? Frank mcdonough's Hitler, Chamberlain and appeasement. Foot note 3.4 A critical view of appeasement: clement Attlee, the labour leader 1938. "The labour movement has warned the country since 1932 that yeilding to aggression in one part of the world means an increase in aggression in another. We are now paying in anxiety for a wrong foreign policy assumed since labour was thrown out of office (in 1931). i pray to heaven that we will not have to pay in blood." Source: The Times, 19 september 1938.

Dieslel taylor. Good point, funnly enough i could read that post perfectly lol! Plus another piont to add to big duke's post, is if britain and france backed checkoslovakia then they would have got the support of russia too. This could have possiby secured poland. It definatly took the production pressure of briatain, allowing for production of such things as 6 pounder anti tank guns and 17 pounders much sooner. Spitfire's hurricanes etc also.

i carp take it anymore. are we all quite fin ished?

well consecutive british governments and the wall street crash is to blame but that could be spilling over into politics.

russia could have failed like they did against finland. But did russia stay weaker than finland. The russian army would have gained strength. And it would have done it 3 years before germany launched barborrosa.

good point but then it could pf led to the uk and france joining an allaince with the ussr. which proved to have a stronger military than germany.

cod you all be quiet. all this fishing around for the lobster origins is giving me a headache.

no i mean attack of the mutsnt camels or the sequel revenge of the mutant camels. i ahd them on the c64?

north irish light horse disabled and knocked out a number of tigers at bulls head. so yes its entirely possible. And coe british reports from captured tigers report the only faulty plate was on the sides and it was only a minor problem.

Anyone remember attack of the mutant camels?

in reality of course. In cmbo it seems all german equipment is bad. im playing a game currently my marder decided to just sit still for 30 seconds and not fire. it got killed. 4 of my puma's decided to use the same tactic! so they all got killed too. Needless to say i remembered why i never play cmbo anymore(its not very good!)

well without getting into a discusion about air power john does have a point. A tiger is significantly tougher than a hetzer! I certainly would rather have 2 tigers over 8 sherman 75mm if i knew i was going to engage enemy armmour in anything other than close terrain.