Magpie_Oz

"Yes, but take some time and look at the state of British tank design in the late 30's and what it generated...TOG for example. Much wasted time and effort on throwbacks and poorly conceived rubbish." Nah don't see that as a fair comment. Pre war (late 30's) German tanks were of scant armour and meagre guns they were out armoured by many British, French and Russian designs , the German tanks were just used better. Were the Matilda and Crusader bad tanks? No, they were quite effective given the doctrine but it was the doctrine that failed. The Battle of Arras shows pretty clearly how much better the British and French tanks were. Even into the Norman Invasion itself the Allies made critical errors in judgement in regards of there armoured doctrine. The US Army believed that the role of Armour was to support the infantry and the anti-tank mission was the job of the Tank Destroyer battalions so the Sherman got the better HE of the 75 rather than the better AT of the 76. UK forces as well, using their experience of the desert, felt that Antitank guns would be the main enemy and so favoured weapons with better HE performance. Both armies found out quickly that Tank v Tank was all the rage in NWE and so scrambled to re-equip.

Here's my fav, me mounting an assault on Pegasus Bridge against armoured resistance, circa April 2006.

The whole good tank, bad tank, best tank, worst tank debate is pretty much a pointless exercise as there are numerous arguments either way and it is impossible to compare apple with apples as tanks are built to operate within a given organisation and doctrine. A tank that fits the requirements of one side may not fit the requirements of the other so for one side a tank is the best but for the other it is useless. For example, as I mentioned earlier the Sherman was rejected by Oz because it didn't fit for what we needed it to do, so for us it wasn't the best tank at all. I think JG11 was suggesting that claiming a tank, weapon, army , organisation or anything else for that matter as being "the best in the world" is more about hubris than informed comment.

Nah that's not gamey, quite realistic I think to have your infantry coax the enemy ATG's into firing off their rounds. No different to having a tank trick an MG into revealing its position or something like that.

True enough but that suited its role, that of infantry support, which in the bocage was a huge boon.

Well like I said 1942-43 no clear indication as to what the Best Tank in the World is, certainly not the Sherman and most likely none can claim the title they all had there strengths and foibles.

The UK Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada declared war on Finland on December the 7th 1941, after Finland having done so to the UK on the 6th. There were also a round of declarations in 1942 between Thailand and the US, UK, Aus, Canada, NZ and SA. Granted Thailand is perhaps not the best example of democracy.

I think "Probably best in the world" is maybe over stating it a bit. In 1942/43 you had : the T34 almost identical in armour and gun but faster, the PzIV G similar armour and better gun and the Churchill with far greater armour and better AT gun (6lbr) although much slower.

Not sure that the UK tanks were all that much more diverse than any other army maybe to some extent but the organisation of the UK forces minimised the drama by grouping similar types together. "The Great Tank Scandal' was created by a member of Parliament that really had no understanding of what he was talking about and perpetuated by Liddle-Hart for his own agenda. As we have seen the M4 was as good a tank as any with as many pros and cons as the enemy. The British Firefly had the best gun in Normandy. The Cromwell was as good if not better than the Sherman, the Comet was far better and could rival the Panther. The Churchill was the most heavily armoured tank in Normandy and had excellent mobility, in fact had little bother with the dreaded bocage.

Stuff given under lend lease was actually never charged for as such, it was deemed foreign aid to get it past congress. All that was required was that any working gear was returned and blown up stuff accounted for. -Cut to Monty Python sketch of US and British Quatermasters checking serial numbers and equipment schedules of Sherman hulks circa a 1945" - Britain retained some of the LL stuff and was charged 10% of its value for it, this became part of the Anglo-American Loan @2% interest and it was this that was finalised in 2006. We Aussies did receive a fair bit of stuff but we gave most of it "back" or rather we signed it back to the US and they destroyed it in Aus rather than take it home. Talk about Sherman shortages, Australia received the grand total of three (3) Shermans via the UK for testing but decided the Churchill would be better for us and then the war ended. One of the M4's was at the gate of the base I was on, the second one was used as a target and I had the joy of putting a 66 LAW and 84mm CG round through it. Not sure where the 3rd ended up, I think GibsonM's mates shot to bits on the tank gunnery range.

It was a lot of FUBAR's in conjunction. Point is they made it ashore and ....... well we know the rest.

Hard to say what would happen if you hit the gun direct. I have seen photos of Arab T55's with penetrations to the barrel from Israeli 105 APFSDS rounds. I am not sure if WW2 ammo would be able to do it tho' Barrels are really strong, maybe as strong as armour plate and being cylindrical will more likely deflect rounds in most situations. The main point is I think any hit from a reasonable size round be it HVAP or a HE on the gun itself or the mantlet is going to disrupt the gun and or its mount to a degree where it can fail.

Yeh, numbers falling from a crap load to a bucket load is still a long way from a shortage. Not sure the handing back of Shermans to the US was really about "shortages", I think it was more about the tanks being replaced in British service by the British designs and the returning of the tanks reduced the Lend-Lease debt, the last instalment there of btw was paid in 2006.

Some great examples there for sure but I think if anything they support my contention that once the armour gets to your guns things are going downhill kinda fast. The first example detailed a desperate defence that halted the enemy via a combination of a hasty infantry/ATG defence supported by heavy fire on a choke point. The second is an amazing account of a desperate fighting withdrawal in thick fog that really doesn't show an artillery position repulsing an armoured assault. The guns involved are self propelled, one of the compelling reasons to self propel arty is for not only to be able to keep up with an advance but also to allow it to outrun a pursuit. The last as you say is more an example of ineptitude of the Chinese/North Korean Tankers. Sure the heat rounds are effective and maybe that is what stalled the NK assault because they wouldn't have known how few rounds the US arty had to hand. Granted field artillery does have a bit more of a chance of it but medium and heavy regiments are in real trouble but I maintain that a concerted assault by armour on an artillery emplacement is not going to go well for the arty under any circumstances.

So glad we're not letting this get political

What odd ball stuff? From what I can see all tanks used the 75mm main gun or 17lbr, MG's were the 7.92 BESA (which could use German ammo!) or the 30 cal and 50cal on the Shermans.

Yeh , could be. I have been looking at pictures though and didn't think I could see the sight hole in bow gun mount.

ummmm...... -engage Pirate mode - Avast! me hearty. It looky like the scurvy dogs say she be listing to starboard which mean de boat be leaning to it's right ? The photos be looking at the Port side o' de boat so de Starboard be facin de very bottom of Davey Jones' lockaar? Do I be parlyin' right me bucko, or have I got me foc'sal betwixt me bowsprite' ? arrrr -end Pirate mode - I'm thinking the exposed "aft" torpedo tubes are actually the for'ard torpedo tubes? I base that on where the conning tower is and it is closer to the left side of the photo than the right so the front is on the left of the picture? This p!nk has better detail: http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/missions/battleoftheatlantic/u352.html be sure to follow the p!ink to the detailed isometric sketch as all becomes clear.

At the end of the day, take drugs or don't take drugs it is the choice we all make. Alcohol is the number 1 drug that causes most woe and I can go right now to the pub and drink as much as I want until I have to be carried out. I choose not to, some don't and we each reap the consequences of our choices.

Cool video, I was surprised to see that the BESA was actually mounted and sighted independently from the main gun. flamingknives: Yes you are right, in most cases I have found they were the same all around, the A9 however did have a 303 lewis and a 7.92 BESA, ironically the BESA being mounted in the hull but with the better sights etc.

If you cast your eye about at the signature lines of many on the forums you will see the battle scars and epitaphs of the bitter struggle that ensues with regard to having a Real Time pause button. Only my sig indicates the true path to enlightenment, but you are free to choose which of the camps you shall side with.

Not only is a hull down tank smaller but the apparent target is not as high so that makes getting the range spot on crucial to hitting it. A mis-estimation either way has you shot passing over or hitting the mound in front.

Well no it isn't it is the crux of the issue. The gun can only be mounted on single fulcrum and so has limits to its strength, as the other fellow have pointed out the trunnion is quite sensitive. The mantlets on nearly all WW2 tanks covered the whole front of the tank so the gun and mount would bear the full force of any hit to the turret front. Granted the Stugs, particularly the ones with the pig's head mantlet, mitigated this, so too the Tiger II, but the mount is still vulnerable. The best proof of this is to take a look at the M1, Leo2A6, Merkava and T80 , tiny mantlets

The mount is not particularly strong, mainly because it has to be able to move in elevation so any hit to the mantlet is going to jeopardise the gun. What I was meaning is that the mantlet constitutes the main area of the front of the turret and therefore must be more likely to receive a hit than any other part of the turret.

Sure on US tanks but I am talking in the generic here, in general the Co-Ax has better ammo feed, sights and all that sort of thing, in some cases the co-ax is a heavier MG as well, like the BESA on British tanks