Owen Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 I've got another of those little, which is superior questions.- Which was the best all round British tank? This time it involves the Firefly, Comet and Challenger or any other creditable British tank that saw service in WW2. I'm just wondering what you lot out there think about the subject. [This message has been edited by Owen (edited 03-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffertape Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 I'll start off by saying that I don't know a great deal about British armour - but I'm fascinated by the Firefly. It still had the shortcomings of the Sherman - tall profile and weak armour; but that 17 pounder was amazing. The fact that the Germans always tried to knock out Fireflys as soon as they were spotted speaks well of their combat effectiveness. I probably also like it because it was hands down the best tank we Canadians ever got to use. Just a sidenote: Ever heard of the Archer (I think)? Valentine chassis with a 17 pounder that faced BACKWARDS? Crews initially found it awkward, but discovered that it was a good layout when you had to bug out of a spotted position. At any rate, my vote is for the Firefly. Gaff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 Archer... don't mention that one Do you know how many mistakes I made when making that model? The way models are made in CM it *matters* which is front and back, but yet CM wasn't designed to handle this oddball one of a kind vehicle. So I had to do some tricks and it hurt my wittle mind sometimes But it is in and works great so long as nothing is shooting at it. Otherwise you get to hear the crew bailing out! I am really impressed with all the British tanks based on the Cromwell. The gun isn't the best, and the armor is only OK, but it is fast and a decent match for the more common German AFVs. The Comet should be a really good tank but I haven't played with one yet. Challenger... dunno. On paper it looks pretty decent but it really was a stopgap tank and therefore I am not getting my hopes up if I find myself with one someday Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 Recalling my earlier ASL Vehicle Notes, Steve, its assessments are comparable to yours above. The Cromwell may well have been the fastest "main battle tank" of WW2, faster even than the T-34 series. And its 75mm is similar to that for the Sherman---good against personnel, but barely adequate against later German tanks. The Comet, being the next progression, represented a design trade from mobility back to better anti-tank gun power. As to the stopgap Challenger (which was very limited in deployed numbers in NW Europe), it was indicated in ASL to have not only less mobility but also spotty reliability in its drive. Perhaps CM would model increased bog/immobilization chances for such a vehicle? Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 Heck yes the Cromwell was good! It was based on a prewar design, and had 4 years of war experience to build up to this! Many British tanks were excelent, suffering from only poor engines and weak guns, otherwize they were good quality vehicles. The Cromwell was armed like a basic Sherman, so, in theory, it can take out any German tank (how many German formations had tanks, let alone King Tigers, Tigers, or Panthers?). We haven't yet seen the Pz IV, the most common tank in the German army at this time (only through AAR). Although still powerful, it is more on the line of a typical Allied tank than a super German tank. Wasn't the Challenger designed for desert fighting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Deans Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 I say the Comet. Not around for long enough to make a real impression (March 45) but I'm sure it did for those regiments that were equipped with it. 77mm (cut down 17pdr) gun and decent speed. And hey,....it was the first British tank to have a "modernesque" shape. The frontal armour could have been slopped though. Rob Deans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 The one they never built ------------------ It's "BAB-ra!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 Matillda, no doubt. For its day ('39-42) nothing could beat it and few could even put up a good fight against it. Too bad British armor tactics sucked so bad at this time... ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: Matillda, no doubt. For its day ('39-42) nothing could beat it and few could even put up a good fight against it. Too bad British armor tactics sucked so bad at this time... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm, let's see, no HE ammo for the 2-pounder, the penetration power of a stone sling when firing AP and the speed of an asthmatic OAP turtle that had its legs amputated, why am I not impressed by the Matilda? Incidentally, Ken Tout says that the British tankers regarded the Sherman as the Rolls Royce of tanks because of the smoothness of its drive trains and ease of handling. IIRC he was on a Cromwell and they knocked out a good number of Panzer IVs of the 12th SS during Totalize. Can't have been that bad. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: Heck yes the Cromwell was good! It was based on a prewar design, and had 4 years of war experience to build up to this! Many British tanks were excelent, suffering from only poor engines and weak guns, otherwize they were good quality vehicles. The Cromwell was armed like a basic Sherman, so, in theory, it can take out any German tank (how many German formations had tanks, let alone King Tigers, Tigers, or Panthers?). We haven't yet seen the Pz IV, the most common tank in the German army at this time (only through AAR). Although still powerful, it is more on the line of a typical Allied tank than a super German tank. Wasn't the Challenger designed for desert fighting?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think we all assess the Cromwell to be a "good" tank overall. But beyond mobility, it wasn't "outstanding" either in armor or gun power. The Cromwell, in its time, was the next progression of the "cruiser tank" philosohy, while the Churchill, at the same time, superceded the Valentine as the next "infantry tank" where infantry-support tanks deliberately traded, by design, speed for heavier armor and guns. One could argue some that this "split" tank-role design philosophy could produce better "specialist" tanks for combat. But in application, I think the weakness of the philosophy outweighed the merit here. That's because the cruiser/infantry tanks weren't "blended" into coherent tank combat units, and a skilful foe in combined arms warfare could learn to defeat a tank design that put too much focus on one factor over the others. And while the Mark V Panthers weren't nearly as numerous, they were numerous enough to still be troublesome (over 5,000 total between the A & G series), and on a tank-by-tank comparison, the point is moot anyway. So ultimately, the post-war quest focused no longer on the cruiser/infantry design split, but on finding a well-rounded tank design on ALL major points. The Centurion was probably the first of the British tank designs to reflect this. I'd still like to see the Centurion as a future "add-on" option for CM equipment (like assuming for some DYO scenarios that the war strecthed to June '45), but if it doesn't, then it doesn't. As to the Challenger, it wasn't designed specifically for the desert. It was again a stopgap attempt to get a British main battle tank to mount the 17-lbr gun, for which the Cromwell couldn't do. The Cromwell, similar to earlier designs, had a constraint to its vehicular width (and turret ring) which I THINK was due to British rail gauge limits. This constraint also worked against the next tank (Comet) carrying a fully-rated 17-lbr gun like for the Firefly. I'd have to check later on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 Germanboy....you must be joking: "...why am I not impressed by the Matilda?" Perhaps, because you don't seem to know the Matilda? 1.) The 2-pdr DID have HE (If I have to tell ONE more 'Grognard' this I am going to scream!). As a matter of fact the HE for the 2pder was on par with the HE used in the most of the German tanks of the day...2cm and 3.7mm. The fact it was not distributed to the troops (in quantity) has NOTHING to do with the quality of the weapon system but instead is a reflection of the faulty doctrine used by British Armor command early in the war. 2.) "...the penetration power of a stone sling when firing AP..." You know every time I read someone talk down the good'ol 2pder I just laugh anymore. Name, a better TANK gun in '39-40 used by the Germans. The 2pder had a higher rate of fire than the 2cm, had MUCH more penetration than the 3.7cm and was MUCH MUCH MUCH more accurate than either the 2cm, 3.7cm OR the short 5cm gun used by the Germans. As for penetration, name a SINGLE German AFV in '39-41 that could not be destroyed by the 2pder at combat range. You can't because none existed until the Tiger I. But more to the point, name a single German AFV that COULD destroy the Matilda at anything even close to the 2pders kill range...the Germans did not manage to field a tank that could do this until the long 50 WITH APCR ammo was fielded and we all know how limited the APCR ammo was, and even this was only a 'fair fight'. 3.)"...the speed of an asthmatic OAP turtle..." Yep, it was slow, but not really that much slower than the Pz Is, Pz IIs and early Pz IIIs it faced....was it? But more importantly it was just as fast as the British High Command wanted it to be. Too bad, really. But, its slow speed is just another manifestation of the British misuse of armor in WW2. You should note that I said: "In its day". What could stand up to the 'Queen of the Desert', a Pz I, Pz II, Pz III or a early Pz IV? If you think for a minute ANY one of those could stand up to the 'Lady', then you really don't know the Matilda that well at all. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard [This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 03-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 Yes, the 40mm, 2 Pdr, is an underrated gun. "for it's day" it was equal or above the standard as an AT gun in Europe. The Average, world wide (incl Europe) was the 37mm. German tanks didn't recieve 50mm guns until 1941-42, on the Pz III. The Short Barreled Pz IV 75mm was better for CE support than AT. The only gun in German posession that could knock it out was the 88mm, and these were only in vulnerable AA guns, and weren't in "massive" production. Regarding British tank tactics, they weren't up to that of Germany, but, they weren't primative. By 1942 the British realized that a lower tank volume and higher infantry establishment in Armoured Divisions resulted in the best ratio. Too heavy tank formations (typical 1939-42 Armoured Division had 2 Armoured Brigades, and 2 Battalions of Infantry) got chewwed up by static positions well supported with Infantry, AT, and Artillery. Every tank has it's weakness, the Infantry/Cruiser tank differentiation wasn't critical. Infantry tanks could and did take out Armour, and, vice versa. The Crusader models equalled that of contemporary German tanks, both in armour and Gun power (later versions upgraded to 6pdr), and were even faster, yet, suffered from an unreliable engine (so were many early model German tanks). In a way the Germans followed the British pattern of two types of tanks. Pz IV and Panther as Cruiser tanks, and Tiger and King Tiger as Infantry tanks. The Panther was powerful, but, even a 75mm Sherman could take one of these out. Tiger and King Tigers were very slow, and were not good on the attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Scott, sorry if I offended you. For the record, I do not consider myself a Grognard. My knowledge about the Matilda is based on a German view of the war in Africa, where they did not use HE very much or not at all. It was cited as one of the big weaknesses of the 2-pounder. For all the other things, I guess it comes down to stupid tactics/design requirements. And AFAIK only 88 AA guns used in an AT role could kill it, so the Matildas had that going for them. IIRC, in the desert, where space was freely available, the German tanks managed to just outrun them or flank them at relative ease, so the trade-off speed/armor certainly made it a weaker tank, regardless of faulty tactics. But you probably know much more about this than I do so I shall defer to your judgment. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Germanboy: No sweat, and sorry if I came back a little strong (I do that sometimes...) Also, for the record 'flanking' a Matilda would gain you very little. IIRCC the side and rear armor were damn-near as thick as the front. Its main weakness was also an aspect of its strength. Its hull was cast as a SINGLE solid peice as was its turret. This made them VERY strong for the relative armor thinkness (which was VERY good anyway) but also made them damn expensive and slow to produce. It is this reason they were abandoned by the British and no other. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 The other weakness of the Matilda was the same as for other British tanks all they way through the war. They were built for x gun and pretty much only x gun. So when the war progressed they pretty much had to abandon the entire tank model in favor of a new one. Earlier in the war this wasn't a problem, but once the Germans started their arms competition with the Soviets, the shortcomings of the British concept of tank design became a huge liability. While something like the PzIV was able to hold its own for nearly 9 +/- years after its initial production run (5 + of which were in active combat), the Brits had to keep switching designs from the ground up. Even the last British tank design of the war to enter service, the Comet, was a tough one to produce due to the hull design. And this was a full 5 years AFTER the war started. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Also, because of the Matilda II being cast, it was VERY difficult to up arm the sucker. Plus, compared to later tanks it was pretty small (so was the Sherman!). The Valentine was also a pretty good tank. VERY reliable, upgradeable to a 75mm Gun, and had pretty strong armour (plus easier to build), and slightly faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Sure the A12 Matilda was slow --- it was designed to move at the pace of the infantry. That, and it's motivational force was provided by a pair of 190 HP bus engines ill-suited to moving 60,000 lbs of steel. But I'd take one over a Cruiser any day: At least with a Matilda, you stood a chance of coming back alive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted March 11, 2000 Author Share Posted March 11, 2000 Can anyone tell me if the Pershing, or any other American tank armed with a 90mm (if my memory serves me correct, I think the M26 had one, or I could just be spouting rubbish) saw action in the British forces during WW2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeAcH Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Umm..tanks are cool, and, umm..very good. I like them. Those Brit tanks were strong and stuff. So were those "Not-zee" ones. HAHA. You guys are amazing with your WW2 knowledge and grognard super powers. After reading this thread, I wanted to contribute so badly, but I know very little about these sorts of details. Just poking a little fun. You guys are great. TeAcH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 The only other US tank mounting the 90mm was the M36 Gun Motor Carriage (or Tank Destroyer, if you prefer). Dunno if the Brits ever got their hands on either, tell the truth. But by the time both saw service, the Brits were fielding a plethora of 17lbr mounted tanks (Archer, Challenger, Firefly, Wolverine, Comet) and trying to develop the 20lbr (83mm) mounting Centurion, so I don't think they would have had too much interest in 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 For my knowledge of the Matilda, IIRC that it was always a bitch to kill in the the Panzer General Series. I don't recall too much about how it was modelled in Talonsoft's West Front, but I'm sure it was probably about the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sabot Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Owen: Which was the best all round British tank? [This message has been edited by Owen (edited 03-10-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Margaret Thatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts