Cromwell VS Sherman

[Guest Lord General MB]

Soldiers,

The way I see it the Cromwell, and Churchill are the diffing tanks of the British; not the wimpy sherman varraints. I really like leavles that srtess this. but I'm wondering what the ballance was historically. I'm guessing the British Sherman because it's easeir to produce...

But whats YOUR opoin?

------------------

Cheers,

Lord General Mr. Bill,

1st Army

[Guest Michael emrys]

What's a "leavle"? I can more or less dope out the rest of your message, but I admit this one's got me stymied.

Oh, and "diffing" didn't make it through the translator either.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 09-24-2000).]

[Berkut]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord General MB:

Soldiers,

The way I see it the Cromwell, and Churchill are the diffing tanks of the British; not the wimpy sherman varraints. I really like leavles that srtess this. but I'm wondering what the ballance was historically. I'm guessing the British Sherman because it's easeir to produce...

But whats YOUR opoin?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I Guess that by diffing, you meant spiffing?

So by method of deduction you are wondering what the better tank was?

Ask any british tanker veteran, what tank they preferred. 8 times out of ten they would opt for the sherman and the Lee Grant.

It was a simple question of hitting power. British tanks and Tank guns never kept pace with developments in german armour.

By the time the war dept cleared the six pounder for use in british tanks, germany had developed better tank guns, based on their experience fighting the russians.

As for the cromwell, one story I remember was a crew who would advance with the rear of their tank towards the enemy armour...the armour plate was thinner,true, but the shell would have to get through the engine to get to them, and if it missed them, well hell they would just get out of there, as their tank was facing in the right direction!

The churchill was heavily armoured, most of hobarts funnies were modified churchills,but the thing was too bloody slow.

That leaves the sherman...Ok it had a high profile...ok it had a nasty habit of catching fire when it took a hit. But it had a good gun on it, it's HE round was good at keeping jerry on his toes, the modified version with the 17pndr could easily take the heavier german tanks. There is also the fact that america could produce more than they lost.

That brings me to the last item, there were no british built shermans, we got them from america under the lend lease agreement

------------------

BERKUT

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berkut:

Ask any british tanker veteran, what tank they preferred. 8 times out of ten they would opt for the sherman and the Lee Grant.

It was a simple question of hitting power. British tanks and Tank guns never kept pace with developments in german armour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hitting power..? Sherman and Grant..?

The American tanks were liked because they were, generally, built to a better standard than the British tanks and were therefore more reliable. I would characterise the Shermans as the workhorses of the British armoured divisions in the later war years.

------------------

"He belongs to a race which has coloured the map red, and all he wants are the green fields of England..."

- Joe Illingworth, Yorkshire Post War Correspondent

[:USERNAME:]

Anyone know if the brits had a jumbo firefly?

[Major Tom]

The Americans had the luxury to fully test the reliability before they put their AFV's into production. England needed modern tanks desperately and could not afford to allow their vehicles to be tested, and tested, and tested... Remember, the Sherman was in production BEFORE the US went to war, so, they didn't have to rush a design into production (plus they had the British to test out their designs in combat!).

Actually, I wouldn't say that German tanks drastically outclassed British tanks until either late 1942, or early 1943. Until this preiod the main German battletank was the Pzkpfw III, armed with a 50mm Gun, vs. the British Crusader II armed with a 40mm Gun. Most accounts of tank vs. tank warfare in the desert do not show that the Germans had superior tanks (as they lost the same number as the British in purely tank vs tank engagements) but, the Germans had better arms cooperation and usually had many AT guns sitting around to sway things in their favour.

There were many great British tanks, mostly their heavy Infantry tank, which may have been too slow as a Main Battle Tank, but, was PERFECT for advancing with Infantry. Rembember too, that the US had to borrow MANY British modified Shermans and Cromwells because they lacked specialized armour, or aromour good enough to take down German tanks.

The Americans make the tanks, the British make them better.

[Bullethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm wondering what the ballance was historically. I'm guessing the British Sherman because it's easeir to produce...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the Brits got more Shermans of various types (especially M4A4/Sherman V) than they built of their own Cromwells.

In CM, there's very little difference between the stats of the Cromwell VII and the M4A3(75)W. The guns have identical stats, both are in fast turrets, the speeds are only 1 mph different, and the ground pressures are 12 and 14, respectively. There are no significant armor differences--although the Sherman's is a few mm thicker in most places, both are equally worthless against most German adversaries.

Where the Sherman really scores over the Cromwell is ammo capacity. The Sherman can carry up to 104 rounds, while the Cromwell tops out at 64. The Sherman also has a .50cal MG which is useful for killing light armor and guns without needing to waste a main gun round. However, the Cromwell is a somewhat smaller target and, as noted above, is slightly less likely to bog in the same amount of mud.

------------------

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[Diceman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Actually, I wouldn't say that German tanks drastically outclassed British tanks until either late 1942, or early 1943. Until this preiod the main German battletank was the Pzkpfw III, armed with a 50mm Gun, vs. the British Crusader II armed with a 40mm Gun. Most accounts of tank vs. tank warfare in the desert do not show that the Germans had superior tanks (as they lost the same number as the British in purely tank vs tank engagements) but, the Germans had better arms cooperation and usually had many AT guns sitting around to sway things in their favour.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the British two pounder was far inferior to the German 50mm L48 or L60. Don't have the actual #s to refute your tank vs tank claim but it was common for German tanks to take out British tanks before the British tanks got into range. The British couter tactic was to charge German tanks in an effort to close the "kill zone" gap. The Germans would take advantage of this by slowly retreating back toward prepared anti-tank positions. The "88's" would then dessimate the British tanks trying to close in with the German ones. The British didn't gain an advantage in tank gun firepower untill 1942 just prior to El-Alimen (SP). The 75 mm gun on the Grant/Lee, and the 6lb gun on the Crusader III, issued in time for El-Alimen (SP), turned the tide for British tankers and they outgunned almost all German armor through the rest of the Desert War.

------------------

Pair-O-Dice

"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."

[Doug Beman]

:USERNAME: I don't think the Jumbo ever got a 17pdr. Only a few ever got the US 76mm (for all the good that did). I think it was because the Jumbo wasn't really intended as a "daily driver." But, MAN, just think of what a combo that would have been! The reliability of a Sherman, the armor of a Tiger, and the 17pdr! SWEET!

DjB

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

There were many great British tanks, mostly their heavy Infantry tank, which may have been too slow as a Main Battle Tank, but, was PERFECT for advancing with Infantry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er, except for the regrettable fact that the 2lbr. gun lacked an HE round. The British had gotten it into their heads that against unarmored targets MGs would be sufficient. One more error in judgement that cost UK and CW lives.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rembember too, that the US had to borrow MANY British modified Shermans and Cromwells...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, how's that again? Care to give any specifics on exactly where or when the US borrowed ANY tanks (other than the DD Shermans)?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...because they lacked specialized armour, or aromour good enough to take down German tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I feel confident that after being confined in their tanks for five or six days, American crews would develop an aroma that would take down any German tank at any distance you name.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Americans make the tanks, the British make them better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What an amusing observation. I'll grant you that the US Army would have been smart to take some fireflies onto the payroll, and an AVRE or two (especially for Omaha beach), but that's about the extent of it.

Michael

[Major Tom]

I shouldn't have said that the US borrowed Cromwells, I am pretty sure that the didn't.

They did however borrow some British modified (or at least the idea) Duplex Drive tanks for the amphibious landings. They borrowed many Firefly tanks, as well as many variants of the Churchill tank (notably the Crocodile). However, this still doesn't demolish the fact that the majority of British armour was American built They both just complimented eachother.

Jeremy,

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Uh, how's that again? Care to give any specifics on exactly where or when the US borrowed ANY tanks (other than the DD Shermans)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the US felt it necessary to borrow a few Crocodiles early on in Normandy when fighting thru the bocage.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Diceman:

Actually the British two pounder was far inferior to the German 50mm L48 or L60. Don't have the actual #s to refute your tank vs tank claim but it was common for German tanks to take out British tanks before the British tanks got into range. The British couter tactic was to charge German tanks in an effort to close the "kill zone" gap. The Germans would take advantage of this by slowly retreating back toward prepared anti-tank positions. The "88's" would then dessimate the British tanks trying to close in with the German ones. The British didn't gain an advantage in tank gun firepower untill 1942 just prior to El-Alimen (SP). The 75 mm gun on the Grant/Lee, and the 6lb gun on the Crusader III, issued in time for El-Alimen (SP), turned the tide for British tankers and they outgunned almost all German armor through the rest of the Desert War.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to offer some adjustments to that statement, if I may.

The 2 lbr. was *slightly* inferior to the L48 50mm and significantly inferior to the L60. Up until the middle of 1942, the majority of Pz. IIIs in N. Africa were fitted with the L48, which didn't put the Brits at *too* much of a disadvantage tank vs. tank.

The antitank gun that was used in the tactic you mention was not usually the 88mm but the L60 50mm. They would unlimber, preferably out of sight, while the accompanying Panzers would make a great show of force. The Brits would charge as you describe while the Panzers would feign a fighting withdrawal past the location of the PaKs, which would open up to devastating effect as soon as the Brits came into range. At that point the Panzers would turn upon their pursuers and finish them off.

The British got the Grant in the spring of '42, at least six months before el Alamein. They were a prominent actor in the Gazala battles and an unpleasant surprise for the Germans. By the time of el Alamein, the British also had early models of the Sherman and the Germans had a few long-gun Pz. IVf.

Michael