Brian Posted August 23, 2001 Share Posted August 23, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: I dont need an argument here. Its about brit tanks. I can kick back and laugh. Lewis [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Username ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Each to their own. Typical ignorance. British tanks were, for the period they were concieved usually as good as their enemy's and sometimes even better. Remember, you must place them in the context of when they were concieved, what they were intended to do, how they were actually used and perhaps most of all, when they were used. All too often perfect hindsight is applied and that is where such fatous comments as your's fall down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted August 23, 2001 Share Posted August 23, 2001 Well we can argue about design all day but if I were to question anything about British Armor it would be the doctrine in which they operated under. Actually more precisely the "mood" changes that the British High Command fell sway to. While the Brits did conform to their Cruiser/Infantry ideas those exact ideas changed, sometimes very rapidly. Heavy tanks were always a sore issue with the Brits as the need was recognized (to a point) but the exact specifications were not. SP guns were another shortcoming that the Brits seemed to confuse themselves about, a Bishop being an example. It was not until the M7 Priest (great name) that the Brits saw the "light" and developed the Sexton, which could hardly be called an "in-house" design. In general the Brits needed more time to formulate solutions to needs. They needed the 17lbs guns on tanks and until the Comet could not build a suitable chassis to mount it (the Sherman was of course US design). When the Germans were presented with the same problem with the 88mm, the Tiger shortly followed (although there were some failed less reknowned designs) the time to production for the Tiger and the Comet were quite different (actually the Comet did not even use the traditional 17lbs gun). Basically the British tank designs were very sound if they were fighting a war that they were designed for, the Matilda I was a much different tank than the Churchill MVIII even though in the beginning they were somewhat similiar. The Valentine was a "tweener" tank that bridged the gap between Matilda II design path and the Sherman design path. Those are my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted August 23, 2001 Share Posted August 23, 2001 Guys, what is the deal here?!? All of you need to chill and Stalins Organ I think you are WAY OUTA LINE so back off or face the conscrquences. No one, NO ONE here in this thread is a moron or an idiot and last time I checked everyone was free to hold an opinion, even if diametertically opposed to one that someone else holds. What the hell are you guys really arguing about? A tank design that hasnt been seen in 50 years?!? Come on, get a life! You are acting like a bunch of Trek geeks talking about the range of a transporter. Come to grips with your anger and deal with it somewhere else as it is NOT ALLOWED IN HERE. Am I clear?!? I have more important things to do than come in here and babysit a bunch of members acting like pathetic babies. So put an end to this crap right now! If you dont agree with someone about something, fine, deal with it like an adult and move on. Case closed, as is this thread. Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts