Europa Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 What is this cromwell tank I see sometimes in threads here? Was it good? I know it was british but that's it... Did it replace the sherman? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David I Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Europa, British Medium tank. Served in the same way as the Sherman. For a Brit tank it was pretty good, combining speed, armor and gun in a pretty good balance. Like the Sherman it could hold it's own against the Panzer IV but was out classed by the big cats. Did you ever see "Band of Brothers"? In the episode about Arhem they show two of them rolling into a Dutch town. One gets blown up by a Tiger. DavidI ----------------- ...and thanks for all the fish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 TANKS! website 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Europa Posted January 20, 2005 Author Share Posted January 20, 2005 Think I'll buy the band of brothers collection dvd set this weekend , need tt educate myself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Europa Posted January 20, 2005 Author Share Posted January 20, 2005 Another thought: Why the cromwell when they allready had shermans? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Only the Brit 7th armd. div was equipped with Cromwells in its armoured brigades. All other armored divisions were equipped with Shermans. In addition, the CW and Polish armored recon regiments were equipped with Cromwells. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by Kingfish: In addition, the CW and Polish armored recon regiments were equipped with Cromwells. Excluding the Canadians, who never, ever used the Cromwell. We had only two armoured recce regiments (one in Italy, one in NW Europe with 4 Armd Div) and both were equipped, and eventually employed, as regular armoured regiments with the emphasis on infantry support rather than reconnaissance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 The Aussie and the New Zealand Armoured units never used the Cromwell either. I Presume that the South africans and Indian never used Cromwells either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
................................... Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 The Cromwell was part of the Cruiser family and not a Medium tank. As such it was supposed to exploit after other forces had broken through, and therefore it had a very high top speed, but only a modest gun and armour. I don't think the crews liked it much, which isn't suprising because by 1944 (when it appeared) the cruiser doctrine had been well and truly debunked. I think the general opinion was that it was a good recon tank, and a crap battle tank, but we may be enlightened otherwise in due course... [Edit] I hope I answered your second question, the Cromwell was in theory supposed to have a different role to a medium tank such as a Sherman. However in practice it ended up often doing much the same job. [ January 20, 2005, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Pheasant Plucker ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by Bastables: The Aussie and the New Zealand Armoured units never used the Cromwell either. I Presume that the South africans and Indian never used Cromwells either. Sorry, I meant to say only CW and Polish units in NWE europe (apart from the Canadians as Michael pointed out). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacinator Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 What's a cruiser tank? I know it has some of the properties of a light tank (****ty armor), but what makes it diffrent from a medium or light tank? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Read the first paragraph in Pheasant Plucker's post to get an idea of what a Cruiser tank is (or suppose to be). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Originally posted by Europa: Think I'll buy the band of brothers collection dvd set this weekend , need tt educate myself. Then I think your better off reading a book. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 I've also heard it said that the Cromwell is a great 1942 tank that unfortunately didn't make the lineup until 1944. It would have been perfect if the British forces at Gazala, say, had been equipped with them, or even later at el Alamein, but after Tunisia, they would inevitably have appeared less and less lustrous. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
................................... Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Originally posted by yacinator: What's a cruiser tank? I know it has some of the properties of a light tank (****ty armor), but what makes it diffrent from a medium or light tank? The Cromwell was fairly heavily armoured compared to the previous Cruisers. However this only put it up to a similar standard of protection as a Sherman, so it was vulnerable to most things. People liked using them back in the CMBO days, especially the variant equipped with the short 95mm gun. It was very fast, and the 95mm could kill just about anything with its HC rounds. This is why we sometimes see people lamenting their abscence in CMAK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 The Cromwell was fast - 40-odd-mph on tracks, and was often used in recon units. a heavily modified chassis was used for the Comet, which mounted a heavily adapted 17pdr gun. Armour protection for late model Cromwells and Comets was up to 100mm. Interestingly, the Centurion tank, that only just missed the war, was technically a Cruiser tank. Despite this, it would have been able to square off with most battlefield threats and was a less marginal design than the German heavies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Europa, I'd recommend getting a copy of "Death by Design" written by Beale. It gives the best (IMO) presentation of British wartime tank design and development, highlighting shortcomings. It has nice charts/graphs showing how tank families developed. Regards, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Originally posted by flamingknives: Interestingly, the Centurion tank, that only just missed the war, was technically a Cruiser tank.Hmmm. I've also heard it described as one of the first, if not the first, MBT. It combined the roles of the cruiser and heavy tanks. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 "Death by Design" seconded. It's a good book. Emrys: Indeed, that's why I said technically. The A41 Cruiser was the Centurion. The Cromwell too was not feebly armoured. It was better protected than the PzIV and, in later incarnations, had armour comparable to the Tiger in thickness. The let down was that it could only mount a medium velocity 75mm gun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacinator Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Originally posted by flamingknives: The Cromwell was fast - 40-odd-mph on tracks, and was often used in recon units. a heavily modified chassis was used for the Comet, which mounted a heavily adapted 17pdr gun. Armour protection for late model Cromwells and Comets was up to 100mm. Interestingly, the Centurion tank, that only just missed the war, was technically a Cruiser tank. Despite this, it would have been able to square off with most battlefield threats and was a less marginal design than the German heavies. Ok 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Originally posted by flamingknives: Indeed, that's why I said technically. The A41 Cruiser was the Centurion.Do you mean this only as a point of semantics? If so, I understand and agree. Elsewise, I can't see how even technically it can be described simply as a cruiser. Chamberlain have this to say about it: Largely resulting from the desert war tank combats, the War Office revised its policy for future tank development in September 1942 and called for an "all-purpose" or "universal" tank chassis which could be developed to fulfill the various roles previously carried out by several unrelated designs. This initiated the thinking which led to the Centurion tank.I take this to mean that it was to fulfill the roles of infantry tank, assault tank, and cruiser tank. Technically. From the outset. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Do you mean this only as a point of semantics?Pretty much, although Beale puts its lineage in with the Cruisers. Really, the primary characteristic of a Cruiser is its mobility. Poor armour is a side effect of this, not a necessity. Once you have the engine power, you can up the armour and still have a Cruiser - ref the Cromwell and Comet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Europa Posted January 22, 2005 Author Share Posted January 22, 2005 Very interesting answers! Thx all! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: Indeed, that's why I said technically. The A41 Cruiser was the Centurion.Do you mean this only as a point of semantics? If so, I understand and agree. Elsewise, I can't see how even technically it can be described simply as a cruiser.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Since the Conqueror served up until the introduction of the Chieftain, the British tank fleet wasn't 'universal' until then. [/Mr. ConquerorPicky] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.