# best allied tank?



## The Nerd (Oct 15, 2005)

What was the best allied tank of the war? The reasons if possible.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 15, 2005)

Couple of options, but in different categories.

1. Medium tank; Sherman. 

Sounds like a strange choice as the 'Ronson' ("lights first time, every time") generally gets dispariaged. But while the basic design was not necessarily the best, it gets marks for versatility. It mounted 75mm, 76mm, 3 inch, 105 mm and 17lbrs in direct fire. It was the basis of the chassis for the M10 and M36. It provided the basic chassis for most Allied mobile artillery. Turretless Shermans were used as troop carriers (Kangaroos). It even had AAA variants.

It was also mechanically reliable, had a good road speed and when up gunned with a 17lbr or 76mm could take on any German medium weight vehicle.

2. Cruiser tank; Comet.

An upgrade of the Cromwell hull. Fast, reliable, low profile with a high powered variant of the 17lbr, mounted sideways in the turret. It was lighter and smaller than a Sherman, but carried thicker and better sloped armour. The Rolls Royce Meteor engine and wide tracks gave it excellent mobility as well.

3. Infantry Support tank. Churchill VIII.

Yes, it was slow and it only mounted a 95mm gun. But it had 152mm frontal armour and was considered the best dedicated support tank on the Western Front. Late war HEAT rounds gave it a decent punch against German armour. The 'black Prince' a Churchill with 165mm frontal armour and a 17lbr in an expanded turret ring really should of gone into production. It could of stood toe to toe to a Tiger I in a slugging match and come away the victor.

4. Light tank. Chaffe

Excellent basic design. best armour in its class. Fast, mobile, wide tracks. 75mm provides good punch. Good optics, radios and ergonomics all round.


----------



## RAGMAN (Oct 15, 2005)

the sherman was the best tank...if not the best quality tank, it was the most quantity.It took 4 sherman tanks to take out the tiger tank...production was about 20-25 to a tiger from what i have read.However, I would not have been in the sherman facing the tiger or panther.....  The up gunned models maybe.


----------



## RAGMAN (Oct 15, 2005)

Sorry to be a bother again, but from what I have read and seen on video,the panzers never had the replacement parts as the sherman,cromwell,etc.The german production plants prided itself on numbers of tanks rather than replacement parts.A lot of tanks broken down could have been fixed quickly instead of relying on hand me downs parts to get going again if the replacement parts were readily available....


----------



## Glider (Oct 15, 2005)

Not sure of the difference between the Medium tank and the Cruiser tank but if we stick to this the only real change I would have made is to swop the T34 for the Sherman.
It had similar advantages. It mounted the 76 and 85. Roughtly equal to the 75 and 76 on the Sherman. It served as the basis for the SU85 and SU100 which were the Russian equivalents to the M10 family. It was also reliable and could be operated by almost illiterate soldiers.
However it didn't light up first time every time, had a lower ground pressure and was better cross country.

One observation of the Churchill. If someone had the nounce to put the 17pd in a Sherman turret sideways to make it work (top marks to the people who came up with that solution). Why couldn't they do that to a Churchill which had a bigger turret in the first place. Never could work that one out.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 15, 2005)

I would say the Pershing was the best, and quite possibly the best tank for WW2. It was a magnitude better than the Sherman. The 90mm gun was perfect to take out any tank the Germans had available.

Too bad it came out to late to really show what it could do.


----------



## Glider (Oct 15, 2005)

I would be tempted with the JSIII. Bigger gun, better hull design which formed the basis of generations of future Russian tanks.
Not perfect by any means but that would take the vote for the best.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2005)

Basing on tanks that solely saw combat. I would say the IS-2, M26E4 'Super Pershing' and A34 Comet. 

IS-2 because was an excellent support tank. Although not that fantastic against other tanks it was brilliant at destroying bunkers and artillery positions, as well as infantry. It's D-25T 122mm cannon with HE rounds would destroy just about anything at close range, which would be ideal because the optical equipment wasn't really good enough to hit anything about 1km. 
Against tanks it could still punch upto the Tiger's weight range. Possibly causing fear and confusion inside the Tiger. But the best chance would have to be below 1km. While the Tiger could comfortably destroy the IS-2 at that range, as well as the Panther. 

Super Pershing because it was mobile, fast and packed a powerful punch. It was punching in the same ranges as the Tiger and Panther. In fact, I wouldn't shy away from marking this particular tank as the best tank of the war. The only problem is ...only one got to see service. But in one day it destroyed a King Tiger and a Panther in Dessau. 

Comet because it was, again, fast and mobile. Low down and packed a punch. It proved it's worth against the opposition Panther and Tiger but unfortunately only saw a few actions late in the war. It carried a modified 17pdr (OQF 77mm Mk.II) which was only slightly inferior to the original 17pdr.


Glider, the Churchill was too narrow to be fitted with a OQF 17pdr due to British railroad loading gauge restrictions. By the time the A43 'Black Prince' was tested the A41 'Centurion' had already been tested and proved superior in almost every aspect of design. And with the solution of turning the 17pdr on it's side to solve the problem of being too narrow ...it was only thought up in 1944 and the Churchill had already been seen inadequete in ...well everything ...to provide armoured thrusts of fast movement. The Sherman was the best solution and got all the 17pdrs. 

A machine of interest which was in the Allied inventory was the M36B1 which was a M4A3 which had it's usual Sherman turret replaced with that of a M36, mounting the M3 90mm. It was in all but name, an open top tank which was much superior to the Sherman. It even had the hull MG retained, which the usual M36 and M36B2 did not have.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 15, 2005)

*Jabberwocky:*



> Turretless Shermans were used as troop carriers (Kangaroos).



They were actually Priests and RAM's, though very similar.



> 2. Cruiser tank; Comet.
> 
> An upgrade of the Cromwell hull. Fast, reliable, low profile with a high powered variant of the 17lbr, mounted sideways in the turret. It was lighter and smaller than a Sherman, but carried thicker and better sloped armour. The Rolls Royce Meteor engine and wide tracks gave it excellent mobility as well.



The 17pdr was actually more powerful than the 77mm, though that could crack a Tiger @ 1000m with APCBC IIRC. 8) 

The armour was actually thinner than the Shermans in places and vertical.



RAGMAN said:


> Sorry to be a bother again, but from what I have read and seen on video,the panzers never had the replacement parts as the sherman,cromwell,etc.



No bother. Thats kinda true, but the Pz's shared many components, the Allied tanks didn't.

*Glider:*



> It served as the basis for the SU85 and SU100 which were the Russian equivalents to the M10 family.



They were more like the JagdPz's, the SU100 was uparmoured. 8) 



> One observation of the Churchill. If someone had the nounce to put the 17pd in a Sherman turret sideways to make it work (top marks to the people who came up with that solution). Why couldn't they do that to a Churchill which had a bigger turret in the first place. Never could work that one out.



It was the turret ring, it couldn't take the recoil.

*PlanD:*



> IS-2 because was an excellent support tank. Although not that fantastic against other tanks



You know it could wreck a KonigsTiger.

I agree with your choice of Super Pershing PlanD. 8) 

The Cromwell was able to kill a Panther with it's manouverability, the Comet even a KT. 8) 



> Glider, the Churchill was too narrow to be fitted with a OQF 17pdr due to British railroad loading gauge restrictions.



Not exactly, but a wider turret ring required a wider hull.

However the Russians got round this problem by making the KV2's turret taller, as did the UK Challenger IIRC?



> A machine of interest which was in the Allied inventory was the M36B1 which was a M4A3 which had it's usual Sherman turret replaced with that of a M36, mounting the M3 90mm. It was in all but name, an open top tank which was much superior to the Sherman.



Being open-topped, it was vulnerable even to pistols!

However IIRC some were enclosed?



> It even had the hull MG retained, which the usual M36 and M36B2 did not have.



Silly idea the 'bullet hose', I'd rather have the extra armour and ammo stowage.

However not having an MG at all, like in the Ferdinand is a mistake.

I'm leaning towards the Firefly, though the Churchill crocodile was much feared by the SS, as was the Matilda in its day. 8) 

Does the Centurion enter into this?

The Challenger may be interesting, as it saw service IIRC?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2005)

The M7 Priest being based upon the chassis of the M3 Grant, of which the M4 Sherman was based upon. We must give credit to the chassis that produced many different vehicles that provided so many services to the Allies cause. 

The 77mm OQF Mk.II wouldn't be able to destroy a Tiger I's front at 1000m. It would be able to at standard combat ranges of 500-600m but no way at 1000m. 

The minimum armour value on the A34 'Comet' is 14mm, compared to the minimum armour value on the Sherman being 12mm. The maximum on the Sherman was 62mm, compared to the maximum of the Comet's 101mm. 

The Panzers lacked spare parts due to the lack of industry in Germany. Some Panzer units often went into battle before their supporting maintenance company had arrived because they had advanced so fast, or were needed so urgently. Ideally, the maintenance company arrives before the rest of the battalion. If the transport or industry allowed Panzer units always had spares. 

The Allied tanks shared many, many, many components. That is why production and maintenance was so simple and fast. The whole development of the British tank system was the use of components from other tanks. The Sherman was the most extensive AFV in the Allied armies. And Sherman's were often ripped to pieces to provide spares when damaged beyond battlefield repair. 

I think Glider was stating their comparison on a basis of the SU series being tank destroyers. The SU-100 was up-armoured and up-gunned from the SU-85. The number of the variant was the calibre of it's main weapon. 

The IS-2 couldn't wreck a King Tiger in a straight shooting match. You've re-entered fantasy land. The only way to destroy a King Tiger was to the under-side, rear and sides. In that case, a lot of tanks could do so. The trouble was getting to those areas and that's a big trouble when the King is shooting at you. 

Yes, exactly, the sole reason the Churchill wasn't fitted with the 17pdr was because it was too narrow. The A30 'Challenger' was based off the A27 chassis. 

I quote: _"The 17pdr gun was then in the development stage, and for the cruiser tank requirments the possibility of mounting this weapon in the A27 series was considered. *However, the A27 chassis was too narrow to take a turret big enough to hold the 17pdr.*"_

On the Churchill: _"Since it was built to meet British railroad loading gauge restrictions, the Churchill suffered from the same disadvantage as other comtemprary British designs *in that it was too narrow to take the larger turret required for the 17pdr gun*"_

On the Black Prince: _"...the A43 involved much re-design work, mainly because of the wider hull required."_

The Black Prince was 2ft wider than the Churchill to take the 17pdr!

Vulnerable to pistols if rolled under a building occupied by people who thought it'd be a good idea to fight a war with just Lugers. But then ...every open topped vehicle had that problem. But you're not going to have that problem in the middle of a field!

Wait ...so the SS feared the Crocodile but the Heeres didn't?  Of course you're going to hate those things ...it's a flame tank ...everyone hates a flame tank when it comes near you.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 16, 2005)

The term 'Kangaroo' was genrally used in Allied armies for any armoured vehicle converted into an improvised APC. The Kangaroo I was refering to were the 75 Sherman IIIs that were converted in Italy by the British Army for use as APCs. 

The 'Priest Kangaroo' was used in Normandy by the British and Canadian Armies, mostly for night advances. The 'Ram Kangaroo' was a converted Sherman IV hull, used after Normandy by the Canadians, often created from damaged tanks.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 16, 2005)

> We must give credit to the chassis that produced many different vehicles that provided so many services to the Allies cause.



Yes, it was also shortened to make the Stuart. 8) 



> The 77mm OQF Mk.II wouldn't be able to destroy a Tiger I's front at 1000m. It would be able to at standard combat ranges of 500-600m but no way at 1000m.



Whoops!  - Though it might have with APDS? the data is actually 109mm @ 457m with APCBC - not bad.



> The minimum armour value on the A34 'Comet' is 14mm, compared to the minimum armour value on the Sherman being 12mm. The maximum on the Sherman was 62mm, compared to the maximum of the Comet's 101mm.



I've got 15mm min for the 'Sherm, thjough I'll believe 12mm the max could be 100mm, the E8 and Firefly were very well armoured.



> The Allied tanks shared many, many, many components. That is why production and maintenance was so simple and fast. The whole development of the British tank system was the use of components from other tanks.



Yes, but the Shermans had varying hulls, suspension, guns, ammo (76mm), fuel and engines. 

Though when they came about in '42 the Brit tanks were much worse for this.



> The IS-2 couldn't wreck a King Tiger in a straight shooting match. You've re-entered fantasy land.



If the crew was good (rare) then it could.



> *However, the A27 chassis was too narrow to take a turret big enough to hold the 17pdr."
> 
> in that it was too narrow to take the larger turret required for the 17pdr gun" *



It's the turret ring, rather than the turret itself. 

That Allied tanks of WW2 book we have has combat info on the Challenger IIRC?



> Vulnerable to pistols if rolled under a building occupied by people who thought it'd be a good idea to fight a war with just Lugers. But then ...every open topped vehicle had that problem. But you're not going to have that problem in the middle of a field!



There was a crew attacked with pistols. Also vulnerable in urban areas. Audie Murphy fought from a 'brewed up' M10.



> Wait ...so the SS feared the Crocodile but the Heeres didn't? Of course you're going to hate those things ...it's a flame tank ...everyone hates a flame tank when it comes near you.



It takes a lot to scare SS, the orders were to shoot dead all captured crocodile crews on site.



> The Kangaroo I was refering to were the 75 Sherman IIIs that were converted in Italy by the British Army for use as APCs.



I can't remember if Sherms were converted or not?  



> The 'Priest Kangaroo' was used in Normandy by the British and Canadian Armies, mostly for night advances. The 'Ram Kangaroo' was a converted Sherman IV hull, used after Normandy by the Canadians, often created from damaged tanks.



I think the Australians did them? The RAM Kangaroo was a RAM, not a Sherman IIRC.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 16, 2005)

The E8 Shermans were not uparmoured. They were based on the original model (M4A3E8 based on M4A3) but had the 76mm, 'wet stowage' and HVSS. The only uparmouring of Shermans was retro-fittings by the engineering companies in the field. The same applies for the Sherman Firefly. And no way were they near the armour of the Comet. 

Standard practice was to form units of the same build Shermans. There were only two different types of suspension anyway, HVSS entered service in early 1944. The vast majority of components in Shermans were the same and maintenance encountered little problem. 

British tanks were designed from the start to try and incorporate as many components from those tanks before them. Just read up on the Cruiser Mk.III to Mk.VI. 

You mean if the crew was superman, spiderman, daredevil, incrediable hulk and ironman. Then maybe ...just maybe an IS-2 could wreck a King Tiger in a straight shooting match. 

No larger turret ring, no larger turret. Jesus christ. The tanks were too narrow to take a larger turret/turret ring. I am right. You know I'm right. 

The Challengers joined the recon regiments of armoured divisions post-D-Day to bulk up the firepower of the Cromwells. There were only 200 though.

A lot of people were attacked with pistols. The M36B1 wouldn't have the problem in a field. As I said. 

Just because the SS disliked the presence of a Crocodile armed tank it doesn't mean it's fantastic. You do realise that Crocodile refers to the flame-equipment, not the tank. There were all kinds of flame tanks and everyone hated them. They were infantry nightmares. 

Yes, Sherman IIIs were converted in Italy. 75 of them between October 1944 and April 1945 as Jabberwocky said.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 16, 2005)

Comet:

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/uk/fcomet.htm

Firefly:

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/uk/ffirefly.htm

E8:

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/fm4a376w.htm

The Sherm was better.



> There were only two different types of suspension anyway, HVSS entered service in early 1944.



3 actually due to variations in the return rollers, though there may have been even more?



> The vast majority of components in Shermans were the same and maintenance encountered little problem.



There were different hulls, suspension, guns, ammo (76mm), fuel and engines, that's like an entire tank!

That's like saying a Mk4 VW Golf is the same as a Mk1.  



> Standard practice was to form units of the same build Shermans.



That is a good point.



> No larger turret ring, no larger turret. Jesus christ. The tanks were too narrow to take a larger turret/turret ring. I am right. You know I'm right.



Please don't blaspheme.  Drop the underlined part and you're bang-on!



> The M36B1 wouldn't have the problem in a field. As I said.



If it avoids infantry, shrapnel, tanks, AT guns etc, then yes, it'll be invulnerable.  



> You do realise that Crocodile refers to the flame-equipment, not the tank



Well I take crocodile to mean Churchill flamethrower, though Churchills without throwers were nicknamed crocodiles.

Cheers for the info PlanD.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 16, 2005)

That site is amazing. It actually says the 'Easy Eight' had superior armour protection than the Tiger I. Which is wrong. I would also like to point out that Sherman IIIAY refers to the M4A2(76W) HVSS not the M4A3(76W) HVSS. That site is basing the armour values off those that appeared in the field for the 'Easy Eight' against factory fresh A34 Comets. The M4A3(76W) HVSS or M4A3E8 was based upon the chassis of the M4A3, therefore it had the same armour values as the M4A3. Just look at the chassis of either tank ...exactly the same. The only differences are those added in the name, a 76mm cannon and HVSS suspension. 

Have you even read those armour values? They make the Sherman the most heavily armoured tank of the war!

The differences in hulls make no difference on the battlefield. There's no changing of hulls in battlefield maintenance, if you've lost the hull ...you've lost the tank. 

Again, only two different suspension types. If there were changes in return rollers it doesn't affect the repairs of the rest of the suspension. You don't change the entire suspension ...only bits of it. 

Again ...you don't normally change guns in battlefield maintenance. The only two vast differences aside from the change from 75mm to 76mm was the specialised Shermans which were in company of their own. 

Engines are the only one worth mentioning. And that's only the engine itself. The vast majority of mechanical parts were the same throughout the Sherman series. Obviously you don't know how many different parts make up a tank. 

I'll blaspheme all I want. And the tanks were too narrow to take a new turret. That's just the fact. Now shut up because you know I'm right. When mentioning the turret being too small unless otherwise stated it is also refering to the turret being unable to take a larger turret. So, I was right the Churchill was too narrow to take the 17pdr. 

Oh right, of course because all those things just fall out of the sky. And I never said it was invulnerable. 

Crocodile refers to the flame equipment. There were Sherman Crocodiles used by 2nd Armoured Division.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

As for the best allied I would go with the Pershing. As stated though it was too late to really make an impact. It was pretty much the only tank except for several russian designs that could hold out against the Panzers.

The only think the Sherman had going for it was shear numbers again and the fact that they could make them faster than the Panzers could take them out.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 16, 2005)

Those onwar armour values for the E8 Sherman are seriously wrong;

114-140mm front hull armour
152mm all around turret armour  
178mm mantle armour

Come on! There is no way that the Sherman E8 could have 158mm all around turret armour and 100mm minimum frontal armour and still only weigh 33 tons. The similarly equipped M4A2 had half that armour and weighed almost exactly the same. The Tiger 1 had 100mm front and 80mm side armour and weighed 57 tons! The Pershing had 100mm (roughly) frontal and 75mm side armour and weighed 42 tons. Simply not possible. A Tiger II doesn't even have that level of protection.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 16, 2005)

I know ..it made me laugh too.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 17, 2005)

Damn it didn't work!  

Look at the values for the Sherman 'Jumbo':

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/fm4a3e2.htm

It's either that or the super-Sherman they likely got confused with.



> Obviously you don't know how many different parts make up a tank.



There are more, tracks for e.g. there were at least 3 variations there, I bet transmissions too?



> When mentioning the turret being too small unless otherwise stated it is also refering to the turret being unable to take a larger turret.



The turret was unable to take a larger turret??  



> So, I was right the Churchill was too narrow to take the 17pdr.



If the turret was bigger as in taller, like the KV2's, then the 17pdr could be installed.



> Oh right, of course because all those things just fall out of the sky.



Infantry and tanks fall out of the sky? What planet are you on?  



> Crocodile refers to the flame equipment. There were Sherman Crocodiles used by 2nd Armoured Division.



Now I think of it, there was. The Yanks referred to it as 'the croc' though.

The Matilda throwers were called frogs, is there a theme here?


*Jabberwocky:*



> The Tiger 1 had 100mm front and 80mm side armour and weighed 57 tons! The Pershing had 100mm (roughly) frontal and 75mm side armour and weighed 42 tons.



The IS3 had 60mm-200mm of excellent ballistically shaped armour and weighed just over 45 tons.

*DerAdler:*

The Allied tanks were pretty crap (sorry uncle!) but the Churchill and Firefly had great armour/gun respectfully and PlanD's Comet was a corker as was the Cromwell for that matter.

The Crusader, Valentine and Matildas were also good, the Matilda could even stave off 88mm hits!

I'm tempted to go for the 'tilda or Comet, the 'tilda for what it did at Arras and North Afrika.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 17, 2005)

I meant the tank was too narrow to take a larger turret ring thus a larger turret. So, in the end, the Churchill was too narrow to take the 17pdr. 

Wrong, the KV-2s solution would not apply to the 17pdr being installed. The KV-2s 152mm cannon was a slow velocity weapon and did not require a long breech, nor did it require space for the recoil and loading sections. The Challenger's superstructure had to be widened to take the 17pdr. 

You're calling the M36B1 pointless on the basis that it's top is open. Unless everything is falling from the sky then it's not that much of a hinderance. In fact, it's only a hinderance in the confines of a city.


----------



## mosquitoman (Oct 17, 2005)

> Infantry and tanks fall out of the sky? What planet are you on?



Well, the infantry are called paratroops if you didn't know


----------



## plan_D (Oct 17, 2005)

And we have airborne tanks too.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 17, 2005)

> I meant the tank was too narrow to take a larger turret ring thus a larger turret. So, in the end, the Churchill was too narrow to take the 17pdr.



I'll accept, I am an awkward bugger!  



> Wrong, the KV-2s solution would not apply to the 17pdr being installed. The KV-2s 152mm cannon was a slow velocity weapon and did not require a long breech, nor did it require space for the recoil and loading sections. The Challenger's superstructure had to be widened to take the 17pdr.



The turret could have been narrower at the bottom, like the T34.



> You're calling the M36B1 pointless on the basis that it's top is open.



It was just vulnerable full stop, thinner armour than a Sherman and just as big a target albeit with good manouverability, but not completely pointless. Though obviously the crew were 'expendable'.  



mosquitoman said:


> Well, the infantry are called paratroops if you didn't know



I was waiting for someone to say that.  Was expecting PD to.


----------



## mosquitoman (Oct 17, 2005)

The Russians also had a glider tank aswell


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 17, 2005)

There was even a rocket-powered Valentine!  

Some other nation(s) tried a flying tank during WW2 IIRC?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 17, 2005)

The M36B1 shared the same chassis and super-structure as the M4A3. Same armour protection.


----------



## RAGMAN (Oct 22, 2005)

Glideable tank? That must have been the anscestor of the SU25 in the other thread!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 22, 2005)

Ive always wondered why the Brits used a weight measure to identify the size of the guns and not a diameter like everyone else.

Can you tell me what the bore size is for a 17 pounder?


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 22, 2005)

Syscom, here is a webpage with the conversions as well as the penetration values of the various British guns: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/PenetrationTables.htm#17pdr (That is set for the 17 Pounder, the others are all there too.)


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 22, 2005)

Thanks. Good info there.

Now do you know why the Brits used the weight system and not a measurement ?


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 22, 2005)

No I don't. Sorry pD might though...


----------



## Glider (Oct 22, 2005)

I think you will find that it was 76mm, as was the 77mm in the Comet. The reason was a wonderfully simple awnser to a potential dangerous problem.
As you say traditionally we used the weight of the shell as the marker but it did have one benefit. The allies had three guns with the same calibre the US 76, the 17pd and the gun in the Comet which was 76mm. Had we called them all 76mm, there could have been significant problems with ammunition as they couldn't fire the same shells. By calling the Comet 77 and marking the ammo up confusion was averted.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 22, 2005)

Well thats one good reason, but the system of measurement must have been in place prior to WW2.


----------



## Glider (Oct 22, 2005)

Not for the UK. Remember we had the 2pd, 6pd, 17pd, 25pd, plus in the first world war the 6pd, 13pd and 18pd. Even after WWII we had the 20pd.
Let the rest of the world go for mm we stuck to weights for as long as we could.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 22, 2005)

We still use the 25pd, I think, or at least until recently.


----------



## trackend (Oct 22, 2005)

I think the 105mm pack Howitzer was its replacement in the 70s GN


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 22, 2005)

Centurion Mk. I

Though it didnt see combat during WW2 it was designed during and saw post-war service in Europe,

It proved an excellent Tank during 
Korean War - United Kingdom 
Suez Crisis- (United Kingdom) 
Six Day War - (Israel) 
Yom Kippur War - (Israel) 
Vietnam War - (Australia) 
Angola Bush War - (South Africa) 
Gulf War - UK as Centurion AVRE's 

Or the Cromwell wich was specifaclly designed to counter the threat posed by the newer Panzer Series


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 23, 2005)

I think the best allied tank was the M26 Pershing. Why? Because America finally had a tank that could take on the Panther or a Tiger. The M26 was still used in the Korean War to take on the T-34.

About the Sherman, it was an ok tank. I think the best models used with the M4 were the M-7 and Firefly that had what i think was the 85mm gun that could penetrate German tank Armour.


----------



## trackend (Oct 23, 2005)

It was a 17pounder (76.2mm) on the Firefly P38 but as you say it had the hitting power that the earlier (and most widely used) Sherman 75mm lacked terribly.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 23, 2005)

The M7 was a Priest SPG based on the Sherman chassis, it wasn't a kind of Sherman. The most powerful American Sherman was the M4A3E8 'Easy Eight' with 76mm cannon, wet stowage and HVSS (Horizontal Volute Suspension). 

The Cromwell was designed as an improvement on the Cruiser types that the British used. It wasn't much of an improvement either until they put the 75mm in it. The A34 Comet was an improvement over that which carried the OQF 77mm (adaptation of the OQF 17pdr) which wasn't that much weaker than the 17pdr.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 25, 2005)

P38, you may be interested in the M12 (155mm based on a Sherman chassis).



> The most powerful American Sherman was the M4A3E8 'Easy Eight' with 76mm cannon, wet stowage and HVSS (Horizontal Volute Suspension).



Well, it depends:

Gun

Firefly or M12

Armour 

E2 'Jumbo'

Mobility

E8

You've always got wet stowage though. I'd plump for the Firefly.



> The Cromwell was designed as an improvement on the Cruiser types that the British used.



It was, look at the Crusader it replaced or the crappy Covenator etc.

Replacing the Liberty with the Meteor is what did it.



> the OQF 77mm (adaptation of the OQF 17pdr) which wasn't that much weaker than the 17pdr.



Yes, it wasn't bad, had a faster reload but will have started lacking more @ longer ranges IIRC?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 25, 2005)

The M12 wasn't a tank, it was a GMC. How can you put that in the same competition as a tank for firepower? Come on, let's be serious, it's not in the same field as the tank - it's mobile artillery. You would compare it to the M7, M40 and such. And the Firefly wasn't in American service, notice I stated, "Most powerful *American* Sherman..." I will give the M4A3E2 as the most heavily armoured Sherman. 


So, the M4A3E8 was the most powerful American Sherman on the combination of armour, firepower and mobility. Due to the simple fact, the M12 wasn't a tank, Firefly wasn't American, M4A3E2 lackes mobility and firepower. 

The Covenator was never replaced by the Cromwell, it remained the British training tank until 1943. As it never did see operational service - it couldn't be replaced by an operational tank that was needed for frontline service. 

The Cromwell replaced the Centaur! That's where _"Replacing the Liberty with the Meteor is what did it."_ comes in. It was the improvement in the Cruiser series, yes, but it replaced the Centaur. Centaur (A27L) and Cromwell (A27M) ...see? I wonder what the letters mean...

The OQF 77mm lacked the power of the OQF 17pdr through all ranges but only slightly. It was more powerful than all those British tank cannons before it.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 25, 2005)

Ah yes! The good old M12 Longtom! Yes i am very familar with this combination of a mobile artilley peice and firepower! That 155mm gun was very useful into knocking down German buildings during the war.

I would have hated to have been on the recieving side of it....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 26, 2005)

How is that combination? "...mobile artillery piece and firepower..." That's the whole idea of a SPG - it's a mobile gun. And the M40 was larger ...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Hands down the Stalin KV Tank and The T-34.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 26, 2005)

I assume you mean, the Stalin, KV and T-34. Which would be ...three tanks, not one. 

And then there's the IS-1 and IS-2 (IS-3 not included, didn't see service.), KV-1, KV-1s, KV-2 and KV-85 (Not all included, don't waste my time), T-34/76 and T-34/85 ...

Which would ultimately make it eight tanks ...not one.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

First Off dont be so bitter, your not the center of this whole site so I didnt post specifacly for you and I didnt post delibaratley to ruin your day.

And the Is-2 is the Stalin Tank, and the Is-2 was a development of the KV series Tanks hense, Like The Tiger was a development of The Panzer.

The Is-2 was only designated with the Is not the Kv because it was alighter tank. And excuse my error with my last post I did meen T-34/76.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 26, 2005)

> The M12 wasn't a tank, it was a GMC. How can you put that in the same competition as a tank for firepower? Come on, let's be serious, it's not in the same field as the tank - it's mobile artillery.



I thought of that when I posted, if it doesn't count, it doesn't count.



> the Firefly wasn't in American service, notice I stated, "Most powerful American Sherman



Did you? All right then.



> I will give the M4A3E2 as the most heavily armoured Sherman.



2nd most heavily armoured tank in WW2 I believe? (After the Maus 8) )



> So, the M4A3E8 was the most powerful American Sherman on the combination of armour, firepower and mobility. Due to the simple fact, the M12 wasn't a tank, Firefly wasn't American, M4A3E2 lackes mobility and firepower.



Yes, though I think an early Super-Sherman maybe saw WW2 service?


Yes as a trainer the Covenator was OK.


I thought the Centaur never really saw service, like the Challenger?

(It did, but didn't)

Anyway the Centaur was designed for the Meteor and most, if not all were retrofitted with the Meteor anyway.



> I wonder what the letters mean...



Liberty, Meteor, but I guess it's a sarcey question?



> The OQF 77mm lacked the power of the OQF 17pdr through all ranges but only slightly.



I guess that as the range increased, so did the performance difference?



> How is that combination? "...mobile artillery piece and firepower..." That's the whole idea of a SPG - it's a mobile gun.



The JagTiger and your favorite; the Elefant weren't really that mobile.



> And the M40 was larger ...



Yes, did they all have HVSS?



> And then there's the IS-1 and IS-2 (IS-3 not included, didn't see service.)



The IS3 may have seen service, the IS1 didn't IIRC.



10st_Hussars said:


> First Off dont be so bitter, your not the center of this whole site so I didnt post specifacly for you and I didnt post delibaratley to ruin your day.



Go on fella!

He's actually alright today though.



> And the Is-2 is the Stalin Tank, and the Is-2 was a development of the KV series Tanks



I thought you meant that, to me Stalin allways means IS2(incl M)



> Like The Tiger was a development of The Panzer.



Did you know that the steering of the Tiger was developed by the bloke who owned Aston Martin?

David Brown hence; DB5, DB7, DB9 etc.



> The Is-2 was only designated with the Is not the Kv because it was alighter tank.



It was quite different as it used torsion bar suspension plus many, many other differences. I think 100% was changed - effectively making it a whole new tank.



> And excuse my error with my last post I did meen T-34/76.



I'm not bothered if you included the T34/85 personally.


For importance, rather than performance, I've narrowed it down to 1 for each nation except USSR:

UK

MatildaII

USA 

M3 Prototype

USSR

T34, KV, IS all roughly equal?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Did you know that the steering of the Tiger was developed by the bloke who owned Aston Martin? 

David Brown hence; DB5, DB7, DB9 etc. 
No I didnt know that, thats pretty interesting.

"And excuse my error with my last post I did meen T-34/76"

I was only apoligizing to Pd to show everybody what a jerk he was being thats all.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 26, 2005)

> How is that combination? "...mobile artillery piece and firepower..." That's the whole idea of a SPG - it's a mobile gun. And the M40 was larger ...


I still like the M12 alot better. And it was a deadly combination because before you knew it 155mm shells were blowing the hell out of your enviroment and your only Panzer Squad!


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 26, 2005)

102_Hussars said:


> I was only apoligizing to Pd to show everybody what a jerk he was being thats all.



Yes he takes Pedantry way too far, but I've seen others act like that with him (me included  ) perhaps in retaliation?

BTW: He doesn't like his own medicine.  


I know it's not strictly Allied, but...

Personally I'd like to have seen a V2 mounted on a Tiger.  

There were some serious tanks/projects though the SturmTiger and JagdMaus.

A SturmTiger apparently killed 3+ Shermans in one shot!! 8) 

The V2 was used in the Bulge IIRC?


The best SPG's of WW2 have to be the (I)SU152 and SU100 though. 8) 

The Katyuska also. 8) 

The Crusader AA and T77 MGMC were great FlakPanzers too.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 27, 2005)

Haha - reading all that made me laugh. And ...hussars, I am a jerk - haven't you gathered that? 

And the Tiger was developed from "The Panzer" - and what exactly would "The Panzer" be refering to? Panzer means armour - which would mean, the Tiger was developed from "...the armour...".


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 27, 2005)

I think he means the family resemblance that's all.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 27, 2005)

comin straight from a German Pd cant argue with that


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 28, 2005)

English-German actually, though that doesn't stop me from being wrong.

The VK projects may interest you, there was info on achtungpanzer, but the site seems screwy.  

The Tiger had it's roots in 1936, but was deemed "unnecessary"  - even though a Russian inspector, when showed the latest PzIV said "That isn't the heaviest tank you've got??". Guderian saw it coming...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 28, 2005)

Achtung-Panzer, (Attention Armour?)


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 28, 2005)

Bang on!  

Here is the link: (with sub-links)

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm

- but there are no photos  

There is a book (in English) on the Maus that also has a lot of info/photos of the VK/DW project and Ferd Porche, well worth getting though I couldn't find it on Canadian Amazon.

I think Guderian was actually a huge supporter of the Tiger? 
I think the great link parm gave had it in?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 28, 2005)

Thats a pretty cool site, one question

What does Panzershrek and Panzerfaust mean in English, I know I spelled them wrong


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 28, 2005)

"Faust" means fist, and I think "schreck" means terror or horror.

Well, German speakers?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 28, 2005)

ah, thx


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 28, 2005)

Cool


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 29, 2005)

Correct NS.  

Panzerschreck - 'tank terror'

Panzerfaust - 'tank fist'

NB: German usually doesn't translate exactly (e.g. Vorsprung Durch Teknik) but the above are what they mean.

The 'Shrecks proper name was Raketenpanzerbüchse (RPzB) or it could be called the Ofenrohr ("Stove Pipe"). I think someone on this site actually has one?

The Soviets called them Fausts, as they did with the PzFaust.  

102hussars, you missed 2 c's from the German spelling of Panzershreck but  shreck is often Anglicised to Shrek, so you're not wrong really either.  

BTW: Shrek (Disney) is named that for that reason I think?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

Nope the Disney Shrek means really ugly.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

I was helping my nephew out with his homework on Martin Luther, not king, the guys who was responsible for the Protistents breaking from the Catholic Church, after all this time of hating Hippie protesters didnt realise i was one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

You are correct with you translations there. German does not translate literally to english, in most cases it just can not be done.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

I think I will go for the M-36 Jackson as it actually had the power in its canon to do some damage to German tanks such as the Kingtiger and Panther. It also had the ability to deal with infantry- An important thing for a tank destroyer considering Germans would consider anything that could take out their tanks within a few shots from the front and that, a threat.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 6, 2005)

I think any tank could be an infantry tank. If you see the one coming at you from the opposite side, run like hell!


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2005)

And it catches you in the open ground and kills you. You want to be as close as possible to enemy tanks, there vision is restricted, making it easy for you to destroy it. 

And the Jackson wasn't a tank, it was a tank destroyer. And it couldn't destroy the Panther or King Tiger in head on combat.


----------



## trackend (Nov 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> And it catches you in the open ground and kills you. You want to be as close as possible to enemy tanks, there vision is restricted, making it easy for you to destroy it.



Can we have a demo please PD  a guy where I used to live got close to a tank and knocked it out with a PIAT he got a medal for doing it.
Infantry where nearly always mixed with amour to take care of the AT artillery and any threats from infantry held weapons. 
Pure amour against amour battles where very rare.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 7, 2005)

It depends on the situation. In open field combat, armour vs. armour was the norm. The supporting infantry in armoured divisions should always be behind the armour to support in urban, forest or swamp conditions. And, also, to hold ground captured by the armour up-front. 

When the full complement in an armoured division does clash, it will be a mixture of battles between infantry and armour. The easiest scenario to picture is an urban battle between two armoured units, in this case it's up to the infantry to get in close to nullify the tanks weapon range. 

The problem with Allied soldiers were that they were too scared of the tank. Even when they weren't supported by infantry, the Allied soldiers would run away or hide (not hide to kill the thing, just hide). German troops, however, got in close and destroyed the enemy armour from nearby where the tanks view is restricted. 

You will, most likely, have to fight infantry but it's better to be fighting in close than letting the enemies tank force slaughter you at a distance. 

For those who can't understand what I mean, just watch the Band of Brothers episode where they attack Foy. They have to draw the combat in close, so they have to get across the open field quickly. By doing so they rid the German forces (artillery and tanks) of any range advantage, and the tanks quickly lose much of their capability, while the artillery is basically knocked out of the fight. 

Obviously, there's always counter-measures to this. On the defence, the tank must be behind the first line of defence making it the furthest target on the battlefield. The range of it's cannon will make up for the fact the tank isn't actually at the front. Whenever in a position where the tank will get in close (urban warfare) supporting infantry should always lead the way, and keep the tanks clear of enemy infantry. 

All basic principles of that kind of warfare ...but it's never going to work out the way you want it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

The Germans were always able to use the Infantry together with Panzers very well. They sort of mastered the idea behind it.


----------



## trackend (Nov 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The problem with Allied soldiers were that they were too scared of the tank. Even when they weren't supported by infantry, the Allied soldiers would run away or hide (not hide to kill the thing, just hide). German troops, however, got in close and destroyed the enemy armour from nearby where the tanks view is restricted.


A Good post D however it was a bit unfair to say that . Its a lot easier to take on armour when you know the weapon you have will knock it out all beit from close rang for example Wittman was credited with knocking out a pile of enemy tanks if the Germans had been given Shermans with a 75mm pop gun and the allies had been given Tigers with 88s I somehow suspect Mr Wittman would have just been another brewed up corpse and an allied tank commander would have been a top ace. And if their infrantry had PIATs and Bazookas against Tigers, Panthers ect then they would have headed for the hills as it was virtual suicide to even attempt to stop German armour with what the allied troops had to use.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 7, 2005)

*HealzDevo:*



> I think I will go for the M-36 Jackson as it actually had the power in its canon to do some damage to German tanks such as the Kingtiger and Panther.



What is wrong with this statement? - Nothing! The Panther could be killed damaged and the KT was not invulnerable, that 90mm was pretty effective! That's a good point HealzDevo.



> It also had the ability to deal with infantry



It wasn't so hot there, me and PlanD discussed this just recently.



> An important thing for a tank destroyer



I think you're meaning Stugs and support tanks, similar, but different.



> PlanD:





> And the Jackson wasn't a tank, it was a tank destroyer. And it couldn't destroy the Panther or King Tiger in head on combat.



Anal as ever I see  he's near enough, it had a turret, though you are right. It could destroy a Panther head on, as even an M10 managed this, with difficulty though.
BTW some Jacksons were tanks, hactually.  



> trackend:





> a guy where I used to live got close to a tank and knocked it out with a PIAT he got a medal for doing it.



A PIAT could even destroy a KonigsTiger with a skillful operator, though the commanders cupola MG42's on some made this extra difficult.  

Funnily enough some PzIII's, PzIV's and StuG's were almost immune! (due to Schurzen)



> Infantry where nearly always mixed with amour to take care of the AT artillery and any threats from infantry held weapons.



Very true, this was ideal, but not practised as often as it should.



> Pure amour against amour battles where very rare.



No they were pretty common.



> German troops, however, got in close and destroyed the enemy armour from nearby where the tanks view is restricted.



You will, most likely, have to fight infantry but it's better to be fighting in close than letting the enemies tank force slaughter you at a distance. 

A hitler youth tried that on the front of my uncles heavily appliqued Churchill. Last thing he ever did.

Russian Tankovy Desant made this practise suicidal.

What you say is broadly true PlanD, but HE (particularly on short 75mm's), cupola MG's, co-ax's, bow guns, mortars Nahverteidigungswaffe, pistol ports and even the treads  were used against infantry.

Remember, some tanks like the Sherman and others were designed to attack infantry, not tanks.

Decent link on the subject:

http://www.custermen.net/nahvert/nah.htm

Also don't forget about Schurzen!  



DerAdler said:


> The Germans were always able to use the Infantry together with Panzers very well. They sort of mastered the idea behind it.



PanzerGrenadiers were good, but Tankovy Desant were better IMHO.

*trackend:*



> A Good post D however it was a bit unfair to say that .



It was a bit unfair (Arnhem for e.g.), but unfortunately broadly true.



> Its a lot easier to take on armour when you know the weapon you have will knock it out all beit from close rang



The Allies were told that the US 76mm firing new APC would be able to easily destroy German 'heavies' - they were lying! AP was then retro-issued.  



> Wittman was credited with knocking out a pile of enemy tanks if the Germans had been given Shermans with a 75mm pop gun and the allies had been given Tigers with 88s I somehow suspect Mr Wittman would have just been another brewed up corpse and an allied tank commander would have been a top ace.



Yes, but there were a few Fireflies in the Villers-Bocage engagement, easily capable of destroying a Tiger.



> And if their infrantry had PIATs and Bazookas against Tigers, Panthers ect then they would have headed for the hills as it was virtual suicide to even attempt to stop German armour with what the allied troops had to use.



I posted a US test on a deleted thread. Sould I find it? (Again NS!  )


----------

