The Nerd
Airman
What was the best allied tank of the war? The reasons if possible.
best allied tank?
- Thread starter The Nerd
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
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.
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
Airman
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. 
The up gunned models maybe.
RAGMAN
Airman
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
Captain
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.
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
Pacific Historian
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.
Too bad it came out to late to really show what it could do.
Glider
Captain
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.
Not perfect by any means but that would take the vote for the best.
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.
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
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Jabberwocky:
They were actually Priests and RAM's, though very similar.
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.
No bother. Thats kinda true, but the Pz's shared many components, the Allied tanks didn't.
Glider:
They were more like the JagdPz's, the SU100 was uparmoured. 8)
It was the turret ring, it couldn't take the recoil.
PlanD:
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)
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?
Being open-topped, it was vulnerable even to pistols!
However IIRC some were enclosed?
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?
They were actually Priests and RAM's, though very similar.
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:
No bother. Thats kinda true, but the Pz's shared many components, the Allied tanks didn't.
Glider:
They were more like the JagdPz's, the SU100 was uparmoured. 8)
It was the turret ring, it couldn't take the recoil.
PlanD:
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)
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?
Being open-topped, it was vulnerable even to pistols!
However IIRC some were enclosed?
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?
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.
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
Staff Sergeant
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.
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
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Yes, it was also shortened to make the Stuart. 8)
Whoops!
- Though it might have with APDS? the data is actually 109mm @ 457m with APCBC - not bad.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.
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.
If the crew was good (rare) then it could.
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?
There was a crew attacked with pistols. Also vulnerable in urban areas. Audie Murphy fought from a 'brewed up' M10.
It takes a lot to scare SS, the orders were to shoot dead all captured crocodile crews on site.
I can't remember if Sherms were converted or not?
I think the Australians did them? The RAM Kangaroo was a RAM, not a Sherman IIRC.
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.
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
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 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.
3 actually due to variations in the return rollers, though there may have been even more?
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.
That is a good point.
Please don't blaspheme. Drop the underlined part and you're bang-on!
If it avoids infantry, shrapnel, tanks, AT guns etc, then yes, it'll be invulnerable.
Well I take crocodile to mean Churchill flamethrower, though Churchills without throwers were nicknamed crocodiles.
Cheers for the info PlanD.
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.
3 actually due to variations in the return rollers, though there may have been even more?
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.
That is a good point.
Please don't blaspheme.
Drop the underlined part and you're bang-on!If it avoids infantry, shrapnel, tanks, AT guns etc, then yes, it'll be invulnerable.
Well I take crocodile to mean Churchill flamethrower, though Churchills without throwers were nicknamed crocodiles.
Cheers for the info PlanD.
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.
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.
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.
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
Staff Sergeant
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.
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.
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 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.
There are more, tracks for e.g. there were at least 3 variations there, I bet transmissions too?
The turret was unable to take a larger turret??
If the turret was bigger as in taller, like the KV2's, then the 17pdr could be installed.
Infantry and tanks fall out of the sky? What planet are you on?
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 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.
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.
There are more, tracks for e.g. there were at least 3 variations there, I bet transmissions too?
The turret was unable to take a larger turret??
If the turret was bigger as in taller, like the KV2's, then the 17pdr could be installed.
Infantry and tanks fall out of the sky? What planet are you on?
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 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.
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.
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.
