.......What is a tank???
- Thread starter SINKA
- Start date
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
knowing him, he'll say it's computer gennerated, he thinks the lanc in my siggy's comp. generated, it's not, it's the city of lincon.............
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
i think the chirchill could have been one of the great tanks of the war if they'd put sloped armour in it, it had allot of armour on it don't get me wrong, but it should have been slopped...............
No, no it couldn't have been. The ONLY thing it had was decent armour. 152mm maximum on the Mk. VII-VIII but it was poor, low visibilty, under-armed, unreliable, slow..basically it was a poor tank.
It proved itself in Italy though as a great infantry support tank, even with that, we should have replaced it with the newer 17 pdr armed tanks that we had lined up.
It proved itself in Italy though as a great infantry support tank, even with that, we should have replaced it with the newer 17 pdr armed tanks that we had lined up.
This is a Mk. II Churchill but...
...it was poor, notice the 3 inch howitzer in the front, this was soon replaced with a MG. The British had many much better tanks.
For C.C...
...that's a captured Sherman Firefly, the Firefly is a Sherman M4A2 with a British 17 pdr (77mm) gun in it, which improved the tanks hitting power greatly it could finally match the Tiger.
This T-34 isn't so good now, is it?
...it was poor, notice the 3 inch howitzer in the front, this was soon replaced with a MG. The British had many much better tanks.
For C.C...
...that's a captured Sherman Firefly, the Firefly is a Sherman M4A2 with a British 17 pdr (77mm) gun in it, which improved the tanks hitting power greatly it could finally match the Tiger.
This T-34 isn't so good now, is it?
cheddar cheese
Major General
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
it was a 76mm..............
and i'm sorry, i didn't realise the churchill was that bad............
cheddar cheese
Major General
the lancaster kicks ass said:
oh wow
1mm difference! good job you mentioned that 
8)
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
you would have to have a very good aim, be at short range, and the tank would have to be barely moving or stationary...............
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
you wouldn't se much after anything got hit by a 38pdr...........
If most things got hit by a 38 pdr they'd be pretty much screwed. The thing is a 38 pdr AT gun was just too heavy, if it had been designed. The British 17 pdr was perfectly acceptable as an AT gun. And the 25 pdr Howitzer that we had throughout the war, I'm sure would have destroyed any tank it hit.
It was very hard hitting tanks in those days, no computer aided guidance.
It was very hard hitting tanks in those days, no computer aided guidance.
