Yeah...What's the point of the big sleeve anyway?

__________________
"This Guy Fawkes bloke, do we let him off or what?"

[quote=Weisenwolf;274530][quote=uksubs;274509]

Well that is my point; a firefly is not 'completely' a Bristish Tank (Von Poop; I know I am being pedantic) but it is not an American Tank either since its most distinctive feature on the battle field is British.

So the parameters must be defined: Is the question 'British built' or mostly 'British built' or 'Primarily in British use' or 'In limited British use'

If you read my starting post it say British "MADE "
I wanted to talk about British tanks for once because they hardly get a mention

I'd have to go with the Matilda II. The Comet or Churchill are obviously better when you compare them on paper, but you need to consider that during the Comet/Churchill's lifespan there were numerous German AFV's that could make good work of them in combat, while on the other hand, the Matilda II was nearly indestructible on the battlefield for the majority of its service.

The Sherman's 75mm gun was designed around the ammunition for the 19th century French "75" light artillery piece (albeit with different loadings). So using similar logic it could be argued that the Sherman wasn't entirely American...

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

I agree. The era of the Matilda II was the only time in the war in which a UK tank could knock out any enemy tank while not having to fear any of them.

For ever after that, the UK tank industry was desperately trying to play catch-up, but didn't make it until the Centurion appeared, too late to be of any use.

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

I would say the Comet tank was a great tank , but we could of done with it before D-Day

Of course the Comet was a better tank, in absolute terms, than Matilda II. But it wasn't as good in comparison with the quality of the opposition which each tank faced. In its heyday, the Matilda was "queen of the battlefield" while the Comet was not the equal of a Panther.

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

That Information came from a book I have and I would assume it actually meant Russian tanks desroyed when it was in action

Well since they didn't come out till later in the war that would be 1/4 of 48000 not 85000 and would be 12000 which is not half which is 24000

Now for the 500 Tiger tanks deployed to the SS Leibstandarte, 'Das Reich' and Totenkkopf panzer Divisions (this does not include other tigers deployed on the eastern front) it would mean that these 500 tigers would alone only have to destory 25 Russian tanks which would not be that hard.

Eg. If you believe about Micheal Whittman he himself destoryed enough tanks to count for at least 4 other tigers

2. 'A solitary Tiger of the Liebstandarte engaged a formation of around 50 t-34's, knocking out 22 of them and forcing the remainder to rtreat in disarray', that was in one battle.

They are just 2 examples of the abilities of the tiger and these such examples make it absoluetly possible to achieve the 1/4 mark.

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

I in no way implied that the British were not innovative because they and the rest of the allies were, just look at the mulberry harbours and the 'funnies'. Neither did I imply that the British used my example as 'here is what to do against a tiger' I was merely pointing out that I believed that the British lacked in terms of military hardware compared to the Germans and need superior numbers to defeat the Germans.

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

Someone starts a thread on British tanks...& somebody always has to drag it around to the Tiger & Michael bleedin' Whittmann... I like Tigers, but they've been done to sodding death, looked at forwards, backwards & inside out, reamed, dismantled, put back together again and flown to the moon... Why does it always come down to sodding Tigers.

Back on British vehicles pros & cons. While not as dominant against it's contemporary opposition as the Tilly 2, I'd still say the Comet was about the equal of the Panther, possibly more useful in terms of reliability? The French gave their postwar German mediums (Panthers) an expected transmission survival time of 150kms!, that's not a complaint I ever heard about the Comet.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.

Fair enough, I apologize, so back to the original thread then

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

From what I've read the Comet was a match for Panther

The Comet's 77mm gun was not as powerful as the Panther's 75mm (which was about equal to the 17 pdr). The Comet could gain a penetration advantage by using APDS, but this was less accurate and also less reliable (it tended to break up). The Comet's armour thickness was generally less, too.

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

There you are. Whenever we discuss anything like this we always fail to divide things into years, vehicle class, whatever rational criterium.

It's impossible to compare apples to oranges. One should at least divide vehicles by years (best in 1940, etc.) and/or classes (best light, etc). It's absurd trying to compare say a Churchill to a Mk VI Lt.Tk..

__________________

Or just have a nice general chat about tanks, in this case with a British theme, mostly avoiding the 'best' bit altogether.

I still think the Comet can stand up and be counted, the reliability/maintenance thing really does matter in many ways more than the gun/armour for me, broadly similar in those (gun/armour) terms but much more efficient in actually making it to battle with all systems working. It's a strong link with the successful post-war designs, kind of when all that recovery work the British put in began to coalesce.

My liking for the Matilda 2 is more of an emotive one though, I filmed one clanking about at Bovington and it still just puts an enormous grin on my face when I watch it, a charming device.

Cheers,
Adam

__________________
It's only the Internet.

It's hard not to like a tank that has the same name as someone's aunt.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

The apples and oranges metaphores again Za

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

I agree! Let's discuss which is he prettiest tank! I'm undecided btween the Lt. Tk. Mk VI, or the Cruiser Mk. IV (A13)!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ht-MkVIA-2.jpg

http://www.pedg.co.uk/choll_pics/7_14_cruis.jpg

And the 2pdr was a great gun then!

Change that to apples and orangotangs!

__________________

I like the A13 II (mark number makes a big difference, the plain old A13 just doesn't have that 'Flash Gordon' styling), but it's still essentially Crusader and Covenanter's somewhat dumpy older sister, the sleekness isn't quite there yet. Though a large dollop of 'tankishness' is certainly being served up, there's something I don't quite like in the cut of her wheels, overall they give her something of a squint.

As for the Mark VI... awww bless it, as the years pass I fear it's gradually working it's way up to becoming one of my top three in the looks stakes. They actually look quite 'serious' when seen in the flesh pottering about (not that I'd want to go to war in one... or any other vehicle) and they make a pleasing noise.
I'll take one in Malta Stonewall please.


IWM Collections Online: Search Photographs Archive

How about an A30 avenger? Flawed project but I kind of like the look of the thing, slightly brutal round the edges, definitely not a gentleman's vehicle:


If we can step outside WW2 for a moment I've got another soft spot for the Vickers Medium:
Arcane Fighting Vehicles: Vickers Medium
Pretty good, for it's time, and really suits that era of officers in Cavalry boots appearing in official photographs of the machine alongside trilby-wearing designers with astrakhan collars & a couple of dogs somewhere in the shot.
(And Bovington's should be running at this years tank-fest!)

Set myself off again...


Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.