Now that Pzjgr sure is a first for me

__________________

Why is it that people must always turn every discussion about Allied tanks into a discussion of panzers? I've noticed this phenomenon on other boards too.

For some reason Drucius, it's a strange law of internet ww2 discussion - which leading physicists have been pondering for years - that all subjects, if left running long enough, will eventually settle to 'tigrz r kule'. (Not unlike any tape left in a car eventually becoming Queen's Greatest Hits)

Perhaps because the Panzers are so heavily covered that it's much easier to find nuggets on them than it is for the allied stuff.

Here's a picture of a bit of (non ww2) British Tank to draw things back a little:

If 'strangely entertaining' and 'pleasing to my eye' is the criteria; The Independent is one of the 'best'.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.

The Comet was an excellent tank, but in terms of the role it played in WW2 the Comet is completely overshadowed by the Matilda II.
The Matilda II is considered by many to have been the best tank in service from 1939 to early 1941, and it would have had an even greater impact if it had been available in greater numbers and hadn't been hampered by faulty British tank tactics.
As it was, its role in the British attack at Arras, caused such concern in the German high command that it caused them to be careful in their attack on the Dunkirk position, which played a important role in the escape of the BEF, and in North Africa the Matilda played a major part in the defeat of the Italian forces, before the arrival of the German Africa Korps.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Bovington's Tilly 2 rumbling along at this years tankfest:
YouTube - A12 Matilda 2 Tank Bovington Tankfest 2008

I'm told by the chaps that operate her that she's a very reliable old thing, needing little maintenance.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.

No doubt, the Matilda II certainly was a great tank for it's time period. It redefined the Shot-Trap concept, look at that mantlet

__________________

"German Stuff is freaking sweet!"

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

It was a bitch to knock out the side armour was almost as heavy as the front and it was relatively small so it was easy to hide.

The best British tank for value for money was the archer which mounted a seventeen pounder on a valentine hull with the gun mounted to point over its engine it was an extremly effective tank killer that had a low profile and allowed heavy A/T support to keep up with the infantry.

The valentine itself paticularly in later marks after it recieved a six punder or 75mm qf was a good tank for its time and well thought of by the russians where its use as a light tank meant that the light tank crews got a vechile with similar firepower and armour to a Panzer 3 and unlike most russian tanks in 1942 when they were supplied they came fitted with radios so command and control was a lot easier.

The russians often had a problem in 1941-2 in that they tended only to have a radio in the command tanks and would signal with flags. The problem was this usualy meant the Germans would pick off the command tank first and then deal with the uncoordinated rest wandering around without orders.

My Grandfather (who delivered weapons as an officer in the merchant navy on an armed merchant cruiser) said this radio issue was a problem till late in the war he saw radio's on light tanks supplied in 1943 being pulled out and fitted in . russian heavy tanks. The russians would then report the radios as damaged in transit and demand replacements.

The Centurion was the best tank of the second world war although it saw no action it was used by numerous countries and continues in use in the Israeli and South African service seeing several generations of new tanks being come and go and still remaining in the front line. The Centurion was and is ultimately upgradeable with the capacity for new engines, guns, sights and armour to be fitted with very little trouble the shame is it came too late for service in world war 2 it absorbed every lesson taught by world war 2 but alas to late.

The pedant in me is compelled to point out that the Archer isn't a tank, it's an SPG or tank destroyer at best. Bloody vicious, mind.

cromwell.lee.

__________________
fair,balanced and unafraid.thanks,4th wilts..

[quote=Weisenwolf;274461]
>>The Churchills used by the 8th Army in North Africa and The Italian campaign with US 75mm guns were actually 6pdr models as built with US guns fitted 'in the field' from wrecked Shermans (complete with mount as I recall!). If memory serves there were about 120 of them so converted. So again as with the Firefly is this really a British Tank?<<

Given that the American gun was a straight copy of aww1 french field gun it would be a french tank by this criteria.

>>The British built 75mm Churchills did not arrive in numbers until the Normandy campaign (even then they were in short supply and battalions had a mix of these and 6pdr's) and although they were popular from a certain perspective since unlike everything else they could resist hits to the front from some German weapons and the specialist armour was useful they could still not take on the Panthers and Tigers plagueing the commonwealth forces in particular so I can't see 'Best British Tank' being a worthy title.<<

The Six pounder had a better AP ability than the US (French 75mm) gun but critically the 75mm had a better HE shell. This was critical as most of the opposition to allied tanks was A/T guns and infantry.

As a total aside its worth noting for those who say the british were without A/T guns the US supplied 900 originally french 75 mm guns with 1000 shells each to the UK and Ironside assigned a lot of them as stand ins for missing AT guns.

Churchills always operated with heavy tank destroyers in support usually achilles which were US Tank destroyers with their guns replaced by Seventeen pounders. In addition the British infantry with which they AT guns such as six pounders, 17 pounders and Archer self proppled guns.
This meant that the German armour could not normally stand off to use their guns to better effect and if they closed they lost their advantage.

The Churchill was a dated design 1938 but was superior to its allied counter part one for one the Churchill was a more formidable machine equal in armarment, much better in armour and though slower it could go places the Sherman had no chance of operating such as rough or hilly country. No allied design from 1938 was still a frontline vechile in 1945 it was outdated by this time and about to be replaced by the black prince with even heavier armour and a seventeen pounder but the sherman was obsolete too by Russian and German standards.

The Critiscism of British cruisers is exagerated the problem was the use of dated (first world war) American designed liberty engines which were unreliable and under powered. The use of a derated Rolls royce engine that came in with the cromwell should have been done much earlier but quantity of production was given too much priority over quality till mid 1942.

Certainly the Cromwell was better protected faster and equally armed in comparison to the Sherman but by 1944 the sherman was obsolete compared to German tanks. The comet should have been delivered before DDay because it would have given the Common wealth units vechiles that out gunned every German tank but the Tiger and a level of protection equal to the panther combined with a reliability comparable to the sherman for that reason the Comet was the best tank in combat on the western allies side.

If non combat tanks are taken into account the Centurion was and probaly is the best all round tank produced in the last century ask israel or South Africa they still use it!!!

[quote=uksubs;274563][quote=Weisenwolf;274530]The Firefly was surely an up gunned US tank ? The weird thing is the US was offered the 17 pounder for use as a Sherman upgrade in the same way as the six pounder had been (entering US service as the 57mm AT gun). THe US took around a 177 sherman firefly's for assessment but nothing more was done from the US side.

THe US decided to go with the 76mm gun generally instead this was probably not quite as silly as it seems since the 17 pounder HE shell was not as effective. This was the reason only a third of British tanks were converted because most opposition to allied armour was infantry or AT guns. The Tigers were dramatic but had a lot less influence than much more pedestrian weapons like the Stug or Panzer 4.

It seems difficult to see why a third of tanks could not have been retrofitted before DDay with a US made seventeen pounder giving US tank crews a far better chance against German heavy armour.

The common wealth forces both armoured and infantry with their mixture of up gunned Shermans, M20's and Hellcats re armed with 17 pounders and self propplled guns like the Achilles were better placed than US forces to face German heavy armour.

I think that the best one was the Firefly.

as it seems we are including tanks that did not see combat i think it only fair to put forward the Australian cruiser tank MK3/4 series "sentinel" this was a medium tank project using locally obtainable material, to counter german tanks in the western desert. even though only 66 tanks where built and only some 5 or 6 where the AC4 vehicles it represented an amazing vehicle capable of dealing with any axis tank until late 1944, it had sloped armor averaging 3'5 in and a QF 17pdr gun on a full traverse turret, m3 carriage initially with a prototype being converted to a christie system.
i know i am byased but IMO and only IMO i see it as the best designed allied tank.

Most likely, it was something built in America.....

Would I shock you all if I said the Covenanter?

__________________
http://jagdpanther.myminicity.com/
OR
http://jagdpanther.myminicity.com/ind
OR
http://jagdpanther.myminicity.com/tra

what about the tanks?that cut off the ity army at beda fomm,they deserve at least a mention.i know they were rubbish,like most uk tanks of ww2,but they helped pput approx 100,000 ity,s in the bag.only my opinion mind you.cheers.

__________________
fair,balanced and unafraid.thanks,4th wilts..

[quote=mikegb;316348][quote=uksubs;274563]I think it is more complicated than just "not our design" American military pride, even though I consider that one of the elements of it NOT being used more widely than it was.

M4 was itself was of course an American tank on the basics, built in American plants. The British version, M4A4 or Sherman V (built for the British) however had a unique engine (30 cylinder Chrysler A-57) and a longer hull (six inches or so) than the American versions with either the old 75 or the new 76mm main cannon.

The main mistake I see in the "up-gunned" Sherman (to the 76mm with the water jacket ammo storage) was in going with the American main gun rather than the British version of a main gun used in the Firefly versions. When our engineers started working on the turret modifications for the "new and improved" M4 with the larger cannon and water jacket storage, we designed it for our own "in house" 76mm cannon.

Of course there were other considerations than just "not made here" syndrome. The 17 pounder required extreme modification to the turret (cut out the rear and cover it with 2 inch thick rolled armor), mount it "sideways" so it could be reloaded (or something like that), and the British Sherman V (M4A4) was six inches longer in the hull than the American. This extra length of hull and extra track links were necessitated by use of that bizarre Chrysler 30 cylinder engine with 5 of their flat-head 6 cylinder engines running on a common crankshaft.

The engine was longer, so the M4 hull had to be extended for it to fit, this shifted the "center of gravity" toward the rear, and helped compensate for the longer 17 pounder barrel sticking further out over the front of the hull. Also, only a few per armored unit could be converted to the heavier cannon (I forget the ratio deployed originally but 1:4 sticks in my mind), due to shortage of the cannon in the British inventory itself.

The reason we American's didn't use the same cannon is complicated though and is as much political and pride as anything, and still a subject of controversy.

First we had been developing our own new 76 mm cannon to replace the original low velocity 75 mm. (which performed well originally) by mid to late '43, it may have been a bit of the "pride; not built here" attitude, and we were stuck on ourselves. If the new turret had been designed originally for the British gun instead of our own 76, and if we had produced the 76.2 (17 pounder) under license as we did the Packard built Merlin, the American armored may have been better served.

Our turret was redesigned for our own new up-gunned 76mm cannon, and no hole had to be cut in the back of the cast turret (weakening the turret armor). Lastly the longer cannon barrel changed the center of gravity on the hull, but the extended hull of the British version (housing the awkward Chrysler engine) could more easily be adapted, it already had both a longer hull and a longer track system to support the system.

Seem to me to be a bit more complicated than just "national pride", maybe our own "mass production" system is as much to blame as the politicians, and military thinkers. Good idea, perhaps not easily adapted to changing the production lines, and slowing the delivery of more M4s to the war fronts. Here are a couple of interesting sites:


http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/usnew.html

http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/usclistv1.html

Exract:

Production of the Firefly took place at, at least three locations, which have been confirmed by two independent documents, one in the USNA and one in the PRO. The documents note that the British were converting Shermans at "four (4) arsenals". Production was up to 250 per month as at June 1944 and interestingly it notes that "work at two of the arsenals will probably be discontinued because of the shortage in the supply of the necessary tanks to the arsenals." In the PRO information in Sherman Firefly the four were still in work in December 1944. So if the work did cease it was sometime in January 1945 or later. Tellingly the same letter notes that the British facilities "are not operating to capacity at the present time."

The programme was delayed into 1945, after having been requested in summer 1944, due to the lack of suitable 75mm Shermans from either US or British stocks. US 75mm Sherman tank production having been cut back as the US saw the war ending sooner than it did in Europe and an over reliance on the new tanks coming on stream such as the 76mm Shermans and the 90mm armed T26E1.

Ammunition shortage was always a factor and the one that fatally delayed the programme and caused the proposed numbers to be as limited as they were.
The end of the war dealt the final death knell to the programme as the M26 came into service and the need for tanks evaporated.

The number of conversions was 100, with 80 being provided equally to First and Ninth Armies. Third Army does not seem to be down for any, due to Army level objections. The other 20 were to be given back the British. The total programme had been for 160 conversions. The unconverted 60 were also to be passed back to the British. These were to be given back and used for such things as crab mine tank conversions.
The new information provides the following startling facts:

The US converted not only 75mm M4's and M4 Hybrids not distinguished in the text, but confirmed by the only known photo published in AFV News in the 70's, (but unavailable for use in Sherman Firefly) but also 75mm M4A3's of the dry hull form and the late wet hull (often referred to as the 47 degree glacis hull). This is a major discovery, but as yet no photographs have come to light. Alleged M4A3 Fireflies (Sherman IVC using British nomenclature) in photographs are M4's with British serials. The only possibility is that the vehicles shown could be one of the prototypes with a British serial on it, but this remains conjecture. Perhaps in a private collection somewhere one of these rare beasts is depicted in a photo.

US conversions only seem to have been called, Sherman M4 and M4A3 17 Pounder. Firefly is not mentioned once in the documents. This is consistent with official British and Commonwealth practice, where the name also does not appear. As discussed in Sherman Firefly the name is only used in two captions at the IWM and in unit war diaries and soldiers recollections.
US conversions differed in detail from British ones, the main change being the radio box, which was slightly bigger to allow for US radios.


As I mentioned, just my opinion of course. Everybody can take it or leave it, no skin off my nose.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.