Best British Tank of WW2

Firstly a Kampfgruppe is not a standarised formation. And in 1944 they would be 'overs' from what had not been blown to bits by the RAF, USAF and the Royal Artillery.

As for the vivid description of a Firefly shooting at long range whilst the smaller cousins are trying to get a flanking shot is not common reading in the war diaries I've read. Sounds a bit like the old 5:1, 6:1 Shermans against a Tiger on a flat one dimentional battlefield Wiki rubbish.

It seems strange to me that the British and Commonwealth forces get stick for fighting asymetrical.

Look at the Aussies at Tobruk. The Germans 88's, 75mm mark IV, and the ever present MG's makes life hard for the troops. What do they do?

They fight at night when the Germans main advantage is nullfied.

I am impressed at the Allies who managed to come up with brilliant tactical solutions to a hardware problem.

It brings to mind the USSR officer that was asked about the respose to the F-18 Hornet. Would it be a new generation of USSR fighters?
The reply was:
'A T-72 on an Ameriacn airfield'


Getting back to the thread.

I'd go for the Comet too.

 

This is a discussion forum and it is perfectly healthy for folk to disagee so there is no need and little point in ranting at people because you don't agree with their opinion. I suggest if I am '...getting on your nerves...' you take a break and perhaps go for a walk.

I simply don't agree with you and I will not prolong a debate with someone who seems to be taking it personally.

 

Another argument is, was the Sentinel really Australian? The Gun (and the MGs!) was British, the Suspension was based on a French design, and there where many parts copied from American designs.
It all depends on who used them. A Sherman used by British forces is a 'British tank' as is is under British ownership, or a captured T34 is a German tank as it is owned by the Germans.
Well thats how I see it.

 

The Sentinel; my heart goes out to the guy who modelled for the hull MG sleeve........

 

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

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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