Was the Comet the best Allied tank?
>>65176090Depends. Best at what? Protecting it's crew? Competing it's objective? Being usable as in reliable, easy to repair? Easiest to produce?
>>65176090If Bong tanks were so good why did they use mostly Shermans?
The Cromwell chassis is a good base, how ever the Centurion would be ready for combat by the end of '45. The Centurion is truly the best Take of the war in all ways
>>65176107they needed more tanks, and only had industrial capacity to produce a finite amount (especially while their industry required to make them was simultaneously getting bombed)the choice wasn't "give crew a lend-lease tank or a domestic tank", so much as "give crew a lend-lease tank, or an obsolete interwar era tank that's only slightly more effective than no tank at all"
No. The best Allied tank was the M4 Sherman.
>>65176107Because most Bong tanks weren't so good and bong industry was maxed out. Why not use the tanks your industrial powerhouse ally was mass producing and shipping over that was pretty good all round, compared to your own tanks that were okay/good depending on what you were using it for.
>>65176154>Because most Bong tanks weren't so goodmid to late war bong tanks were breddy good actually when you account for the fact that they had a different doctrinal use to anyone else in the war.
>>65176130Best tank of WW2 was the Sherman.
>>65176130>>65176170By what metric? Pure capability? Survivability? Ease of production? Ease of maintenance? Efficiency? On balance?
>>65176176>Pure capability? Survivability? Ease of production? Ease of maintenance? Efficiency? On balance?Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.
>>65176090Don't be a donkey.
>>65176203>Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.Them fighting words.
>>65176090>amazing gun>good mobility >decent ergonomics >unlike the Sherman, it was built around the gun so better mechanics and (again) ergonomics. It was certainly the best British tank and one of the better mediums but it depends on how you classify "best". They only ever made a couple hundred that actually saw action.
>>65176176The overall package
>>65176107>Sherman number built: 49,000>Comet number built: 1,200Not even saying the Comet was a much better tank than the Sherman, but come on.
>>65176107Your question is based on a false premise.
Comet arrived too late. T-34 was the best Allied tank. Shoutout also to the Matilda II. Great piece of machinery and surprisingly suitable for an interbellum era tank. Queen of the Desert earned her stripes against much newer designs but it didn't have the longevity of T-34 upgrades.
>>65176090Comet was the closest the Allies came to the Panther. As mentioned itt the Centurion was the 'real' Comet, and first MBT, that didn't make it to the war. It and M26 Pershing were the springboards for what would come later. Panther was the paleo-MBT, or proto-MBT.As said before on these threads, especially for the Allies the whole objective was to get as many tanks as possible to the front line as fast as possible, with whatever engine you had available could be mass produced in large quantity to do the job. They weren't sitting around LIKE A BUNCH OF FUCKING ONLINE STREAMER VIDEOGAMERS thinking>'hm, wonder what engine-drivetrain we can cram into this bad boy to make it really scoot'Tanks, especially for the Allies, were design-by-committee (and, supply-parts-by-committee: 'Ok who has what right now and what is actually available/can be produced in mass numbers'). They were not like mil aircraft that were tailor designed for a specific mission by a single aircraft company.M46 Patton was the Pershing upgrade that finally was given a decent engine-drivetrain after the warSystems-wise and internal crew ergonomic-wise (and apart from its engine defects) the Pershing was probably the closest thing Allies had to what later would become a main battle tank after World War II. M47/M48 early versions with gasoline engines were the U.S. Army's first. Best overall was the later 1950s M48 Patton variants that were diesel powered.
>>65176523>the closest the Allies came to the PantherAn overweight pig that blows trannies on the regular?
>>65176477>t-34Nah. I'm not one of those midwits that calls it a piece of shit, but it wasn't that good either. It just worked and there were a lot of them
>>65176154Bong tanks were okay up until 42>>65176161>midNah the midwar period was when they lost the race and never caught up until German industry had been shattered>different doctrinal useNahIt was just plain engineering limitations>>65176523>who has what right now and what is actually available/can be produced in mass numbers')Broadly speaking, yes>mil aircraft that were tailor designed for a specific mission by a single aircraft companyAero engine supply chain managers would have kittens over this statement, just sayin>>65176107The designers of the Crusader and Cromwell appear to have been rather short-sighted in not allowing sufficient room for upgrading the gun. The Sherman was not a great chassis, being rather big, but this gave it upgrade potential that turned a weakness into an advantage. Therefore during that critical midwar period when the Allies were arming for D-day, the logical option was to mass produce the Sherman.Besides, the Americans of course would never deign to build a British design, and they had all the tank factories. In any case they went in on the "infantry tank / tank destroyer" setup which was a strategic mistake, arguably.
>>65176477>T-34 was the best Allied tankOn paperIn reality it was more complicated than its builders could afford to produce so most T34s lacked vital components and thousands and thousands were destroyed without ever fighting at their full potential
>>65176546As said in post replied to, none of the World War II tanks had ideal propulsion-drivetrain systems and in the instance of the Panther, the final drive manufacturing and source materials were the problem, especially during the 1943-later specific time interval when Germany was actually losing the war and its overall logistical/manufacturing quality assurance struggle.Comet was an interim design using the Cromwell chassis. Rolls-Royce Meteor was yet another example of (expedience) the Allies shoving an aircraft engine into tanks during World War II, the prototypes were made using recovered Merlin components from crashed aircraft.Everything in World War II was absolute shit, (You) tranny.
>>65176211>Them fighting words.Yes.
>>65176574>sufficient [interior] roomyep that was main problem with the Cromwell/Comet, and why you can't really call the latter a 'proto-MBT' like the Panther was. Not large enoughCenturion was the 'actual' Comet, what they really wanted to achieve and were aiming for.
>>65176590>Everything in World War II was absolute shit,You're shit.(your mom joke goes here)(Image of Panther below. Imagine it)
>>65176601>triggered(You) lost, tranny
>>65176604NTA, check your fire. >lighten up, Francis.
>>65176638don't start no shit won't be no shit
>>65176649OK.If you insist.
>>65176098You were supposed to come up with your metrics,not ask to be spoonfed. Useless husk of meat.
>>65176176Yes
>>65176176>Pure capability? No.>Survivability?No.>Ease of production? Not in general but for the US, yes.>Ease of maintenance?Very good, but often massively overstated due to the American infrastructure supporting it. The US army could've maintained a fleet of T34s as well, despite them being incredibly unreliable.>Efficiency?No.>On balance?No.The US could've won the war with towed artillery & anti-tank guns. The Sherman's a good tank, but its design was hindered by the necessity to ship them overseas and supply them after. That was also a strength in some ways, but it kept it from being the best tank pound for pound.In short, pic related. Just be rich, stupid.
>>65176792You just explained why the M4 was the best tank of WW2, you goober.
>>65176802Only if you think that if America would have won the war with towed guns, towed guns would be superior to tanks.But you don't think that, you just lack reading comprehension.
>>65176477Don't be stupid. On paper it could try and make that claim but ergonomics and build quality kill that argument
>>65176792wehraboo copego jerk off to a stug picture while real historians talk
>>65176792Sherman in US service was the most survivable tank of WW2only 1200 US tankers died in the entire war across all tanks 90% chance of survival if the tank was penetrated
War Thunder and World of Tanks have done immense damage to online armored vehicle discourse.
>>65177182Bait used to be believable.>>65177184Tank and crew survivability are different metrics, though the latter is heavily influenced by battlefield conditions as well. Considering the other points raised, I don't think anon was thinking of the crew there. Having a massive, permanent and overwhelming artillery and air advantage also influences crew survival rates severely.American artillery warfare between WWII and the GWOT hasn't actually changed that much (mostly because it works), it's the solution to everything and thrown at everything. Not particularly efficient, but very effective. The difference was so bad that to Wehrmacht soldiers it felt like they were cheating. In part because German doctrine of combined arms warfare would have required very similar artillery usage, that kind of ammo usage just wasn't feasible.The SS actually fought a couple battles in the true combined arms fashion in the west, much to the chagrin to Wehrmacht officers who pointed out that it wasn't sustainable. Highly effective.tldnr: How you kill tanks matters a lot for crew survivability, calling down artillery on every problem doesn't just destroy tanks, it also make sit much less likely for crewmen to survive.
>>65177184>>65177201You're also WAY more likely to survive losing your tank on the advance than you are on the retreat. People just repeating statistics to make points without considering context, particularly the fact that tank warfare happened on a wider battlefield with many different non-tank related actors, are a plague on the discourse.
>>65177201It's not bait. You're starting from a position of Wehraboo supremacy and working your argument forward from there. The cope about the poor germans being outgunned and outsupplied in '44 is particularly telling. It's also telling that you're arguing from a position in the negative and haven't put forth a single proposition of what you think the best tank of the war is. I will be the first to admit that the M4 is far from a perfect tank, but it slotted so perfectly with American military doctrine in a way that almost no other armored machine in the war could match.
>>65177216All of this just sounds like you're butthurt and recently arrived here from reddit.I don't even mean that in the usual "lol u mad" sense, you clearly haven't even properly read my post, you just seethe so much that you skimmed it, got triggered and used a buzzword from your echo-chamber to cope.
>>65176817*sigh* You're still a goober.
>>65177224Butthurt wheraboo detected. deploying bingo card.
>>65177247>>65177249At this point I almost believe this is a falseflag by an actual wehraboo who poses as a newfag redditor.You even put the posts 1 minute and 1 second apart by autoposting and still went back to an old post with "le sigh."
>>65177224So you accuse me of being reddit as a deflection because I failed to address your argument... while ignoring my argument and seething uncontrollably. Got it.
>>65177254Le Sigh.pathetic.
>>65177260>So you accuse me of being reddit as a deflection because I failed to address your argument...No, you just haven't actually read the post and you're clearly seething. If you'd have read it and made a separate point that'd be one thing, but you haven't read it and you're just upset about something that's probably almost entirely unrelated to me while making a non-argument.There's nothing for me to address, you're just angry and screaming at your computer while looking silly. Any kind of serious engagement with your (lack of) substantive ideas would degrade me the way your broken nature degrades you.You have nothing to offer.>>65177268Exactly my thought, yes.
>>65177303you could have saved yourself a shred of dignity and just not responded
>>65177319Don't worry, my secretary types for me.
>>65177325Your Mom types for me.
>>65176574They were best in class until the Abrams you retard
>>65176792Bong merchant marine was pretty dominant, they outsourced some manufacturing to the USA for cheap steel which lead to an amazing boon to what would become US naval dominance but the bongs were king of logistics at that point in time, well above US logistics, they just lacked manpower and access to local resources.I will remind you retards BRITAIN OWNED A THIRD OF THE WORLDS MERCHANT MARINE between the two world wars.The fucking BRITISH EMPIRE still existed are all you people retarded, or is this the quality of the US education system.
>>65177325ok that got a chuckle out of me so I'll let you have the last word and last laugh
>>65177362That makes the fact that the bongs had the least reliable tanks in the west by far if we go by American testing even worse, doesn't it?
>>65177362>Reeee! Muh Empire!The Post.
>>65177399>mutts think bongs care about the empireYou care infinitely more about our empire than we do. It's always bizarre when it comes up in conversation. Talk to a real person instead of browsing Insta reels. Nobody here cares
>>65177399Officially the sun just set on The Empire. I don't remember who girled out but officially the sun does now set on The Empire for a few moments a day.Biggus Dickus...
>>65177415NTA but that's a fucking lie lmao
>>65177424Whatever helps you feel validated I guess
>>65177434I'm not even a yank you're just making shit up
>>65177418Just don't make fun of his wife, Incontinentia Buttocks
>>65177682old enough to remember that joke
moshi moshi Panther desu
>>65176090commander needs a machinegun
There's going to be a waterfall of shit raining me on for mentioning Russia, but the T-44 is honestly the best DESIGNED allied tank of WW2. >Compact 85mm gun>Fast, 34mph and 16.3hp/ton P/W>Good range>Good armour, 90mm sloped front and 120mm sloped turret>low profile>unfortunately has shit ergonomics like every Russian tank>essentially a prototype T-54Now the real-life examples might well be dog-shit quality, but I appreciate the theory
Matilda II best tank of WWII.Valentine 2nd best tank. Bob Semple 3rd best.
>>65176107Production couldn't keep up with demand. British troops were using American-made M1929 Thompson submachine guns the Royal Navy was flying Corsairs until the end of the war because even by 1945 there weren't enough Sten guns and Seafires to go around.
>>65178571If you can count the T-44 then you can count the Centurion, which mogs it.
>>65177190before that people thought you could only shoot the tiger in the backi think it's been an improvement
>>65178602centurion not only mogs the t44 but also the much more advanced soviet tanks from later yearsit's a miracle the brits were able to convince the money masters to allow them to make decent manufacturing tools for the construction of a ground vehicle
>>65177190
The Centurion's weakness is essentially that it was British
The Churchill was the Allied equivalent of the Tiger I, it had the same effect on German morale by a handful of Churchills. Its armor was heavier than the Tiger and the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks. Churchills dominated Tunisia and the ETO. A single Churchill could destroy dozens of StuGs, Panzer IIIs and IVs with the ease of a Tiger destroying Shermans and T-34s
>>65176090In a vacuum, ignoring the amount that actually got to see combat, sure. The APDS round was pretty revolutionary.
>>65178775Which means 'murrica wasn't the source of all power in the western world.Not that they haven't been playing that game all along.
Best tank of ww2.Stand and burn, surrender or run away.Of course support troops dealt with 2 and 3.
>>65176090>Was the Comet the best Allied tank?No, it was pic related.
>>65179991Remember please that Crocodile was a gun tank and the burny bit replaced a beezer.When you really need to hose down the wehraboohttps://youtu.be/GpIoqyjWvzI?t=10
>>65178590I like Clarksons video on The Greatest Raid.That wanky old American ship (USS Buchanan) kisked ass.
It was an OK tank that was built out of compromises
>>65179991>>65180042Fortunately for all parties involved, at least if you were fighting Germans, you could often shoot a warning jet of flame, and they'd usually see sense and give up
>>65180413>compromisesAll World War II tanks no matter the country, wereEven the overall idea and doctrinal concept(s) of tank-centric land warfare, was undergoing its genesis and evolution until at least 1943tl/dr Nobody knew what they were doing
>>65180000if I may interject, what you're referring to as a tank is in fact a tank destroyer or, as it refer to it, tank + destroyer
>>65180690It just didn't seem like it was actually that good at anything because it wanted to be everything
>>65180891>It just didn't seem like it was actually that good at anythinggood gungood reliabilitygood speedgood crew layoutdecent armourIt's a balanced all-rounder tank, what is the "not actually that good at anything" tactical gap?
>>65180891It was good enough, given what they started with (Crusader) and the additional components.The designed-from-scratch, didn't-make-it-for-WWII-service Centurion was the tank they actually wanted.
>>65176792really pissed off the kids with this one lmao.
>>65176090>no gyrostabilizer>no commander's override>no APU>primary telescopic gunsight was only 3x magnification (wut??? a holosun magnifier for a 77mm gun???)>armor isn't even THAT much better than a Panzer IV >BUH MOIH ENGINE POWER MOITE! MAH CRAPPY FUHST GEN APDS!Nah.
>>65181101An APU on a WW2 tank provides only trivial functionalityNo WW2 tank in combat had a commander's overrideThe only thing of note here is the gyro, which was often switched off anywayTime-wasting comment
>>65181108>No WW2 tank in combat had a commander's overrideBoth the Tiger I and M4 had turret override controls for the commander. The M4 even had a rudimentary vane sight that allowed for rough preliminary alignment. The only thing they could not do was control the gun itself from their station.>the gyro, which was often switched off anywayBecause they didn't know how to use it. Once tanker training improved to account for this the troops loved it.>An APU on a WW2 tank provides only trivial functionality>he says while burning fuel keeping his engine running and melting the snow camouflaging his tank so screening infantry can see and hear his tank in advance>The only thing of note hereMeanwhile the bong is trying to dial in his high velocity gun with a scope more suited to a 75mm L/40 while everyone else has moved on to 4.0x magnification telescopes and variable zoom gunsights, lol
>>65181143*4.0x+. Just to make things worse for the bongs.
>>65181101OK then name a superior alternative tankNo one tank will have everythingCertainly no single Sherman variant is superior to the comet
>>65181254T34-85
>>65181259
>>65181259This.
>>65181259Cyka
>>65181268>gaps in the weldsOk Sergei
>>65176590I always wondered why there wasn't a variant made for rejected aircraft engines. Not from crashed airplanes but from engines off the line that failed some safety of flight spec but were otherwise fine. That's a non- trivial number of powerplants
>>65181289ah yes let's just further complicate logistics by shoving in a handful of reject engines
>>65181276Silence, rivet popper.
>>65181254You won’t believe which tank has every single feature listed as missing from the Comet.
>>65181359That wasn't the question, read again
>>65181363There are two types of people.Those who simp for Bongistan, a common and unfortunate birth defect that affects their ability to own guns and, apparently, infer information.
>>65181395you only listed ONE type of person you retard lmao
>>65181395>>65181405Third party observer here, I kek'd
>>65181417many such cases
