Armor tech

QUOTE: Originally posted by wbill76 On a side note...anyone know why the British name all their tanks (not AFVs in general) with names that begin with C...the only exception I can think of off the top of my head is the Mathilda...all the others were C's (Cromwell, Churchill, Crusader, Centurion, Challenger, Comet). Maybe something to do with the old Cruiser tank designation that just "stuck" and morphed into the C-class of names?

British tank design centered around a fast "cruiser" tank and a slower, heavily armored infantry tank. Cruiser tanks got the C-name and infantry tanks got feminine names like Matilda and Valentine. Infantry is considered "the Queen of Battle" so perhaps the names were given with this in mind.

Other C-names are Chieftan, Charioteer, Crusader and Conqueror, which was definitely not a cruiser tank.

On a side note...anyone know why the British name all their tanks (not AFVs in general) with names that begin with C...the only exception I can think of off the top of my head is the Mathilda...all the others were C's (Cromwell, Churchill, Crusader, Centurion, Challenger, Comet). Maybe something to do with the old Cruiser tank designation that just "stuck" and morphed into the C-class of names?

I'm reading an interestign book about tank development during WW2. On one hand the author points out in the light tank department the us was clearly in the lead with the sturat. IT was the right mix of reliabliity, hard hitting (37mm vs . 20mm panzer 2) and good armor. THis eventually led to the chaffee. During the early days of Korea the Chaffe went toe to toe with T-34/85s, with not bad results. However if your interested in a light tank today, try to find one. Tanks now are massive beasts, and the infranty carrier has taken over the tasks of a light tank.
I also read somewhere that the US could deliever 3 shermans for one Pershing. SO they went with quanity over quality. Now a pershing could be takenout by a tiger one, as was the case late in the war. However it really was a great mix of hitting and armor with mobility.
THe Centurion was a direct development of the British lessions during WW2. The idea of tanks battleing tanks in grand fleet like manuvers was proven false. However the Centurion was a home run by any standard.
Bill

The Sherman tank was initially designed to 'support infantry', not to go head-to-head with enemy armor. So when it came face to face with German PAK guns, and the high-velocity 75mm and 88mm guns in German tanks and tank-killer units...well now we know where that 'Ronson' nickname came from. A stop-gap measure was cramming the British 17 pound gun into the Sherman turret, hence the 'Firefly'.

I'm currently reading a very interesting book, "The Blitzkrieg Myth: How Hitler and the Allies Misread the Strategic Realities of WWII" by John Mosier, HarperCollins Publishers, copyright 2003.

He looks at some of the myths and military doctrines which were established out of WWI and how they may influenced world political and military leaders as WWII began and ran it's course. He looks hard at false assumptions and how they may or may not of matched reality. He makes numerous references to German and Allied armor. Very interesting read. I checked this copy out of the library. Give it try! And I do not work for the publisher...hah!

Glenn

My take is that USA technology was clearly behind the curve with the M-2, M-3, and M-4 medium designs. We did win the war primarily with the Sherman as our tank, but it was far from an ideal tank design, and technologically speaking was built very much with yesterday's technology. Unfortunately for the American tankers in Normandy, we chose to stick with the Sherman as THE TANK, rather than viewing it more correctly as an interim solution, similar to how its predessor the M-3 medium was viewed.

Once USA put its mind to it, we caught up quite quickly. As Tigerman correclty points out the M-26 Pershing was an excellent tank with very modern technology. The M-24 Chaffee was likewise a very modern, capable light tank. I think that had the Army not looked so favorably upon the Sherman, we could have introduced the M-26 into combat a lot earlier than early in 1945.

How all this relates to the Centurion, I'm not entirely sure. As I see it, in a lot of ways Briatin and USA kind paralleled each other. At the start of the war, we were clearly deficient in modern armor, we both improved during the war, and by the end each country was producing excellent modern AFV's.

That's a tough one to answer. At the end of WW II, the Americans produced the excellent Pershing, the forefather of the M-60, which was used for many years. Sure the Sherman was outdated for most of the war, but we won the war with it as our MBT. It too was upgraded and used by many of our Allies for some years after.