Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So experimental then. Ok. That makes sense if the video is not a botched job.
Matilda not viable due to no upgunning capability. The Churchill very slow, infantry tank is the actual classification. No large AP gun either. Heavy only in terms of armor. Not the same class as the Tigers or JS series or Pershing.
At no time was the UK in danger of being isolated by U-Boats. They knew they could not stop the supplies in and out of the UK.
Thank Uncle Sam for that. You guys were on the verge of starvation before you begged the US to join in. The one time we listened to you we got the disastrous Market Garden.
The Germans made armoured self-propelled guns like the Jagdpanther and used them as tanks with some success. They were cheaper and quicker to make as they had no turret.
"The Lucas fuel injection system was originally designed for Rolls Royce. Around the end of the war Lucas designed a fuel injection system for the Merlin aero engine."
Next time do a Google not ask for the "source" and it all comes up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider
Yeah, it makes perfect sense, what with warm beer etc.
An American who thinks he knows about beer? Wow! The US is a beer wasteland. Budweiser? Wow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider
Thank Uncle Sam for that. You guys were on the verge of starvation before you begged the US to join in. The one time we listened to you we got the disastrous Market Garden.
You have big attitude don't you Yankieboy? The Brits saved your necks. Get used to it. I always recall my uncle telling me when they were advancing with 30 Corps. US paras were dropping all around them supposedly to reinforce the front. They were getting back to the rear quick saying to them, "we are getting the hell out of here Mack!". The US paras performed poorly not facing panzer unit, not taking their objectives immediately preventing 30 Corps from advancing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C
So experimental then. Ok. That makes sense if the video is not a botched job.
Matilda not viable due to no upgunning capability. The Churchill very slow, infantry tank is the actual classification. No large AP gun either. Heavy only in terms of armor. Not the same class as the Tigers or JS series or Pershing.
It depends on what part of WW2. The Matilda 2 in armour in the early war was a heavy. It was used to great success against the Japanese in the later war.
The Churchill was a slow infantry tank but with the armour of Tiger. As I have explained the 6pdr gun with APDP ammunition could knock out a Tiger. So, apart from speed it was equal. In fact the Churchill's versatility and relative reliability would make it equal. It could climb mountains and even turn on its own axis. It would stay stable where other tanks would topple. It was converted to many roles by Hobart and his Funnies. From a general's point of view he would rather have Churchill's as they fitted may roles in an advancing army. A glorified self propelled gun is limited to what it can do.
Last edited by Yac; 05-29-2014 at 07:36 AM..
Reason: 5 (!) posts in a row merged
The Germans had Hugo Boss design their uniforms and they were absolutely magnificent. The U.S. uniforms were functional but not elegant. The poor Russians all look dowdy and ill-fitted.
The Germans trended to having well-designed war implements as War was their major thrust and caught most of their home-grown designers attention. Americans were dragged into it and did the best with what they had.
Have we forgotten how they became almost a nonfactor by the war's midpoint?
Pipsqueek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
At no time was the UK in danger of being isolated by U-Boats. They knew they could not stop the supplies in and out of the UK. The U-Boat campaign was more a moral booster to show they were doing something. The materials and resources could have been used more effectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider
Thank Uncle Sam for that. You guys were on the verge of starvation before you begged the US to join in.
The German submarine forces were a factor during the entire course of the war, not just the early part. Even after the Battle of the Atlantic turned against them, the U boats continued to sink ships and inflict large numbers of casualties. Radar, inproved sonar, convoy tactics, air cover, new and better ASW tactics and code breaking beat them, and they suffered an extremely high casualty rate, but they were never a nonfactor.
Most surely was the UK in danger of isolation and collapse, not from the relentless attacks by the Luftwaffe, but from the depradations of the Unterseeboots. It was only when the US convoys, escorted by American, Canadian, and British warships kept the supply lines flowing was their survival insured. Perhaps we should recall something that Sir Winston once said. Churchill remarked that the only thing he ever really feared was the U boats.
The Germans made armoured self-propelled guns like the Jagdpanther and used them as tanks with some success. They were cheaper and quicker to make as they had no turret.
It depends on what part of WW2. The Matilda 2 in armour in the early war was a heavy. It was used to great success against the Japanese in the later war.
The Churchill was a slow infantry tank but with the armour of Tiger. As I have explained the 6pdr gun with APDP ammunition could knock out a Tiger. So, apart from speed it was equal. In fact the Churchill's versatility and relative reliability would make it equal. It could climb mountains and even turn on its own axis. It would stay stable where other tanks would topple. It was converted to many roles by Hobart and his Funnies. From a general's point of view he would rather have Churchill's as they fitted may roles in an advancing army. A glorified self propelled gun is limited to what it can do.
Neither of these UK tanks would be classified as heavy tanks in the sense Tigers, JSs, or Pershing were.
What do you mean by expensive? We are dealing with state controlled economies.
Did it ever occur to you there might be a REASON why something is expenssive? They required careful workmanship that took a lot of time and men busy doing that could not at the same time be doing other things so that production lagged. Some of the materials used were difficult to obtain under wartime conditions. Consider steel: The steel that went into a tank could have repaired a railroad that brought supplies in. It could be used to build a submarine that sank ships bringing supplies to the Allies. It could build anti-aircraft batteries to shoot down the bombers that were destroying German factories. It could built artillery that could destroy enemy tanks and armies. The steel for one tank could equip a thousand soldiers with the new assault rifles that were wiping enemy infantry from the field. Which of these should recieve priority for that steel? It was expensive--even if you do have a state-controlled economy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
