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
>the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks.
I've seen some pretty delusional teabooing in my time, but this is inexcusable.
oh my fucking god >the gun is not comparable to a tiger at all
https://i.imgur.com/TkeFhS0.jpg
>the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks.
bro wut??
but 17pdr got long 88mm equivalent penetration
APDS rounds just before D-Day gave the Churchill's 6-pdr a new lease of life as an anti-armour weapon, with penetration almost equal to the 17-pdr on the Sherman Firefly, and therefore the Tiger/Panther.
By the time Normandy came about a large portion of Churchills in service had the 75mm, not the 6 pounder, since the latter had poor HE and was just as useful against Panthers (not very). APDS was only available in quantity at the tail end of the war where it didn't matter anyways, and it still couldn't penetrate a Panther glacis.
its off road capability's are impressive
however its a bit slow due to the weight of its armor
guns ok, good pen but not much burst
Based, God save the King!
oh my fucking god >the gun is not comparable to a tiger at all
Ok we get it you played Bf5 once
https://i.imgur.com/3brS2NX.jpg
>the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks.
I've seen some pretty delusional teabooing in my time, but this is inexcusable.
British tanks were downright superior.
Prove me wrong.
I look at the performance stats and know in every way the panther was a better tank than the sherman, then leddit starts citing the results of lopsided meeting engagements and the meme-breakdown factor
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
British tanks were downright superior.
Prove me wrong.
>not British >meh off road performance >cramped turret >poor ammo storage >low rate of fire >inaccurate
at least simp for the Cromwell while you are at it
>6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks.
It was worse. Hell, it was worse than KV-1's 76 mm cannon. KV had good AP shells and great HE - good HE is a must for a good heavy tank cannon
There's a guy with a few channels (Dark Skies, Dark Seas, etc.) that's really fucking guilty of this, pretty sure he reads sections of articles/pages verbatim to make videos on planes and other shit.
M6 was a cool looking tank but it had no place in US doctrine. Large, difficult to ship/offload, no real advantage over the existing M4 medium.
Tiger at least played a role for the Germans, acting as a breakthrough vehicle or stand-off weapon as needed.
Looking at numbers and the max armor isn't that much difference. M6 has more on the sides but it presents a larger, slower (when not advancing) target.
Focusing on building them would also mean less tanks. So losses are felt more overall.
The M6's strength was the 76mm gun and that eventually found its way onto the M4 anyway. Hell, the M26 turret and 90mm gun could have gone into the M4 if it was deemed necessary.
agreed, that title belongs to the 76 Jumbo
it's a giant ice cream bar with tracks
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
>the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks.
I've seen some pretty delusional teabooing in my time, but this is inexcusable.
APDS rounds just before D-Day gave the Churchill's 6-pdr a new lease of life as an anti-armour weapon, with penetration almost equal to the 17-pdr on the Sherman Firefly, and therefore the Tiger/Panther.
By the time Normandy came about a large portion of Churchills in service had the 75mm, not the 6 pounder, since the latter had poor HE and was just as useful against Panthers (not very). APDS was only available in quantity at the tail end of the war where it didn't matter anyways, and it still couldn't penetrate a Panther glacis.
Ok we get it you played Bf5 once
oh my fucking god
>the gun is not comparable to a tiger at all
Based, God save the King!
its off road capability's are impressive
however its a bit slow due to the weight of its armor
guns ok, good pen but not much burst
Here's your (you). 8/10.
British tanks were downright superior.
Prove me wrong.
I look at the performance stats and know in every way the panther was a better tank than the sherman, then leddit starts citing the results of lopsided meeting engagements and the meme-breakdown factor
>Sherman
>British
Fun fact: The 76mm M1 on the US sherman was more accurate than the Firefly 17 pdr.
but 17pdr got long 88mm equivalent penetration
nice
I'm sure that house behind the enemy tank would get devastated.
The only good and massive British tank is American, that's funneh.
Just like T-35 and NbFz
>the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks.
bro wut??
to be fair, man looks like he's about to rip a tiger in two
gun strait off of a medium tank
>not British
>meh off road performance
>cramped turret
>poor ammo storage
>low rate of fire
>inaccurate
at least simp for the Cromwell while you are at it
>6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks.
It was worse. Hell, it was worse than KV-1's 76 mm cannon. KV had good AP shells and great HE - good HE is a must for a good heavy tank cannon
ConeofArc is a wiki consumer.
He looks at an obscure tank on wiki and reads the article out.
Kinda like Mark Felton
Mark Felton authors the books wikipedia writers and history channel show makers read up
The furry guy goes to the primary sources at least and does a lot of reading.
too bad he only does so for his wet dream coulda woulda shoulda tank
are you talking about spookston?
There's a guy with a few channels (Dark Skies, Dark Seas, etc.) that's really fucking guilty of this, pretty sure he reads sections of articles/pages verbatim to make videos on planes and other shit.
M6 was a cool looking tank but it had no place in US doctrine. Large, difficult to ship/offload, no real advantage over the existing M4 medium.
Tiger at least played a role for the Germans, acting as a breakthrough vehicle or stand-off weapon as needed.
It did have top tier propaganda potential
>doctrine means we can't have a decently armoured tank
if they'd made this thing over the m4 there'd probably be fewer losses
Looking at numbers and the max armor isn't that much difference. M6 has more on the sides but it presents a larger, slower (when not advancing) target.
Focusing on building them would also mean less tanks. So losses are felt more overall.
The M6's strength was the 76mm gun and that eventually found its way onto the M4 anyway. Hell, the M26 turret and 90mm gun could have gone into the M4 if it was deemed necessary.
>take yer swing
Too big
Too heavy
Too slow
Unreliable
Bad ergonomics
Not worth the trouble
Yeah
It was definitely the American tiger