Say what you want about British tank design, you have to admit that the Cromwell was one of the tanks of WW2.

Say what you want about British tank design, you have to admit that the Cromwell was one of the tanks of WW2.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Named after a c**t

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      I wish there was a British tank called the Bongsmith. I'm sure that's a British name.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why don't you like democracy? Do you think we should just have a Catholic absolute monarchy?

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Only if it's the Habsburgian one that was stolen from us.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        the only based government is a theocratic fitocracy. anything else is for homosexuals

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Catholic absolute monarchy
        Yeah

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      They should've also named a battleship after him.

  2. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cromwell was indeed an tank, with speed and firepower. It looks and performs like it was designed by Jeremy Clarkson himself. That is not a compliment.

  3. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is sloped armor?

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      A crutch.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Baby don't pen me

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous
    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      sloped armour is sloppy armour

  4. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not enough people appreciate that the British built some of the tanks in the war.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Canada built some of the tanks as well, both British designs like Valentines in large numbers, but also this prime example of an tank, which was never used as an tank but saw extensive service as one of the first full tracked and well armored APCs ever mass produced

  5. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >box turret
    >on box chassis
    >tiny not-a-muzzle brake with no holes at the tip
    this is what a child would make if you told him to draw a tank

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >gigantic hole plug in the armor for the driver to see out of
      >comically large bolts
      >derated fighter engine
      >no reverse

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >riveted armor

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >rivet construction
          Bong AFV designers really hate their crews dont they?

          You're up early this morning Mr shill.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            i guess being moronic is okay when bongs do it.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      The tank in the OP has a fake gun

  6. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Looks like a moronic tiger

  7. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you're looking for actually good British WWII tanks, look at the Churchill.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >not Matilda notorious for absurd slope traverse to the point of surprising Krauts in Africa despite slow speed

      For infantry support as an assault gun? Sure. Otherwise highly dubious when E2s existed for cheaper.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Churchill is hands down the best tank of WW I.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        It did well against Finland because we were on the defensive with poor AT and that thing has half a metre of armour plating

  8. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    still an objectively better tank than the sherman death trap

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      the cromwell doesnt really beat the sherman in any way other than top speed, which is an incredibly niche advantage due to the tendency for vehicles to move slowly to remain concealed

      but the 76mm armed sherman was already in theatre less than a month after the cromwell showed up, which meant wet storage and a commanders cupola in addition to a better main gun

  9. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cromwell would have been a decent tank... in 1942. Fielding it in mid-1944 was a symptom of what was going wrong with British tank development in WW2.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      British tank development was a result of their industrial capability. Another anon made a really good post about it a while back, along the lines of most British metal working industry was centered around ship building and the labour pool were good at riveting and didn't have much capacity for riveting and welding.

  10. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    British had the most aesthetic tanks of WW2 on average if you exclude the jumbo Sherman and Pershing from the US

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      I like that games workshop directly copied that circular hatch for old space marine vehicles

  11. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why does it have those ridiclous bolts?

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      They generate the forcefield.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      the armor was literally bolted on to the chassis
      late models were welded though, as more welders became available, and its successor the comet had both cast and welded components

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      it adds character and rustic charm, like a properly broken in pub

  12. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Dunno, I like bong tanks. They have that "so moronic they're kinda cool" sort of charm

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's British equipment in general. Very strange and novel offering specific advantages, but usually with some glaring downside that you have to change your doctrine to operate around. I kind of like it though because it produces cool equipment you'd never see otherwise, like starstreak etc.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah I mean and part of it was the doctrine specifically called for admittedly kinda silly things that would probably make more sense today than then.

        Specifically the
        >big heavy tanks hangout with the infantry to support them and engage soft targets
        >small fast tanks run around and recon

        Notice the severe lack of anti armor in their armor doctrine, if every tommie had a javelin this might make sense. When they at best have a spring loaded grenade launcher and field guns it’s going to be a rough time against enemies that are very fixated on armored doctrine. The idea that light tanks were the ones that were engaging in tank on tank combat is one real massive L because of the constraints of size and speciality in speed limits both the armor and the gun, which works when you have it in an infantry support role, not your main mechanized wing. Which is probably why one of their more successful tanks of the war was built outside of government contract.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Notice the severe lack of anti armor in their armor doctrine
          they actually suffered from too much anti-armor early on

          every tank and their grandmother had the 2-pdr, which in 1939 was an excellent anti-tank gun
          but it didnt have an HE round until it was obsoleted as an anti-tank gun, and when it did arrive it had the HE filler of a hand grenade making it only slightly better than just trying to snipe someone with the AP round

          they switched out to the 6-pdr/75mm mix on their mid-war tanks since the former had better anti-armor properties and the latter had a big HE shell

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's British equipment in general. Very strange and novel offering specific advantages, but usually with some glaring downside that you have to change your doctrine to operate around. I kind of like it though because it produces cool equipment you'd never see otherwise, like starstreak etc.

      Box turrets are something most militaries still use today in artillery and quickbuilds, it's not strange at all.

  13. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    What happens when a shell hits the rivet?

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      it makes a really loud twang noise and spins off into infinity because gaijin fricked up volumetric hit detection

  14. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >better penetration than a early war Shermans
    >fast as frick
    >low profile
    >cool

    She deserved better

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >better penetration
      eeeehhhhh, the gun with more penetration (6lbr) required knocking the turret down to two man, and the three man turret could only fit the anemic 2lbr

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        my mistake I thought that was a Crusader which is definitely a cool little tank, on closer inspection it's an unmitigated dumpster fire (Covenantor)

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >upon closer inspection I realized I fricking misclicked from my bong vehicle folder. Furthermore I don’t care if it cut the turret crew to two, my ideal light tank is two dudes and a remote drone operator.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          In WW2 radios were hard to use, autoloaders were rare to the point of novelty, and tanks requires constant backbreaking physical maintenance. I won't go on any of the "hurr unreliable" or "muh christie" tangents that ghe Crusader is usually criticized for, but cutting the crew down to 3 is pushing the lower limits of viability for a good, solid tank.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Counterpoint: Lozenge look cool

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Same if not better hull protection than the cromwell
      >low profile
      >6pdr better AP than 75mm guns making it decent at engaging medium armor
      >75mm gave it good AP allowing it to support infantry against soft targets better
      >even the soviets admitted they liked it.

      Give that b***h a late war engine and
      some more turret armor and we are chilling. No need for a cromwell and we can just move to the better comet saving costs and logistics burden, and then, the centurion.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Someone called?

  15. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    It is shocking how Brits would clear projects for tanks in a time of steel crisis that look like they were drawn in Paint.
    And then you have shit like putting the engine radiators on the frontal top panel....like..what the shit?

  16. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is why tanks are so cool. In WW2 British things I think you can see the aesthetics of a country that was really into making trains at the time. American tanks are the product of automobile manufacturers.

    Not necessarily that railway companies made them but railway companies were training up large numbers of engineers who went into tank and plane companies during the war.

  17. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Good tank, decent 6 pounder gun, 12 degrees of gun depression and excellent speed. The main issues were terrible reverse speed and the boxy turret, but at least it meant you didn't have to just only rely on manlets to be able to fit inside it.

  18. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    What's the little armored car behind the cromwell

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Humber Scout Car

  19. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Cromwell was one of the tanks of WW2.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      hard to argue otherwise

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's funny because he didn't include an adjective.

  20. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >rivet construction
    Bong AFV designers really hate their crews dont they?

  21. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >you have to admit that the Cromwell was one of the tanks of WW2
    this is true, i do admit the cromwell was one of the tanks of ww2.

  22. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    > was one of the tanks of WW2
    yes it was a tank in WW2, just like the bob steeple

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *