>death traps
Cooper was a moron. Helf his claims are speculation about things he never witnessed or just factually wrong
Looking purely at crew survivability statistics the Sherman was one of the best tanks of the war. There's a reason both the Brits and Russians loved their shermans
Going back to OP's topic brit Crusader crews begged for M3 Grants
>Cooper was a moron
No the boomers that read the book were moronic. All cooper did was tell what he saw as the person who inspected destroyed vehicles and his opinions as soldier. He could never have imagined that idiots would take his account as the main source for armored warfare on the western front. It’s like taking vehicle crash test data as a measurement of track performance.
>All cooper did was tell what he saw as the person who inspected destroyed vehicles and his opinions as soldier. >works in logistics >cant tell the different M4 sherman variants apart >mentions his job was to inspect burned out shermans, which he apparently did 20km in enemy territory at night
he makes mistakes on things that should be within his knowledge
Its performance and the commentary on the same by its adversaries contradicts you.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
And by that you mean the fact no one like the fricking thing and got rid of it at first opportunity, right? What now? You going to post an AAR report where they managed to out-range the enemy with 75mm guns while in a good position and claim that makes it a good tank?
Impotent 37mm in a turret on a frickhuge tank coupled with a 75mm in the hull that makes the tank unable to go hull down and forces it to expose its frickhuge silhuette to fire it, not to mention pivot the entire tank towards the enemy like a fricking assault gun. Oh, and as an added bonus it had 6-7 crew members that can die in it instead of the usual 4-5
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>the fact no one like the fricking thing and got rid of it at first opportunity, right?
The British loved them. Crusader crews begged for M3's. The 75mm was much better than the 6 pounder. They performed well in Africa. They were replaced because they were a stop-gap interwar design and Sherman's were now available
You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want.
Dmitry Loza on the other hand had plenty of praise for them: >far less prone to brewing up than the T-34 >so comfy that they had to guard them just to stop people from stealing the upholstery for their boots >drove really smoothly on hard surfaces >had a small auxillary engine so you didn't have to run the main engine just to charge batteries >the fiddy cal was great (although less effective against German attack planes, who'd drop their bombs from out of its effective range and immediately gtfo)
The main downsides were the high center of gravity (something he notes actually saved his life at one point, where his tank tipped over shortly before the rest of his squad drove right into an ambush) and that on early ones the turret hatch opened upwards (potentially hitting you in the head if you're looking out of it while the turret's turning); later ones replaced with a hatch that slid off to the side like on modern tanks.
Incidentally he also thought the Thompson was worthless: >Each Sherman came with two Thompson submachine guns, in caliber 11.43mm (.45 cal), a healthy cartridge indeed! But the submachine gun was worthless. We had several bad experiences with it. A few of our men who got into an argument were wearing padded jackets. It turned out that they fired at each other and the bullet buried itself in the padded jacket. So much for the worthless submachine gun. Take a German submachine gun with folding stock (MP-40 SMG by Erma -Valeri). We loved it for its compactness. The Thompson was big. You couldn't turn around in the tank holding it.
fuddy five gays on suicide watch
Earlier arrived, faster, cheaper, more numerous. These are early Shermans we're talking about as well. There are always tradeoffs, and the Lee was probably more than adequate all things considered for the theater.
https://i.imgur.com/EoUUPc0.jpeg
>Crusader
How do you do, my eternal rival?
They look excruciatingly sunburnt.
https://i.imgur.com/HrRcFaA.jpeg
The power of British autism knows no bouds. >"Yes matey 'ut the 17 pound on backwards innit?"
It looks aesthetically sleek but it was pretty rubbish >t. Grandpa was a tank gunner in the 7th Armoured Division
He preferred the Sherman in every category.
Since i can't think of anywhere else to post it here is rarest operational use of a UK WW2 tank one could imagine; one of a handful of North Korean Cromwells:
In the early parts of the war the KPLA beat the shit out of the UN force, they overran the UK force.
They beat them and took their tanks. One of the DPRKs tactics was to target small/minor members of the UN forces and wipe them out at all costs. They did that to the UK and it worked. The Commonwealth was a footnote after that.
QRD?
The DPRK defeated a UK unit in a notable battle in the first Korean war. The UK unit abandoned several Cromwell tanks and the DPRK captured them then put them into service.
Seol was lost so UN forces were retreating, the convoy was the last to leave when US forces dumped flares on them while they were in a valley at night alerting the Chinese hordes to their location.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/slaughter-at-happy-valley/28506063.html
In what way is it better than a sherman?
Speeeeeed
Luv the Crusader, simpul as
By being available earlier?
The 6 pounder fired a much worse HE shell than the 75mm gun of the sherman.
all of them, Shermans were awful, just read "death traps"
>death traps
Cooper was a moron. Helf his claims are speculation about things he never witnessed or just factually wrong
Looking purely at crew survivability statistics the Sherman was one of the best tanks of the war. There's a reason both the Brits and Russians loved their shermans
Going back to OP's topic brit Crusader crews begged for M3 Grants
>Cooper was a moron
No the boomers that read the book were moronic. All cooper did was tell what he saw as the person who inspected destroyed vehicles and his opinions as soldier. He could never have imagined that idiots would take his account as the main source for armored warfare on the western front. It’s like taking vehicle crash test data as a measurement of track performance.
>All cooper did was tell what he saw as the person who inspected destroyed vehicles and his opinions as soldier.
>works in logistics
>cant tell the different M4 sherman variants apart
>mentions his job was to inspect burned out shermans, which he apparently did 20km in enemy territory at night
he makes mistakes on things that should be within his knowledge
The Lee/Grant was legitimately a good tank, and downright exceptional for a slapdash vehicle made from failed leftovers.
No it wasn't. It was a dogshit tank, the fact it had a 75mm in the hull doesn't make the tank good.
Its performance and the commentary on the same by its adversaries contradicts you.
And by that you mean the fact no one like the fricking thing and got rid of it at first opportunity, right? What now? You going to post an AAR report where they managed to out-range the enemy with 75mm guns while in a good position and claim that makes it a good tank?
Impotent 37mm in a turret on a frickhuge tank coupled with a 75mm in the hull that makes the tank unable to go hull down and forces it to expose its frickhuge silhuette to fire it, not to mention pivot the entire tank towards the enemy like a fricking assault gun. Oh, and as an added bonus it had 6-7 crew members that can die in it instead of the usual 4-5
>the fact no one like the fricking thing and got rid of it at first opportunity, right?
The British loved them. Crusader crews begged for M3's. The 75mm was much better than the 6 pounder. They performed well in Africa. They were replaced because they were a stop-gap interwar design and Sherman's were now available
You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want.
Dmitry Loza on the other hand had plenty of praise for them:
>far less prone to brewing up than the T-34
>so comfy that they had to guard them just to stop people from stealing the upholstery for their boots
>drove really smoothly on hard surfaces
>had a small auxillary engine so you didn't have to run the main engine just to charge batteries
>the fiddy cal was great (although less effective against German attack planes, who'd drop their bombs from out of its effective range and immediately gtfo)
The main downsides were the high center of gravity (something he notes actually saved his life at one point, where his tank tipped over shortly before the rest of his squad drove right into an ambush) and that on early ones the turret hatch opened upwards (potentially hitting you in the head if you're looking out of it while the turret's turning); later ones replaced with a hatch that slid off to the side like on modern tanks.
Incidentally he also thought the Thompson was worthless:
>Each Sherman came with two Thompson submachine guns, in caliber 11.43mm (.45 cal), a healthy cartridge indeed! But the submachine gun was worthless. We had several bad experiences with it. A few of our men who got into an argument were wearing padded jackets. It turned out that they fired at each other and the bullet buried itself in the padded jacket. So much for the worthless submachine gun. Take a German submachine gun with folding stock (MP-40 SMG by Erma -Valeri). We loved it for its compactness. The Thompson was big. You couldn't turn around in the tank holding it.
fuddy five gays on suicide watch
Aesthetics, Shermans are fat fricks
>In what way is it better than a sherman?
Earlier arrived, faster, cheaper, more numerous. These are early Shermans we're talking about as well. There are always tradeoffs, and the Lee was probably more than adequate all things considered for the theater.
They look excruciatingly sunburnt.
Backs that ass up right quick too
Nah they were pretty mid
Decent enough early-war tank, soon outclassed.
>Crusader
How do you do, my eternal rival?
>panzer 3 vs crusader 3
VGH soul
British WWII tanks go hard
>but they were le bad
shutup
The power of British autism knows no bouds.
>"Yes matey 'ut the 17 pound on backwards innit?"
What is essentially a self towing AT gun (including the gun facing backwards while moving) is pretty cool being made from left over valentine stock.
Go away, Lazerpig
It looks aesthetically sleek but it was pretty rubbish
>t. Grandpa was a tank gunner in the 7th Armoured Division
He preferred the Sherman in every category.
Since i can't think of anywhere else to post it here is rarest operational use of a UK WW2 tank one could imagine; one of a handful of North Korean Cromwells:
wtf?
In the early parts of the war the KPLA beat the shit out of the UN force, they overran the UK force.
They beat them and took their tanks. One of the DPRKs tactics was to target small/minor members of the UN forces and wipe them out at all costs. They did that to the UK and it worked. The Commonwealth was a footnote after that.
The DPRK defeated a UK unit in a notable battle in the first Korean war. The UK unit abandoned several Cromwell tanks and the DPRK captured them then put them into service.
QRD?
Seol was lost so UN forces were retreating, the convoy was the last to leave when US forces dumped flares on them while they were in a valley at night alerting the Chinese hordes to their location.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/slaughter-at-happy-valley/28506063.html