Why was British armor so far behind in WW2?

Still using riveted construction, no attempt to slope it. The gun is jerryrigged to fire American ammunition. Meanwhile the Americans, Germans, and Soviets are producing cast and welded designs. The German tanks that didn't use sloped armor had their design origins in the 30s.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Doctrine drove tech development. And the stodgy old cavalry officers of the British army gimped the development for a long time by insisting on keeping their horses well into the 30s. Brit 2pdr tanks were perfectly serviceable in the 30s, but they got munched in the 40s.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The US still had horse cavalry brigades well into WW2. The 26th Cavalry conducted a cavalry charge in the Phillines in 1942 and 10th Mountain had a cavalry element conduct a charge in 1945.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thats not the point. They didnt just keep both, the British stymied armor development and drained it of resources to make sure that horses were not under threat of replacement.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Meanwhile the Americans
          were operating M3 Stuarts in 1939.
          At least the British had Matildas.

          fake and gay

          Basically the Army was playing third wheel with industrial resources which was a problem because there simply wasn’t enough to go around, British heavy industry was initially slow to invest in welding technology so when war began what welding facilities there were had their time devoted to making ships and aircraft while the army was left to make do with what was left over. This was why early to mid war tanks like the Crusader and Cromwell were bolted since it was simply what the available industrial facilities were capable of producing, and why the tank they used all of their wartime experience to make at the end was the Centurion. It was a similar story with heavy weapons, by 1940-41 the British were aware that armor technology was rapidly outpacing the QF-2pdr and wanted to replace it with the superior QF-6pdr, but they needed tanks and anti tank guns in the field RFN and simply couldn’t afford the drop in production re tooling the lines for 6-pdrs would cause. That’s why the British started gobbling up American armor even when all they could get were M3 Lees, it wasn’t just about getting hills into the battlefield it was about covering the shortfall in production converting factories from 2pdr to 6pdrs caused. Plus the bongs ended up just liking things like the Sherman and used a lot of them to help simplify Allied logistics

          correct
          most Americans are unable to fathom going to war with their 1939 army while attempting to rearm in the middle of combat, balancing perfect solutions with immediate frontline needs, like the British, Germans and Japanese all had to do

          https://i.imgur.com/SLbya7x.png

          [...]
          The idea of "jap tank bad" is however blown way out of proportion.
          For the most part the Ha-Go saw limited use past 1942 and most of the time it was used, it was used where dense forests prevented the use of larger tanks which would in turn limit the size of US tanks as well. The M3 Stuart saw significant use in the Pacific while it fell into disuse in Europe simply because of it's size. As far as Sherman engagements go, Shin-Hoto Chi-Ha's were around and basically had no issue penetrating them, so it was just a case of who shot first. Also most of Japan's anti-armor action was with field guns like the Type 1 and Type 90 which both saw widespread use to good effect against US armor. Japanese tanks were perfectly adequate for what they were used for, either beasting on chinks with 0 AT capability, or in island hoping campaigns that limited the size of tanks that US could field against them.

          >The idea of "jap tank bad" is however blown way out of proportion
          it's not out of proportion to show that the average "medium" Jap tank, the Chi-Ha, had all the capabilities of the pre-war American tank, the M3 Stuart
          >it fell into disuse in Europe simply because of it's size
          the same reason why every other tank went obsolete as well; because its size limited its ability to carry more armour, a better gun, and an adequate engine to move both
          >Also most of Japan's anti-armor action was with field guns
          "our tanks don't suck because our AT guns are the tank killers" is not the win you think it is

          https://i.imgur.com/Dgb5kIC.jpeg

          Still using riveted construction, no attempt to slope it. The gun is jerryrigged to fire American ammunition. Meanwhile the Americans, Germans, and Soviets are producing cast and welded designs. The German tanks that didn't use sloped armor had their design origins in the 30s.

          >was British armor so far behind in WW2?
          no it wasn't, homosexual

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"our tanks don't suck because our AT guns are the tank killers" is not the win you think it is
            NTA, but tanks and all military equipment are built for specific use cases and under specific limitations. For the IJA, it was to simultaneously deal with interwar Soviet armor and support Japanese infantry in China. For the IJN, it was to provide a mobile crew-served gun on jungle and mountain covered Pacific islands in the middle of fricking nowhere, while also being easy to transport and land ashore. You have to remember, the M3 Lee was not in service until 1941, whereas Japan had been in a shooting war since 1937. Their existing tanks served their needs, AT-guns don't require valuable gasoline, so build bigger and more resource-intensive tanks? When they encountered US tanks that outmatched them, the result was the Chi-Nu, but it also had to compete with the arguably much more important resource demands of the air and naval services. Tanks just didn't matter that much in the PTO.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            “At least the British had Matildas” is a net negative unless you’re fighting the Italians. Most employments of the Matilda outside of a few surprises in France ended in complete disaster. The Stuart is comparable to or better than the contemporary British cruiser tanks but naturally still worse than upgunned Panzer III, but so was every British tank until the M3 Mediums arrived

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The Stuart is comparable to or better than the contemporary British cruiser tanks
              the Stuart's British contemporary is the Crusader, which is definitely better head-on - I wouldn't know about other factors like ease of maintenance
              >naturally still worse than upgunned Panzer III, but so was every British tank until the M3 Mediums arrived
              PzIII Ausf Fs were the superior tank, yes, but Ausf Gs were equivalent to Crusaders

              overall however the Panzer III arguably had a critical non-combat superiority in being more upgradeable than both the Stuart and the Crusader

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >PzIII Ausf Fs were the superior tank, yes, but Ausf Gs were equivalent to Crusaders
                Not sure what you mean here. Both F and G started with the 37 and got 50mm L/42 later on.

                >the Crusader, which is definitely better head-on - I wouldn't know about other factors like ease of maintenance
                They got a bad reputation in that department.
                In their defense, they got worn down by conducting a shitload of operational marches, on their own tracks instead of on flatbeds.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >most Americans are unable to fathom going to war with their 1939 army while attempting to rearm in the middle of combat, balancing perfect solutions with immediate frontline needs, like the British, Germans and Japanese all had to do
            But thats wrong moron. The US rearmed its entire Army thru 3-4 major upgrades and renovations across the fricking globe whole at war

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >3-4 major upgrades and renovations
              lol no

              the USA had the privilege of entering a six-year war after two years had elapsed. during that time, they had the benefit of massively expanding the US Army with modernised equipment while at peace, unlike the other powers which had to fight while doing so.

              take tanks for example;
              the British went from the Cruiser A13 to the Crusader to the Cromwell
              the Germans went from the Panzer III to the Panzer IV Ausf F to the Panther (and Tigers)
              the Americans entered the war in the ETO with the Sherman right away, skipping over the bit with the Stuarts and Lee/Grants except in the Pacific

              what if the US Navy had begun the war in 1939 as the Royal Navy did? they would be flying Grumman F3Fs, BT-1s and Vindicators, with a few Devastators. what if the USAAF had begun the war in 1939? they would have fewer combat aircraft than the RAF had fighters. And the RAF ones would be Hurricanes and Spitfires, vs USAAF P-36 Hawks.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The M3 saw service with the US in North Africa.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Meanwhile the Americans
            >were operating M3 Stuarts in 1939.
            The Stuart didn't enter service until 1941. The most modern tank we had was its (admittedly very similar) predecessor the M2A4 which had a whopping 25mm of frontal armor.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Even the ludicrously inadequate M2 Medium was still two years away

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Needs more machine guns tbh fampai

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They eventually got up to 9 machine guns.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              In 1939 the best German tank had 25-30 mm of armor and a worse gun with worse mobility but better crew ergos. The M2 light tank is not a bad light tank for 1939.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The 2pdr had no HE round and British bofors in Singapore were issued no AP rounds, despite both guns having the same 40mm bore diameter
      The AA guns got overrun by Japanese light tanks and the 2pdr equipped tanks lobbed solid shot and MG fire at AT guns in north Africa

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Soviets had cavalry (or, rather, mounted infantry), Italians had cavalry, US did too, germans depended on horses, Poland had cavalry, and I think France had some too.
      It doesn't explain much, and I've heard the myth of "le stupid horsemen dragging down the armoured vehicles development" much more often in the context of soviet military doctrine.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I've heard the myth of "le stupid horsemen dragging down the armoured vehicles development" much more often in the context of soviet military doctrine.
        Marshal Budyonny was three things: a moron, Stalin's butt buddy, and a lover of horse cavalry. It was a deadly combination if you were an advocate of mechanization in the Red Army.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Except all you've said is bullshit.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't care, they looked cool.
    Tongue my anus.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think Japanese tanks looked cool. Doesn't mean that they weren't obsolete garbage.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        they were perfectly fine, and by the time they were no longer perfectly fine, the army was no longer allowed to have armor steel so they couldn't do anything about it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >so they couldn't do anything about it
          And this makes them not obsolete? I'm not saying the Japanese Army had a choice.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >so they couldn't do anything about it
        And this makes them not obsolete? I'm not saying the Japanese Army had a choice.

        The idea of "jap tank bad" is however blown way out of proportion.
        For the most part the Ha-Go saw limited use past 1942 and most of the time it was used, it was used where dense forests prevented the use of larger tanks which would in turn limit the size of US tanks as well. The M3 Stuart saw significant use in the Pacific while it fell into disuse in Europe simply because of it's size. As far as Sherman engagements go, Shin-Hoto Chi-Ha's were around and basically had no issue penetrating them, so it was just a case of who shot first. Also most of Japan's anti-armor action was with field guns like the Type 1 and Type 90 which both saw widespread use to good effect against US armor. Japanese tanks were perfectly adequate for what they were used for, either beasting on chinks with 0 AT capability, or in island hoping campaigns that limited the size of tanks that US could field against them.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You realize they're talking about side shots here, right? The 47 mm Jap AT gun maxes out at around 70 mm RHA at 90 degrees from 100 meters, dropping to about 50 mm by 500 meters. The side of most Shermans was 38 mm thick, the front (50-63 mm at 55-47 degrees from vertical depending on the model) was totally impervious to that gun and the 75 mm field gun firing AP from over 200 meters. It was not a matter of "who shot first" it was a matter of "there's a hidden anti tank gun buried in the dirt/ inside of a basement that fires at nearly point blank into the side before being wiped out."

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You realize they're talking about side shots here, right?
            It's a 30deg angle will would bring the side armor into similar effectiveness as the front armor.

            >The 47 mm Jap AT gun maxes out at around 70 mm RHA at 90 degrees from 100 meters, dropping to about 50 mm by 500 meters.
            Are you using war thunder stats or something because in reality it was punching 114mm at close range in this American test and 82mm at 450m in a different test. US tests of the Type 90 gave it 90mm at 250yds

            https://i.imgur.com/kDXrOh6.png

            >Meanwhile the Americans
            were operating M3 Stuarts in 1939.
            At least the British had Matildas.

            fake and gay

            [...]
            correct
            most Americans are unable to fathom going to war with their 1939 army while attempting to rearm in the middle of combat, balancing perfect solutions with immediate frontline needs, like the British, Germans and Japanese all had to do

            [...]
            >The idea of "jap tank bad" is however blown way out of proportion
            it's not out of proportion to show that the average "medium" Jap tank, the Chi-Ha, had all the capabilities of the pre-war American tank, the M3 Stuart
            >it fell into disuse in Europe simply because of it's size
            the same reason why every other tank went obsolete as well; because its size limited its ability to carry more armour, a better gun, and an adequate engine to move both
            >Also most of Japan's anti-armor action was with field guns
            "our tanks don't suck because our AT guns are the tank killers" is not the win you think it is

            [...]
            >was British armor so far behind in WW2?
            no it wasn't, homosexual

            >it's not out of proportion to show that the average "medium" Jap tank, the Chi-Ha, had all the capabilities of the pre-war American tank, the M3 Stuart
            Maybe the base Chi-Ha which was also a pre-war tank, but it was also much better in an infantry support role which constituted around 80% of what tanks did in WW2. The Shin-Hoto improved upon that and was produced in almost equal numbers as the base model.
            >the same reason why every other tank went obsolete as well
            Yeah in Europe, but not the pacific since it was still used to the end of the war there.
            >"our tanks don't suck because our AT guns are the tank killers"
            The tanks fielded the same guns as those AT field guns. Also AT guns were overwhelmingly the tank killers literally everywhere during WW2.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >it was also much better in an infantry support role
              mainly by dint of having a slightly bigger gun
              >The Shin-Hoto improved upon that firepower wise
              which makes it a tank destroyer, not a tank
              >Yeah in Europe, but not the pacific
              true, the Pacific theater was always secondary priority until V-E day, so the Allies didn't send their best equipment there
              >it was still used to the end of the war there
              for lack of an alternative
              >The tanks fielded the same guns as those AT field guns. Also AT guns were overwhelmingly the tank killers
              which would make the Chi-Ha a tank destroyer and not a tank

              in order to be a tank and not just a tank destroyer or assault gun, a tank has to be capable of taking fire as well as handing it out. same reason why the Kongos are battlecruisers and not battleships.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >in order to be a tank and not just a tank destroyer or assault gun, a tank has to be capable of taking fire as well as handing it out. same reason why the Kongos are battlecruisers and not battleships
                Assault guns and tank destroyers tended to be more, not leas heavily armoured than the tanks they were derived from, anon.
                The German ones, anyway.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The German ones, anyway
                the Stug III was arguably an ersatz panzer, and tank destroyers like the Marder series were definitely not as protected as tanks

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the Stug III was arguably an ersatz panzer
                The StuG 3 literally INVENTED the term "assualt gun". Absolute moron take.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >in order to be a tank and not just a tank destroyer or assault gun, a tank has to be capable of taking fire as well as handing it out
                Absolute moron take. By this idiotic "logic" every light tank ever built was actually a tank destroyer.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >gee why is it called a LIGHT tank and not just tank
                mongoloid

                >the Stug III was arguably an ersatz panzer
                The StuG 3 literally INVENTED the term "assualt gun". Absolute moron take.

                >gee what is the meaning of ersatz
                mongoloid

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Now is it called a light TANK or a light TNAK DESTROYER, nitwit? Your concession that your attempt to redefine the very meaning of "tank" is based on nothing but terminal ignorance and utter moroniation on your part is duly accepted.

                >muh ersatz
                Not even trying to adress the point that THE LITERAL OG ASSAULT GUN was, in fact, an assault gun and designed built, and employed as such - and that it literally DEFINED the term - are we now? Concession accepted.

                >mongoloid
                Projecting really hard there, you terminally ignorant, wilfully dishonest subhuman moron. Concession accepted. Now kindly do the human genepool a favour and have a nice day ASAP. It'll also keep you from embarassing yourself even further with more displays of your terminal ignorance and moroniation.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                lmao I can see the frothing from here
                >is it called a light TANK or a light TNAK DESTROYER
                light tanks are light tanks, not tank destroyers
                >bbbbut you said...!!
                I never indicated that the following list was exhaustive
                you autistically ASSumed so, frickwit

                >THE LITERAL OG ASSAULT GUN was, in fact, an assault gun and designed built, and employed as such
                the Stug III was first DESCRIBED as an assault gun. however, from the start it (and the O.G. Panzer IV) had the secondary task of killing tanks, and the decision was made to armour them accordingly for tank combat.
                by being over-armoured, the Stug III combined the roles of assault gun and what the British called infantry tanks; the Germans realised this and later on, actual German assault guns were not as well armoured, and not expected to take fire from enemy tanks, ideally
                other armies followed suit and developed other assault guns that were not as well-armoured as a tank, yet designed to support infantry and kill other tanks if necesarry. modern examples are the Centauro and Booker.
                hence, the Stug III is really an ersatz panzer, and indeed was more commonly used as one as production difficulties mounted

                idiot.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Are you using war thunder stats or something because in reality it was punching 114mm at close range in this American test and 82mm at 450m in a different test.
              its 3.25in at 500m at 0-degree angle and 3in at a 30-degree angle
              55mm penetration at the muzzle is from Wikipedia, which gets its source from a handbook without reference to the standards of testing
              still, M4 is immune at all ranges from the front and side is immune at longer ranges

              but the 30mm armor of the chi-ha makes it vulnerable to the outdated 37mm guns that the marines were still using, and definitely vulnerable to an extreme degree from the 6-pdr and 75mm gun

              on the topic of warthunder
              warthunder lists its 500m penetration as only 67mm, though warthunder has moved to strictly a demarre based formula
              warthunder is known to lean towards overperformance, the 76mm M1 penetrates 150mm of armor when its firing table says it should only do 128mm at the muzzle
              while the panthers long 75mm is punching through 160mm at 500mm when firing tables say it should only be doing 132mm at 500m

              the only explanation i can think of is that whatever source wikipedia uses a less forgiving formula than whatever the US used in WW2
              possibly krupp, known to be more demanding than demarre, which an online calculator says the 47mm would penetrate 60mm at the muzzle

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                iirc the US penetration criteria for the time is >50% chance at complete penetration of more than half of the shell mass or something. I know it’s considered one of the more forgiving penetration metrics.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                As far as I know the 76mm M62 only doing ~5 inches of penetration was largely a result of poorly heat treated M62 in practice causing shatter gap issues. If you measure the penetration at ballistic limit and then Demarre it at the higher muzzle velocity then you end up close to what they say it is, around 146mm. It's a result of gamified "perfect world" scenarios for fairness purposes

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        some features of the Japanese tanks were remarkably advanced. Their insistence on using air cooled Diesel engines for example. And honestly, for what they expected to be doing, that is, keeping poorly supplied Chinese bandits/warlords at bay while they sodomized, China unfettered by foreign involvement, their designs made some sense. Akin to prewar U.S. armor being mainly intended to efficiently slaughter Mexican bandits armed primarily with rifle caliber weapons..

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      nobody said you couldn't cope anon, calm down

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You're talking to a drunk bong that's going to be hungover when he gets to work.
    I don't care, our armour looked cool, frick off.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Churchill was by far the best tank of ww2

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Basically the Army was playing third wheel with industrial resources which was a problem because there simply wasn’t enough to go around, British heavy industry was initially slow to invest in welding technology so when war began what welding facilities there were had their time devoted to making ships and aircraft while the army was left to make do with what was left over. This was why early to mid war tanks like the Crusader and Cromwell were bolted since it was simply what the available industrial facilities were capable of producing, and why the tank they used all of their wartime experience to make at the end was the Centurion. It was a similar story with heavy weapons, by 1940-41 the British were aware that armor technology was rapidly outpacing the QF-2pdr and wanted to replace it with the superior QF-6pdr, but they needed tanks and anti tank guns in the field RFN and simply couldn’t afford the drop in production re tooling the lines for 6-pdrs would cause. That’s why the British started gobbling up American armor even when all they could get were M3 Lees, it wasn’t just about getting hills into the battlefield it was about covering the shortfall in production converting factories from 2pdr to 6pdrs caused. Plus the bongs ended up just liking things like the Sherman and used a lot of them to help simplify Allied logistics

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They are busy engineering.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Riveted plates are are much easier to replace if they get hit than welded plates.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All their talented engineers were designing airplanes and ships.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's not that, they just had limited manufacturing capabilites that weren't already busy making other things, and a shortage of welders (meaning the torches), they had to convert factories into making tanks, but they had limited welders so they converted the steam train and steel rivet construction industries into tank making.
      They had a lot of stuff to make with very little comparatively for a very VERY large empire, so they used what they could as quickly as possible.
      They had no time for aesthetics, rhey tried everything, and often "good enough" was often key if they could make it using existing tooling, they did however make many changes and advances during and particularly after ww2 with all the trial and error, they were not inferior at all, arguably they were well designed for the enemies they faced, often fielding counters for their enemy changing faster than the Americans or French could.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >It's warriortard
    probably, yes

    >"our tanks don't suck because our AT guns are the tank killers" is not the win you think it is
    NTA, but tanks and all military equipment are built for specific use cases and under specific limitations. For the IJA, it was to simultaneously deal with interwar Soviet armor and support Japanese infantry in China. For the IJN, it was to provide a mobile crew-served gun on jungle and mountain covered Pacific islands in the middle of fricking nowhere, while also being easy to transport and land ashore. You have to remember, the M3 Lee was not in service until 1941, whereas Japan had been in a shooting war since 1937. Their existing tanks served their needs, AT-guns don't require valuable gasoline, so build bigger and more resource-intensive tanks? When they encountered US tanks that outmatched them, the result was the Chi-Nu, but it also had to compete with the arguably much more important resource demands of the air and naval services. Tanks just didn't matter that much in the PTO.

    however, the Japs were technologically incapable of coming up with something like the Cromwell, or later models of Sherman, or the PzV Panther
    the Chi-Nu was the best they could come up with

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >however, the Japs were technologically incapable of coming up with something like the Cromwell, or later models of Sherman, or the PzV Panther
      >the Chi-Nu was the best they could come up with
      Pretty bold statement anon, you should probably add caveats to that. IE
      >The Chi-Nu is the best thing they could come up with under a far more severe time pressure and a far larger resource deficit
      The UK wasn't concerned with a massively superior maritime enemy rapidly advancing against their own homeland, and Germany had nearly a full decade of learning by trial and error before producing the Panther, for the most heavily prioritized arm of their military. There is zero reason Japan could not design or build a Cromwell or Panther. They had an industry capable of it. What they didn't have was any reason to allocate resources toward such a design.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        anon, why is it so hard for you to accept that the Japs had only just pulled themselves out of the rickshaw and bamboo hat era about 40 years before, and that they not only lacked technical knowledge and homegrown R&D, they were at the limit of what materiel they could manufacture?
        I'll freely admit they did a fine job developing, say, the A6M and D3A more or less on their own. The N1KJ Shiden too, I think. But unlike the US and British militaries, which had more resources, technical expertise, and therefore were more broadly capable, the IJA and IJN had more shortcomings. Even the Germans basically neglected the Navy arm altogether except for their excellent Uboats.

        >There is zero reason Japan could not design or build a Cromwell or Panther. They had an industry capable of it.
        They couldn't make the Chi-To match the Sherman despite trying.
        >inb4 we didn't need that performance anyway!
        We know that they tried, failed, and simply put what they ended up with into production.

        And once again, they neglected other parts of their arsenal while doing it, because once again, there were limitations of how many weapon design engineers Japan had.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I don't understand capability versus capacity, the post

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I coulda binna contender Joe
            no, no you couldn't

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >he still doesn't understand
              Many such cases

              Tell me anon, why do you think the country that pioneered electric welding in ship construction and could make far larger and thicker armor plates than anything used in a German tank was technologically incapable of doing the far easier thing of making thinner armor plates and welding those together?

              If it's

              anon, why is it so hard for you to accept that the Japs had only just pulled themselves out of the rickshaw and bamboo hat era about 40 years before, and that they not only lacked technical knowledge and homegrown R&D, they were at the limit of what materiel they could manufacture?
              I'll freely admit they did a fine job developing, say, the A6M and D3A more or less on their own. The N1KJ Shiden too, I think. But unlike the US and British militaries, which had more resources, technical expertise, and therefore were more broadly capable, the IJA and IJN had more shortcomings. Even the Germans basically neglected the Navy arm altogether except for their excellent Uboats.

              >There is zero reason Japan could not design or build a Cromwell or Panther. They had an industry capable of it.
              They couldn't make the Chi-To match the Sherman despite trying.
              >inb4 we didn't need that performance anyway!
              We know that they tried, failed, and simply put what they ended up with into production.

              And once again, they neglected other parts of their arsenal while doing it, because once again, there were limitations of how many weapon design engineers Japan had.

              example,
              >They couldn't make the Chi-To match the Sherman despite trying.
              They were able to design and build the working tank. That's the bar, they cleared it. That they couldn't mass produce it due to literally not having enough steel available to build a bunch of them isn't relevant. This is what I mean by capability versus capacity. The engineers could design and build it, directly contradicting this fricking drivel

              [...]
              >It's warriortard
              probably, yes

              [...]
              however, the Japs were technologically incapable of coming up with something like the Cromwell, or later models of Sherman, or the PzV Panther
              the Chi-Nu was the best they could come up with

              >however, the Japs were technologically incapable of coming up with something like the Cromwell, or later models of Sherman, or the PzV Panther

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >why do you think
                because it takes more than that to match something like the Sherman 76mm or the Cromwell, and they didn't have it?
                >That's the bar, they cleared it
                the devil is in the details, anon.
                the Chi-To had roughly equivalent armour but a significantly weaker main gun. At ranges over 1,000 yards the Sherman and Cromwell, had these tanks ever faced each other, would have beaten it; at ranges below that it's a matter of quickdraw mcgraw.

                British had great tanks early war.
                British had great tanks late war.

                They definitely struggled a little in the middle. But, once Cromwell and M4 came into service they were more than a march for Germany.
                Thus why they won.

                I'd argue that the British gap was in 1942 where they needed M3 Lees to cover the obsolescence of the Crusader vs the Panzer III Ausf F and Panzer IV F2. After that point, it's a question of the Sherman or the Cromwell Mk IV, and since the British were buying American tanks, the Sherman is more represented.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sure, but The Sherman was very much a joint effort in terms of design, especially those which ended up in British service.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Sherman Firefly, yes, but the all-American Sherman with the M1 76mm, arguably not.

                >the Chi-To had roughly equivalent armour but a significantly weaker main gun
                But enough to deal with Shermans, which is all it needed to do. If Japan was fighting Panthers, they would necessarily have tried to build something with a larger gun. This is the point you keep missing. They had the capability to build such a tank, but not the need. They aren't going to waste materiel and man hours building a Panther equivalent when a Pz IV equivalent will suffice.

                >At ranges over 1,000 yards the Sherman and Cromwell, had these tanks ever faced each other, would have beaten it
                >Sherman and Cromwell have an advantage at long combat ranges that are already uncommon in the ETO and would have been even less common in dense Japanese cities and hilly to mountainous Japanese countryside
                You're not making the point you think you're making.

                >enough to deal with Shermans, which is all it needed to do
                >they would necessarily have tried to build something with a larger gun
                The point YOU keep missing is that they TRIED to build a gun for the Chi-To, failed, and went with something that they knew might not penetrate a Sherman at even 1,000 yards.

                >it would have been barely adequate against the 75mm guns, and definitely inadequate against the 76mm gun
                What the Sherman is armed with is immaterial at the most common combat ranges in the Pacific. The armor on the Sherman is not going to be thick enough to stop the 75mm on the Chi-To except at uncommon long range engagements.

                >its only about as tough as the panzer IV
                Once again this is immaterial, unless you also want to also claim that the Sherman is inadequate against itself because it can't protect from its own gun. The Chi-To is a rough Sherman equivalent, not a Panther equivalent.

                [...]
                The US didn't join the war until December 1941 dumbass. They had nearly 3 extra years at peacetime to build their army and switch over to war industry without any interruption, learning from the UK and France's experiences in Europe and North Africa all the while. Whereas the UK, France, and Germany all have industry in bombing range of each other and Japan's been in a major land war since 1937. The USA had a massive luxury of time and distance from their adversaries prior to entering the war.

                >Once again this is immaterial
                >bbbbut we don't NEED 1,000 yards
                If you think nowhere in Asia has sightlines like that you're literally moronic
                >just yknow fire from ambush all day e'er day
                One trick ponies work once, the Japs found that out the hard way.

                Guns were never the Japs' strong suit. They had inferior guns overall, from SMGs to artillery to AA to aircraft guns to tank guns.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The point YOU keep missing is that they TRIED to build a gun for the Chi-To, failed
                Wrong. The Japanese did build the 75mm Type 5 gun, it did perform more than well enough to kill Shermans.

                >and went with something that they knew might not penetrate a Sherman at even 1,000 yards
                The Chi-Nu and the less powerful Type 3 75mm were stopgaps due to shortages of material to build the tank designed for the Type 5, not because they did not have the technical ability to construct a tank that used the Type 5.

                >If you think nowhere in Asia has sightlines like that you're literally moronic
                These tanks would have only fought each other on Kyushu and Honshu. I've traveled all over those islands motherfricker. I know very well what kind of terrain is going to be at play, and I also know that the median tank engagement range in Western Europe was 300 yards. Sicily and Italy were even lower, with terrain much closer to that of the Japanese islands. (You) are the one going on about the superiority of the Sherman at 1,000 yard ranges while ignoring that at least half of those are probably happening at or under 300 yards, and only a small percentage occurring at or over 1000 yards.

                >Guns were never the Japs' strong suit
                I'm amazed you haven't choked on all the shit coming out of your mouth.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the Chi-To had roughly equivalent armour but a significantly weaker main gun
                late war cromwell had 100mm thick hull armor and 76mm thick turret armor
                late war sherman had 60mm thick angled hull (90 LOS) armor and a 88mm thick front

                chi-to had 75mm thick hull and turret
                this does mean that the 6-pdr and 75mm can penetrate the chi-to frontally even at close range
                while the 37mm and 47mm cannot penetrate the sherman even frontally

                >at ranges below that it's a matter of quickdraw mcgraw.
                by 1944, the 76mm sherman had a cupola in addition to 5 periscopes for the whole crew
                the chi-to at least had a cupola, but was still lacking in pericopes
                chi-to turret traverse speed is unknown, only that it was electrical in nature, while the electro-hydraulic traverse on the M4 was known to be one of the fastest and smoothest of its time

                close range probably equalizes the playing field somewhat, but sherman is probably getting the first shot off more often than not

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the Chi-To had roughly equivalent armour but a significantly weaker main gun
                But enough to deal with Shermans, which is all it needed to do. If Japan was fighting Panthers, they would necessarily have tried to build something with a larger gun. This is the point you keep missing. They had the capability to build such a tank, but not the need. They aren't going to waste materiel and man hours building a Panther equivalent when a Pz IV equivalent will suffice.

                >At ranges over 1,000 yards the Sherman and Cromwell, had these tanks ever faced each other, would have beaten it
                >Sherman and Cromwell have an advantage at long combat ranges that are already uncommon in the ETO and would have been even less common in dense Japanese cities and hilly to mountainous Japanese countryside
                You're not making the point you think you're making.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >But enough to deal with Shermans,
                it would have been barely adequate against the 75mm guns, and definitely inadequate against the 76mm gun
                its only about as tough as the panzer IV , which is not a compliment as the crews were calling them sardine cans even against the small F-34 gun of the T-34

                the only factor that the chi-to really stacks up against the M4A3 in is in firepower
                though this assumes fire-control between the two was equally good, since we know next to nothing about the internal arrangement of periscopes and telescopic sights on the chi-to

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it would have been barely adequate against the 75mm guns, and definitely inadequate against the 76mm gun
                What the Sherman is armed with is immaterial at the most common combat ranges in the Pacific. The armor on the Sherman is not going to be thick enough to stop the 75mm on the Chi-To except at uncommon long range engagements.

                >its only about as tough as the panzer IV
                Once again this is immaterial, unless you also want to also claim that the Sherman is inadequate against itself because it can't protect from its own gun. The Chi-To is a rough Sherman equivalent, not a Panther equivalent.

                >most Americans are unable to fathom going to war with their 1939 army while attempting to rearm in the middle of combat, balancing perfect solutions with immediate frontline needs, like the British, Germans and Japanese all had to do
                But thats wrong moron. The US rearmed its entire Army thru 3-4 major upgrades and renovations across the fricking globe whole at war

                The US didn't join the war until December 1941 dumbass. They had nearly 3 extra years at peacetime to build their army and switch over to war industry without any interruption, learning from the UK and France's experiences in Europe and North Africa all the while. Whereas the UK, France, and Germany all have industry in bombing range of each other and Japan's been in a major land war since 1937. The USA had a massive luxury of time and distance from their adversaries prior to entering the war.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The armor on the Sherman is not going to be thick enough to stop the 75mm on the Chi-To except at uncommon long range engagements.
                90mm thick frontal armor renders it frontally protected against 37mm and 47mm guns
                It also provides some protection against its own 76mm gun or equivalent, the germans estimated an angle of 30-45 degrees enabled it to resist the L/48 guns of their panzers
                Chi-nus thinner armor than the sherman means a wider range of angles where the. 76mm M1 can penetrate, ie. There is no 45 degree protection

                >Once again this is immaterial, unless you also want to also claim that the Sherman is inadequate against itself because it can't protect from its own gun. The Chi-To is a rough Sherman equivalent, not a Panther equivalent
                The sherman can actually protect against its own 75mm gun and if we assume the 76mm to be equal to the L/48, then it can even provide some protection against long guns with good angles
                As well as providing protection from company level AT guns

                Chi-to is maybe as good as the mid-war 75mm sherman
                But inferior to the late war sherman,

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >90mm thick frontal armor
                90mm EFFECTIVE anon. The plates themselves were 50-63mm thick depending on the variant, inclined to provide 90mm of effective thickness IF your target is directly in front of you at the same elevation.

                >frontally protected against 37mm and 47mm guns
                Which in practice wasn't a guarantee against the 47mm, and the Chi-Nu and Chi-To to which we're comparing both carried longer 75mm guns.

                >Chi-to is maybe as good as the mid-war 75mm sherman
                >But inferior to the late war sherman,
                Nobody was arguing that the Chi-To or Chi-Nu were in every way equal to a late-war Sherman. That's a goalpost you and

                The Sherman Firefly, yes, but the all-American Sherman with the M1 76mm, arguably not.

                [...]
                >enough to deal with Shermans, which is all it needed to do
                >they would necessarily have tried to build something with a larger gun
                The point YOU keep missing is that they TRIED to build a gun for the Chi-To, failed, and went with something that they knew might not penetrate a Sherman at even 1,000 yards.

                [...]
                >Once again this is immaterial
                >bbbbut we don't NEED 1,000 yards
                If you think nowhere in Asia has sightlines like that you're literally moronic
                >just yknow fire from ambush all day e'er day
                One trick ponies work once, the Japs found that out the hard way.

                Guns were never the Japs' strong suit. They had inferior guns overall, from SMGs to artillery to AA to aircraft guns to tank guns.

                decided to move. What I've been saying from the beginning is that Japan had the ability to design and build tanks close enough in capability to the Sherman and Cromwell for marginal bullshit like the Sherman being angled at exactly 30* so it can bounce the shell from the Chi-To firing at it from >800 yards to not matter in the big picture

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Which in practice wasn't a guarantee against the 47mm
                nothing is a guarantee, but mainly because Jap 47mm AT guns fired from very close range
                >That's a goalpost
                I never moved the goalpost, I stand by what I said from the start, homosexual: the Chi-To had roughly equivalent armour but a significantly weaker main gun. it's doubtful whether the Chi-To's 75mm gun could reliably penetrate the Sherman's 2.5" angled armour at 1,000 yards because of differences in Japanese testing standards and the fact that the different angles of the Sherman's sloped armour meant its effective horizontal thickness ranged from 3" to 3.5". In contrast, the Sherman 76mm or Firefly would reliably penetrate the Chi-To at the same distance, and so would the Cromwell.

                >The point YOU keep missing is that they TRIED to build a gun for the Chi-To, failed
                Wrong. The Japanese did build the 75mm Type 5 gun, it did perform more than well enough to kill Shermans.

                >and went with something that they knew might not penetrate a Sherman at even 1,000 yards
                The Chi-Nu and the less powerful Type 3 75mm were stopgaps due to shortages of material to build the tank designed for the Type 5, not because they did not have the technical ability to construct a tank that used the Type 5.

                >If you think nowhere in Asia has sightlines like that you're literally moronic
                These tanks would have only fought each other on Kyushu and Honshu. I've traveled all over those islands motherfricker. I know very well what kind of terrain is going to be at play, and I also know that the median tank engagement range in Western Europe was 300 yards. Sicily and Italy were even lower, with terrain much closer to that of the Japanese islands. (You) are the one going on about the superiority of the Sherman at 1,000 yard ranges while ignoring that at least half of those are probably happening at or under 300 yards, and only a small percentage occurring at or over 1000 yards.

                >Guns were never the Japs' strong suit
                I'm amazed you haven't choked on all the shit coming out of your mouth.

                >The Japanese did build the 75mm Type 5 gun
                and it underperformed their expectations.
                > it did perform more than well enough to kill Shermans
                Unlike you, the IJA wasn't stupid, and 75mm penetration at 1000 yards was merely a benchmark, they had been hoping for better because they knew that in practice, Shermans might carry applique armour and there were heavier tanks around.

                >Guns
                >shit
                Okay, let's play, you son of a b***h.
                Come on, tell me about the advanced Jap AA guns they built.
                Tell me about the awesome Jap submachine guns they armed the infantry with.
                Go on, homosexual.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Chi-To had... a significantly weaker main gun
                Only marginally so. You are talking about a disadvantage on maybe 1 out of every 10 tank on tank engagements, and that's not even saying that the gun isn't capable of killing a Sherman in that 1 engagement. You are making mountains out of fricking molehills.

                >it's doubtful whether the Chi-To's 75mm gun could reliably penetrate the Sherman's 2.5" angled armour at 1,000 yards
                It was capable but not guaranteed because you're never going to have perfect angles either way. The Type 5 75mm was capable of penetrating around 100mm of armor plate at 1000 meters. That's greater than the 90mm/3.5inch effective protection given by a late Sherman's 63mm inclined glacis. And again I stress, this matters in MAYBE 1 out of 10 engagements given the terrain and the statistics we have from Italy and Western Europe.

                > they had been hoping for better because they knew that in practice, Shermans might carry applique armour
                Everybody wants steak, but they'll settle for chicken. The applique armor you're talking about, except for additional actual armor plates welded over the running gear, tended to be either concrete, wood, or wire/mesh to fend off close in infantry attacks with magnetic mines and shaped charges. Those materials are going to do frick all to slow down a 75mm cannon round. With Jumbos or Shermans with actual additional armor plating on the glacis, those are so few and far between that it's no different from the Allies fighting Tigers in Normandy. They're harder to deal with, but they're so rare they don't impact the overall battle either way.

                >and there were heavier tanks around.
                What, the fricking Churchill? The tank that barely played any role in the PTO? You are fricking GRASPING.

                >the advanced Jap AA guns they built.
                10cm Type 98 was excellent by everyone's standards

                >being so fricking buttblasted you're screeching about small arms
                lol. lmao

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You are fricking GRASPING MMKAY
                >it's not like Japan will fight any KV-1s or whatever MMKAY
                >in any case we'll just fight them in ideal conditions favourable to us MMKAY
                >just like how we began this war which we are totally winning!
                idiot

                >10cm Type 98 was excellent by everyone's standards
                boy it's a good thing it was designed in time to be produced for the war
                >you're screeching about small arms
                also shit artillery and shit mortars and shit light cannon, because you're shit, Tojo

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, I really hope you're smart enough to understand why Japan didn't bother with building a KV-1 killer in 1940 or in 1944 right? Think about it, for just a minute. It'll come to you.

                >boy it's a good thing it was designed in time to be produced for the war
                >It's only a sign of technical prowess if the weapon in question was a pre-war design
                Goalpost Status: in the bleachers. Guess this disqualifies the US has having good engineers too since they didn't even have the M3 Lee on the drawing board until after a full year of war in Europe, drawing on lessons from both Poland and France. Funny how that works.

                >also shit artillery and shit mortars and shit light cannon, because you're shit, Tojo
                Is Tojo in the room with us right now anon?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >pre-war
                strawman destroyed
                concession accepted

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >your target is directly in front of you at the same elevation.
                90mm is actually a conservative estimate
                Because sloping degrades the rounds performance
                WW2 era rounds almost universally fared worse against angled armor rather than vertical armor, 50mm plate at 45 degrees will beat a 90mm thick plate at 0 degrees in every single situation except for when attacked by a round with twice its diameter, when overmatch becomes more relevant than sloping

                >Which in practice wasn't a guarantee against the 47mm
                47mm virtually requires a flanking shot
                But it also more to show that the extra armor of the sherman matters a lot, because its protected from company level AT guns where the chi-to is not
                And if the chi-nu would have been hopelessly outdated in 1945 if it had been used

                >Nobody was arguing that the Chi-To or Chi-Nu were in every way equal to a late-war Sherman
                The chi-to is at best as good as a tank considered outdated by 1945
                The chi-nu would have been even worse

                Japanese experimental tanks are worse than latr war mass production models

                >for marginal bullshit like the Sherman being angled at exactly 30* so it can bounce the shell from the Chi-To firing at it from >800 yards to not matter in the big picture
                The only thing the chi-to has going for it is firepower, in which it is merely an equal
                The angle of 30 degrees was specified because truly head on engagements are rare and combat would have some natural angle to it
                So the sherman has a noticeable zone of immunity against the chi-to while the chi-to has none at all

                Crew ergonomics, turret traverse, and viewing devices were assumed equal to the sherman, since we have no idea how good they were
                But its unlikely they were to up to par, seeing as how the gunner lacks a periscope and can only use his telescopic sight
                The periscope like protrusion is actually where his telescopic sight sees, and the gunner has no wide angle view
                This means a close combat situation will be to the shermans advantage

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Once again for you sperglord. Nobody is denying that a Sherman is an overall better tank than a Chi-To or Chi-Nu. The point of contention was that Japan was technologically incapable of building anything close:

                [...]
                >It's warriortard
                probably, yes

                [...]
                however, the Japs were technologically incapable of coming up with something like the Cromwell, or later models of Sherman, or the PzV Panther
                the Chi-Nu was the best they could come up with

                . The Chi-To, and to a lesser extent the Chi-Nu, are in fact close enough to be a rough equivalent in capability, and that's despite being products of a starved industry 6 years into an 8 year war.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >fail to make a good enough gun
                >cope about terrain
                >fail to understand the difference between design and production
                >cope about muh industry
                shall I tell the class how many Chi-Tos were built?

                In 1939 the best German tank had 25-30 mm of armor and a worse gun with worse mobility but better crew ergos. The M2 light tank is not a bad light tank for 1939.

                >worse gun
                if you count by late 1939 and don't look at how many are in service the PzIV Ausf D is probably the best tank in the world at that point

                The M3 saw service with the US in North Africa.

                did they? I always thought only the British used the M3 in Africa

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I always thought only the British used the M3 in Africa
                brits were the first to get the M3, but when the US deployed in north africa they had mixed M3s and M4s
                the US 1st AD had 2 M4 regiments and 1 M3 regiment, due to not enough M4s to go around

                the M3 didnt last very long in US service at all and had been totally replaced by the M4 before north africa came to a close, but they did exist for a brief time

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Brits were the first to use them in combat, but they saw service with the US too.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >still coping that the Japanese could cobble up a tank about as good as the American counterpart on a shoestring budget and bombed out industry
                I don't understand why this historical fact makes you so rectal ravaged, but at least it makes for good comedy.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the country that pioneered electric welding in ship construction

                So.... America?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Electric welding started in US shipyards in 1930 yes, but US shipyards weren't building a whole lot of ships in the Depression era. By contrast, the Japanese government was subsidizing commercial yards and shipping lines to build and sail fast oil tankers that could be quickly taken into IJN service in the outbreak of war. This program tripled their tanker tonnage from 1934-1940 (120k-364k tons of shipping), included some of the largest tankers in the world at the time, and all of them came out of the yards with all the davits and tensioning gear necessary to serve as UNREP units. Electric welding was used extensively under this program for weight savings, and all tankers built under this program were capable of minimum 18 knots. You also have the Japanese attempts to use it more extensively to save weight on their combat ships, though general knowledge of that in the west is pretty much limited to the failure with the Mogamis.So yes, I do think that as of the late 1930s Japan had more experience with welding in their shipbuilding industry than the US did.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Riveted is easier to make and Britain had a lot of riveters. It was total war, and they had to co-opt other industry towards making armaments.

    Sloping requires complicated welding, and steel quality and strength of construction were all big considerations at this time, and Britain had high quality steel and high quality riveting. The effect of unskilled welders with poor quality steel is the T-34, which is good on paper, but just caused horrible casualties in practice.

    The priority was Air, Navy, Army. Army had lowest priority, therefore fewest welders.

    Tank development was at a fast pace, Germany was rapidly moving from formerly adequate 1930s designs and guns towards more firepower and more armour. Britain was playing catch-up and fighting an air war, in addition to having to solo-carry the war up until mid 1941. Germany wasnt able to contest the surface fleet or establish air superiority over Britain. Britain did invest in up-gunning it's tanks with the 6pdr, followed by the 17pdr. Britain bought shermans and M10 chasis because it couldnt produce enough guns or tanks to meet it's needs, in addition to producing airplanes and ships, and even then Britain was giving the USSR a huge amount of materiel and having to conduct convoy duty for allied shipping globally.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the centurion 1 year after the war was a pretty fricking good tank for its time

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Centurion mk1 was in the prototype stage in 1944, and ready in May 1945, and was deployed in europe, but it never saw combat as the Germans surrendered on the 7th+8th of May.
      The Cent mk2 was produced in 1946 and was the upgraded one with the definitive turret and stabiliser that the mk3 would use. It also had an upgraded glacis which didnt follow over to the mk3.
      The Cent mk3 was produced in 1947/48 and was the one which entered true mass-production, this is the one which used the 20pdr.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It was the BEST tank of its time. No question.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Make do and mend. The army was the redheaded stepchild making do with scant resources that were being poured mostly into the navy or as lend-lease to Russia.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    TL;DR they were about on par with everyone else at the start of the war, and were arguably perfectly adequate for the early stages and Africa. What hampered subsequent development was twofold:
    1) Prioritization of other areas of industry. Others in the thread have elaborated on this.
    2) Shermans, and earlier the Lee/Grant. The UK had a huge amount of input in the development of these tanks with their experiences in North Africa, so they arrived pretty ideal for the situation they were dealing with. This took a lot of pressure off the UK to keep its domestic development in top gear.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    British army had massive doctrinal shortcomings in 1939 and their equipment design followed suite. In an alternative reality bongs and french wargame tanks in the '30s and rush Germany during the phony war

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why was British armor so far behind in WW2?
    they invested more in navy and airforce, the royal navy was the largest in the world in 1940

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    screw you, the Cromwell is cool.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    British had great tanks early war.
    British had great tanks late war.

    They definitely struggled a little in the middle. But, once Cromwell and M4 came into service they were more than a march for Germany.
    Thus why they won.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cromwell was breddy gud tho

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cope slope. Just make your tank bigger.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Has a sloped bottom section
    >No attempt to slope it
    What did he mean by this.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Every tank should be T-34.
      Pls ignore horrible ergonomics and complete lack of visibility.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because they didn't need to. Britain is an island nation, and since they knew a war was coming they focused on the air force and the navy because that way they could defend the island and avoid having to fight a full on landwar on the island, the only real part of the british empire that wasn't a useless piece of desert or a backwater that was at an actual threat of being conquered was the Nile Delta, and they were able to defend it successfully.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Still a better tank than the sherman. Also rivets are a meme.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Riveted construction is easier and faster than cast welding a turret, and crucially, you can do it in many more factories that two weeks ago were building railway sleepers or something, and England was literally back to the wall fighting for it's life.
    But you knew all this because you've been told before and this is a gay troll thread from a tiresome homosexual. and you should have a nice day and I should kill myself for replying.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aside from the war department being largely composed of British fudds, Britain was also fricked HARD economically after WW1 and during the Great Depression. A lot of it at that time was spent on just keeping the Empire together, and the Royal Navy/airforce was seen as a better thing to give all the funds and goodies to over the whole island thing. Simply put for most of the war the army got the short end of the stick in money and materials, which is why it had to get a little creative with stuff like the Sten. The funny thing is that even with all that in mind, as far as actual soldiers and kit went they weren’t that far off comparatively, its just that America had a whole different thing going on with the Garand and the Shermans.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Design begins in 1943
    >Production begins in January 1945
    >Serves until the 1990's
    They did well enough.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's ok, he's just here to sperg and not talk rationally.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The BEF had to leave most of its heavy equipment behind at Dunkirk, which led to them prioritizing the manufacture of existing models over introducing new designs with the disruptions in production that would entail. This was especially true of the 6-pounder, as the semi-obsolescent 2-pounder was desperately needed both for tanks and anti-tank guns. Basically they lost a ton of tanks and anti-tank guns at the beginning of the war and spent a lot of the mid-war playing catchup. But by the end of the war, they were fielding excellent designs the Comet and were on the cusp of the introducing the absolutely world-beating Centurion.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Best answer is best answer. Ironic that the Churchill, the stop-gap between the cruiser/infantry tanks until the Centurion would be unleashed, was arguably the best tank of the war.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'd say the Panzer IV was the best overall tank of war, but I respect your opinion.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Britain didn't have any industry
    That's a main reason they started WW1 which lead to WW2
    Germany had outpaced them economically and developed a robust industry

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The UK out produced Germany through the whole of WW2.

      The amount of industry in Great Britian was colossal because of the huge abundance of coal. There's a reason the industrial revolution started there.

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because Britain considered itself a naval power so the admiralty got first pick of supplies and workers at the beginning of the war. The infighting between Navy and Army got slightly better as things wore on but the friction between different parts of the Army and both each other and the air wing got steadily worse.

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