Wich was the most effective tank of the british armor, the cruisers, the Infantry vehicles or the imported Shermans ?
For me probably the Sherman Firefly with the 17lb gun. The only Allied tank that could realistically take on the Panther/Tiger from a safe range and have a hope of hurting them that was produced in any numbers. Comet and Centurion were both fantastic tanks too, but came too late to have too much effect on the war.
I would also add that it would depend on date as a lot changed between 39 when 40mm was seen as suitable and 45 when the need for 100mm was on the cards.
At the start the Matilda was capable of taking on all comer but well out of date two years later. If we had not had truckloads of M4s then the Cromwell would have made a better showing in Normandy.
The Churchill’s mobility and armour made it good but its gun was its let down.
The Comet is the culmination of a long design lesson where production quality, interservice rivalry and service requirement were finally met.
Another one of the “ I like the Mk5 best”.
Would agree with that - up until 1941 the Matilda was invulnerable to anything but the 88 Flak and they managed to break an entire SS Division in France before Rommel restored order with 88mm Flak and artillery firing at point blank range.
I would also add that in many cases you are not comparing like with like as the design concept for British tank was different.
Infantry tanks needed good protection as speed (to keep pace with the PBI) was not seen as a requirement. With cruisers it was different as speed was seen as more important than armour as speed was seen as amour. This concept resulted in lots of different tanks to do, what was seen as different jobs. The US saw tanks as light cavalry with the purpose of running around. They had never has a history of heavy cavalry and saw no need for infantry support just dash and so had a couple of designs. The Germans used a similar system to the UK but the army was king and got what it wanted without having to fight with the air force or navy for cast offs.
It may be better to say what tank was a total waste on time, money and lives not what is best.
A interesting reading, extracted from “British tanks in WW2 second Part” By David Fletcher.
Some interesting point’s guy’s.
The Sherman. The rest is history.
Thanks panzerknacker! Good stuff.
Hi All,
Interesting answers to a good question.
Myself, I’ve gone with the churchill, Ok, certainly not a perfect tank, esp when used in non infantry support role,…not fast enough, etc, but when used in the role intended, ie, infantry support, and when able to make use of its excellent climbing and x country ability, was certainly a match for the smaller panzers,…by this I’m excluding the panther and tiger, (& varients).
In respect of the above mentioned tank, I’d whole heartedly recommend the following book,
The Churchill. by Bryan Perrett. ISBN 0 7110 0533 8
As an aside, he’s also published a book on the Matilda.
All the best,
Andy
I almost agree, the Churchill cocodrile for example was very effective attacking the german garrisons along the French coast in 1944-45.
To answer this it may be better to divide the tiem into 4 parts.
France pre war to 1940
Northeast Africa
Late Northeast Africa and Italy
Normandy to end of the war.
It may also be useful to look at how other armies saw and used these tanks and I am manly thinking of Russia.
For France the Matilda 2 will beat all comers. Its armour is proof against all Axis tank on font and sides. The 2 pdr would kill all axis tanks of that time before they could get within effective range. Its only draw back is its lack of HE capability and speed.
Fro NA you have a choice of Matilda 2 or Valentines. Both with 2 pdrs but the Valentines where more reliable and more importantly it had a lower silhouette. It was the most produced of British tanks with large numbers going to Russia were it was liked very much. It was capable of being up gunned and the 6 pdr version was very effective. It suffered initially from poor transit packaging with many arriving in NA with salt water inside the tanks.
Although the arrival of US equipment had started and the M4 was more reliable than some of the other British tanks it suffered from a very poor AT gun. Its advantage over the Matilda was reliability, an HE gun and speed. With the arrival of the Churchill with 6 pdr the good points of the M4 were being out weighed by its bad. At this time it would be the Churchill that was the best and capable of taking on most of the opposition. With the introduction of APDS ammo it was a match for all comers.
It has been said that if the British had not had so many M4s the Cromwell would have been the most numerous tank in Normandy. But as most regiments had M4s the cost of re-equipping them with Cromwells could not be justified. The Cromwell was a better tank than the Churchill. It was more reliable, it had a better engine, suspension, speed and the same gun. It’s only down side was its armour. A problem that was later fixed but the lack of sloping armour in British tank design would continue.
So each of the periods I would place
Matilda
Valentine
Churchill
Cromwell (Comet although far better did not see sufficient service)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_tank
Like the Centurion, the Comet seems to have arrived to late to have had a major impact, though unlike the Centurion, she did see some wartime operational use…
Nice tank, but still uncapable of bear the 17 pounder.
Fro NA you have a choice of Matilda 2 or Valentines. Both with 2 pdrs but the Valentines where more reliable and more importantly it had a lower silhouette. It was the most produced of British tanks with large numbers going to Russia were it was liked very much. It was capable of being up gunned and the 6 pdr version was very effective. It suffered initially from poor transit packaging with many arriving in NA with salt water inside the tanks.
thanks for the info, funny the Valentine was lighter and armed with 6 pounder. I think I going to vote for it. 
my bold
can you explain please?
The Comet did not carry the 17 pounders gun but one called 77mm O.Q.F in this the cartrigde case lenght was shorter wich affected the muzzle velocity and off-course the energy to defeat german armor.
Yes, but I don’t think it was a very big drop off…
01
Matilda I
http://www.europa1939.com/tanques/tanques/matilda.html
Matilda II
http://www.europa1939.com/tanques/tanques/matilda.html
Valentine I
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 789
Valentine I
World War Two Tanks, George Forty, Osprey, 1995, p 38
(CONTINUED BELOW)
(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
02
Churchill IV
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1066
Churchill VII
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1459
Churchill VII Crocodile
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1458
Churchill Carpet Layer
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1486
(CONTINUED BELOW)
(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
03
Crusader I
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 625
Cromwell VI
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 2167
Sherman II
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 877
Sherman VC Firefly
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1957
(CONTINUED BELOW)
(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
04
Sherman DD (Duplex Drive)
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1484
Sherman Tankdozer
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1557
Sherman Crab Mine-clearing flail tank
Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt Col Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, H.S. Stuttman Inc., 1978, p 1487
Churchill AVRE and Sherman Crab
D-Day Spearhead of Invasion, R.W. Thompson, Ballantine Books, 1968, p 40