Yes Ive heard of this encounter. Inconclusive though as the Shot hit the KT in the underbelly and not on the main armour. Mind you it must have been quite a scary time for the crew. Also, why use such an inexperienced crew on such a valuable tank?
Firefly
A question:
Why do you rate the Pershing’s main gun better, despite the figures for the Comet’s 77mm showing nearly twice the penetration at any distance?
Do you have different information to what I posted?
I also compared these gun tables at the same ammunition types and the same ° (in this case 30°):
UK
US
And I’d say that Comet’s gun doesn’t seems to have far better penetrative properties than that of the Pershing.
The Pershing and Comets figures are not so disparite, the 90mm gun wasnt new as it was used on the M-36 TD beforehand. For me its the stabiliser that gives it the edge over the Comet in gun performance, nothing else really. so I should have said gunnery system I supose.
The Pershing and Comets figures are not so disparite, the 90mm gun wasnt new as it was used on the M-36 TD beforehand. For me its the stabiliser that gives it the edge over the Comet in gun performance, nothing else really. so I should have said gunnery system I supose.[/quote]
The stabiliser certainly improved the hit probability.
I’ve found some sources saying that the Vickers 77mm was supplied with SVDS(APDS) from October '44 onwards.
This would certainly give a measurable increase in penetration & a flatter trajectory.
The Pershing and Comets figures are not so disparite, the 90mm gun wasnt new as it was used on the M-36 TD beforehand. For me its the stabiliser that gives it the edge over the Comet in gun performance, nothing else really. so I should have said gunnery system I supose.[/quote]
The stabiliser certainly improved the hit probability.
I’ve found some sources saying that the Vickers 77mm was supplied with SVDS(APDS) from October '44 onwards.
This would certainly give a measurable increase in penetration & a flatter trajectory.[/quote]
Ive never heard that, but it would make a diffrence, after all the flatter the trajectory would mean for better spotting etc. Any reference on those sources would be appreciated.
Having had another look into APDS today, I saw this:
Gun was actually 76.2 mm, but was called 77 mm to avoid confusion with the 17 pdr. It could penetrate 130 mm at 30° at 2,178 yards using APDS ammo.
The British certainly had APDS for the 17pounder, but whether they had them for the 77mm (the ammo between the two wasn’t interchangable), I don’t know. A search on Google brings up a lot of dead links (annoying), forums (unreliable mostly, as we know) and foreign language site (might as well be in BATCO for me). The link above is the only definite source for 77mm APDS that I have found in English and on a non forum site.
Nothing to do with armour, but BATCO has always seemed like euclidean math to me.
I know what you mean about dead links - just when you think “That’s it!”, you find the link is a Dodo 
Here’s the only one that I have found that seems to actually know the difference vis-a-vis 77mm vs 17pdr:
From this site:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/PenetrationTables.htm#77mm
77 mm OQF Mk II
Round Velocity Angle 500 yds 1000yds 1500yds 2000yds
APDS 3,675 30 178 149 131 120
Table doesn’t line up due to php embuggerisation :evil:
Sorry BDL, it is a forum site.
Also the poster (SAMWolf), wrote at the end of his second post on Comet:
Additional Sources:
www.tankmuseum.co.uk
users.swing.be/tanks.tanks
www.diggerhistory.info
www.mikekemble.com/1RTR
mailer.fsu.edu
www.skysurfer.co.uk
www.army.lt/armor
Damn you, you Romanian monster, for pointing out my mistakes yet again 
I didn’t look below the article, I didn’t notice all of the replies :oops:
I’ve just realised - of course the Comet had APDS (it’s the round used in my comparison of ‘kill failure range’) - I was originally asked whether the Perishing used APDS :oops:
[quote=“BDL”]
Damn you, you Romanian monster, for pointing out my mistakes yet again
I didn’t look below the article, I didn’t notice all of the replies :oops:[/quote]
As Erwin said once, Big Brother are watching you
Now seriously I am glad anytime to help. Not by searching mistakes, but searching the (most acceptable) truth. And I fully agree with forums references. For instance, if you’ll scroll below in that page you’ll see another psots of the same guy on which he stated:
In the summer of 1945, with the war in Europe over, the Department of Tank Design decided to investigate complaints about the Comet tank; apparently there were numerous reports of front idler and track link failure.
…And now remember of one of your posts recently: “a tank which cannot move is a dead tank”
We have to search more, in the books.
The Pershing certainly had APDS post WWII but by what many say, didn’t have it during the conflict.
It was used in Korea for certain.
This page has pictures of Brit tank ammo 76/420 is 77mm hte 583 is 17pld apds but give a good ilistration why the ammo is not interchangable.
It is linked from this page,
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankammo.html
and if you have not seen this site before have a good look around.
I’m going to leave this going over Christmas since it’s so close. Computer problems are delaying another being written anyway.
Perishing goes through 2-1 then.
The next one is being written now.
Max Speed:
Range:
Vertical Obstacle:
Trench:
Length:
Width:
Height:
Weight:
Ground Pressure:
Armour:
Armament:
Ammunition:
Service History:
Main Gun Failure Range:
Max Speed:
Range:
Vertical Obstacle:
Trench:
Length:
Width:
Height:
Weight:
Ground Pressure:
Armour:
Armament:
Ammunition:
Service History:
Main Gun Failure Range:
Ignore this, just making the template a bit easier to find
Pzkpfw VI Tiger (Germany) vs Cromwell (UK)
Pzkpfw VI Tiger
Max Speed: 24mph (38km/h) (ROAD) 12mph (20km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Range: 62 miles (100km)
Vertical Obstacle: 2’7’’ (0.8m)
Trench: 5’11’’ (1.8m)
Length: 27’ (8.25m)
Width: 12’3’’ (3.73m)
Height: 9’4’’ (2.85m)
Weight: 121,253lb (55,000Kg)
Ground Pressure: 14.8lb/sq in (1.04Kg/sq cm)
Armour: 1.02’’ - 4.33’’ (26 - 100mm)
Armament: 1x 88mm KwK 36 L/56 gun, 1x 7.92mm MG34 co-axial with main gun, 1x MG34 in hull
Ammunition: 84 or 92x 88mm (sources differ), 4,800 to 5,800x 7.92mm (again, sources differ)
Service History: German Army from 1942 - 45
Main Gun Failure Range: 2,500m (88mm APCBC)
In 1937, the German General Staff saw that they would eventually need a heavier tank than the Pz III and Pz IV then coming into service with the Whermacht and called for a new vehicle to be designed. This new vehicle would be a breakthrough tank, designed to lead armoured assaults and break through the enemy’s front line, weighing at least 29.5 tons (30,000Kg). No real design work was done on this requirement until 1941 after combat experience had shown the Pz III and IV to be disappointing against the heavy British and French tanks they had faced in 1940. This was also confirmed when they faced Soviet T-34s and Kv-1s during the invasion of the USSR. A revised specification was drawn up for a heavy tank mounting the battle proven 88mm gun in a turret capable of full traverse and also armour heavy enough to defeat all present or predicted anti tank weapons. Two designs were submitted, one from Porsche and one by Henschel. The Porsche design was not accepted (although it eventually became a tank destroyer) and the Henschel design was given the designation Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger and production started in August 1942.
When it entered service, the Tiger was the most powerful tank in the world, so much so that the Allies were forced to develop new tactics to combat the tank. Tigers were usually organised into special battalions of 30 vehicles attached to an Army or Corps Headquarters (some armoured Divisions were also given Tiger battalions).
Hitler took a special interest in the Tiger and insisted that they were thrown into battle as early as possible. The first use of the Tiger was around Leningrad in small groups in 1942, over unsuitable ground. This was a disaster for the Tiger units, as was the battle of Kursk the next year, which was the next use of the Tiger. However, when used in ambush positions, the Tiger was a formidable opponent, with one holding an entire Division and knocking out 25 tanks before being destroyed.
The Tiger proved to be too heavy for the usual German brake and clutch steering system and the British Merrit-Brown regenerative steering system was adopted, making the Tiger very light to drive, but difficult to maintain and repair. The overlapping road wheels gave a very smooth ride, but could become packed with snow and freeze up over night. The Soviets learned to time their attacks for dawn, when the Tigers would be immobilised. The tracks were too wide for rail transport and narrower ones had to be fitted both for rail and road transport. The outer road wheels were also removed for transport. There were also problems crossing many German bridges and Tigers were equipped for wading rivers rather than using bridges.
Cromwell
Max Speed: 40mph (64km/h) (ROAD) 18mph (29km/h) (CROSS COUNTRY)
Range: 173 miles (277km/h)
Vertical Obstacle: 3’ (0.92m)
Trench: 7’6’’ (2.28m)
Length: 20’10’’ (6.35m)
Width: 10’ (3.04m)
Height: 9’3.75’’ (2.84m)
Weight: 61,600lb (27,942Kg)
Ground Pressure: 14.7lb/sq in (1Kg/sq cm)
Armour: 0.31’’ - 3’’ (8 - 76mm). Many had an extra 1’’ (26mm) of applique armour added.
Armament: Marks I - III: 1x 6pounder gun, 1x 7.92mm BESA MG coaxial with main gun, 1x BESA in hull, Marks IV, V & VII: 1x 75mm QF Mk V or VA gun, 2x BESA, Marks VI & VIII:1x 95mm howitzer, 2x BESA
Ammunition: 64x main gun rounds, 4,950 or 5,550x 7.92mm (dependant on variant.
Service History: Served with the British Army from 1942 to 1950.
Main Gun Failure Range: 1,500m (6pounder APDS), 500m (75m APCBC)
The Cromwell originated in a General Staff specification for a heavy cruiser tank drawn up in late 1940/early 1941 (Cruiser tanks being used tfor the traditional cavalry roles on the battlefield). The specification called for a weight of around 25 tons (25,400Kg), front armour of 2.75’’ (75mm) and a 6 pounder gun. Nuffield presented an improved Crusader tank, retaining several components of the older tank, which was accepted as the A27 Cromwell. The power for the new tank was provided by a Rolls Royce Meteor, a de rated Merlin engine similar to those used to power Spitfires and Hurricanes.
After problems with previous tanks caused by too little testing, the Cromwell was extensively tested and the first production models did not enter service until 1943. Just as the first models entered service, the General Staff changed its policy towards tank armament. Previously tank armament had been used mainly as an anti tank weapon, but experience in North Africa showed that the main targets for a tank were dug in guns and infantry needing a heavy High Explosive shell rather than an Armour Piercing one. The 6 pounder was therefore replaced with the 75mm gun which did not have the anti armour performance of the 6 pounder but fired a far bigger HE shell.
In combat, the Cromwell proved to be both fast and agile as well as being very reliable. There were problems with the design though. Crews found it difficult to escape from in a hurry (particularly the driver and hull gunner) and there was a lack of storage space for personal kit. The Cromwell could out manouevere any of the heavy German designs, but was outgunned by all of them. There was an attempt to mount the 17 pounder gun into the Cromwell, producing the Challenger which was a failure.
The final update of the Cromwell was a 1950 designed Self Propelled Gun, mounting a Centurion 20-pounder gun in a two man turret. This was not a great success and was used by the Territorial Army as well as being sold in very small numbers to Austria and Jordan.
The Cromwell was the most numerically important British tank of the war and had even replaced the Sherman in all British tank formations by 1945.
TIGER, no contest.
Much as I like the CROMWELL / CENTAUR series, especially the inetresting variants like the CENTAUR dozer, and the twin 20mm AA variant, the TIGER hoofs it in every respect.
Unless you manage to creep up behind a TIGER with a CROMWELL, even the 95mm variant, it’s just not a contest.
I’m afraid this one might be a win for the Germans …