• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Churchill Tank

I read or heard somewhere, I don't remember which one it was a story about a Russian tank crew that were assigned to a lend-lease Sherman tank. After one mission they requested to be infantry because they thought their chances for survival were higher. Whether or not this story is true or not is still humorous. I certainly would prefer a nice uncomfortable pain in the ass T34 over a comfortable rolling coffin.
 
Upvote 0
An angled T34 was impervious to a Tigers main gun at 200 meters, but only if it was angled. This is a fact.

Errrr.......No.
A Tiger's usual engagement range is 1200m+
And were supposed to aviod combat at closer ranges, if possible.
And the crews reported single hit kills at 1200+m against T-34.

I thought only the earlier petrol-driven Shermans were called 'Ronsons'?

I'm pretty sure the crews didn't make a distinction. I remember a program about a Canadian tank commander who said only difference was the diesels took an extra 5 seconds before bursting into flames. When his tank was hit, and the turret hatch was jammed, he was used as a battering ram by two of his crew members to open it. They cracked his skull in the process.


I read or heard somewhere, I don't remember which one it was a story about a Russian tank crew that were assigned to a lend-lease Sherman tank. After one mission they requested to be infantry because they thought their chances for survival were higher. Whether or not this story is true or not is still humorous. I certainly would prefer a nice uncomfortable pain in the ass T34 over a comfortable rolling coffin.

Not sure, could be true. But the Russian who commanded the Sherman force loved them. But he was mentioning the paint job inside the tank, the ride and quality of the seats. If the tank was disabled, it required a sentry, else the seats would be stripped of leather for troops to make / repair their boots.

He also loved that the American 75mm shells came in tubes and could be used straight away, while the Russian shells were covered in grease that had to be scrapped off first.
 
Upvote 0
I don't want to spell this out, but I was kinda making a point about the game's armour modelling.

Yeah, the game has poorly modelled tank armour/penetration values. It was common for Tigers to engage Soviet T34's (all models) at ranges in excess of 2000 m. Several kills were achieved at ranges beyond 3 km. While an early to mid-war T-34 would only be able to penetrate the Tiger's SIDE armour within 400-600 m.

It was only when the Soviets introduced their AT "howitzers" like 152.4 mm ML-20S (installed on the SU-152 self-propelled assault gun) and the 122 mm D-25T gun mounted on the IS-2 were they able to compete with German armour. This balance was not achieved through superior ballistics like German guns but sheer firepower and mass. For instance at Kursk, the SU-152's were so effective because their massive 50 kg projectile was able to simply rip the turret off a PzKpfw IV or crack the armour on a Tiger, resulting in spalling on the inside killing the crew.
 
Upvote 0
I read or heard somewhere, I don't remember which one it was a story about a Russian tank crew that were assigned to a lend-lease Sherman tank. After one mission they requested to be infantry because they thought their chances for survival were higher. Whether or not this story is true or not is still humorous. I certainly would prefer a nice uncomfortable pain in the ass T34 over a comfortable rolling coffin.

Yeah, must explain the reason 3 of the 9 elite guard formations swaped their t-34/85s for sherman 76's.

I personally feel due to the cold war, much has been done to cover up the true feelings of the Russians to lend lease gear. I mean really, the chruch3 for example, its gun had better penetration then the 76.2mm on the T-34s, and could even defeat a tigers frontal armor to a max range of 500m, though not exactly consistently, and probibly more effectively at 300m or so. Personally, except for speed and agility, it was a better tank, and I believe the churchill series has been called the safest tank to serve in during WWII.
 
Upvote 0
I thought only the earlier petrol-driven Shermans were called 'Ronsons'?

It wasn't the petrol engine that did it, it was more the ammo storage in early Shermans. It was very prone to burning/exploding. Later Shermans corrected this with new wet storage bits for the ammo.

And the Sherman has a very bad reputation, and much of that is undeserved. When it came out it had a good gun and good armour. The problem was the Americans were very slow to upgun them and improve the armour. Which is odd considering how good the Americans were at improving all the other less obvious defects with the tank (ammo storage, improved cross country performance, etc). Still, at least they had some interesting developments like the Sherman Jumbo. Which was essentially a Sherman massively uparmoured to the level of a tiger.

The British were a lot quicker to upgun their Shermans though. And when you stick a 17lber on a Sherman you have a tank that can take on anything. That 17lber was easily the match of the 88 on the Tiger and the Panthers 75mm. And the lack of armour on the Sherman Firefly is no matter when the battle is first shot wins.

But yeah.. the Churchill would be awful in RO. As it stands the angle of impact is pretty much the end all of tank combat ingame. And while massively armoured the armour on the Churchill wasn't sloped.. and so ingame it would suffer from the same problems as the Tigers armour. Though on the upside, the 6lber (57mm) gun had much better penetration than you'd expect for that caliber. If I recall it was a fair bit better than the 75mm on the Sherman, though the HE round was much worse.
 
Upvote 0
The GI's actually knicknamed the Sherman "Ronsons". The Germans named them "Tommy Cookers".
Correct. If I remember correctly, the Gi's nicknamed them Ronsons due to the fact that the Sherman had a fuel leak problem, and as such lit up for no apparent reason sometimes. Fuel leaked, vaporised and the gaseous fuel ignited from sparks, causing the Sherman to light up. This, of course, was a disasterous flaw when hit by a shell, since it often set the tank on fire when it normally shouldn't have.

EDIT: Saw LordKhaine's post just now, which means I stand corrected and that the Discovery Channel WW2 programme was wrong :p
 
Upvote 0
I personally feel due to the cold war, much has been done to cover up the true feelings of the Russians to lend lease gear. I mean really, the chruch3 for example, its gun had better penetration then the 76.2mm on the T-34s, and could even defeat a tigers frontal armor to a max range of 500m, though not exactly consistently, and probibly more effectively at 300m or so. Personally, except for speed and agility, it was a better tank, and I believe the churchill series has been called the safest tank to serve in during WWII.


Thats true for both sides, before the wall fell and the USSR went belly up, how much did we really know about the east front? here in the west we have certainly not been very willing to give Ivan any credit for anything durring the cold war, you had to really dig for any info, it was not public knowledge by any means, and vice-versa, its only now we are starting to see the other side of the iron curtain.
 
Upvote 0
I would rather not see Lend Lease Vehicles in RO, even if it is historically "accurate."

On the other hand, when and if Mare Nostrum gets released, we will see plenty of British made tanks there.

British tanks are my favorite of the war. Not because they were particularly effective. They just looked the coolest.

And that's all I give a crap about, because I'm just going to flank you with them anyway. (well, not in a churchill)
 
Upvote 0