cromwell 75, or sherman 75.

[Slipdigit]

Originally Posted by Slipdigit

Cromwell 9' 3 1/2"
Sherman 8' 11 1/2"

Old myth that hangs around.

Metric to Standard conversion issues. Guess I need to not use paper and pencil.

The point is still, though, as Adam visited, is that the apparent height claim is, for the most part, a red herring. There are other posts around here dispelling the myth of the towering Sherman.

[Shockwavesoldier]

I picked Sherman, because I was not sure and I live in America. lol

[MikB]

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

With the Detroit disgorging Shermans at the rate it was, why bother with tinkering with a tank of the same tonnage, gun, protection, etc.?

National pride? Pork?

Adding my voice to von Poop's here. All our later tanks from Challenger back through Chieftain, Centurion and Comet are rooted through Cromwell. The Churchill line, though more than useful at the time, led nowhere later.

There was an occasional role in rapid exploitation for which Cromwell was better fitted. Within the NW Europe campaign, we probably could've managed without it in purely military terms, but our post-War economics would've been noticeably worse than they already were.

Regards,
MikB

[Passchendaele_Baby]

beleive it or not... i have no idea!

[bofors]

Hi all

With a name like Cromwell how could it not be better!!

regards

Robert

[beeza]

Which tppick. I read that the Sherman brewed up quite easily and that the Cromwell
was totally outclassed by the Panther by the time it appeared on the scene. Decisions, decisions.
David

[Warlord]

Never really liked the Ronson in its WW2 models, so, not taking into consideration M51´s, Super-Shermans and the like, I´ll go for British steel.