cromwell 75, or sherman 75.

[4th wilts]

o.k ladies and gents.simple question.which is better.not just in normandy.yours,lee.

[von Poop]

At the time, the Cromwell was seen by the British chaps who were responsible for selecting such things as marginally superior, reliability & armour being broadly similar, with perhaps it's greatest advantage being the impressive turn of speed. Had the supply of tanks not hung so strongly on America's production power it would have been the staff's first choice. Not for any nationalistic reasons (well... not primarily), it was genuinely perceived as the more useful design.
It's greatest drawback in comparing this pair was the difficulty in up-gunning, a battle which the Sherman exceeded it in, but as this focuses on a straight comparison of 75 equipped vehicles then that doesn't really enter the equation (which I like, forces more attention on the rest of the vehicle rather than just the bit sticking out at the front ).

Cheers,
Adam.

[Owen]

Which one was easier to maintain in the field?

[4th wilts]

adam,was there a difference in the guns both being 75mm and also the ammunition.yours,lee.

[4th wilts]

owen.this should be a poll really.can you change it please.lee.

[von Poop]

The guns were about the same Lee, the QF75 was pretty much the US M2/M3 75 mounted in a 6pdr mount. The Ammunition was interchangeable if I recall correctly (?).

Both had an enviable reputation for reliability but the Sherman's more modular suspension would perhaps count in it's favour for ease of replacement as the Cromwell's was hidden away behind armour. However it could also be said that it's Christie system was less prone to failure and damage by virtue of simple design and being hidden away.
I'd still say the Sherman was probably overall more easily fixed, due to proper mass production and it's true interchangeability of parts, (eg. the ability to just unbolt transmissions from the nose and swap old for new) but neither seemed to have any real ingrained or persistent faults that a well trained crew couldn't learn to live with.

[4th wilts]

i just like the cromwells looks,apart from the ones with rivets on.i believe he was somewhat lower sillouetted too.he was quicker too,being used in all british armd divs,armd recon regiments.lee.

[Jaeger]

I picked the Cromwell.
It is prettier, and has a better engine. In addition the cross country ability of the Cromwell (notably the climbing) and speed of the Cromwell counts in it's favour when you consider it's role as a cruiser.

AND it is British

[Slipdigit]

Originally Posted by 4th wilts

cromwells ....believe he was somewhat lower sillouetted too.

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

Old myth that hangs around.

[Bodston]

I think it was a pity that the Cromwell armed with the Mk V six pounder gun never saw action. Firing the APDS ammunition it had far superior armour penetration than the American 75mm ammo (which was used in the Ordnance QF 75mm).
90mm at 2,000 yds for the 6pdr as opposed to 50mm for the APC M61 round and only 43mm for the AP M72 round.
No adequate HE round was avaliable fo the 6pdr though, of course.
As ever, tank design is a compromise.