At the tiger-tank site there is a bit of info and a picture, which is fairly interesting: Tiger tank knocked out by a Comet of 3rd Royal Tank Regiment near Ostenholtz on 14 April 1945. This tank was part of Kampfgruppe Schulze based at Fallingbostel. Tanks of 3rd RTR can be seen in leaguer in the background.
They wouldnt really have a chance a Comet has 102mm of front armor (Almost the same as tiger) and a shortened 17 pounder would could take both of those out from long ranges....btw a panzer iv has 80 mm max and a t34 45mm max.
@Ben998x I think not. That 17 pounder was an excellent gun and the tank had a great engine and was better armoured than prevous UK tanks and Comet led to Centurion which as you know was even better.
That the brits all over to produce a great tank at wars end.Pity though did they see service against heavy and medium tanks like the panther and king tiger and what was the result ,did we give the krauts a kickin
Sherman was reliable and produced in massive numbers, against german tanks it was as good as the Panzer MK3 and when fitted with the 76mm (not the 17pdr) the Panzer MK4, at the same time the long barreled 76mm on the MK4 could knock the Sherman out, so really they could knock out each other.
let us remember that british tank crews refered to a sherman as a Ronson due to its ability to "light first time every time "! the Germans called them "Tommy cookers" and the only sherman able to deal with a tiger or panther at battle ranges was a firefly ( fitted with a british 17pdr) which was nearly the same gun as fitted to a Comet and with the ADPS round was more than capable with dealing with tigers/panthers
Were you in a British tank? WHy do these AH repeat the same crappola again and again as if it is some profound revelation. Which do you think the British tankers prefered The Valentine? The Crusader? Even the Cromwell or the Sherman. No question the Sherman had faults, mainly do to the U.S. Army Ground Forces refusing to listen to combat cammands and even the ordance and armored commands about improvements to the Sherman. When they finely began deliveries it was too little and to late,
although i did not see active service during the war( i take it you did) the regiment i was in used the grant and the sherman in north africa and italy and they lost a lot of crews due to burning - yes the sherman was reliable and was made in great numbers , but it also had a high profile (Due to the engine)which made it a bigger target .of course the comet was soon superseded by the centurion,
the comet really wasnt superseded by the centurion, they were both used in the Korean war, they worked together, Same the the Black prince. They used all 3 of the tanks.
when you say not supercedeed by the centurion what you really mean was that they were in service after the war together for a period of time( but production of the comet did not keep going on when the centurion was in service so in that respect it did superced it as did the chieftain superced the centurion and as the challenger 2 superceded the chieftain ) as indeed was the churchill ( however the black prince never reached production status )
The Comet wasn't used in Korea, but the Cromwell was used in recce units. The Chinese captured one or two Cromwells and the British destroyed them with a Centurion.
In late '44 and early '45 the Americans finally responded with improved Sherman's. The Sherman Jumbo Assulat tank, some of which carried the 76mm HV. The M-36B tank destroyer which was a 90mm mounted on an M-4 chassis and the M-4A3E8 with wider tracks,wet stowage and 76mm HV gun. The Sherman continued in services for almost 50 years and the M4A3E8 proved itself against the North Korean T-34 85's. The Sherman showed a remarkable adaptablity while the Panther excelled as a tank killer.
Also remember the optiuons were the Valentine or Crusader. The Crusader had difficulty not breaking down and the Valentine was small and undergunned. When The Sherman arrived in Africa it was a great improvement. The biggest problem was a refusal to respond to combat units feedback to improve the tank.Read about General Leslie MacNair who was probably for more tankers deaths than the German's Why? Because the Sherman as is fit into his plan for transporting material to Europe. That simple.
A real shame the U.S. did not use this in the M-26 instead the M-26 had the ford 500 h.p. V-8. The Merlin was alreay in U.S. production by Packard It would not have been difficult to get a copy of the Meteor and do some retooling to give the M-26 an adequate engine. American tank production was plagued by beauracratic infighting. There was no technical reason that the M-4 could not have been dramatically inmproved or that the M26 coluld not have been in service 6 months earlier.
The M4 was actualy improved, if thats what you wana call it, when they got the M4 "jumbo" Assault tank. This had 102 Frontal armor on a wicked slope, making it like , 200mm of frontal armor. Once they got the 76mm gun, it was a GREAT tank. Only problem is they didnt mass produce it for some odd reason.
A Sherman or Cromwell against any of the German Pz series tanks (I-IV) was a fair match, or even advantage to the Allies in some cases (the Cromwell's reliability and great speed). Panthers, Tigers, and King Tigers are a different class entirely, however, and not even the Pershing was an equal tank to them. Luckily, all it takes is a bigger gun to take out one of the very large, very expensive German 'big cats' - hence the Firefly and Comet tanks, which worked well.
British usually build great tanks (wwI tanks, Vickers E that half the world used, Centurion - the best post war tank and now Challenger the safest tank. To bad they didnt had money in the 30s and slowed armor development just when they needed it most.
I Think youre getting over patriotic mate. Producing an adequate tank just in time for the war to end isnt something to be proud of, it's a disgrace. Especially for a heavy industry nation like Britain.
Absolutely right. The Comet was ok, but the British tank men that had to use all the Comet's dreadful predecessors deserve the highest possible respect. Facing up to Mk 111s Mk IVs, Panthers, Jagdpanthers, Tigers etc in the under armoured, undergunned rubbish this country issued them equals bravery + . And a national disgrace.
You're missing the point. Briisth tanks prior to Comet, such as A9, A10, A13, Valentine, Crusader, Cromwell, and 75mm Sherman were not capable of engaging their Germany contemporaries, like Pzkpfw III, Pzkpfw IV, and Panther, on equal terms. So I repeat - a national disgrace.
Sherman could knock out Panzer III and Panzer IV with it's 75mm cannon as proven in Africa. And later when it was armed more powerfull 76mm HV cannon (i'm not talking about firefly now) i would say it was better than Panzer IV as an medium tank.
Actually the 75mm gun could, and did, knock out the Mk4. One thing that the Sherman had in it's favor was mechanical reliability which is something that the Panther and Tiger did not have. Another was much higher numbers....overwhelming numbers.
ok. i admit the comet was rather late and it wasnt as great as i made out. what i mean is that it was the first good tank from britain. when you look at the tanks after the comet, i dont think you can call them adequate!. for instance the centurion is one of the best tanks ever built and still in service around the world.
The comet was a great, great tank, it had good armor, a very very powerful gun, and it was quite fast, but just like the pershing, it was a litttle late, atleast it was used to great effect by the 11th armour division at the crossing of Rhine! lol
@Longboardsinglefin Spot on mate,All that Fucking around with designs etc.Different tanks.If we had this in 41 right through many tankers would still be around today.Fast, good armour and a good gun.
@Longboardsinglefin Spot on mate,All that Fucking around with designs etc.Different tanks.If we had this in 41 right through many tankers would still be around today.Fast, good armour and a good gun.
@Longboardsinglefin indeed the British had through the course of the whole war fiddled around way too much with numerous tanktypes and outdated stategies and then had too rely on American designs.
@Longboardsinglefin well maybe the brits thought the best counter to axis tanks were aircraft, which they were great at producing, some of the best aircraft of ww2 were british. heavily outnumbered by the luftwaffe the raf had a much higher kill to death ratio. and toward the end of the war ground attack aircraft were much more deadly than any tank on the battlefield.
@Dreachon so why is there countless gun cam footage of german tanks and convoys being destroyed by british and american fighter bombers. it was also the bombers that destroyed the majority of german armour when the skies cleared during the battle of the buldge. so to say they are the poorest wepons for taking down tanks just isnt true. also a tank can only run if it is fueled and it was the airforce that severly hampered this by destroying supply convoys. tanks taken out by proxy.
How can I say this, because both the US and the UK held in depth studies to the effectieveness of ground attack aircraft against tanks, they did this reserach themselves.
The studies revealed this, less than 10% of all german AFV destroyed during the Normandy campaign were due to direct atatcks from ground atatck aircraft and a certain percentage of this was destroyed by massieve carpet bombardment so the figure becomes even lower.
Of this footage on how many of it can you positievly identify them as tanks as I have seen plenty of this footage and all of them turned out to be trucks not tanks, that makes a big difference.
The british themselves also tested their rockets on a white painted Panther put in the middle of a large field and let several typhoon's atatck it, they found that the rockets had less than 4% chance to destroy the Panther.
@Dreachon well the fact is that they were tanks. after the battle was over all that remained of the panzer elite divisions sent through the ardennes were smoking wrecks due to allied bombs and rockets. also i did say destroying the supply trucks is destroying axis armour by proxy, denying them the fuel they needed. so obv air power was the most effective thing for putting german armour out of action through destroying them and making them run out of fuel and abandoned.
And again your are saying nonsense and missing the entire point.
So how dumb are you really cause on most of the footage we can say for certain they are not tanks and you would take the word of pilots who are up in the air against those researchers who actually were down on the targets and looking at these wrecks.
The german armour lost was not due to enemy fighter aircraft and their rockets, less than 4% to knock out a tank, but due to german crews destroing their own vehicles.
And the reason they didn't have enough fuel for in the ardennes was not that supply trucks were beeing killed en masse but because the fuel supplies were not prepared for an atatck on the western front, it was all beeing brough the the east.
Again your talking nonsense like an idiot because aircraft did not masse destroy armour and destroying a fuel convoy could still take days to take effect, all the while the panzer is punching holes in your shermans.
@Dreachon lol just goes to show your intelligence by resorting to insults and name calling because someone disputes your 'facts'. axis armour was destroyed on the ground by allied aircraft during the battle of the buldge. and its funny how the panzers were punching holes in the shermans yet were still wiped out. the might of german armour got smashed by the allies end of story.
No I am not insulting because honestly you are an idiot, you take hollywood movies and games over what alied researchers found out on the ground.
And look at the losses, for the germans it was 1500 fully tracked AFv for the allies it was over 4000 fully tracked AFV, yep they were punching holes indeed.
But hey if you want to try in the towel because you can't get anything to back you up that is fine.
@dappadan22 hmm hollywodd movies eh. more like first hand accounts from german veterans who were involved in the push through the ardennes who were recounting the fact that the divisions sent through had no AA and no air cover, they said that for the first 3 days of the attack their advance couldnt be halted due to heavy and dense fog.it was only when the fog lifted on the 3rd day that the 'swarms of allied aircraft could attack them with impunity' to which they had no defence.
@Dreachon Not true, if you read diaries of people from that time Typhoons could take out a Tiger tank.Clostermann ' The Big Show': ...'three charred Sherman tanks'.... taken out by Tiger then hit by Rocket firing Typhoon. Tiger 'seemed intact. From closer to, however, youcould see three small holes-two above one of the tracks and ther other plumb in the middle of the black cross'...'on turret' Page 135.
You should read, I have never said they couldn't takeo ut a Tiger tank, they could but the chances of doing it was small.
The british and US had their own research teams in the field to explore how good/bad their airrcaft were, here are the results for Tigers in Normandie, 13 Tigers were destroyed by direct air attack during the campaign, 7 of these were due to massieve carpet bombing by heavy bombers preceding the goodwood operation.
@Dreachon I would like to know where this figure of 13 came from. If its true then so be it but I cannot believe a few well designed Comets with improved armour, best western allied gun and with that damm good engine could not take on Tigers. By this time the Brits were well awere of how good the German tankers were and had very, very good radios and they would have done well better than say in a Firefly which could take out out a Tiger on a good day.
This number 13 is for Tiger tanks lost in the battle for Normandie 1944, Comet tanks were not issued until december 1944, the Comet also had a weaker version of the 17pounder.
@Dreachon I think you are just splitting hairs. I think it was seriously good that we had the 17pounder and Typhoons which could and did kill Tigers. The Comet would have done just the same. Yes the Tiger was an excellent tank but hey they could and were knocked out. Please do reveal the EXACT source of you claimed 13 tanks.
It comes from british research teams on the ground.
For books these I recommend.
P. Moore, Operation Goodwood, July 1944; A Corridor of Death
N. Zetterling, Normandy 1944
C.W. Wilbeck, Sledgehammers
And I am not splitting hairs, i am telling the truth and nothing but the truth, the only people who seem to have problems with what I say are those that keep believing hollywood movies and games.
@Dreachon Interesting. All I would need to know now is something about the authors and their ability to research properly. For my sins I am an investigative journalist and I obssessed with getting to the real truth. Sounds like you do a bit of reading too. Hollywood movies LOL.
@Juicingood You have to admit the allies would have been in shite creek without the 17 pounder and ground attackplanes like the Typhoon. The Comet was just too late but considering we knew about the Tiger in Africa they should have lit a fire underneath the people designing the Comet.
@Juicingood The British produced the 3rd largest number of AFV during the war. Unfortunatly unlike Germany they also produced large numbers of ships and 4 engine bombers. Their tank development and production could not have the priority given to ships in the earlier years. It shows the speed of tank development that the comet which arrived in late '44 was the tank they needed in Normandie. 1 years became a long time. The same with the upgunned Sherman and M-26.
I don't know the other well but Zetterling is a very good one, he has also written a beautifull book on Kursk that destroys the soviets myths and lies of it.
And it is not just the western allies that suffered from it, there are similair reports for both the luftwaffe and the red airforce by comparing their kills claimed and unit reports that were in the area, results are allways the same only a fraction of the kill claimed were actually destroyed.
Even the claims of Rudel are vastly overrated as his claims of the battleship and cruisers are already false, nor do the days were he claims 12 to 18 tanks destroy match any of the unit records.
And yes it is hollywood movies and games that are keeping this dumb myth alive, just look at any WWII game were you can call in airsupport, you get atatcked by multiple tanks, 1 aircraft later and all are dead.
Mind you the Russians had the IL-2 Sturmovik. The Germans had the Stuka but you only have to listen to the recent Oral histories of the people from that era 'Greatest Tank Battles' or whatever that reveal a true respect for airpower - air domancy was crucial in the war, taking out all associated tank vehicles like gasoline etc. Germans had it at the start allies, including Ruskies at the end. But this video is about the Comet and I love it. Hugely late arriving though.
@Dreachon Just read two revews on Zetterling's book. It is always very hard to prove points of view. I find diaries the best. The allies and axis often made claims uproven when viewed from the other side. Johnson's 'Wing Leader' is a case in point. The WW1 air figures seem to stack up with figures, broadly speaking, the same. WW2 the German ace figures appear way over the top. Will we ever get to the reason how German pilots can claim 150-200 kills? Can they ever be proven?
@Dreachon Agreed with all that. Amazing but incredibly harsh part of world history. Love diaries though - they are often action packed. I love Clostermann's book. Fantastically written.
@Dreachon As a life long reporter I can confirm it is brilliant and he has a genuine respect for his opponent - the ame is true for Johnson. I have also read Galland's book at Knoke's books too which is the other side of the coin. Have to.
Well with WWII that old saying "history is written by the victors" really comes into effect, there are still plenty of myths still alive and kicking because they were created by the one that won and therefor must be "true".
Maybe but can we be certain of that, Hitler was in a terrible shape in 1945, had Germany won the war Hitler himself would have been gone soon and would be replaced by someone else like Donitz.
The world might have even been in a better shape than it is today.
question, dont you think the comet had shorter barrel length compared to the sherman firefly? and if so.. did this affected the performance of the gun compared to the sherman firefly?
comet used a dif gun shortened 17pdr barrel.case was from the old 3"aa gun filled with more propellant and with new breach block,slightley less power than the full sized gun on firefly but more accurate with apds round and more of this type of amo available,better armour than firefly,firepower as good as panther very fast,should of had these in normandy.
we would have had tanks in normandy, but apparently they forgot to give the tank commanders basic naval lessons, so as they drove on the water (tanks had a boatlike apparatus surrounding them so they cud go thru water) the waves tipped them over-- although it still would have been shermans rather than comets--
That was the Sherman DD "Duplex drive" they worked well on the British and Canadian beaches but the Americans dropped them in the sea to far from land.
It wasn't that the Sherman was chosen ahead of the Comet. Comets only reached the front-line in late 1944 whereas the Sherman was in service from 1942. The only Sherman to match the Comet in quality was the Firefly version.
@KeyToTime its because the Sherman was mass produced in the US, but the comet was made in the UK and couldn't compete with mass production, the sherman was also older so the assembly lines were already in place
I much prefer A30 Challenger.Although it had some problems and limited production,but almost the same protection and mobility with Comet. The main gun even better. Finally,the most important is it arrived frontline earlier.
No, the T-34 and T-34/85was the best medium tank followed by the Sherman M4A3E8. and Panther. Technically the Panther was better on a one to one basis than any allied tank but did not ever achieve the high production and widespread use of either the T-34 or Sherman to be decisive. The Comet was almost a postscript to WW 2 by the time it entered service the war was ending. It was better than the stug 3's and PZ 4's but not really a match for a Tiger or Panther.
@JuanKuzov The panther was a much older design than the comet. Put the comet up against the ''E-50 Standardpanzer'' Which would have been its German counterpart.
Pow! That's cool. It wasn't until late 44 that the US went from a 75mm to a 76mm. when did the comet enter service, and you don't happen to know the gun specs for the Cromwell tank do you?
@cheminsdefeu Im not saying your wrong, as im no expert, but are you sure it wasn't a 76? I have never heard of a 77, but again, im no expert and there may very well be one.
Actually it wasn't 77mm but rather 76.2mm. The designation was different as the 17 pounder used on the Comet was different than the 17 pounders used on the the AT gun, Fireflies, Archers, Avengers and Challengers. The Comet's gun was a little shorter and used a little bit different of a shell. As to avoid confusion the 77mm designation was created. The Comet couldn't take the same 17 pounder as the others. But in the end the gun was almost as effective.
@gundam460 the pershing did have a bigger mounted gun but was much less effective than the comet at long ranges, also the comet used high velocity armour penetrating shells which were much better than the standard ammo of the pershings. =)
What a sound! What a tank! With a bit of sloping armour we could have had a world beater there. Great to see. Shame most people have never heard of the Comet.
At the tiger-tank site there is a bit of info and a picture, which is fairly interesting: Tiger tank knocked out by a Comet of 3rd Royal Tank Regiment near Ostenholtz on 14 April 1945. This tank was part of Kampfgruppe Schulze based at Fallingbostel. Tanks of 3rd RTR can be seen in leaguer in the background.
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood I didn't realise the Comet saw any serious action during the war
aspiringdrummer17 2 months ago
@aspiringdrummer17 Me too. Its on that Tiger Tank web site.
Juicingood 2 months ago
I dont understand how the Brits could make great planes and ships but appallingly bad tanks during WW2
Saxe333 6 months ago
this is my favourite tank
fdsdh1 8 months ago
Lovely sound and YES should have had these way, way earlier on and perhaps less tanks crews would have been killed.
Susseditout 9 months ago
a Russian T-34/85 pulverize that shietty britt tank.. or a Panzer lV
Ben998x 1 year ago
@Ben998x calm down man a centurion tank would shit on a panzerIV and a T34
TheLloydA1 1 year ago 3
@Ben998x
They wouldnt really have a chance a Comet has 102mm of front armor (Almost the same as tiger) and a shortened 17 pounder would could take both of those out from long ranges....btw a panzer iv has 80 mm max and a t34 45mm max.
iJaydan 1 year ago
@iJaydan
...at first they had a maximum 25MM (t34/76) but a T34/85 had a minimum of 90MM.
sk1llblack 10 months ago
@iJaydan
...at first they had a maximum 25MM (t34/76) but a T34/85 had a maximum of 90MM. sorry
sk1llblack 10 months ago
@Ben998x no its armour was better and the gun was so no
supermorshu 1 year ago
@Ben998x I think not. That 17 pounder was an excellent gun and the tank had a great engine and was better armoured than prevous UK tanks and Comet led to Centurion which as you know was even better.
Juicingood 1 month ago
1943 and no sloped armour...
watta mistaka to maka
shooterbob65 1 year ago
they made it just late of ww2 or was made and not put into production in time
supermorshu 1 year ago
That the brits all over to produce a great tank at wars end.Pity though did they see service against heavy and medium tanks like the panther and king tiger and what was the result ,did we give the krauts a kickin
MrAquafan 1 year ago
My second favorite brit tank of hte war.
JAGDPANTHER20 1 year ago
Building this tank right now. Thought I would do some research.
ModelbuildingTANKS 2 years ago
Power plant : 1 Rolls Royce Meteor V12 liquid cooled engine (with 600 max. hp, 3550 rpm)
Max. armor thickness : 10cm (4 inches)
Basic armaments : 1 77mm gun, 2 7.92 machine guns
Crew capacity : 5 crews
Combat loaded weight with 32.7ts(33225kg)
First produced and used in 1945.
ghostrider0749 2 years ago
its max armor was 102mm, not sure if thats how much you put, just making sure ^_^
flintrocks 2 years ago
I am just correcting the number to an integer......thanks for reminding.
ghostrider0749 2 years ago
Comment removed
ghostrider0749 2 years ago
Sherman was reliable and produced in massive numbers, against german tanks it was as good as the Panzer MK3 and when fitted with the 76mm (not the 17pdr) the Panzer MK4, at the same time the long barreled 76mm on the MK4 could knock the Sherman out, so really they could knock out each other.
GRAHAM5020 2 years ago
looks like a miniature of the tiger tank!
OviPop88 2 years ago
let us remember that british tank crews refered to a sherman as a Ronson due to its ability to "light first time every time "! the Germans called them "Tommy cookers" and the only sherman able to deal with a tiger or panther at battle ranges was a firefly ( fitted with a british 17pdr) which was nearly the same gun as fitted to a Comet and with the ADPS round was more than capable with dealing with tigers/panthers
umt1cardiff 2 years ago
Were you in a British tank? WHy do these AH repeat the same crappola again and again as if it is some profound revelation. Which do you think the British tankers prefered The Valentine? The Crusader? Even the Cromwell or the Sherman. No question the Sherman had faults, mainly do to the U.S. Army Ground Forces refusing to listen to combat cammands and even the ordance and armored commands about improvements to the Sherman. When they finely began deliveries it was too little and to late,
scottduncan44 2 years ago
although i did not see active service during the war( i take it you did) the regiment i was in used the grant and the sherman in north africa and italy and they lost a lot of crews due to burning - yes the sherman was reliable and was made in great numbers , but it also had a high profile (Due to the engine)which made it a bigger target .of course the comet was soon superseded by the centurion,
umt1cardiff 2 years ago
the comet really wasnt superseded by the centurion, they were both used in the Korean war, they worked together, Same the the Black prince. They used all 3 of the tanks.
flintrocks 2 years ago
@flintrocks
when you say not supercedeed by the centurion what you really mean was that they were in service after the war together for a period of time( but production of the comet did not keep going on when the centurion was in service so in that respect it did superced it as did the chieftain superced the centurion and as the challenger 2 superceded the chieftain ) as indeed was the churchill ( however the black prince never reached production status )
umt1cardiff 1 year ago
@umt1cardiff
The Comet remained in service to about 1960 with British Army units in Hong Kong.
MBguy2008 1 year ago
@flintrocks
The Comet wasn't used in Korea, but the Cromwell was used in recce units. The Chinese captured one or two Cromwells and the British destroyed them with a Centurion.
MBguy2008 1 year ago
@MBguy2008 The Centurion first saw battle in Korea and it's first tank to tank confrontation was with a Cromwell. Possibly one of those you mentioned
binaway 1 year ago
In late '44 and early '45 the Americans finally responded with improved Sherman's. The Sherman Jumbo Assulat tank, some of which carried the 76mm HV. The M-36B tank destroyer which was a 90mm mounted on an M-4 chassis and the M-4A3E8 with wider tracks,wet stowage and 76mm HV gun. The Sherman continued in services for almost 50 years and the M4A3E8 proved itself against the North Korean T-34 85's. The Sherman showed a remarkable adaptablity while the Panther excelled as a tank killer.
scottduncan44 2 years ago
Also remember the optiuons were the Valentine or Crusader. The Crusader had difficulty not breaking down and the Valentine was small and undergunned. When The Sherman arrived in Africa it was a great improvement. The biggest problem was a refusal to respond to combat units feedback to improve the tank.Read about General Leslie MacNair who was probably for more tankers deaths than the German's Why? Because the Sherman as is fit into his plan for transporting material to Europe. That simple.
scottduncan44 2 years ago
are these or the centurions still in use. I have heard that the centurion still is how about this.
CHARKELLYAZ1818 2 years ago
did this tank still use the liberty engine?
colingrahambates 2 years ago
no it used a derated merlin engine known as a meteor ( v12 same as spitfire, hurricane, etc) thats why the profile is lower than the american tanks
umt1cardiff 2 years ago
A real shame the U.S. did not use this in the M-26 instead the M-26 had the ford 500 h.p. V-8. The Merlin was alreay in U.S. production by Packard It would not have been difficult to get a copy of the Meteor and do some retooling to give the M-26 an adequate engine. American tank production was plagued by beauracratic infighting. There was no technical reason that the M-4 could not have been dramatically inmproved or that the M26 coluld not have been in service 6 months earlier.
scottduncan44 2 years ago
The M4 was actualy improved, if thats what you wana call it, when they got the M4 "jumbo" Assault tank. This had 102 Frontal armor on a wicked slope, making it like , 200mm of frontal armor. Once they got the 76mm gun, it was a GREAT tank. Only problem is they didnt mass produce it for some odd reason.
flintrocks 2 years ago
Nice sound. A v12, is it?
bonecrime 2 years ago
Yes of couse
7511232 2 years ago
A Sherman or Cromwell against any of the German Pz series tanks (I-IV) was a fair match, or even advantage to the Allies in some cases (the Cromwell's reliability and great speed). Panthers, Tigers, and King Tigers are a different class entirely, however, and not even the Pershing was an equal tank to them. Luckily, all it takes is a bigger gun to take out one of the very large, very expensive German 'big cats' - hence the Firefly and Comet tanks, which worked well.
SerenissimaRepublica 2 years ago
this is a great tank get over it!
longydagun 2 years ago
British usually build great tanks (wwI tanks, Vickers E that half the world used, Centurion - the best post war tank and now Challenger the safest tank. To bad they didnt had money in the 30s and slowed armor development just when they needed it most.
Paciat 2 years ago 2
great tank and i think the best looking tank of the war. the start of some truely brilliant tanks from britain.
britishnobby 3 years ago
I Think youre getting over patriotic mate. Producing an adequate tank just in time for the war to end isnt something to be proud of, it's a disgrace. Especially for a heavy industry nation like Britain.
Longboardsinglefin 3 years ago 11
Absolutely right. The Comet was ok, but the British tank men that had to use all the Comet's dreadful predecessors deserve the highest possible respect. Facing up to Mk 111s Mk IVs, Panthers, Jagdpanthers, Tigers etc in the under armoured, undergunned rubbish this country issued them equals bravery + . And a national disgrace.
SONOR4 3 years ago 5
100% agree,the most annoying thing to me is nothing on the Comet was impossible even in 1942.
elswick1542 3 years ago
That is true. But you should also remember that most german tanks weren't jangpathers or Tigers.
MokomaSusi 2 years ago
You're missing the point. Briisth tanks prior to Comet, such as A9, A10, A13, Valentine, Crusader, Cromwell, and 75mm Sherman were not capable of engaging their Germany contemporaries, like Pzkpfw III, Pzkpfw IV, and Panther, on equal terms. So I repeat - a national disgrace.
middxboy9 2 years ago
Sherman could knock out Panzer III and Panzer IV with it's 75mm cannon as proven in Africa. And later when it was armed more powerfull 76mm HV cannon (i'm not talking about firefly now) i would say it was better than Panzer IV as an medium tank.
MokomaSusi 2 years ago
Actually the 75mm gun could, and did, knock out the Mk4. One thing that the Sherman had in it's favor was mechanical reliability which is something that the Panther and Tiger did not have. Another was much higher numbers....overwhelming numbers.
mki89fre 2 years ago
ok. i admit the comet was rather late and it wasnt as great as i made out. what i mean is that it was the first good tank from britain. when you look at the tanks after the comet, i dont think you can call them adequate!. for instance the centurion is one of the best tanks ever built and still in service around the world.
britishnobby 3 years ago 2
The comet was a great, great tank, it had good armor, a very very powerful gun, and it was quite fast, but just like the pershing, it was a litttle late, atleast it was used to great effect by the 11th armour division at the crossing of Rhine! lol
flintrocks 2 years ago
@Longboardsinglefin Spot on mate,All that Fucking around with designs etc.Different tanks.If we had this in 41 right through many tankers would still be around today.Fast, good armour and a good gun.
YARROWS 1 year ago
@Longboardsinglefin Spot on mate,All that Fucking around with designs etc.Different tanks.If we had this in 41 right through many tankers would still be around today.Fast, good armour and a good gun.
YARROWS 1 year ago
@Longboardsinglefin indeed the British had through the course of the whole war fiddled around way too much with numerous tanktypes and outdated stategies and then had too rely on American designs.
ZerokillerOppel 11 months ago
@Longboardsinglefin well maybe the brits thought the best counter to axis tanks were aircraft, which they were great at producing, some of the best aircraft of ww2 were british. heavily outnumbered by the luftwaffe the raf had a much higher kill to death ratio. and toward the end of the war ground attack aircraft were much more deadly than any tank on the battlefield.
dappadan22 8 months ago in playlist andys playlist
@dappadan22
Not true, it was already clear in 1944 after the battle of Normandie that gorund attack aircraft were the poorest of weapons for taking down tanks.
The british and the US both came to these comclusians after extensieve research following the german defeat in Normandy.
Dreachon 4 months ago
@Dreachon so why is there countless gun cam footage of german tanks and convoys being destroyed by british and american fighter bombers. it was also the bombers that destroyed the majority of german armour when the skies cleared during the battle of the buldge. so to say they are the poorest wepons for taking down tanks just isnt true. also a tank can only run if it is fueled and it was the airforce that severly hampered this by destroying supply convoys. tanks taken out by proxy.
dappadan22 3 months ago
@dappadan22
How can I say this, because both the US and the UK held in depth studies to the effectieveness of ground attack aircraft against tanks, they did this reserach themselves.
The studies revealed this, less than 10% of all german AFV destroyed during the Normandy campaign were due to direct atatcks from ground atatck aircraft and a certain percentage of this was destroyed by massieve carpet bombardment so the figure becomes even lower.
Dreachon 3 months ago
@dappadan22
Of this footage on how many of it can you positievly identify them as tanks as I have seen plenty of this footage and all of them turned out to be trucks not tanks, that makes a big difference.
The british themselves also tested their rockets on a white painted Panther put in the middle of a large field and let several typhoon's atatck it, they found that the rockets had less than 4% chance to destroy the Panther.
Dreachon 3 months ago
@Dreachon well the fact is that they were tanks. after the battle was over all that remained of the panzer elite divisions sent through the ardennes were smoking wrecks due to allied bombs and rockets. also i did say destroying the supply trucks is destroying axis armour by proxy, denying them the fuel they needed. so obv air power was the most effective thing for putting german armour out of action through destroying them and making them run out of fuel and abandoned.
dappadan22 3 months ago
@dappadan22
And again your are saying nonsense and missing the entire point.
So how dumb are you really cause on most of the footage we can say for certain they are not tanks and you would take the word of pilots who are up in the air against those researchers who actually were down on the targets and looking at these wrecks.
The german armour lost was not due to enemy fighter aircraft and their rockets, less than 4% to knock out a tank, but due to german crews destroing their own vehicles.
Dreachon 3 months ago
@dappadan22
And the reason they didn't have enough fuel for in the ardennes was not that supply trucks were beeing killed en masse but because the fuel supplies were not prepared for an atatck on the western front, it was all beeing brough the the east.
Again your talking nonsense like an idiot because aircraft did not masse destroy armour and destroying a fuel convoy could still take days to take effect, all the while the panzer is punching holes in your shermans.
Dreachon 3 months ago
@Dreachon lol just goes to show your intelligence by resorting to insults and name calling because someone disputes your 'facts'. axis armour was destroyed on the ground by allied aircraft during the battle of the buldge. and its funny how the panzers were punching holes in the shermans yet were still wiped out. the might of german armour got smashed by the allies end of story.
dappadan22 3 months ago
@dappadan22
No I am not insulting because honestly you are an idiot, you take hollywood movies and games over what alied researchers found out on the ground.
And look at the losses, for the germans it was 1500 fully tracked AFv for the allies it was over 4000 fully tracked AFV, yep they were punching holes indeed.
But hey if you want to try in the towel because you can't get anything to back you up that is fine.
Dreachon 3 months ago
@dappadan22 hmm hollywodd movies eh. more like first hand accounts from german veterans who were involved in the push through the ardennes who were recounting the fact that the divisions sent through had no AA and no air cover, they said that for the first 3 days of the attack their advance couldnt be halted due to heavy and dense fog.it was only when the fog lifted on the 3rd day that the 'swarms of allied aircraft could attack them with impunity' to which they had no defence.
dappadan22 3 months ago
@Dreachon Not true, if you read diaries of people from that time Typhoons could take out a Tiger tank.Clostermann ' The Big Show': ...'three charred Sherman tanks'.... taken out by Tiger then hit by Rocket firing Typhoon. Tiger 'seemed intact. From closer to, however, youcould see three small holes-two above one of the tracks and ther other plumb in the middle of the black cross'...'on turret' Page 135.
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood
You should read, I have never said they couldn't takeo ut a Tiger tank, they could but the chances of doing it was small.
The british and US had their own research teams in the field to explore how good/bad their airrcaft were, here are the results for Tigers in Normandie, 13 Tigers were destroyed by direct air attack during the campaign, 7 of these were due to massieve carpet bombing by heavy bombers preceding the goodwood operation.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon 13s good. A result.
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood
13 of the almost 90 Tiger tanks that saw action in Normandie, not a very good score.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon I would like to know where this figure of 13 came from. If its true then so be it but I cannot believe a few well designed Comets with improved armour, best western allied gun and with that damm good engine could not take on Tigers. By this time the Brits were well awere of how good the German tankers were and had very, very good radios and they would have done well better than say in a Firefly which could take out out a Tiger on a good day.
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood
This number 13 is for Tiger tanks lost in the battle for Normandie 1944, Comet tanks were not issued until december 1944, the Comet also had a weaker version of the 17pounder.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon I think you are just splitting hairs. I think it was seriously good that we had the 17pounder and Typhoons which could and did kill Tigers. The Comet would have done just the same. Yes the Tiger was an excellent tank but hey they could and were knocked out. Please do reveal the EXACT source of you claimed 13 tanks.
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood
It comes from british research teams on the ground.
For books these I recommend.
P. Moore, Operation Goodwood, July 1944; A Corridor of Death
N. Zetterling, Normandy 1944
C.W. Wilbeck, Sledgehammers
And I am not splitting hairs, i am telling the truth and nothing but the truth, the only people who seem to have problems with what I say are those that keep believing hollywood movies and games.
Truth is CAS is vastly overrated.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon Interesting. All I would need to know now is something about the authors and their ability to research properly. For my sins I am an investigative journalist and I obssessed with getting to the real truth. Sounds like you do a bit of reading too. Hollywood movies LOL.
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood You have to admit the allies would have been in shite creek without the 17 pounder and ground attackplanes like the Typhoon. The Comet was just too late but considering we knew about the Tiger in Africa they should have lit a fire underneath the people designing the Comet.
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood The British produced the 3rd largest number of AFV during the war. Unfortunatly unlike Germany they also produced large numbers of ships and 4 engine bombers. Their tank development and production could not have the priority given to ships in the earlier years. It shows the speed of tank development that the comet which arrived in late '44 was the tank they needed in Normandie. 1 years became a long time. The same with the upgunned Sherman and M-26.
scottduncan44 1 month ago
@Juicingood
I don't know the other well but Zetterling is a very good one, he has also written a beautifull book on Kursk that destroys the soviets myths and lies of it.
And it is not just the western allies that suffered from it, there are similair reports for both the luftwaffe and the red airforce by comparing their kills claimed and unit reports that were in the area, results are allways the same only a fraction of the kill claimed were actually destroyed.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon
Even the claims of Rudel are vastly overrated as his claims of the battleship and cruisers are already false, nor do the days were he claims 12 to 18 tanks destroy match any of the unit records.
And yes it is hollywood movies and games that are keeping this dumb myth alive, just look at any WWII game were you can call in airsupport, you get atatcked by multiple tanks, 1 aircraft later and all are dead.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon
Mind you the Russians had the IL-2 Sturmovik. The Germans had the Stuka but you only have to listen to the recent Oral histories of the people from that era 'Greatest Tank Battles' or whatever that reveal a true respect for airpower - air domancy was crucial in the war, taking out all associated tank vehicles like gasoline etc. Germans had it at the start allies, including Ruskies at the end. But this video is about the Comet and I love it. Hugely late arriving though.
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood
Even the Il-2 and the Stuka did not do any better.
And yes the comet is a beautifull tank although it was fashionably late.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon Just read two revews on Zetterling's book. It is always very hard to prove points of view. I find diaries the best. The allies and axis often made claims uproven when viewed from the other side. Johnson's 'Wing Leader' is a case in point. The WW1 air figures seem to stack up with figures, broadly speaking, the same. WW2 the German ace figures appear way over the top. Will we ever get to the reason how German pilots can claim 150-200 kills? Can they ever be proven?
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood
Well the best one can do is compare the claims with unit records as these should list losses of men and material.
It's not definitieve but should give a very close account on what really happened.
As for Rudel the problem comes with that he started to believe the propaganda about him.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon Agreed with all that. Amazing but incredibly harsh part of world history. Love diaries though - they are often action packed. I love Clostermann's book. Fantastically written.
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood I really hope you have read it. He gives a good and more importatnly believable account of the 'other side' too.
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood
I'll see if I can get myself a copy of it.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon As a life long reporter I can confirm it is brilliant and he has a genuine respect for his opponent - the ame is true for Johnson. I have also read Galland's book at Knoke's books too which is the other side of the coin. Have to.
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood
Well with WWII that old saying "history is written by the victors" really comes into effect, there are still plenty of myths still alive and kicking because they were created by the one that won and therefor must be "true".
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon I must admit to wanting the alternative version because, perhaps, we could not have these conservations if Hitler had won.
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood
Maybe but can we be certain of that, Hitler was in a terrible shape in 1945, had Germany won the war Hitler himself would have been gone soon and would be replaced by someone else like Donitz.
The world might have even been in a better shape than it is today.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon I understand where you are coming from but I am not completely convinced.
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood
We'll never find out anyway.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Longboardsinglefin americans did the same with the m26 and the americans entered late anyway
UKNationalAirsoft 6 months ago
@Longboardsinglefin true, this thank should have been introduced at the (very latest) end of 1943, not 44...
Shchetchynianin 5 months ago
This baby was better then the sherman. not in production though
Nick3889 3 years ago
question, dont you think the comet had shorter barrel length compared to the sherman firefly? and if so.. did this affected the performance of the gun compared to the sherman firefly?
darkcorsair247 3 years ago
same gun, it's the tank that makes it look shorter
UBIQUEROL 3 years ago
comet used a dif gun shortened 17pdr barrel.case was from the old 3"aa gun filled with more propellant and with new breach block,slightley less power than the full sized gun on firefly but more accurate with apds round and more of this type of amo available,better armour than firefly,firepower as good as panther very fast,should of had these in normandy.
elswick1542 3 years ago 9
we would have had tanks in normandy, but apparently they forgot to give the tank commanders basic naval lessons, so as they drove on the water (tanks had a boatlike apparatus surrounding them so they cud go thru water) the waves tipped them over-- although it still would have been shermans rather than comets--
rdsspf 3 years ago
That was the Sherman DD "Duplex drive" they worked well on the British and Canadian beaches but the Americans dropped them in the sea to far from land.
elswick1542 3 years ago 4
What a sound! What a tank!
54spiritedwill54 3 years ago
It look so well proportioned.
354sd 3 years ago
that tank was part of at the battle of overloon they are stored at the museum there
peetyboyz 3 years ago
its at east england tank museum
dee4life944 3 years ago
It wasn't that the Sherman was chosen ahead of the Comet. Comets only reached the front-line in late 1944 whereas the Sherman was in service from 1942. The only Sherman to match the Comet in quality was the Firefly version.
glennskitchen 3 years ago
tell me why they chose the sherman over the comet? i think the allies had a screw loose
KeyToTime 3 years ago
Comment removed
fdsdh1 8 months ago
@KeyToTime its because the Sherman was mass produced in the US, but the comet was made in the UK and couldn't compete with mass production, the sherman was also older so the assembly lines were already in place
fdsdh1 8 months ago
I much prefer A30 Challenger.Although it had some problems and limited production,but almost the same protection and mobility with Comet. The main gun even better. Finally,the most important is it arrived frontline earlier.
Kataphraktoi 4 years ago
my favourite ww2 tank!
A34Comet 4 years ago 4
cool!! best medium tank of the war !! dead low profile .
Deadly
felixzs 4 years ago
No, the T-34 and T-34/85was the best medium tank followed by the Sherman M4A3E8. and Panther. Technically the Panther was better on a one to one basis than any allied tank but did not ever achieve the high production and widespread use of either the T-34 or Sherman to be decisive. The Comet was almost a postscript to WW 2 by the time it entered service the war was ending. It was better than the stug 3's and PZ 4's but not really a match for a Tiger or Panther.
scottduncan44 2 years ago
@scottduncan44 the comet had a superior gun to the panther, was faster and had better armour then the standard sherman
stop talking shyte
JuanKuzov 10 months ago
@JuanKuzov The panther was a much older design than the comet. Put the comet up against the ''E-50 Standardpanzer'' Which would have been its German counterpart.
evildeathmonkey1 9 months ago
The gun mounted on Comet is a weaker version 17 pdr which be called HV 77mm.But actually it
is still 76.2mm.
Kataphraktoi 4 years ago
1,200 of these tanks were in service by 1944 the end of the war. It is to bad it took so long to put them into production. Almost 3 years.
DTBroad 4 years ago
What was the millimeter of the gun? cool tank.
Highice007 4 years ago
77mm
cheminsdefeu 4 years ago
Pow! That's cool. It wasn't until late 44 that the US went from a 75mm to a 76mm. when did the comet enter service, and you don't happen to know the gun specs for the Cromwell tank do you?
Highice007 4 years ago
@cheminsdefeu Im not saying your wrong, as im no expert, but are you sure it wasn't a 76? I have never heard of a 77, but again, im no expert and there may very well be one.
spirit774 8 months ago
@cheminsdefeu not brit 76,2?
Shchetchynianin 5 months ago
17 pounder in fact isnt it?
darkcorsair247 4 years ago
76.2 to be precise
warmadscot 4 years ago
@Highice007
Actually it wasn't 77mm but rather 76.2mm. The designation was different as the 17 pounder used on the Comet was different than the 17 pounders used on the the AT gun, Fireflies, Archers, Avengers and Challengers. The Comet's gun was a little shorter and used a little bit different of a shell. As to avoid confusion the 77mm designation was created. The Comet couldn't take the same 17 pounder as the others. But in the end the gun was almost as effective.
MBguy2008 1 year ago
@Highice007 The m26 pershings gun is better. 90 mm gun=)
gundam460 10 months ago
@gundam460 only at extremely long distances
JuanKuzov 9 months ago
@gundam460 the pershing did have a bigger mounted gun but was much less effective than the comet at long ranges, also the comet used high velocity armour penetrating shells which were much better than the standard ammo of the pershings. =)
dappadan22 8 months ago in playlist andys playlist
The best british tank of WW2,sure the Centurion was a lot better but it wasn't finished before WW2 ended.
Metallicakicksbutt 4 years ago 2
What a sound! What a tank! With a bit of sloping armour we could have had a world beater there. Great to see. Shame most people have never heard of the Comet.
SONOR4 4 years ago 2
Nice vid!
Love the sound of the meteor engine :)
RiskyR 4 years ago