Main battle tank Centurion Mk.9/1
Top Comments
All Comments (32)
-
@McLarenMercedes Actually i thought the german army was mainly armed with czech tanks which were pretty decent tanks to be fair to them.
-
@EmperorTiger What would have happened to the Tiger tanks is what actually did happen to the Tiger tanks: Germany lost the war, and a few Tigers were kept for museums. The rest were scrapped for high-end consumer goods on which Germany built its fast economic recovery. But I take your point, the arrival of the Centurion and the Gloster Meteor would have helped end the war sooner, with less loss of life all around.
-
Centurion Mk 9 / 1 - version with night vision devices=)
-
Correct.
In 1940 both the British and French had more and better tanks than the Germans. Germany had few Panzer IV's and most of their divisions used Panzer II's and III's which were no match for the British Matilda II and the French Char-Somua and Char B1.
In Stonne, May 16'th 1940 a single Char B1 destroyed 13 German Panzer III's and IV's.
German superior tactics won them the battle.
-
i guess it has a 105 mm gun, it has a wide part of a main gun, does is it has a 105mm? or 75 LOL =)
-
The western allied tanks were not junk heaps.They were the result of a mistaken tactical doctrine The early German tanks were not the much better if at all over the British and French. On fact whole divisions were equiped with Chezk tanks. Their main advantage was in the use of Radios and the concentration of forces and use of combined arms. Just as in the hands of the Israelies rebuilt Sherman's took out later model Soveit tanks. Training and tactical doctrine.
-
The Cromwell , Comet , and Centurion were all excellent tanks produced too late to be tacticaly significant.The British were at least a year behind the German's as were the American's. The German's however were responding to the Soviet T-34 and KV series Both of which despite some severe limitations were significantly better than any British or American Tank. (The early T-34's lacked Radio's , had a two man turret and one large hatch seriously limiting effectivness in groups)
-
@14th20thKRHkickass The Failure to use the British 17lb,er is marginally justified as it like the American 76mm high velocity gun shot a relativly weak High Explosive round significantly less the the 75mm. The Failure to up gun the Sherman is entirely on General MacNair. As I stated the M-36B was a standard Sherman Chassis with 90mm gun and Sherman Jumbo a heavily armored assualt tank show that a combat worthy Sherman was possible
-
@scottduncan44 your absolutely correct on both fronts, we were a seafaring nation, many forget that, hence we had an enormous Navy but small Army and also Macnair essentially blocked heavier tanks and the upgunning of tanks.
People argue that even upgunned shermans were useless due to the armour still being poor...whilst it is true that the armour of the firefly has a lower maximum thickness, if it got the first shot off it won the fight, it had better penetration capacity than Tiger1
-
@MichaelWithstand Both the British and Americans knew how to build better tanks. Both for different reasons were unable to do so. The British because they lacked the industrial capacity. Unlike the Germans the British invested heavily in Ship construction and building 4 engine bombers. The Americans because of one General MacNair who espoused a tank destroyer doctrine and blocked all efforts to produce a better tank. The Jumbo Sherman and M-36B show what was possible on the Sherman Chassis.
Its over 60 years old but still a first rate mbt. God, the British got it right! Too bad they didn't get it until the very end of the war. Too many of the good guys bought it in junk heaps.
nomadnametab 3 years ago 9
shame they didnt get it ready 2 yrs earlier, had they have got the 105mm L7 gun on the centurion and got it in service in 1944, imagine what would;'ve happenned to tiger tanks...
EmperorTiger 3 years ago 7