Message from @Ikea-Chan
Discord ID: 527306187511955463
In many regards, yes
and before you complain about it being petrol, british shermans were diesals
I don't care what fuel it ran on
and, most strikes that set a petrol sherman alight would have destroyed a diesal sherman too
As long as it ran.
it was a design that was quick to produce, was manoeuvrable (more so than tigers) , had a good enough gun (despite US fuck ups in deploying the 76s too late to theatre based on the experience of their african campaigns) and easy to maintain
easily the best non british allied tank out there
>Non british allied tank
British tanks were too little too late.
The Cromwell was put into use in 44
yup
you might have guessed though, I'm British ;P
The British tank divisions mostly relied on American tanks that were shipped over
Some with minor improvements
pfft
improved shermans
I'm talking about the M3 Lee and M3 Grant
*chokes on his limoncello*
I was talking about the M4 sherman
screw the lee and grants
And yes; I realized you were British at the very start when you talked about Britain and the British as **we**
well every civilised person is british .. or rebellious irish
or dominion
not sure if we really count the quebecois as dominion, they speak french dontchaknow
Britains best time in creating tankses was in WW1
In WW2 they were behind until they came up with the idea for the MBT
Which they did not master.
And damn whoever stonewalled the Pershing to hell.
Used to remember his name, I forget it now.
eh, we had a few good tanks in WW2
matilda, churchill, centurion
;P
and modified the shermans
pershing was stone walled for a very good reason
and the guy who did it IIRC was an artillery guy?
but the reason was very sound
Matilda 1 or 2?
eh, dont recall which one but I've not heard bad about the matilda as an infantry tank
2 then
possibly
The 2 saw most use I believe