cromwell 75, or sherman 75.

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by 4th wilts, Mar 14, 2008.

Tags:
?

Cromwell with 75mm, or Sherman with 75mm?

  1. Cromwell

    4.7%
  2. Sherman

    51.2%
  3. Too close to choose

    44.2%
  1. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Discharged

    o.k ladies and gents.simple question.which is better.not just in normandy.yours,lee.:)
     
    von Poop likes this.
  2. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    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 :D).

    Cheers,
    Adam.
     
  3. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Which one was easier to maintain in the field?
     
  4. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Discharged

    adam,was there a difference in the guns both being 75mm and also the ammunition.yours,lee.
     
  5. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Discharged

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

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    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.
     
  7. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Discharged

    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.
     
  8. Jaeger

    Jaeger Senior Member

    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 :D
     
  9. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

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

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

    Old myth that hangs around.
     
  10. Bodston

    Bodston Little Willy

    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.
     
  11. Bodston

    Bodston Little Willy

    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.
    If you are referring to those distinctive lumps on the turret, they are not rivets Lee. They are bolt heads. To prevent rivets breaking and flying around inside the tank following a non-penetrating hit, and with British armour plate welding still in its infancy and untrusted, Cromwell's turret was made with two skins. A thin welded inner shell with thicker armour plates bolted to the outside of it. Those lumps are the bolt heads.
     
  12. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Senior Member

    The guns on both were virtually a dead draw in performance. The armor on both was basically equal too. The Cromwell does have a better top speed but, this is of really little relevance tactically in Normandy.
    The Sherman overall is far, far more reliable and easier to maintain than a Cromwell. Between engine, transmission, and suspension the Sherman is like comparing a British MG to a Ford truck in reliability. Anyone that has owned both knows exactly what I'm talking about here.
    The turret traverse and provision of stabilization (not on all models and only when the crews actually bothered to learn to use it) provide a much faster engagement rate.
    The provision of a cupola for the commander with all around vision ports (again not always present) is another big advantage.
    The Sherman is also more roomy inside. This allowed more ammunition to be stored (even above what was officially listed usually). In combat this was often used for "reconnissance by fire" or, shooting up the town just ahead "just in case."
    The provision of a .50 AA machinegun was also a very useful addition. This was frequently used for more "reconnissance by fire." The roominess of the Sherman also allowed crews to mount a .50 machinegun coaxially (one of those unofficial field mods).
    Another really useful item was the provision of a small "donkey engine" in the crew compartment. This little motor could be run to keep the batteries charged and radios on without running the main engine cutting down on wear and tear as well as noise. It had an added benefit of providing a bit of heat in an otherwise very cold vehicle.
    The Sherman also benefited from experiance. The hatches for the crew were larger making for a quicker exit in an emergancy.
    Then there is the Sherman's ability to fire as an indirect artillery piece. Again, this was something the Cromwell could not do well. It was neither set up for it nor did the main gun have sufficent elevation to really make it useful.
    So, on the big ticket items: Armor, gun and, speed its pretty much a wash. But, the Sherman clearly wins hands down on alot of little added touches that made it a much better tank for the crew.
     
  13. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    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?
     
  14. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Or... The tricky business of keeping homegrown industry busy in holding onto the great leaps in vehicle design & production processes that had been made over the previous few years, after dropping the ball in the mid 30's. All in a form that could produce those post-war military & export successes like the Centurion, Ferret, Saladin, Saracen, etc. ;)

    If they had just switched to nothing but imported vehicles, as some voices in the Military, Tank committees, & houses of parliament had suggested, then a lot of work since Dunkirk might have been utterly wasted, leaving the country in an even worse state postwar.
     
  15. redcoat

    redcoat Senior Member

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

    Old myth that hangs around.
    Its not a myth. You have the height of the Cromwell wrong, Its 8' 2".

    Source, British and American Tanks Of WW2 by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis


    [​IMG]
     
  16. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Discharged

    this is all great stuff ladies and gents,thanks.lee.
     
  17. Drucius

    Drucius Junior Member

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

    Old myth that hangs around.

    Much as I hate my first post to be contradictory, the Cromwell was 8' 3" high.

    Edit: Ah, someone beat me to it. Ages ago.
     
  18. Drucius

    Drucius Junior Member

    The 75mm QF was in fact a re-bored 6 pdr gun, which is how they could use the same mount. The ammo was exactly the same as the American 75mm, but penetration was marginally poorer.
     
  19. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    The point for me on that height thing though, which isn't normally applied 'Cromwell/Sherman', is that the old M4 wasn't really that much taller than it's opposition, and it's allegedly excessively high profile is often overplayed.
    (but as this shouldn't be dragged down the Sherman too tall route (there are threads dedicated to that) I'll leave it ;))

    Nice to see the Poll's pretty balanced still, It's an interesting comparison to my eye, and not one that's normally made.
     
  20. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Discharged

    for someone who knows bu##er all,this is a very thread.cheers.lee.
     

Share This Page