Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Was the Comet tank the best Medium tank of WW2?

This is allegedly a Comet of C Sqn 7th RTR in korea...

Xvt000M.jpg

That's the one. It's the only pic I've seen supposedly of a Comet in Korea. However 7 RTR were equipped with Churchills, though they did have Comets in Hong Kong. I think this picture was probably taken in the New Territories. Note there's no bow MG fitted so it's probably not in an operational area.
 
See another previous thread started by @meerkatz - the T-34 was very mechanically unsound, many travelling to battle with a spare transmission strapped to the back. There was also hugely variable build quality, with front plates only millimetres thick and, in some cases, gaps which let rain in.

Many Soviet Guards units were wholly equipped with the M4. However, Joe Stalin’s couldn’t be seen to be giving credit to the design prowess of the imperialist lackeys. So, history was re-written and the T-34 mythologised.
IIRC Dmitri Loza commanded Soviet M4's or "Emchas"
 
The Comet the best medium tank of WWII absolutely not. The best British tank medium or otherwise of WWII absolutely yes but that said it did'nt have a lot to beat. As with all British tanks the Comet came in 2 years too late after it was needed
 
The Comet the best medium tank of WWII absolutely not. The best British tank medium or otherwise of WWII absolutely yes but that said it did'nt have a lot to beat. As with all British tanks the Comet came in 2 years too late after it was needed

Well..... it was faster, more reliable, with a better gun and better armour than any of its competitors so I reckon that puts it right up there. It was late to the game though, and in only limited numbers. For the most important medium tank by dint of numbers built, or making a decisive impact on the conflict it's a toss up between the T34 or the Sherman, but the Comet gets my vote as the best. It's a good-looking tank too.
 
@meerkatz, the standard 75mm on the Pz IV was delivering that accuracy in 1942. One crewman who survived Tilly stated that the 75mm was of such high velocity that you could, up to 1000m, simply put the pipper on the target and fire, knowing that the shell would strike where the pipper was pointed. They were often able to get off the critical first shot, as a result.
 
@meerkatz, the standard 75mm on the Pz IV was delivering that accuracy in 1942. One crewman who survived Tilly stated that the 75mm was of such high velocity that you could, up to 1000m, simply put the pipper on the target and fire, knowing that the shell would strike where the pipper was pointed. They were often able to get off the critical first shot, as a result.


However, the 17lbr in the Firefly was rather a hit and miss gun. If out hit, it killed, but it wasn't terribly accurate.
The 77? Run of the mill gunners could do the business with it. It was an accurate gun easy to get own target.
 
However, the 17lbr in the Firefly was rather a hit and miss gun. If out hit, it killed, but it wasn't terribly accurate.
The 77? Run of the mill gunners could do the business with it. It was an accurate gun easy to get own target.
I thought the APCBC round was accurate enough but the Sabot round was hard to get on targets at range particularly in follow up shots due to the amount of dust it kicked up when firing.
 
Well..... it was faster, more reliable, with a better gun and better armour than any of its competitors so I reckon that puts it right up there. It was late to the game though, and in only limited numbers. For the most important medium tank by dint of numbers built, or making a decisive impact on the conflict it's a toss up between the T34 or the Sherman, but the Comet gets my vote as the best. It's a good-looking tank too.
For perspective. 11 Armd Div 's 3RTR and two squadrons of 15/19H got Comets to cross the Rhine, end of March 45. Six weeks later it was all over, just as B Sqn 15/19H got their Comets.

Edit having read Wikipedia.

The British 11th Armoured Division was the first formation to receive the new tanks, with deliveries commenced in December 1944.

A picture shows Comet tanks of the 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, 11th Armoured Division, crossing the Weser at Petershagen, Germany, 7 April 1945. I'd forgotten about them. So 8 squadrons of Comets were equipped by March 1945, about 260 tanks. Since 15/19H were notionally the divisional Recce regiment, it explains why it was they who didn't get a full set, when Cromwells remained suitable for recce.
 
Last edited:
I know it's wiki. They claim that 1,186 Comets were produced from 1944.

Would they have ceased production in 1945?

Doubt it. As stated previously, the Shermans were lend-lease so had to be replaced by something! By war's end there were enough Comets to fully equip 11th Armoured Division and most of 7th Armoured Division (around 300 tanks). Units continued to be re-equipped so I imagine production continued for a couple of years. They remained in service for 14 years and weren't fully replaced by Centurions until 1958.
 
I think another significant feature in combat was visibility. The comet and later shermans had good visibility from the commanders cupola and the guners position. The panther had a decent cupola for the commander but nothing for the gunner save his very narrow field of view sight, the loader had a fixed vision block set at 45 degrees to the gun. Vision in the t34 was just a single panoramic sight each for the commander and gunner.
Even though the commander often worked with his head up out of the turret (not possible on t34 because of the hatch) having the gunner searching for targets and when found being able to get on target quickly made a big difference. Normally the winning crew of an engagement was the one that spotted the enemy and fired first.
 
That's the one. It's the only pic I've seen supposedly of a Comet in Korea. However 7 RTR were equipped with Churchills, though they did have Comets in Hong Kong. I think this picture was probably taken in the New Territories. Note there's no bow MG fitted so it's probably not in an operational area.

The source is the IWM but they aren't infallible.. most of the KW tank pics are Centurions, there's a few Churchill pics floating around and some Cromwell's, including the one that was captured by the Norks and retaken.
 
I thought the APCBC round was accurate enough but the Sabot round was hard to get on targets at range particularly in follow up shots due to the amount of dust it kicked up when firing.

The Canadians did some remedial work with the 17pdr sabot and, IIRC, developed a sabot with 3 "petals" that improved accuracy greatly. Whether that was in time to see action in the war, /i know not.
 
Did the Germans not supply Tigers to the Italian front?

Whoops.. Yes.

The Canadians did some remedial work with the 17pdr sabot and, IIRC, developed a sabot with 3 "petals" that improved accuracy greatly. Whether that was in time to see action in the war, /i know not.

There were three versions of the APDS for the 17lbr. The first one was the inaccurate one. Although there was some question about gunners not being used to it, and not correcting enough for the higher velocity. THe Working theory I have at the moment is the Mk.II appeared in August 1944, and it shifted the centre of gravity forward if memory serves this solved some of the inaccuracy. The Mk.III showed up in mid 1945 and it used the Canadian pot sabot and this finally cured the accuracy issues.

Or at least that's what the documents appear to say.


17Lbr APDS porn:
swQOjlr.jpg

However the owner of those describes the middle one as a Mk.III, which is at odds to the documents.

There's an absolutely stunning amount of theories on the internet on why the APDS was inaccurate, and nearly all of them are bollocks.

Some of the good ones I've found:
Early APDS had issues with muzzle break (17pdr on Firefly was one of them) affecting its accuracy.

The amount of propellant used in the shell- as excess propellant burning up outside the barrel behind the separating sabot can effect it's accuracy. If the 17pdr had been lengthened, more propellant would have burned inside the barrel, causing a higher muzzle velocity and penetration. The Comet used cut-down 17pdr cases with the same projectiles, so it didn't have this issue with it's barrel.
Barrel harmonics- when firing a tank gun, a lot of vibration is caused which can impact a shells' accuracy. In some cases, a shorter and fatter gun like the Comet's 77mm has better accuracy than the 17pdr because it has a much shorter barrel.

It's not helped by certain well know popular historian having a sad on over the 17lbr, and one video he put out that gets trotted out so much. Its done to the 17lbr APDS what Death Traps did to the Sherman.
 
It's not helped by certain well know popular historian having a sad on over the 17lbr, and one video he put out that gets trotted out so much. Its done to the 17lbr APDS what Death Traps did to the Sherman.

Some of the comments on this thread are very interesting, particularly in terms of accuracies. A tank gun is supported to a far greater degree than a rifle. There’s no breathing or fatigued arm shake. WWII engagements were typically from a stationary position. Given that, it’s not too hard to see why a turret ring shot was considered bread and butter.

Your comment here is interesting, though; one man’s disdain colouring so much. Reality? If the 17pdr had been so bloody awful the Germans wouldn’t have gone after every Firefly as a matter of priority. They feared it.

The comment earlier is most apt: if it hit, it killed. In the end, that really is all that was needed.

One could point out, after all, that gunners were after turret rings because it was their only guarantee of a kill. Ask them if, given the ability of an assured kill, whether they’d have bothered otherwise. I suspect not.
 
Top