[archy]

Except for nonsense like this, the Churchill was a pretty good piece of gear, generally superior to the Sherman in armor and fire power.

Walt

Well, the six-pounder [57mm gun] versions seem a bit undergunned compared to the Shermans' 75 and 76mm shooters. But then the early German Pzkw III and IV tanks were mounting 50mm guns in that same period, so I suppose there was parity of a sort. That was not destined to last....

[SAMWolf]

The Brits had a habit early in the war of undergunning their tanks.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Except for nonsense like this, the Churchill was a pretty good piece of gear, generally superior to the Sherman in armor and fire power.

Well, the six-pounder [57mm gun] versions seem a bit undergunned compared to the Shermans' 75 and 76mm shooters.

The 57 mm had slightly better armor piercing capability than the Sherman 75. The 76mm was better. Sources differ about how many and how fast the 76mm Shermans came online. I read somewhere that @ 1/3 of Shermans were 76mm by the time of the Ardennes offensive.

The armor on the Churchll would keep out fire from the Mk IV tank in the frontal arc at most ranges. Not so the Sherman.

Walt

[Iris7]

The six pounder was a high velocity gun, fired only AP shot as I recall. Superior penetrator to the M4 75 mm. I think, except when the 75 mm was fitted with the Littlejohn adapter and it's special ammunition. APDS would have worked, don't know if APDS was actually issued before the surrender.