Military Review

English tank A34 Сomet

52
A34 "Comet" (English A34 Сomet) is an English medium cruising tank, which was produced from 1944 to 1945 and took part in the final battles of World War II. Is a further development of cruising tank Mk VIII Cromwell. The tank was equipped with a sufficiently powerful 17-pound anti-tank gun (76,2 mm) and proved to be a fairly effective machine in the fight against heavy and medium tanks of the Wehrmacht. In fact, the A34 Сomet was no longer a purely cruising tank, but an MBT. After the end of World War II, the tank was in service with the British Army until 1958 and managed to take part in the Korean War. A total of 1186 tanks of this type were assembled.


The combat experience gained by the British forces during the North African campaigns convinced the military of the need to have at their disposal a tank possessing a cannon with a high initial velocity of the projectile. Therefore, when the new Cromwell tanks began to arrive in combat units, the tank department initiated work on the creation of a new tank equipped with a long-barreled weapon. In order to save money and time, the base for the new tank was to become the “Cromwell”, which led its history from an earlier cruiser tank, the Cruiser. At the same time, it turned out that the 17-pound British gun was the only weapon that could be used to effectively fight the new German Tiger and Panther tanks in the turret of the new tank. Therefore, the developers began to search for suitable for the tank A34 Сomet guns.

As the first challenger, they considered the American gun M1 of caliber 76-mm, which was installed on the second-generation M4 “Sherman” tanks. The second possible option was the long-barreled gun HV 77mm, which was a shortened 17-punch with a redesigned breech that was designed to use a wider and shorter sleeve. The new weapon was almost as good as the usual 17 gf, but it was much more balanced and better suited for use in smaller towers. As a result, the HV 34mm gun, created by Vickers-Armstrong, was chosen as the main weapon for the A77 Сomet tank.
English tank A34 Сomet

This gun used the same projectile as the 17-pounder (QF 17-pounder), but the sleeve to it was borrowed from three-inch anti-aircraft ammunition. For this reason, unitary artillery shots for the new gun were not compatible with the 17-gun and to prevent possible confusion while supplying parts with ammunition, the new gun was marked HV 77mm, although they had the same caliber 76,2-mm.

Similar to the “Cromwell” tank, the A34 Comet, in fact, on 60% was a completely new design with a new turret and a higher hull - these are the most obvious differences between tanks. The English company Leyland Motors was one of the first in the world to start welding when assembling its tanks, for this reason the А34 Сomet tank was all-welded from the very beginning. The turret of the tank had an electric turn, with the exception of the vertical pickup of the gun, which was made by hand. The system of rotation of the tower had a mechanical duplication, in case of failure of electrical equipment. In addition to the long-barreled 76,2-mm cannon, the 2 7,92-mm machine gun was installed in the turret of the tank, another machine gun could be mounted on the turret roof, it served as an anti-aircraft machine gun.

Mirror periscopes were installed on the tank as means of observation, and telescopic sights were used as sighting devices. The armor of the tank was considerably enhanced compared to its predecessors: the thickness of the frontal armor of the turret was increased to 102-mm, and the frontal armor of the hull to 76-mm. A grenade launcher was mounted on the tank turret, shooting smoke grenades and intended for the installation of smoke screens. In addition, smoke bombs were attached to the stern of the car. Although the British traditionally called the new tank a cruising one, even then an optimal combination of mobility, security and firepower was achieved, which made it possible to refer it to the first main battle tanks (MBT).

The crew of the A34 Сomet consisted of an 5 man: driver, commander, gunner, loader and gunner. The tank's ammunition consisted of an 61 projectile for an 76,2-mm cannon, as well as 5175 ammunition for 7,92-mm Besa machine guns. In addition, the tank had 20 smoke grenades for tower grenade launchers. If it was necessary to conduct combat outside the tank, the crew was equipped with the Bren.303 light machine gun, its ammunition was 600 ammunition, in addition, tankers could have personal weapon.

Just like on “Cromwell”, a “V-shaped” 12-cylinder liquid-cooled Meteor carburetor engine from Rolls-Royce with 600 hp power was installed on the “Comet”. It reached maximum power at 2550 rpm, engine displacement - 27 l. This gasoline engine accelerated a tank with a mass of 33,5 tons to 51 km / h when driving on a highway and to 29 km / h when driving on rough terrain. The thrust ratio was almost 18 hp / ton.

The tank's transmission consisted of an onboard transmission, a Merritt-Bfowrt Z5 transmission (5-speed non-synchronized gearbox, shoe brakes and planetary turning mechanisms), as well as a two-disc main friction dry friction. The chassis included 5 rubber-coated large-diameter road wheels on each side, 4 rubber-supported wheels on each side, the drive wheels had a rear location. The suspension of the tank was made individually; cylindrical spring springs were used (1, 2, 4 and 5 axle support rollers of the tank had double-acting hydraulic shock absorbers). Each tank caterpillar consisted of 114 tracks with track pitch - 112 mm and width - 394 mm.

Among the tanks that appeared during the Second World War, the Comet was one of the best cars in its class. With a mass of 33,5 tons, this tank was almost in the same weight category as the later Shermans (32 tons) and the Soviet T-34-85 (31,5 tons). The closest German equivalent in the face of "Panther" was significantly larger and weighed already 45 tons. At the same time, the firepower of these two tanks was quite comparable with the 76,2-mm cannon “Kometa” was not inferior to the 75-mm abalone KwK42 L / 70 “Panthers” and was significantly superior to the guns that were installed on the T-34-85 and “Sherman”.

When using conventional armor-piercing ammunition, the А34 Сomet gun pierced 110-mm armor at a rational angle of inclination at a distance of 1000 yards (914 meters), and when using APDS sub-caliber ammunition, it pierced 165-mm armor at the same distance. Being more than 10 tons lighter than the "Panther", the English tank was worse armored, but at the same time it beat the German in terms of its mobility, speed, and had much greater reliability. The T-34-85 and Sherman tanks excel the British tank in almost all indicators. The tank's gun had exceptional accuracy and rate of fire both when firing armor-piercing and high-explosive ammunition. From any point of view - it was a low-vulnerable and fairly fast tank, which was ideally suited for waging warfare and breakthroughs. His appearance in the British army eliminated a well-marked gap between the British and German tanks. Perhaps this machine had only one real drawback - the program of its construction had a low priority, which delayed the commissioning of the tank.

At the beginning of the 1949 of the year, the Komets in the English army were completely replaced by Centurion tanks, but in the tank units that were located in Hong Kong and West Berlin, they were used until the 1958 year. In addition, this tank was delivered to Finland, Burma, Ireland and South Africa. For example, in service with the army of Finland from 1960 to 1970, the 41 tank А34 Сomet consisted of a year.

Tactical and technical characteristics of А34 Сomet:

Mass: 33,5 t.
Dimensions:
Length 7,65 m. (With a gun), width 3,05 m., Height 2,68 m.
Crew: 5 people.
Reservations: from 14 (bottom) to 102 mm (turret forehead and mask gun).
Armament: 76,2-mm QF 77 mm HV, 2x7,92-mm machine gun
Ammunition: 61 projectile, 5175 ammunition.
Engine: V-shaped 12-cylinder gasoline engine Meteor power 600 hp
Maximum speed: on the highway - 51 km / h, over rough terrain - 29 km / h.
Power reserve: on the highway - 250 km.

Information sources:
-http: //armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/comet/comet.php
-http: //pro-tank.ru/bronetehnika-england/kreyserskie-tanki/186-tank-kometa
-http: //milday.ru/uk/uk-army/uk-tank/441-cruiser-tank-comet-a34.html
-http: //ru.wikipedia.org
Author:
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Snoop
    Snoop April 18 2013 07: 53
    +2
    I read + I already wanted to buy this tank in wot)))
    1. awg75
      awg75 April 18 2013 08: 20
      -1
      get advise I liked it!
    2. Kubatai
      Kubatai April 18 2013 10: 15
      -1
      yes .. this tank is very funny in the game .. the opponents bugurt delivered ..
      but how hard after him at the centurion ..
    3. Vadivak
      Vadivak April 18 2013 11: 38
      +1
      Quote: Snoop
      new construction with a new tower


      The mask of this new tower reminds me of something very Matilda 2
      1. Kars
        Kars April 18 2013 12: 13
        +1
        _____________________
        translation of course smiles in places
      2. RoadRunner
        RoadRunner April 18 2013 16: 39
        0
        Everything new is well forgotten old ... wink
  2. svp67
    svp67 April 18 2013 08: 19
    +3
    That's interesting. England was one of the first to make the "industrial revolution", by the 20th century it had rich experience, engineering and production personnel, and throughout the war it produced tanks, let's say "below average" ...
    1. Kubatai
      Kubatai April 18 2013 10: 10
      +3
      The main theater of action of the Second World War took place on the Soviet-German fronts. Rommel opposed the British t3 and t4 not the latest modifications. They did not have a strict need to come up with something radically new, so they emphasized the naval component of their troops. And only at the end of the war, when the question arose about countering the USSR, they began to make brand new tanks.
      1. Zerstorer
        Zerstorer April 18 2013 10: 30
        0
        Quote: Kubatai
        They did not have a strict need to come up with something radically new, so they emphasized the naval component of their troops.

        This is something like: "We retreated beyond the nearest sea and began a naval blockade." (C)
        1. Kubatai
          Kubatai April 18 2013 11: 34
          +7
          No .. It’s just that Rommel wasn’t supplied with advanced developments - they went to the Soviet-German front, and the tanks that the British possessed could have fought with the tanks T1, T2, T3 available to him .. There was no strict need to develop the tanks intensively. This is because on our land fronts fought with fierce perseverance - here we and the Germans actively improved land technology. By the way, not only the British, but also the Americans did not have normal tanks, but after the war they actively took up development and construction.
          1. sandrmur76
            sandrmur76 April 20 2013 15: 26
            0
            Simply, Rommel was not supplied with advanced developments - they went to the Soviet-German front, and the tanks available to the British could well fight the tanks T1, T2, T3 that he had. First, the Germans crushed the British in Africa. Hitler didn’t ask Rommel to get this far! Rommel wasted sand on the motors and this is an expensive repair. And in the end, some of the tanks were thrown to the east. The British are not credible to them!
  3. radio operator
    radio operator April 18 2013 08: 28
    +3
    Is the Сomet cleaning agent sold complete with an armored car? laughing
    Or vice versa?
  4. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets April 18 2013 09: 59
    +8
    "At the same time, the firepower of these two tanks was quite comparable. The 76,2-mm gun of the Kometa was not much inferior to the 75-mm ear of the KwK42 L / 70 Panther and significantly surpassed the guns installed on the T-34-85 and Sherman "."


    To be honest, I did not understand what is the essential superiority of the "firepower" of the 77mm Kometa cannon over the 85mm S-53 cannon of the T-34 tank? The barrel length of the comet cannon is 55 calibers, the C-53 has 54,6 caliber. We will not remember the sighting devices, but what is the superiority of power? request
    1. Bosk
      Bosk April 18 2013 11: 04
      0
      The mass is 3 tons, the elevation angle is + 16.5, the angle of decline is -6, the horizon angle is 60, penetration at 90% is 100 mt-209 mm, 450-138 mm, 900-120 mm, 1400-89 mm.
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak April 18 2013 12: 02
      +1
      Quote: Vladimirets
      To be honest, I did not understand what the essential superiority of the "firepower" of the 77mm Kometa cannon is.

      Using an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile with a detachable sump, it was able to penetrate the armor of any German tank (including even the famous Royal Tiger) and was equivalent to the much more massive German 88 mm PaK43 cannons in terms of penetration.
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets April 18 2013 12: 21
        0
        Quote: Vadivak
        Using an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile with a detachable sump, it was able to penetrate the armor of any German tank (including even the famous Royal Tiger) and was equivalent to the much more massive German 88 mm PaK43 cannons in terms of penetration.

        Again ammunition, but we are talking about a gun as such.
        1. Kars
          Kars April 18 2013 12: 54
          +2
          6. Armor-piercing 85-mm shells of D-5 and C-53 cannons do not penetrate the front hull of the tank hull and do not produce any structural damage from the 300 distance.
          7. The side armor plates of the tank differ in sharp unequal strength compared with the front plates and are the most vulnerable part of the armor hull and turret of the tank.
          8. The hull side plates and turret of the tank are punched by armor-piercing shells of the 85-mm domestic and 76-mm American cannon from the 800-2000 distance m.
          9. The side sheets of the hull and turret of the tank do not penetrate the 76-mm domestic cannon with armor-piercing shells (ZIS-3 and F-34).
          10. American 76-mm armor-piercing shells pierce the side plates of the Tigr-B tank from 1,5-2 times as large as domestic 85-mm armor-piercing shells. "
          Quote: Vladimirets
          Again ammunition, but we are talking about a gun as such.

          And what is a gun without a shell? Or a shell without a gun

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17_pdr#77_mm_HV
          1. Bobik012
            Bobik012 21 August 2018 07: 57
            0
            Yes, not power, but armor penetration. Different things. Specialized anti-tank gun. Unsuitable for the main tasks of a tank gun. The bulk of the ammunition of a normal belligerent tank HE shells. Were they for this gun at all? The two-pound did not have it; in the USSR, for Matilda, he had to invent his own.
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 April 18 2013 15: 05
        0
        Che, right? And 88 under the caliber EMNIP for 200 mm punched.
      3. Bobik012
        Bobik012 25 October 2020 23: 12
        0
        Come on!? Pak43 !? What did you smoke?
    3. Argon
      Argon April 18 2013 12: 45
      +2
      We need to look at the initial velocity of the projectile, this parameter gives an idea of ​​both the quality of the gun (barrel in the above privacy) and the quality of ammunition. Our ZiSy guns are moderate in terms of parameters, designed for mass production (as well as Amerov’s, however). About armor-piercing shells and so much has been written.
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets April 18 2013 13: 02
        -1
        Quote: Argon
        We need to look at the initial velocity of the projectile, this parameter gives an idea of ​​both the quality of the gun (barrel in the above privacy) and the quality of ammunition. Our ZiSy guns are moderate in terms of parameters, designed for mass production (as well as amerovskie, however)

        The initial speed just depends on the quality of the ammunition and its characteristics, configuration and characteristics of the rifling, barrel length, i.e. of what is laid structurally. The barrel’s manufacturing quality (well, of course, if it’s not at all very bad) affects the operational characteristics, for example, barrel survivability and firing accuracy.
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak April 18 2013 14: 31
          +2
          Quote: Vladimirets
          The initial speed just depends on the quality of the ammunition and its characteristics,


          Zhenya come on, in 7.5cm KwK 37 L / 24 he is a "cigarette butt" so don't charge one result
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets April 18 2013 14: 45
            0
            Quote: Vadivak
            7.5cm KwK 37 L / 24 aka "cigarette butt" why don't charge one result

            Well, I went on like this and wrote:
            Quote: Vladimirets
            The initial speed just depends on the configuration and characteristics of the rifling, barrel length, i.e. of what is laid structurally.
            1. Kars
              Kars April 18 2013 16: 17
              +1
              Quote: Vladimirets
              rifling, barrel length, i.e. of what is laid structurally.

              The weight of the powder charge, its quality. The mass of the shell, its shape.
              Also, the maximum pressure that it can withstand is set in the barrel structure.

              In this case,
              Quote: Vadivak
              7.5cm KwK 37 L / 24 aka "cigarette butt" why don't charge one result

              It can be charged cumulatively, which the Nebets have begun to do.
              1. Vadivak
                Vadivak April 18 2013 18: 28
                +2
                Quote: Kars
                It can be charged cumulatively, which the Nebets have begun to do.

                Andrei, I know, but how far did he spit on them?
                1. Kars
                  Kars April 18 2013 19: 04
                  0
                  Quote: Vadivak
                  only far did he spit on them?

                  Tables plotted up to 2000 m Gr 38 HL / B
                  and Gr 38 HL / C 1500 m
              2. Vladimirets
                Vladimirets April 18 2013 20: 43
                0
                Quote: Kars
                The weight of the powder charge, its quality. The mass of the shell, its shape.
                Also, the maximum pressure that it can withstand is set in the barrel structure.

                But what is this day today! How does this all affect the firepower of the gun itself? I originally wrote about the author's comparison of the firepower of the guns and the conclusion that the Aglitsk gun "significantly surpassed" our ZIS-S-53 in terms of this very firepower. Regardless of the convenience of aiming, the quality of the ammunition, the manufacture of the barrel, etc., just comparing the WEAPONS themselves as weapons.
                1. Kars
                  Kars April 18 2013 21: 18
                  0
                  Quote: Vladimirets
                  em at the firepower of the gun

                  Are you going to use the gun as a club?
                  Quote: Vladimirets
                  Whatever the convenience of pointing, the quality of the ammunition,

                  You collapsed from an oak tree or what? THIS IS A SYSTEM WEAPON-APPARATUS and cannot be separately.
                  Quote: Vladimirets
                  just comparing the guns themselves as weapons samples

                  How do you do this? Butide plus or minus mass, caliber?

                  WHAT do you think is FIRE power and how it is measured.
                  1. Vladimirets
                    Vladimirets April 19 2013 05: 11
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    You collapsed from an oak tree or what? THIS IS A SYSTEM WEAPON-APPARATUS and cannot be separately.

                    Maybe you live in the trees, I do not. Even in small arms, which are created for a specific cartridge, there are ammunition options, and even the artillery systems have a very wide range of ammunition.
                    Quote: Kars
                    How do you do this? Butide plus or minus mass, caliber?
                    WHAT do you think is FIRE power and how it is measured.

                    You need to read the article. The author is talking about firepower, not about armor penetration with certain ammunition, not about the action of high-explosive shells on enemy infantry, but about the superiority of the firepower of one gun over another. fool
                    1. Kars
                      Kars April 19 2013 09: 58
                      0
                      Quote: Vladimirets
                      Maybe you live in the trees, I do not.

                      I deeply hope so.
                      Quote: Vladimirets
                      Even in small arms, which are created for a specific cartridge, there are ammunition options, and even in artillery systems the ammunition range is very large

                      Yes, only how does this relate to the topic? Or rather to your research
                      Quote: Vladimirets
                      You need to read the article

                      Was reading.
                      Quote: Vladimirets
                      The author talks about firepower

                      Give a description of the firepower in which it is measured - well, they are asking you for the second time.


                      Quote: Kars
                      WHAT do you think is FIRE power and how it is measured.

                      ??
                      And you can knock on the forehead as much as you like.
                      and I can tell you that for the tanks of the final stage of the war, the anti-tank properties of both weapons and ammunition were of greater importance.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars April 19 2013 22: 53
                        0
                        Quote: Vladimirets
                        We have a very large range of ammunition
                      2. Bobik012
                        Bobik012 31 January 2017 23: 22
                        0
                        for the tanks of the final stage of the war (well, except for the German ones due to the lack of other anti-tank weapons and the numerical superiority of the enemy tanks) the anti-tank properties of the guns didn’t really matter. even the Americans and the English eventually learned not to ride tigers in the forehead
    4. Avenger711
      Avenger711 April 18 2013 15: 04
      0
      In terms of armor penetration, there is no superiority either, unless, of course, the British had a bunch of sub-caliber ones. According to the high-explosive action of a 75-76 mm long-barreled gun compared to the C-53, it smokes on the sidelines, high-ballistic guns are generally not suitable for high-explosive ammunition, for this reason it’s wonderful how an American anti-tank weapon of 76 mm did not become mass, while in a 75 the action was higher.
  5. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets April 18 2013 11: 21
    +2
    Quote: Bosk
    Mass-3 tons, elevation angle + 16.5, angle of decline -6, horizon angle 60,

    We will not take the technical characteristics of the gun, the firepower of the gun is indirectly related to the guidance capabilities. Firepower is the caliber, range and rate of fire. So in terms of caliber, our gun is larger, the barrel length (which has a direct effect on range, i.e. the projectile’s flight speed) is almost the same, I won’t say about rate of fire.
    Quote: Bosk
    penetration at 90% 100 mt-209 mm, 450-138 mm, 900-120 mm, 1400-89 mm.

    Firstly, all countries experience this same armor penetration in different ways, and secondly, the ammunition can be different, so comparing the armor penetration of guns of different countries is somehow illogical, especially when we consider that our armor-piercing shells were different.
    1. Bosk
      Bosk April 18 2013 16: 50
      -3
      In terms of firepower, the Comet's 77mm cannon matched the Panther's 7.5cm KwK42 L / 70 cannon and was significantly superior to the guns installed in the Sherman and T-34-85. When using armor-piercing shells, the 77mm gun penetrated 110mm armor at a rational angle of inclination at a distance of 1000 yards (951 m), and the APDS APDS round penetrated 165mm armor at the same distance. Being 12 tons lighter, the "Comet" was less armored than the "Panther", but this was compensated for by higher speed, mobility and significantly greater reliability. The Comet was superior to the Sherman and the T-34-85 in almost every respect. The gun's rate of fire and accuracy were exceptionally high both when firing high-explosive and armor-piercing ammunition. From any point of view, it was a fast and hardly vulnerable tank, ideal for a breakthrough and mobile warfare. It closed the noticeable gap in firepower between British and German tanks, the only real drawback being the low priority of the program, which delayed commissioning. If the Comets had been in abundance by the beginning of the Normandy campaign, the war could have been successfully ended by Christmas 1944!
      1. Waterfall
        Waterfall April 18 2013 17: 25
        +2
        Quote: Bosk
        If the Comets had been in abundance by the beginning of the Normandy campaign, the war could have been successfully ended by Christmas 1944!

        wunderwaffl wouldn't help
        1. Bosk
          Bosk April 18 2013 18: 17
          +1
          I am not a supporter of the allies, but I am sure if they had strained, then the war would have ended earlier and with less losses both on our side and with theirs, and at the expense of "Comet" I will repeat that the tank is good, the only claims can arise about the tilt of the armor ... but here again there are pluses - less weight and better armor effect ...
        2. Kars
          Kars April 18 2013 19: 25
          0
          Quote: Wasserfall
          wunderwaffl wouldn't help

          this one did a good job too
          1. Bosk
            Bosk April 18 2013 20: 36
            0
            Of the Westerners, I prefer Comet to my liking, Sherm is also not bad ... but purely visually he has a body that is somehow uniquely classically not tank ... if it’s out of sympathy.
      2. Argon
        Argon April 18 2013 23: 02
        -1
        A very optimistic statement about Christmas. Something reminded me of the compensation for speed protection. But for the guns, I completely agree.
  6. Mohomax
    Mohomax April 18 2013 12: 49
    0
    76 mm very good size guns it is not surprising that the Germans took them as trophies. And we went along the path of increasing the caliber. I bet if guns of this caliber would be further developed in the USSR, they are unlikely to be inferior to a comet
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets April 18 2013 12: 58
      0
      Quote: MOHOMAX
      76 mm very good gun size

      Let me curiosity, than? Especially when you consider that this is the caliber of the gun, not the size. wink
      Quote: MOHOMAX
      it is not surprising that the Germans took them as trophies.

      And we and the Germans took everything as trophies, regardless of value and quality, and then, as far as possible, used them in business.
      Quote: MOHOMAX
      And we went along the path of increasing the caliber

      Not only we Germans, in spite of the fact that we caught up to the barrel length on the panther to 70 calibers (with a caliber of 75 mm), why did they put a 88 mm gun on the Tiger, with a length of 56 calibers, why would it?
      1. Bosk
        Bosk April 18 2013 18: 20
        0
        Judging by the fact that the Germans' dream at the end of the war was to install 128 mm guns on the tank ... the idea of ​​increasing the caliber was not alien to them.
    2. Waterfall
      Waterfall April 18 2013 14: 37
      0
      Quote: MOHOMAX
      if guns of this caliber would be further developed in the USSR, they are unlikely to concede a comet

      Yielding, the quality of shells, s. And after the war, similarly, against the L7 had to make 115 smoothbore, and then 125.
    3. Bobik012
      Bobik012 31 January 2017 23: 02
      0
      the caliber of 76 mm by 1944 was HOPELESS. Not a single decent tank of this caliber then had. They didn’t put the S-54 on the T-34 with ballistics comparable to the 17-pounder. In terms of armor penetration, the comet’s cannon with the Panther’s was comparable. But the Panther tank was more powerful and the comet was clearly superior. The cannon shell was UNIQUE and is no longer interchangeable with any. Only "British scientists" could think of such a thing. the armor penetration of the S-53 and the more so the F-34 was lower (although the level of muzzle energy of the S-53), but the explosive effect of both Panther and Komet was superior. By 44, the task of fighting tanks was not in front of the T-34, armor-piercing shells accounted for 10% of the ammunition load (although the Royal Tigers completely dismantled themselves at the Sandomierz bridgehead)
  7. igordok
    igordok April 18 2013 12: 53
    +1
    Interestingly, the digital index "34" for the English "comet" and the American "Calliope" is random or our "thirty-four" is popular. soldier
  8. chenderoni
    chenderoni April 18 2013 18: 22
    +1
    here everyone writes what’s better and better. I would say an analogue of t 34 and I will not say anything about armor
  9. smirnov
    smirnov April 18 2013 20: 21
    0
    The driver’s window is something))))
  10. misterwulf
    misterwulf April 18 2013 21: 55
    0
    Quote: Kubatai
    No .. It’s just that Rommel wasn’t supplied with advanced developments - they went to the Soviet-German front, and the tanks that the British had could well fight with the T1, T2, T3 tanks he had ..


    And who was Wittmann extinguishing on the Royal Tiger in Normandy?


    Within 15 minutes he destroyed 222 tanks, 205 anti-tank guns and 11 armored personnel carriers on his Tiger No. 2 (at which he moved at the last minute due to engine failure in his Tiger No. 13) [source not specified 73 days] having completely defeated the intelligence of the 7th British armored division (the so-called “desert rats”, which caused much trouble even to Rommel himself and who became famous in Africa). Due to Wittmann’s actions, the British breakthrough was liquidated.


    Strange ... Probably he had a "light and outdated tank" ...
    Sorry! In that massacre, the Shermans and Cromweli were hit. There weren't enough shells - they rammed, crushed and overturned ...
    1. Argon
      Argon April 18 2013 23: 07
      -1
      Wittmann never fought in the Royal Tiger.
      1. Kars
        Kars April 18 2013 23: 40
        +1
        Quote: Argon
        Wittmann never fought in the Royal Tiger.

        that's right.

        Quote: misterwulf
        who is it there Wittman extinguished on

        by the way, these are also fairy tales, and he extinguished the cromvels, the Sherman fire-fly, and heaps of machine-gun station wagon kerrier.

        And here is his last refuge
  11. bublic82009
    bublic82009 April 18 2013 22: 08
    +1
    yeah not a bad allied tank
  12. Alf
    Alf April 18 2013 22: 52
    +2
    "The T-34-85 tanks were superior to the British tank in almost all respects."
    Since the Comet went into production at the end of the 44th, it is worth comparing it not with the T-34-85, but with the T-44, which also went into production at the end of the 44th (44 units were released before the end of the 25th, 45th - 905 units).
    Compared with the T-44, the Briton was inferior in booking: T-44 forehead = 90 mm-Comet = 76, board, respectively, 75 against 43, tower-100 against 102. Cruising range 250 km against 200, diesel against carburetor. Speed ​​51 km / h against 47. The height of the Briton is 2,68 meters versus 2,4 for the T-44. With the same mass. You should also not take into account the clean front sheet of the T-44 and the mechanical drive hatch on the Comet.
    1. Kars
      Kars April 18 2013 22: 59
      +1
      Quote: Alf
      since the Comet went into production at the end of the 44th, it is worth comparing it not with the T-34-85, but with the T-44

      But did the T-44 participate in battles?

      if you want a year then you can plow for the English of Cinturion.
  13. Alf
    Alf April 18 2013 23: 11
    +1
    No, the T-44 did not participate in battles, but if the author undertakes to compare, then let's compare the simultaneous.
    And about Centurion, let's fasten the IS-3. Then a completely bleak picture turns out.
    And, no offense, write correctly, otherwise eight errors in four words are not comme il faut at all.
    1. Kars
      Kars April 18 2013 23: 36
      0
      Quote: Alf
      but, if the author undertakes to compare, then let's compare the simultaneous

      So they are contemporaries who took part in the final stage of the Second World War.
      and centurions met with T-34-85 in Korea.

      Quote: Alf
      about Centurion, then let's fasten the IS-3

      Yes, it’s not a question, only the IS-3 is a heavy tank.
      Quote: Alf
      , no offense, write correctly

      How to survive.
    2. Bosk
      Bosk April 19 2013 07: 52
      0
      The centurion is already the main tank, and the weight of the main tank depends on the task and tactics of using the tanks, for example, ours were based on the T-34 and the Tiger Americans ... that’s the difference in weight, although I think that they will equal in time.
  14. Alf
    Alf April 18 2013 23: 57
    +3
    Quote: Kars
    Yes, it’s not a question, only the IS-3 is a heavy tank.

    IS-3 = 47 tons, Centurion-1 = 48 tons. Centurion is a heavy tank, just according to British terminology, the tank is AVERAGE, not medium.
    Quote: Kars
    How to survive.

    I’ll survive, it’s just a shame for you.
    1. Kars
      Kars April 19 2013 00: 14
      0
      Quote: Alf
      just ashamed of you.

      And I’ll already survive it.

      Quote: Alf
      Centurion is a heavy tank, just according to British terminology, the tank is AVERAGE, not medium.

      Well, it’s possible to play igrats with weight for a long time, and so on. You can remember that the Centurions are still in service with their modifications, and with MK10-13 I’m even nonsense to compare with IS-3. For the sake of fun, I could have made A39 pull out the bins.
  15. datur
    datur April 19 2013 20: 30
    +2
    and all the same it would be more logical to compare our t44 and their comet !!!! yes By the way, the amers themselves recognized their Shermans as mediocre !!!! laughing
  16. sandrmur76
    sandrmur76 April 20 2013 15: 32
    +1
    Quote: datur
    By the way, the amers themselves recognized their Shermans as mediocre !!!! laughing

    only our tankers said that Shermans had comfort, gun stabilizer (though in one plane) And generally praised! It's bad that gasoline, but the tanks burn and diesel well
  17. sandrmur76
    sandrmur76 April 20 2013 17: 15
    +1
    Quote: MOHOMAX
    And we went along the path of increasing the caliber. I bet if guns of this caliber would be further developed in the USSR, they are unlikely to be inferior to a comet

    I just used IS2 and took the towers from the tigers and took them home with a bang. And this is already versatility! Can you make out a lot of 75mm caliber? winked
  18. Alex
    Alex 26 September 2013 23: 55
    +2
    The article is not bad, although the cats are scratching me. It would be nice to put at least a little information about the real collisions of "Comets" with the same "Panthers", which he allegedly so much superior. Otherwise I am tormented by vague doubts ...
    1. Bobik012
      Bobik012 31 January 2017 13: 26
      0
      The article is very mediocre, no real facts, no analytics, one propaganda. By the way, I was looking for at least one real article about a comet, but there are none, everywhere there are fairy tales about the wunderwaffle. So do not be tormented by doubts - the product is very mediocre
  19. Bobik012
    Bobik012 31 January 2017 13: 12
    0
    Vertical armor, a gasoline aircraft engine (very good, but nonetheless), a differential in the rotation mechanism (yes, yes - a double differential, not a planetary mechanism, as we used to see it, that is, it could not turn in place: - (), Christie’s suspension is a tank of the late thirties, only at a slightly higher technological level. It’s only access to the level of T-34-85 and later Shermans. There is no question of any rivalry with Panther. Panther is bigger and more expensive. in a head-on collision, the British have no chance. And the cannon to which shells are no longer suitable for anything :-))) In the game, you can draw what you like, but really ... (did not pick up the censored word). The same age as the T-44, As they say - feel the difference (not in the game, but really) Accordingly, such a monster did not last long in service. Well, the British did not know how to make tanks for war. it happens