Talk:Comet (tank)

There are some better images on the Commons, can someone upload them here? Oberiko 14:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Novel featuring the Comet

For anyone interested in the Comet's use after D-Day I can recommend Peter Elstob's Warriors for the Working Day. Although a novel, the book is drawn from Elstob's own experiences, first on Shermans and then Comets.

There's an obituary for the author (he died in 2002) here: Soldier scribe relished risk, misadventure Reading it, I suspect he would warrant a Wiki article himself. Ian Dunster 15:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I read it last year, very good.Keith-264 (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone has since written articles on both the book and the author here: Warriors For the Working Day and here: Peter Elstob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.168 (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ammunition

Any documentation that Armour-piercing discarding sabot were used in this tank? Anon user 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - see Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942-1950 by David Fletcher and Richard C. Harvey. This shows both APCBC and APDS were used on the 77mm and provides comparative velocity and penetration figures against other types. Lkchild (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Korean War usage

Are there any sources for the assertion that the Comet was used in Korea? 209.244.31.35 (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just found a photo of a Comet in Korea thanks to the Imperial War Museum image archive, so nevermind. 209.244.31.35 (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ammo

"The designers used a new gun, the "77mm HV". This gun used the same calibre (76.2 mm) projectile as the 17 pdr but the shell casing was from the older QF 3 inch 20 cwt gun (loaded to higher pressures) and was different to 17 pdr ammunition. It had a lower muzzle velocity than the 17-pounder but the ammunition was much more compact and more easily stored and handled within the tank." This doesn't make sense, you can't 'load a shell casing to higher pressure', although you can fill it with a higher energy explosive or use steel with different fragmentation properties. The QF 3-inch was an HAA gun intriduced in the 1920s and remained in service until about 1943, some were converted to anti-tank guns. An HE shell was introduced for 17-pr in 1944 and was part of the standard ammo load in anti-tank batteries, it did use a higher strength steel than some other Brtish HE shell designs. However, from the ammunition was much more compact and more easily stored and handled I think someone is in the ignoramus corner and actually means it used a smaller cartridge case, this would be consistent with lower MV, but doesn't really enlighten us as to what is meant by loaded to higher pressures Nfe (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

the usual propellant for British ammunition was Cordite and the 'loading' depends on the amount actually filling the cartridge case, and the grade of cordite used. So ammunition may be a 'light' load to minimise stresses on the gun components, or may be a 'heavy' loading, to maximise performance. So in the 77mm HVs case, it means that the cartridge case was filled with a grade and amount of cordite that gave the stated muzzle velocity, lower than the 17 pdr's because of the shorter gun barrel. A too 'heavy' load increase barrel erosion and stresses on the gun, and makes for increased muzzle blast, which can give away the vehicles position, especially at night.

The shorter QF 3 inch 20 Cwt cartridge case was used in order to shorten the length of the 17 pdr's breech, allowing it (the 77mm HV, as the modified 17 pdr was called) to be used within the diameter of the Cromwell (Comet) turret ring. The shorter overall round-length also made for easier handling within the turret and fighting compartment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.70.250 (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

When researching the Advanced Squad Leader board game modules, I had some correspondence with the Bovington Tank Museum's then Librarian, David Fletcher,and his colleague E. Bartholomew. With respect to 77mm APDS, the latter stated (letter dated 23 March 1988) that "There is no evidence... ... 85.61.40.129 (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

... that the 77mm [APDS] rounds were used in action". Summary tables supplied by the museum show forecasted production of these rounds as 5,000 for December, 8,000 for January and 12,000 for February 1945, whereas plans for an APCR round were abandoned. The January to June 1945 RAC report states that "production continues at 6.0 [thousand] per month". Further more recent correspondence with the museum has failed to shed any more light on this, though a report in the Kew archives dated "1944" includes 77mm APCBC and APDS ammunition in an assessment of the Tiger II's vulnerability. I presume that this was based on test firings as it precedes Comet's use in action, or that the date is incorrect. An RAC report of February 1945 mentions only the 6pdr and 17pdr APDS ammunition, as one might expect. 85.61.40.129 (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

One of the few British Tanks

It was armed with a 77mm HV, a derivative of the 17 pounder, with the result that it was one of the few British tanks with the firepower to challenge late war German designs.

Given that from D-day to the end of the war, between 25% and 50% of British Shermans were 17-pounder armed Fireflys. Then add to that the Achilles and Archer, and the small number of Challengers - then I think it's incorrect to say "few". It's perfectly true only a minority of British tanks had "the firepower to challenge late war German designs", but I think it's fair to say it was a substantial minority. They were not rare, as the word "few" implies.Catsmeat (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree (although one could argue about the Achilles and Archer point as these weren't tanks), and it is also uncited so it is original research.

How about It was armed with the 77mm HV, a derivative of the 17 pounder, which was effective against late war German tanks especially when firing APDS rounds.? I can find a citation for this I am sure. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That seems spot on. Unless one could quote a source stating exactly how many Fireflys and Challengers served from 1944 to 1945, and how many regular Shermans, Churchills and Cromwells, then making any kind of statement on the overall proportion of 17-pounder tanks in service is problematic.Catsmeat (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Once I dug out a reference, I went for something slightly different. Have a look, change if you like QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I took "few" as the number of designs not the total number of tanks on battlefield. (a quick estimate but total number of Fireflys, Comet, and Challengers built is about 10% of number of Cromwells and Churchills built) As it stands, the new lede changes the focus from German tanks in general (Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger) to one specific model which I don't think is helpful to the reader. Any analysis of the Comet should appear in the main text first before summary in the lede GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that bringing in the Panther is unhelpful. As the article must be useful to everybody. Even people who have never heard of the Panther, are unaware of its reputation, and would not know that a having a gun (in some ways) better than the Panther's is no small thing. Catsmeat (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, fair enough. Given the long 75mm of the Panther was the most powerful German tank gun of comparable calibre (i.e., excluding the 88mm and 128mm tank guns) perhaps "more powerful than German tank guns of similar calibre" would work? QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What the article could use is some statements about the Comet in the round as a weapon system - tanks on both sides were a product of gun, armour and mobility. There is danger in extrapolation from one gun's performance in comparison to the other to a statement about the performance as whole, or at the very least a risk of a weighting of one point over other valid ones. What does the source cited for the gun performance actually say about Comet? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As a 1945 tank the Comet was very good, although it would have been better if it had entered service in 1944, in time for the D-Day invasion. But as a fighting vehicle, with a good crew, it could take on a Panther or Tiger I without too much trouble, but as in so many actions, the one who sees the other first, and gets in the first shot, often wins. So as a fighting vehicle it was saved by its reliability, speed, and above all by its gun. The 77mm HV was not quite as powerful as the normal 17 pdr, but was still more than adequate for all except very long range frontal shots against the later German tanks.

As a design, the Comet was only let down by the flat driver's and gunner's front plate that was less effective than sloped armour. But other than that, it was pretty good. Drivers reckoned it could be driven like a sports car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comet (tank). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040604205541/http://www.boltonipms.co.uk/Tracks/Tracks_Real_Thing/Comet_Duxford.html to http://www.boltonipms.co.uk/Tracks/Tracks_Real_Thing/Comet_Duxford.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)