I was wondering about the armour thickness: it did strike me that it looked surprisingly hefty and I was wondering if it was some sort of hollow box-form thingy or whatever you call it. But no. I was also wondering about the calibre of the shot and was a bit confused as even the two-pounder (40mm) would've probably gone straight through but 37mm would explain it.

The power-to-weight ratio is probably why the UK tank wrangling department settled on at least 10 bhp/ton, preferably 12. The Meteor was the ideal answer to that (giving the Cromwell a suspension-destroying speed of 40mph over even rough ground IIRC) and related to the biggest failings of the big Panzers which is that neither their engines not transmission could deal with the weight. Because they were never designed to. I suppose there's some irony in that German tanks now have big lazy 45-litre marine diesels powering them with no fuss and the British tanks have stayed with the approximately-Merlin-sized engine in spite of doubling in weight. Though the reliability problems aren't as bad... they need bigger engines.

Oh yeah, that nerd thing again: well someone has to I suppose. Also the Garand: I could never quite develop a liking for it but that may be as I've never handled one: I have at least fired Lee Enfields of various types (and as bad a shot as I am, it's enough to know they're much maligned), SLRs (my main memory is that the charging handle is actually painful: but it does double as a bottle opener), Sterling SMGs ("you can't hit a barn door with that", except it was the one gun I could actually aim properly; I suppose it's the one gun that is actually about the right size for me), M16s (space age, could aim it better than most rifles), a PPK (only memory is that it is *incredibly* loud) and some other stuff and faffed about with quite a lot more. But never a Garand.

J'aime le fromage.