Bernie Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Why put a silly gun like the 2-pounder on a big tank like the Churchill? The 6-pounder is better but far from good. Why didnt they put the 17-pounder on the churchill from the beginning? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Churchill was designed as an infantry tank, so it was meant to support advancing infantry against enemy trench lines and bunkers and withstand defensive artillery and anti-tank guns. Competence against enemy tanks was a secondary thought. The early models had a 2 pdr in the turret and a 3" howitzer in the hull, similar to Char B1 and M3 Lee. I guess the 2 pdr gave it an adequate defence against AFVs. Note that it was typical for the time of the introduction of Churchill I (1941): German tanks were still mostly armed with 37 or short 50mm guns. IIRC the 2 pdr gun didn't have a HE shell at the time, so the HE-chugging howitzer and AP-only turret gun supplemented each other. The OQF 6 pounder came after the original Churchill I, so it couldn't have been used from the get-go, but it was quickly equipped. The high velocity 57mm gun had a good penetration potential, though the HE capability leaves a lot to desire compared to the 75mm OQF equipped models. As for 17 pdr there was a shortage of them anyway (they had only entered service in 1943), the anti-tank units (towed and Achilles) and tank units (Sherman Firefly) taking precedence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 As Sergei said, the British did not start putting 17 pounders on tanks until 1943. But they did design a 17 pdr version of the Churchhill called the Black Prince. The problem was that it turned out to be much more difficult to fit the 17 pdr cannon on the Churchhill than it was the Sherman. The Churchill's turret was too narrow. Widening the turret ring to accommodate the larger turret necessitated widening the hull, all of which added about 10 tons to the tank which was already underpowered. Only 6 prototypes were built and they never saw action. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Posted March 3, 2012 Author Share Posted March 3, 2012 OK. A friend of mine mentioned something about the ability to cross trenches, and thats why it was built so long. So an infantry support roll only then. A bullet and grenade sponge...well it will be interessting to se what it can do in the CW expansion. Thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Actually the Churchills showed an incredible ability to climb steep inclines, even though they were slow. Heavy armour and an under-powered engine made sure they would not leave the infantry behind, and as Sergei says, when designed they were mainly facing 50mm armed tanks and Pak guns. At Aqqaqir one Kingforce Churchill shrugged of 31 50mm hits, but idler/track damage, a dented main gun and smashed MG mount caused it to stop fighting. Of course, as 5th Guards found out the later German guns were a different proposition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 http://northirishhorse.net/ Lots of detail showing the Churchill could be a useful tank. And for the German infantry it was probably the most feared Western Allied tank - most didn't like Crocodiles. : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 And for the German infantry it was probably the most feared Western Allied tank Probably not, as you could leave one behind by walking briskly... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Will the Churchill enjoy bocage busting capabilities in CW? Or is it mythical, bases on hearsay? If that second illustration isn't an exaggeration it did, while exposing its belly in a frightful way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Probably not, as you could leave one behind by walking briskly... 15 mph! Though I would half it cross-country. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I recall one anecdote about an advancing Churchill getting hit and the crew panicking & bailing. To their great surprise the Churchill continued forward on its own! Ashamed of having abandoned their vehicle the driver elected to scamper across open ground, braving enemy fire, climb back into the moving tank and return it to its owners. That must've been one slooooow-moving tank! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 No slower than the King Tiger, when going cross country. I think its 84 rounds of 75 ammo and thousands of rounds for the two Besa's should compensate for any slowness! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
black_prince Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Will the Churchill enjoy bocage busting capabilities in CW? Or is it mythical, bases on hearsay? If that second illustration isn't an exaggeration it did, while exposing its belly in a frightful way. I can believe the Churchill could clamber over certain bocage lines as illustrated (in fact, I'm sure that painting is intended to illustrate a specific incident. However, unless battlefront are going to code the Churchill's actually climbing the bank and exposing their bellies (as opposed to just smashing through the bocage the way that Rhino's do) then I don't think that Churchill's should be able to bust bocage as it would give them a tactical edge without the attendant disadvantage of increased vulnerability during the maneouver. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 As Sergei said, the British did not start putting 17 pounders on tanks until 1943. But they did design a 17 pdr version of the Churchhill called the Black Prince. The problem was that it turned out to be much more difficult to fit the 17 pdr cannon on the Churchhill than it was the Sherman. The Churchill's turret was too narrow. Widening the turret ring to accommodate the larger turret necessitated widening the hull, all of which added about 10 tons to the tank which was already underpowered. Only 6 prototypes were built and they never saw action. The main concern, at least pre-war, was rail transport. The gauge of track, the tunnel widths, etc., all limited the total tank width allowed, or approved, to be designed and constructed. As noted, turret ring diameter drives hull width. Gun recoil energy/breech design/etc., determine ring diameter. IIRC, the Churchills had to have their hull sponsons removed prior to rail transport. A royal PITA, to be sure. Increasing the hull width was not a player... Once the 17 pounder proved itself in action, there wasn't much life left in the reich. Introducing a new tank wasn't worthwhile, especially with all the 17 pounder-armed tanks roving about already. So, about the time that they could lift the rail travel width restrictions, there wasn't a pressing need to divert resources into it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Especially as the superb 17 pounder equipped A41 Centurion would have been available at the time when the Black Prince became available in useable numbers (May 45) No contest really, shame the Centurion never saw action, it would have claimed the prize of 'best' tank of WWII, given its cross-country mobility, protection and firepower. The Osprey book (Vanguard 12) mentions Churchill regiments had SPAA vehicles attached, but due to the lack of enemy aircraft they were used in the ground support role. Wonder if they might appear in an odds and sods module? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Here's hoping we'll see Centurion somewhere down the road - of course with a Maus to counter it! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I can believe the Churchill could clamber over certain bocage lines as illustrated (in fact, I'm sure that painting is intended to illustrate a specific incident. However, unless battlefront are going to code the Churchill's actually climbing the bank and exposing their bellies (as opposed to just smashing through the bocage the way that Rhino's do) then I don't think that Churchill's should be able to bust bocage as it would give them a tactical edge without the attendant disadvantage of increased vulnerability during the maneouver. Pretty sure I saw a Stuart ("Honey" in this case, I suppose) crossing low bocage in one of the videos. Either that or it was an artificial embankment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
black_prince Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Pretty sure I saw a Stuart ("Honey" in this case, I suppose) crossing low bocage in one of the videos. Either that or it was an artificial embankment. Actually, it was a bocage embankment which appeared to have been breached by satchel charges (you could refer to the tank as either a Stuart or a Honey as both were British designations-Stuart being the official and Honey the unofficial names for the tank-in American service the designation was Light Tank). Just checked and actually 'Rhinos' only cut through the upper part of the bocage and roll over the embankment rather than cutting straight through the embankment as I'd thought. Maybe Churchills should be able to bust through bocage (?). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Maybe Churchills should be able to bust through bocage (?). I dunno. There doesn't seem much in the way of confirmation or non-confirmation of the Churchill's bocage busting prowess on the net, or in WW2 books I've read. Mostly that famous illustration. A compromise might be allowing the tank to traverse Low Bocage with accrued damage and immobilization risk. From Wikipedia: It is important to note that, despite its weaknesses, the Churchill had a significant advantage that was apparent throughout its career. Due to its multiple bogie suspension, it could cross terrain obstacles that most other tanks of its era could not. This feat served well, especially during the fighting in Normandy particularly the capture of Hill 309 between the 30 and 31 July 1944 in operation Bluecoat conducted by VIII Corps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
black_prince Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I've been looking too and I can't find anything to give a really good indication of the Churchill's bocage crossing capabilities. I like your compromise solution though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 If you do a search of the archive on CMAK for "bocage" you will find a least two threads which discuss bocage in detail - my name is in both : ) There is detail and opinion and pictures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 If you do a search of the archive on CMAK for "bocage" you will find a least two threads which discuss bocage in detail - my name is in both : ) There is detail and opinion and pictures. That sounds like work. What conclusions did you reach? Do tell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Ahh the subject of hedges and their thickness... A subject which is close to my heart and do check out the threads.... BTW the Churchill could and did cross Bocage and the painting is a famous example of that, also mentioned in previous threads. Pity it is coded the way it is but it would seem that is the way it will stay. Not sure if they will give the Churchill the ability to break through Bocage, next week we shall see... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wokelly Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I've been looking too and I can't find anything to give a really good indication of the Churchill's bocage crossing capabilities. I like your compromise solution though. Try looking for stuff on the 6th Guards Tank Brigade and Operation Bluecoat. The unit ended up crossing terrain the Germans thought impassable, including bocage I think. Also during the Rhineland Campaign in 1945 the Churchill's of one unit pushed through a waterlogged forest to emerge behind the German front line. The German commander famously remarked he didn't think it was fair for a tank to cross impassable terrain and emerge behind him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 No slower than the King Tiger, when going cross country. Unlike KT, Churchill was actually geared to travel at walking pace. I believe I read somewhere the driver could set the clutch and let the machine slowly trundle forward without depressing the accelerator. That probably has a lot to do with its legendary hill climbing abilties. it was geared more like a farm tractor than a racecar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
black_prince Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Will do, thanks. I've just had a flick through the CW manual to see if it will give any clues to how/if the Churchill's 'go places other tanks don't go' ability is represented in game. I've noticed the manual shows the Churchills with 3 bars for cross country ability which is the same as just about every other tank. Interestingly, the Bedford trucks have 5 bars. That makes me feel a bit uneasy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.