Lordfluffers Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 Considering IMO, that the Churchill was one of the best Western tanks available, why did the British stop using it towards the end of the war, or is that just a glitch in CM??? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lordfluffers: Considering IMO, that the Churchill was one of the best Western tanks available, why did the British stop using it towards the end of the war, or is that just a glitch in CM??? Thanks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Huh? May 1945, lots of Churchills to use. In CM that is. I believe upgunned versions of the Churchill were still in use in Korea, but could be wrong. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordfluffers Posted November 11, 2000 Author Share Posted November 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Huh? May 1945, lots of Churchills to use. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really, I just started a QB in May 1945 and couldn't get a single one. Maybe I'd chosen Polish or something. I'll try again, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 I really don't see what's so great about them. Sure, they're really tough to KO, but that's just because they have a ton of armor. It isn't even sloped, and you get armor flaking almost every time a shell hits. They're dog slow, and because they can't turn quickly, you can get several flanking shots off before they can rotate to face you. Also, I don't see what's so great about a 75mm gun that frequently bounces shells off a Tiger I's rear armor. Sure, the 85mm gun is good, but it hardly has any hollowcharge ammo at all. If you're up against even 2 StuGs at long range, you'd better scoot away fast, because you don't have the ammo to effectively engage them. Just my $.02 ------------------ No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you. -Ender's Game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: I really don't see what's so great about them. Sure, they're really tough to KO, but that's just because they have a ton of armor. ...If you're up against even 2 StuGs at long range, you'd better scoot away fast, because you don't have the ammo to effectively engage them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If a churchill and a couple of stugs meet, it's the stugs that'd better scoot. But it's an infantry support tank, not a tank killer. The best infantry support tank in the game IMO. Kills sub-88 AT guns and pillboxes with ease. It's ever so cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raze Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 Too bad you can't airlift into combat A love to watch infantry run past one. . . ------------------ Sticks and stones may break my . . OUCH! Hey! Who threw . . .Stop! STOP IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 Don't forget that FAST turret neither. (Still wondering if that's quite accurate). And since someone raised it elsewhere, ol' Churchie also gets my vote for ugliest brute ever conceived by the mind of man. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade Balonium to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 What does armour flaking do to your tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 Not much to the tank, since "armor flaking" means pieces of the armor fly off the inside due to kinetic shock on the armor. Does tend to grind up the chewy things inside though... ------------------ To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordfluffers Posted November 12, 2000 Author Share Posted November 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: I really don't see what's so great about them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gustav I'd rather be in a Churchill than a Sherman (any model). What other Western Allied armour is better?? The ole Churchill is undergunned but as far as survivability is concerned it does pretty well. That makes them pretty good. They are the ugliest mothers though. By the way I was wrong, you can get Churchills in May 1945, I must have picked the wrong force. P.S. I live in Portsmouth UK. We have a D Day museum here since D Day was launched from here. Anyway there is a Churchill Croc and a Sherman 75 outside. Just thought I'd let any potential visiting grogs know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lordfluffers: Gustav I'd rather be in a Churchill than a Sherman (any model). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Same here - as an Allied tanker the choice was not a King Tiger or a Churchill, but a Sherman or a Churchill. I know where I would rather be. Except for Maltot, of course. LF - have you been to Bovington? It is not far away from your place, if you haven't, do yourself a favour and go. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lordfluffers: Gustav I'd rather be in a Churchill than a Sherman (any model). What other Western Allied armour is better?? The ole Churchill is undergunned but as far as survivability is concerned it does pretty well. That makes them pretty good. They are the ugliest mothers though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, I'd rather be in the Church, unless I had a chance to be in a Jumbo 76. Still, I don't exactly consider them to be an uber-tank. With a 76mm gun, they probably would be. That much armor also seems like overkill for an infantry support tank. I guess I just prefer the fast, hard hitters, like the Hellcat. ------------------ No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you. -Ender's Game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordfluffers Posted November 12, 2000 Author Share Posted November 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: LF - have you been to Bovington? It is not far away from your place, if you haven't, do yourself a favour and go. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Germanboy for the tip. I visited it earlier in the summer!! Fantastic place, funny thing is my girlfriend wouldn't come with me. I wonder why?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lordfluffers: Fantastic place, funny thing is my girlfriend wouldn't come with me. I wonder why?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe she's playing too much Combat Mission? ------------------ No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you. -Ender's Game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted November 13, 2000 Share Posted November 13, 2000 The Churchill did have one significant advantage that is rarely (ever?) incorporated in wargames (like CM). Sure they had a low top speed, but they had terrain negotiating capabilities like no other tank of its time, but later inherited by the Centurion. It could for example climb steeper slopes than any other tank in WW2, and rough terrain wasn't that much of a problem either. Therefore it's excellent for attacking the enemy from unexpected directions, deemed impassable to tanks. How about letting Churchills climb steep slopes and negotiate rough terrain in CM (at same or worse speed reduction as infantry?) Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted November 13, 2000 Share Posted November 13, 2000 Interesting idea. Got any sorta hard numbers on that? Would add a new angle to their emlpoyment, that's for sure PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darwin Posted November 13, 2000 Share Posted November 13, 2000 Absolutely love the churchill, huge support tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted November 13, 2000 Share Posted November 13, 2000 I haven't got any hard numbers, more the general impression described in a variety of books. There is for example one instance in Tunisia, where the Germans had dug in defence positions on a rocky hill or ridge, overlooking a valley where the Allies had to pass. The Germans considered the ridge as impassable to vehicles, and difficult to climb by infantry, so their flanks had only light troop protection. The Brits didn't want to repeat the charge of the light brigade, so instead they sent a force of infantry, supported by some Churchills (a troop or squadron, can't remember which). The climb went slowly but unnoticed, so the attack came as a total surprise to the Germans anyway, and managed to clear out the hill. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted November 13, 2000 Share Posted November 13, 2000 I wonder if there were any attempts to fit the Churchill with the 17 pounder. The turret was probably too small, but it'd have been one hell of a tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted November 13, 2000 Share Posted November 13, 2000 I think the 17pdr-on-Churchill was called Centurion. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted November 13, 2000 Share Posted November 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: I think the 17pdr-on-Churchill was called Centurion. Cheers Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IIRC, there was a redesign of the Churchill done near the end of the war mounting the 17-pdr called "Black Prince". It looked like a lower, wider Chuchill with a larger turret. Didn't the Centurion have a 32-pdr? (maybe only in later marks?) ------------------ Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts