Churchill IV & Cromwell I?

[Simon Fox]

I notice these 6pdr armed tanks are not in the game. A bit dissappointing as the British APDS 6pdr round was relatively plentiful in this period and had a better anti armour performance than the woeful US 75mm AP. I guess you have to draw the line somewhere but it would be wrong to assume that no 6pdr equiped tanks fought in Normandy and beyond. In fact there was considerable resistance to the replacement of the 6pdr with the 75mm in British tank regiments only the diminishment of the German tank threat and the increasing danger of infantry AT weapons allowed this to proceed without outright refusal in some units.

On a similar subject I notice that the 7.9mm Besa MGs are 'modelled' by the .30cal. I guess this is OK but it would be nice to "besa the buggers" occasionally.

[Bastables]

Besa’s and the Royal Tank corps. Bugger the rest of the army we’ll get our own factories and use the German cartridge anyway try and stop us.

And with the German tank heavy forces I've seen in PBEM's I'd prefer the 6pdrs Tanks as well. Some thing cheaper than the 17pdr buggers and yet able to give the germans more of a scare than the 7,5 cm guns.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 08-10-2000).]

[PatAWilson]

Two questions:

How large was a 6 Pdr round in mm?

Anybody got any statistical info on the 6 Pdr?

[Jarmo]

6pdr is 57mm, for more info, check this:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/005484.html

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Bastables]

5.7cm You should take a look at http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/british_guns4.html

for all your online gun needs and have fun.

hehehe he wanted mm

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 08-10-2000).]

[Silencer]

32pdr?

What is that in mm?

S.

[Sailor Malan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silencer:

32pdr?

What is that in mm?

S.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

94mm (see http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/britain.html#index

which is somewhere else in the site Bastable quoted)

------------------

The conception of such a plan was impossible for a man of Montgomery's innate caution...In fact, Montgomery's decision to mount the operation ...[Market Garden] was as startling as it would have been for an elderly and saintly Bishop suddenly to decide to take up safe breaking and begin on the Bank of England. (R.W.Thompson, Montgomery the Field Marshall)

[Sailor Malan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sailor Malan:

94mm

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey hey - didn't even notice I had made member!

[PatAWilson]

Thanks Bastables. Being a well educated person I think I can handle multiplying by 12 ... umm, how about 3 ... maybe five thousand something or another?

[Durruti]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>it would be wrong to assume that no 6pdr equiped tanks fought in Normandy and beyond. In fact there was considerable resistance to the replacement of the 6pdr with the 75mm in British tank regiments only the diminishment of the German tank threat and the increasing danger of infantry AT weapons allowed this to proceed without outright refusal in some units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Simon,

Have you got any more information on the units that used 6pdr-armed Cromwells and Churchills from Normandy onwards? I'm seriously interested in this as my few sources on this subject (eg. 'The British Soldier 1944-45, Vol.2' by Jean Bouchery) state that only the Cromwell IV onwards, armed with either 75mm (or 95mm howitzers) were used in the front line. This book does mention 6pdr-armed Churchill Mk III's and IV's starting the campaign with 6pdrs being rearmed later but doesn't mention which units. Were they just mixed in with 75mm tanks?

Much appreciated,

Durruti

[Simon Fox]

The Churchill's were issued to the Tank Brigades not the armoured divisions. As of June 1944 they were issued with a mixture of 6pdr armed MkIII and IV and 75mm armed VI and VIII. Conversion sets to modify 6pdr tanks to 75mm were issued but these were performed by the tank maintennance units. Also issued were additional applique armour which was used to up armour older vehicles. Establishments of 21st Army group Churchills for June 1944 are given below:

Total (not including 24 armoured OP tanks and ARVEs, crocs not specified but can only be MkVII, the close support 95mm versions are probably MkVI)

III 150

IV 193

VI 56

VII 69

V/VIII 54

Therefore 66% of Churchills were 6pdr armed in Normandy.

By unit

6th Guards Tank Brigade

IV 156

V/VIII 18

31st Tank Brigade

III 60

IV 12

VI 31

V/VIII 18

34th Tank Brigade

III 90

IV 18

VI 24

VII 24

V/VIII 18

141st Regiment RAC (crocodile unit part of the 31st TB listed seperately)

IV 7

VII 45

By the end of 1944 more Churchills were 75mm either through conversion or replacement. But a significant number of 6pdrs were retained (about 25% for most units and overall)this was because the 6pdr firing APDS ammunition gave a better anti-tank performance (and higher RoF) than the 75 despite the better HE shell of the latter.

The Cromwells were the main tank used by the 7th AD, and were used by the Armoured Reconnaissance Regiments in the 11th, Guards and Polish AD. It would be fair to say that most would have had 75mm guns at the time of June 1944 these had been earmarked for replacement with the Challenger with the 17pdr but due to limited availability this was only partially completed.

Interesting also is the distribution of Sherman variants in the British 21st Army Group.

In general a particular unit would have one type (excepting Fireflys), so scenario designers don't mix them up! The armoured divisions had the Vs and the older variants were in the independant armoured brigades which I might add had about as many tanks as an AD. Essentially ALL Fireflys issued were the VC type only two of the IC type were issued to units fighting in North West Europe and that was to the Polish AD.

The British did use the 76mm armed Shermans (they had too). For logistical reasons these were concentrated in the Polish AD which was quite potent since in late 1944 it had 41 Sherman 75mm, 40 Sherman 17pdr and 51 Sherman 76mm.

What I'd like to see:

(1) The Churchill with the 6pdr in the game- shouldn't be difficult since the model is basically done- just change the gun, though the armour is less of course. The availability of up armouring kits confuses this a bit as well.

(2) All non-VC fireflys out- yes, I want a vehicle removed it's ahistorical to have them in.

(3) Armoured OP vehicles in- very commonly used by British units, nice mobility for your FOO units

[This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 08-10-2000).]

[Durruti]

Brilliant Thanks for the excellent data, Simon, that helps with some scenarios I was planning. Can you recommend some books that contain this sort of detailed stuff on the Commonwealth units?

Also thanks for confirming what I thought about the Polish AD having Cromwells in the Armoured Recce Regt. - I know Gen. Maczek also used a Cromwell command tank called 'Hela'. Unfortunately CM doesn't seem to allow the Poles to have Cromwells for some reason? Did the Canadians never use Cromwells in their Armoured Recce Regts?

Cheers,

Durruti

[M Hofbauer]

since there's a bit of people here who know their ways around british armor I might as well throw this question that had nagged me a little bit into the fray:

why are there no valentines in CM?

now, hold it, before you start shouting at me. Of course I am well aware that the regular Valentines were long out of front service by that time. However, I *do* remember having seen once a late 1944 ETO picture of a Valentine as a command tank in France somewhere. I don't know to which extent this occurred, and I don't remember the unit, but I am most positive on it being a post-overlord picture of a european Command Valentine.

Then, next silly question, why are there no mine-clearing tanks in CM? seeing that we have AT mines in CM, the only way to remove them is by using engineers. These, unfortunately, are rather vulerable to enemy fire, so mine clearing in a combat situation where the enemy is covering the minefield is a very bloody to impossible task sometimes. This is exactly the stuation that armored vehicles, tanks as mine clearers, were used. Why not have Matilda and Churchill flail tanks, or Shermans with mine-clearing disks, as mine clearing vehicles? I mean, there would definitely be a use for them.

[Durruti]

Flail/Crab Shermans certainly would be interesting. I seem to remember this was mentioned a while back but can't remember what was said. I'll try a search. As far as Valentines are concerned, to be honest I don't think the small amount of use in this theatre, in second-line duties, would justify the time and effort needed to produce the model. Just my opinion...

[Guest Germanboy]

As for Valentines, probably the same reasons why German Panzer III is not included, but I would assume we will get both in CM2.

As for flail-tanks, I would love to see them in. Short story about their vulnerability though. During an attack of (I believe) units of 3rd UK ID in the border region of Germany/Holland, flail tanks came forward to clear mines, after the attack had run into trouble due to sniper fire and mine-fields. The TCs did not check with the infantry what was going on, and just motored ahead, looking for the minefileds to clear. They stayed unbuttoned, oblivious to the sniper danger. Three dead TCs later, the flail tanks decided they had a previous engagement to honour, and the job was left to the PBI (poor bloody infantry) after all.

Does anyone know whether they had to be unbuttoned to clear the mines (spotting reason maybe) or whether that could have been done buttoned?

------------------

Andreas

[patboivin]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Durruti:

Did the Canadians never use Cromwells in their Armoured Recce Regts? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to CM, the Canadians didn't use Ram II tanks either.

[Formerly Babra]

Pat,

Ram IIs were phased out just prior to HUSKY in July '43.

They did see service in NW europe, but only in an unarmed role as OP tanks and of course Kangaroos with the 1st APC Reg't.

------------------

It takes three years to build a battleship. It takes three hundred to build a tradition.

Admiral Cunningham, Aegean, May 1941.

[Blindicide]

Just throwing this back to the top to see if someone can actually explain why no Churchill III's,IV's or V's (and to show I did try a search) .Just gone to try making a scenario to find I'm a bit stuffed before I start due to a distinct lack of older Churchills.

Simon:which books are you looking in 'cos my references have the Mk VI & VII with the 75mm and the Mk V & VIII with the 95mm?Typos?

"I have about fifty Shermans on my left"/'Did you say Shermans or Germans?'/"Shermans!"/'That's alright then.'

------------------

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blindicide:

Just throwing this back to the top to see if someone can actually explain why no Churchill III's,IV's or V's <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd imagine it's because making models takes time, and if BTS had to model every vehicle or unit which were used in the war, CM wouldn't be even close to being released by now.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[RudeLover]

Though I'd guess that variations of vehicles already in the game would be easier to build than something that has to be built more or less from scratch (e.g., Brummbar). There was talk a long while back of an 'expansion pack' with new vehicles, but I haven't heard much about it lately, and maybe it's no longer planned? The US M-16 AA HT would be cool, too, and they were important in some battles esp. in Ardennes IIRC. I'd still rather have CM w/o these toys than another throw at Chance Encounter...

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

As for Valentines, probably the same reasons why German Panzer III is not included, but I would assume we will get both in CM2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then there's the Valentine bridging tank, which was fairly widely used among the British/Commonwealth/Allied armored divisions.

Michael

[Simon Fox]

Yes absolutely right Blindicide.

I meant V not VI meaning most of the CS version in June 1944 were probably Vs.

To clarify a bit:

MkIII welded turret- 6pdr

MkIV cast turret - 6pdr

Mk V 95mm

Mk VI 75mm british gun (basically a field kit modification of the Mk IV)

Mk VII new version- 75mm and more armour

Mk VIII as for VII except 95mm

Crocodiles are VII

This is confused somewhat by the retrograde fitting of applique armour to the MkIII-IV so that you would see a gradual increase in the numbers of uparmoured 6pdrs but there are no actual figures for the implementation. Though there is evidence that the kits were plentiful. I am not sure whether this made the armour equivalent to the VII or still less.

If you look at the figures for June 1944 I give above you will see that hardly any straight MkVII Churchills (the type in CM) were used initially in Normandy since there were 45/69 with the 141st RTR which was a crocodile unit. Blindicide is correct that it makes it impossible to design historically accurate scenarios with the Churchill equipped tank brigades. I cannot imagine that it would be difficult to rectify to include at least some of the other marks, the models themselves shouldn't be massively different as long as no-one wants to get super picky and groggy (fat chance!). Of course the armour issue could be confusing unless you assumed they were all uparmoured or a distinction was made.

It is possible to get the impression that the Churchill is a lumbering behemoth in CM. In reality it was quite different if you make the distinction between speed and mobility. The Churchill could go places that others couldn't. In its' first action in north africa a German force was routed and they complained of a British super tank which could climb mountains

On the subject of other vehicles, the Valentine bridgelayers are largely irrelevant since you can't use them anyway at the moment. On the other hand the Crusader AA was plentiful and often used in a ground support role.

------------------

"But on the 1st of July (D+25) the Regiment had its field day with the Tyneside Scottish in Rauray village. 'C' Sqn bore the brunt of the day-long battle when the Germans launched a massive counter attack on the Polar Bear positions. Throughout the day the Panzers launched savage attacks anf threatened to overrun the infantry. By close of play, from defensive positions an astonishing 34 Panthers had been destroyed, 31 in the Rauray area."

[This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 09-01-2000).]

[TeAcH]

A very interesting and well written and prepared piece! Certainly worthy of BTS consideration if you ask me. Steve and Charles have said many times that it can be proven to them, they fix it in the game. The only setback I could see is that they are busy tweaking other issues.

TeAcH

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Then there's the Valentine bridging tank, which was fairly widely used among the British/Commonwealth/Allied armored divisions.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, if I were to choose between funnies, this would not be my first choice, I would want flail tanks, since those are much more relevant at CMs scale.

And I would like to see the Crusader AA tank too. The 49th UK ID LAA Regiment's guns were issued with ground sights after Le Havre, but they had been used in the ground support role before anyway. The only time they really got into action in their AA role was during 'Bodenplatte', or whatever that lunacy at the end of the Ardennes was called.

------------------

Andreas

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Does anyone know whether they had to be unbuttoned to clear the mines (spotting reason maybe) or whether that could have been done buttoned?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They would definitely be buttoned. Imagine having your head sticking out of the TC hatch when one or more mines go off not 10ft. in front of your tank. Even worse for the driver!

IIRC, crews often would rotate the turret 90 deg or more to prevent damage to the gun mounts/optics, too.

------------------

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb