Guy w/gun Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Why didn't the Brits put a good AT gun (17 pounder) on the super-strong Churchill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Simple- the turret was way too small. This was a frequent design pattern with British tanks. The matilda couldn't fit the 6 pounder and the valentine couldn't fit the 75mm. As a result, they had to design a new tank from scratch each time a bigger gun was needed. Their tanks didn't evolve much from 1940 on, they got bigger but they never had sloped armor and the basic design was always the same. Compare this headache of small turrets to the German Pz III and IV. The III was originally built with a 37mm gun, but the designers left plenty of room in the turret for a 50mm gun that wasn't on any tanks yet. The IV kept the same size turret throughout its career, but was upgunned several times. ------------------ Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat. But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown. And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing. -Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 I wonder what German players are going to say when, and if, CM gets to covering the Fall of France... where the Germans face better armored and better armed tanks then they had! Man, with all the threads lately you'd think the Churchill was a King Tiger or something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>- Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Very simple. British Tank design philosophy was to have quick Cruiser tanks to manuver into the enemy's rear, while slow, heavily armored infantry tanks (ie. Churchhill) supported the infantry in frontal attacks. If the British did put a 17pdr on a Churchill it would have been similar to the Jadgpanther. And anyways the Jagdpanther is best used on the defense, not the best offensive weapon which is what the British were trying to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted January 23, 2001 Author Share Posted January 23, 2001 Thank you, Gustav. Im a little embarrassed though. I could have realized that the turret was to small if I had given it some more thought . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted January 23, 2001 Author Share Posted January 23, 2001 Oops. Double post [This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 01-23-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Actually, I think they did try a prototype of this combination. IIRC, Black Bart was the name. At least I think it was on the Churchill hull. Obviously, it never went into production. I'll leave it to others to explain why, 'cause I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Originally posted by Guy w/gun: Why didn't the Brits put a good AT gun (17 pounder) on the super-strong Churchill? They in fact, did. It was the Black Prince, and the Centurion was ready by the time it was, so it was not pursued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 Originally posted by jgdpzr: Actually, I think they did try a prototype of this combination. IIRC, Black Bart was the name. At least I think it was on the Churchill hull. Obviously, it never went into production. I'll leave it to others to explain why, 'cause I don't know. The retrograde model they made which had 4 reverse gears and a puny 2 pounder gun was known as the Black Adder... Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degrees of Frost Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 Originally posted by Slapdragon: They in fact, did. It was the Black Prince, and the Centurion was ready by the time it was, so it was not pursued. Didn't they have to widen the hull of a standard Churchill to make the turret ring just that much bigger ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 Originally posted by 109 Gustav: Simple- the turret was way too small.Slight correction: The turret ring was too small. The reason for this was the lack of proper tools and production techniques to produce larger turret rings at the time of the design. They did all turret rings as large as was economically feasible. At the end of the war, they had the means to make larger rings, and thus came the Centurion. Oh, this is the editing: They did put a better gun on the Churchill. In 1942 there was a need for some stop-gap vehicle to counter the German PzKw IV in Africa, before the Grants arrived. The result was called Gun Carrier, Churchill, 3". This was the Churchill chassis with a surplus 3" AA gun mounted in a fixed superstructure. Visually it had some resemblance to the Jagdtiger. This vehicle was a tank by designation, but was only used for training in Britain and never saw action. The gun was definately better than the 2pdr though. Cheers Olle ------------------ Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... [This message has been edited by Olle Petersson (edited 01-24-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 Actually, I've read that it was the British railway loading guage that restricted the width of British tanks, and therefore the diameter of their turret rings. The Churchill with side air intakes removed was the maximum width. They eventually realized that most transport of tanks was being done by road transporter and not rail, so they relaxed the width restrictions and developed the Centurion. Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 Originally posted by CavScout: I wonder what German players are going to say when, and if, CM gets to covering the Fall of France... Panzers March ... I wonder what the Allied players will say when they see the French tanks & troops have a morale modifier of like Neg 90 & what the British players will say when the Panzers outrun their poor Tildas. Now before anyone jumps on their <Insert Nations name here> envy horse: .......... Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 01-24-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 Did the Black Prince have the 17pdr or was it the 3.7" AA gun? I know they investigated putting that on a tank. Now that would have been something to whinge about. As it is the Churchill is tough but hasn't got much sting. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 Did they increase the CH armor or something? I remember it was pretty resistant to 75L/48 APCBC, but never had that much trouble killin it with the 75L/70 etc. As to problems with the model I have none except as I have stated in the past in that CM overmodels its armor capabilities, the CH's armor was of substandard quality due to many factors & as such is overmodeled in CM at the least a more severe or randomly affected AQ rateing is in order to reflect the poor quality etc, much like Rex has sugested for the Panther glacis. ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 Originally posted by Gordon: They eventually realized that most transport of tanks was being done by road transporter and not rail, so they relaxed the width restrictions and developed the Centurion. Not in Britain it wasn't. I have a few pictures showing the Churchills of 9th RTR on their way to the frozen north (aka Scotland) for the shooting range. The main training ground for the UK Army's armoured forces is in lovely Dorset, around Bovington and on Salisbury plain in the south. The shooting range (where all the initial ranging and calibration of the tank gun was done) was on the Scottish west coast. This was to reduce the risk of 'overs', which would just fall into the sea, and a relatively empty sea up there, as opposed to the south. The tanks were transported by rail. Once on the continent, road transport was the chosen way, since the railways were all buggered to begin with. I believe I saw a Black Prince in Bovington. Funny, like all failed British tank designs. Wait, make that: like all British tank designs. Was not the Churchill Mk I armed with the 2-pdr? In which case it was uparmoured quite a bit. The tank after all was a design from 1940 or such, at the time nobody perceived the need for 17pdr guns. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Panzers March ... I wonder what the Allied players will say when they see the French tans & troops have a morale modifier of like Neg 90 & what the Briotish players will say when the Panzers outrun their poor Tildas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 DOH! Black Bart, that's rich, must be remnants from my last viewing of "A Christmas Story" over the holidays (he was the leader of the gang that the kid shot with his Red Rider air rifle). Obviously, I shoulda said Black Prince. How's that go: Better to be silent and have them think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. I really need to remember that sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 Originally posted by Simon Fox: Did the Black Prince have the 17pdr or was it the 3.7" AA gun? I know they investigated putting that on a tank. Now that would have been something to whinge about. As it is the Churchill is tough but hasn't got much sting. Simon, The Black Prince (aka Black Bart ) had a 17pdr on a widened Churchill hull. It could move at the amazing speed of 9mph (although to meet some test requirement they would show it moving at the breath taking speed of 11mph on pavement with no ammo in it -- a figure which gets into most books today) and was a pig to manuever, turn, or in fact do anything with. By the time it was ready the war was over, and it never replaced the Churchill in service because, except for a big gun, it was not any better and most ways was a lot worse. The British had in 1944 two weapons they were preparing to put into tanks, the 20 pdr (94mm) and 32 pdr (your garden variety 3.7 inch AA gun, also a 94mm). The 20 pdr was a much better weapon for tanks because it was something like half the weight and a meter or so shorter without much loss in capability, so the 32 pdr ever only went into test vehicles like the A39, there was just no vehicle which could carry the pig around, although making a, Archer version of the Sherman was looked at, no one had much interest in the business, especially since they were not even sure they liked the Archer until it was actually tested in NW Europe. The 20 pdr never made it for the war, but it was the weapon that the Centurion carried during Korea, were it was able to shoot sunlight through the T34s it faced, had gread HE capability, and led the way to a series of weapons based on it, culminating in the most famous British tank gun, the L7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 I won a mission last night where I never fully committed my infantry... and I did it with just a Sherman 105, M10, and Churchill AVRE. The M10 took out the German Armor at standoff range, while the 105 handled the soft armor (ACs, Etc.). Once that was done, my 105 and AVRE move slowly through town leveling all the buildings. All hail the Chirchill AVRE!!!!!!! Gamey, I know... but the Germans had it coming! Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts