Churchill Mk I

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I am a bit surprised to see the MK I Churchill share .BMPs with the other marks, thus depriving it of portrayal of the hull 3 inch howitser. Pity, I thought BFC would be keen to show of their dual gun vehicles.

BFC please fix or do somefink.

No wait, on second thought please fix.

[DevilDog]

Bet it gets covered in the first patch. They shared models in CMBB too, which were later patched.

I for one appreciate that - it means we get the game a little sooner, but we can trust the BFC crew to patch it in the near future.

[Sergei]

I was going to ask about this one too. As I understand it, the 3" gun is somehow fitted in the hull. I haven't ever seen a good photo of that, though, so it would have been nice to see it done in CMAK.

[flamingknives]

Churchill Mk I

Churchill Mk II CS. This has the 3" in the turret and a 2pdr in the hull - a better pic of the hull mount.

[Mark Gallear]

Bit confused . I think the Churchill MK 1 only so action at Dieppe (My weird spelling!) with Canadian crews. The Churchill MK 2 never saw action.

Off the top of my head the Churchill III was the first to see action at EL Alamein - all three of them which were that for Battle testing. (All were knocked out.) Monty was not a fan of British tanks or new things at all. The Sherman had its first outing at tis battle as well.

The reason is that the Churchill got a bad reputation for reliability like many earlier British tanks and was seen as unfit for actual combat.

Strictly speaking Battlefront should remove both versions from the game or make it an optional extra for fictional what if games or mod scenarios of Dieppe. (I am a purist :eek: )

[Madmatt]

At this time, we have no plans to add any additional vehicles or models in a CMAK patch.

If we do decide to change that position, the Mk 1 is one that I would personally like to see benefit from a new model.

As to its useage, well someone more Groggy than me will need to comment.

Madmatt

[MikeyD]

What saved the Churchills were those battle around Longstop in Tunisia. If it weren't for its hill climbing abilities they probably would'a pulled the plug on the Churchill in '43.

I have seen photos of early Churchill Is in N. Africa, including one dated around the Longtstop battles. Remember, the 6 pdr-armed Churchills were still waiting for a HE round to show up! Both the MkI and MkIII were pulled from service after N. Africa, and I don't believe the Churchill saw any service in Sicily.

It is nice to have an Allied tank that can take a hit in the game.

[Mark Gallear]

This is news to me. Certainly would like to see the photos. I can quote you from a very authoritive source (Book by a Desert General) that the first use of Churchills was at Alamein in October 1942. (Seen this reported elsewhere as well. These were Churchill IIIs and were seen as very useful as the order to send more was given after the battle. Because before this date they were seen as mechanically unsound - also widely reported in many books. I suppose its possible that some Churchill 1s and 2s were shipped after this date but its news to me. My understanding was they were relegated to home defence and training and never saw action apart from Dieppe.

My understanding is that 6pdr HE rounds were available from about the time of Alamein and certainly were available before Italy. I have come across actual battle accounts with the tankers expressing relief at having a HE round for the 6pdr at last.

[ December 05, 2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[MikeyD]

Looks like we've got dualling references!

I've seen (admittedly VERY rare) Churchill I and Churchill IV photos wearing 'sand & spinach' camou stripes so it was definitely N. Africa. Most all pictures show the ubiquitous MkIII. There's been an ongoing debate (apparently not settled yet) as to when 6 pdr HE finally shows up. One source says not til after we were in Sicily, another says something else. We'd all kill for hard reference on that detail.

[Michael Emrys]

Desert Tracks by William E. Platz lists 6 Mk. IIIs at Alamein in the 7th. Motor Brigade which was part of X Corps.

Unfortunately, he doesn't say anything at all about Tunisia, but I would swear that I too have seen photos of Mk. Is taken there.

Michael

[MikeyD]

My one-and-only "Assault on Longstop" scenario (a small plug) lists regiment after regiment of Churchills that were collected for the big offensive, including several green units newly arrived from Britain. Maybe (just guessing) a few Mk Is happened to be dragged into the fight during the big buildup?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I too seem to remember seeing pictures of MkIs in Tunesia. As usual I can't back this up with actualreferences due to my book collection being bigger then either my memory or my will to look it up. Strange that MkIs would show up later then MKIIIs, though.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Assault on Longstop? Consider your plug succesful, I think I'll kick the tyres of that scenario then. It better be good.

[MikeyD]

Just say the reference was written by Steve Zaloga. You'll have a 50% chance of being right!

[Mark Gallear]

The best source for first Churchill use is Field-Marshal Lord Carver El – Alamein – the index is sh**t and I cannot find the passage. Also has the development of mine clearing tanks in it. It is quoted badly in George Forty WW2 Tanks, which is really not all that bad. There were 6 Churchill IIIs there for field trials – they were not meant to be used in combat but in fact were thrown into the battle – almost everything was. Forty says they were almost impervious to damage but Carver says they were all knocked out.

The Churchill after Dieppe (August 1942) had been tarred with a reputation for poor mechanical reliability – in this battle they got stuck and could not get off the beach and the infantry were cut apart. This is the major story of British Tank development in WW 2 – the Covenanter although technically good also never say action because of its unreliability. See Smithers Rude Mechanicals for this story and TOG etc. (He is biased). Not got a copy but the “Great Tank Scandal by Ian Fletcher (The Liberian at the Bovington Tank Museum) should be good - you really have to understand this issue to get you head round what went on.

I have his “Churchill Tank” which is largely reprints of the period Churchill manuals but does not help much on this issue. I also have his Mechanised Force British Tanks between the Wars – the only book as far as I know on the strange development of the British tank force. Just any case I have to argue on doctrine . God I rambling in my old age.

According to Donald Featherstone’s A Wargamers Guide to the Mediterranean Campaigns - a large number of Churchills I and IIs were converted to III standard and shipped to the Desert – is this what you are seeing? Should look like a Churchill III after the refit. I really don’t believe any Churchill Is or IIs were sent in that form for the reason listed above.

Churchill’s were used by the 1st Canadian Army Tank Brigade in Sicily. I didn't have to look very hard to find that out and no doubt other units had them as well.

I can’t for the life of me find any sources on 6pdr HE now! We should get Rexford to write a definitive book on British AT guns - I would buy it!!!

For a bit of fun I pulled out my old miniature Wargame rules – The late great B.A. Rea-Taylor Firefly (1987) has no HE for any 6pdr equipped tanks and says no 6pdr HE equipped tanks at Alamein in the list for that battle. He has 2pdr HE for the Marmon Harrington IV (A late period AC of South African manufacture) but nothing else. He has 2pdr APCBC from the Maltida II and just about everything else. He calls 2pdr AP – APC and everything has got it. The Littlejohn is ignored completely. (The rules were copied a lot from Squad Leader, this was fair as the game was copied a lot from earlier British wargame rules but he was a real expert – I met him once. I’m an almost national (student) champ!)

The rival Ian Shaw's WWII Army Organisations and Equipment (3rd Ed 1986) Mentions that 2pdr HE appears in September 1941 but does not say what has got it. Also got AP and APCBC for 2pdr. The Littlejohn Ammo is called SV and appears in late 1944 if you want it will cost lots of extra points! You can have 6pdr HE as soon as the gun appears with everything and anything!

According to the Featherstone book quoted above no 6pdr HE in the Med!

Out of interest what does Squad Leader and ASL say!

[ December 05, 2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[flamingknives]

the Covenanter although technically good also never say action because of its unreliability.

Wha? I can't concede that a tank that has it's coolant system at the other end of the chassis to the engine, the radiator on the glacis, a hatch that is prone to brain the TC going over rough terrain, a turret ring that can't mount anything bigger than an obsolescent gun and is the most unreliable tank since the first landship could be regarded as technically good.

The Cromwell can hardly be regarded as unreliable - same goes for the Comet.

[MikeyD]

"Forty says they were almost impervious to damage but Carver says they were all knocked out."

I guess that's why he threw in the word "almost".

As the Churchill I in Africa, I've never seen written reference either, but there is that one(?) picture of a Churchill 1 obviously in Tunisia, looking for all the world like it was at work doing infantry support. The darned book's at home... probably by Zaloga... probably with the title 'Allied Tanks in North Africa"... maybe.

As to 6 pdr HE in Africa my little scenario "Assault on Lonstop" (another shameless plug) has Churchill IVs doing close infantry support with NO HE shells! Haw! I did the scenario specifically to try that out (and to watch that cool 25 pdr barrage on the mountaintop )

[Mark Gallear]

FlammingKnives -

Wha? I can't concede that a tank that has it's coolant system at the other end of the chassis to the engine, the radiator on the glacis, a hatch that is prone to brain the TC going over rough terrain, a turret ring that can't mount anything bigger than an obsolescent gun and is the most unreliable tank since the first landship could be regarded as technically good.

- (I don't know how to do the proper quote thing you chaps get up)

What I meant from a paper point of view of speed, armour, gun it does look useful. A real disaster with lots of scarce resources put into a total turkey. TOG was another one, there were loads of British tracked turkeys! Churchll redeemed itself.

I know it would p*ss off the players but Battlefront should have a reasonably high rate of breakdowns compared to the Germans for all British stuff in the early period - with a discount on points of course - just to give the player the right idea . (Same goes for Italian stuff if not more so). The first really reliable British tank was the Valentine - it was used in this period - unlike Comet.

MikeyD looking forward to your pictures and the MODs !

[ December 05, 2003, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

- (I don't know how to do the proper quote thing you chaps get up)

Click on the quotation marks on the right at the top of the post you want to quote.

I know it would p*ss off the players but Battlefront should have a reasonably high rate of breakdowns compared to the Germans for all British stuff in the early period - with a discount on points of course - just to give the player the right idea

This was discussed some time back and the official position, which was generally agreed with, was that the breakdowns mostly occurred on the way to the battlefield and not so much on it. So, the most accurate way to model it would be to have tanks not present in the troop at set up. And of course, this is already in the game.

Michael

[von Lucke]

Churchill T31954/R (Name of commander not known), October 1942.

This site has all the info you prolly ever want to know about "KingForce" and it's 6 Churchills at el Alamein. According to the author --- who served with the North Irish Horse at the Battle of Longstop, BTW --- the Churchill Mk III's at Alamein were reworked models (hence the "R"), i.e; formerly Mk I's or II's.

He has this to say about their first combat action: "Led by Major King, Churchills went into action for the first time since the Raid on Dieppe. Everything considered, they acquitted themselves well despite Cpl Kelly Appleby's tank having to leave the field when its 6-pdr gun failed to return from the recoil position. Major King's tank, although it had been hit eight times without being penetrated, claimed hits on four Panzers. Of the six Churchills engaged, 2nd Lt. Appleby's tank was destoyed after being hit in excess of fifty times, eight of which coming from "friendly fire." Later examination showed that the Churchill, despite all the hits, was only penetrated three times. Sadly, Appleby and three of his crew were killed, the one survivor being wounded. By day's end, the enemy having withdrawn their forces from the Kidney Ridge area, KingForce withdrew in order get the remaining five Churchills ready for whatever may lie ahead."

[Mark Gallear]

Thanks von Lucke.

Found this site which has breakdown of Churchill and other tank types in Italy other time by unit. Some units include Churchill 1 just to confuse the issue, although these may be reconstituted Churchills. It says there are being used in the close support role. Which would point to a 3inch gun possibly moved to the turret in a III conversion and still called Churchill 1 to differentiate them?

http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/a22/index.htm

It is the Churchill anks in Italy article if it does not go straight there - there are other aticles on Churchill NA and 95mm gun versions.

[ December 06, 2003, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]