Churchill Questions

Hey guys new to forum here but sadly have been ghosting for a few months.

Ok I have a question: I play ww2 online and the just recently brought out the Chruchill VII (7). This is an awsomly powerful tank on the battlefeild. Why dosnt it get so muuch credit in real life for the actions it took? Or perhaps I have just had deaf ears on...

 

They have it dumbed down in WWII Online. Most guns easily penetrate it at combat ranges at nearly any angle.

 

Welcome Grabbers!

Glads to see you decided to join in.


Right, the Churchill VII.

Well, while it (along with all the Churchills) had nice thick armour, it had a few flaws also.

1) the armour was definately unsloped, which made penetrating it that much easier, and as Danyel says, the later-war German anti-tank guns were capable of penetrating at combat range (ie: quite close!) the 152mm (if memory serves) that was the Churchill's max.

2) it was bloomin' slow (20km/h on road).

3) its 75mm gun was relatively weak (when compared to the 75mm gun on the Panther, for example).

Having said all that, it was a useful tank, and from what I have read it was well-liked by its crews. Good features include:

1) strong armour (yes, I know what I said above, but it was still superior to the Valentine or Cromwell)

2) very roomy internally, which aided crew comfort and allowed it to be converted to all kinds of uses, from AVRE to bridge-layer to flamethrower.

 

There are a couple of other things I've heard about the Churchill.

It was by tank standards quite a good mountain climber which came as a nasty surprise to the Germans on at least one occasion in Tunisia. The Germans had decided that a particular hill was tank proof so didn't put in any AT weapons and were rather put out when a section of Churchills trundled up.

I'm not sure how true the second thing I've heard is.

After the failed Dieppe raid the Germans captured a number of Churchill and of course tested them. Their report on the design was not favourable. Somewhere alone the line the British got hold of this and used the German recommendations to improve the next version of the tank.


On the whole the Churchill didn't do to bad for a design that was basically obsolete in concept before it got off the design board.

 

I read that the Germans modified one of the Churchills they captured by fitting upper return rollers to the track, instead of the usual sliding-in-a-groove system. This reduced track friction drag so much that the tank went considerably quicker.

I also recall hearing of one long-range slugging match between a Tiger 1 and a Churchill - which the Churchill won! It was fitted with a 6 pdr firing APDS shot, which was capable of penetrating the Tiger's frontal armour, and (IIRC) had various additional bits of armour welded on the front (as was apparently often done) which made it impervious to the 88mm. Don't underestimate the 6 pdr - it was a much better hole-puncher than the 75mm, and with APDS very much better: better even than the 88mm L/56 of the Tiger 1.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

Danyel Phelps:

Ive had considerable success with the Church 7 in game. It does become tracked easily but that masive front armour lets it stand up to anthing other than an 88. Thats what I have found so far anyways. This could also be because I tend not to drive at an objective but work the flanks. Ya I work the flanks with a tank that goes 14 MPH with the wind at its back and downhill! :lol:

It will be intresting to see how it handdles against the Panther and the Tiger.

Yes I have found for a 75mm gun it dosnt pack as much as I had hoped, in fact I would say the "ingame" 6lbr is more of a potent weapon.

Ahh Dieppe, my Canadian fore-fathers fought bravely but were still beaten by those nasty huns! I dont think any Churchs made it off the beach did they? I thought I read somwhere the shale beach was to difficult for the tracks.

Anyways thanks for the insight! Why do you think this tank was pushed into the background of armour fame ? All the limelight taken by the Sherman and the likes?

 

All 88 and 75mm guns penetrate the Glacis up to a Kilometer out and well over. Almost anything can defeat the Churchill from the side. Hell, I killed a Churchill Mk. VII with a 38(T).

The Churchill is very dumbed down in this game. The front glacis should be neigh impenetrable in long range combat by all German weapon systems currently in game, but it isn't.

 

OK and how good were the 152mm of armor in the real world? Sounds like too much for a Pak 40, even at 100m. APCR is likely to do the job, but Germany had very little APCR ammo.

 

Hi Tony this sounds very interesting, do you have any details (range,number of hits on both side, time and place of engagement etc.) and an available source ?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the APDS shot was quite inaccurate (especially at longer ranges) and rapidly lost penetrating power compared to a full size APCBC shot ?

I find the 6 pdr. gun very intriguing, and I wonder why on earth the Brits didn't come up with an acceptable HE round ?
How do you rate it compared to the Germans 50 mm L42 and L60 in terms of accuracy, penetration power, HE capacity and general effectivness ?

 

Bear in mind that the six pounder was only a 57mm (2.24") shell. There is going to be a limit to how much bang you can squeeze in.

 

Hi Ebar

I get your point, but I haven't heard that the Germans were dissatified with their 50mm guns regarding their HE capacity ?

Maybe Tony Williams has some idea's or useful information.

Also I have read somewhere ( I think it was in the 'Universal Tank') that the 75 mm gun was preferred to the 6 pdr. because of it's superior HE cpacity and better AT performance at long range.

 

You will find details of the 6 pdr's performance in the article '6 pdr 7 cwt and the Molins Gun' on my website. It is a complicated subject because there were two differnt barrel lengths as well as various different loadings, and it took me some time to amass all of the data (I don't think you'll find such complete performance data on the gun anywhere else).

You will note that at 1,000 yards (920m) and 30 degree striking angle the APDS would penetrate 117mm. In the same circumstances, the US/British 75mm would penetrate around 60mm, the German 50mm L/60 only 50mm (55mm APCR), the 75mm L/48 (Pz IV) 80mm, the 75mm L/70 (Panther) 121 mm and the 88mm L/56 around 100mm (figures from 'Fire and Movement', published by the RAC Tank Museum).

You are right that the early APDS was much less accurate and was only supposed to be used at up to 800 yards as a result. Also, HE was almost unavailable and not very effective compared with the 75mm - and tanks spent far more time shooting at soft targets than they did other tanks, so the general preference for the 75mm is understandable. The British did keep some 6 pdr tanks available in 1944/5, however, because they were so good at hole punching!

I don't have any more details of the Churchill v Tiger duel, it was something I heard about a long time ago. But if you look at those figures, it was feasible.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

Thanks Tony this answers my question.

Frankly I thought that the 50 mm L60 and the 6 pdr. were fairly close matched, but I am obviously mistaken :-?

Off topic :

I intend to spend my next vacation (Spring 06) in South England (Portsmouth).
Visiting the tank museum in Bovington is something I have been considering for a long time, I expecft to spend 2 day's looking at tanks (I have about 1 GB memery cards for my digital camera). Any recommendations for a visit to Bovington would be appriciated.

 

It is many years since I visited Bovington but if you like tanks it is a must-see. Their web address is: http://www.tankmuseum.co.uk/home.html

TW

 

Bovvie is a must. 2 days is probably the minimum you need - I had 1 day and had to skim past a lot.

IIRC they have a Centurion (or is it a Chieftain?) that has been cut in half as an exhibit - a great favourite of model-makers!

 

They must have blunted a fair few hacksaws doing that

 

The shell was 57mm, but the case was not. With 441mm length it was between the 50mm L/60(419mm) and the 75mm L/48(495mm). Especially the comparison with the 75mm shell(350mm) of the Sherman´s gun shows more propellant could be squeezed in the 6 pdr´s case.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankuk2.jpg

I prefer to think of the 6 pdr as a Pak40 in disguise, and not as a "pimped" 50mm gun.

Comet fan, Tony once said the 6 pdr shell had 1/3 more muzzle energy than the shell of a 50mm L/60 gun.

 

In this case I was referring to explosive in the shell rather than the propellant within the case. That will teach me not to be loose with my terminology. :-?

 

I see, you answered the first question why the British made no HE shell, while I was thinking you refered to the second one, especially to penetration power. By the way: IIRC the US had a HE shell for their 6pdrs. The reason for this was probably: "Better have a weak one, than none."

 

I was always under the impression that we (Britain) had a HE round for the 6pdr, but hardly made any. Or at least, hardly gave any to our armoured units.