Churchill good or not

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
SubSonic
Member
Posts: 94
Joined: 10 Feb 2004, 20:23
Location: The kingdom of Sweden, County Scania

Churchill good or not

#1

Post by SubSonic » 03 May 2005, 13:34

I have noticed that there have been many comparing between many thanks. But now i want to make an comparing between the churchill and the sherman. Your toughts about it

User avatar
Sun Tsu
Member
Posts: 359
Joined: 27 Feb 2004, 19:04
Location: Sweden (Gothenburg atm)

#2

Post by Sun Tsu » 03 May 2005, 15:09

HI SONIC


Churchill: Heavily armoured (although not as heavily armoured as the tiger), good gun (at least the earlier marks, with the 6-pounder), capable of climbing anything not vertical (slight overstatement, but you get my point). but "somewhat" slow.

Sherman: Almost enough armour (a bit to weak, but still), a somewhat to weak gun (75mm, that is), good manouverability, potential the be upgunned (as shown with the 17pdr and 76.2mm guns, which, also, turns the point "somewhat weak gun" into "very good gun"), and, msot of all, looking ****** nice ( :P )

All this is, of course, citing from my not so reliable memory, so some numbers "might" be wrong


von Adler
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 16 Aug 2002, 12:49
Location: Ã…rsta, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

#3

Post by von Adler » 03 May 2005, 16:15

The Sherman had five distinct disadvantages.

1. A high profile.
2. Petrol engine prone to catch fire if hit.
3. Bad gun (the short 75mm based on the mle 1897 just did not cut it 1942 and onwards)
4. Bad/mediocre suspension and mobility
5. Exposed ammunition

Now, 3, 4 and 5 was all nullified by the M4A3(76)HVSS - with a long-barelled 76,2mm gun, wet stovage for the ammo and improved suspension the M4A3(76)HVSS brought out the best in the Sherman - however, it was produced in suprisingly small amounts - the short 75mm gun Sherman still dominated the American tank forces on VE day.

Interesting is also that the Soviets refused petrol engine Shermans and the lendlease sherman they recieved all had diesel engines.

Now, the Churchill was intended as a heavy support tank with thick armour and low speed, its finest version probably being the Crocodile - still, it is not really fair to compare them, as they were different tanks intended for different roles - it would be like comparing the T-34 to the Tiger.

User avatar
SubSonic
Member
Posts: 94
Joined: 10 Feb 2004, 20:23
Location: The kingdom of Sweden, County Scania

#4

Post by SubSonic » 03 May 2005, 22:32

Even if the chruchiull was slower, I have read somewhere that the chuchill was better on off-road: like trench crossing, obstical climbing.

User avatar
Gerry Chester
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 24 Jan 2003, 19:39
Location: Now world traveller, UK, Bali, USA
Contact:

#5

Post by Gerry Chester » 04 May 2005, 05:54

von Adler wrote: ....the Churchill was intended as a heavy support tank with thick armour and low speed, its finest version probably being the Crocodile
As useful as were the Crocodiles, after dropping their trailers their effectiveness was lessened by only mounting 75mm guns - good HE but indifferent AP capability. In the Tunisian and Italian theatres the Mark IV mounting a 6-pdr got the better of both Tigers and Panthers. Also, without a trailer to hinder them, they could climb to places where the Germans expected no tank could possibly go.

However, as the topic is comparing Churchills with Shermans, perhaps my article may help to put things into perspective:
http://www.nih.ww2site.com/nih/Articles/15.html

Cheers Gerry

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#6

Post by JonS » 04 May 2005, 06:48

von Adler wrote:The Sherman had five distinct disadvantages.

2. Petrol engine prone to catch fire if hit.
Only some models (as you pointed out) had a petrol engine, but it wasn't that big-of a deal anyway*. The main thing causing Shermans to burn was the main-armament ammo being ruptured then the propellant burning catastrophically after a penetration of the hull. This weakness was made much worse by the the way ammo storage was arranged, but also due tendency of crews to overstock on ammo, meaning that shells were stored outside the bins that were available.

Wet storage alleviated much of this, but so did forcing crews to only carry the 'proper' amount of ammo. It only alleviated it because, realistically, a penetrated tank is - in most cases - a rooted tank, regardless of whether it burns or not. That only affects whether it's worth recovering or not.

Regards
JonS

* it's probably also worth pointing out that most (all?) of the German tank engines were petrol powered. So was the Churchill for that matter, IIRC.

von Adler
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 16 Aug 2002, 12:49
Location: Ã…rsta, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

#7

Post by von Adler » 04 May 2005, 09:18

Only the early war German tanks ran on petrol.

Don't forget that the main purpose of the armour fo teh tank is not to protect the tank, but to make the crew survive a hit and live to fight (with their long and expensive training and valuable experience) another day - and the early Shermans were bad at that.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#8

Post by JonS » 04 May 2005, 11:43

von Adler wrote:Only the early war German tanks ran on petrol.
It depends how you slice it of course, but personally I don't consider the Tiger I or II, nor the Panther, nor even the PzIV (any model) to be 'early war'. (Chamberlain & Doyle)
Don't forget that the main purpose of the armour fo teh tank is not to protect the tank, but to make the crew survive a hit and live to fight (with their long and expensive training and valuable experience) another day - and the early Shermans were bad at that.
Quite. But that is, of course, a function of the armour. However you will notice, as even a cursory glance at my previous post will confirm, that I didn't talk about armour, but instead about fuel and propellant. And more particularly about your misconception regarding the engine-fuel-casualty linkage as it relates to the Sherman.

But since you brought it up ... avg crew cas per KO'd Sherman was on the order of 1. To emphasise; that's cas, not killed. Seems like it's protecting the crew ok to me. Sucks to be the 1, of course, but 80% of the time you ain't.

Regards
JonS
Last edited by JonS on 05 May 2005, 04:52, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#9

Post by Andy H » 04 May 2005, 12:54

SubSonic wrote:Even if the chruchiull was slower, I have read somewhere that the chuchill was better on off-road: like trench crossing, obstical climbing.
Certainly in those two stated area's the Churchill had advantages over the Sherman. This was especially true within the Italian environment, where Churchills would appear to the surprise of the Germans becuase they thought the terrain to harsh for the Allied tanks. It certainly was on many occassions for the Sherman in Italy. They both complemented each other though in the end

Andy H

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 03:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

#10

Post by Polynikes » 04 May 2005, 14:46

Strange how the larger Churchill tank was unable to take the 17lb gun that the Sherman Firefly mounted though.

The Cromwell also appeared at first glance to be able to take the larger gun yet could not - in the Comet derivative, the 17lb gun had to be modified before it would fit.

The Churchill was just a step of the evolutionary development ladder that eventually saw a great tank - the Centurion - be developed. It took a long time but eventually the British got the idea.

Oh and a tank's armour is there to protect the crew and the tank itself.

von Adler
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 16 Aug 2002, 12:49
Location: Ã…rsta, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

#11

Post by von Adler » 04 May 2005, 14:59

Actually, a prototype Churchill iwth a 17pdr mounted was made, called the "Black Prince" - the war ended before it could see service though, and soon the Chieftain was available.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

#12

Post by RichTO90 » 04 May 2005, 15:12

von Adler wrote:Only the early war German tanks ran on petrol.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. No German production tanks used diesel, all were petrol.
Don't forget that the main purpose of the armour fo teh tank is not to protect the tank, but to make the crew survive a hit and live to fight (with their long and expensive training and valuable experience) another day - and the early Shermans were bad at that.
Actually survivability of the crew and protection of the tank are somewhat interdependent. And exactly how were "Shermans" any worse at that than any of their contemporaries?

User avatar
Michael Emrys
Member
Posts: 6002
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 19:44
Location: USA

#13

Post by Michael Emrys » 05 May 2005, 00:05

von Adler wrote:3. Bad gun (the short 75mm based on the mle 1897 just did not cut it 1942 and onwards)
That presupposes that the only purpose of a tank is to fight other tanks. Actually, I was surprised to see figures on what a tiny percentage of Shermans were ever actually faced with a German AFV. Most of the time they were engaging non-armored targets, and for that, the 75mm was better as it carried a larger bursting charge.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#14

Post by Andy H » 05 May 2005, 00:20

von Adler wrote:Actually, a prototype Churchill iwth a 17pdr mounted was made, called the "Black Prince" - the war ended before it could see service though, and soon the Chieftain was available.
I think you mean Centurion old boy :wink:

Andy H

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 03:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

#15

Post by Polynikes » 07 May 2005, 17:48

Yes I was forgetting the Black Prince - the Churchill tank was used as the basis for the Black Prince which did house a 17lb gun, though the chassis did have to be widended for the wider tracks to support the bigger/heavier turret.

The Cromwell was also extensively modified (with a big, ugly turret) in the Challenger to accomodate the 17lb gun but the resulting turret proved somewhat impractical.

Yet the smaller Sherman M4 was able to take a 17lb gun without major alterations.

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”