The Churchill Tank - A follow up

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

The Churchill Tank - A follow up

#1

Post by Gerry Chester » 22 Feb 2003, 22:30

Hello everyone,

Since being accepted as a member of the Forum, I am gradually going through the various topics starting with Non-Axis Equipment in which there are some interesting postings about the Churchill tank - even though they do not address the question posed by "admfisher."

Having fought in Churchills in Tunisia and Italy, my observations may be of interest. However, please be aware that the Churchill was an I Tank and that most of the actions fought by my Regiment were in the mountains at ranges of three-hundred metres or less.

First a listing of the various Marks employed by the North Irish Horse.

2-pdr mounted on Churchill Marks Ics:
Of the Regiment's inventory of sixty tanks just six were of this Mark. There purpose was to give close infantry support with the hull mounted 3in howitzer and a turret mounted BESA mg. This tank saw action in Tunisia and Italy.

6-pdr Mark III mounted on Churchill Mark IIIs were employed in Africa.
6-pdr Marks III and V were mounted on Churchill Mark IVs in Italy.

Na75 was a Mark IV mounted with 75mm guns taken from Shermans due for scrapping. Employed in Italy.

Mark VII mounted a British made 75mm. Employed in Italy.

Hobart's Funnies: Bridgelayer and Fascine Carrier.

While the 2-pdrs only inflicted minor damage, our 6-pdrs were more of a match for both the Tiger and Panther - the former in Africa and Italy, the latter in Italy. The speed of the Churchill was most adequate for the purpose for which it was designed. Also, of all the AFVs that took part in WW II, the Churchill was the safest in which to serve.

The 75mm HE was better than that of the 6-pdr, although the latter was quite effective when employed in the mountains of Tunisia.

The value of the two Funnies became apparent as the Regiment encountered the many rivers and dykes in northern Italy.

Also Posted by Mr. Fisher:
"My opinion of the tank has never been very high even with it's heavy armor.
As a main battle tank I believe this tank was a failure. Too slow and undergunned"

May I enquire the basis for your opinion?

User avatar
Second try
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: 30 Oct 2002, 00:54
Location: Nowhere

#2

Post by Second try » 23 Feb 2003, 21:49

Welcome Chester:)I've seen your posts on Onwar.forum It was a pleasure to read them:)

Respectfully...Col.Valentine


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

#3

Post by Gerry Chester » 24 Feb 2003, 00:01

Second try wrote:Welcome Chester:)I've seen your posts on Onwar.forum It was a pleasure to read them:)

Respectfully...Col.Valentine
Thank you Colonel for the warm welcome to the Forum, it is greatly appreciated.

With best wishes,

Gerry

User avatar
Second try
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: 30 Oct 2002, 00:54
Location: Nowhere

#4

Post by Second try » 25 Feb 2003, 23:37

Dear Mr Chester :)

Actually I'm a hungarian student and english is not my mother language but I would admire you to visit http://www.tank-net.org forum and I pretty much guarantee you that you will find a very curious and inquiring audience for your former war experiences and views. :)

Actually I haven't got business in this kind of "advertising" but it's always a exceptional honour to "meet" veterans.

Respectfully...Col.Valentine

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Churchill tank shortcomings

#5

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 20 Mar 2003, 03:08

I always thought that the limited width of the turret ring was the true problem of the churchill as it could not be upgunned past a 6-pounder and I would hate(read run away) to fight a Tiger or a Pather tank with one.

Having drove a few tanks I notice that the Chuchill has a horrible field of view for the driver which can get you stuck or killed solely though bad "ergonomics" .

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

Re: Churchill tank shortcomings

#6

Post by Gerry Chester » 22 Mar 2003, 21:49

ChristopherPerrien wrote:I always thought that the limited width of the turret ring was the true problem of the churchill as it could not be upgunned past a 6-pounder and I would hate(read run away) to fight a Tiger or a Pather tank with one.

Having drove a few tanks I notice that the Chuchill has a horrible field of view for the driver which can get you stuck or killed solely though bad "ergonomics" .
The Churchill was upgunned, with US and British 75mm guns and the Mark V (the last tank in which I served) mounted a 95mm. The purpose of installing these guns was to provide an HE capability superior to that of the 6-pdr -although the latter was used effectively in Tunisia.

Surprisingly, it was not the Panzers that were most concern (not that we were ever complacent) it was the A/T weaponry. Being an I Tank, when the Churchill was properly deployed, the 6-pdr effectively dealt with both the Tiger and Panther - for several reasons, the most important being the ability to get off rounds more quickly.
Fourteen of our Churchills were destroyed in Tunisia, of the twelve by enemy action: 9 by A/T guns, 1 by air attack, 1 by shell fire and 1 by a PKw IV.
The effectiveness of our 6-pdrs can be seen, by going to:
http://www.geocities.com/vqpvqp/nih/add ... narms.html

This pattern continued while in action in Italy. The first two Panthers to be knocked out by tanks of the Western Allies, were by Churchills of my Regiment.

It is true that the driver's vision was restricted, however this was due to the design of a tank which proved to be the safest for the crew of any that saw action in WW II.

















.

bigbuddha
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 26 Mar 2003, 14:00
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

#7

Post by bigbuddha » 02 Apr 2003, 18:03

The Churchill wasn't a bad tank at all, it was much better than a Sherman which had a nasty habit of bursting into flames when hit, the Churchill was hard to kill and reliable, even if a bit undergunned. As an AT weapon the 6pdr wasn't bad at all, (BTW I have a solid 6pdr AP round sat on my desk.) remember that the British destroyed the first Tiger they met (in Africa) with 6pdr at 600 yards (approx 500 m) which isn't bad for a 57mm weapon.

The Churchill used old-fashioned technology, with the running gear outside the hull, hence the large tracks, similar to older 1930's designs, but as it was tried and tested ideas it was reliable, and the armour was very thick. The engine was good, and although the transmission gave problems early on in the development, they ironed the problems out and it became a very reliable tank. The major drawback was the small turret ring, the Churchill being a narrow tank, with a fair portion of it's width being taken up by the running gear. The later imporved Black Prince version mounted a 17pdr but was never produced in quantity. If the British had produced a version mounting either the 17pdr or the similar 77mm weapon of the Comet the Churchill would have been a potent weapon indeed. I've explored a preserved Churchill at a small museum in the north of England and the conditions for the crew are very good for an AFV of the period.

If I'd been a brit tanker I would definitely have prefered a Churchill to a Sherman or Grant, the former of which was prone to fires the latter being very fragile and poorly designed. In my opinion the only drawback to the Churchill was the difficulty in up-gunning the tank as the war went on to keep it upto the demands of the battlefield. If I was gonna pick any Brit tank tho I think I'd have to go for a Comet, excellent mobility, good armour and excellent firepower. It was a shame the Brits didn't have a lot more of them instead of almost criminally dangerous to its crew Sherman. Sherman Firefly had saving grace of excellent 17pdr but was still hazardous to be a crewman in, due to poor armour and fire hazard.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#8

Post by Caldric » 09 Apr 2003, 20:18

bigbuddha wrote:The Churchill wasn't a bad tank at all, it was much better than a Sherman which had a nasty habit of bursting into flames when hit, the Churchill was hard to kill and reliable, even if a bit undergunned. As an AT weapon the 6pdr wasn't bad at all, (BTW I have a solid 6pdr AP round sat on my desk.) remember that the British destroyed the first Tiger they met (in Africa) with 6pdr at 600 yards (approx 500 m) which isn't bad for a 57mm weapon.
Actually the Bursting into Flames is a bit of a myth. The very first models did have problems with fires, however this was quickly fixed with wet storage of ammunition. Churchill was a good tank, however it was complicated and could not be built at the same cost and speed as the Sherman.

The Comet was a good tank, also the Centurian (which did not make production in time) was all great AFV's. The Churchill was more of an infantry tank, slow and lumbering.

Post Reply

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