Better protected than a Tiger I?

[daveh]

The early marks of Churchill had frontal armour of 102mm later boosted to 152mm in the Mk VII. The Tiger I had 100mm so was the Churchill a better armoured tank than the Tiger?. How did the side armour compare? Both the Churchill and the Tiger I lack sloped armour to any great extent so basic thickness could be an adequate basis of comparison.

Did the Germans have a "fear" of the Churchill as a well protected opponent or was this just the case with the Churchill Crocodile flame thrower variant?

[Reaps]

Well, taking a look at the Churchill VIII, the combination of 152mm of frontal armour and a 95mm gun seems pretty imposing

But the pathetic power to weight ratio of 7.7hp/ton (even worse than the Jagdtiger) would start to make one wonder...

I'm afraid I really don't know that much about the Churchill to say, suffice that I have never heard of the Churchill ever creating the 'bogeyman' effect that the Tiger had on the allies - and if I recall, ole' Winston was less than impressed to have this tank named after him The biscuit-tin design would suggest that it was designed with a WW1 frame of mind, and therefore a lot of other factors (crew layout, optics etc) that I simply don't know much about would come into play

Edit: A few things I should've added.. The Churchill was designed as an infantry support tank to my knowledge (if not, it certainly wound up that way), which could probably excuse it's ponderous speed. Even though it could fire hollow charge shells, I'd question how many it would have on board considering it's primary use in infantry support/assault; and the stubby gun probably wouldn't have helped it throw any shell particularly far with any accuracy

So yes, I'd still hedge my bet on the Tiger, both statistically and psychologically

[Second try]

The Churchill VII/VIII had much thicker armor-max 152mm- on the front and slightly on the sides though thinner on the rear. Also there were more allied tanks had better frontal armor protection than the Tiger like the assault tank M4AE2 Sherman Jumbo- and the very late war M26 Pershing.

[Andy H]

Another version of the Churchill, was intially known as the Super Churchill but later officially named Black Prince (A43). Whilst it shared many qualities of the MkVII it had a longer gun (17pdr OQF), bigger turret, and wider hull. However it shared the same engine as the MkVII, but with it's greater armour protection it could only muster 11mph max. 6 were built and delivered for trials in May'45. A full test programme was done but it was superceded by the outstanding Centurion tank

Andy

[Gerry Chester]

Quote:
"I'm afraid I really don't know that much about the Churchill to say, suffice that I have never heard of the Churchill ever creating the 'bogeyman' effect that the Tiger had on the allies."
Unquote.

Response:
True. Fortunately the Germans, for some unexplicable reason, never comprehended that the Churchill, when properly deployed, was a tank superior to any they fielded (including both the Tiger and Panther) in North Africa and Italy.

The Allies learned some valuable lessons from the tragedy that was the Raid on Dieppe. Ignoring the fact that several Churchills were able to climb onto the esplanade, the Germans remained convinced that no Allied tank could match the climbing ability of their Panzers. Consequently, many of their mountain and hill-top defensive positions, had little or no Anti-Tank weaponry in place. Surprisingly, the Germans failed to learn a lesson from what happened to their troops in the hills of Tunisia - particularly in the mountains near Oued Zarga and at Longstop Hill - as many of their hill-top positions in Italy were similarly poorly defended. Relevant is:
http://www.geocities.com/vqpvqp/nih/add ... gstop.html

Quote:
"If I recall, ole' Winston was less than impressed to have this tank named after him."
Unquote.

Response:
This observation is not supported by either in his speeches or memoirs.

Quote:
"The Churchill was designed as an infantry support tank to my knowledge (if not, it certainly wound up that way), which could probably excuse it's ponderous speed."
Unquote.

Response:
The Churchill was an I Tank designed as such and, when properly employed it was a formidable weapon. My regiment, the North Irish Horse, was particularly fortunate in having a CO, Lt Colonel (later Major-General Sir) David Dawnay. KVCO, CB, DSO, who fully realised the tank's potential. Its speed was more than adequate and its effectiveness supporting infantry is well documented.

Quote:
"Even though it could fire hollow charge shells, I'd question how many it would have on board considering it's primary use in infantry support/assault; and the stubby gun probably wouldn't have helped it throw any shell particularly far with any accuracy."
Unquote.

Response:
The only "stubby gun" was the 95mm which was mounted on the Mark V.
Another lesson not learned by the Germans, as their post-Dieppe report shows, was how effective the 6-pdr actually was. It is no coincidence that when Churchill's were properly deployed, the loss/kill ratio was much in their favour. For instance, of the ten of my Regiment's tanks destroyed in Tunisia only one was from a PKw IV. Six were lost to A/T guns, one by a dive-bombing Stuka and two by falling into a ravine. Our bag is illustrated here:
http://www.geocities.com/vqpvqp/nih/add ... narms.html

Quote:
" I'd still hedge my bet on the Tiger, both statistically and psychologically."
Unquote.

Response:
Not one that would be taken by those of us who crewed the tank, as the Churchill was the safest tank in which to serve of all the AFVs deployed in WW II. This is proven by its death/knocked out ratio compared with that of other tanks.

[daveh]

Many thanks Gerry for sharing your experiences and insights.

Most of the material I have read says something like " and with the support of tanks the objective was taken". Reading the words of some one who was there gives a much greater insight into the effectiveness of the Churchill.

I found the part on the hill climbing abilites of the Churchill very interesting and the example of Long stop hill is very very impressive. The lack of response to this ability is a point I have not seen before. Given the frequency of tank support for British attacks it seems strange that the much vaunted German army did not seem able to believe that their hill top positions were now vulnerable to Churchills.

If you have more information on the kill ratios of the Churchill I would be most interested. Given the fact that the Churchill was much more likely to meet Panzer IVs and StuG's than the Tiger or Panther was the Churchill in a similar position to the Tiger ie could knock out its oppnents well before they could close enough to kill the Churchill?

[Gerry Chester]

Many thanks Gerry for sharing your experiences and insights.

Most of the material I have read says something like " and with the support of tanks the objective was taken". Reading the words of some one who was there gives a much greater insight into the effectiveness of the Churchill.

I found the part on the hill climbing abilites of the Churchill very interesting and the example of Long stop hill is very very impressive. The lack of response to this ability is a point I have not seen before. Given the frequency of tank support for British attacks it seems strange that the much vaunted German army did not seem able to believe that their hill top positions were now vulnerable to Churchills.

If you have more information on the kill ratios of the Churchill I would be most interested. Given the fact that the Churchill was much more likely to meet Panzer IVs and StuG's than the Tiger or Panther was the Churchill in a similar position to the Tiger ie could knock out its oppnents well before they could close enough to kill the Churchill?

Hello again,

First to answer your question. In the open, as 48 RTR discovered, the Tiger with its 88mm had the advantage. However, being I Tanks, our Churchills fought most of the time where the positions were reversed. To more fully explain:

While defending, the golden rule was to position the tanks to be not visible to the enemy, usually hull-down and, on occasion, behind buildings. There we would wait until enemy tanks came into our most efficient killing range of 600 yards or so. From our first defensive action, the lesson quickly learned was not to fire too soon. Following the first actions of Tigers deployed in Tunisia, the commander of sPzAbt 501 wrote a report to the effect that tank commanders should hold their fire until being in closer proximity to their targets. Again, another example of what should have been a lesson learned and followed was ignored. Ironically, when the tanks of sPzAbt 501 came up our defensive positions near Beja they fired too soon, At the end of the day, as stated in the records of Schwere Panzer Abteilungen, the Heavy Tank Brigade lost so many tanks that it ceased to be an effective fighting force.

It is proud tradition of the NIH that the Regiment never once left a defensive position involuntarily.

When attacking in the hills, most of the trouble we experienced came from A/T guns. The three tank Troop system we employed got progressively better as we moved up the boot of Italy. If no enemy tanks were expected, two of the Churchills would have HE loaded (either 75mm or 6-pdr). When they were expected it was the reverse - two AP, one HE.

In open country (which wasn't very often) where the likely hood of Panzers being present was greater, our tactics were dictated by the expected opposition. For instance, when we successfully assaulted the Hitler Line it was on a broad front. Fortunately, because the visibility was so poor, despite heavy losses mostly from A/T weaponry, none were from Panzer fire - our bag on that day was two Panthers (the first to be knocked out by western tanks) and two PxKw Mk IV Specials. My tank was the first to be knocked, by a dug in Panther turret, so I didn't see much of the action.

More on fighting in the hills. Of the many instances I could quote one stands out. For two weeks we had been advancing northwards, west of the river Arno, capturing lightly defended (I.e. from tanks) hilltops one after the other. On reaching the hill upon which sits the Monastèro di Incontro, a key to the capture of Florence, we were expecting some serious casualties from A/T guns, which surely the Germans would have positioned by the time we reached it. Fortunately, so convinced were the enemy that tanks could not possibly reach their positions, they expected the Panzer Grenadiers equipped only with Panzerfausts could take care of things! I have recorded this event, please see:
http://www.geocities.com/vqpvqp/nih/nar ... aly15.html

On occasion, the Churchill's climbing ability also surprised the infantry, even the redoubtable hill fighters of the 4th Indian Division. The following extract is from The Tiger Triumphs - The Story of Three Great Divisions in Italy - Chapter 15: "At dawn the chug and roar of tanks announced the arrival of North Irish Horse, only an hour behind the infantry---a magnificent performance for tracked vehicles over such terrain."

Regards,

Gerry