Churchill Infantry Tank.

[Panzerknacker]

"This tank carring my name have more drawbacks that me" Winton Churchill 1941

All about this slow but sturdy british tank design.

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/7695/churchilltank270ke3.jpg

[Panzerknacker]

Development of the Churchill, the British Tank Doctrine

In the late thirties British tank doctrine identified three distinct roles for tanks these being classified as light tanks, intended for reconnaissance, cruisers for rapid exploitation of breakthroughs and Infantry tanks. Infantry tanks were to support the infantry providing covering fire, dealing with obstacles and fortifications etc. The primary requirement of such tanks was that they should be heavily armoured and that they were able to go everywhere the infantry went.

A22

The A22 can be viewed in many ways as a continuation of the A-20 Following Dunkirk it was realised that the static warfare that had been expected was not going to occur - at least not for some time and so the 'shelled area' concept of the A20 was abandoned.

However, a successor for the A12 and Valentine was still required and with this in mind the General Staff drew up a requirement for A.22. To implement this requirement the Ministry of Supply turned to Vauxhall who as we have already seen had previously been approached with regard to A.20 production.

Development work started in July 1940 and because of the urgent need to re-arm after Dunkirk, Churchill himself required that the new tank be ready for production the following March with 500 being ordered pretty much off the drawing board. The first prototypes were completed by December 1940 and the first 14 production tanks delivered at the end of June and despite missing the Churchill's target date this still represents a tremendous engineering effort.

The earlier Churchills were plagued by a whole host of problems such as tracks breaking and suspension units failing but given the incredible pace of development and the rush to get them into production this was perhaps inevitable. Despite the many component failures the design itself did prove to be quite robust with damaged vehicles often managing to limp back from their trials under their own power. As faults were identified and fixed a massive re-work program was introduced with Vauxhall engineers often being seconded to units in the field. Several times Churchill production was in danger of being the stopped but when push came to shove there wasn't any real alternative and new orders were placed.

A-22 prototype.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-A20.jpg


http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks

[Nickdfresh]

I actually like the Churchill tank. It's quite distinctive and was effective in its intended role as a support tank. Definitely had a short life span as an effective MBT though...

[Panzerknacker]

I think it would be extremely effective with at list 10 km/h more and a real armament.

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/9819/churchill1sr3.gif

Mark VII characteristics.


http://i19.tinypic.com/63b4k1l.jpg



http://i7.tinypic.com/4pnki8h.jpg


Mark I, and the prime minister.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4310/chucray0.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

I think (as seemed to be the problem with upgrading British tanks like the Matilda) was that they were limited by the turret, and modifying the chassis to accept a larger turret with a larger gun was almost as time consuming as designing a new model...

[Firefly]

Churchills served their purpose. The AVRE was a good variant. The 90mm armed Churchill was a great support tank. It was well armoured and could take some punishment and of course, the Crocodile was simply awesome in the flame role.

[Panzerknacker]

Yeap, but the early varints Mk-I and Mk-II were extremely disbalanced...I mean a heavy armor but with a peashooter of 40mm wich was good for a 16 tons cruiser tank, but no for a 39 tons Churchill.

Mk-I , with a 2 pounder in cast turret nad 3 inches howitzer in the hull.

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/7388/churchillxt2.jpg


Mark II, the same as Mk I but with the howitzer in the turret, and the O.Q.F 2 pounder antitank weapon in the front barbette with a very limited firing arc.


http://www.desertrat.brigades.btinternet.co.uk/Equipment/Armour/ChurchillMKIIcs.jpg



Mark I without the howitzer, a 7,92mm Besa instead.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/7061/churchilltankkz5.jpg

[1000ydstare]

The Churchil "funnies". So called because they were specialised (and thus looked funny".

Good site here http://www.desertrat.brigades.btinternet.co.uk/equipment.htm

Of which this one has just taken my interest...

http://www.desertrat.brigades.btinternet.co.uk/Equipment/Armour/ChurchillARK.jpg

Never seen this varient until now.

Churchill ARK - This was a turretless Churchill with ramps at either end and along the body to form a mobile bridge. The Mark 1 ARK had 2' wide trackways over the tracks for vehicles to drive along and the vehicle would lower ramps by a quick release, while the Mark 2 ARK was an improvised version and crossing vehicles drove directly on the Churchill's tracks. There were two versions of the Mark 2, with one the 'UK Pattern' having wider trackways than the ARK MK 1 which were now 4ft wide and the 'Italian Pattern' which was the 'UK Pattern' tank, but used US ramps which were either 12' 3.5" (MK 2) or 15' 1" (MK 1) wide. These had no built-up trackways, with the vehicles tracks being used and these were produced by converting MK IIIs in Italy.

The AVRE has always been my favourite, mainly because of the description of the weapons projectile. The "dustbin" or "flying dustbin". I don't know why but I have images of a flying dustbin (for americans "garbage pale") flying throught the air, with it's bin lid just on and rubbish coming out from under the lid like streamers.

PTN

The current AVRE in service with the Royal Engineers (Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers) is NOT capable of bridging. It performs a variety of tasks but the AVLB or AVLAB (Armoured Vehicle Launched Bridge) is the Bridge layer.

Soon to be replaced with Titan and Trojan. 60 tonnes of boys toy!!!!

http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2006510566,00.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/11/britTrankPA_600x397.jpg
Above is the Trojan (as in Trojan Horse, to get you inside the enemy camp),

In the bottom picture it is lifting Land Rovers out of the way with it's bucket/grab.

Trojan is able to plough through minefields, build trenches and dig defensive ditches, while Titan can lay a bridge over a 26 metre gap in just two minutes.

[1000ydstare]

More yet.
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/trojantank/02_350x243.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/trojantank/03_350x228.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/trojantank/04_350x237.jpg

Titan is built on the same chassis.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/trojantank/06_350x244.jpg

[Panzerknacker]

Definately the britons wre the most dedicated people in the ww2 to produce special purpose tanks.


http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6919/chuchmp2.jpg

[Panzerknacker]

Churchills In action:

The operational debut of the Churchil was in the difficult terrains of the Dieppe beachs.
An extract from "Churchill infantry tank" by Bryan Perret/ Ospreys.


http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5413/11et5.jpg



http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/87/22qe0.jpg


Cheetah, one of the Churchills III wich climbed the seawall and was engaged in fierce battle with the german gunners.


http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/4210/ddmy0.jpg

[Panzerknacker]

Churchill 1 with the carpet device used in Dieppe.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-InfantryTank-Churchill-carpetdevice-TLC.jpg


Mark III with the carpet device completely shot up.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/5531/gbinfantrytankchurchillcarpetdevicedieppewc3.jpg



Churchills and LCTs in the jingle beach.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/DieppeAugust211942-SignalSer.jpg



Close up to the deep fording equipment in Churchills III.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/4714/dieppechurchill1ee5.jpg

[rascman]

hi all, re Churchill Tank, there is a good book around, written by Bryan Perrett
entitled The Churchill.
My copy was published in 1974, so maybe not something to be found on a bookshop shelf, I got mine via ebay;

isbn no 0 7110 0533 8
pub by Ian Allen Ltd.

Andy

[Panzerknacker]

Thank for the tip, I have that, this is a good one too.

http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/2841/gggggpc1.jpg

[rascman]

Cheers for that recomendation; have seen this one a few times on e bay, will have to secure myself a copy.

All the best,

Andy

[Panzerknacker]

An early attemp to carry the 17 pounder in a self proppeled mount, the Churchill 3 inch gun carrier.

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/2170/scan0001737x600ll4.png



http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/1033/scan0002800x489ki5.png

[tankgeezer]

Hi P.K. even though the Churchill was not a favored tank, I cant bring myself to dislike it. just something about it, a good, familiar kind of homely.

[Nickdfresh]

It almost looks like something that would be driven on the Somme, not the Western Desert...

[tankgeezer]

Nick, I think thats why it is so appealing,,, it feels like a hold over from WW1 a time that put the "clank" in "tank".

[Panzerknacker]

It almost looks like something that would be driven on the Somme, not the Western Desert...


:mrgreen:, the most definately agreed.


Churchill Flamethrower OKE

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/1483/okedm4.jpg

The Churchill OKE was a early form of flamethrowing tank developed in 1942. Three Oke's went on Dieppe raid in August 1942 but all were destroyed before they could use their flame projectors.


The OKE flamethrowing tank was named after its designer, Major J.M. OKE, who has submitted his ideas towards the end of 1941. The design was basically for a Churchill tank fitted with the Ronson flamethrowing equipment, which had already been fitted successfully to carriers. A cilindrical tank containing the flame fuel was fitted at the rear, with a pipe from it leading along the left hand site of the hull, passing under the tracks by the air intake, and emerging between the front horns. There it was connected to a Ronson flame projector mounted in fixed elevation.

http://i9.tinypic.com/40k8w74.jpg

This design satisfied the General Staff specification that flame throwers should be mounted only on Infantry Tanks, and that theyshould be capable of installation in unmodified production tanks. The flamethrower's range was 40 or 60 yards.

The rear fuel tank was originally unarmoured, but by the time of the Dieppe raid it had been covered by a large armoured box. Both Peter Chamberlain, in an article in Airfix Magazine in September 1967, and John Reed, in the same magazine in October 1981, state that the equipment was jettisonable. While this may have been so in the OKE's original form, the addition of an armoured box would seem to make jettison impossible.
Three Churchills were converted by Lagonda Ltd. to take the OKEequipment: T32049, T68875, and T31862.


The first two were MK-II's built by Newton Chambers and Beyer Peacock respectively. The T31862 was a MK-III built by Birmingham Railway Carriage Company. (This does not tally with books dealing with the OKE, which say that all were MK-II's.) The three OKE's comprised 8 Troop of 14 Canadian Army Tank at Dieppe; all were lost in the operation. One OKE sank in deep water after leaving it's landing craft prematurely, and another damaged its fuel tank, having made a very heavy landing. It is extremely doubtfull wheter the third tank came within sufficient range of German positions tu uese its flamethroer. There is no evidence that any further OKE's were built.

Oke knocked out in Dieppe.

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/8380/beetlezy2.jpg



http://henk.fox3000.com/churchill.htm

mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks

www.internetmodeler.com/2007/august/new-releases/book_Osprey.ph

[rascman]

With respects to Kallinikos, the Churchill was not designed as an assualt tank, where the likleyhood of 'mixing it', with enemy armour was greater, but as an infantry support tank, hence its slow overall speed, etc.
In the early days of the war,(before Tiger,Panther, etc) -and the increased use of the 88mm as an AT gun, it along with others of its ilk could well have proven themselves a match, for enemy armour.

Unfortunatly, your answer, as history has shown, against the top German tanks, all Allied armour was vunerable.

[Firefly]

As a support tank and a special I think it excelled. It could also take on any PzIV mark and win in an equal encounter. Let down by its speed it did have very good armour. Not a balanced vehicle by any means but certainly a workhorse.

[Panzerknacker]

With respects to Kallinikos, the Churchill was not designed as an assualt tank


Obviously not but seems that "Kallinikos" is doing some spam lately.

Churchills in el alamein:

A small detachmet of Churchills Mark III took part in the second battle of El Alamein in late 1942.
There was some reserves to use this vehicle in the desert given his cooling system ( forced air) however the 6 tanks of the "KingForce" formation fought well destroying 5 tanks and 3 antitank guns.

Churchill In Kidney Ridge, the italian M-14 was destroyed by this tank.

http://i7.tinypic.com/4ggp4lv.jpg


Two churchill were destroyed by the german/italian defenses and one more was left damaged with his turret jammed. The british crew counted some 106 hits on his vehicles.

http://i15.tinypic.com/44rhv1c.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Little doubt that the Churchill was a very good, effective tank but with imitations...

Unfortunately it could net be upgraded quickly or easily enough....

[Panzerknacker]

In fact neither british tank could be upgraded quickly or easily enough.

[Dallas]

The Churchill was designed as an Infantry support tank. Not as a Cruiser tank. Infantry support tanks were heavily armoured slow moving vehicles designed to destroy ground fortifications (bunkers, MG positions etc) in support of attacking infantry troops. It was not designed for tank to tank combat. That was the job of the cruiser tanks which were less heavily armoured and therefore faster and more manuverable.

For what it was designed for it was an good AFV, however as with most British and US AFV's it was grossly under gunned.

[Panzerknacker]

Not as a Cruiser tank. Infantry support tanks were heavily armoured slow moving vehicles designed to destroy ground fortifications (bunkers, MG positions etc)


How to acomplish that with a solid 40 mm or 57 mm steel shot is a matter of wondering, In Dieppe one Churchill had to ram a house in order to supress the german machinegun fire.

[kallinikosdrama1992]

spam ? why you said that . i didn't do nothing

[Firefly]

spam ? why you said that . i didn't do nothing

See PM...

[Panzerknacker]

Churchill NA 75.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-InfantryTank-Churchill4NA75.jpg

This variant was a very complex convertion of a Sherman and main gun turret into a Churchill hull, not and easy task, but it had the advantage of the dual purpose 75 mm cannon.

http://www.track48.com/articles/research/na75/3779%20B3.jpg

It was used almost exclusively in the Italian campaing. For more information check this nice site.

http://www.track48.com/articles/research/na75/3779%20B3.jpg

[Churchill]

On that picture and some others, I see two "windows" in the space between the tracks. Could you put two MGs in there, and not just one?

[Panzerknacker]

Probably but those are more useful as scape hatchs, its original purpose.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/threecounties/community/vauxhall/historic_gallery/historic4.jpg

[Churchill]

People could fit through there? They looked a little small.

[Panzerknacker]

Sure, it was better than the tiny scape hatches is the German panzers.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/5348/ddgh8.jpg

[Churchill]

I see... scape hatches make the armour weaker, so the germans probably didn't want to weaken the overall turret strenghth...

[Panzerknacker]

More or less so, eventually those turret doors were eventually deleted.

The most effective flamethrower tank of ww2 in action the churchill Crocodrile.

Drill

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/92/churchillcrocodile01td4.jpg


Combat in Holland 1944, attacking infantry near a petrol station.

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/2346/holandaur0.jpg

[Panzerknacker]

More images of the Croc.

Training. The maximum range was about 80 % more than the german flammpanzers because the fuel was thicker and the pressure used much higher.

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6391/scan0003449x600du5.jpg


Another nice shot of the same vehicle in action in Northern europe.

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/8564/nowy3copy11ds3.jpg

[Panzerknacker]

The engineers Churchill.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1512/img010kr6.jpg

[patrick1974]

I find it one of the most beautifull tanks of WW2

[Nickdfresh]

I think it is so ugly, it's beautiful. :D

From Aberdeen Proving Grounds:

[Panzerknacker]

The Churchill was a powerful tool in the hands of the allieds when the time to expell the germans from Holland came, so I suppose that is the beauty seen by Patrick.
Otherwise the tanks is quite ugly but that doesnt take away effectiveness, just grace.

More images of the AVRE and its 290 mm spigot mortar.

http://www.dday-overlord.com/img/chars/char_churchill_avre.jpg


http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7630/71856193dy4.jpg



http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6094/ti02bu3.jpg


The device was reloaded by the muzzle, not very good under combat conditions, projectile weight 18 kg, range 100 yards.

[patrick1974]

I think it is so ugly, it's beautiful. :D

From Aberdeen Proving Grounds:

That is a nice one.But my alltime favorite has to be the Sherman firefly:mrgreen:

[Django]

IIRC the Churchills help proved their worth when they climbed a hill deemed impossible for Tanks in Tunisia and caught the dug in Italians and Germans by surprise thus helping the Brits to take that heavily dug in position......please correct me if I am wrong as I am going by memory which isn't what it once was :)

BTW I always liked the old school look of the Churchill, it certainly was unique!

[Panzerknacker]

I think you are talking about the episodes of Mjerda valley.


BTW I always liked the old school look of the Churchill, it certainly was unique!


Agreed, despie the uglyness, it is appealing in some way.

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/8650/ark4vd5.jpg

[CliSwe]

I read somewhere that, given the choice, British tank crews would rather go to war in Churchills than in the more mobile, but vulnerable, Shermans. Apparently, the Brit vehicle was much roomier, better protected (of course), and easier to evacuate from. I guess crew comfort is a critical factor in an AFV's effectiveness, so the Churchill wins a lot of points there. And - in the infantry close-support role it was designed for - it was extremely effective.

Cheers,
Cliff