Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.

View Poll Results: Opinion about the Churchill.

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • Very good tank, the finest in british RTRs.

    7 16.67%
  • Good but only in the MTO.

    16 38.10%
  • Mediocre, too slow and undergunned.

    18 42.86%
  • The worst piece of garbage ever imposed to a Royal tank regiment.

    2 4.76%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 113

Thread: Churchill Infantry Tank.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default Churchill Infantry Tank.

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

    All about this slow but sturdy british tank design.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

    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://www.armourinfocus.co.uk

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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,403

    Default

    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...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

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



    Mark VII characteristics.









    Mark I, and the prime minister.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,403

    Default

    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...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

    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.




    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.






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


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,930

    Default

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

    Good site here http://www.desertrat.brigades.btinte.../equipment.htm

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



    Never seen this varient until now.

    Quote Originally Posted by website above
    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!!!!




    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.
    If you post idiocy, don't get upset if you are seen as an idiot.... I don't.

    Here endth the lesson.




    Have you seen any combat?

    Seen a little on TV.

    You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,930

    Default

    More yet.






    Titan is built on the same chassis.

    If you post idiocy, don't get upset if you are seen as an idiot.... I don't.

    Here endth the lesson.




    Have you seen any combat?

    Seen a little on TV.

    You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

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



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

    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.









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



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

    Churchill 1 with the carpet device used in Dieppe.




    Mark III with the carpet device completely shot up.





    Churchills and LCTs in the jingle beach.





    Close up to the deep fording equipment in Churchills III.


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    england
    Posts
    37

    Default

    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

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

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


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    england
    Posts
    37

    Default

    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

Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •