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.
The device was reloaded by the muzzle, not very good under combat conditions, projectile weight 18 kg, range 100 yards.
That is a nice one.But my alltime favorite has to be the Sherman firefly:mrgreen:
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!
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.
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
I think the Churchill is a great tank.
Maybe a bit too slow and very under gunned initially, but it could take an 88 shell up to workable ranges.
Found its rel asweet spot as the basis for so many of Hobarts Funnies.
Mechanical warnings on early Churchills:
How can a tank thats slow and undergunned be great ? Panther was a great tank, a Tiger was a great tank, T-34-85 was a decent tank, Churchill was a total failure and not because of the mechanical issues either.
How many variants of the Curchill do you know about? Compare that number to the number of variants of the Panther, Tiger, and T-34/85. By variants, I’m not talking about Panzer V, ausf. A, Panzer V, ausf. B. I’m talking about the Crocodile/Crab type variants. The Churchill was an important platform for producing ARVs, something I don’t recall seeing many of the T-34/85 or Tiger.
The few variants of the Tiger I know are the Jagdtiger, the Bergetiger, and the Sturmtiger. There might be an AA Tiger, but I can’t remember the name at the moment.
Now, if you look at the Churchill variants, you will see that there are many, many more than the Tiger variants I’ve listed above.
^^ +1
To say the Churchill was a “failure” is a drastic overstatement when you don’t consider its intent and role as a direct infantry support tank. The Churchill served within its role very well and it wasn’t really designed with tank vs. tank combat in mind. To compare it to a Panther is a bit silly as it was a response to the T-34 and specifically designed to be a killer of other tanks rather than enemy infantry and battlefield emplacements. The only thing that prevented the Churchill for having a longer service life was, like most flawed earlier British tank designs, the narrow hull which prevented the mounting of a bigger turret and hence a better tank gun.
I’m sure they tried to affix a 17 pdr., but probably ran into numerous problems. This coupled with the fact that the 17 fit well on the Sherman and that they had a boundless supply of them spelled the end of the Churchill as a front line combat tank in Europe. But it was still ideal in the Pacific where its flamethrower variant was the bane of the Japanese…
So you built a tank that was supposed to be a countermeasure to the Nazi heavy stuff, disovered it sucked and gave it to Hobart, it actually reinforces my point.
You could stick a flail or a flamethrower on any tank, Sherman, Grant, Cromwell, thats not a big deal.
I wonder how an Infantry tank that entered Unit service in July 1941 was supposed to be an answer to a Panther ( mid 1943) or Tiger ( end of 1942)?
disovered it sucked and gave it to Hobart, it actually reinforces my point.
And what tanks served in :
6th Guards Tank Brigade
31st Tank Brigade
34th Tank Brigade
9 Regiments of Churchill tanks, some 550 in total.
Yes, you could, but that’s not the point.
Hobart took your so-called “failures” and turned them into prized vehicles that could do more than your average Sherman, even with the same attatchments added to it.
Not really, any tank with the same equipment would do the same, its not like a flail was some complex bit of eq.
I must say that until 1943 when the british infantry tactic and tank support were properly development amd coordinated no british infantry tank was completely sucessful.
The firts flail mine clearer was intalled in the Matilda scorpion.
By the way anybody knows why this guy was banned ?
Sure, he started the day and his membership reasonably. But then:
http://ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8604
Anyway, meanwhile it’s obvious to the staff that he was a past-time troll redux (and no, neither female nor from Australia this time).
Dang it, I just lost 10 WW2Bucks…:(:mrgreen:
Sure, he started the day and his membership reasonably. But then:
http://ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8604
At list he tried to put some humour into the forum :mrgreen: Very true some of the russian army remarks.
Churchill Mark IV using the old british trench crossing device, the fascine.
He’s a nutbag on his third user-ID…
Must have been a bumpy ride…:mrgreen: