# Matilda Churchill, British Infantry tanks in action.



## CharlesBronson (Oct 30, 2008)

A topic devoted to the most sucessful and heavily armored british tanks of ww2.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 3, 2008)

Cool. I read somewhere, that during the Battle of France, a group of Matilda tanks counterattacked against German Panzers. They did pretty well until Rommel brought up flak 88's against them. 

ah, here it is
Battle of Arras (1940 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 3, 2008)

Yes it was probably the finest hour of the ugly Matilda 1.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 3, 2008)

Yeah, heavy armor, but small gun (2-pounder), limited speed and manuverablity proved it's downfall. The Cromwell proved to better suited though.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 3, 2008)

Well, yeah, but the Cromwell was a cruiser so it was designed from the begining to be more mobile and fast, the british infantry tank doctrine favoured a slow moving but heavily armored tank, with armamend to destroy enemy armor in order to protect the advancing infantry, however the lack of a suitable HE capable gun was very anoyying in some teathers of operations, like in Africa.

*Matilda I knocked out in Arras.*


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 3, 2008)

*Sevicing the Mark I "dreadnought" in France, may 1940.*


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 3, 2008)

Okay, sorry, what do you mean by HE capable gun. Do you mean High Explosive. Sorry, my tank knowledge is a bit rusty.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 3, 2008)

Yes, the 2 pounder didnt use HE ammunition until 1943, wich was a bit late. In fact I must correct myself , the gun was capable of shooting explosive rounds but simple there was no provition for that, all the ammo carried was steel core AP.

There was a variant with a 76 mm howitzer, but it used smoke bombs mostly.

*Profile of the "Gamecok", *a Matilda II mark I captured in France, note the tailskid designed for avoid falling in a wide trench. also it had the increased clearance wich improved cross country capabilities but increased stress on suspension parts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 3, 2008)

Okay, I think I get it now. Lack of HE rounds in North Africa would have been a pain in the [email protected] AP rounds could be used against APCs and panzers, but would be completey useless against AT guns, bunkers, or soft skinned vehicles.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 4, 2008)

And against infantry too. 

A general description of the Matilda II mark II


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 4, 2008)

- A12 prototype.

- suspension squematic

-top view of the Matilda II mark I, with its water cooled ,303 vickers, later replaced by the Besa 7,92mm in the mark II.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 4, 2008)

Cool, thanks for the info.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 4, 2008)

Here's some pics on the Churchill, sorry there just links, I have no clue on how to blow them up. 

http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/ATC/ATC-BritishChurchill-1.jpg
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/784/563758.JPG


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 5, 2008)

You have a button in the toolbar for posting pictures, is the fifth counting from the left, also you can upload it from you PC hard disk.

The top one seems a Mark IV or VI. The other is the Churchill flamethrower known as Crocodrile.

The Matilda in action agaist the italian, the WavelL counterofensive in late 1940 almost knocked out Italy from teh African continent causing apalling losses in the process. The attack was spearheaded by the Matildas.








> In the meantime, Western Desert Force had also been reinforced, when on 24th September 1940, three new Armoured Regiments, plus other forces, arrived at Port Said. These were, 2nd RTR with Cruiser tanks (mainly A13, but with some A9 and A10s) and 7th RTR with 48 Matilda tanks and the 3rd Hussars which still had MKVI light tanks only. The Matilda's of 7th RTR were the first to arrive in the Middle East. In October 2nd RTR joined 4th Armoured Brigade, while 3rd Hussars joined 7th Armoured Brigade. The Divisional Commander, Major-General O'Moore-Creagh, decided to transfer 'B' Squadron of 2nd RTR to 3rd Hussars and visa versa, which meant that each tank Regiment was able to have at least one Cruiser tank Squadron on its strength. Click here to view the Divisional Order Of Battle at this time. In the meantime 7th RTR started training with various infantry brigades, in their infantry support roll. The 11th Hussars were also strengthened by the addition of No.2 Armoured Car Company RAF with ten Fordson Armoured cars, who became ‘D’ Squadron (RAF) within the regiment.
> 
> General O'Connor was ordered, by General Wavell, to attack in the area of Sidi Barrani, Sofafi and the saltpans of Buq-Buq, making use of the heavily armoured Matildas. However, the Italians had been idle for the last three month, with a string of fortified camps now protecting Sidi Barrani. Three of these, Nibeiwa, Tummar East and Tummar West, lay to the south of the main position at Sidi Barrani and were manned by infantry, heavy artillery and tanks. An estimated 75,000 men were in or around Sidi Barrani, with about 120 tanks and 200 guns, with O'Connor having the 7th Armoured and 4th Indian Divisions. The British force consisted of 25,000 men and a total of 275 light, Cruiser and Matilda tanks.
> 
> ...



*Overrun italian artillery in Sidi barrani.*







*Matilda with fascine for trench crossing.*







*Matilda II Mark II with special ramp for crossing the Bardia fortress wide antitank ditch*.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 5, 2008)

CB, thanks for the tip and info, great stuff. 
25,000 to 75,000 huh? Usually the attacker needs a three to one advantage, not the other way around.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 5, 2008)

You re welcome.

I guess that the Matilda II heavy armor compensated the british numerical inferiority. Not in vane the tank was nicknamed "Queen of the desert"

*Matilda in the very shooted up Fortress of Bardia.*






*Cleaning up*, the 2 pounder (40mm) main gun armor penetration was 52 mm at 500 meters and 44 mm at 1000 meters, more than enough against any italian afv.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 5, 2008)

Found a good website on the Matilda in terms of photos.

World War II: Matilda tank Part 1


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 5, 2008)

Excellent find.



> Command staff of the *3rd Shock Army* observing turned over "Matildas" from the 170th Separate Tank Battalion. February, 1942



I suppose this view was quite a "shock"  the matilda relative narrow track does not seems very useful in icy conditions.


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 5, 2008)

Here's some info on Matilda II used by the Australian Army in the SWP. See from chapter 4 onwards.
The World at War


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 5, 2008)

Cool Wildcat, how useful were tanks in the jungle.


----------



## Graeme (Nov 6, 2008)

Wildcat said:


> Here's some info on Matilda II used by the Australian Army in the SWP.



Hi Wildcat, ever been to the Dubbo Military Museum?

Dubbo Military Museum

We were there in 1995. I shoved two of my boys in a tank and "snapped". Did I stick'em in a Matilda?...


----------



## timshatz (Nov 6, 2008)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Cool Wildcat, how useful were tanks in the jungle.



Amazingly useful. But every jungle fight seems to start with the assumption that tanks will be no good in the jungle. Then the other guy brings them in, blows through your lines and everybody has a change of opinion. 

Used in Malaya by the Japanese and did very well. After that, everyone figured out a way to get them into the fight. Usually the lighter types (M3 or similar) early in the war but developed out to the larger Grant and Shermans. A tank that was obsolete in Europe was still very effective in the Pacific (where the Japanese had very limited AT weaponry).

Same thing happened again in Vietnam. Same lesson learned all over again.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 6, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Amazingly useful. But every jungle fight seems to start with the assumption that tanks will be no good in the jungle. Then the other guy brings them in, blows through your lines and everybody has a change of opinion.
> 
> Used in Malaya by the Japanese and did very well. After that, everyone figured out a way to get them into the fight. Usually the lighter types (M3 or similar) early in the war but developed out to the larger Grant and Shermans. A tank that was obsolete in Europe was still very effective in the Pacific (where the Japanese had very limited AT weaponry).
> 
> Same thing happened again in Vietnam. Same lesson learned all over again.




Thanks Tim, I guess the crocodile types would have been the best types to use?


----------



## timshatz (Nov 6, 2008)

By Crocodiles, do you mean the flame tank or the design? 

From what I've read, whatever tanks were around (including tankettes like the Bren Gun Carrier) were used. Leave it to the crews to figure out the best way to use them. For instance, the 2pdr gun didn't have an HE shell 'til later in the war but found they could destroy a bunker by firing the "steel bullet" at the top of a bunker, causing a collapse when the center cross beam was shattered. The Brits really seemed to do the best tank/infantry work in the Burma theatre, raising it to something of an art form with tanks getting an infantry escort and the two working in tandem. 

Doesn't get much print, not nearly as much as the Sherman/Panther/Tiger battles of North Western Europe but it was pretty impressive work in it's own right.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 6, 2008)

Sorry Tim, I should have been clearer, yes I meant the flame tank. 

Interesting info by the way, do you know any books on tanks in the PT, I might pick up one.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 6, 2008)

> We were there in 1995. I shoved two of my boys in a tank and "snapped". Did I stick'em in a Matilda?...



Nice, is that a "Frog" ?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 6, 2008)

*Operation Battleaxe, the kingdom in Peril:*

The operation Battleaxe was the first british major offensive against the Afrika Korps, it took place the June 15th 1941. The armor componentes of this operation arrived to Alexandria in the shape with the convoy “Tiger”. Those were 135 Matildas, 85 “Cruisers” tanks, and 25 light tanks.

The main objetives were to relieve the garrison of Tobruk and also atract to the battle and destroy most of the german armored forces.
One of the most strategical points were the Halfaya pass near the Libian Egyptian border. 
On the eastern side, at 05:15, Coast Force, commanded by Brigadier Reginald Savory and charged with capturing Halfaya Pass, started to move on to their objective. 

On the top of the escarpment was the _Halfaya Group_, composed of the 2nd battalion Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, the thirteen tanks (twelve Matildas and one light tank) of the 4th Royal Tank Regiment's C Squadron (which had previously captured 
Halfaya Pass during Operation Brevity), and an artillery battery from the 31st Field Regiment. 
To their east and below the lip of the escarpment were the 1st battalion 6th Rajputana Rifles and 2nd battalion 5th Mahratta Light Infantry, two troops of the 4th Royal Tank Regiment's A Squadron, and a few 25-pounder guns.

At 05:40, British artillery for the Halfaya Group was scheduled to open fire on the German and Italian forces stationed in Halfaya to provide cover for the tanks and infantry, but the battery had become bogged down by soft sand. 

After waiting until 06:00, fifteen minutes after the fighting began to the west below the escarpment, the commander of C Squadron, Major C.G. Miles, ordered his tanks to attack at the top of the pass; soon after though the [anti-tank guns of the German and Italian defenders opened fire and within a few hours all but one light tank and one of the Matildas had been destroyed, the well concealed 88s Flak 18 guns were particulary aiming to the british infantry tanks.

*Two penetrations ...88*







At 10.00 am Miles radioes a last and desperate message _*“…they are tearing my tank to bits ! “*_, minutes later he also fell prey of the german antitank guns when one 88 shell penetrated his Matilda and caused a catastrophic internal explotion.

*Turret blew off*






The British forces below the escarpment did not fare much better, as four of the Matildas were disabled by anti-tank mines which were supposed to have been cleared; this blocked the path of the remaining two and reduced the small tank force to acting in a pillbox capacity.

*Burned out. Note the small caliber impacts.*





The Rajputana Rifles and Mahrattas made several attempts to reach the pass, but were repelled each time; the former losing their commanding officer, Colonel P.R.H. Skrine, in the final attack.

After 3 days of battle the offensive succeded only in capturing the Fort Capuzzo but failed any other objetive, the british forces withdrawn leaving behind 91 tanks destroyed, including 64 Matildas.

In the other hand the germans have 50 tanks damaged, but only 12 remain irreparable losses.

*"Matildas graveyard", a view of the Halfaya pass with hulls of some matildas and a Marmon Harrington AFV.*


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 17, 2008)

If the 88MM could penetrate a Matilda, did the PAK40 have the same effect?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 17, 2008)

Yes, but at that time there was no pak 40 in the desert.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 17, 2008)

Matilda in dug out emplacement near Tobruk, those vehicles play a fundamental role in defeating the german attemp to breach into the fortress in april 1941. Exposing only its solid cast steel turret was a hard nut to find and to crack for the advancing german Panzers.







The arrival of the Lufwaffe in early 1941 made camouflage a badly needed improvement.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 17, 2008)

Cool, thanks for the info.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 18, 2008)

You re welcome, lets talk a little about the Churchill.

*"This tank carring my name have more drawbacks that me"* Winston Churchill 1941.


*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.

*A-20 prototype*( weird...isnt ?)






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.*






Armour in Focus

TANKS!

A-20 pic extracted from: The great Tank scandal By David Fletcher


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 18, 2008)

The british used specilaized churchill's on D-day, and at Dieppe right?


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 18, 2008)

Here's some info 

INFANTRY TANK A22 CHURCHILL:


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 19, 2008)

There were several types of specializated Churchills in D-Day, flamethrowers, carpetlayers, mineclearing, wireclearing, you name it, the basic variant for engineers was this:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 19, 2008)

Were any churchill's developed as DD tanks, like the sherman?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 19, 2008)

Not quite but there was a deep fording variant used in Dieppe.

Close up to the deep fording equipment in Churchills III.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 30, 2008)

*Specification for the Infantry support Churchill:*






Mark VII characteristics.











Mark I, and the prime minister.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 30, 2008)

Cool.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 30, 2008)

Great thread, Charles, could be as interesting as the one about the Panther you did.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 30, 2008)

> Great thread, Charles, could be as interesting as the one about the Panther you did.



It could, it could, thank you.


*Churchill Flamethrower OKE*







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.






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*.







henkofholland mastermodelling military vehicles scale 1/72-1/76

mailer.fsu.edu/~*akirk*/*tanks*

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


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 1, 2008)

*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.


----------



## Glider (Dec 2, 2008)

Its not a Matilda but this is the back of a Valantine Turret that is now in the Duxford Museum. It show how intense the fighting can be even in the desert.

This tank wasn't knocked out, but to get this level of damage on the back of the turret speaks volumes.


----------



## Soren (Dec 2, 2008)

Lots of machine gun fire no doubt, 7.92mm SmK rounds striking all over. 

In Africa the Germans were very fond of setting up lots of dug in machine gun nests featuring MG34's on tripods, and firing at the British from very long range, frequently out beyond 3500m. This proved very effective because of the unusally long effective range of the German MG, and the astonished British who thought they were under FlaK cannon fire began to refer to the MG34 as a cannon.


----------



## Juha (Dec 2, 2008)

Now indirect mg fire was well known already in WWI and also British used it regularly during WWII with their Vickers medium mgs, which was better in that role being water cooled, no need to constant barrel changes.

In fact it was the way mgs or their predecessors were used often in late 19th century, for ex. French during 1870-71 French-Prussian War used their Mitt... what ever that way IIRC.

Juha


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 2, 2008)

> Its not a Matilda but this is the back of a Valantine Turret that is now in the Duxford Museum. It show how intense the fighting can be even in the desert.
> 
> This tank wasn't knocked out, but to get this level of damage on the back of the turret speaks volumes



Nice picture thanks, this are Matildas mark II and III punished by german 20, 37 and 50mm fire during may 1941, those were recovered after "Battleaxe"


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2008)

Juha said:


> Now indirect mg fire was well known already in WWI and also British used it regularly during WWII with their Vickers medium mgs, which was better in that role being water cooled, no need to constant barrel changes.
> 
> In fact it was the way mgs or their predecessors were used often in late 19th century, for ex. French during 1870-71 French-Prussian War used their Mitt... what ever that way IIRC.
> 
> Juha



The effective range was however no where near as long back then, both because of the projectiles used and the very limited accuracy the mounts provided. 

The German tripod mounted MG's of WW2 had an effective range of over 3500m, far longer than any other MG's fielded. The very stable tripod design, which absorbed all recoil, improving accuracy, was also fitted with precise optics allowing for accurate very long range fire. But equally important was the unpresidented ballistics of the FMJ-BT projectiles used, giving the 7.92x57mm round by far the longest effective range of all rifle rounds of the war.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 4, 2008)

*The Churchill in Dieppe ( images)*

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.







The cheetah, a Mk III wich managed to cross the seawall and was engaged in heavy firefight with german defenders.


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> The effective range was however no where near as long back then, both because of the projectiles used and the very limited accuracy the mounts provided.
> 
> The German tripod mounted MG's of WW2 had an effective range of over 3500m, far longer than any other MG's fielded. The very stable tripod design, which absorbed all recoil, improving accuracy, was also fitted with precise optics allowing for accurate very long range fire. But equally important was the unpresidented ballistics of the FMJ-BT projectiles used, giving the 7.92x57mm round by far the longest effective range of all rifle rounds of the war.



Small point but the Vickers in the indirect role had a range of 4,500 yards. The first lee Enfields had sights that went up to 2,000 yards as a standard fit and I have fired one at 800 yards with good results.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 7, 2008)

*Churchills in el alamein:*

A small detachmet of Churchill Mark IIIs 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.*






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.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Dec 7, 2008)

Nice photos, those churchills were pretty well armored. Did they go up against 88's?


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2008)

If I remember correctly, only one was destroyed and that was hit by a British 6pd in what we would call a frendly fire incident.
The one huge advantage to the Churchill when compared to most allied tanks of the war, was that it didn't burn as easily as the others. When it did the crew had more time to get out. To the crew this was a big plus.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Dec 8, 2008)

Glider said:


> If I remember correctly, only one was destroyed and that was hit by a British 6pd in what we would call a frendly fire incident.
> The one huge advantage to the Churchill when compared to most allied tanks of the war, was that it didn't burn as easily as the others. When it did the crew had more time to get out. To the crew this was a big plus.



Did the british use diesel engines, or was it the armor that saved the tank from fire?


----------



## Glider (Dec 8, 2008)

It certainly wasn't the engine whch was petrol but I admit to not knowing why. I have just read a number of times that it was a fact and never looked into it. 
A guess and I admit its a guess is that it was the layout. Compared to most tanks in WW2 the Churchill had its hull buried behind the tracks. In effect it gave it spaced armour and extra protection. Looking at those photo's the tracks are shot to bits but the crew areas are pretty untouched and they don't seem to have caught fire.

There are others on the thread who know more than me about tanks and I am happy to take advice from anyone.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 8, 2008)

> Nice photos, those churchills were pretty well armored. Did they go up against 88's?



No really, few tanks survive that, but the 101 mm armor could withstand the long 50 mm short 75 mm german tank guns very well. The italian 47 only scrath the paint.



> If I remember correctly, only one was destroyed and that was hit by a British 6pd in what we would call a frendly fire incident.
> The one huge advantage to the Churchill when compared to most allied tanks of the war, was that it didn't burn as easily as the others. When it did the crew had more time to get out. To the crew this was a big plus








Definately, and the large side hatchs make the scape easy. By the way the Churchill engine was a V-12 air cooled Bedford with 350 hp. The Matilda had 2 two stroke diesels with 96 hp each.

*Churchill assault gun ?*

An early attemp to carry the heavy AT 17 pounder gun in a self propelled mount in a fixed supestructure, the Churchill 3 inch gun carrier.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 9, 2008)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Okay, I think I get it now. Lack of HE rounds in North Africa would have been a pain in the [email protected] AP rounds could be used against APCs and panzers, but would be completey useless against AT guns, bunkers, or soft skinned vehicles.




And then you had the rather strange design of the original Churchill, with a turret 2 pdr and a 3" howitzer in the nose.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Dec 9, 2008)

freebird said:


> And then you had the rather strange design of the original Churchill, with a turret 2 pdr and a 3" howitzer in the nose.



Hmm, kind of reminds me of the M3 Grant, with the 75MM buried in the hull, and the 37MM in the turret.


----------



## Glider (Dec 9, 2008)

I think you will find that the guns were interchangable. Some had the 3in in the turret, some had two 3in and others two 2pd


----------



## Glider (Dec 9, 2008)

I found this link re the Churchill in action at Kidney Ridge. Pretty interesting stuff.
KingForce


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 9, 2008)

> And then you had the rather strange design of the original Churchill, with a turret 2 pdr and a 3" howitzer in the nose.


A good compromise, but in my opinion both guns were mediocre, specially the low velocity howitzer. 

*Mk I* , with a 2 pounder in cast turret and 3inch 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.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 9, 2008)

Yes, the 2 pdr would be tough to use unless your enemy happened to be right in front of you!

It's a shame that the British were so unprepared before the war that they couldn't swich over from the 2/6 pndr's because they were so desperatly short of everything. They really needed something like the 77 mm early in '42.{the gun that was mounted in the Comet tank}


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 10, 2008)

> It's a shame that the British were so unprepared before the war that they couldn't swich over from the 2/6 pndr's because they were so desperatly short of everything. They really needed something like the 77 mm early in '42.{the gun that was mounted in the Comet tank}



Not only the penetration capabilities of the AP.

The lack of HE ammo wich hampered the british tank force during the early part of ww2 is ridiculous. That explain why the Grant was so liked in the desert, despite the huge design failures of the US made tank it had a dual purpuse gun wich was seen as a gift from god by the R.A.C.


*Churchill NA 75.*







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






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

Track 48 - Reviews - Panther Tracks


----------



## Watanbe (Dec 15, 2008)

hmm this is a very very noob question but what size is a 2pounder and 6 pounder equivalent to in mm? Im assuming a 6 pounder is close to a 75mm?

The Cromwell was armed with a 6pdr yes?


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2008)

Dont be afraid of asking any question.

The 2pd was a 40mm gun
The 6pd was a 57mm

Cromwell started with a 6pd but was changed to a 75mm pretty quickly. Each unit had a support version armed with a 95mm Howitzer.


----------



## Watanbe (Dec 15, 2008)

Thanks for filling me in, I knew the Cromwell (favourite allied tank) had a 75mm but I thought that the 6pdr was equivalent.

What were the mm for the 17 and 25 pounders?


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2008)

The 17pd was 76mm and the 25pd 88mm. 

Interestingly the 77mm gun carried in the Comet was also 76mm. They always referred to the guns as the 17pd, 77mm and the 76mm (US Gun often used in US Shermans and M10/M18 tank destroyers).
All three used different ammo and they were afraid of confusion in supply, if they were all known as 76mm.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 15, 2008)

Watanbe said:


> Thanks for filling me in, I knew the Cromwell (favourite allied tank) had a 75mm but I thought that the 6pdr was equivalent.
> 
> What were the mm for the 17 and 25 pounders?




But the size of the gun does not always exactly indicate its power or efectivness. The small British 6 2 pdr were very effective early in the war, especially against the Italian tanks, as some of the Axis 50 75 mm were lower velocity short-barrel types.

The British 17 pdr was a much more effective gun than the US 75mm, even though they were almost the same diameter.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Dec 15, 2008)

freebird said:


> But the size of the gun does not always exactly indicate its power or efectivness. The small British 6 2 pdr were very effective early in the war, especially against the Italian tanks, as some of the Axis 50 75 mm were lower velocity short-barrel types.
> 
> The British 17 pdr was a much more effective gun than the US 75mm, even though they were almost the same diameter.



True on the 17 pdr, they could knock out tigers while the US 75 was less effective.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 15, 2008)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> True on the 17 pdr, they could knock out tigers while the US 75 was less effective.



The 75 was almost useless from the front, the 76 was better and the 17 pdr had a decent punch. Yet they are almost all the same size!


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Dec 15, 2008)

freebird said:


> The 75 was almost useless from the front, the 76 was better and the 17 pdr had a decent punch. Yet they are almost all the same size!



I think it was because of the velocity of the two shells. If your talking of the M4 Sherman's 75, the barrel was shorter then one found on a firefly, which had the 17 pdr.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 15, 2008)

> The 75 was almost useless from the front, the 76 was better and the 17 pdr had a decent punch. Yet they are almost all the same size!



Yea, the only problem is the 17 pounder was HUGE for a gun of its a caliber.

A picture of the cartrigdes used in ww2 british tanks: ( from Tony williams website)

47x376R (3 pdr Hotchkiss, similar to but slightly longer than 47x351R interwar tank), 40x304R (2 pdr AP), 57x441 (6 pdr APDS), 75x350R (US/British 75mm HE), 76x583R (17 pdr APDS), 76x420R (77mm mm in Comet tank), 76x134R (3" Howitzer for close-support tanks), 95x206R (95mm Howitzer for close-support tanks).





There was a Churchill proto armed with a 17 pounder, that was the *Black Prince*.

SPECIFICATION

Designation: Tank, Infantry, Black Prince (A43)
Crew: 5 (commander, driver, gunner, loader, co-driver-hull gi!nner) 
Battle weight: 112,000lb
Dimensions: Length 28ft 11 in Track width 24in
Height 9ft Track centres/tread Width 11ft 3.5in
Armament: Main: 1 x 17pdr OQF
Secondary: 2 x 7.92 cal Besa MG (one co-axial) 
Armour thickness: Maximum 152mm; Minimum 25mm
Traverse: 360°
Engine: Bedford twin-six 350hp
Maximum speed : 11 mph
Maximum cross-country speed: 7mph (approx)
Suspension type: Sprung bogies
Road radius: 80 miles (approx)
Fording depth: 3ft 4in (unprepared)
Vertical obstacle: 2ft bin
Trench crossing: 10ft

A43 Black Prince


----------



## Watanbe (Dec 15, 2008)

Thanks for filling me in! How effective was the Cromwell's 75mm compared to the Sherman 75mm? 

What stood a better chance against German tanks?

I've taken interest recently due to a book im reading about a Cromwell tank Commanders account during the invasion of Europe. Lucky to see this thread here!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 15, 2008)

> How effective was the Cromwell's 75mm compared to the Sherman 75mm?



Is exactly the same cartrigde, the barrel in the Churchill/Cromwell gun was longer so it had slightly higher muzzle velocity but in other ways it was the same. It penetrated 61mm of armor at 500 meters range.



> What stood a better chance against German tanks?



Good chances against Panzer III and IV

Some chances against Panther ( side armor)

No chances against Tiger I/II, unless a point blank shot in the side/rear.


----------



## Watanbe (Dec 17, 2008)

Thanks for that, how would the Cromwell rate in comparison to the Sherman?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 17, 2008)

Ah...that is a good question  
Both are very similar tanks, the Cromwell was faster, slightly better armored and less prone to catch fire when hit.


----------



## Glider (Dec 17, 2008)

It was also a lot smaller making it slightly more difficult to hit. I have a photo somwhere of the two side by side which I will try to find.

The Sherman was a pretty big tank


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Dec 17, 2008)

Glider said:


> It was also a lot smaller making it slightly more difficult to hit. I have a photo somwhere of the two side by side which I will try to find.
> 
> The Sherman was a pretty big tank



Yeah, too high a profile.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 18, 2008)

Probably the only advantage of the Sherman was it could be more easily "overgunned"

The 17 pounder variant of the Sherman, the Firefly was definately more neat than the 17 pounder armed variant of the Cromwell, The Challenger tank.

Firefly






Challenger


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Dec 19, 2008)

You're right Charles, the turret on the Challenger looks like one giant shot trap.


----------



## Juha (Dec 19, 2008)

Thanks a lot agains, Charles B. Very interesting thread.

Vassili
Challenger was also too long and so rather clumsy.

Juha


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Dec 19, 2008)

Juha said:


> Thanks a lot agains, Charles B. Very interesting thread.
> 
> Vassili
> Challenger was also too long and so rather clumsy.
> ...



Didn't know that, thanks Juha.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 19, 2008)

> You're right Charles, the turret on the Challenger looks like one giant shot trap.



And a very tall turret, note this comparison with the Tiger eins.









> Charles B. Very interesting thread.



Thank you.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 19, 2008)

Please forgive me if in my quick glance through this thread this question has been answered before.

I have read that the suspension of the Churchill allowed it to move quicker, in spite of its low power to weight ratio, over the type of very rough terrain that would slow down the Sherman to a crawl. Is this a myth or fact?


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Dec 19, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> And a very tall turret, note this comparison with the Tiger eins.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, might as well paint a bullseye on it.


----------



## Juha (Dec 20, 2008)

Hello BB
my understanding is that Churchill was capable to climb over steeper obstacles and slopes than most tanks and also in Normandy in the bocage it could cross the steep banks which so hindered Shermans. But ofter all Churchill was designed to be able to operate over shell torn battlefields a la WWI.

Juha


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 20, 2008)

Yep. Thanks again, Juha. 

Armour, mobility (both theoretical and actual combat condition) firepower (both theoretical and actual combat condition) are, IMHO, the critical design factors for tanks, together with of course ease of production, operation and maintenance. 

Which brings me to another question. What were the maintenance requirements of the Matilda and Churchill as compared to the Sherman and the Tiger? We do generally know that the Sherman was comparatively easy to maintain and the Tiger was an dog, but who can give us some hard-ish figues and actual war tank mechanic anecdotes?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 21, 2008)

Well, the suspension system in the Churchill was not designed for high speed, that is for sure because the tank itself was not designed for going faster than 25km/h.



> Which brings me to another question. What were the maintenance requirements of the Matilda and Churchill as compared to the Sherman and the Tiger? We do generally know that the Sherman was comparatively easy to maintain and the Tiger was an dog, but who can give us some hard-ish figues and actual war tank mechanic anecdotes?



Not as easy as the Sherman but less complicated than the Tiger, the german tanks were usually more maintenace intensive as you probably know.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 28, 2008)

Even Rommel complained about german mechanics having a hard time finding replacement parts for german vehicles. us machinery had interchangable parts unlike the germans machines. I'm sure the british were better in this area as well.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 30, 2008)

> I'm sure the british were better in this area as well



They had some troubles too , specially in the Crusader.
Some notes on the early Churchills ( extract from: "The great tank scandal 1939-42")


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 30, 2008)

That's awesome, CB. Great post.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 31, 2008)

Thank you, that book is perhaps excesively critic with all the british tanks design ( wich is not inaccuarte taking in consideration the poor performance in the early years) and it have some good documentation.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 1, 2009)

A gunless Churchill Mark III using the fascine, and old ww1 british invention to cross over ditches and tranches.


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Even Rommel complained about german mechanics having a hard time finding replacement parts for german vehicles. us machinery had interchangable parts unlike the germans machines. I'm sure the british were better in this area as well.



Hehe, the Germans machines featured interchangeable parts as-well.

The reason behind the reliability issues German tanks suffered from was more simple than most people seem to know. The reason was simply that German tanks had to run for a much longer period of time without maintenance while forced to operate under a lot more stressfull conditions. And the most frequent complaint from mechanics was not that the engine was unreliable, but that there wasn't enough spare parts around. 

Those are the fundamental reasons behind the differences in reliability between German Allied tanks: Some had to operate for longer and under harder conditions between each maintenance while at the same time often having to wait for spare parts, while the others recieved frequent maintenance and never had to wait for spare parts. 

Fact of the matter is that German tanks were actually built to last longer than Allied tanks, but without regular maintenance no machine, nomatter how good it is, will hold. However building tanks to last for years isn't the best thing to do in a war were most tanks last only weeks or months.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 9, 2009)

The Matilda campaign in East Africa, extract of "The Matilda" by Bryan Perret.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 10, 2009)

Matildas in east Africa, final part.


----------

