Best/Favourate Tank in the west

Whats is the Best/your favourate tank from in North Africa

  • Total voters
    130

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Churchill did not do well in North Africa, Britain was after replacing the lumbering wreck. It was no good in armour conflicts. It made it's name as an infantry support weapon because AT guns had a hard time destroying it.

The Pz.kpfw IV Ausf F/2 and beyond made relatively easy meat of the Churchill as they raced around it and destroyed it from the side and rear, with their superior cannon. And that's not mentioning the several design faults and pathetic line of sight given by the Churchill's over-extended tracks.

The best in the desert was the Pz.Kpfw VI Ausf E 'Tiger' as no other tank had a chance against it. The Allies never produced a tank that could go toe-to-toe with the Tiger, the Centurion Mk.I would have been able to but it wasn't in the war on time.

The Churchill had slab-sided armour, to compare anything on the Churchill with the King Tiger is stupid. The King Tiger would slaughter anything in anyone's arsenal when in combat. It was the most powerful AFV in the war.

And, while not in North Africa, the 6th Coldstream Guards got hold of a Panther Ausf G in full working order in the Ardennes Offensive. It held the road better than the Churchills and was a far superior attacking weapon. The Guards had it for weeks but were more than upset when it broke down. It saved many British lives in that unit.
 
Hmm interesting. I did not know that they captured and used a Panther. I would have been afraid that allied aircraft would have attacked it not realizing that it was being used by there own forces.
 
plan_D said:
The Churchill did not do well in North Africa, Britain was after replacing the lumbering wreck. It was no good in armour conflicts. It made it's name as an infantry support weapon because AT guns had a hard time destroying it.
Click to expand...
Actually, until Tunisia there were grave doubts about the Churchill, and it was only its perfomance in this theater that ensured its continued production.

It should also be noted that in the only Tiger 1 and Churchill combat in North Africa, the Churchill ( armed with a 6 pdr gun ) Ko'd the Tiger
 
plan_D said:
The Churchill did not do well in North Africa, Britain was after replacing the lumbering wreck. It was no good in armour conflicts. It made it's name as an infantry support weapon because AT guns had a hard time destroying it.
Click to expand...



Some 'lumbering wreck'!
Between 20th-30th October 1944 31 Churchill tanks of 34th Tank Brigade were hit and 'knocked out' In Holland. Of this total only 7 were a total loss. 24 were repaired and put back into service. A further 7 Churchills were damaged by mechanical means, i.e falling into craters, hitting the gun on obstructions ect.
The following German wrecks were listed and the location given where the vehicle could be found. They were 'total losses'.

1 x Jagdpanther.
3 x 105mm Stug.
9 x 75mm Stug.

All were destroyed by the Churchills.
Marks on the ground showed that a number of other German vehicles had been recovered and towed back behind their lines. Thus we do not know the total number of German vehicles 'knocked out'.
Thus 7 Churchills (and 3 Stuarts) for 13 SP guns. Not bad for a 'lumbering wreck'.
 
I admit my mistake concerning the Churchill, double checking more sources it was the fights in the hilly terrain of Tunisia which secured the prolonged life of the Churchill.

On your second point, however, I cannot find anything. The only battle report I have of Tigers meeting Churchills is during the German spoil attack Operation Fliederblute. Two Tigers attached to III.BN FJR 5 attacked with Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 and Pz.Kpfw III L units and destroyed many British tanks, although after a 6 pdr round struck Tiger "131" the crew panicked and fled the machine. This machine was then captured. In no way was it disabled, in my sources. The only problem was the turret was jammed. The British units lost four Churchills to 50mm, 75mm and 88mm fire (I'm not aware of other tank losses, all I have is 'many were lost'). The Germans lost two Pz.Kpfw III, one Pz.Kpfw IV and one Pz.Kpfw VI.
 
Odd?
First you say it wasn't disabled, but then you say it was, but only the turret

Obviously the crew thought it was disabled, because they abandoned it !8)

This Tiger Tank is the one which is now restored and on permanent display at the Bovington Tank Museum
The unit credited with this victory is the Churchill equipped 4th troop B Squadron 48th RTR of the 21st Tank Brigade

[
 
m kenny -

I stated previously that the Churchill was effective in infantry support operations, which was mostly the case in Holland. Most of the time the Allies were just blocked by a FlaK 88 or a single StuG with ten or so infantrymen with Panzerfausts.

You have given me ten days where one unit had thirty-one Churchills knocked-out of action either indefinately or for a period of time. Seven of which were total losses. Which is a very precise time and place, this doesn't give an overall picture. Even this doesn't show the Churchill's worth.

The enemy armour only worth mentioning is the Jagdpanther. The "StuG 75mm" and "StuG 105mm" were both based on the Pz.Kpfw III chassis with little armour protection compared to the greater AFVs of the war. The StuG 105 is not an armour battling machine, it's cannon was low-velocity designed for knocking out bunkers and buildings. It was simply an assault weapon, so I don't consider a Churchill vs. StuG 105 worth a mention as it's obvious the Churchill will wipe it out in most cases.

The StuG III (75mm) wasn't capable of battling the Churchill on equal terms. It's cannon couldn't penetrate the frontal armour of the Churchill, so it had no chance of winning a straight on shooting match. So, this is also no new news for me.

The Jagdpanther is impressive but no tank is invincible. The Churchills would have managed to flank it and destroy it, well done to them. The Jagdpanther probably destroyed the majority of the AFVs lost in those ten days, that or any FlaK 88s the 34th Tank Brigade came across.

And of course the Germans would have retrieved damaged vehicles, this says nothing. They would have been repaired and put back into action.

redcoat -

There's nothing odd there. Having the turret jammed has not disabled the Tiger. The crew could have driven it back to their lines. What the crew thought at the time, in the heat of battle, and reality are two different things. The Churchill was credited by the Allies has a destroyed, but in reality the Tiger wasn't destroyed.

And that battle proves that in a meeting between Tigers and Churchills, it wasn't one sided. Since on Tiger to Churchill losses - it's 4:1 in the Tiger's favour. And the Churchills were lost to 50mm, 75mm and 88mm fire. So, a Tiger obviously destroyed one or two Churchills.
 

I never said it was destroyed, I said it was KO'd, and was it, or was it not , knocked out of the battle
You really need to work on your maths.
Seeing that 4 Churchills were KO'd (not destroyed ) and that the loss's are attributed to 50mm 75mm and 88mm fire the maximum that could have been caused by the Tiger tanks is two, so at max its 2:1, and from my understanding the single Churchill ko'd by 88mm fire was from a AT gun.

ps if we add the other known German losses it turns the known losses for both sides to 5:4 in the Allies favour.
 
You mean illogic.

Redcoat, you need to work on your English reading skills. I stated on Tiger to Churchill losses (no indication of Tiger against Churchill only) was 4:1 in the battle. And I did state later on that Tigers could have knocked out one or two Churchills - or did you forget to read that part?

Since your understanding seems to fail you at the moment, I'd rather not go off "your understanding".

And how do you know the Churchills were not destroyed?

On top of that, the Tiger was knocked out of the battle but with hindsight we can see that the Churchill achieved a lucky hit, and it was still able to drive back to it's lines. Which is more important than the crew panicking and abandoning when talking on technical terms.
 
The Tiger Ausf.E in question was infact fully functional and needed not have been abandoned, however as Plan_D pointed out the crew panicked as the turret jammed because the Chuchill's round had lotched itself in the turret ring.

The Tiger Ausf.E was a far superior tank to the Churchill, being capable of knocking out the Churchill past 2,000 m in a head on attack and being alot faster as-well.
 
Soren said:
The Tiger Ausf.E in question was infact fully functional and needed not have been abandoned, however as Plan_D pointed out the crew panicked as the turret jammed because the Chuchill's round had lotched itself in the turret ring.

.
Click to expand...
Please explain how a tank can be fully functional with a jammed turret.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
What he means is this. The tank could have pulled back retreated and with some repairs been put back into action. It was not destroyed....
Click to expand...

If........maybe..........but..........!!!!!

Am I the only one suprised that we have people seriously arguing that a disabled and abandonned tank, captured and taken as a trophy is not a total loss? Should they still list it as 'ready for combat (once we recapture it!)'
Uber Tiger is 'cool ' and rules!
 

Dont......Get......Your.....Panties.......In......A.....Bunch........!!!!!!

I am not defending his arguemenent that it was not a loss, but rather stating what I think he meant.
 
Yes Adler you've got that right, so don't bother yourself with those two and there meaningless remarks.

Fact is if the crew hadn't panicked over the fact that the turret had jammed, they could've just pulled away without even being in danger of being taken out.

The Tiger Ausf.E in question was infact in such good shape that after it was captured it was shipped back to England, the lotched round was removed, and the tank was then tested thuroughly - and despite having taken a direct blow to the turret the gun proved remarkably accurate in the tests, achieving first round hits all way out to 1500y. The British were infact astonished over the overall performance of the tank. And all functioned as it should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Z
Best tank engines of WWII
15 16 17
Replies
335
Views
22K
Reluctant Poster
R
A
Rolls Royce Tank Engines
Replies
2
Views
604
Reluctant Poster
R
P
Which tank is this ?
Replies
2
Views
735
programa
P
O
British Balloon Bombs in the Balkans, Summer 1943?
Replies
4
Views
491
Old MacDonald
O
T
The Tank Museum Wins!
Replies
4
Views
1K
WATU
W
Menu
Log in
Register