Matilda Churchill, British Infantry tanks in action.

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Click to expand...

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"

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Vassili Zaitzev said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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.