Matilda Churchill, British Infantry tanks in action.

[Vassili Zaitzev]

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

Vassili
Challenger was also too long and so rather clumsy.

Juha

Didn't know that, thanks Juha.

 

[CharlesBronson]

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]

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]

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

Thank you.

Right, might as well paint a bullseye on it.

 

[Juha]

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]

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]

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?]

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]

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]

That's awesome, CB. Great post.

 

[CharlesBronson]

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]

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

 

[Soren]

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]

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

 

[CharlesBronson]

Matildas in east Africa, final part.