Jump to content


Churchill Tanks - Articles and Images

Churchill Tank Heavy Tank UK

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

Jarms #1 Posted 08 August 2016 - 08:11 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 13028 battles
  • 662
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

Hey fellow tankers! Just thought I'd share some interesting articles and images about the humble Churchill tank.

 

Armour In Focus:

- Churchill Development: http://www.armourinf...les/devtext.htm

- The A20: http://www.armourinf.../a20devtext.htm

For those that don't know, this is the A20 Prototype:

 

Spoiler

 

- The NA75: http://www.armourinf...es/na75text.htm

- Man Behind the Machine: http://www.track48.c....php?newsid=167

Again, for those that don't know, the NA75 was a Churchill conversion that removed the 6-Pdr armament, and a part of the turret front, in order to mount an M4 Sherman mantlet and M3 75mm gun.

 

Spoiler

 

- A Spotter's Guide to Churchill Variants: http://www.armourinf...ident/ident.htm

- Turret Variations: http://www.armourinf...rrets/index.htm

- Churchill Engine: http://www.armourinf.../misc/index.htm

- Churchill Tracks and Suspension: http://www.armourinf...misc/tracks.htm

- The 95mm Howitzer: http://www.armourinf.../95mm/index.htm

- Gun Mounts: http://www.armourinf...ation/index.htm

 

AFV Weapon Profiles:

- Churchill Mk. IV: http://www.boxartden...es/01-Churchill

- Churchill and Sherman Specials: http://www.boxartden...urchill-Sherman

 

Image Gallery:

"Surviving" (in some cases this is a lie, haha) Churchill's: http://the.shadock.f..._Churchills.pdf


Edited by Jarms, 27 April 2017 - 10:03 PM.


Jarms #2 Posted 08 August 2016 - 09:28 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 13028 battles
  • 662
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

Here's a little gem I dug up regarding applique armour:

 

Quote

I will start off first by stating the famous heavy Churchill VII, with its 152mm of armor was not the most common Churchill variant in Normandy. According to the Flames of war table, about 720 Churchill's were in service in some shape or form (includes ARVs etc), either on the front line or in reserve to replace losses during June (probably by the end of June). Only about 100 VII's were deployed by the 21st Army group, with 69 in frontline service and 44 in reserve. It does not appear these include any of the Crocodiles in the 79th, as the VII's are listed under the 34th Tank Brigade and the 141 RAC. In comparison around 400 of the front line Churchill's were Mark III's, IVs and VI (IVs built with 75mm guns rather then converts), with another 80 IVs/VI's in reserve.

From the other discussion with Nick the noodle, we both found out the Churchill's seemed to have gotten slapped on with more armor. Perhaps during late 1942 and through 1943, according to wwiiequipment.com, the Churchill's started to get reworked, and had extra armor slapped on them. The Churchill III got quite a bit of armor slapped on it, the turret front was increased by 31.75mm of additional armor (was 89mm originally), the sides of the turret and hull and the frontal hull of the tank had an additional 20mm of armor. In total this increased the Churchill III's armor to roughly 120mm frontally (give or take a mm), and the side armor to 96mm for the Turret, and roughly the same for the hull. In effect the Churchill III's armor was now able to absorb frontally shots from the more common Pak 75mm and 75mm L/48 guns until perhaps point blank where spalling issues may cause casualties. Similarly the 120mm frontal armor would have given some form of protection to the Flak 88 and Tiger I's 88mm out past 500 meters or so. Similarly its side armor was a few mm thicker then the Churchill VII, and would have provided a challenge to the standard German 75mm gun beyond 500 meters or so with a good angle. However it is obvious that frontally it was no Churchill VII and would remain relatively vulnerable to the Tiger, and the Panther, where as the Churchill VII would have been able to withstand 88mm point blank, and the Panthers gun out to 500 meters or so (all statistically speaking).

Some pictures of this welded on extra armor:

As can be seen, additional armor plates have been added to the front and sides of this restored Churchill III's turret. This extra armor can be seen in the photos from the 9th Royal Tank Regiment prior to the invasion, most obviously in this picture:

The additional armor can also be seen in this picture:


However one thing I noticed and which I discussed with Nick was that the Mark IV and VI Churchill's seemed to lack turret armor:

From what I can guess, it appears that the cast turret of the Mark IV and VI Churchill's, despite being easier to produce and technically ballistically stronger then the Mark III's turret initially (more rounded, especially the front which had a noticeable curve), was not as able to have additional armor welded on to it. I imagine that curve on the front of the turret which made the turret ballistically stronger then the flat front on the Mk III was to blame, as it would have been difficult to weld on a flat plate to a curved front.

Still this ultimately meant that Churchill IV's and VI's sent to Normany, while having improved hull and side armor, lacked the increased frontal turret armor of the Mark III, and thus was more vulnerable to a shot in the turret then the Mark III. Ultimately what this meant was can be said is that Churchill units in Normandy were mainly comprised of Mark III, IV and VI's tanks, not the heavy mark VII tank. However these tanks were up-armored to roughly a middle ground of sorts, not as "thinly" armored as the original III, IVs and VI's, but not to heavy VII standards. The Mark III was the best protected of the upgraded Churchill's to serve, though its debatable at how much of a disadvantage the the IV and VI was to the III as a result of the lack of frontal turret protection. However it seems the Churchill's were a somewhat mixed bag in terms of protection, and thus performance (however arguably the Mark IVs would have been slightly faster and had somewhat less ground pressure since it was not so heavily armored, a slight advantage though probably most crews would have taken the extra armor). Also it seems that for the most part Churchill units fielded one 6lber armed tank and two 75mm armed tanks in each Churchill troop in Normandy, the 6lber armed tank hopefully being given APDS ammo to fight off the stronger Tiger and Panther tanks.

 

Unfortunately the image links provided don't work, so I'll do my best to bring you some examples.

 

* * * * *

 

Churchill III with Applique Armour:

Spoiler

 

 


Edited by Jarms, 08 August 2016 - 09:30 PM.


Inglorious_Aussie_Tanker #3 Posted 09 August 2016 - 06:58 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 10950 battles
  • 3,929
  • Member since:
    01-18-2015
Interesting!  Good work.  :honoring:

Vote NOW, to Wall up the Lakeville Valley Pass.

So Many Idiots.

So little Shells.


Jarms #4 Posted 09 August 2016 - 01:48 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 13028 battles
  • 662
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

Other Churchill Tanks with Improvised Armour:

 

Spoiler



mttspiii #5 Posted 09 August 2016 - 10:59 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 32703 battles
  • 17,124
  • [PVP] PVP
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012
I remember some Churchill modification plan with sloped armor, but I don't have my references with me at the moment.

I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 

 


Inglorious_Aussie_Tanker #6 Posted 10 August 2016 - 06:22 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 10950 battles
  • 3,929
  • Member since:
    01-18-2015

I Like the additional "Spaced" armor the Jerry Cans provide the driver.

 

Also is it Wrong that I like the ARVE?

A Brit with a Proper Derp gun not a pretend 3" or 105mm.  A proper Stalin like Derp. 


Vote NOW, to Wall up the Lakeville Valley Pass.

So Many Idiots.

So little Shells.


Jarms #7 Posted 10 December 2016 - 06:55 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 13028 battles
  • 662
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

View PostInglorious_Bugger_Austra, on 10 August 2016 - 08:22 AM, said:

I Like the additional "Spaced" armor the Jerry Cans provide the driver.

 

They might not necessarily be filled with fuel, could be water or sand, or they might just be empty.

 

View PostInglorious_Bugger_Austra, on 10 August 2016 - 08:22 AM, said:

Also is it Wrong that I like the ARVE?

A Brit with a Proper Derp gun not a pretend 3" or 105mm.  A proper Stalin like Derp. 

 

There's nothing wrong with liking the AVRE. Problem is it might not ever be able to be implemented into the game without numerous liberties being taken. The gun had to be loaded externally, the weapon only had an effective range of about 100 metres or so, the shell velocity was so low that you could actually see the round fly through the air, penetration would be non-existent and the potential alpha damage would have to be through the roof.

 

The later AVRE 165mm demolition gun could work, as its performance was a lot similar to a traditional howitzer. Could even have HESH as a gold round.

 

View Postmttspiii, on 10 August 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

I remember some Churchill modification plan with sloped armor, but I don't have my references with me at the moment.

 

Not sure if it's my memory failing me, but I oddly recall seeing something along the likes of this as well, cannot remember where it came from though.

Edit: Actually I think I'm recalling a proposal to make the Comet with sloped armour, rather than the Churchill.

 

Anyway, here's some more articles I've managed to dig up:

- https://servicepub.w...erseas-1941-43/

- https://servicepub.w...erseas-1941-43/

- https://servicepub.w...erseas-1942-43/

- https://servicepub.w...-inch-gun-mk-i/


Edited by Jarms, 27 April 2017 - 10:07 PM.


Jarms #8 Posted 27 May 2017 - 06:23 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 13028 battles
  • 662
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

Buffing the Churchill Series:

 

As you can see above, I've been suggesting we split the tier V Churchill into two different machines. How would this work you might ask? Well, let me explain.

 

Churchill I - IICS:

Encompassing the original Churchill I and the Churchill IICS variants

 

To explain this quickly, the in-game model wouldn't require much changing. The stock turret would remain the same, and the top turret would be an improved version of the former. The Churchill I would thus continue the tradition of the Matilda, high DPM, high accurate needle guns. With the David Gun, with and without the Little-John adapter, keeping it competitive when bottom tier. The David Gun wouldn't be the most unhistorical gun added to a machine, it's certainly practical, compared to say the Vickers 75mm HV the current Churchill I can already mount. The stock grind would also be improved, as you'd be able to mount the 2-Pdr Mk. X-B after grinding it directly after the Matilda. The Churchill I would have a better armoured turret and standard penetration than the Churchill III, but the Churchill III would have a better gun selection and overall DPM.

 

The David Gun, for those unfamiliar with it, is a 2-Pdr round using a necked down 6-Pdr casing. The Little-John adapter uses the squeeze bore operation to increase velocity and penetration (you see it on the Matilda in-game currently).

 

Gun Options (semi-historical but practical):

 

Stock turret:

- 2-Pdr Mk. X

- 2-Pdr Mk. X-B

 

Top turret:

- 3.1-Inch Howitzer

- David Gun

- penetration: 145 / 160

- damage: 55

- rate of fire: 28.57

- shell velocity: 1264

- ammo capacity: 84

- David Gun-B (with Little-John Adapter)

- penetration: 160 / 175

- damage: 60

- rate of fire: 28.57

- shell velocity: 1550

- ammo capacity: 84

 

Churchill III - V (including NA75):

Encompassing the Churchill III, Churchill III* or Churchill III(75), Churchill NA75, Churchill IV, and Churchill V variants

 

Again, for the easiest explanation, it'd essentially use the Churchill III hull currently used by the Russian premium. Whilst the stock turret would be the current top turret, and the new top turret would be the current Churchill VII's stock turret. Its game-play would be similar to how it is now, with an easier stock grind of course, being able to now mount the 6-Pdr immediately. For those who are curious, the Churchill III* or Churchill III(75) is a Churchill III converted to mount the 75mm Mk. V and up-armoured with applique armour on the turret cheeks. The NA75 is a Churchill III or IV turret modified to mount the 75mm M3 gun and mantlet from an M4 Sherman.

 

Gun Options (largely-historical):

Stock turret:

- 6-Pdr Mk. III

- 6-Pdr Mk. V

- 75mm M3

*mantlet replaced by that of the M4 Sherman, on both the Churchill III and IV turrets

- penetration: 92

- damage: 110

- rate of fire: 20

- shell velocity: 619

- ammo capacity: 84

- 75mm Mk. V

*when used on the Churchill III turret, the cheeks on either side of the mantlet are up-armoured by 1.25-inch (31.75mm) applique

rate of fire: 15.79

- dispersion: 0.40

*better handling on the Churchill IV turret

- rate of fire: 20

- dispersion: 0.39

 

Top turret:

- 95mm Howitzer

- penetration: 47 / 110

- damage: 380 / 280

- rate of fire: 8.5

- shell velocity: 328

- ammo capacity: 50

- 75mm Vickers HV

*keeping this for old times sake, not necessarily required but some players may miss the option to mount it

 

Churchill VII - VIII:

Encompassing the Churchill VII and the Churchill VIII variants.

 

To make this tank more historical, and its stock grind a bit easier, I propose we remove the stock turret. It's unhistorical and we're already making it the tier V's top turret. The new stock turret would be the early production Churchill VII turret, still 152mm thickness but missing the 203.2mm armoured bulges (on either side of the mantlet) of the current top turret. The Canuck Gun (an experimental 6-Pdr) would allow players to continue using the traditional British high DPM, high accuracy needle guns. Whilst offering players an alternate top gun, providing better gun depression, accuracy and DPM, but having less alpha and penetration.

 

Speed:

- buff to 25.7km/h

- nerf terrain resistances to 1.2 (hard) and 1.4 (medium)

 

Gun Options (semi-historical):

Stock turret:

- 6-Pdr Mk. V

- 75mm Mk. V

- 75mm Vickers HV

- 95mm Howitzer

 

Top turret:

- Canuck Gun

- penetration: 132 / 194 / 30

- damage: 80 / 80 / 100

- rate of fire: 27.27

- shell velocity: 990

- ammo capacity: 84

- 77mm HV

- buff penetration to 150

- nerf rate of fire to 13.5

- buff gun depression to -5

 

Churchill Black Prince:

 

The Black Prince, whilst having an impressive turret, doesn't have much really going for it. Its gun has the lowest alpha, lowest calibre, and penetration of its tier VII heavy counterparts, whilst also lacking much of the accuracy; for aiming at weak-points, and rate of fire; to make up for a alpha disparity. I'm also suggesting we add the improved 3.7-Inch AT Gun that I've proposed over on the Improve the British Line thread, as the 3.7-Inch could be fitted to 17-Pdr mountings; it'd also give the Black Prince the option of a high alpha or high DPM gun.

 

Speed:

- buff to 25.7km/h

 

Gun Options (semi-historical):

- 17-Pdr Mk. VII

- buff dispersion during turret traverse to 0.16

- buff rate of fire to 12.77

- 3.7-Inch AT Gun

- penetration: 158 / 194 / 30

- damage: 250 / 250 / 330

- rate of fire: 7.06

- shell velocity: 878 / 1098

- ammo capacity: 84


Edited by Jarms, 27 May 2017 - 06:29 PM.


Jarms #9 Posted 27 May 2017 - 10:10 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 13028 battles
  • 662
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

Churchill IICS with Duel 3.1-Inch Howitzers

 

Spoiler

 

Churchill IR (rework/rebuild):

 

Spoiler

 

Churchill III "early"

An early production Churchill III, an example of the machine which would have become a Churchill IIIR - upgrading it to late model Churchill III standards

 

Spoiler

 

Churchill III Applique Armour

Spoiler

 

Churchill's Reaching 25mph (40.23kmh)*

 

Spoiler

 

Churchill IX / X / XI

 

Spoiler

 

 


Edited by Jarms, 28 May 2017 - 02:44 PM.


Knot3D #10 Posted 08 May 2019 - 04:37 PM

    Private

  • Member
  • 2442 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    03-20-2019

Here's a large article on Alec Mitchell, the engineer of the Churchill tank engine: https://tinyurl.com/y43nuh6u

 

@ Jarms regarding the buff suggestions; 25.7km/h for the Churchill VII is historically inaccurate  - although the 20km/h as it is in WOT now, is also incorrect.

The Mk VII listed max speed is 21km/h. 

 

However, slightly inaccurate Churchill max speeds isn't what irks me in WOT - The one thing which aggravates me, is the fact WOT entirely negates the actual

engine torque of the real life Churchill tanks. The Churchill's engine torque was incredible, in the sense that it was an almost flat powerband i.e. no real loss of 

peak torque regardless of RPM. This is why the Churchills were so great at hill climbing and hauling so much weight around in their AVRE form.

 

Basically, WOT oversimplifies the concept of tank mobility and it more or less boils down to just HP/t ratio and resulting max speed. If they would just add in engine

torque factor, then they would finally do justice to the cross-country capabilities of the real life Churchill.

 

Now, I realize the game code doesn't calculate engine torque. However, they could sort of emulate this for the Churchill by providing incredible buffs to terrain resistance. 

Here are two pictures of a Churchill ARK pulling another Churchill on a trailer through heavy terrain - it wouldn't be able to do that if that engine would be weak: 

Spoiler

 

So yeah, it's only due to games like WOT that this silly gamers myth has come to be, about the Churchill tanks supposedly having "weak"  engines. 

Sure, they could have been more powerful in terms of raw horsepower output, but thanks to their flat torque curve, they were anything but weak. 



mttspiii #11 Posted 09 May 2019 - 10:40 AM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 32703 battles
  • 17,124
  • [PVP] PVP
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

View PostKnot3D, on 08 May 2019 - 04:37 PM, said:

Now, I realize the game code doesn't calculate engine torque. However, they could sort of emulate this for the Churchill by providing incredible buffs to terrain resistance. 

 

Churchills tend to be notable for having better frontal armor than Tigers, but are legendary for their ability to climb hills that tanks weren't supposed to climb. It's actually slow climbing, but continuous torque lets it climb when other engines have failed.

 

The in-game Black Prince with its ridiculous amounts of horsepower at such a low top speed does feel like how a Churchill is meant to drive though, chewing through marsh and gravel almost as well.

 

View PostJarms, on 10 December 2016 - 06:55 PM, said:

View Postmttspiii, on 09 August 2016 - 10:59 PM, said:

I remember some Churchill modification plan with sloped armor, but I don't have my references with me at the moment.

 

Not sure if it's my memory failing me, but I oddly recall seeing something along the likes of this as well, cannot remember where it came from though.

Edit: Actually I think I'm recalling a proposal to make the Comet with sloped armour, rather than the Churchill.

 

The sloped-armor Comet is more of a conceptualization of the Centurion; Centurion is just a wider Comet with armor sloped back to achieve the same protection level as a Churchill. That, we know.

 

The sloped-armor Churchill...we may have been wrong all along. The sloped armor is for the WB1 Infantry Tank Mk.V, the Churchill's successor. A 1948 requirement for a 70-ton tank with 400mm effective armor, mated with the Comet's gun, speed up to 32kph, and a hp/ton of 0.68 (0.75 bhp/tonne, and yes, that's a decimal point, and yes, they're expecting an engine with ~50 horsepower; around the same as a Yamaha dirtbike).

 

Upon review, the best they can feasibly get is "only" 350mm of armor with 100mm thick sides, and they couldn't find a sufficiently-powerful engine (the Centurion's engine was the most powerful they had within weight limits) so they'd have to settle for 27kph.


Edited by mttspiii, 09 May 2019 - 11:03 AM.

I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 

 


Knot3D #12 Posted 01 February 2020 - 09:21 AM

    Private

  • Member
  • 2442 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    03-20-2019
Would be nice if they'd already release that A43 BP Prototype with the "historical" 3D style - it's been in the supertest for quite a while now, no?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users