Author Topic: Churchill Tank  (Read 88666 times)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #100 on: December 15, 2013, 08:53:19 PM »
You could actually see such a vehicle forming the core of a post war RAAC, or at least the CMF / Militia side of things.  Maybe a regiment or reinforced squadron deployed in support of 3 RAR in Korea.  Another idea I have had as a 44-45 option for the 2nd AIF or even a 1946 job would have been deployment of Australian or ANZAC Corps to China to fight the Japanese rather than the Borneo campaign.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #101 on: December 15, 2013, 10:52:19 PM »
Not sure whether that small a lengthening would have an overally dramatic improvement in penetration, though.
Absolutely, the point is to get as much as possible from the existing rounds and breech without making changes the ripple outward any further. Such a lengthened barrel wouldn't give _much_ of an increase, but might as well get as much as you can while you are already designing a new recoil mechanism for the tank.

The 25 pdr had a muzzle vel of 600 M/s on super charge and a penetration of 61mm at 30 deg at 500 yds. The short M2 75 had a MV of 588m/s and the M3 had one of 619 m/s. The M3 was 2 feet longer than the M2 (an increase in length of 9 calibers) and increased the MV by just over 5% adding 16mm to the penetration. Adding a foot to the 25 pdr barrel adds just over 3 calibres and uses the same ammo as the 75mm field gun and the M2 tank gun so lets suppose we can add 9 calibres to the 25 pdr without chaning the ammo or the tube wall thickness. That actually allows us to add over 2 1/2 feet to the tube length! Lets say the Aussies weren't soooo sure of their calculations and added just 2 feet and as a consequence they got just under 5% increase in MV to 628 M/s increasing the penetration of the shot round from 61 mm to a quite respectible 79mm at 500 yds.

The Japanese never fielded a tank with more than 3" of armour during the war so the 87mm gun worked out just fine and many Japanese targets struck with the 87mm shot simply collapsed structurally under the massive impact. If need be, an APCBC and a hollow charge round (actually designed in Canada) were on the shelf if the Japanese fielded a better tank. For its short term of service after the war, these rounds were introduced. One can only imagine what an APDS or HESH round might have been like given the large bore of the 25 pdr! A HESH round would have been more effective than a similar round in the 20 pdr.

Paul

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #102 on: December 15, 2013, 10:54:55 PM »
Oh, and I've already started to glue together the bits of the Tamiya Churchill VII to convert it into a cast vehicle. And I have an old Tamiya 25 pdr which will give up its tube to this project.  :)

Piccies to follow once there is something to show for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #103 on: June 18, 2014, 08:54:32 PM »
I wonder if the 77mm HV would fit, or a 25 pdr

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #104 on: June 18, 2014, 10:29:32 PM »
I wonder if the 77mm HV would fit, or a 25 pdr


Please check older entries of this thread for inspiration.  ;)

=============================================================

How much room is inside of the largest Churchill turret compared to KV-1?



I'm thinking of using a Soviet-designed U-11 122mm howitzer to up-gun the Churchill (in a similar vein as Logan Hartke's close support Sherman evolution)......

I like the idea of the KV-9, but after all the attrition and being replaced on the production line by the IS, there probably wouldn't be that many KV-1s left for conversion; the IS can mount the long-barreled 122mm field gun derivative, so U-11 is likely pointless to it; I kinda want to do a heavy tank in keeping with KV's heavy tank theme, and of the remaining WWII Allied AFV types I either do not remember or do not recognize anything of the sort other than the Churchill......

Just some crude ideas for now- I found someone on the internet claiming that the turret ring diameter of the KV-1 (of which AFAIK the KV-9 is a derivative with that tank howitzer) is 1580mm, which seems to me still larger than the Churchill's turret ring size of 1378mm, so I'm kinda trying to move the trunnion forward (but then I don't know where exactly the stock Churchill 75mm's trunnion is)......

Any suggestions on how I should proceed from there?
« Last Edit: June 19, 2014, 01:03:56 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #105 on: June 22, 2014, 12:39:28 AM »
The trunnions are just inside the front face of the turret.

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #106 on: June 22, 2014, 12:57:46 PM »
The trunnions are just inside the front face of the turret.

Sounds like I won't have to move the trunnion very far......
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #107 on: June 22, 2014, 09:12:10 PM »
The trunnions are just inside the front face of the turret.

Sounds like I won't have to move the trunnion very far......
Add a 10-12" bulge out the front of the turret and you should be in the same relative position. The KV2 had a much larger bulge and external access to the trunnions as well.

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #108 on: July 04, 2014, 04:40:49 AM »
It would seem that Israel in its early struggles against its neighbours had a myriad of different armoured vehicles such as Patton, Centurion, and different models of Shermans.  They seemed to have done fine even while resulting logistical complication lasted.

That's absolutely true, but none of those vehicles were as much trouble to maintain as the Churchill. Also, the only British tank of the group, the Centurion was much loved by the Israelis and certainly the best of the three, but that was only after the Israelis replaced the engine and transmission with American ones. The Israeli comments on the Meteor engine are not...flattering.

Again, as you note, they did what they could to standardize the types they had. They standardized on the HVSS and Cummins engine for all their myriad of Sherman variants. They replaced the guns on early Centurions and the M48s with the L7 105mm, gave them both the engine from the M60 (which they had just started using), and gave both the Centurion and M48 the same Allison transmission.

So...... what could be done to make retaining the Churchill as painless as possble?

I'm at this point expecting it to be engine and transmission...... would there be more?

I don't suppose sharing engine with the Sherman is feasible, and an earlier intellectual exercise by others seem to suggest that Meteor would be too builky...... what Cold War era tank engine might be viable?
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #109 on: July 04, 2014, 06:09:08 AM »
As I understand it, it was mainly the suspension that was the source of most of the tank's maintenance needs. It was that very suspension and layout that helped give it the agility that it was renowned for. The engine and gearbox weren't as reliable as those on the Sherman, but they weren't as bad as those on the German heavies.

I think the answer to operating the Churchill as painlessly as possible is to simply use it in a role that suits it.

When you needed an assault tank in challenging terrain, the Churchill had no rival. Try to force it on a 100 mile road march, use it for patrolling, send it up against an armored threat, or use it in the exploitation role and you're going to be sorely disappointed. Similarly, if you are forced to retreat, you'll be leaving broken down tanks on the side of the road, as they had to do at Seoul in 1951.



Therein lies the problem. The Churchill was overspecialized. Britain retained a few after WWII for specialist roles, but discarded most of them. The Sherman, Comet, and Centurion were versatile. They had the speed to operate in the exploitation role. They had a big enough turret ring to mount a 17 pdr gun or better.

By comparison, the Churchill had two main strong points: its agility in tough terrain and its armor. After WWII, its armor wasn't good enough to stop enemy anti-tank weapons and its agility alone wasn't enough to make up for its many limitations. That's one main reason why it didn't see much use after WWII.



As the saying goes, though, "beggars can't be choosers" and there were many countries in the postwar period that would take whatever they got. Had it been called upon to do so, the Churchill could have been upgraded in various ways to continue to serve. They'd need to be well cared for, but that can be said of many tank types.

At this point, though, we're covering old ground. You, me, and rickshaw discussed much of this in 2010 on the What If forum thread on the Churchill.

Cheers,

Logan
« Last Edit: January 06, 2015, 11:26:34 PM by Logan Hartke »

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #110 on: July 04, 2014, 06:27:52 AM »
So...... what could be done to make retaining the Churchill as painless as possble?
Later production batches of the "light" Churchills and the Mk VII "heavy" Churchill were not as bad in terms of maintenance. The engines were generally reliable and once the bugs were worked out of the tranny, it was as well.

Quote
I'm at this point expecting it to be engine and transmission...... would there be more?
One issue that was never really resolved was the suspension. They strengthened it so it seldom broke, but the many small units always required too much maintenance and there is no replacing them with a different design.

Quote
I don't suppose sharing engine with the Sherman is feasible
Actually, sharing an engine with a Sherman might be, as long as you are talking about the Ford GAA from the M4A3 and M26. It would be similar in size to the Bedfords and up to 550 hp, a useful increase from the Bedford's 350 or so. Once you get into the 1960s, you can replace the GAA with a commercial diesel of even higher HP in a similar-sized package that probably includes a new or modified tranny. It would need a new engine deck, but that's nothing as the M50s and M51s showed.

Paul

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #111 on: July 04, 2014, 08:45:41 AM »
As I understand it, it was mainly the suspension that was the source of most of the tank's maintenance needs. It was that very suspension and layout that helped give it the agility that it was renowned for. The engine and gearbox weren't as reliable as those on the Sherman, but they weren't as bad as those on the German heavies.

Well, the Merrit-Browne gearboxes were the best in the world and developed versions continue to this day in use in the Challenger MBT and were the ancestors of most heavy synchromesh gearboxes.  Even the German ZF gearboxes of the German Heavies relied heavily on the same technology (something which came as a person surprise to me when I read it in Fletcher's "Tiger!" book).  The suspension was reliable, as were the engines.   It may appear over complex to our eyes but for the period it was fairly standard fair.  One only has to look at the comparable pre-war German heavies to see that.   I've seen British Army training films which showed just how agile a Churchill was compared to the other tanks of the period and you'd be surprised what a well trained driver could do with them and what sort of slopes they could climb.  There were scenes in one such film of the various tanks undertaking an obstacle course for comparison and the Churchill powered through whereas all others were slowed or stopped.

Quote
I think the answer to operating the Churchill as painlessly as possible is to simply use it in a role that suits it.

Which is exactly what I proposed.   A specialist role with a specialist tank to fulfil it.

Quote
When you needed an assault tank in challenging terrain, the Churchill had no rival. Try to force it on a 100 mile road march, use it for patrolling, send it up against an armored threat, or use it in the exploitation role and you're going to be sorely disappointed. Similarly, if you are forced to retreat, you'll be leaving broken down tanks on the side of the road, as they had to do at Seoul in 1951.

Well, the Churchills sent to Korea were unfortunately somewhat elderly and had not been maintained to their peak since the end of the war, Logan.  A better example would be the British advance into Germany in 1945 where advances of over 100 miles were the norm, withh few breakdowns and where the tanks were used as general support tanks.

Quote
Therein lies the problem. The Churchill was overspecialized. Britain retained a few after WWII for specialist roles, but discarded most of them. The Sherman, Comet, and Centurion were versatile. They had the speed to operate in the exploitation role. They had a big enough turret ring to mount a 17 pdr gun or better.

By comparison, the Churchill had two main strong points: its agility in tough terrain and its armor. After WWII, its armor wasn't good enough to stop enemy anti-tank weapons and its agility alone wasn't enough to make up for its many limitations. That's one main reason why it didn't see much use after WWII.

I agree, however I am not suggesting the use of the Churchill as anything other than what it was designed for.  Yes, the British moved towards a "Universal Tank" as Montgomery called it.  So did the US Army after WWII - the artificial division between tanks and tank destroyers was done away with in exactly the same way the artificial division between Infantry and Cruiser tanks was.  The Centurion was a good half-way house between the two.  It's interesting they chose the Churchill's gearbox to propel it, though.


Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #112 on: July 04, 2014, 09:02:17 AM »
Well, the Merrit-Browne gearboxes were the best in the world and developed versions continue to this day in use in the Challenger MBT
True, but the initial units in Churchills were terrible for reliability. Later production batch units were much, much better.
Quote
It's interesting they chose the Churchill's gearbox to propel it, though.
The Merrit-Browne design, yes, but not the Churchill's actual unit. The Cent was much, much too heavy for the actual Churchill units (52 vs 39 t).

According to "Mr. Churchill's tank" the suspension, once strengthened in the reworked and later production vehicles, was reliable as long as it was well cared for, which took a lot of preventative maintenance.

Paul

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #113 on: July 04, 2014, 11:57:04 AM »
A gearbox does not a reliable tank make. Besides, just because something is the technological basis for a later development doesn't make it inherently reliable. The V-2 rocket was the ancestor to the Saturn V, one of the most reliable rocket designs in the history of spaceflight, and I don't need to tell you how reliable the V-2 was...



In Italy, the 21st Tank Brigade (12th RTR, 48 RTR, 145 RAC) operated a mix of Churchills and Shermans in operations together. From late 1944 to early 1945 the Brigade was involved in assaulting the Gothic Line. During those operations, the losses were 52 Churchill, 29 Shermans, 4 Stuarts of which 15 Churchill and 21 Shermans were recovered in salvageable condition and repaired. The disparity between the Churchill and Sherman write off figures can be explained by the fact that the former were used primarily as assault tanks and the latter as support tanks.

In maintenance the Brigade workshops used:
  • 23 Churchill engines
  • 4 Sherman engines
  • 1 Stuart engine
  • 6064 Churchill track shoes
  • 240 Sherman track shoes
  • 87 Churchill bogie units
  • 24 Sherman bogie units
  • 4 Churchill gearboxes
  • 7 Churchill final drives
  • 2 Churchill idler wheels
  • 28 Churchill drive sprockets
While the Churchill gearbox seems to be the least troublesome component on the Churchill, it still falls well short of the Sherman for reliability. During that time, they didn't need a single replacement Sherman transmission.



I hope this example puts the matter to rest. If we can't evaluate the Churchill as it existed in 1943, 1944, 1945, or 1951, I have to ask at what point we can evaluate its reliability? The Shermans used in Korea were likewise well worn, some even having been used as monuments before being reactivated and sent to Korea, but they served reliably throughout the conflict.

As for the Churchill's role as an assault tank, it was well suited for the role, certainly, but I'd argue that it was no better suited than the Sherman Jumbo. You see, while envisaged as an assault tank, the Sherman Jumbo ended up not being used in that role exclusively. It was the versatility of the Sherman that we've been discussing that permitted the use of the Sherman Jumbo in ways that would not have been wise or economical for the Churchill VII to perform.



You see, you're looking for a Churchill-sized hole in the US Army for the tank to fill and—because of the way the US Army was organized at the time—no such hole of any size existed at the time. US Shermans operated in two primary formations during WWII, Armored Divisions and independent tank battalions. The Churchill didn't have the speed to operate in US Armored Divisions given their role of exploitation. The Jumbo, however, could keep up—and did. In fact, the Third Army assigned more than half of its allotted Jumbos to Armored Divisions.

Now, I imagine your proposal is to equip some US independent tank battalions with the Churchill, operating in the role of infantry support tank as it did in the British Army. There are two main issues with this. First of all, US independent tank battalions were not permanently assigned to infantry divisions. Some were shuffled around to different sectors of the front, supporting different infantry divisions, airborne divisions, cavalry squadrons, etc. Even if we ignore the logistical problem of trying to follow around a half-dozen Churchill battalions in US Armies, you still have the problem of different infantry division commanders having to adapt to operating with an entirely unfamiliar tank type. You mentioned the US Army eliminating the artificial division between tank destroyers and tanks after WWII? They had enough trouble with US commanders when they'd swap an M10 Wolverine unit for an M4 Sherman unit, and those were vehicles with VERY similar capabilities. Now try to swap an M10 unit for a Churchill unit. It would be a complete culture shock. You'd have the division commander asking the Churchill commanders to perform missions they were entirely unsuited for, or vice versa. I'd hate to show up to support a division with M18 Hellcats when the infantry commander was used to Churchills. It's hard to think of "tanks" that were more dissimilar in WWII.



Furthermore, the Jumbo never equipped any full battalion. It always operated with normal Shermans. The most Jumbos received by any single battalion is 15 tanks, about on quarter of its medium tank strength. This was no problem with the Jumbo since they could use the same tracks, bogies, engines, transmissions, etc. as any standard M4A3. You could not do any of these things with a Churchill.

If, on the other hand, you try to equip an entire US battalion with them, you run out of Churchills pretty quickly. You need 59 Shermans for a US tank battalion, and that's not counting attrition, combat losses, etc. They only made 1,600 A22Fs total. You use up about 4% of the total production run for every battalion you wish to outfit...no losses. Jumbos served in 13 different independent US Army tank battalions in the ETO, primarily used to lead assaults, lead tank columns, etc. If you tried to replace all the Shermans in those battalions alone with heavy Churchills, you use up half the A22F production run. The US deployed 35 independent medium tank battalions in support of the 42 infantry divisions that served in France and Germany. Replace all the Shermans in those battalions and you use up every A22F built, again, no replacements, none left for the Commonwealth.



If you try to operate them in penny packet fashion, as the US did with the Jumbo, then you run into all the problems with the logistics and maintenance at the lower level. A typical number of Jumbos in a battalion was 5. Give a US tank battalion 5 Churchills and see how much fun they have operating them alongside 50 Shermans and 17 Stuarts.

So, I reiterate, the Churchill VII could not have performed the role of the Sherman Jumbo in WWII. It wasn't versatile enough to serve in the variety of roles performed by the Jumbo. Mechanically, it prevented interoperability with the US tank battalions in small numbers like the Sherman Jumbo did. On the other hand, it wasn't numerous enough to completely replace the Sherman in anything but a very small number of US independent tank battalions. Even then, it would complicate the US ability to swap battalions between divisions as necessary risking even greater danger to the units operating the Churchill, the infantry they'd be supporting, and even other battalions that may be called upon to replace them.



I think the only reasonable scenario for the replacement of standard Sherman gun tanks in US Army service with Churchill VIIs on any scale is in Italy. If you replaced the Shermans that served with the independent tank battalions in Italy, you'd probably at least get an even break for the trouble. Italy was already the red-headed stepchild of the US Army logistical branch, never getting the good equipment like 76mm-armed Shermans, M36 tank destroyers, or Jumbos in any numbers. So, the armor would be a pure upgrade and the armament wouldn't be any worse. Further still, the Sherman couldn't make good use of its greater speed in Italy and the "mountain goat" nature of the Churchill would serve it well.

Finally, you're not talking about 35 battalions in that scenario. You're really just looking at 751st, 752nd, 755th, 757th, 758th, and 760th battalions. That's still over 350 tanks, 100 more tanks than the total number of Jumbos built and over a fifth of all A22Fs produced, but a lot fewer tanks that would be required in France and Germany. Alternatively, you could just keep all the Shermans and just replace the light tank companies in the independent tank battalions in Italy with Churchills. That allows you to basically cut out an unnecessary tank type (the M5 Stuart) that nobody's really going to miss and still gain the advantages of the Churchill. It also means that you only need six companies of Churchills, or about 100 tanks. Even with the necessary replacements, it's still a relatively reasonable number. Given how closely US forces in Italy operated with British forces and how rarely they got new equipment anyway, this relatively uncommon tank wouldn't be too much of a headache in Italy.

That's about the only plausible scenario I see for gun-armed Churchills in US Army service in any numbers in WWII.

Cheers,

Logan
« Last Edit: January 06, 2015, 11:25:41 PM by Logan Hartke »

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #114 on: July 05, 2014, 12:37:01 AM »
Once you get into the 1960s, you can replace the GAA with a commercial diesel of even higher HP in a similar-sized package that probably includes a new or modified tranny. It would need a new engine deck, but that's nothing as the M50s and M51s showed.

How about Cummins VT8-460?  I know it was fitted to A1 and A4 instead of A3 but as an aftermarket engine, so I don't know if engine size was a consideration for the Super Sherman.

(You know, I have an awful sense of scale and therefore need to constantly ask size-related questions  ;D)

Come to think about it, M36 during the Yugoslav Civil War were re-engined with one used on the T-55, too...... granted, I'm not necessarily limiting my options to the afore-mentioned two- they just so happened to have been used in a Sherman or Sherman derivative (which I intent the upgraded Churchill to serve alongside).  Your mention of a commercial diesel seems like plenties to choose from.  :)
« Last Edit: July 05, 2014, 12:51:57 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #115 on: July 05, 2014, 02:33:41 AM »
I have no idea what commercial diesels would fit in any of these tanks. I have no knowledge of them whatsoever, just an understadning that a couple of countries replaced Sherman sized engines with diesels at around that time so something, somewhere would likely fit the bill. :)

Paul

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #116 on: July 06, 2014, 09:40:50 PM »
Logan, thats a comprehensive rebuttal.  I wasn't aware that the Jumbo was not used in separate battalions and instead shared out in penny packets.

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #117 on: July 06, 2014, 10:00:06 PM »
Yep. Here's a breakdown as compiled by someone far smarter than me (Chad Lares):

Quote
Tank units in the ETO with Jumbos on hand (the assignment of units to armies is as of mid December). This listing appears to account for all units issued with the Jumbo.

First Army

3rd AD 6 (16 Dec)
5th AD 3 (19 Dec)
70th TkBn 4 (11 Feb)
743rd TkBn 15 (14 Oct, 3 lost as of 3 Dec)
745th TkBn 15 (14 Oct), 1 (15 Dec)
746th TkBn 6 (14 Oct), 15 (9 Nov), 5 (21 Dec)
774th TkBn 10 (16 Dec)

The 70th Tank Battalion’s tanks were in very poor condition in mid December. Unit diaries note that they were all “original issue” and worn out. Thus it appears that the Jumbos assigned to the 70th Tank Battalion may have been from some of the last available. These units account for about 37 in mid December and a total of 22 were lost to 28 January. That total of 59 is very similar to the 54 on hand and en route as of 3 December. It is likely that all 40-odd of the remaining 105 allocated to the First Army were utilized as replacements and to equip the 70th Tank Battalion.

Third Army

4th AD 20 (22 Dec)
6th AD 11 (29 Dec, this may include the 5 reported en route on 3 December)
10th AD 5 (22 Nov)
702nd Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov), 5 (29 Jan)
712th Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov), 1 (11 Feb)
735th Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov), 2 (12 Feb)
737th Tk Bn 15 (22 Nov), 5 (15 Dec), 3 (29 Jan)
761st Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov)

The available reports tend to indicate that this is a fairly accurate picture of all the Jumbos assigned to the Third Army. By mid December some 68 may be accounted for including 7 that had been lost. This closely matches the 59 on hand and 5 en route count for 3 December. It may also be concluded that 10 were probably withdrawn from the 737th Tank Battalion prior to 15 December and were assigned to the 4th (or less likely 6th) AD. The remaining 30-odd allocated to the Third Army were probably utilized as replacements in these units during 1945.

Ninth Army

709th Tk Bn 1 (19 Dec)
747th Tk Bn 5 (27 Nov, plus 10 en route)
778th Tk Bn 4 (27 Jan)

This appears to account for only 20 of the 36 on hand or en route as of 3 December. Three had been lost to that date and another was lost between 21-28 December. The remaining 12 or 13 may have been issued later (likely to the 709th Tk Bn), may have been issued to other units (possibly the 3rd AD), or they may have been retained as replacements. It appears probable that the remaining 24 of the 60 allocated to the Ninth Army were never in fact shipped, given the strategic situation in mid December, the losses sustained to date, and the reduction in the number shipped from 254 to 250.

It does not appear as if the 2nd, 7th-14th, 16th, or 20th Armored Divisions were ever issued Jumbos.




This explains why almost all pictures of the Jumbo show it in "mixed company" and you almost never see multiple Jumbos in the same picture. That's just not how they were used. They were often used to lead a column of Shermans whenever they were on a road march because they could shrug off a hit from a Pak 40. It's no coincidence that "Cobra King" was the first tank into Bastogne. It was leading the way for a reason. Because this was happening all across the ETO from late 1944 until the end of the war, with the Jumbo serving in at least 13 different independent tank battalions and 5 different armored divisions, the Jumbo was a real force multiplier in a way 250 Churchills never could have been.

Again, about the worst thing that you can say about the Jumbo is that they didn't build enough of them.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #118 on: January 04, 2015, 12:16:12 AM »
As I have been laid up for the last several weeks I have been reading a fair bit and watching a few documentaries (mostly on You Tube) and a fair bit of it has been on tanks. 

Something that keeps coming up is the comparative unreliability of British tanks and how everyone preferred Shermans, until the shooting started.  I had no idea how many Shermans were lost, or that some battalions / regiment suffered 500% plus vehicle casualties between D-day and VE Day.  I had heard the story that it took four or five Shermans to kill a single Panther or Tiger with often with the loss of some Shermans but didn't realise that it was actually a deliberate tactic to sacrifice tanks to get a single vehicle into a position, where if it was lucky it could kill the Panzer from the rear and this often resulted in the loss of three or four of the Shermans, sometimes the only survivor was the Panzer. 

There were references to Pattons involvement in selecting the Sherman as the main tank to be used in western Europe, rating reliability, speed and transportability over protection and firepower, numbers and availability over combat power.  Reference to the ability to produce tens of thousands of them and move them to the front easily. While I understand that quantity has a quality all of its own you have to wonder if you've got it wrong when there is such a miss match in firepower and protection.  The fact that both the Firefly and the Jumbo exist show what could be achieved, the fact that the Pershing could have been made available, the fact that the Churchill was competitive in protection. 

Was the issue the Tank Destroyer doctrine?  Did the US Army actually believe, in spite of almost five years of war, that this was actually workable?  The Sherman was more than adequate against most infantry weapons and indirect fire but screwed against tanks, AT guns, assault guns and specialist tank destroyers, the trouble is the whole idea of Blitzkrieg is combined arms operations, they were pretty much always going to find German armour and AT assets mixed in with infantry.  To destroy tanks the US Army relied on TD battalions, towed or SP or, in reality, trading numbers (and lives) in the tank battalions.  Maybe there weren't enough Jumbos and the Churchill would have been a logistical nightmare but they definitely needed better protected vehicles that could survive a hit as well as a vehicle that could effectively engage German armour over combat ranges.

The US had no interest in building material of foreign design but were perfectly willing to supply US designed gear to allies.  This is too bad in my opinion as US industrial capacity combined with British combat experience could easily have produced a superior vehicle (or two), in Sherman like numbers, in time for the Normandy invasion.  Imagine a heavy tank based on the Churchill with a Packard version of the Meteor and a 17pdr as well as a version of the Cromwell, again with the Meteor and 17pdr (ironically as originally intended before they realised it didn't fit).  The US, with their resources could have refined and perfected these vehicles and had them in mass production well in time for Normandy.  It would have dramatically improved the combat performance of the Allies and more importantly reduced losses, therefore reducing the need to produce so many vehicles and train so many replacements.  It would also have better set up the Allies to counter the shock of seeing the IS3 for the first time.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #119 on: January 04, 2015, 12:18:25 AM »
Would a Comet turret fit a Churchill?

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #120 on: January 04, 2015, 09:37:11 AM »
Would a Comet turret fit a Churchill?

Churchill turret ring - 54.25 inches
Comet turret ring - 64 inches

You'd need an adapter structure.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #121 on: January 04, 2015, 09:38:09 AM »
Widen the Churchill? ???
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #122 on: January 04, 2015, 10:56:14 AM »
Widen the Churchill? ???
Well, if you absolutely needed to fit a Comet turret, I can envision how it could be done, a huge adaptor flange that would fit over the Churchill turret ring and properly support the Comet turret.  Loads would definitely require it to be made out of high-strength steel and it would be a right pain to machine and add significantly to the final vehicle's weight.  Something definitely more suited to whif-dom than reality.

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #123 on: January 04, 2015, 12:11:50 PM »
Widen the Churchill? ???


Which just gives you Black Prince.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Prince_(tank)

Churchill, and the 'infantry tank' concept, was a dead end.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #124 on: January 04, 2015, 01:10:07 PM »
Since I came across people during this past week talking about how Yugoslavia was able to keep their T-34-85 somewhat useful during the Cold War with domestically-developed HEAT ammunition, I couldn't help to think of a Churchill with 25-pounder tank howitzer again...... this time in Yugoslav colours even though they used neither, IIRC......
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 01:11:45 PM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?