Author Topic: Churchill Tank  (Read 51129 times)

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #175 on: June 13, 2015, 08:47:16 PM »
Interesting.  What turret did you use?

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #176 on: June 13, 2015, 08:57:14 PM »
Nice, M-24 turret?

What's the back story again?

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #177 on: June 13, 2015, 10:38:42 PM »
Back story: Imagine if the Aussies had decided to build a tank based on the Churchill instead of the Sentinel they did build. Cast hull and new turret. No shot trap in front of the driver, better shaped turret and hull, 25 pdr lengthened 10 calibres for better AT performance against weak Japanese armour while retaining the excellent HE punch of the 25 pdr for infantry support.

Scratch-built turret, though it does have an M24 look to it, to be sure. I kept the same height of the Churchill turret but moved the hatches a tad outboard to account for the larger breech of the 25 pdr. I imagined a better, shorter stroke recoil system that would have allowed the system to stay under armour and to limit the stroke to something that could stay within the Churchill's relatively limited turret ring. Better ballistic shape to the turret with a narrower front, slightly elongated nose to put the trunions a tad further forward for recoil management, a heavy, external mantlet with integral co-ax and sighting telescope with a back-up American style sight periscope. Gunner and commander on the left with loader to the right. Enough room in the ballistic shape of the rear of the turret for the radio, the good old No.19 set.

Aussie railway gauge was a bit larger than the UK one so the need to remove the air cleaners and have the narrow hull didn't exist. The Aussie designers took advantage of this to shape the hull sides better and get rid of the side doors. This provided additional stowage space for ammo and crew kit but also provided additional stowage points on the sides for blankets and tarps.

We kicked around a lot of the concept about a year ago when I started it.

Online 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 #178 on: June 14, 2015, 01:26:37 AM »
Aussie railway gauge was a bit larger than the UK one so the need to remove the air cleaners and have the narrow hull didn't exist. The Aussie designers took advantage of this to shape the hull sides better and get rid of the side doors. This provided additional stowage space for ammo and crew kit but also provided additional stowage points on the sides for blankets and tarps.

Did you enlarge the turret ring, or did you just give the tank thicker side skirts?
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 GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #179 on: June 14, 2015, 04:27:36 AM »
Very attractive
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #180 on: June 14, 2015, 08:30:50 AM »
Did you enlarge the turret ring, or did you just give the tank thicker side skirts?
Did not enlarge the turret ring, that would have meant widening the hull. The hull sponson sides are (in the design in my head) not "thicker" but they are wider due to the wedge shape. They are the same width as the air cleaner inlets.

BTW, on the Churchill, the hull sides you see are not "skirts" (a thin metal side armour), they are the actual structural sides of the vehicle and the suspension is mounted around the circumference of those extended side panels.

Paul

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #181 on: June 14, 2015, 08:58:25 AM »

BTW, on the Churchill, the hull sides you see are not "skirts" (a thin metal side armour), they are the actual structural sides of the vehicle and the suspension is mounted around the circumference of those extended side panels.



As shown here:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Online 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 #182 on: June 14, 2015, 10:05:33 AM »
Did not enlarge the turret ring, that would have meant widening the hull.

So it can be retrofitted to older Churchill models  >:D

BTW, on the Churchill, the hull sides you see are not "skirts" (a thin metal side armour), they are the actual structural sides of the vehicle and the suspension is mounted around the circumference of those extended side panels.

As shown here......

Totally forgot about it  ;D
« Last Edit: June 14, 2015, 10:09:31 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 #183 on: June 14, 2015, 11:34:29 AM »
Did not enlarge the turret ring, that would have meant widening the hull.

So it can be retrofitted to older Churchill models  >:D
Yes, yes it could.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #184 on: October 11, 2018, 08:01:31 PM »

Crew of an Australian A22 Churchill IV inspecting the tank on trials at Madang, Papua New Guinea, 23/8/1944
[Source]

Quote
In 1943 the Australian government placed an order for six A22 Churchill tanks and three M4A2 Sherman tanks for trials to replace the A12 Matilda. Australia received two A22 Churchill mk. IV tanks as pictured (registration no. T172724B and T173033B), two A22 Churchill mk. V tanks (registration no. T173250B (named "the stork") and T173254B), one A22 Churchill mk. VI (registration no. T173279C) and one A42 Churchill VII with the registration no. T173165, which could be found in Melbourne tank museum before it was auctioned off in 2009. The Churchill tank design was preferred as it was judged to have superior armour (...six inch frontal armour tho), superior firepower, ground clearance and - get this - BETTER JUNGLE MOBILITY, PARTICULARLY IN LOW GEAR, something that OP finds hilarious. The order for 510 Churchill VII and VIII models was placed, but in the end only 45 (plus six trial vehicles) were received.


[Source]
MADANG, NEW GUINEA. 1944-10-12. A CHURCHILL V TANK BOGGED DOWN FOR RECOVERY DURING TESTS ...


[Source]
An Infantry Tank Mk IV, also known as a Churchill Mk VII. Similar vehicles are visible in the ...


MADANG, NEW GUINEA. 1944-10-12. A CHURCHILL V FOLLOWED BY A CHURCHILL IV TANK RETURNING TO THE TANK PARK DURING TESTS CONDUCTED AT HQ 4 ARMOURED BRIGADE



Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #185 on: October 11, 2018, 10:22:35 PM »
Quote
BETTER JUNGLE MOBILITY, PARTICULARLY IN LOW GEAR, something that OP finds hilarious
The OP may have found it hilarious, but the Churchill was well known for being able to get places that Shermans, Cromwells and even Carriers could not. In low gear, as said, it could climb almost anything a human could walk up.

Paul

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #186 on: September 07, 2019, 06:05:47 PM »
I just bought the New Vanguard Churchill book on Kindle and low and behold the A20 was designed with as 54" diameter turret ring to take the Matilda II turret. The A22 (Churchill), that was developed from it, retained the same turret ring diameter, due to the track sponson design making it impossible to have a larger diameter.  Interestingly many of the original Churchill turrets were manufacture in the US.