Author Topic: Churchill Tank  (Read 35841 times)

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 #15 on: November 27, 2013, 10:52:47 AM »
Ah huh but not looking for a Black Prince, looking for minimal change to the chassis but must have the Meteor and its 600bhp

Hum...... maybe you can try a French-style oscillating turret then......
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 Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2013, 11:01:23 AM »
Hadn't thought of that, it would work!

What the history of the oscillating turret, I know it was first prototyped for a cancelled late 40s MBT but was the concept around for an escaping French designer / engineer to offer it to the Brits in 1940?

No thinking Churchill Mk VII with a raised engine deck and oscillating turret with a 17pdr, would probably look at a larger bustle though, one that permits the autoloader to be topped up from under armour.

Offline buzzbomb

  • Low Concentration Span, oft wanders betwixt projects
  • Accurate Scale representations of fictional stuff
    • Club and my stuff site
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2013, 12:58:36 PM »
As another thought, totally without looking at the detail.. what about popping an Achilles Tank Destroyer open topped Turret with the 17pdr on it.. I cannot see that the ring size of that and the MkVII Churchy would be too much different.
 

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2013, 01:43:53 AM »
Churchill: 54.25"

M10/Achilles: 69"
"Evil our grandsires were, our fathers worse;
And we, till now unmatched in ill,
Must leave successors more corrupted still."
Horace, 65BC - 8BC. Marsh translation.

Offline Feldmarschall Zod

  • Kitbasher extroinadaire
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I hope that's not the sound he makes...
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2013, 02:34:43 AM »
Accurate Armour has a Churchill dozer conversion armed with a 165 mm demolition gun for the Tamiya kit. Also includes a decal sheet.

http://www.accurate-armour.com/ShowProduct.cfm?manufacturer=0&category=66&subcategory=39&product=2361
Every time you eat celery,an angel vomits in a gas station bathroom. Tanks rule. I know the load is late,but the voices tell me to pull over and clean the guns.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2013, 09:50:58 AM »
Churchill: 54.25"

M10/Achilles: 69"

Ok 14.75" difference, over a foot!
374.65mm - 10.71mm in 1/35 that is a big plug to increase width and probably an extra road wheel for length, back in Black Prince territory.

Another option I just thought of is raise the hull and have sponsons over the tracks.  Alternatively move the trunnions mounts forward, or the trunnions themselves back onto the breach with a counter weight on an integrated loading tray and have a counter balancing bustle.

Comet had a 64" turret ring, 247.65mm difference, 7.1mm in 1/35 still a lot to fudge.  Messing with the hull height or trunnions looks the most promising.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2013, 09:55:36 AM »
Accurate Armour has a Churchill dozer conversion armed with a 165 mm demolition gun for the Tamiya kit. Also includes a decal sheet.

http://www.accurate-armour.com/ShowProduct.cfm?manufacturer=0&category=66&subcategory=39&product=2361


Interesting, I wonder if a 25pdr adapted with a one piece round would fit in a standard MkVII turret?  APDS and HE would be pretty effective and probably better than the 75mm while still not in 17pdr or 76mm territory.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2013, 10:56:17 AM »
Another thought, the Cromwell based Charioteer had a two man turret with a 20pdr, could a similar turret have been developed for the Churchill in WWII for the 17pdr?

Offline buzzbomb

  • Low Concentration Span, oft wanders betwixt projects
  • Accurate Scale representations of fictional stuff
    • Club and my stuff site
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #23 on: November 28, 2013, 12:55:22 PM »
Another thought, the Cromwell based Charioteer had a two man turret with a 20pdr, could a similar turret have been developed for the Churchill in WWII for the 17pdr?


Same sort of thing was done with the Centurion to produce the Conway, bung a larger turret on the basic hull


Your thoughts around the 25pdr appear sound.. look at the Bishop mounting on a Valentine, which was much smaller than a Churchill, albeit non rotating.

Again around the Conway project.. you could do something like this

Online Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
    • SketchUp 3D Warehouse - My Digital Models
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2013, 01:33:45 PM »
Churchill could really benefit from a sloped front glacis plate and get rid of that shot trap.
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2013, 02:35:14 PM »
Another thought, the Cromwell based Charioteer had a two man turret with a 20pdr, could a similar turret have been developed for the Churchill in WWII for the 17pdr?

It could have been done but the question would have been, "why?"

The Churchill was developed as an infantry tank and was not intended to engage other tanks so a gun which fired a good sized HE round and had a secondary AT round with reasonable penetration was what was required and the 75mm did that rather well.

Infantry tanks were originally not even intended to have cannons but rather MGs and were intended just to engage strong points and keep the enemy's heads down while the infantry followed up the creeping barrage.   It was soon realised that with the proliferation of AT guns a HE thrower was required to engage and destroy the ones which the artillery barrage had missed.    I refer you back to the military ethos article I posted for you in the scenarios forum.

Offline Feldmarschall Zod

  • Kitbasher extroinadaire
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I hope that's not the sound he makes...
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2013, 06:45:45 PM »
Accurate Armour has a Churchill dozer conversion armed with a 165 mm demolition gun for the Tamiya kit. Also includes a decal sheet.

http://www.accurate-armour.com/ShowProduct.cfm?manufacturer=0&category=66&subcategory=39&product=2361


Interesting, I wonder if a 25pdr adapted with a one piece round would fit in a standard MkVII turret?  APDS and HE would be pretty effective and probably better than the 75mm while still not in 17pdr or 76mm territory.

I can see a 25 pdr in a Churchill turret.
Every time you eat celery,an angel vomits in a gas station bathroom. Tanks rule. I know the load is late,but the voices tell me to pull over and clean the guns.

Offline Feldmarschall Zod

  • Kitbasher extroinadaire
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I hope that's not the sound he makes...
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2013, 06:56:51 PM »
Another thought, the Cromwell based Charioteer had a two man turret with a 20pdr, could a similar turret have been developed for the Churchill in WWII for the 17pdr?

It could have been done but the question would have been, "why?"

The Churchill was developed as an infantry tank and was not intended to engage other tanks so a gun which fired a good sized HE round and had a secondary AT round with reasonable penetration was what was required and the 75mm did that rather well.

Infantry tanks were originally not even intended to have cannons but rather MGs and were intended just to engage strong points and keep the enemy's heads down while the infantry followed up the creeping barrage.   It was soon realised that with the proliferation of AT guns a HE thrower was required to engage and destroy the ones which the artillery barrage had missed.    I refer you back to the military ethos article I posted for you in the scenarios forum.
I know the Churchill and Sherman were not supposed to engage enemy tanks per doctrine. But how many times in combat do the enemy forces adhere to the official doctrine of the other side?
I see both sides of the conversation. One hand,you need something with a main gun with great AP performance is enemy tanks. But yet,you also need a tank that has a main gun that has great HE performance.
Every time you eat celery,an angel vomits in a gas station bathroom. Tanks rule. I know the load is late,but the voices tell me to pull over and clean the guns.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2013, 07:20:07 PM »
Looking outside the square for a counter for the Tiger I, the Churchill had the armour but could have done with an improved gun and engine.  The Churchill was one of the most common UK tanks in Europe post D Day so a minimum change version able to kill a Tiger would have been a useful addition, if not at troop level then definitely at squadron level, similar to the way Sherman Fireflies re-enforced regular Sherman units and the later Conqueror did for Centurion units.

The first Tiger I knocked out, actually immobilised and abandoned by its crew, was taken out by a Churchill in North Africa.  This Tiger, is I believe the running model Bovington has today.

The thinking behind the 25pdr was the set up in the Sentinel ACII but that was based on the short barrelled mountain gun version, I imaging a Churchill would have the full length or even a longer barrel.  For a slugging match with a Tiger the 17pdr or 77mm HV would be preferable, maybe an arrangement where the majority of Churchills have 25pdr and are supported buy 17pdr models at a ratio or 3:2 in each troop.  With the 25pdr being the standard gun the crappy 95mm could be discontinued.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2013, 07:35:34 PM by Volkodav »

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Churchill Tank
« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2013, 10:44:22 PM »
Another thought, the Cromwell based Charioteer had a two man turret with a 20pdr, could a similar turret have been developed for the Churchill in WWII for the 17pdr?

It could have been done but the question would have been, "why?"

The Churchill was developed as an infantry tank and was not intended to engage other tanks so a gun which fired a good sized HE round and had a secondary AT round with reasonable penetration was what was required and the 75mm did that rather well.

Infantry tanks were originally not even intended to have cannons but rather MGs and were intended just to engage strong points and keep the enemy's heads down while the infantry followed up the creeping barrage.   It was soon realised that with the proliferation of AT guns a HE thrower was required to engage and destroy the ones which the artillery barrage had missed.    I refer you back to the military ethos article I posted for you in the scenarios forum.
I know the Churchill and Sherman were not supposed to engage enemy tanks per doctrine. But how many times in combat do the enemy forces adhere to the official doctrine of the other side?
I see both sides of the conversation. One hand,you need something with a main gun with great AP performance is enemy tanks. But yet,you also need a tank that has a main gun that has great HE performance.

Hence the creation of the "Universal Tank" and by extension the MBT concept which did away with the Heavy Tank.

While it's easy to be dismissive of this sort of artificial division of responsibilities, always remember, all major combatants did it to some degree or other in the early years of mechanised development (primarily, I suspect 'cause they copied the British "Purple Primer" training pamphlet on Mechanised Warfare (even Gudrian did it as well!).