Comments on: Tanks on Trial: Churchill – a Bad Tank or a Good One?

By: Freddy3

Freddy3 — Thu, 08 May 2014 12:11:37 +0000

The Churchill had a 95mm gun on the C/S versions in Western Europe and was used succesfully but was not employed in action as often as it was in the HQ element – for most tasks the 75mm firing a couple of rounds did the job before the limited number or 95mm could get there. The 75mm being better for AT work as well – unless the HEAT round was issued at the time?

Cromwells were liked for size and speed – gun suffered the same problem as the Sherman (as far as I can remember only the 75mm and 95mm versions saw combat). Later versions also had much wider tracks.

By: nublex

nublex — Thu, 08 May 2014 05:47:16 +0000

SS was comparing Churchill to Cromwell, but the later wasn’t in production until a year later, which isn’t (not quite) everyone’s favorite until it was upgraded into Comet.

We today knew all about spalling and actual statistic of engagement, but suffice to say having a heavy tank that can protect their crews well is quite important. And if they armed Churchill with 25pdr they would be a lot more successful then we know them today.

As for being slippery on ice….even the German fail to prepare for it, they add grousers after the disastrous winter.

By: Freddy3

Freddy3 — Wed, 07 May 2014 23:40:07 +0000

Lol the Soviets loved the 2500 Valentine though and used it as a light tank, it totally outclassed their own light tanks in all but speed and the combat speed of tanks was no where near their theoretical or road speed.

Just because the Soviets had a disliking for a vehicle did not make it bad, you say one report from the Soviets who used around 300 Churchills makes it a bad tank yet ignore that the British fielded thousands of them successfully in combat with the crews loving them – yes many british tankers wanted a better gun after late 1940 – the 6 pdr could deal with nearly every tank it faced (it should have been entering service in 1940 and the 17pdr in early 1942) until late 1944 and by then 17pdrs were in common service.

In British hands it was reliable, safe for the crews, and had adequate firepower for its main job and pretty much all it faced.

Comparing one Churchill tank (34+ tonnes) with the production cost of two valentines (16 tonnes) well erm you do see the maths there ?

It was much better armoured than the Sherman – had much better cross country and climbing ability than the Sherman – its 75mm was equivalent to the 75mm on Shermans while its 6pdr was better at AT work.

By: Listy

Listy — Wed, 07 May 2014 22:28:37 +0000

Well Analysis says that the US 76mm gun is better than a 17Lbr as well…

By: mr_clark

mr_clark — Wed, 07 May 2014 19:22:27 +0000

Don’t exchange cause and effect here: The Soviets didn’t aquire more Churchills because the vehicle didn’t meet any expectations.
And seriously: They weren’t extremely picky for stuff that worked, see 2000 Valentines or 2000 M4s that weren’t exactly superior to Soviet equipment, and they had substantial numbers of “comparable tanks”.

If we play the numbers game… Apparently the production cost of one Churchill was bout that of two Valentines; or when this one became increasingly obsolete 2 Shermans (two sets of engines, guns and so on reduces the gap to only that amount). Unlike Listy, I doubt the “missing” 5000 Churchills would have been felt when 5000 additional tanks would have been on the battlefields. (during the whole war, only counting 1943-45 we’d talk about 3500 each)

By: Kena

Kena — Wed, 07 May 2014 16:49:08 +0000

*slopes even. I should learn to proofread within the edit timelimit…

By: Infernal969

Infernal969 — Wed, 07 May 2014 16:44:41 +0000

Fun fact: the biggest history liars based on the principle “we won” are the Russians that deny all of their war crimes because “hey, we freed Yurop!!!!!!!!!11111111111111″.
But yeah, I’m talking to a Putin fanboy, why do I expect reason. Go kiss uncle Stalin goodnight and go to sleep, maybe you will get your food ration for the day and a day off from the lead mine.

By: Kena

Kena — Wed, 07 May 2014 16:42:05 +0000

I had read about their issue with the tank rolling over – it was due to it being driven on the steep slops of raised roads through boggy wetlands

By: Freddy3

Freddy3 — Wed, 07 May 2014 16:38:05 +0000

Soviets used 300 how many did the British use? I prefer to see what the majority users say about equipment as opposed to a minor user who has a diametrically opposed political thinking

Soviets also tend to denigrate anything not built by them, they had comparable tanks to the Churchill of their own so with the small number they had it was not going to be regarded that well.

By: Infernal969

Infernal969 — Wed, 07 May 2014 16:37:18 +0000

The best anti-Soviet propaganda was the USSR itself. I wonder why everyone was joining Hitler right after they got free from the red scum and later wanted to side with the West, not the Glorious Communist Empire that was a big tumor on the face of this planet. Maybe the death of millions caused by this retarded regime was a propaganda too?