Improve the Churchill tank.

1st thing to do: Fix the damn tracks.
Those Churchills at Dieppe were nothing but deathtraps, getting stuck on the beach and going no further.
 
1st thing to do: Fix the damn tracks.
Those Churchills at Dieppe were nothing but deathtraps, getting stuck on the beach and going no further.
Was that because of the tracks? I was under the impression that was an intelligence failing, in picking the wrong beaches. Considering how famous the Churchill’s climbing ability is, it seems unlikely any other tank would have done better.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Was that because of the tracks? I was under the impression that was an intelligence failing, in picking the wrong beaches. Considering how famous the Churchill’s climbing ability is, it seems unlikely any other tank would have done better.
It was the shingle beach. I doubt any contemporary tank could have got off the beach, and then there were the concrete road blocks that stopped them going anywhere.
 
It was the shingle beach. I doubt any contemporary tank could have got off the beach, and then there were the concrete road blocks that stopped them going anywhere.

There is a photo in the Osprey book on the Churchill of one of the C squadron MkIII's that made it accross the sea wall, the caption says it is carrying an elementary bobbin mat-layer.

That suggests some thought was given to the shingle problem.
 
It was the shingle beach. I doubt any contemporary tank could have got off the beach, and then there were the concrete road blocks that stopped them going anywhere.

It generated interest in the 'Bobbin' to overcome shingle and the AVRE armed with its Spigot Mortar to remove obstacles

Lots of you have mentioned issues with the 'Black Prince'

Its biggest problem is that it was 'not a Centurion' - because quite frankly why would you bother with the Black Prince when you had the Cent in parallel development?
 
It generated interest in the 'Bobbin' to overcome shingle and the AVRE armed with its Spigot Mortar to remove obstacles

Lots of you have mentioned issues with the 'Black Prince'

Its biggest problem is that it was 'not a Centurion' - because quite frankly why would you bother with the Black Prince when you had the Cent in parallel development?
Yes, which is why it only makes sense if the idea was integrated into the kind of great redesign that led to Churchill VII so it is introduced early enough. However, the British didn't want to make Churchills past 1943 so by the time the VII was considered it was probably too late to introduce more changes, so you need to change British thinking. Say, they test some of the new features on pilot hulls in 1941/42 (I dare say that would be a better use of Mk Is and IIs in England than just training).

However, a smart UK would just get a much better design ala Centurion or Assault Tank anyway.
 

marathag

Banned
You are indeed correct, I was getting my inter-war tanks mixed up. As I've posted previously the frustrating thing is that the UK had all of the parts, or clear development paths to them, for a successful tank but due to various reasons were never able to get there until right at the end.
Find a copy of _Rude Mechanicals_ by Smithers.
Goes over British Tank developments from WWI thru WWII, and Fletcher's _The Great Tank Scandal_ too.
 

McPherson

Banned
It was the shingle beach. I doubt any contemporary tank could have got off the beach, and then there were the concrete road blocks that stopped them going anywhere.

You would need prior recon to check the going and then apply testing back in England to overcome the slippage problem (ground friction coefficient). Maybe something like spiked track feet to dig in and grip? It is not the tank's fault, IOW.

Because the treads of most Churchill tanks were caught up in the shingle beaches of Dieppe, the Allies initiated pre-operation environmental intelligence collection, and devised appropriate vehicles to meet the challenges of future landing sites.

Quoted from here.

.
 
Last edited:
You would need prior recon to check the going and then apply testing back in England to overcome the slippage problem (ground friction coefficient). Maybe something like spiked track feet to dig in and grip? It is not the tank's fault, IOW.
Which may well have been one of the drivers for the beach reconnaissance missions undertaken by the SBS ( or its ancestral organisation) for the Normandy landings. And elsewhere I'm sure.
 
It generated interest in the 'Bobbin' to overcome shingle and the AVRE armed with its Spigot Mortar to remove obstacles

Lots of you have mentioned issues with the 'Black Prince'

Its biggest problem is that it was 'not a Centurion' - because quite frankly why would you bother with the Black Prince when you had the Cent in parallel development?

I think going very quickly to something like the Cent is a bit too much to ask. The UK's tanks were always a year too late for when they'd have been truly effective, and the UK would have bumbled onto the right thing eventually. With the Churchill assumging the Mk-1's in service and is being tested, sit down and actually look at the damn thing. Listen to the reports coming out of Russia too.
If the UK hears about the Tiger and shits a collective brick and decides it needs an 'answer' quickly they could use the Churchill as a baseline to make a heavy tank. Not something armed with a shitty little 2lber in the turret and a low velocity HE lobber in the hull, but a heavy tank. Yes the 57mm is perfectly fine for the Cruisers, and so's the American 75, but we need something more for our heavy tank.

So whilst its far from ideal, perhaps a larger, stretched Churchill instead of the VII to fit the 17lber could be developed so that by 1944 its ambling into service, and if there's not enough 17lbers to go around put another gun.
 
IIRC from a very long forum post on a website for My Little Pony fan fiction (truly, the pinnacle of scholarly research into military engineering), the Churchill Mk I/II was an absolute disaster and it's amazing they eventually worked out enough kinks to make actually decent follow on Mks.
 

McPherson

Banned
I think going very quickly to something like the Cent is a bit too much to ask. The UK's tanks were always a year too late for when they'd have been truly effective, and the UK would have bumbled onto the right thing eventually. With the Churchill assumging the Mk-1's in service and is being tested, sit down and actually look at the damn thing. Listen to the reports coming out of Russia too.

If the UK hears about the Tiger and shits a collective brick and decides it needs an 'answer' quickly they could use the Churchill as a baseline to make a heavy tank. Not something armed with a shitty little 2lber in the turret and a low velocity HE lobber in the hull, but a heavy tank. Yes the 57mm is perfectly fine for the Cruisers, and so's the American 75, but we need something more for our heavy tank.

So whilst its far from ideal, perhaps a larger, stretched Churchill instead of the VII to fit the 17lber could be developed so that by 1944 its ambling into service, and if there's not enough 17lbers to go around put another gun.

I would have to disagree a bit. Good enough is better now, than perfect never. In terms of what Churchill is, as an infantry tank, the idea is to make it a better infantry tank, not a specialist Tiger killer. The Germans made that mistake to fight KVs and later Joseph Stalin tanks, why imitate their errors? The Churchill serves a clear role inside the British system of combined arms, so what is it about the Churchill, as it exists, inside that combined arms system of systems, that it does well? I read close assault in company with British infantry against fortified enemy positions.

A dual purpose gun. Ammunition that can shatter pillboxes as well as deal with enemy medium armor (the most likely kind to be encountered.) good communications set up so Joe Infantry and Arty can talk to Rupert Flyguy and to Terry Tanker and all of them can then give Gunther and Hans in their hidey holes a really bad haircut by combined arms. I have a lot of heartburn about the ergonomics of the beast as it is a horrible tank to try to look out, move inside, shoot and especially communicate, compared to the Sherman: and I harp on that, but systems of systems use, suggests that the RADIO setup and giving the TC much better situational awareness in the Mark I or even the Mark VII is far more important to improve in the Churchill, than what kind of can opener to install or what engine for that matter.

The most dangerous tank on the battlefield is the one with a trained Terry Tanker in his Churchill that climbed an impossible to tank climb hill that overlooks blissfully unaware Hans and Gunther happy in the valley floor below, for he, Terry Tanker, is radio tied-back to Arty and Rupert Flyguy as his on call barbers.
 
Which may well have been one of the drivers for the beach reconnaissance missions undertaken by the SBS ( or its ancestral organisation) for the Normandy landings. And elsewhere I'm sure.
The Combined Operations Pilotage Parties (COPPists). Apparently operated all over Europe and in the Far East as well.
 
Pondering on the whole topic of British Infantry tanks, I still can't quite get my head around WTF the War Office thought it was doing with their armament.

The role is understandable; to support the infantry advancing against dug in opposition. OK, similar to the German ( & Soviet eventually) assault gun. BUT, the early versions had only machine guns and the 2pr. Useful only against AFVs.

It cried out for a DP gun in the 3" range or a larger CS howitzer type. OK, maybe some 2prs plus the CS guns.

The obvious (to me) choice would have been the old WW1 13pr (3") RHA gun. IF any had been kept. Failing that the 3.7" Mountain Gun/Howitzer used by the Indian army. Should be available in quantity or at least easy to build in greater quantities than solely for the Indian army from the late 1930s onward.

Anyway, rant over and the 75mm or a precursor is what the Churchill needs in 1943 or even 1942. Plus all the fixes for mechanical problems that everyone else has described far better than I could. The chassis is good enough for all the "Funnies" Hobart's team designed and bringing them into service earlier would be useful for the Italian campaign.

Rather than the Black Prince, could ordinary 75mm armed Churchills be supplenented by a FGT version with the 17pe? Allowing resources to be concentrated on the Centurion?
 
Pondering on the whole topic of British Infantry tanks, I still can't quite get my head around WTF the War Office thought it was doing with their armament.

The role is understandable; to support the infantry advancing against dug in opposition. OK, similar to the German ( & Soviet eventually) assault gun. BUT, the early versions had only machine guns and the 2pr. Useful only against AFVs.

It cried out for a DP gun in the 3" range or a larger CS howitzer type. OK, maybe some 2prs plus the CS guns.

The obvious (to me) choice would have been the old WW1 13pr (3") RHA gun. IF any had been kept. Failing that the 3.7" Mountain Gun/Howitzer used by the Indian army. Should be available in quantity or at least easy to build in greater quantities than solely for the Indian army from the late 1930s onward.

Anyway, rant over and the 75mm or a precursor is what the Churchill needs in 1943 or even 1942. Plus all the fixes for mechanical problems that everyone else has described far better than I could. The chassis is good enough for all the "Funnies" Hobart's team designed and bringing them into service earlier would be useful for the Italian campaign.

Rather than the Black Prince, could ordinary 75mm armed Churchills be supplenented by a FGT version with the 17pe? Allowing resources to be concentrated on the Centurion?
There was the 3 inch AA still in service, the basis for the 77mm. It had a 12 or 13 pound HE round for it. Lots of ammo around as well. It just needed to be modernized, like the U.S. did for the French 75mm to make the 75mm for the Sherman tank.
 
Well there is the Churchill Gun Carrier,........

Could the mounting have been in a sloped superstructure similar to the OTL Soviet Su-85 and Su-100 rather than the boxy superstructure actually used?
 
Last edited:
I know that I am repeating posts from similar matters but there were only two shortfalls in UK tank gun manufacture. One was the very understandable delay of one year to supercede the 2 Pounder with the 6 Pounder due to losing all those 2 Pounders in the BoF. At the time it was a very sensible decision.

The other was the unbelievable cock up of the HV75mm Vickers tank gun and the contemporary turrets not matching. The teams obviously drank in different pubs and never met. The turret chaps designing internal mantlets and the gun designers doing external mantlets. Hence the 77mm bodge to square the circle.

Without these two (and the first is forgivable) British tanks would have had adequate tank killing guns moving seamlessly from the 2 Pounder in 1939/40 to the 6 Pounder in 1941/43 and then the 17 Pounder in 1944/5.
 
There were actually a few different groups that contributed to successful naval landings. I am not sure on the Pilotage parties but Naval Commandos (also called beach commandos) were at Dieppe.

I think what we are talking about it the chaps that swam into the surf line and took sand and shingle samples in the dark.

I am not sure they did exist in 1942.
 
Top