It's received much more thorough testing here, so the teething troubles should be somewhat more limited.
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
There were some remarkable climbing achievements OTL by M3's on the hills around Imphal, most famously the 3rd Carabiners at Nunshigum. Possibly Churchills could have done even better
Last edited:
Well what little fighting there's going to be in Burma has already finished, the rest of the battle is in Thailand. And that's supported by Valiants. But Churchills will do fine in Malaya.
USA was developing 75mm-cannon-armed infantry support versions of the M3 Stuart beginning at least as early as September 1941. Militaries tend to think similarly if they're faced with similar battlefield problems. I wonder if the Australians, soon after they first received Stuarts, might have considered what short 75mm guns they had available, and whether those guns could be mounted into the Stuart turret in place of the standard high velocity 37mm gun...?
USA first experimented with replacing the Stuart turret with a simple fixed casemate in which a pintle-like mount held a 75mm pack howitzer. Did either Australia or the British have US 75mm pack howitzers available, along with ammo for them?
USA first experimented with replacing the Stuart turret with a simple fixed casemate in which a pintle-like mount held a 75mm pack howitzer. Did either Australia or the British have US 75mm pack howitzers available, along with ammo for them?
Last edited:
Last edited:
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
Will this version of the Churchill Tank be successful in Malaya, which given the experience of Churchill Tanks IOTL in Burma, the answer has to be yes. While the soon to arrive Grant has in theory a better main gun as it is a duel purpose weapon, unlike the Churchill whose main gun being a howitzer, is not best suited for fighting another armoured vehicle, and lacks the high velocity solid shot to punch through timber bunkers. However given that the Churchill was designed as an infantry tank on WWI principles, it in this version is very much ideal for the role it is going to play. The lack of speed is not a problem, without armoured infantry carries, it is going to be stuck to the speed that its infantry support can make on foot. It given the terrain in Thailand and southern Indochina, is not going to be used in mass formations, but rather in penny packets of troop or squadron size. SEA, is not really large armoured formation territory, and other than on the central plan of Burma, which did provide for some large scale use of tanks. The majority of the terrain was infantry country, and mostly what would be regarded as light infantry in Europe and the Middle East, Italy was its own world. The biggest problem will be logistics, how to get the tanks to the front given the poor infrastructure in the region, and providing them with adequate support during an advance in river crossings. As the Churchill is a heavy old beast, and the majority of the local bridges are totally inadequate to take its weight. There’s going to be a lot of work for the RE bridging squadrons and a massive requirement for Bailey Bridge sets, as the standard SBG, Small Box Grinder bridge wasn’t designed for the weight of a Churchill tank. As for getting these tanks from the Depot in Johor to the front, personally I believe that as far as is possible they should be moved by water, ideally on LCT’s, but if need be by coasters though this will require a floating crane at the other end as few docks in the region have the 50 ton lift capacity required, to unload them from a coaster.
RR.
RR.
allanpcameron
Donor
The railway will get them to Jitra without too many problems, but you're right the Engineers will need to put in a great deal of work, and coastal craft, including LCT will be handy.
Allan
In dealing with bunkers, the Churchill can suppress them with shots fired through the firing slots, allowing the infantry to flank the things and deal with them with grenades. Also, you can absolutely deal with log bunkers without a dual-purpose main gun, you just have to be prepared to fire for longer.
Last edited:
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
You can also lob two or three HE rounds at the bunker, followed by smoke, with your hull gun providing suppressive fire while the infantry get close enough, to lob a satchel charge through the firing slit. The problem is that it as you point out will take longer, than just firing a solid shot anti tank round through the bunker at close range. And given the armour on the front of a Churchill, they will be able to get very close to any bunker the Japanese can construct. I remember reading in General Slims book how he was jumped upon by Gurkhas because he had gotten between a Sherman and a Japanese bunker, into which the Sherman was firing at point blank range.
RR.
True. I wonder if the best solution might not be to simply drive up and over the bunker.
What have you guys got against Reccy Mechs? Doing that is basically going to end up with a load of Churchills stuck in tank-sized foxholes in the middle of a battle. Pulling them out again afterwards is going to be painful.
So don't drive them all the way over, just enough to collapse the firing ports.
Well... I had to agree on this....since from the gauge profile
while the Churchill is technically bigger than the loading gauge, the structure gauge seem to have ample space for the tank to be fit...
Can’t do that with a Grant or Sherman but the Churchill’s Merrit Brown gearbox was ideal for the task.
Ah, I can think of a few situations in which that might be rather useful, such as turning around to help extract a bogged-down comrade from the terrain in which he has become bogged down.
Actually the M8 HMC (Howitzer Motor Carriage)...or T41 during development...was the second version. The first was the T18 HMC. The T41 project began in mid 1942, and was based on the M5 light tank chassis, with a newly developed turret. The T18 project officially began in September 1941, though its genesis likely was upward-communication of earlier US field improvisations. The T18 was based on the M3 hull/chassis, with the vertical-walled casemate added.
Per the principle that soldiers faced with similar combat circumstances and needs tend to think alike, I'm wondering if Australians might have created a similar field improvisation, once they had some M3 light tanks, at least one M3 medium tank that was otherwise unrepairable so that its sponson gun mount could be "borrowed", and some M1 75mm pack howitzers or other short cannons in that size range.
Against bunkers, a dozer capability can be useful. Just push a large pile of whatever's in front of the tank...certainly soil and rocks, but including large amounts of trees and other vegetation...forward until the bunker's firing port is blocked. No need to do any more than that with any urgency...the infantry can leave a section and an engineer or two to finish the job while the tank and the rest of the infantry move on.
Certainly the Sherman had field-improvised and then factory-built dozer blades from nearly its earliest US service. Did USA send dozer parts with the Grants that went to the Pacific allies? Did the early Churchills have a dozer attachment?
Certainly the Sherman had field-improvised and then factory-built dozer blades from nearly its earliest US service. Did USA send dozer parts with the Grants that went to the Pacific allies? Did the early Churchills have a dozer attachment?
Derek Pullem
Donor
You are looking for the Churchill AVRE which I could see bring prioritised for European Churchill production. "Flying dustbin" for bunker work would be useful too. Won't be available for a year or so but suspect Malaya / Burma / Thailand will see a few.