The Black Prince rides again

...
So now you have the tanks, but would it have really had an impact? When considering the numbers of the pz V, VIa and VIb deployed, a basic side to side comparison might suggest a more positive outcome for the allies, however this hypothesis must be qualified by the understandimg of not only the Germans deployment, but their tactical usage as well.

Given the tactical situation, with the German tankers fighting defensively in positions of good cover, the British ( and US tankers too)will take heavy losses. With heavier tanks the losses might well be lighter, but they will still be there.

The fact will remain that a 75 L70 or either of the 88s will make short work of any allied tank that is targeted at shorter range.

The only difference will be that the exchange rate will drop from the oft used 4:1 to a somewhat more allowable 2 to 3:1. Given the nature of the terrain and the tactical abilities of the German tankers, the allied losses will still be a net loss in comparison ... and these better tade-offs only coming available if the opposing heavy tanks are in a location whereby they might engage.

...

Methinks that we too many times reckon that Germans have a Tank A, so Allies need to have the Tank B to counter it. Thus the other threats and targets are forgotten - AT guns, infantry under cover or dug-up, pillboxes, StuG and the like, Marders and the like, Bazookas & Panzerfausts etc. The 7.5cm Pak will have a field day with Crusaders, Cromwels, Centaurs, Challengers etc, and that Pak (along with the L48 7.5cm on the Pz-IV) is a most numerous gun threat in 1943-45.
Thus the 'Churchill plus' is a big addition to the Allied war effort - it will do the missions, and suffer far lower casualties than other contemporary British tanks in the process. Cruiser tanks, until the Centurion (that probably merged the two cattegories into one) will not be able to do it.
 
How about a British Sturmgeschütz based on a Churchill hull instead?
The Mk1 Churchill did afterall have a 3" CS Howitzer in the front of the hull, surely it must have occurred to someone that it would also make an excelled basis for a Tank Destroyer/ Assault Gun. If it worked for the Wehrmacht and the Red Army; who used more of their heavy tank chassis to build ISU's than the actual tank, then why not.

The allies had plenty of experience in facing Sturmgeschütz and Jagdpanzer, and the term is Assault Gun. The Red Army seemed to have no issue with using them offensively. An up-gunned and up-armoured* Churchill, and it would seem like a way to re-cycle the older Mk's ... old Valentine hulls gained a new lease on life as Archers, would seem to be a good idea?

(* A new sloped, or at least thicker, superstructure might prevail in attacks where other allied tanks failed?)
 
They kind of did just a bit poorly. Behold the eyesore that is the Churchill Gun Carrier

infantry-mk-iv-churchill-mk-i-3-inch-gun-carrier-011.jpg


http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/a22d-churchill-gun-carrier
 
Compared to this its hideous!
ISU-122-early.jpg

(And the average ISU looks like it was assembled using blind drunks, out of rocks, using blunt chisels.)
 
That's actually a good point, why didn't the Western allies really go in for casemated Tank destroyer like vehicles? The Soviets went nuts with the SU-76 and so on like that beasty above :)
 
Last edited:
How about a British Sturmgeschütz based on a Churchill hull instead?
The Mk1 Churchill did afterall have a 3" CS Howitzer in the front of the hull, surely it must have occurred to someone that it would also make an excelled basis for a Tank Destroyer/ Assault Gun. If it worked for the Wehrmacht and the Red Army; who used more of their heavy tank chassis to build ISU's than the actual tank, then why not.

The allies had plenty of experience in facing Sturmgeschütz and Jagdpanzer, and the term is Assault Gun. The Red Army seemed to have no issue with using them offensively. An up-gunned and up-armoured* Churchill, and it would seem like a way to re-cycle the older Mk's ... old Valentine hulls gained a new lease on life as Archers, would seem to be a good idea?

(* A new sloped, or at least thicker, superstructure might prevail in attacks where other allied tanks failed?)

'JagdChurchill' with a 17pdr/4.5in and Meteor?
ISU-5.5 ( similar to above but with 5.5in cannon)?
 
That's actually a good point, why didn't the Western allies really go in for casemated Tank destroyer like vehicles? The Soviets went nuts with the SU-76 and so on like that beasty above :)
I can think of a couple of reasons. 1st, they're primarily defensive vehicles and the Western allies were planning for offensives. 2nd unlike in the East where the steppes make it easier to see an enemy in time to aim the whole tank at them, in the west the more crowded nature of the landscape means an enemy can appear almost anywhere and a fully rotating turret makes it much easier to get a shot off first.
 
I can think of a couple of reasons. 1st, they're primarily defensive vehicles and the Western allies were planning for offensives. 2nd unlike in the East where the steppes make it easier to see an enemy in time to aim the whole tank at them, in the west the more crowded nature of the landscape means an enemy can appear almost anywhere and a fully rotating turret makes it much easier to get a shot off first.

If, however, we go the Soviet route, and arm the vehicles with large caliber weapons (large guns or howitzers), they will prove quite useful to the infantry, and can be used as AT vehicles defensively. Say, a Churchill with a 25lbr, or even a 4.5" gun. Hit a Mk IV and its toast. Hit a Panther or Tiger and it will at the least have a very bad day.
 
Well no tank really reacts well to being hit by a great big lump of HE on the face. The 152mm gun on the SU-152 family was quite capable of mullering anything it hit and Tigers were not immune. But then again the number of tigers claimed on the Eastern front exceeds the number of tigers made IIRC. I have to agree with Pom though, as the Allies thought offensively and the casemated TD is a defensive weapon there wasn't much need for them. The British did design some which went from the fairly conventional to the outright absurd and massive, but only one of them was built and it never saw service.

The AT-1/2 design was a small but absurdly heavily armoured machine with something like 6-inches of armour on the front and either a 6lber gun or a 95mm QF howitzer

at_1_ortho_by_giganaut-d69dxop.jpg



The AT-6 was a development of that design, larger and with a 20mm cannon on one side and a 6lb automatic Mollins gun on the other.

at_6_c_copy_by_giganaut-d6ditr6.jpg


This development lead to the AT-15, a much larger brute with a casemate mounted 17lber gun

maxresdefault.jpg


And that in turn lead to the development and construction of the Tortoise tank destroyer with its huge 32lber

zs3qu4unsd5g7urpdyhm.jpg


The AT family was designed by the folks at Nuffiled but only the Tortoise was produced and it never saw service as it was obsolete upon construction.
 
MHO - it's more plausible to have a non-turreted AFV pre-war, whether it's a self-propelled (anti-tank) gun, or self-propelled artillery. The trouble with the latter is that the Artillery people will try to take custody of it, rather than be included in any tank division.
Having an AFV, without a turret would cost less, Treasury in favour, and enable a bigger weapon to be carried.
 
The British Army could, and should have followed through on the interwar Birch Gun. I found this photo of a third variant of it which would have given the Army a real edge in the 30's. Here's the real answer to the question of providing tanks with gunfire support. No need for close support tanks if the RA is equipped with descendants of these.

upload_2017-6-5_0-14-39.png
 
Possible, but thats gonna require more changes pre-war. This is just a quick and dirty attempt to get the Black Prince around to do at least SOMETHING.
 
Top