The Churchill

The Churchill was the most heavily armored tank of the Allies, with 152mm frontal armor and 95mm side armor. If it had been armed with the 17pdr, then it most certainly would have been a match for the Tiger-I. The Tiger-I had to get as close as 1000m to be sure to penetrate the Churchill X's frontal armor with its normal AP round, meaning it was ecxeptionally vulnerable to the 17pdr with its APDS projectiles, and also its AP projectiles for that matter.

How do you guy's think the Churchill would have compared with the Tiger-I if fitted with the 17pdr ??

Best regards, KBO :smok:

 

Hello.
That will have been a dangerous adversary for Tiger , one attempt to mount a 17 pdrs was made ,6 prototype were ordered and delivered for trial in May 1945, too late for to be tried in combat, and as the Centurion was ready and the project was cancelled.
A link for this Tank:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quart ... rince.html

 

Yes it would indeed by a dangerous adversary, i would say (If were talking armor and gun only) that they would have been pretty equal !.

The 17pdr's APDS ammo wasnt effective against the Tiger's armor and would shatter, but the normal AP didnt have as much tendensy to do that, and would have been able to take out the Tiger at over 1000m frontally !.

The only way for the Tiger-I to stay out of danger, was to use its VERY scarse APCR rounds, wich would take out the Churchill X at ca.1800-2000m frontally, but the Tiger's hardly ever carried any of these, and none in the last stages of the war..

KBO

 

KBO.
Which Churchill model do you claim to have 152mm frontal & 95mm side armour please?

Also wouldn't Churchill turret be too small to fit 17pdr?

 

The "Churchill X" as i said plus some others like the Mark VII model... And yes maby the turret would have been to small, but like you can see at Patrice's link, another turret could be made, and was made.

 

Sorry KBO. I should have read your post more carefully, you do indeed quote Mark X in your original post.
I learned something new today (yesterday now) with that armour thickness detail. Somehow it had escaped me. Even though I have now found a reference to it, in my own book collection!
It is a pity the A43 never saw action. But the centurion was much better, so I'm not surprised they scrapped it.

 

Its perfectly OK, everybody can overlook something :smok:

One is never to old to learn ( thats my motto !)

I agree !.

KBO

 

The 17pdr would definitely have been effective when fitted on the Churchill and it would have made that tank equal, and in terms of armour way superior, to the Tiger. However it would ignore the whole purpose of the Churchill which was to provide infantry support. As far as I know the 17pdr gun did not have any decent HE capacity and therefore it would have made the whole Churchill a useless tank (it was too slow for serious hunting). The only way in which a Black Prince would have been useful was like the Firefly in a company of regular Shermans: let the regulars handle the HE and the one tank with the big gun protect them.

By the time the Churchill could have been fitted with a 76mm gun, however, the Comet would already have appeared; a tank with armour, gun and speed that was so much more balanced than that of any Churchill that it would make the whole idea of an uparmed Churchill obsolete.

Also I would like to point out the at least adequate performance of the 75mm gun that was fitted on the late Churchill tanks, which made it more than a match for the Panzer IV and no easy prey for heavier German tanks.

 

Well that depends.. As we know the Tiger-I did carry the Hardest armor of any tank during WW2, and even the 17pdr's APDS rounds would shatter against it more than 50% of the time !!. But the 17pdr's APCBC shell was up for the task though. But the Tiger's 88mm was also (eventhough the Mk X had 152mm armor, wich was extreemly hard but brittle) able to puncture it at 1000m with its normal APCBC round !!.

One must also remember that the Tiger did carry the better optics !.

KBO

 

Wasn't the problem with extremely hard armour that it shattered on the inside, piercing the crew, like with the T34? Or do you mean the Germans had somehow figured out the perfect armour and fitted this only to the Tiger I? :-?

 

No your completely misunderstanding it (Maby i expressed myself wrong ).

The Tiger's armor was the Strongest armor on any tank in WW2, and had a very high BHN level and quality, however it wasnt nearly as brittle as the extreemly hard armor on the T-34 !!. And if there's something German APCBC rounds are effective against, then its that.

Anyway the reason the 17pdr's APDS rounds shattered, was because the round itself had a lower BHN and quality level than the armor on the Tiger.

KBO

 

It is one of those quirks of physics, that High velocity rounds have been known to shatter against hard armour at close range (<200m) but penetrate at longer distances.

 

Yes, however the 17pdr's APDS rounds had trouble penetrating the Tiger's front at any range (Some ranges lesser than others, and some more than others).

KBO

 

From Kenneth Macksey's book Tank versus Tank:
"...reduced most ranges of engagements to about 400 meters with a great many at 150m or less... - ... even the best-armored British tank (the British Churchill VII with its 152mm frontal armor) was likely to be vulnerable to the least well-armed PzKw IV... - ... while on the Germans only Panther's sloped glacis plate was a reasonable proof 57mm gun with 1219 m/s and 76.2 mm APCBC... "

Also, Panthers glacis plate could defeat 17-pdr at 800m.

 

Would the Churchill with the 17 pounder been a worthwhile investment had it come about in, say, late 1942 or 1943?

 

Definitely, since that would mean it would even be earlier than the Firefly! It would have been exactly what the British army needed to support its Tank Regiments against the new German heavies.

 

The joys of hindsight.

I believe that one of the primary limiting factors for British tanks was the determination that they should be transportable by train. This meant they had to be able to fit through train tunnels thus limiting how wide a tank could be.




Just on a separate note did the allies have any hints about the next generation of German tanks before they turned up on the battlefield?

 

Indeed - the Churchill already had to have the side-mounted radiator-thingys removed when travelling by train.
They finally scrapped this policy when it became obvious that something bigger was needed - hence Black Prince & Centurion.

My dad's Steam Train magazines have some lovely photos of tanks being transported by train, if anyone is interested...

 

Ricky, I think its safe to say that were all interested!

 

post subject

until Ricky's pics. arrive here's one to keep you going.
Drivers compartment, Black Prince. 1946.