I was reading an account of the Battle of Hill 112, (IMHO the most underrated tank battle of the 2nd World war, much more exciting than the Ardenne Offensive [img]smile.gif[/img] )

I was shocked at the rate in which the Churchills were "Brewed up" by tanks seemingly their equal at least until the Tigers joined in.

I was also shocked at how beefed up the Churchills were:

(I might be wrong about is the Mark of the churchill, was it the VI's that were fighting in Normandy?)

Churchills are equivalent in armament (ie 75mm) to the Panther and superior in armour to most other German Tanks, eg:

Churchill VI Spec
Gun = 75
Fwd armour = 139-152
Side Armour = 95
Front Turret = 152
Side Turret = 95

Panther Ausf. G Spec
Gun = 75
Front Hull = 80 (113mm effectivly sloped)
Side Armor = 50
Front Turret = 100
Side Turret = 45

Tiger I Spec
Gun = 88
Front Hull = 100
Side Hull = 80
Front Turret = 110
Side Turret = 80

Was the real reason so many were destroyed because of poor cross country performance? (ie 15 mph).

__________________
Der große Stoß Büstenhalter auf Ihrem Kopf!!

see this :

www.112.com

this was not just a battle but a long standing series of ambush like engagements for both sides. Just for a low angled hump.........so many deaths !

~E

arg !

www.hill112.com

now this is better.......

Interesting point Bratwurst - but be careful when comparing tank armament !

Firstly, the Churchills used in Normandy were Mk. VI and ( mostly ) Mk. VII versions.

These used the US 75mm gun as fitted to the M3 and early M4 tanks.

Could go on for pages about ballistic differences, but to give you some idea the 75mm AP shell as used in the Mk VII left the muzzle at some 2,300 fps. In a Panther V Ausf. A, a 75mm PzGr shell had a muzzle velocity of something like..... 3,500 fps.

In addition, the Churchill had virtually no sloping armour and the design contained a number of 'shell traps'. Also, the bogey design was vulnerable to damage and complicated to repair in the field.

By this stage of the war the Churchill was an outdated design ; it actually performed quite well in the infantry specialised support role such as the Crocodile, AVRE, etc.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Aha!! That's interesting, so does that skew the arguement presented in my "Pounds vs MM" thread abit?

ie.
2-pr : 40mm
6-pr : 57mm
17-pr : 76mm
25-pr : 89mm

What I think you're saying is the comparison of tank armed with a 17-pr hitting a tank with comparable armour with a 76mm gun and vice-versa would be pointless unless muzzle velocities were considered?

__________________
Der große Stoß Büstenhalter auf Ihrem Kopf!!

If I may butt in [img]smile.gif[/img]

It gets worse
Not only does Muzzle velocities play a part, but the type of shell used has a great affect on penetration as well. The most extreme example of this is the British APDS shell which came into service in mid 44 for the 6pdr(57mm),and late summer for the 17pdr(76.2mm). With this ammo the 6pdr went from being able to penetrate 83mm at 500 yards with APC to 130mm with APDS. For the 17pdr the figures were 162mm for APC, and up to 231mm for APDS.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

As an example of the differences that could exist between two guns of the same size, the American 76mm(which in fact was 76.2mm) had a muzzle velocity of 2,800 ft/sec and could penetrate 88mm of armour at 30 degrees angle at 1,000 yards, while the British 17pdr(also 76.2mm) with a muzzle velocity of 2,900 ft/sec could penetrate 130mm at 30 degrees angle at 1,000 yards with similar ammo.

[ 14. November 2003, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: redcoat ]

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

What was the height of the Churchill.... ?

Damn this is getting complicated! I have to concede the shot trap point by Martin though, I don't think there is one smooth panel on the Churchill! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Erich, 3.25 m on the mark IV, why?

__________________
Der große Stoß Büstenhalter auf Ihrem Kopf!!

so about 12 feet US ? since never visiting hill 112 as several of our noted forum members. Would think by photo evidence that the Churchill sat up a bit somewhat like a Sherman and could of made an easy target for AT gunners hiding in the thick brush and trees (no longer there). I will have to read up more on this particular engagements but did think the W-SS divisions were already pre-set into well dug positions just waiting for the British tanks to attack.... ?

Brat, what account were U reading from originally?

~E

No, 3.25m is approximatly 9ft 10in

Quick conversion guide
A metre is just over 3ft 3in.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Book was called:
"Impossible Victories. Ten Unlikely Battlefield Successes." by Bryan Perrett.

Hill 112 is one of two battles described in the book during WWII.

I wanted to quote some references buy my friend has borrowed it for the weekend [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

This discussion has sparked my interest to get a dedicated book on the subject!

__________________
Der große Stoß Büstenhalter auf Ihrem Kopf!!

thanks Red !

Brat do you want a book on the engagements on Hill 112 or the Normandie battles in general ?

Tim Saunders Hill 112 is not bad for a nice recordof the events. 192 pgs. softbound, pics throughout. Wish the maps were a tiny bit bigger.
Panzers in Normandy then and now
Normandie Memorial Album by Editions Heimdal
Invasion they are coming by Paul Carell
Multi unit histories-Waffe SS by Munin Verlag

guys fill me in on more English sources please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

~Erich

Brat, with some anxiety I tried to piece the events in Tim Saunders book on Hill 112 and Wolfgang Schneiders Tigers in combat 2, with the 102 Schwere SS Pz Abt. activities together. Not surprisingly the dates of actins do not match, but some clarity can be found if read through slowly. Atims book for it's size is a must have I can assure you and think several others here can attest.

~E

A 'must' for anyone studying Hill 112 is Major J J How's 'Hill 112' ( Wm. Kimber, 1984 ).

The bad news is that this is a very difficult title to find - it has never been reprinted [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Going back to Erich's tank-height query, I don't think it's so much a matter of height as design.

A frontal view of a Panther, for instance, reveals not one vertical plane - everything is sloped or curved.

The same view of the poor old Churchill, in contrast, reveals exactly the opposite - not one sloping piece of armour.... [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img] And the side was just the same.

I should say here that I 'like' the Churchill but it was just out-of-date for the Normandy battlefield. If I'd had to serve in one, I'd rather like it to be the AVRE !

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

guys I made reference to the height since it appears from most angles as as slow moving box. going through the W-SS Schw 102 pz abt. KTB it only mentions Churchills and AT guns being knocked out around Hill 112. WEre there Shermans involved from another British armored force ? Only in August are Shermans mentioned in the German W-SS notes.

~E

Si I guess that means mu game Combat Mission is not all that accurate. I recall playing Scenarios with German armour sitting back while my Churchills trundled slowly towards them with german shells ricocheting off them till they got within range of their measly 75s

__________________
Ain't no rocket scientists in the firehall

suggest you find some good reads on reality then............game simulations cover what-if's quite nicely but........

~E

remember that there were two operations on hill 112. The first (epsom offensive with the 15th Scottish, 43 wessex and the 11th armd cromwells and fireflys)went rather well, but the hill had to be abandoned as the II SS pz Corps pressed to cut the 'Scottish corridor' The next operation Jupiter saw hill 112 conquered permanently.

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942