Churchill Infantry Tank

[Weaver]

That's a fair point: I'd forgotten about the Churchill's side hatches. It's a fair bit lower than a Sherman, so that would help too.

Mind you, if you could get an AMX-13 turret on the ring, you could probably get a GIAT TS-90 (Panhard ERC-90)turret on there, which avoids the problem entirely by having a normal gun mounting, and slap a load of applique armour on it. Still only a two-manner with an over-worked commander though...

[Logan Hartke]

VERY basic illustration of the concept.

Cheers,

Logan

[dy031101]

Mind you, if you could get an AMX-13 turret on the ring, you could probably get a GIAT TS-90 (Panhard ERC-90)turret on there, which avoids the problem entirely by having a normal gun mounting, and slap a load of applique armour on it. Still only a two-manner with an over-worked commander though...

In that case then, would we be able to fit the F4 gun (as used by the TS-90 turret) into a modified Churchill turret?  With or without removing the loader's position?

Then we come to the question of timing......

[rickshaw]

Still facing the problem of a light tank turret with light tank armour on a medium/heavy tank (depending upon perspective) hull with heavy tank armour.   As I mentioned, the AMX-50's turret would be a better bet:



The main advantage of utilising an oscillating turret in this sort of example is of course that it lifts the guns trunnions above and out of the turret ring and places them literally into and as part of the turret.  That means you could give it a much larger gun than normal.  The AMX-50's turret had various levels of armour during its short career going from medium to heavy tank.   As the picture shows, the turret of the AMX-50 overhangs the tracks by a fair margin.  I have no idea what the turret ring diameter is but as the total hull width is only some 15 cm greater than the Churchill's I suspect they may be pretty close.  An adapter ring could be made fairly easy.  As you're already shown a willingness to accept a much taller vehicle, a few inches won't make much difference.

[Weaver]

Going on a different tack for a moment, since the Churchill was such a good hill climber, how about an armament suitable for mountain warfare? If the opposition is something like the Mujahadeen, then a high-velocity auto-cannon with the greatest possible elevation/depression range would be appropriate, but it would definately need overhead cover so a simple adapted AAA mount wouldn't do. Something like the AMX DCA turret (but without the radar) would be good. Another option might be to replace one of the guns with a breech-loading 81mm mortar so that indirect fire becomes an option too?

[rickshaw]

Going on a different tack for a moment, since the Churchill was such a good hill climber, how about an armament suitable for mountain warfare? If the opposition is something like the Mujahadeen, then a high-velocity auto-cannon with the greatest possible elevation/depression range would be appropriate, but it would definately need overhead cover so a simple adapted AAA mount wouldn't do. Something like the AMX DCA turret (but without the radar) would be good. Another option might be to replace one of the guns with a breech-loading 81mm mortar so that indirect fire becomes an option too?

Not indirect.  Direct fire HE.  The problem with utilising a light AA gun is that it doesn't have much destructive power.  A 120mm direct fire mortar is an excellent weapon for that (120mm mortar rounds carry appreciably more HE than 120mm cannon rounds).  81mm would be just adequate.   Neither have much penetration but both pack appreciably more wallop per round.    Perhaps one of the Panhard armoured car turrets (again up armoured) which were equipped with direct fire mortars from 60 to 120mm?

[Weaver]

Going on a different tack for a moment, since the Churchill was such a good hill climber, how about an armament suitable for mountain warfare? If the opposition is something like the Mujahadeen, then a high-velocity auto-cannon with the greatest possible elevation/depression range would be appropriate, but it would definately need overhead cover so a simple adapted AAA mount wouldn't do. Something like the AMX DCA turret (but without the radar) would be good. Another option might be to replace one of the guns with a breech-loading 81mm mortar so that indirect fire becomes an option too?

Not indirect.  Direct fire HE.  The problem with utilising a light AA gun is that it doesn't have much destructive power.  A 120mm direct fire mortar is an excellent weapon for that (120mm mortar rounds carry appreciably more HE than 120mm cannon rounds).  81mm would be just adequate.   Neither have much penetration but both pack appreciably more wallop per round.    Perhaps one of the Panhard armoured car turrets (again up armoured) which were equipped with direct fire mortars from 60 to 120mm?

The Thomson-Brandt breech-loading mortars in those armoured car turrets are capable of both direct and indirect fire. I have no objection to 120mm IF you can carry enough ammo on the platform in question. In an immediate post-war context, you could perhaps go for a high-angle howitzer rather than a mortar: how about an 88mm weapon with 70 deg of elevation which fires standard 25 pdr rounds using the smaller charges to reduce the recoil distance?

A light AA gun is a very accurate weapon, which is often more useful in mountainous terrain offering loads of hard cover. Plastering the area around the sniper's rock sangar with HE is often ineffective, but hitting him in the face with a 20mm generally does the trick.... In Afghanistan, the Soviet army started mounting Zu-23 AAA guns on top of MTLB and BMP-1 hulls for exactly this purpose.

The idea would probably be something akin to a high-angle version of the BMP-3's gun suite: a medium calibre, medium-velocity gun with a long-barrelled high-velocity auto-cannon mounted alongside it.

[Doc Yo]

 Kind of a shame the Ontos concept never really caught on-a Churchill with a pair, or a quartet of
7.2 inch RCLs would be a fearsome beast.

[NARSES2]

Kind of a shame the Ontos concept never really caught on-a Churchill with a pair, or a quartet of
7.2 inch RCLs would be a fearsome beast.

I need to start wearing tinfoil under my hat 

I have a plan for a 1/72 Churchill Assault tank armed with a couple of 7.2" Burney guns and maybe a Hedgehog launcher like the Aussie Matilda's. The hedgehog would be used to lay protective smoke or just plain old HE. It would have the turret replaced with an armoured box with , if I can work out how to do it, provision to reload the Burney's from inside the vehicle. Also a Churchill based APC which would accompany the bunker buster in action as part of an intergrated assault company. All part of my alt WWII scenario.

[Weaver]

That's an interesting idea: a Churchill APC could have a higher roof with longer tracks that still go over it, giving it the ability to have large side doors for the troops. The result would have a profile not unlike a Char B1. The Vickers light tank (Airfix ex -B) or Humber armoured car (Revell ex-Matchbox) could donate turrets for a bit of covering fire.

As for reloading the Burneys, how about mounting them on the sides of the box with a drum-shaped cover around each breech, the front and side of it forming a shield, but the back of it being open to allow the blast to exit?

[NARSES2]

That's an interesting idea: a Churchill APC could have a higher roof with longer tracks that still go over it, giving it the ability to have large side doors for the troops. The result would have a profile not unlike a Char B1. The Vickers light tank (Airfix ex -B) or Humber armoured car (Revell ex-Matchbox) could donate turrets for a bit of covering fire.

As for reloading the Burneys, how about mounting them on the sides of the box with a drum-shaped cover around each breech, the front and side of it forming a shield, but the back of it being open to allow the blast to exit?

I definately need that silver foil  They are exactly my thoughts, although put far more eloquently 

[deathjester]

That's an interesting idea: a Churchill APC could have a higher roof with longer tracks that still go over it, giving it the ability to have large side doors for the troops. The result would have a profile not unlike a Char B1. The Vickers light tank (Airfix ex -B) or Humber armoured car (Revell ex-Matchbox) could donate turrets for a bit of covering fire.

As for reloading the Burneys, how about mounting them on the sides of the box with a drum-shaped cover around each breech, the front and side of it forming a shield, but the back of it being open to allow the blast to exit?

If you Google TOG 1 / TOG 2 Tanks, you will find a vehicle that is almost precisely what you have just described

[rickshaw]

The Thomson-Brandt breech-loading mortars in those armoured car turrets are capable of both direct and indirect fire.

Yeah, well, that was what they liked to claim but I wonder as to how useful a feature it actually was.

I have no objection to 120mm IF you can carry enough ammo on the platform in question. In an immediate post-war context, you could perhaps go for a high-angle howitzer rather than a mortar: how about an 88mm weapon with 70 deg of elevation which fires standard 25 pdr rounds using the smaller charges to reduce the recoil distance?

95mm CS How would be just as good and it was fitted to the Churchill.  All that would be required would be increased elevation.

A light AA gun is a very accurate weapon, which is often more useful in mountainous terrain offering loads of hard cover. Plastering the area around the sniper's rock sangar with HE is often ineffective, but hitting him in the face with a 20mm generally does the trick.... In Afghanistan, the Soviet army started mounting Zu-23 AAA guns on top of MTLB and BMP-1 hulls for exactly this purpose.

Light AA guns are excellent for suppressive fire.  They are pretty pointless for actually destroying anything other than light structures.

The idea would probably be something akin to a high-angle version of the BMP-3's gun suite: a medium calibre, medium-velocity gun with a long-barrelled high-velocity auto-cannon mounted alongside it.

As the British discovered with their experiments to put a combined 3in CS How. and a 2 Pdr gun onto the same mount early in the war, multiple weapons invariably cause confusion in a tank turret in battle.  Which weapon has priority over the loader's efforts (unless of course you provide multiple loaders and then how do they work without getting in each other's way)?  Better to have one weapon which works well than two weapons which work not very well.

[Weaver]

The idea would probably be something akin to a high-angle version of the BMP-3's gun suite: a medium calibre, medium-velocity gun with a long-barrelled high-velocity auto-cannon mounted alongside it.

As the British discovered with their experiments to put a combined 3in CS How. and a 2 Pdr gun onto the same mount early in the war, multiple weapons invariably cause confusion in a tank turret in battle.  Which weapon has priority over the loader's efforts (unless of course you provide multiple loaders and then how do they work without getting in each other's way)?  Better to have one weapon which works well than two weapons which work not very well.

Do BMP-3 crews get any more confused than Bradley crews with their Bushmaster, chain gun and TOWs? I don't see why they should, since the weapons are clearly for different purposes, and the autocannon has a belt-feed, so it only occasionally needs loading attention. The BMP-3's autocannon is effectively another way of achieving the same thing as the 40mm APFSDS rounds that can be fired through the 81mm Thomson-Brandt mortar: a light anti-armour capability added to a fire-support weapon.

[rickshaw]

The idea would probably be something akin to a high-angle version of the BMP-3's gun suite: a medium calibre, medium-velocity gun with a long-barrelled high-velocity auto-cannon mounted alongside it.

As the British discovered with their experiments to put a combined 3in CS How. and a 2 Pdr gun onto the same mount early in the war, multiple weapons invariably cause confusion in a tank turret in battle.  Which weapon has priority over the loader's efforts (unless of course you provide multiple loaders and then how do they work without getting in each other's way)?  Better to have one weapon which works well than two weapons which work not very well.

Do BMP-3 crews get any more confused than Bradley crews with their Bushmaster, chain gun and TOWs? I don't see why they should, since the weapons are clearly for different purposes, and the autocannon has a belt-feed, so it only occasionally needs loading attention. The BMP-3's autocannon is effectively another way of achieving the same thing as the 40mm APFSDS rounds that can be fired through the 81mm Thomson-Brandt mortar: a light anti-armour capability added to a fire-support weapon.

You are comparing chalk and cheese.  The proposed mountain goat Churchill would have a manually loaded turret armament.   The BMP and (to a lesser extent) M-2/3 have either autoloaders or only one internally loaded weapon.  What you must remember, this is not a case of firing different weapons, its the loading of them inside a small, closed down, (relatively) cramped turret.  The loading personnel are the problem not the gunner.