Churchill Infantry Tank

[IanH]

The other thing that needs to be taken into account is ammunition.  The stock 25 pounder used a two part ammunition and 25 Pounder Field gun crew had up to 3 (or more) ammo numbers. For a single man to load a 2 part ammo in a confined tank turret would seriously drop the rate of fire and probably over tax the poor sod doing it. The JagdTiger had the same issues with its two part ammo.. then there is the whole storage issue, bigger ammo = more room = less rounds in the given space.

Chieftain/Chally loaders seem to cope.....

Okay, it's a bigger turret, but then it's also a heck of a bigger gun too!

The Turret was designed with that type of gun in mind (after the Superloader breeding programme failed during Conqueror trials)

[rickshaw]

but to fit a 17pdr into a Sherman they had to cut the radio out of the rear bustle of the turret to take the recoil, turn the gun on its side and fiddle about with numerous other things to make it fit & be useable by the crew, it's all very well fitting a bigger gun in there but if you can't actually load it you're in trouble...

Actually, they put the radio in the rear bustle - deliberately, not "cut it out".  The radio was relocated there from the hull right front, where the radio operator had been, until they decided to remove him and make more room for 17 Pdr ammunition.   One of the problems with the Firefly was that the loader was now tasked with also being the radio operator, as well as loading a significantly longer round in the narrow confines of the Sherman turret.  Which is why it was recommended that Troop commanders NOT make the Firefly their mount, as it meant that communications were significantly impaired.

[dy031101]

Internet search has just yielded that 17-pounder-armed versions of the Sentinel cruiser tank have larger turret rings than the Churchill infantry tank as well (64" for the test vehicle, 70" for the planned AC4)......

But that of the 25-pounder-armed AC3 is still 54".  Still no mention on the rate of fire for the Australian 25-pounder mod. though......

[dy031101]

Continuing the brainstorm session on reverse-engineered and then upgunned WWII tanks, rough drafts of a upgunned, enlarged Churchill (I just took the Black Prince hull): 105mm gun (Sh'ot turret) on the top and bottom pics, and 100mm gun (T-55 Enigma turret) on the middle one.

(The latter is to me fitting more to the idea of an international pariah, which is the background theme of this brainstorm- same thing goes for that stretched Cromwell concept- although if a photo with appropriate camera angle existed, I would probably have used the turret of the T-55 Leon 1 with 100mm gun and turret-side Malyutka missile rails......)

[ChernayaAkula]

The Black Prince with Sh'ot turret looks absolutely awesome!  One of the best tank whifs ever! Fan - freakin' - tastic! 

[dy031101]

Fan - freakin' - tastic!  

How about the addon armours associated with Centurion AVRE?  That's another feature I would have prefered for the idea.  

Sh'ot turret ERAs for some reason don't strike me as looking the part (as in the appearance of being more heavily-armoured)......

Wikipedia claimed that the Black Prince prototypes saw some useful service during the Korean War- a news to me.  Can anyone confirm?

[ChernayaAkula]

Don't know about the armour protection, but the proportions of the Black Prince hull and Sh'ot turret combined are just right. 

The AVRE Centurion ERA. Yeah, why not? And why not the whole turret and make an AVRE Black Prince?  There was an AVRE Churchill, so why not take it a step further?

Oh, and AFV Club, if any of you guys are reading this, an AVRE version of your Centurion would be awesome!

[dy031101]

Going beyond the strictly logical what-if, would anyone make an estimation on if I can fit a Eastern-Bloc-type 125mm gun into the Centurion-inspired turret (since I don't know the turret ring diametre of the Black Prince, and the background theme of the brainstorm involves reverse-engineering anyway, I'll set mine at 1880mm as with the Centurion, a bit bigger than that of the T-55)?  

And should I skip the infamous autoloader?  Would the danger it poses outweight its benefits?

[Hman]

Wikipedia claimed that the Black Prince prototypes saw some useful service during the Korean War- a news to me.  Can anyone confirm?

I think that is a "Wiki FIB"

[rickshaw]

Wikipedia claimed that the Black Prince prototypes saw some useful service during the Korean War- a news to me.  Can anyone confirm?

I can confirm that they never left the UK.  The Black Prince was a failure.  It was underpowered, badly.  I'm sure David Fletcher would be chortling to read that they'd gone to Korea.   Churchills went to Korea, in the form of AVREs and so did Centurions and a few Cromwells.  Indeed, why bother sending a Black Prince when you have the Centurion?

[Logan Hartke]

Wikipedia claimed that the Black Prince prototypes saw some useful service during the Korean War- a news to me.  Can anyone confirm?

I'm sure David Fletcher would be chortling to read that they'd gone to Korea.

Yes, he would be.  David Fletcher's a fantastically nice guy, actually.  I wrote him an email asking about a couple of rare projects and he wrote me back a very nice long email and sent me a snail mail packet of photocopies of rare photos from the archives, as well.

Cheers,

Logan

[rickshaw]

Wikipedia claimed that the Black Prince prototypes saw some useful service during the Korean War- a news to me.  Can anyone confirm?

I'm sure David Fletcher would be chortling to read that they'd gone to Korea.

Yes, he would be.  David Fletcher's a fantastically nice guy, actually.  I wrote him an email asking about a couple of rare projects and he wrote me back a very nice long email and sent me a snail mail packet of photocopies of rare photos from the archives, as well.

Cheers,

Logan

He is.  I've corresponded with him a couple of times.  Nice bloke and it helps that he lived Downunder for a while in the city I live in so we have things in common.

He writes very well.  I find his books not only explain what decisions were made but the reasons why they were made, which is far better than most books on British Armour development invariably just lombast people and decisions.  Doing that merely shows no understanding of the environment and limitations in place at the time.

[Logan Hartke]

Very true.  He also has had very kind words to say about other authors and curators.  He's spoken kindly of Dick Hunnicutt, Simon Dunstan, Steve Zaloga, and Charles Lemons, I know.  Intelligent, well-spoken, and gracious.

As for the Black Prince, it's neat, and I've always liked it, but it really was pointless.  It may have been a battlefield contender like a Tiger I or KV-85 in 1942 or even 1943, but by 1945 the world had long since passed it by.  I'd like to have seen what a Churchill chassis would have made of the Golan Heights or some of the rough terrain in the West Bank in 1967, however.  The Churchill has been considered a better hill-climber than the Sherman or the Centurion, both or which were considered some of the best in the Cold War era and they both struggled in that terrain a few times.

Cheers,

Logan

[dy031101]

It was underpowered, badly.

I'd like to have seen what a Churchill chassis would have made of the Golan Heights or some of the rough terrain in the West Bank in 1967, however.

Will take notes of both points- for probably the backstory's sake as it looks like I'll have an upgunned Black Prince in my 3D to-do list after all.  

Come to think of it, I too am wondering what if Israel had acquired Churchill tanks?  What variant(s) would have been prominent?  What kind of modifications would they have applied to the tanks?

[buzzbomb]

.....  The Churchill has been considered a better hill-climber than the Sherman or the Centurion, both or which were considered some of the best in the Cold War era and they both struggled in that terrain a few times.

Cheers,

Logan

... and performed excellently in Jungle trials set up by the Australians. The consensus at the time was it performed better in jungle/mud than the Sherman.. remarkably the covered in side of the running gear were seen to be a help in that terrain, if I recall correctly.
The AWM has some great photo's of the trials
example
http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/082746