Churchill Infantry Tank

[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.

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.

Since I proposed the mountain goat Churchill, let me assure you that it absolutely DOES have a belt feed for the autocannon, and wouldn't be acceptable without it. This means that it has ONE manually loaded gun in a three-man turret, which is no different from any of the standard versions. Note also that I've been trying to restrict the size of that gun, partly in order to address exactly these problems, hence my suggestion of 81mm/88mm weapons.

[buzzbomb]

Oh man I am loving this thread

As a very keen Churchill fan..
my mind is now a torrent of creative thought of what to do with the Chuchill bits I have left over from various builds

[dy031101]

How does this one look?  

The gun came from a IS-2 for some scenario reason...... unless France would have been more willing to export their version of the rifled 120mm......

Although that very scenario with which I started making the "enlarged Churchill" mental notes meant that I have mostly ignored the question as to if the Black Prince could in reality have taken a specific turret (not that I could answer such a question when I wanted to since I have had no luck trying to find out the Black Prince's turret ring size and therefore, in this case for example, have no mean to see if it's bigger than 216cm......  ), is it just me or can drawings be deceptive when it comes to turret ring sizes?

[dy031101]

Black Prince hull plus Conqueror turret (done just for the heck of it  , not the same scenario as the Patton-inspired turret, so this mental note gets to keep its rifled 120mm gun).  Turret ring raised a bit to avoid the bustle hitting the aft exhausts (at least I think that's what the boxy items on the engine deck are).

I still think the turrets from M103 and Centurion can make the most asthetically-pleasing combos though......

[dy031101]

I heard that there is a predecessor tank to the Churchill and was led to the enclosed picture.

I wonder how big it is compared to, say the Black Prince and the ARL-44......

[rickshaw]

I heard that there is a predecessor tank to the Churchill and was led to the enclosed picture.

I wonder how big it is compared to, say the Black Prince and the ARL-44......

Smaller than both.  That's a standard Mathilda II turret on top.  It was decided that the design was too small and so enlarged to become what was eventually called the Churchill.  I'd recommend you read David Fletcher's excellent book, "Mr. Churchill's Tank" for a comprehensive history of the Churchill's development and employment, including the attempts to kill the project.

[dy031101]

It was decided that the design was too small and so enlarged to become what was eventually called the Churchill.  I'd recommend you read David Fletcher's excellent book, "Mr. Churchill's Tank" for a comprehensive history of the Churchill's development and employment, including the attempts to kill the project.

I see.  The first part of the quote was actually contrary to what I read on the brief Wikipedia entry......

[dy031101]

The A20 prototype has a MG port on each side.  In battle how easy could an anti-tank weapon hit such a target (which I also realized to likely be less-armoured than the rest of the hull)?

EDIT: Typo

[rickshaw]

The A20 prototype has a MG port on each side.  In battle how easy could an anti-tank weapon hit such a target (which I also realized to likely be less-armoured tank the rest of the hull)?

Like any break in the armour, it is a weak point.  AT crews would be trained or quickly learn to aim for them deliberately.  How easily could it be hit?  Lots of various factors affect accuracy on the battlefield.  However, remember that the early Panther's mantlet formed a shot trap and that was exploited by Allied tank and AT crews and its a damned hard spot to hit but if enough rounds are fired, eventually one will find its mark.

[icchan]

if enough rounds are fired, eventually one will find its mark.

"Quantity has a quality all its own."

[Rheged]

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"

I can confirm that a Churchill named "The Black Prince"  by its crew did appear in Korea.   A friend's  father was the  driver!

[rickshaw]

The A20 prototype has a MG port on each side.  In battle how easy could an anti-tank weapon hit such a target (which I also realized to likely be less-armoured tank the rest of the hull)?

Like any break in the armour, it is a weak point.  AT crews would be trained or quickly learn to aim for them deliberately.  How easily could it be hit?  Lots of various factors affect accuracy on the battlefield.  However, remember that the early Panther's mantlet formed a shot trap and that was exploited by Allied tank and AT crews and its a damned hard spot to hit but if enough rounds are fired, eventually one will find its mark.

You train a gunner to shoot center of mass.  You want a hit on the target.  The outcome is just "is what it is".

Gunners however once they have achieved proficiency will attempt to improve their shooting as much as possible.  With practice comes improved accuracy.  "Trick shooting" is one aspect of that.   Desperation in the face of the enemy will also often breed a desire to exploit that enemy's known weaknesses.

[Old Wombat]

Especially if you're sitting in a tin brick, like the Sherman (which is basically all shot-trap) & you want to get the other guy before he has a shot at you.

[Maverick]

Have to agree with Salt6 there.  It's all well and good to talk about trick shots, but the reality is in a snapshot, it's where the shot falls.

There's similar BS around the traps regarding the use of lethal force against armed offenders.  Those without knowledge always bemoan the fact that the law enforcement officers shoot centre mass but that's exactly what they are trained to do.  They won't attempt to 'shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand' or other such Hollywood cr@p, mainly because in the nanoseconds they have to engage the target, muscle memory and training is all they have and that is shoot centre mass.

Regards,

Mav

[dy031101]

I'm sure when the SEAL Team 6 operators shot Osama bin Laden's wife in the legs, they know they might not be able to reliably make the shot non-lethal.  For all we know, the operators probably felt relieved that their bullets didn't hit an artery of hers and therefore didn't kill more people than they needed to.

The way I understand things is that, for example, if a gunner of a Sherman tank in a textbook ambush position finds out that, say, a Panther tank "crossing his T" and ignorant of its surrounding, he might have the time to aim for the turret side (which is reputed to be vulnerable to even the lower-velocity 75mm gun).  But he might not be able to tell immediately that he is looking at a Panther tank, or even if he could, circumstances might dictate that he could lose his initiative soon.  Not to mention situations where his ambush could quickly become botched.

In short, I agree with at least part of what rickshaw said, too, in that if a weakness is identified on a specific tank, tank and AT gun crew will try to exploit it.  But I think gunners would be trained to aim for the centre of mass if the fog of war gets in the way- which I suspect would often be the case.