Matilda & Churchill, British Infantry tanks in action. - Page 6 - Aircraft of World War II

Glider · 12-17-2008, 06:01 PM

It was also a lot smaller making it slightly more difficult to hit. I have a photo somwhere of the two side by side which I will try to find.

The Sherman was a pretty big tank

Vassili Zaitzev · 12-17-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

It was also a lot smaller making it slightly more difficult to hit. I have a photo somwhere of the two side by side which I will try to find.

The Sherman was a pretty big tank

Yeah, too high a profile.

CharlesBronson · 12-18-2008, 05:21 PM

Probably the only advantage of the Sherman was it could be more easily "overgunned"

The 17 pounder variant of the Sherman, the Firefly was definately more neat than the 17 pounder armed variant of the Cromwell, The Challenger tank.

Firefly

Challenger

Vassili Zaitzev · 12-18-2008, 11:32 PM

You're right Charles, the turret on the Challenger looks like one giant shot trap.

Juha · 12-19-2008, 02:09 PM

Thanks a lot agains, Charles B. Very interesting thread.

Vassili
Challenger was also too long and so rather clumsy.

Juha

Vassili Zaitzev · 12-19-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juha

Thanks a lot agains, Charles B. Very interesting thread.

Vassili
Challenger was also too long and so rather clumsy.

Juha

Didn't know that, thanks Juha.

CharlesBronson · 12-19-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

You're right Charles, the turret on the Challenger looks like one giant shot trap.

And a very tall turret, note this comparison with the Tiger eins.

Quote:

Charles B. Very interesting thread.

Thank you.

Burmese Bandit · 12-19-2008, 08:34 PM

Please forgive me if in my quick glance through this thread this question has been answered before.

I have read that the suspension of the Churchill allowed it to move quicker, in spite of its low power to weight ratio, over the type of very rough terrain that would slow down the Sherman to a crawl. Is this a myth or fact?

Vassili Zaitzev · 12-19-2008, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlesBronson

And a very tall turret, note this comparison with the Tiger eins.

Thank you.

Right, might as well paint a bullseye on it.

Juha · 12-20-2008, 04:47 AM

Hello BB
my understanding is that Churchill was capable to climb over steeper obstacles and slopes than most tanks and also in Normandy in the bocage it could cross the steep banks which so hindered Shermans. But ofter all Churchill was designed to be able to operate over shell torn battlefields a la WWI.

Juha

Burmese Bandit · 12-20-2008, 07:11 AM

Yep. Thanks again, Juha.

Armour, mobility (both theoretical and actual combat condition) firepower (both theoretical and actual combat condition) are, IMHO, the critical design factors for tanks, together with of course ease of production, operation and maintenance.

Which brings me to another question. What were the maintenance requirements of the Matilda and Churchill as compared to the Sherman and the Tiger? We do generally know that the Sherman was comparatively easy to maintain and the Tiger was an dog, but who can give us some hard-ish figues and actual war tank mechanic anecdotes?

CharlesBronson · 12-21-2008, 07:40 AM

Well, the suspension system in the Churchill was not designed for high speed, that is for sure because the tank itself was not designed for going faster than 25km/h.

Quote:

Which brings me to another question. What were the maintenance requirements of the Matilda and Churchill as compared to the Sherman and the Tiger? We do generally know that the Sherman was comparatively easy to maintain and the Tiger was an dog, but who can give us some hard-ish figues and actual war tank mechanic anecdotes?

Not as easy as the Sherman but less complicated than the Tiger, the german tanks were usually more maintenace intensive as you probably know.

Soundbreaker Welch? · 12-28-2008, 09:33 PM

Even Rommel complained about german mechanics having a hard time finding replacement parts for german vehicles. us machinery had interchangable parts unlike the germans machines. I'm sure the british were better in this area as well.

CharlesBronson · 12-30-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

I'm sure the british were better in this area as well

They had some troubles too

, specially in the Crusader.
Some notes on the early Churchills ( extract from: "The great tank scandal 1939-42")

Matt308 · 12-30-2008, 06:58 PM

That's awesome, CB. Great post.

12-18-2008, 11:32 PM	#79
Vassili Zaitzev Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Stafford Springs, Connecticut Posts: 2,471	You're right Charles, the turret on the Challenger looks like one giant shot trap. __________________ "Never was so much owed by so many to so few"- Winston Churchill.

12-28-2008, 09:33 PM	#88
Soundbreaker Welch? Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 1,896	Even Rommel complained about german mechanics having a hard time finding replacement parts for german vehicles. us machinery had interchangable parts unlike the germans machines. I'm sure the british were better in this area as well. __________________ "His motor's conked out!" "What's the differance, they're all Nazis!" "Luke, shut up!" "Fear the hook!" "Oh.....I wanna fly." "You mean the kind that go under water and fly up the stairs?" "What you doing? Oh Nooooo!" Last edited by Soundbreaker Welch?; 12-28-2008 at 09:35 PM.

12-30-2008, 06:58 PM	#90
Matt308 aka Dickcheese Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State Posts: 13,993	That's awesome, CB. Great post. __________________ "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.] Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-17-2008, 06:01 PM	#76
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,904	It was also a lot smaller making it slightly more difficult to hit. I have a photo somwhere of the two side by side which I will try to find. The Sherman was a pretty big tank

12-19-2008, 02:09 PM	#80
Juha Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki Posts: 1,560	Thanks a lot agains, Charles B. Very interesting thread. Vassili Challenger was also too long and so rather clumsy. Juha

12-19-2008, 08:34 PM	#83
Burmese Bandit Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 489	Please forgive me if in my quick glance through this thread this question has been answered before. I have read that the suspension of the Churchill allowed it to move quicker, in spite of its low power to weight ratio, over the type of very rough terrain that would slow down the Sherman to a crawl. Is this a myth or fact?

12-20-2008, 04:47 AM	#85
Juha Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki Posts: 1,560	Hello BB my understanding is that Churchill was capable to climb over steeper obstacles and slopes than most tanks and also in Normandy in the bocage it could cross the steep banks which so hindered Shermans. But ofter all Churchill was designed to be able to operate over shell torn battlefields a la WWI. Juha

12-20-2008, 07:11 AM	#86
Burmese Bandit Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 489	Yep. Thanks again, Juha. Armour, mobility (both theoretical and actual combat condition) firepower (both theoretical and actual combat condition) are, IMHO, the critical design factors for tanks, together with of course ease of production, operation and maintenance. Which brings me to another question. What were the maintenance requirements of the Matilda and Churchill as compared to the Sherman and the Tiger? We do generally know that the Sherman was comparatively easy to maintain and the Tiger was an dog, but who can give us some hard-ish figues and actual war tank mechanic anecdotes?