Jump to content

Churchill Gallery


antarmike

Recommended Posts

i'm glad they left the battle damage on jackal as it's all too easy to look at a tank and think about it just as an impressive war machine and focus on whatever armour, armament and other technical attributes it possesses and possibly not so much about the crews that fought to the death in them. i know i'm sometimes guilty of that.

 

eddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Churchills were always vulnerable to mines especially in the battles around the German border where trip mines attached to UXBs became a favoured defense measure (so again nothing changes in warfare). Although the floor was fairly high it was not srong or even well constucted to take a blast. The sponsons were vulnerable to explosions which caused blast and suspension to burst through the sponson floor plate into ammunition stowage and fuel tanks, apart from heavy damage to the floor if I remember correctly Jackel has a pierced left sponson behind the pannier door -beneath an ammunition rack.

 

A major injury downside of the Churchill was the so called Mk4 hand- amputations of digits -even hands caused by heavy hatches closing unsxpetedly- however the same thing can still happen. The most unexpected consequence of service in Churchills is deteriation of hearing caused by the lack of noise insulation.

 

As I mentioned previously the Valentine was also fited with a turbine -possibly if fitted with 2 a valentine might have got airborne:-D

 

Another pressure mine clearer using aircraft assist rockets

 

 

Steve

sade gas turbine on valentine.jpg

churchill with jatog.jpg

Edited by steveo578
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I saw Jackal before it was moved inside and have seen the mine damage.

Repaint has left all the battle damage untouched. Very sobering to look underneath and see where the floor was blasted up into the driver's area....and knowing what happened to the crew.

 

i'm glad they left the battle damage on jackal as it's all too easy to look at a tank and think about it just as an impressive war machine and focus on whatever armour, armament and other technical attributes it possesses and possibly not so much about the crews that fought to the death in them. i know i'm sometimes guilty of that.

 

Indeed. I recall first climbing on and in Jackal when I was 15 or so years old. Very sobering when you see the floor blasted out and trying to envisage what happened to the crew.

 

Since the guys who were there are quickly passing away now, I think it is important - no, vital - we record as much information as possible about relics like Jackal. It puts them into a very powerful context, more so than an as-new restored and running Churchill. Bob Dare has passed away, reportedly he was the last veteran with a personal link to any of the artefacts on display at the Overloon museum.

 

[Rant]

To me, a relic like Jackal is much more important than any work of art. Strangely, our law does nothing to effectively protect and preserve these important pieces of international heritage. These relics are of vital importance to link generations and people across the globe, much more than, lets say, Van Gogh's Sunflowers. I was enraged when I heard the Sherman "Cookie", another historical artifact, was sold to Italy. Criminal!

[/Rant]

 

Hanno

Edited by mcspool
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent! If you need some more pictures of the event in 2009 let me know.

 

Hanno

 

Just off topic - but Hanno Albert Figg will also be writing for Pathfinder Online. Thank you for the heads up!

 

- just working on Professor Richard Holmes now - caught up with him yesterday :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post 121 has some good images of two of the different track types used on Churchills, I presume the best type was that fitted on the Mk7 and shown well in the third photo. Would this have been retrofited on earlier marks during rebuild or like the original AVRE shown, would they have retained the older weaker tracks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm sure steve will let us know but i thought the earlier heavy track was the strongest especially on stoney ground, i believe the manganese tracks were found to be not up to the job when the going got tough.

one strange thing about the track was the absence of a way to split it, as the track was one continuous loop with all the track pins fasten in situ with a stainless steel tab welded over the end of the pin so the only way to break the track would be to chisel off the welded tab, i can't understand why they never put removeable pins in every few links or so but that's the churchill for you, nobody could say it was a boring tank to study. bizzare, weird, eccentric, over complicated and over engineered but definately not boring :nut:

 

eddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ajmac

Would this have been retrofited on earlier marks during rebuild or like the original AVRE shown, would they have retained the older weaker tracks?

 

There were 3 types of tracks on Churchills if you ignore the original built up type, these are heavy cast steel (shown in the first photo in post 121) light cast steel and a almost identical Managnese Steel track (probably that shown in the second photo- its difficult to tell there is a small internal web on light steel track) all were more or less interchangable- although the light steel track seems to have rapidly required a modification of the idler by fitting a slightly thicker rubber tyre than that required for the other 2 types, this probably means the manganese track was designed to replace the light steel track - because it was stretching too much -hence the interim fix of a thicker tyre to stop it slapping on the idler teeth.

 

By 1944 the manganese and heavy steel were most common and were readily interchangerable -the heavy steel was prefered for low speed cross country in heavy going -mud -sand etc the manganese light track was prefered for mixed road/cross country running.

 

As an example of changing of tracks before a mission some of the Canadian Mk3s prior to Dieppe had light track and were retracked with the heavy cast track. The Post war Churchill Flail always ran on heavy steel track -as it function would require slow heavy going.

 

Hi eddy you posted while I was composing a reply. There was an emergency "service pin" for relinking track in emergency but the accepted method as soon as a welder was available was to weld a tab retained pin, but then again consider other methods that were common at the time- one system for covenanter relied on braising -which must have lasted a few hundred yards, one of the most efficient was the soviet method on T34s etc of an open pin being knocked in by a hammer plate just in front of the sprocket.

 

Churchill track with pin and weld in wedges the pin on the left is the service pin for use to repair a broken track.

 

 

Steve

churchill track.jpg

Edited by steveo578
addition italics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for the comprehensive reply steve, modern track pins often have a threaded end with washer and nut to retain the pin. the bren gun carrier has something similar but with a washer and split pin which has stood the test of time so why they would not choose to use something similar for all track types of that period baffles me but that's just how they used to do things in those days (the hard way)

 

eddy

Edited by eddy8men
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi eddy

 

If I remember correctly the Cromwell have a hammered -rivet like head over a washer anvil, so to break the track it would be necessary to chisel off the head and discard the pin, so lots of variations.

 

Steve

 

Only the original, early style. Later pins used round section circlips in grooves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Towards the end of the meeting:

 

Design Engineer: Yes, though the pins are different diameters.

Service Engineer: Sorry?

Design Engineer: ....different diameters....

Service Engineer: For gods sake when will you guys learn! (pulls face, pushed chair away from table)

 

Large British Engineering Company 1940s (and still going on in 2010!!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never found an exact date for its introduction, it is tempting to say that it came out around the time that the Mk5, Mk6, Mk7 the late Mk4 and Mk3 of the T17**** batches were comming off line -so second half of 1943 but without a document its impossible to say- its difficult to see whether the tank lacks the small support flange that supports the out edge of the road bar in photos and even then many photos lack a date -and it doesn't proove that it wasn't used earilier on earlier marks being refurbished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Bob Grundy

This is the Churchill Mk2 photographed in 1982 or 83. The location is Stainmoor, on Forrestry Commision land.

 

nice picture Bob- the location is Stainburn Moor and is about 3mile west of Harrogate. It was used by 9th Bt RTR for training along with nearbye Lindley and Denton Moor.

 

Stainmore is just east of Warcop Training Area and was probably part of that training area during WW2 but AFAIK (I've had a wander around there) there aren't any abandoned tanks there.:(

 

Steve

Edited by steveo578
capitals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...