Bob Grundy Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Hi,could you tell me more about this picture? Where did it come from for instance as my gramps thinks this is his tank and these are his guys (he drove), he could actually be the driver. They are tanks from A & B Squadrons 43Bn RTR 33 Brigade in October 1942. Type in IWM Search our Collections, then Churchill tank. There pages and pages of them but have a look at H214817 which is your photo and TR219, they are in colour as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewis346 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Hi FolksHere is a few pics of a Churchill that I located and uncovered two years ago. It was laid alongside a slab sided Sherman which we recovered, we removed the churchills turret before covering it back up. Rob................................rnixartillery. Hi, I was wondering where did you find this churchill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Isaac Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 This is our MkVII, ex pounds yard in 1979. Also spare engine, MkI and AVRE turrets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Child Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Nice to see it displayed without the front mudguards Tim. It gives it a proper look. Have you read "Flamethrower" by Andrew Wilson? It's well worth a read as it runs through the author's experiences in Churchill Crocodiles during the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Isaac Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 They do look pretty mean without guards don`t they Lauren. Have read a couple Churchill books but not that one, will look out for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Child Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 They do look pretty mean without guards don`t they Lauren. Have read a couple Churchill books but not that one, will look out for it. Yup, but it's also right for an "in-use" vehicle. The blast from the 75mm firing would damage them when firing, so most of the wartime photos you'll see have had one or both of them blown off or removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattlesnakeBob Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 It's no wonder the Churchill had better 'off road' performance than a Sherman though ....their tracks did have some seriously aggressive grousers didn't they! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzkpfw-e Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Hi, I was wondering where did you find this churchill? Feldom, Catterick Training Area Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMP-Phil Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 HI All Here is a link from the Australian War Memorial Archives of direct Sherman vs Churchill tank trials to examine the differences in performance for operation in the SW Pacific Theater. This link was posted by Mike a very knowledgeable and frequent contributor to MLU. There is much discussion of tracks and one of the Sherman's in the test has a type of track I have not seen before. Cheers Phil https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F07352/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Isaac Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Fantastic piece of film Phil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Grundy Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 It sure was a interesting film complete with rousing music Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy8men Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 thanks or posting the link, it seems the Sherman fitted with track grousers did very well in the conditions and was better suited than the Churchill, which was not what I was expecting considering the Churchill's legendary cross country ability Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Well Rick, what can I say...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy8men Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 ok you got me on that one ! there is no need for the Churchill's heavy armour when fighting the japs and the shermans maintenance requirements are a little less than the churchills ! which in the jungle is an important logistical consideration. another factor to consider is the churchill is probably too manly a tank for the aussies, so best for them to stick to the little tanks like Shermans and such and leave the big stuff to the real men :coffee: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woldemar Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 is there any photos or blueprints of hull-mounted 3-inch howitzer ? and info about aiming angles of 3-inch ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Child Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Here's a pic from the June 1942 drivers manual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Herbert Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I had never thought about it before but looking at Lauren's picture makes me think that the breach end of the 3" howitzer couldn't have left much room in the hull gunner's position for a hull gunner. Did they even have a crew member beside the driver or did the turret crew man the howitzer? Presumably the amunition was stowed in the sponson next to the gun ? David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Child Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I had never thought about it before but looking at Lauren's picture makes me think that the breach end of the 3" howitzer couldn't have left much room in the hull gunner's position for a hull gunner. Did they even have a crew member beside the driver or did the turret crew man the howitzer? Presumably the amunition was stowed in the sponson next to the gun ? David Here's the left side picture internally, it's the Besa version and doesn't show the gun, but you can see the distance between the compartment front and the chair. Not much room for a howitzer breach. Ammunition was stored on its side where the Besa boxes (73 on the diagram) are shown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Child Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Drivers side shows 3" howitzer ammo (65 on the diagram). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woldemar Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 i more interested in how gun actually look like and what was the aiming degree, horizontal and vertical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Lee Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 ok you got me on that one ! there is no need for the Churchill's heavy armour when fighting the japs and the shermans maintenance requirements are a little less than the churchills ! which in the jungle is an important logistical consideration. another factor to consider is the churchill is probably too manly a tank for the aussies, so best for them to stick to the little tanks like Shermans and such and leave the big stuff to the real men :coffee: Rick, at the end of the trials the Churchill tank was preferred over the Sherman with some 510 tanks ordered. The order was cancelled due to the end of the war not before 51Churchill tanks were delivered to Australia(the six trial tanks and 45 production tanks). More details here http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/australianshermansph_4.htm What were you saying about real men?:-X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy8men Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 very interesting reading thank you for posting it. as for the dig at aussies not being real men that was aimed not at you lot down under but at any sherman owners in the uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Jealousy is a terrible thing......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Lee Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 No worries Rick. I just thought it was funny that the film seemed to be trashing the Churchill over the Sherman when in the end the Churchill won the contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Lee Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Jealousy is a terrible thing......... Yes Shermans, Cromwells and Churchills. I'm jealous of all you blokes toys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.