steveo578

Hi eddy Before Adrian has a stroke:banghead: the armour of a Sherman was 95mm on the gun shield 75mm on the turret front 50mm on the turret sides and rear. the hull was 50mm front (at 56degrees) 40mm on the sides even the floor was 25mm thick under the crew. Take your point that a Churchill would be a safer place to be allowing for the fact that nothing keeps an 88 or a 7.5cm KwK 42 at bay. As to the Brian Perrit story I can tell you of a Churchill that had 5 killed outright and 1 badly wounded. Steve

Let's be cynical about this if Duxford close the landfare hall and dispose of its assets they will end up in the hands of rich private collectors -many probably in the USA (despite regulations on the import of WMD):angry never to be seen by the public again and s*d all the cash they have had from Lottery -Government and Local Authority funding on the pretext of education.:argh: And while I'm at it where is the 10.5cm FH auf PzKfz III/IV?:???

It wasn't unknown for a Pak 43 to fire from its 4 wheeled carriage -only over the front arc and the 38(t & D) in particular would have been fairly capable of the same just as a post war M56 spag (scorpion). I have reservations about the Steyr turreted model -it seems to go too far. They were highly mobile a/t guns not tanks so would not have fired broadside -personally I think these comparatively simple small mobile weapons systems had a lot going for them (and I'm not a Wehrmacht enthusiast). Its a lot better than trying to push a PAK 43 or even a PAK 40 around in an eastern front spring thaw.:shocked: Steve

I assume the sketch is from a German WW2 manual -even allowing for superior optics I doubt specific aiming was really that practical, Alot of the aiming points are for the lower hull-generally the most difficult places to put a shell:nut:. By the damage sustained by British tanks in particular the Germans had a tendancy to go for 3 round battle groupings -brief explaination to those that have not come across it, the gunner aims at the tank generally at the top of the centre mass with an educated guess of the range, fires the first round and imeditally re-loads and fires dropping range by 200 metres and again dropping another 200 metres. The result is that at least 1 round will hit the target. The British copied this system prior to introduction of ranging machine guns. The effect on the target (using a churchill showing its flank to the A/T gun as an example) is a round passing close to the commanders head (if he was lucky) followed a second later by a hit squarely on the turret and again monents later a hit on the hull generally into the fuel tank or engine if the tank was still underway- if stationary then probably into the ammunition. the only chance on survival (apart from praying for divine intervention) would be to pivot turn 90 degrees to reduce the target size, if hit on the front -just pray:(

Last bit first I'm not overly impressed by Anthony Beavers writings -alot of it is retreads from other peoples work- and i'm pretty certain the quote about "gaping holes" is from Peter Beales book Tank Tracks- but it also appears in other Churchill bi-ogs notably that of the 7th RTR so possible could come from Col. P.N. Veale MC who if I recall correctly was commander of 7th and 9th RTR. The thing that get me about tank crews at Normandy is that there seems to have been little inteligence given to them regarding the weapons and tanks they would meet in combat, in his book Peter Beale mentioned his men being stunned by a captured Tiger 1. I would have thought informing the crews of the potential of enemy AFVs would be important-not least that ignorance would cause moral to collaspe, both Tiger 1 and Panther were in British MVEE hands for a considerable time prior to Normandy. Incidently Tiger 1 and Churchill Mk1-6 had similar armour. Anyway a read of Peter Beales book Tank Tracks will give a good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the Churchill they certainly put up a "good show" in my opinion but then I didn't have to serve in one. As regards vulnerablitiy of various tanks -at no time during WW2 were allied tanks shell proof -even the Matildas during the June 1940 Battle of France could be destroyed by German A/T weapons because failing everything else the 8.8cm Flak 18-36 was available. The same applied to British/American tanks in the North African campaign, Italy and NWE although less reliance on the 88 was required as 50 and 75mm guns were available. It was primarily A/T guns, towed and SPGs that "did for" allied arnour -not tanks. Steve

I think you hit on a major point with the Churchill -mobility or the lack of it was a decisive factor even more so than having a 17pdr -which was underdeveloped as far as as dual purpose weapon until the war was over. Possibly use of the Churchill as a universal tank could have helped with the shortage of Shermans -releasing Shermans back to US service but it would have been a lot of work -but hindsight is a wonderful thing. As to the other matter -the best people are ORs :saluting: Steve

Copier up and running so I was able to upload a photo of the Rheinmetal version in a vehicle dump note the soldier on the extreme right is British. The thing in front is a Borgward 301 and a photo off a newsreel of the aftermath of the fighting in Berlin, showing the 8.8cm Pak43/3 auf Panzerjaeger 38(t) which used a Tatra 12cyl air cooled 210bhp motor. note the cross on the gun shield most German tanks had the cross on the hull -perhaps its unfamiliar shape was a concern to avoid being mistaken for something soviet.

Really for all its faults the Sherman was a far better tank than the Churchill. as a back up of my previous statement the following is an extract/attachment from page 142 of Mr Churchills Tank by David Fletcher and I have no reason to dispute the figure of circa 350 in NWE -added to which there were in all 6 Regiments fighting in Italy (but many had a mixture of Shermans and Churchills) and of course the 79th AD specials- hence about 750. There were of course 50 or so that went out to Oz and a regiment that got to India but none saw service, i'm not even sure they were used by India and or Pakistan during the partition war, Skinners Horse had them in 1948 but its duties were public order, so the Churchills stayed in barracks-probably might have made the average rioter think twice if they had been deployed:shocked:. About 300 were also sent to Russia and were used in some of the most desparate fighting at Kursk when the majority of the 36th guards rgt heavy tanks were Churchills, but still only 35 "Mk4" tanks plus 6 KVs. they also served in the fighting into Ukraine notably liberatng Kiev itself, Moldova (Vyborg liberated by the 36th which had only 6 Churchills left replaced by 31 KVs) and finally service ending (by attrition) during the clearance of eastern Balitc states. Churchills were used by the following " Guards Breakthough Regiments" 10th, 36th,48th,49th, 50th and the regular 82nd tank regiment. Excessive reserves, rebuilds sometimes a third of those produced were rebuilding or awaiting modification and training, the Churchill used by home regiments in 1942-43 were worn out twice over by 1944. David Fletchers book only give a vague idea of the number withdrawn for rebuilds. A few had been discarded some to targeting and even to recycling- there is evidence that wrecked vehicles including Churchills were taken from dumps in Eygpt and Tunisa straight to furnaces on The east coast of the USA. And a load of other vehicles the Shermans alone-parked end to end would cover the distance from London to Oxford. There was a incident in Tunisia when a German commander complained of unfairness:shocked: when Churchills overwhelmed his C/P on what the he considered an unsurmountable hill. If you keep using terms like "unsporting" people will think you are an ex rupert.:cool2::cool2:

Totally agree, many more tanks were scrapped/smelted than ever went on the serve as range targets. After WW2 light vehicles and those of riveted construction were easily cut and reference has been made in the Archiology sub forum of large ROF cutting up surplus(new?) Carriers. Consider one of my (and Eddys) favourites AFVs- the Churchill, 5500 built of which only about 750 served- and only a few were totally destroyed in service- and probably less than 250 would have been used as range targets -so what happened to the rest? As to the Grizzlies of the 10 vehicles sold to MOD in 1984 as targets as far as I'm aware at the most 3 were destoyed and 2 others were badly damaged but recovered, so better than 50% saved. The others were recovered more or less intact to become museum exhibits as far a-field as New Zealand.

Prototype for a Leighter Einheitswaffentrager GW 638/26 Gerat 587 Three different types with different track work 1) the one in your photo was by Krupp/Steyr and used the Steyr RSO as a design starting point. 2) A similar Rheinmetall Borsig prototype using Pz38t Hetzer trackwork 3) One by Krupp/Steyr which was a almagimation of both types with track and drive sprocket on the Steyr prototype and road wheels similar to a Hetzer All were built with a 8.8cm pak43 cannon. There are several photos of showing the Rheinmetal vehicle after capture, and the Krupp-steyr vehicle was used and abandoned in the Battle of Berlin. Steve

Thanks for the ISBN it makes searches so much easier.I see what I can find.

Are you attempting to acquire a squadron of loyds?:-D:cool2:

I haven't seen this book (I'll have a look on a book site when I get an hour or 2) the thing of interest would be the type of mount, -if it is a PLM mount it would be a very rare occurance but there are at least 3 other mounts used for Brens on the Churchill the Lakeman (shown in the previous photo) a counter balanced spring system and a simple pedestall mount.

Most references are for 4tons (imp) so possibly down to 3.5 without kit, but at least one photo shows a 5ton bridging class- possibly it had add on armour.

I believe the plan was to use tracer -aimed through the standard AFV optics, it was also used in Daimler Armoured Cars, on a few Dingos and some Cromwells (probably Op-RA) -the coventry was also fitted out for it- as were Churchill tanks -though I doubt any were fitted on Churchills.

The Bren and K gun drums were not compatable- even to the extent that a K drum mag. wouldn't fit a Mk3 Vickers Berthier either, but I doubt the feed spring would have any effect on its operation, of interest is that the alternative term for a 100rd Bren drum was "a high speed magazine". It is also significant that the later issued K guns had a lower rate of fire from the original unmodified aerial mounts (900 vs 700). Really for ground force service anything over 450-500rpm is a wasteful use of ammunition. It is significant the K gun had a cut away muzzle to reduce the gun rising out of control. Can't say I noticed this most photos I've seen of the K have the standard trigger above the spade and the "sit up and beg" positon would have been the only way to control it especially in use on a vehicle. The modified K for "infantry use" seems to have been built with components such as floor plate from a Mk1 VB and photos seem to show a 60rd mag. often fitted. I would expect that specialist SAS,SBS, Comando etc would be perfectly able to hump one around- modern infantry have to carry a GPMG which is a lot worse. They were issued for special ops, re-appearing after Normandy- in the Airborne Recce during Arhnem and Rhine crossing and Royal Marines in Walachern ops. The K were also favoured on PLM mounts on Daimlers A/C Dingos and Humber scouts. However if Churchill batalions had used PLMs I would have thought a pair of Brens would have been favourite especially as the standard Churchill stowage included 2 Brens. Steve

I just tried using the search facility -the "anti bot" controls keep doing my head in. I think a lot more K guns were supplied from storage in UK for use by SAS, Commandos, Recce Corps and RAC divisional recce batalions/regiments. The thing that gets me is that it seemed to be one of the few weapons to have been made obsolete by the disbandment of a regiment, as soon as the SAS were out of the way the K went too.

A photo to show the problem in service -a Churchill with a Bren with drum on a Lakeman mount inearly 1942, in effect the thing used tracer for aiming- note the tank in the background is using a standard box mag. on its Bren. I would imagine it would be used by infantry only as a ground mounted A/A gun and even with the so called high speed mag. at best 12secs. of usage.

I must be feeling tired again:yawn: there's nothing about the difference between the Vickers K and Bren 100rd mag in the Drum mag thread on this sub forum, The difference is the feed extension is deeper on the K and is not on the centre line, As the drum gets in the way of the sights you would have no working sights on a standard Bren fitted with a 100rd drum mag- so whether it was mounted on a jeep or used as a dismounted weapon with a 100rd mag it would be a overweight burp gun- loosing the essence of the Bren -which is an accurate semi-auto rifle with a limited LMG support weapon capability. As the K gun had sights as flexible mounts in RAF service, this was probably the reason it was adopted by the SAS.

In a fire fight I don't windscreens had too much chance anyway, as to changing mags. the standard 28rd one wouldn't be a problem but 100rd would. Steve

Yep I meant bipod:blush::blush: with the feet into the lower front edge of the sandbag for grip. otherwise it will slide around the bonnet. The Vickers K, a Go gun is a K built for AFV use (I used the wrong designation:blush: I really must have been tired:yawn:), it was based on the Vickers Bernthier -which is probably the ancestor of of the majority of the inter-war squad level weapons including the Bren and as Tony says has nothing to do with the Lewis. Mk3 Bernthiers are probably still around in India with some of their numerous par-military units and uses the same mag. so easily confused at a glance.

I think the plan for this type of set up is to deploy the tripod and spike it into the lower sand bag, which would give clearance for the ejection port. As shown in the photo it wouldn't work. Most of the pics of the SAS jeeps show Vickers Go guns as primary weapon with Brens only for the driver.

I think it's an optical illusion too There are a couple of Bundesarchive photos that show a similar shadow cast on tanks with steel rimmed wheels Additionally the Vimoutiers Tiger has lost a lot of steel to rust over the years which could exagerate the effect but the nature of the resilient steel wheel would be to make a wear pattern as a mirror image to that apparent in your photo.

About 15,000 tons so probably well able to take a few CVRTs

Normally grease in a weapon is for long term storage, a very light oil should be sufficient to keep it happy including the outside which will certainly mark/rust if this is not done- remember your fingers produce an acidic residue. As for damaging the thing by playing with it, again a light oil should suffice -there is term for regular cocking and releasing a gun mechanism which if I write it down Jack and Lee will get very angry- but if you keep at it you'll go blind:nut: Your good lady must have the patience of a saint.:shocked: steve