Slow Churchills

[ajmac]

After attending A&E a few weeks ago and getting back into the 'living' side of WW2 armour (the best part), I couldn't make it down to Dorest AGAIN for Tankfest so I have had to make do with watching a few videos on YouTube to see what I missed.

 

It's well know that Churchills were not a sprightly tank in comparison to other armour at the time, but I think this video goes to show one of the tangible benefits of restoring and running wartime vehicles.....statistics don't tell the whole story. Just watch the MkIV tearing around the Tankfest arena and it is appreciable that the Churchill was no sloth!

 

Edited July 6, 2012 by ajmac

[David B.]

After attending A&E a few weeks ago and getting back into the 'living' side of WW2 armour (the best part), I couldn't make it down to Dorest AGAIN for Tankfest so I have had to make do with watching a few videos on YouTube to see what I missed.

 

It's well know that Churchills were not a sprightly tank in comparison to other armour at the time, but I think this video goes to show one of the tangible benefits of restoring and running wartime vehicles.....statistics don't tell the whole story. Just watch the MkIV tearing around the Tankfest arena and it is appreciable that the Churchill was no sloth!

 

 

I can only remember seeing another Churchill running. That was at Blackbushe about thirty years ago. My impression was then that it was about as slow and cumbersome as a WW1 tank, perhaps it was running badly on that day but this video certainly belies that.

 

There must be at least a half dozen actual or potential Churchill runners about - why don't we see them more often ?

[Meteor mark 4B]

Recall seeing Churchill AVRES "careering" along at 12MPH flat out. At night you could see the road wheels glowing red!

[eddy8men]

i heard that the irish army managed to shoe horn a meteor into a churchill, now that would have been a real speed machine possibly reaching speeds in excess of 18 mph :-D the truth is that we could have made churchills much faster but there was no need for an infantry tank to go charging across the battlefield. it just wasn't built for that purpose.

nice clip though alastair thanks for posting it up.

 

rick

[mcspool]

I can only remember seeing another Churchill running. That was at Blackbushe about thirty years ago. My impression was then that it was about as slow and cumbersome as a WW1 tank, perhaps it was running badly on that day but this video certainly belies that.

 

A lot is down to the driver's skill as well. A friend of mine drove a stick shift Sexton SPG faster uphill than an auto gearbox M18, reportedly the fastest "tank" of WW2 :yawn:

[RattlesnakeBob]

They always strike me as looking more WW1 than 2 and that's not really fair to what was a reasonable tank .:-|

.....OK...maybe not when compared to a Panther or Tiger or a T34 but the Churchill was very rugged and popular with it's crews from what I understand... and could also take battlefield damage in some ways better than the Sherman could..:-\...I guess they're just not considered as 'sexy' as a Sherman or M10 so maybe folk pass them by??..

..but.... that video does indeed show her shifting along..:-D..at least more than fast enough for wading through the bocage country I would have thought ?.

.PS: just off topic but does anyone on here know what happened to a Churchill on a complete Mighty Antar transport rig that Jeremy Walker Plant and Machinery from Witney nr Oxford had once??

...they'd acquired this mighty impressive ensemble back around the early 1990s and although the tank and tractor/trailer it sat on was all a bit rough, the intention was (back then) to rebuild the lot.......

did it happen???? anyone know maybe?