Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rnd 2 Grp 2 - Churchill (Britain) vs Tiger tanks (Germany)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Capt AFB View Post
    If you consider slow turret traverse, low-obstacle clearing difficulties and unreliable engine to be significant and influential in tank design, you should vote for the Tiger.
    No, but the combination of thick armour, a decent MP main gun combined with good view, optics and communications were influential.

    Originally posted by Capt AFB View Post
    Meanwhile, the slow and heavy Churchill was used to develop a series of specialized armoured vehicle - the "Funnies (AVRE, flamethrower, mine warfare etc) - that are still needed today by modern armies, be it dozer blades attached to modern MBTs or specialized engineered vehicles based on MBTs. Would that be significant and influential? You decide.
    Don't you ask yourself why they abused the Churchill for that? The specialized vehicles should not be attributed to the Churchill. They were invented independently. It didn't need the Churchill for that.

    Originally posted by Capt AFB View Post
    As for being called "obsolete", a bit of research would indicate that the Churchill was a better platform for the same guns used by the Sherman, the preferred tank by the Aussies in fighting in the Pacific and much appreciated by the Allies in fighting the North Koreans with T-34 tanks!

    Of course, if this is a popularity contest (vs defining the most significant/influential tank) , I would also vote for the Tiger tank!
    Being a platform for TD or Sp Arty isn't very high on my list for influential Tank. Again abuse and misuse of a Tank.
    When it entered the stage it was nothing special. It stayed on the stage after the war because there were so many left. The Tigers were built in smaller numbers and their famousness does not reflect its true impact. But it still had impact, influence and was at least significantly impressing its enemies.
    One could argue that the Tiger I was a pre-pre prototype of the MBT whereas the Churchill was...
    One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

    Comment


    • #32
      ...the predecessor of the Chieftain and Challenger MBTs.

      ...while the Tiger was the German end of line for Heavy Tanks!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Capt AFB View Post
        ...the predecessor of the Chieftain and Challenger MBTs.

        ...while the Tiger was the German end of line for Heavy Tanks!
        Predecessor and father isn't the same.
        Germany stopped developing Tanks in 1945. The next big Tanks were Leopard I and II. So what?

        Do you think the Chieftain and Challenger MBT were inspired by the Churchill?
        And other Tank designs had no influence in their design?
        One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

        Comment


        • #34
          It's not just design parentage though. The Churchill showed that tanks could go where previously nobody believed they could - up hills a couple of thousand feet high, up unprecedented gradients, over waterlogged ground, through dense forests, directly under friendly artillery bombardments etc.

          The Churchill was absolutely critical in a number of battles - Longstop Hill most famously, but also in Italy, and the Reichswald. It also did an excellent job in Korea.

          There's just not many people contributing to this thread who know very much about the Churchill, and the imbalance in the votes shows that. Maybe the Tiger was more influential overall, but the voting should be a lot tighter, I think. The one thing I've come to find over the years is that the more you know about the Churchill, the more impressed you are with it. The opposite tends to be the case with the Tiger.
          "Looting would not be tolerated within the Division, unless organised with the knowledge of C.O.'s on a unit basis."
          - 15/19 Hussars War Diary, 18th March 1945

          Comment


          • #35
            Sad that the churchil is looseing. People just have such a hard on for the tiger.

            I first fell in love with the churchel has a kid when I played close combat a bridge to far, all fell in love with the firefly due to the same game.
            you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

            CPO Mzinyati

            Comment


            • #36
              Tiger I. it could pierce the Churchill more than 1000 metres, but Churchill only could do the same at point blank range (maybe less). couldn't the turret ring of the Churchill take the 17 pounder? the Sherman IV could! this would make a great tank for the British, and get a hard time for the german cats!

              Comment


              • #37
                I absolutely love the Churchill's mobility. And her "ugly" style reminds me of the A-10 warthog in it's effectiveness. Unfortunately, the likable Churchill runs up against the Tiger in only the second round, and therefore will not be around much longer, thus denying us the opportunity to "spread the word" about her. Voting for the Tigers. Influence epitomized.

                BTW...where is my friend Nick?
                "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by kurt tank 152 View Post
                  Tiger I. it could pierce the Churchill more than 1000 metres, but Churchill only could do the same at point blank range (maybe less). couldn't the turret ring of the Churchill take the 17 pounder? the Sherman IV could! this would make a great tank for the British, and get a hard time for the german cats!
                  You're probably not aware of this, but a special gunsight and shell were developed for the Churchill that could bounce a shell off hard ground into the belly armour of the Tiger from 2000 metres.

                  This didn't work on soft or muddy ground, so a special mortar was developed that fired a rolled wire carpet that unfurled in mid-air and landed just in front of the Tiger, so the shell could bounce off it into the belly armour.

                  However, this didn't work on bumpy ground, so special steamroller Churchills were developed to flatten the battleground prior to the Tigers arriving. These were armed with 17 pdr. guns just in case any Tigers arrived before the carpet-laying and shell-bouncing Churchills.
                  "Looting would not be tolerated within the Division, unless organised with the knowledge of C.O.'s on a unit basis."
                  - 15/19 Hussars War Diary, 18th March 1945

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I have to admit that I would have automatically voted for the Tiger if not for the discussion. As props to the Churchill supporters (not that the Tiger fans did not make some good points), I will throw the Churchill a cigar.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Don Juan View Post

                      There's just not many people contributing to this thread who know very much about the Churchill, and the imbalance in the votes shows that. Maybe the Tiger was more influential overall, but the voting should be a lot tighter, I think. The one thing I've come to find over the years is that the more you know about the Churchill, the more impressed you are with it. The opposite tends to be the case with the Tiger.
                      Very true

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Hanov View Post
                        Predecessor and father isn't the same.
                        Germany stopped developing Tanks in 1945. The next big Tanks were Leopard I and II. So what?

                        Do you think the Chieftain and Challenger MBT were inspired by the Churchill?
                        And other Tank designs had no influence in their design?
                        Gee, where do I start! Obviously, my earlier comments need more depth!

                        And other Tank designs had no influence in their design?
                        Lessons learned from the battlefield, troops improvements to increase survivability and innovations all have influence on new design. So other tank designs have influence, but what tanks designs did the Tiger influence after WW2, when Allies had access to German engineering? (As would the MG 42 and MP 44 have on small arms, the V2 on aerospace, the Panther's 75mm gun - not the Tiger's 88mm- being copied for the AMX 13 main gun etc)

                        Do you think the Chieftain and Challenger MBT were inspired by the Churchill?
                        Not inspired, but influenced - And not so much tank-for-tank, but definetly British armoured doctrine.

                        The design of the tank is a balance between firepower, armour and speed/mobility. The British have always favored armour - making the tank heavier - over speed. Hence, the Chieftain and Challenger I are heavier armoured but slower than their NATO counterpart, such as the AMX 30 and Leopard I...So not surprising that the Coalition plan against Iraq in 1990 had the 1st UK Armoured Division on the right flank acting as the "hinge" to the US VII Corps' "Left Hook"...With the French Division with their faster but lighter AMX-30 (and AMX-10RC) protecting the left flank.

                        Germany stopped developing Tanks in 1945. The next big Tanks were Leopard I and II.
                        Exactly. The Tigers did not much influence further Allied or German designs. The Tiger was a heavy tank, with heavy armour and a heavy gun for it time...The Leopard I is an MBT, built for mobility/speed and using a standard NATO gun.

                        As an aside, M1 Abrams followed by the Leopard II, Challenger II and AMX 40 Leclerc are pretty much on equal terms as mobility, firepower and armoured, not balancing one against the other but paying for this in terms of a much increased logical tail.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                          I'd be interested to read anything on the Churchill vs. T-34-85 in Korea; could you tell me where you found this? Thanks!
                          Almost missed this one.

                          Unfortunately, I do not have a straight subtantive answer for you.

                          I remember reading a book about British and Commonwealth units fighting in Korea I found in my high school library.

                          I remember the Churchill tank being part of the British fighting force, as I wondered, way far back then, about a tank named after the British PM (sic!!) fighting in Korea...

                          I do not remember the name of the book, and I can't find it through Google! (Although Wikipedia mentions that Churchill tanks in Korea impressed American and British combattants.)

                          Perhaps someone on the ACG forum can help with this one? Or if I can only find my library card from 30 years ago!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I don't think the Churchill engaged any T-34's in Korea, but they did once come under harassing fire from a captured Cromwell, of all things.

                            It was "C" Squadron 7 RTR that used the Churchill in Korea, their first action being to rescue the 1st Royal Northumberland Fusiliers during the Chinese New Year offensive in early January 1951. They accomplished this while causing heavy losses to the attacking Chinese infantry. They then spent three weeks supporting the US Army's 27th, 35th and 24th RCT's, before rejoining the British 35th Brigade and supporting them in their advance north to the Han River. They were then involved in holding back the second major Chinese offensive in April 1951, and left Korea when peace talks started in July 1951.

                            Generally, the Churchills had to engage in more road marches than they had in Europe, on one occasion travelling 200 miles without rest, and these were often over narrow ice-bound tracks and defiles. The tank lived up to its reputation of being hardy, adaptable and useful, and according to Bryan Perrett was highly praised by the commander of the US 1 Corps, Major-General John W. O'Daniel.
                            "Looting would not be tolerated within the Division, unless organised with the knowledge of C.O.'s on a unit basis."
                            - 15/19 Hussars War Diary, 18th March 1945

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              In a number of ways I think the Churchill was actually the better tank but of course this is not about "best". For the combination of significance/influence I finished up with the Tiger tanks.
                              "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Don Juan View Post
                                You're probably not aware of this, but a special gunsight and shell were developed for the Churchill that could bounce a shell off hard ground into the belly armour of the Tiger from 2000 metres.

                                This didn't work on soft or muddy ground, so a special mortar was developed that fired a rolled wire carpet that unfurled in mid-air and landed just in front of the Tiger, so the shell could bounce off it into the belly armour.

                                However, this didn't work on bumpy ground, so special steamroller Churchills were developed to flatten the battleground prior to the Tigers arriving. These were armed with 17 pdr. guns just in case any Tigers arrived before the carpet-laying and shell-bouncing Churchills.
                                good info Don Juan, never heard about it. can you elaborate more? this granade was made for 6 pounder or 75mm guns? was it HEAT or HESH?
                                thanks!

                                __________________________________________________ ___
                                War is like love, it always finds a way.
                                BERTOLT BRECHT

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X