The last “Infantry Tank”, The Churchill tank story

[KillerWRabbit 18]

The last “Infantry Tank”, The Churchill tank story

Critique of the narrative of British tank development

 

When Gaijin announced the British were coming to War Thunder,  I, like many others cannot wait to drive a Churchill tank while exercising their legendary hill climbing and rough terrain crossing ability, to surprise the enemy to our 'slow' march victory.  There are many stories of captured German Sector Commanders protesting vigorously that such a use of tanks was "not fair" [Perrett, B, Sarson, P, & Chappell, M (1993) p37], as their sector was thought to be impassable to tanks and therefore lacked anti tank defences.

 

Our understanding of the Churchill tank series is intertwined with and influence by these historic narratives. We all can think of accounts, such as  Villers Bocage, of the British QF 75mm guns being ineffective against their German tank counterparts, even though the British could now engage field emplacements/guns reliably. It is true that in many ways the Churchill tanks series is a great example of British tank design throughout the  World War II.

 

 Now that Gaijin has implement the British ground forces into the game , I cannot help feeling a bit underwhelmed by the Churchill's. The Churchill Mk. III with BR 3.7 and Mk. VII with BR 4.7 (soon the Mk. I) armour maybe good but the armament is lacking as a heavy.  The last Churchill has the QF 75mm. Going from the Churchill Mk. I 2 pdr (40mm) to the Mk. III 6 pdr(57mm) increase the penetration, in another  word 'power' to kill tanks. Sadly the change from a 6 pdr to the 75mm, even though this increased the damage of the shell, it also decreased the penetration.

 

Before we continue, I would like to admit that I do realise how silly my last few statements sound, but I will argue that it will be worth it to read on. Because the real question I am trying to ask is why is it always the Mk. VII armed with a QF 75mm Mk. V the final Churchill tank we get to drive. Most, if not all WWII base games with playable British tanks go Churchill MkI ---> Mk. III ---> Mk. VII. There are in total 11 marks (Not including AVRE's) of the Churchill, why these three particular marks get chosen to represent the Churchill development?

 

I have already seen how insightful this community is, so I know I will see following posts asking or informing me of The 'infantry' tank concept, how the fall of France and the North African Campaign effected British tank development, thus the Churchill series. All leading to why the Churchill series turned out as it did. Yet as I am aware of these historic narratives, I am still asking these questions. Are our selves, which include game designers, deliberately creating this narration of the British tanks  always being under-gunned and outranged when opposed by their counterparts. Or it is because of historical facts that the narrative is what it is? The first most obvious hurdle to overcome would be the concept of the Churchill series itself. This is where I will start to put forward my argument.

 

 

The 'Infantry' Tank Concept

It is true that the infantry tank concept which was developed by the British, had its origins in the World War I division between the heavy tanks and the faster Whippet medium tanks. From a game perspective, this concept has always been difficult to adjust to, after games created the stereotype of the 'heavy' tanks as a large gun tank killers, designed to impose their domination over the battlefield.  The British differed significantly from the other nations, as their 'heavy' tanks were actually Infantry tanks, like the Matilda and the Churchill. The Infantry tanks were, as the name implies, was solely designed to support combined arms attack on enemy positions using the infantry. The Churchill, therefore, was designed to move at the same pace as the soldiers, to be able to cross shell cratered battlefields, trenches and other common obstacles such as barbed wire. The Churchill series was the last 'Infantry' tank of the British.

 

From this I can understand (and love) the design of the Churchill with its strong WWI flavour, giving it a hint of the “lozenge design” of the Great War. Also the concept gave the Churchill the  suspension system tailored for large trench crossing and impassable or extremely muddy terrain, a ability that I wish game designers would cater for. Even from this I fail to understand why game designers choose the marks that they have. Taking the Mk. III as the example, why not implement the Mk. IV instead?

 

 

(photo from Tankfest 2011 of a restored Mk. IV)

 

 

The Churchill Mk. IV

The Churchill Mk. III had been the first version of the Churchill tank to carry a 6 pdr. However a shortage of suitable wieldable sheets of armour plating meant that a new cast turret was needed to be produced. This had thinner but curved armour than the welded turret of the Mk III, but Churchill tanks with a 6 pdr could still be produced. The Churchill with the new cast turret and 6 pdr were designated as the Mk IV. It is understandable that there would be questions about why anyone would argue to implement the Mk. IV as it is mostly the same as a Mk. III, but just see the differences.

 

• Came into service just after the Mk. III in 1942
• It had the same hull armour (102mm) but had a cast turret with curves. Only the Mk. VI had the same turret.
• Main armament was the QF 6 pdr Mk. V long barrel. Identified by the counter weight on the muzzle, see photo above [Perrett, B, Sarson, P, & Chappell, M (1993) p 7].  . 
• APDS ammo became available for the 6 pdr Mk. V increasing the penetration over the 6 pdr Mk. III.
• Sorry Gaijin but Mk. IV had the largest production of all series with 1622 tanks.
• A extensive refitting programme brought the Mk. III/Mk. IV up to Mk. VII standards by adding applique armour plating etc. These tanks became the Mk. IX.

 

On the surface the Mk. IV answers most of  the issues of the armament that I have, while keeping away from the heavy is a big gun tank killer that the infantry tank concept is not. Yes the penetration is now 177mm at 100m (Bird, L R & Livingston, R D (2001),p115), but it is still not in the same category as the Tiger's 88mm gun for shell damage.  Finally a slow Churchill that can fight other heavies!

 

 

 

The fall of France and British tank development.

 

As others will point out, some historical events will make this hard to be considered to be a 'historical' narrative. Gaijin could implement the Mk. IV with APDS ammo but this would be argue by most as a hollow victory as it does not change the fact that both Mk. VII and APDS were developed later in the war. Even placing the Mk. IV at the same BR as the Mk. VII as the better gun/worst armour choice, will not provide the answers to the questions ask at the start of this article.  

 

The problem is that the historical narrative that we understand and game designers endear to, started at the fall of France and forced the British down certain paths. The events in France stripped the British of most of their tanks and placing them under imminent threat of invasion. The dire situation is summed up by a letter by Brigadier Vyvyan Pope, Lord Gort's advisor on armoured fighting vehicles at General Headquarters of the British Expeditionary Force (summer of 1940):

 

'We must have thicker armour on our fighting tanks and every tank must carry a cannon. The 2 pdr is good enough now, but only just. We must mount something better and put it behind 40 to 80mm of armour' [Fletcher D & Harley R C (2006) p3].

 

Any viable tank design that was able to put into production was rushed into development after the fall of France. This caused tank design development to be put behind by two years. What was true to tank design was equally true for anti tank guns. The delay in tank development meant designs like the Churchill tank (begin in 1939 as the A20) were accepted. To accelerate production the design was scaled down and became the A22 Churchill by Dr H. E. Merritt, Director of Tank Design.

 

By working straight from the drawing board, this eliminated detailed user and development trails. If they did have the trails, issues like the turret ring size could of been fixed which would of allowed for a better armament  than the 75mm in the future. For the Churchill, though the QF 6 pdr, which was ready for production in 1939, it would be delayed to 1942, when the QF 6 pdr Mk III short barrel was available. In June 1944 the 6 pdr Mk. V AP performance increased when  APDS ammunition was finally available for it. The delay in development can help explain why on the Tunisian front where the Tiger I's first see combat, they were met by Churchill Mk. III's or Mk.IV's without APDS ammo.  To counter new technological  developments from Germany, in 1943  the Churchill series was up-armoured and all new productions were the Mk. VII.

 

With this information presented here, it would be hard to find the answers I am looking for in the Mk. IV. If the Churchill Mk. IV cannot replace the Mk.VII as the last 'Churchill' (Not including A43), could the refitted marks be. Churchill tanks of Mk. IX, Mk. X, Mk, XI series are Churchill's that have been through a extensive refitting programme to bring them up to Mk. VII standards. The Mk. IX Churchill's were originally Mk. III/IV, so APDS ammo can still be implemented but just on a Mk. IX. Again I am aware that the forum will be a light with kind reminders of the events in The North African Campaign, as the answer to this question would be no.

 

 

 

Warfare in North Africa

The North African Campaign provided further lessons in tank design, namely about the advantage of dual purpose guns. At this stage of the war the British armour were able to compete with their German counterparts, on a tank vs tank basics. Sadly warfare is never fought on these terms, so when it came to combine arms of the German army using field guns alongside tanks, the British QF 2 pdr and 6 pdr underperformed.  British tank warfare philosophy envisioned tanks as tank fighters [Fletcher D & Harley R C (2006) p13], and this was equally true for the anti-tank guns.

 

When the QF 2 pdr and 6 pdr were in development their anti tank performance was very good, but their performance against field guns was not on par due to the HE shell performance, or lack of one. This all changed with the experience the British had in desert and research into dual purpose weapons began. The Vickers HV 75mm and the QF 17 pdr were good candidates to take the role of the new tank gun. Sadly due the haste in producing new tank designs, no current design could support either gun, as the turret ring could not house a bigger turret. This is how and why the QF 75mm was developed to become one of the major guns to arm British tanks from 1943 onwards.

 

With no ability to mount either the Vickers HV 75mm or the QF 17 pdr, a dual purpose gun needed to be developed to fit in a Churchill turret, the QF 75mm was the only candidate. There was also the QF 95mm howitzer with HE and HEAT shells with penetration of 127mm [Bird, L R & Livingston, R D (2001) p115], but that was only used on the Close Support (CS) variants of the Churchill (Mk. V, Mk. VIII, and Mk. XI). 

 

The QF 75mm was designed by Vickers by reaming out the 6 pdr to 75mm and chambered it to take American ammo, both HE and AP [Cromwell p13]. The Mk. VI was the first Churchill to be equipped with the QF 75mm. Sadly for the QF 75mm, what was gained in HE performance over the 6 pdr, was was lost in terms of  AP performance. There was no APDS ammo for it either. When the Mk. VII came out, an extensive refitting program to bring previous marks to brought up Mk. VIII. It appears sadly that the QF 6 pdr Mk. V did not last on the Churchill series before the APDS ammo was available for it.

 

 

 

The game design narrative of the Churchill tank

 

If for a artist a picture is a thousand words, then for a 3d game designer, a model can be too.    

 

Churchill Mk. I

• Came into service in 1941
• Most armoured (102 mm) British vehicle of the period in the war.
• Armed with the QF 2 pdr Mk. X gun

• Armed with a hull mounted 3 in (76.2 mm) howitzer
• A design which envisioned warfare over shell creators and trenches, a throwback to World War I.
•  No sloped armour and other modern features.
• Slow due to the engine output but it is a 'infantry' tank.

 

Churchill Mk. III

• Came into service in 1942
• Most numerous and known Mk. in the North African Campaign
• 1st Churchill to be armed with QF 6 pdr Mk. III  (had poor/no HE performance).
• The gun was just about adequate against German tanks.
• No increase in armour but had a new turret
• No new engine 

 

Churchill Mk. VII

• Came into service in 1943
• 1st Mk. to increase armour to 152 mm making it again the most armoured British vehicle of that period in the war.

• No new engine  so making the tank even more slower.
• Armed with the QF 75mm Mk. V gun
• There was a refitting program to bring previous marks to brought up Mk. VIII standards (Mk. IX, X, and XI)
• The only other marks were specialised tanks, i.e. Close Support Marks (QF 95mm howitzer)or AVRE's etc.
• The peak and limit of the Churchill series performance (not including cancelled  A43 project).

 

A part from the CS variants and AVRE's, there is no reason to add any other Churchill mark into the game. As Perrett  states,  In spite of the sustained increase in the power of its main armament (57mm to 75mm), the Churchill remained under-gunned throughout its career and was consistently outranged when opposed by German tanks [Perrett, B, Sarson, P, & Chappell, M (1993) p9].  It appears then that the narrative of the story of the Churchill tank series is captured perfectly by just these three Churchill marks.... I still say no.

 

The Lost Narrative of the Churchill tank series

 

Notes by the Secretary of the War Cabinet on the War Cabinet Select Committee on National Expenditure: Report on Tank Production dated 20th of July 1944, is why I say no.

 

  21. The Committee's remarks on the Churchill developments are substantially
correct. But their assumption that no Churchills are required with
6-pdr. guns is incorrect. In fact, Churchills with 6-pdrs. have been effective
in Italy and in Normandy, and General Montgomery has asked that one-quarter
of his Churchill tanks should be equipped with 6-pdr. guns, this being in line
with existing General Staff policy. He reports in particular that the 6-pdr.,
with special H.V. armour-piercing ammunition, is a very good weapon and will
penetrate the Panther tank- anywhere, except frontally on the sloping plate.

"The 6-pdr. gun.
23. The Committee claim that, owing to its ineffective H.E. shell, this
gun has been considered inadequate as a general tank gun since December 1942,
and they ask why there has been so long a delay in replacing it by the 75-mm. gun
(Report, paragraph 19). The fact is, however, that the 6-pdr. gun, with its
superior A . P . performance as compared with the 75-mm., remains a standard
General Staff requirement for an appreciable proportion of tanks (vide
paragraph 21 above).

The 17-pdr. and the 6-pdr. with Sabot ammunition are extremely effective.
I t is quite clear that the fitting of the 17-pdr. to the Sherman tank was of
the highest operational value and we are pressing on with further conversions.
Although General Montgomery draws attention to the weakness of the 75-mm.
as an armour-piercing weapon, its H.E. shell is good and as an all-purpose
weapon the gun is still popular; further, it proved of great value in the assault
phase, both in normal tanks and in D.D. Sherman and Flail tanks.
It must, however, owing to its poor penetrative power, be considered as outmoded,
and its place must be taken as and when possible by the 77-mm. and
17-pdr.

The 6-pdr. Sabot has been a great success, and Churchill tanks with this gun
and ammunition are being provided in the ratio which General Montgomery now
asks for, namely, one per group of three tanks. Sabot ammunition is now coming out
of production for the 17-pdr., and it will also be available for the 77-mm.
(which takes the same shell and which is the gun of the improved version of the
Cromwell (Comet)) when tanks with this gun come into use.

 

 

War Cabinet on the War Cabinet Select Committee on National Expenditure: Report on Tank Production dated 20th of July 1944, page 6. (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9081204#imageViewerLink) The National Archives Reference: CAB 66/52/50

 

 

 

 

 

A picture is a thousand words, but also paints over many errors

 

This Mk. III (Mk. XI) had been converted from a gun tank to an AVRE, and had applique armour fitted not only to the hull, but also to the turret front and sides Picture from http://churchilltank.com/churchill-mark-iii/

 

Why I am showing you this picture, well take a look at this picture

 

A knocked out Churchill Mk. IX LT of the 107th Regiment Royal Armoured Corps (The King's Own) in a field at Brieux, Normandy, in 1947. Accession Number KONeg0419

(http://www.kingsownmuseum.plus.com/gallerywwtwo134.htm) King's Own Royal Regiment Museum Lancaster

 

 

The Churchill Mk. IX (LT) is a refitted Mk. III or Mk. IV to bring it up to Mk. VII standards by adding applique armour . If the tank kept the original turret it would have the LT (Light Turret) designation. Looking at the second photo only marks I to IV had square escape hatches on the side and the Mk. III is the only mark to have that turret. if you look at the turret, not only can you see applique armour but the gun has the counter-weight of the QF 6 pdr Mk. V.

 

Here is another picture from the Imperial War Museum showing a Mk. IV LT. You can clearly see the applique armour on each turret cheek and the 6 pdr Mk. V.

 

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205202043

 

Not to leave out the Mk. IX LT refitted from a Mk. IV

 

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205188972 (Mk. IX with a 6 pdr Mk V)

 

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205207007 (Three Mk. IX's, two with 75mm and the last tank with a 6 pdr Mk V)

 

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205226200 (first tank is a Mk. IX with 6 pdr Mk. V)

 

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205196099 (First tank has been identfied by Bryan Perret as a IX[Churchill p12]. Again with a 6 pdr Mk. V)

 

 http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205204691 (first tank is Mk. IX with a 6 pdr Mk. V)

 

Just to make anyone aware, it is known that identifying Mk. IX from Mk. IV. There has been references that some of the photos may actually be Mk. IV. If this is so then the Mk. IV can historically have APDS ammo. The main point of this article is to explore how ourselves and game designers interprets these general themes in history and present them in a game.  To me the narrative over British tank design, is just like a game of Chinese whispers (or telephone in the United States), where errors have accumulate in the retelling, so the narrative presented today differs from when it first started over 70 years ago.  Hopefully narrative, not only our selves but game designers, of The Churchill tank series can be change. Maybe, just maybe we will see, tank the Churchill CS marks, the Mk. IV and the Mk. IX in game.

 

References

• Rickard, J (3 November 2015), Churchill IX , http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_churchill_IX.html
• Bird, L R & Livingston, R D (2001), World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, 2nd Ed, Overmatch Press,
• Perrett, B, Sarson, P, & Chappell, M (1993). Churchill Infantry Tank 1941–1945. Osprey Publishing
• Fletcher D & Harley R C (2006), Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942 - 50, Osprey Publishing
• Rottman G L (2005), World War II Infantry Anti - Tank Tactics, Osprey Publishing
• King's Own Royal Regiment Museum, (2015), http://www.kingsownmuseum.plus.com/index.htm
• Imperial War Museum (2015), http://www.iwm.org.uk/
• The National Archives (2015), http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9081204#imageViewerLink

[P8triot 3,894]

Thank you for the information.  I have a better understanding of the different Churchills models now  :good:

[Nope 10,634]

It's sad that due to the excessive armor, the Churchill mk VII has to fight tanks while using what is basically the Sherman's 75mm. That's not adequate. The 6 pdr APDS may work, but it will be the only viable ammo on the tank, and even then it will not penetrate a Panther frontally, while a Panther can penetrate a mediocre Churchill mk VII easily. This isn't exactly a fair match.

 

I swear, I saw this coming. The Churchills are underwhelming because they cannot do their role. Their role was to survive. Churchills are like that one disease that spreads tumors around: they're not deadly at first, but after a while the necessary logistics to keep the push or defense up will drain, thus meaning that a Churchill is effectively a slow killer, specifically a slow killer of infantry. Churchills could survive the stronger guns of the Heer, and that's what made them good other than being mountain goats. This will never be modeled in-game. At this point, all that's left is the Black Prince with the 17 pdr. The 17 pdr is an adequate gun for the job I believe.

[Retry 7,363]

It's sad that due to the excessive armor, the Churchill mk VII has to fight tanks while using what is basically the Sherman's 75mm. That's not adequate. The 6 pdr APDS may work, but it will be the only viable ammo on the tank, and even then it will not penetrate a Panther frontally, while a Panther can penetrate a mediocre Churchill mk VII easily. This isn't exactly a fair match.

The first Jumbo Sherman (5.0) and the KV-1 ZiS-3 (4.7) are in the same boat, heavies with meh guns that get screwed over when uptiered.

[RayPall 5,656]

 

I swear, I saw this coming. The Churchills are underwhelming because they cannot do their role. Their role was to survive. Churchills are like that one disease that spreads tumors around: they're not deadly at first, but after a while the necessary logistics to keep the push or defense up will drain, thus meaning that a Churchill is effectively a slow killer, specifically a slow killer of infantry. Churchills could survive the stronger guns of the Heer, and that's what made them good other than being mountain goats. This will never be modeled in-game. At this point, all that's left is the Black Prince with the 17 pdr. The 17 pdr is an adequate gun for the job I believe.

 

I agree on a point that Church Mk.VII has underwhelming firepower. Sure it does - basically a Sherman gun is simply not the 4.7 material. But it reminds me one other tank with exactly the same problem - lots of armour, but no firepower worth speaking of. It's the M4A3E2, as Retry mentioned. 

Both Jumbo 75 and Churchill Mk.VII can however fulfill the same role - to survive, as Nope wrote. Both these tanks can act as a spearhead of the team, playing the role of a shell sponge. Since practically NOTHING can penetrate Churchill (or Jumbo) frontally on given BR spread (the exception being maybe 76 mm US APCR's from close range or KwK 42 on Pz.IV/70'), you can pretty much soak up damage and allow your team to advance. This applies especially on city maps like Cologne, where Churchill can clog the entire street and will allow "softer" friendly tanks to take cover behind it and steadily advance.

[Nope 10,634]

 

 

 

I agree on a point that Church Mk.VII has underwhelming firepower. Sure it does - basically a Sherman gun is simply not the 4.7 material. But it reminds me one other tank with exactly the same problem - lots of armour, but no firepower worth speaking of. It's the M4A3E2, as Retry mentioned. 

Both Jumbo 75 and Churchill Mk.VII can however fulfill the same role - to survive, as Nope wrote. Both these tanks can act as a spearhead of the team, playing the role of a shell sponge. Since practically NOTHING can penetrate Churchill (or Jumbo) frontally on given BR spread (the exception being maybe 76 mm US APCR's from close range or KwK 42 on Pz.IV/70'), you can pretty much soak up damage and allow your team to advance. This applies especially on city maps like Cologne, where Churchill can clog the entire street and will allow "softer" friendly tanks to take cover behind it and steadily advance.

 

However, such things do not give out RP nor SL. If infantry were implemented in WT, then Churchills can annoy the infantry and drain tickets that way, and no one can stop them.

[P8triot 3,894]

However, such things do not give out RP nor SL. If infantry were implemented in WT, then Churchills can annoy the infantry and drain tickets that way, and no one can stop them.

actually you are awarded RP and SL for taking hits and not dying as well as a whole slew of other things, not just making kills.  

[Nope 10,634]

actually you are awarded RP and SL for taking hits and not dying as well as a whole slew of other things, not just making kills.  

 

Yes, but not to a significant enough degree.

[KillerWRabbit 18]

Omission

 

It would appear information about the Churchill Mk. IX, X, and XI re-fitment program being within the war years may not be accurate. As I have no original source material about confirming the actual date then I will treat my information unreliable. At the end of the day I wanted to discuss the impact of believing some 'facts' of Churchill that are not correct (such as there was no Churchills armed with 6 pdr with APDS after 1944) , that I am happy admit when I have done the same. Sorry about this.  

 

 

 

 

 

I agree on a point that Church Mk.VII has underwhelming firepower. Sure it does - basically a Sherman gun is simply not the 4.7 material. But it reminds me one other tank with exactly the same problem - lots of armour, but no firepower worth speaking of. It's the M4A3E2, as Retry mentioned. 

Both Jumbo 75 and Churchill Mk.VII can however fulfill the same role - to survive, as Nope wrote. Both these tanks can act as a spearhead of the team, playing the role of a shell sponge. Since practically NOTHING can penetrate Churchill (or Jumbo) frontally on given BR spread (the exception being maybe 76 mm US APCR's from close range or KwK 42 on Pz.IV/70'), you can pretty much soak up damage and allow your team to advance. This applies especially on city maps like Cologne, where Churchill can clog the entire street and will allow "softer" friendly tanks to take cover behind it and steadily advance.

 

 

I don't mind WT making the Mk. VII like that, but I am concerned that the Churchill will only be seen to fill this role only. This is the most common mistake people make when understanding the Churchill's development history, is to think that the Churchill only had the 75mm or 95mm howitzer from 1943 to the end of the war. This is gladly not true as Churchills with 6 pdr long barrels were around till the end of the war. So there is other Marks that could be included and each will bring a different style of play.

 

Mk. VIII with the 95mm with 127mm pen heat

Mk. IV with the 6 pdr long barrel and APDS ammo

Mk. III with the 6 pdr long barrel, APDS ammo

 

The last two can had armour 'upgrades' as the war went on but it is very hard to tell if they were official though it did happen. For example some Mk III's had the turret front increased by 31.75mm of additional armour, the sides of the turret and hull and the frontal hull of the tank had an additional 20mm of armour. In total this increased the Mk. III's armour to about 120mm frontally, and the side armour to 96mm for the Turret, and the same for the hull.

 

Even though the information about what was done to the Churchill throughout the war is a bit patchy, there is enough to provide us with other options than just the Mk. VII

Edited December 18, 2015 by KillerWRabbit