Churchill NA75

[Whiskey_077 1,785]

The addition of the vehicle in this update is pleasant, but I find that it lacks stabilization? I think its battlerating is too high, especially since the M72 shell is just awful causing few damage per shot (Gave me 5 games to have some kills with it). I can mention its armor is ''rather average'' ; it could be 4.0 or 3.7. For me, I think the Churchill mk.3 is much better with its rate of fire and the perforation of the MK.8 shell (causing even more damage) and the NA75 shouldn't face Tigers or Panthers. 

 

Am I the only one who doubts the performance of the Na75 ?

 

 

[Valcour 1,141]

The M-61 shell is much better when it is unlocked as it (for now) keeps the explosive filler.  I think 4.3 is about right for it.

[PyotrAr 25]

40 minutes ago, Valcour said:

M-61 shell is much better when it is unlocked as it (for now) keeps the explosive filler.

 

Wait... Isn't the NA75 supposed to have the Sherman 75 mm (M3), not the OQF 75 mm (the same as in the Churchill VII) that currently have in game?

[KillaKiwi 5,478]

22 minutes ago, PyotrAr said:

 

Wait... Isn't the NA75 supposed to have the Sherman 75 mm (M3), not the OQF 75 mm (the same as in the Churchill VII) that currently have in game?

Yes. They took the gun and mounting from a Sherman while British vehicles use some modified 6pdr to fire US 75mm ammo.

They just gave it the wrong name. The in-game model is based on the M3.

Edited March 8, 2023 by KillaKiwi

[PyotrAr 25]

4 minutes ago, KillaKiwi said:

Yes. They took the gun and mounting from a Sherman while British vehicles use some modified 6pdr to fire US 75mm ammo.

Right. I'm looking on several secondary sources and all say the same; and of course the photos show a different gun than the used by the Mk.VII.

Edited March 8, 2023 by PyotrAr
orthopraphy

[Royal_Jellybags 2,653]

Just unlocked the vehicle myself, not sure if its just me or being stock, but it seems very sluggish even by Churchill standards?

[Josephs_Piano 7,044]

NA75 conversion - Mk IV turret front cut to receive the 75mm gun:

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/churchill-na-75/

[UltimateBawb 43]

This thing is almost exactly a slower, less armored KV-1E with a slightly faster reload. At 4.3 instead of the E's 4.0. Balanced.

[Royal_Jellybags 2,653]

9 hours ago, UltimateBawb said:

This thing is almost exactly a slower, less armored KV-1E with a slightly faster reload. At 4.3 instead of the E's 4.0. Balanced.

Yeah im not enjoying it, seems like everything you will come across can penetrate you frontally, meanwhile the solid AP round this thing fires is bouncing of chaffees.

[MajorFooFoo 226]

Was about to make my own thread about it now I've unlocked all the camos, but yeah it's horribly overtiered. It's ok, just doesn't belong any higher than 3.7 in the game's current state. The issue is that it doesn't offer a single tangible advantage over any Sherman sitting in the 3.X BR range, which I'll compare it to given the only reason it's at 4.3 is that gun :

 

- The M61 APHE is an incredible round that devastates anything it pens, though it lacks a lot in raw penetration and accuracy; but you lack the Sherman's all important Stabiliser which gives it such phenomenal reaction times and of course lets it fire on the move. You also lack the Sherman's .50cal (or any Roof MG) which allows it to obliterate thinly-armoured opponents, de-track larger ones and at least attempt to ward off aircraft. Also no T45 APCR which the Sherman II gets at 3.7; APCR isn't great but it does help.

 

- Your mobility is abysmal as expected from a Churchill. You completely lack the Sherman's ability to rush power positions, flank, (attempt to) run from CAS, or disengage from tough fights in an emergency - and the Sherman isn't even that fast in the grand scheme of things. Once you get into a fight you're almost always forced to stick it out in it's entirety, I.E win or die trying. If you stumble upon enemies with nigh impenetrable front armour for M61 (Hetzers, Jagdpanzer IVs, etc) then you're essentially doomed unless the team shows up to save you or the enemy makes a massive mistake. It makes long range engagements more difficult too as you lack the ability to relatively rapidly close the distance with enemies to compensate for M61's horrible penetration and mediocre accuracy. In-fact it's neutral steer is so slow you can struggle to angle in time when an enemy unexpectedly shows up, and you can completely forget about trying to peak ridgelines or corners with that 1mph reverse speed.

 

- Your armour is...decent. Careful angling and a lot of luck can save you, but at the end of the day your armour's raw thickness is pathetic and you'll constantly find yourself getting penetrated frontally across the map by even the weaker guns in the 3.X BR range, let alone 4.X. Outside of the side armour - which is completely negated by the gargantuan un-hideable weakspots - your armour is on par with, if not worse than, most Sherman variants. And again your mobility is so bad that if you get penetrated and lose half your crew and modules you can't run away to repair like a Sherman could in this situation. 

 

I'll reiterate that I think it's ok and I'm managing to maintain a 3-4 K/D with it pretty easily, but that's entirely down to my experience, the average player's lack of experience, and the APHE nuking opponents whenever I pen even if the shot was poorly aimed, whilst with a Mk.III's 6pdr it would've done nothing. It's not inherently a great tank that'll carry you to good games.  Also I discovered that the M48 HE will 1-shot open-top vehicles literally anywhere you hit them so M10s have been a large source of free kills for that K/D. If you come across a decent player you're instantly dead, and in a full uptier even complete Newbs can kick your teeth in with how powerful the guns get. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by MajorFooFoo

[Royal_Jellybags 2,653]

7 hours ago, MajorFooFoo said:

 

- Your armour is...decent. Careful angling and a lot of luck can save you, but at the end of the day your armour's raw thickness is pathetic and you'll constantly find yourself getting penetrated frontally across the map by even the weaker guns in the 3.X BR range, let alone 4.X. Outside of the side armour - which is completely negated by the gargantuan un-hideable weakspots - your armour is on par with, if not worse than, most Sherman variants. And again your mobility is so bad that if you get penetrated and lose half your crew and modules you can't run away to repair like a Sherman could in this situation. 

 

It is decent on paper, and yeah if you can get a good angle going, but your right comparatively other mediums around your BR are not only more mobile and generally have better guns, the sloped armor generally does give them better armor effectiveness too. the fact you can be matched against 76mm shermans, jumbo, tiger H, T-35-85 and IS-1 is an unfunny joke. They looked at the pre-existing overtiered churchills and just slotted them in without too much of a thought.

[UltimateBawb 43]

Sorry guys I think I made it so it won't be going down in BR anytime soon...

[Jarms 1,558]

I think it's dead-on-arrival. No way it's 4.3 worthy. There's:

- No 4.3 line up.

- Mk. VII at 4.7 completely overshadows it (and should have the M61 APHE shell anyway).

- It has the same hull as the Churchill Mk. I and 3-Inch Gun Carrier at 3.3 and 2.7 respectively. So it loses a ton of survivability being at such a higher BR.

 

Honestly it should have been 4.0 at most with the Churchill Mk. III. 

[DrPhibes1 777]

Yeah the BR of this thing is whack, they APHE is nice but how is it better than the Churchill 3? You get a slower reload and lower pen, it's like the t34-57 being BRd below the standard t34.

 

It should be 4.0 as it's a side step from the mk3 not really an upgrade. Armour is okay in a down tier but the KV gets similar armour and mobility at a lower BR.

Edited March 10, 2023 by DrPhibes1

[TwitchyNGL 595]

Well we know why it's 4.3, because M61 and every other decently sized APHE round is incredible in damage compared to solid AP, even the 6pr with much better pen and reload you can churn out faster actual damage with filled M61. Not that it should be 4.3, but at 4.0 it'd still be a decent tank. Main issue for it is zero lineup, not much reason to use it. But it's nice to have. They've undervalued the IVs turret protection a little though. 

[Jarms 1,558]

22 hours ago, TwitchyNGL said:

They've undervalued the IVs turret protection a little though. 

 

How so? It's not thicker than the Mk. III and due to the cast modifiers in-game it's actually worse than the Mk. III's.

 

22 hours ago, TwitchyNGL said:

Well we know why it's 4.3, because M61 and every other decently sized APHE round is incredible in damage compared to solid AP, even the 6pr with much better pen and reload you can churn out faster actual damage with filled M61.  

 

I don't really agree with this. The US gets the M61 APHE as early as BR 1.7 with the M3 GMC and is of course seen on basically every US 75mm armed vehicle above that. Even the British get it at 3.7 on the Sherman II.

[TwitchyNGL 595]

56 minutes ago, Jarms said:

I don't really agree with this. The US gets the M61 APHE as early as BR 1.7 with the M3 GMC and is of course seen on basically every US 75mm armed vehicle above that. Even the British get it at 3.7 on the Sherman II.

I've zero clue how that's relevant, I'm not even sure how you're disagreeing with me. Yes the American tanks really do get a lot of 75mm M3s, in support of my point M4A5 despite handily better protection and identical mobility is the same BR as M4. I love the 6pr but APHE damage makes 75mm easy to use.

 

56 minutes ago, Jarms said:

How so? It's not thicker than the Mk. III and due to the cast modifiers in-game it's actually worse than the Mk. III's.

Well we measured it IRL and the thickness around the mantlet was about 120mm.  

Edited March 12, 2023 by TwitchyNGL

[Jarms 1,558]

1 hour ago, TwitchyNGL said:

I've zero clue how that's relevant, I'm not even sure how you're disagreeing with me. Yes the American tanks really do get a lot of 75mm M3s, in support of my point M4A5 despite handily better protection and identical mobility is the same BR as M4. I love the 6pr but APHE damage makes 75mm easy to use.

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. More that I don't find 4.3 at all justified for simply having M61 ammo. Seeing as it's a round introduced as low as BR 1.7.

 

1 hour ago, TwitchyNGL said:

Well we measured it IRL and the thickness around the mantlet was about 120mm.  

 

Interesting. Brings more support for a source TasteTheTea found saying it was 4.5 inches (114.3m) thick. Which might actually make it more useful and explain why the Mark IV to Mark VI never received the turret applique armour. 

 

[TwitchyNGL 595]

31 minutes ago, Jarms said:

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. More that I don't find 4.3 at all justified for simply having M61 ammo. Seeing as it's a round introduced as low as BR 1.7.

Yeah I never said it should be 4.3, it's a bit unfair when M4A2 is frankly better at 4.0. Just that the round is very powerful, enough to make it at least on par with III. 

 

31 minutes ago, Jarms said:

Interesting. Brings more support for a source TasteTheTea found saying it was 4.5 inches (114.3m) thick. Which might actually make it more useful and explain why the Mark IV to Mark VI never received the turret applique armour. 

Yeah I did a report but they didn't like it. I mean I wasn't remotely near the picture taking I just pointed out it looked like the thickness was a lot more than it was on III based on close up photos on Eds discord and he asked someone to measure it. If I get to close up to one myself I may measure it myself. It's probably thicker here on the edges to try to prevent cracking than it would be on the general turret but it certainly gets rid of the notions it's got the III levels of thickness all over. It would explain why it's heavier than the III. Unfortunately I think this is the only photo that was given. 

 

[Sabrean 65]

Recently reinstalled War Thunder after years away to give the newly added NA75 a go as I am a bit Churchill-obsessed, just unlocked it & it's still fully stock so can't judge its gameplay performance but like every other bolted-hull Churchill in-game it has its inaccuracies sadly.

 

20 hours ago, TwitchyNGL said:

I mean I wasn't remotely near the picture taking I just pointed out it looked like the thickness was a lot more than it was on III

 

For what it's worth I went to the Cobbaton Combat Collection on the 4th of August 2022 and the owner allowed me to measure the turret front of their mid-production Churchill IV turret (An AVRE conversion but still representative of a mid-production Churchill IV). The results were interesting and tally with your photo in that bug report thread (which whilst I haven't seen the exact photo before it appears to be of the surviving Churchill IV 'Minotaur' in Belgium under restoration, which has an early-production turret). Here's what I found:

 

Here's an overall photo of the turret to confirm it is indeed a mid-production Churchill IV Turret (the clue being the slightly off-centre ventilator position with splash-guard - early turrets have it further to the side with no splash-guard, whilst late turrets have it central & have other changes):

 

The in-game NA75's turret is based on a late-production Mark IV turret (the biggest identification giveaway in this case is perhaps the bolted-on plate on the right turret side by the turret ring seen in the 3D model, though it is not present in the armour viewer). These late-production turrets had thickened turret ring protection compared to the earlier types along (which required this plate to be added in one area) with other detail changes such as the aforementioned central ventilator. As far as I know no detailed drawings exist for its exact armour layout (same goes for the other turrets to be fair, the plate thickness diagram typically used for the Mark IV (T.D.5912) is only a guide and does not go into enough detail). Sadly to my knowledge there are no publically-accessible late-production turrets left in the UK that I could go and measure, though there is an AVRE on a monument in France that has one. But I think it's fair to assume the turret front thickness would be at least as good as this mid-production one.

 

It's perhaps worth noting though that the turret thickness of the NA75 is potentially more complicated - As part of the NA75 conversion, then Captain Morrell (the brains behind the conversion) had to not only enlarge the aperture but also grind down the curved front of the turret to be flatter in places to allow the Sherman mount to be fixed to the front - taken from the overview of Operation Whitehot here:

Quote

The front face of the Churchill turret was curved in the vertical plane, whereas the Sherman was flat, and it was necessary to rebate the cheeks on either side of the hole to accept the flat flange of the Sherman mantlet. When a satisfactory seat was obtained, the Sherman, mantlet complete with gun was offered up and arc welded into position

From the same piece here is a phot of a turret stated as having been taken after it has been ground down, you can just about tell where this has been done around the edges of the new larger mantlet aperture (this photo also posted earlier by Josephs_Piano )

So in theory, the base Churchill turret front's maximum thickness on the NA75 will now be lower than that of a basic Mark IV due to the removed material, however the Sherman gun mount has then been welded on top so the overlap will make up some or all of the difference in thickness, or even improve on it. I think in any case it has to be an estimation due to the variable turret front thickness.

 

As for the rest of the armour, within the constraints of the in-game armour viewer I can't tell if any of the 12.7mm hull backing plates are modelled (Correct me if I'm wrong but I would guess they're not, as far as I know none of the other bolted-hull Churchills have them modelled either and all these tanks should have the same base armour layout). Here's a photo of Nigel Montgomery's Mark III* restoration to give an idea of this, where they had just cut the attaching bolts & then lifted away the main armour plate to get at the backing plate underneath, which is a full-size plate and not just a framework:

Other areas such as the lower hull front plate and the visor plate also have equivalent backing plates

 

If it's going to stay at 4.3 then ideally I'd suggest they give it access to the 20mm appliqué armour package fitted to the hull sides that most Churchills in Italy seem to have gotten at the end of 1944 / start of 1945, a variant of which can been seen in the above hull side restoration photo as well, with 3 pieces of 20mm appliqué welded to the main side armour piece. Here's a photo of an NA75 named 'Boyne' which also has it which I think is relatively easy to see - you can mainly tell by how the welded on appliqué plates stick out a bit causing darker edges which wouldn't otherwise be there on a standard Churchill, especially on the side door where the 'T' piece of appliqué is easiest to spot:

You can also see how this tank has some extra track links as appliqué as well on the lower hull front and a bit on the side, so there's precedence for it to get an extra track links modification too a bit like the Churchill VII in game does. However from what I understand this was only ever done to the hull of Churchills in Italy and seems less widespread than it was in NW Europe, IIRC I read that crews in Italy weren't allowed to fit track links to the turrets as it negatively affected the turret traverse speed

 

[TwitchyNGL 595]

That's excellent information well done. 

5 hours ago, Sabrean said:

I can't tell if any of the 12.7mm hull backing plates are modelled (Correct me if I'm wrong but I would guess they're not,

I think they're not it was reported ages ago I'm fairly sure in relation to the Mk I and III. Other than that they're pretty accurate, they've even sorted the Crusader and Cromwell inner plates pretty accurately too now. 

[Jarms 1,558]

7 hours ago, Sabrean said:

As for the rest of the armour, within the constraints of the in-game armour viewer I can't tell if any of the 12.7mm hull backing plates are modelled (Correct me if I'm wrong but I would guess they're not, as far as I know none of the other bolted-hull Churchills have them modelled either and all these tanks should have the same base armour layout). Here's a photo of Nigel Montgomery's Mark III* restoration to give an idea of this, where they had just cut the attaching bolts & then lifted away the main armour plate to get at the backing plate underneath, which is a full-size plate and not just a framework:

 

I don't believe the internal plates were ever added. Just checking the protection analysis just shows the first plate and nothing beneath. There should be a higher combined value if they were there.

 

I made a bug report back in 2018 using the below diagram for the Churchill Mark III .

 

There's actually several places missing the internal 12.7mm plates, which I highlighted.

- The flat upper plate.

- Front upper sloped portion of panniers.

- The lower glacis.

- The upper hull sides.

- The hull pannier sides. 

 

This also applies to the Churchill Mark I, 3-Inch Gun Carrier, and now Churchill NA75. Gaijin just never seemed to fix it.  

Edited March 13, 2023 by Jarms

[Sabrean 65]

1 hour ago, Jarms said:

I made a bug report back in 2018 using the below diagram for the Churchill Mark III .

 

This also applies to the Churchill Mark I, 3-Inch Gun Carrier, and now Churchill NA75. Gaijin just never seemed to fix it.  

It does indeed. The bug report is from after I was last active on here but I recognise the diagram, looks like it's a crop from a scan I took of my copy of Mr Churchill's Tank by David Fletcher back in the day, since the distortion on the right hand side matches haha. Those T.D.5912 plate thickness overview diagrams are great in the absence of anything more detailed but as mentioned they can be wrong or lacking in detail when compared to what was actually built, the Mark IV turret front seemingly being depicted as just 89mm in its equivalent diagram being a good example . Could do with a detailed diagram of the hull MG mount as well, from what I've seen in restoration photos it looks like a large intricate & heavy assembly. You'd think the presence of the hull backing plates should be indisputable though, especially since we can confirm it by paying attention to the real thing, and there's a fair few examples of Churchills without their main outer armour plates showing the backing plates underneath. MM Park's Mark III* wreck is a good example, in addition to the side backing plates you can also see the lower hull front backing plate (which has sadly been bent somehow):

 

The veteran Churchill IV 75mm at Site Hillman is another good example, though after this photo was taken I believe they've since bolted on the lower hull main armour plate. You can also see the side armour bolts sticking out a lot due to the main side armour being missing:

(This one has an early production turret and was converted to the QF 75mm gun for anyone else interested in such things!)

 

Here's a better photo of the side armour of Nigel Montgomery's Mark III* during restoration again as well - you can also see how the forward appliqué had to be cut around the profile of the main plate in order to get it off:

 

There was also the Mark II at Storrington in the UK which showed the main visor backing plate pretty well, though my understanding is that at the large hull MG aperture there was another plate which bolted to the back of it, to which the hull MG mount assembly was then fitted, so the gaping hole in that position should be pretty filled in. This tank has since been taken away after being left in the field for many years & stripped of some parts, IIRC I read somewhere it's on its way to France to a museum:

Here's the aforementioned hull MG assembly & it's own mounting plate, this is from Nigel Montgomery's Churchill Trust restorations again (either his Mark IV or his Mark III* I presume):

 

 

5 hours ago, TwitchyNGL said:

they've even sorted the Crusader and Cromwell inner plates pretty accurately too now. 

To go a little further off-topic on the subject of Cromwells, didn't look at their armour when I was in WT yesterday but do they still have a thin mantlet armour piece? I also measured the Cobbaton Combat Collection's 6-Pdr Centaur turret which is missing its gun which allowed me to get my tape measure in there quite nicely - the main turret face seems to match the usual plate thickness diagrams you see for Centaurs and Cromwells other than rarer types like the Cromwell Mark Vw and Mark II, with a 64mm main plate and 12.7mm backing plate (the backing plates are I believe more vulnerable to corrosion which looks to add the odd mm to the measurement here), but the mantlet is thicker than the turret face as it's actually a solid 89mm in the main part:

To my current understanding both Churchill Marks III to VI and the Cromwell series used the same series of gun mountings, and so shared gun mantlets, but I've not personally seen a rock solid source on this - this is based on having made this measurement, how the mantlets do seem to look the same when viewed externally (but I suppose they could be the same design but different thicknesses), not seeing anything explicitly saying something to the contrary, and this article on Churchill gun mounts by Chris Shillito, which suggests the original 6-Pdr mounting design was meant to be a universal mount used in all 6-Pdr tanks, from which the mantlet piece only got significantly changed in thickness after some more minor design tweaks and evolutions with the Churchill VII. I could do with measuring the mantlet piece on a Churchill IV turret someday to double-check this, or see if anyone else could measure one (if it is the same then it would explain why some considered it a weakspot on the Churchill at the time, as it would be thinner than the rest of the turret fronts on Marks IV to VI Churchills which were the most common types in combat for much of the war). Sadly as the Churchill turret at the Cobbaton Collection still had its main armament I couldn't get a good measurement of this - I tried measuring to the back of the MG mount but I don't think it's representative of the main bulk of the mantlet, so haven't used it.

[Jarms 1,558]

11 hours ago, Sabrean said:

 

To my current understanding both Churchill Marks III to VI and the Cromwell series used the same series of gun mountings, and so shared gun mantlets, but I've not personally seen a rock solid source on this - this is based on having made this measurement, how the mantlets do seem to look the same when viewed externally (but I suppose they could be the same design but different thicknesses), not seeing anything explicitly saying something to the contrary, and this article on Churchill gun mounts by Chris Shillito, which suggests the original 6-Pdr mounting design was meant to be a universal mount used in all 6-Pdr tanks, from which the mantlet piece only got significantly changed in thickness after some more minor design tweaks and evolutions with the Churchill VII. I could do with measuring the mantlet piece on a Churchill IV turret someday to double-check this, or see if anyone else could measure one (if it is the same then it would explain why some considered it a weakspot on the Churchill at the time, as it would be thinner than the rest of the turret fronts on Marks IV to VI Churchills which were the most common types in combat for much of the war). Sadly as the Churchill turret at the Cobbaton Collection still had its main armament I couldn't get a good measurement of this - I tried measuring to the back of the MG mount but I don't think it's representative of the main bulk of the mantlet, so haven't used it.

 

Is there an updated version on Churchill gun mounts? That source says the Churchill used the "Mounting, 6-pdr & Besa Medium M.G. No.1, Mk I". 

 

I just checked my Cromwell Tank Vehicle History and Specification book and it says it used the "Mounting, 6-pdr & Besa Medium M.G. No.2, Mk II".

 

So there may be some difference. Though apparently there's an inscription plate on top of the rear of the recoil system. So if someone had access to the interior of a Cromwell and Churchill you could eyeball it to see if there's overlap. Admittedly, that would be very hard to do. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by Jarms

[Sabrean 65]

8 hours ago, Jarms said:

 

Is there an updated version on Churchill gun mounts? That source says the Churchill used the "Mounting, 6-pdr & Besa Medium M.G. No.1, Mk I". 

 

I just checked my Cromwell Tank Vehicle History and Specification book and it says it used the "Mounting, 6-pdr & Besa Medium M.G. No.2, Mk II".

 

So there may be some difference. Though apparently there's an inscription plate on top of the rear of the recoil system. So if someone had access to the interior of a Cromwell and Churchill you could eyeball it to see if there's overlap. Admittedly, that would be very hard to do. 

Assuming the article link opens the same for both of us, my understanding is that all the various mount assemblies described in Chris Shillito's article can be found on Churchills of certain Marks at various points of production (not just the "Mounting, 6-pdr & Besa Medium M.G. No.1, Mk I", which is just being used as an example of the naming system at the top of the page), and the article details how the mountings evolved over time - for the initial 6-Pdr mountings (prior to the QF 75mm and 95mm being introduced further down) it says:

Quote

...A particular mount was therefore identified using both a Mk and No. designation

 

The "Mk" designation generally refers to the mount (armour shield, cradle etc.) and the "No." designation indicates a particular combination of elevation, depression stop and firing controls.

And whilst I don't have any of my books to hand at this moment, off the top of my head in a few books including "Mr Churchill's Tank" by David Fletcher it's mentioned that 6-Pdr Churchills were produced with both geared and free elevation, which would mean they could be found with "No.1" and "No.2" Mountings, the latter matching the elevation type for what you have in your book for Cromwell. Chris Shillito's article does also say:

Quote

The mounting itself  was designed to be capable of either "free elevation' (No.2) or geared (No.1) but it was originally decided that Churchills would have only geared elevation (and Crusader IIIs would have only free elevation). The early production MkIII Churchills would have been fitted with either "Mounting, 6-pdr & Besa Medium M.G. No.1 MkI" or "Mounting, 6-pdr & Besa Medium M.G. No.1 MkII"

 

...a decision was made at the end of May 1942 to abandon it all together and switch to the No.2 free elevation system as used in the Crusader III

 

That article also describes the "Mk" part of the 6-Pdr mounting, which is what determines the mantlet armour in question:

Quote

For the 6-pdr there were two Mks of Mount. The MkI mount used a recuporator 'buffer' of a length that required a slot in the mantlet which was covered by a plate on the outer side. The mantlet consisted of a rolled armour plate onto which the trunion brackets and M.G. protector casting were then bolted. However, under test it was found that the M.G. protector when mounted in this way was prone to being 'shot off' and so a new mount, the MkII, was designed which incorporated the the mantlet,  trunion brackets and M.G. protector into a single casting. For the MkII mount the buffers were aslso made shorter thereby removing the need for a 'slot' in the mantlet.

The mid-production Mark IV Churchill AVRE turret at Cobbaton I photographed earlier does not appear to have a "Mk I" mantlet as its MG protector is not bolted to a plate but rather is part of a full casting together with the main mantlet, so it is therefore a "Mk 2":

So based on this, in theory it will be the same mantlet armour piece as on the Centaur turret there shown earlier, regardless of the elevation type each particular turret at Cobbaton may have had, as it is also a fully cast mantlet & MG protector. And they did look the same to my eye (though the Churchill one is quite shot up & a bit rougher). The same should then be true for Cromwells as well. But yes, it would be nice to actually get inside and confirm whether it is or isn't

Edited March 14, 2023 by Sabrean