Talk:Churchill tank

Name
Given the naming convention of British tanks, Covenanter, Cromwell, Crusader etc and the early stage in the war when Churchills reputation was yet to be confirmed, is it not more likely that the tank was named for the 1st Duke of Marlborough, John Churchill?


 * Most sources I've read indicate that it was named after the prime minister, likely as a morale thing. Have you any sources that say otherwise? Oberiko 12:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, there are no sources to back the other in the article either, and I presume it is unlikely to name a tank a living person, let alone the leader of the country at the time. Nikevs 23:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What sources? I can't seem to find anything reliable. It's claimed on a lot of web pages, but that's probably just inference. I happen to agree that it's more likely the tank was named after the general, not the prime minister. But neither theory should be in the article without a reliable source. --Isaac R 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I read something in one of Churchill's wartime memoirs, (either the second or the third) where he reprints the telegram he sent to the manufacturer thanking them for naming it after his illustrious ancestor. Also in Britain it's extremely unusual for things to named after any living person who isn't royalty. J.Rigger 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article lists the Tortoise heavy assault tank as design based on the Churchill. Is it so ? The two vehicles doesn't have much in common and sources about the Churchill (at least those I've read) don't mention the Tortoise... Bukvoed 09:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It was the Black Prince. It had a widened hull based on the Churchill but with a larger-diameter turret ring to accept a 17 pdr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.24 (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The 2.74 meter height of the Chruchill is described as a "low silhouette" in this article, a claim I have never heard before for the Churchill. The Sherman is normally considered a very high tank at 2.8 meters. DMorpheus 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say the silhouette could be considered low relative to the vehicles overall length. Incidentally, the Churchill was indeed named after Winston, partly as a morla booster, partly in recognition of his involvement with the invention of the tank back in WWI.  He was, after all, quite a famous man even before the first world war broke out... Getztashida 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
I've redone the history section, I'll try and get the design section soon. Oberiko 03:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm rather concerned at some things in the history section under "A22".
 * For a start, I have never heard of any prototypes being produced as claimed in the article. To the contrary, the Churchill is somewhat famous for never having been :through a prototype phase and instead going straight to the initial production run of 500 tanks.


 * I'd also dispute that the "Churchill's engine was underpowered and unreliable" It was not designed to be a fast tank so the relatively slow top speed is within the :design specification. Thus it was not 'underpowered'. I have also never heard the claim that the twin-six was unreliable in and of itself. On the contrary, the appendix :of the Royal Tank Regiment describe it as a reliable power plant.


 * There are many reasons why the Dieppe raid failed, but I have never heard the suggestion that it was the Churchill and its armament of a 2pdr and a 3" howitzer that :were to blame. In fact, its impossible to think of any tank available to the western allies that could have done a better job.


 * I have also never before heard the claim that the Churchill was due to be cancelled in favour of the Cromwell but was saved by its performance at Alamein.


 * Perhaps some references could be cited for these points? If not, I propose to alter the article accordingly.

Jonewer (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Churchill was designed as an infantry tank and for this role top speed was regarded as unimportant, the vehicle being required to be able to travel at not much more than the rate of an advancing infantryman, so the speed of the vehicle is par for the course for infantry tanks.


 * The Churchill's real plus was that it was fairly heavily armoured and it had exceptional hill climbing performance, which was a great advantage in the Italian Campaign. This it would not have been able to do if it had been substantially underpowered.


 * The Churchill's failure at Dieppe was due to the tracks being unable to gain a grip on the shingle beach, hence the understanding of the need to land vehicles on beaches other than ones consisting of shingle and the need to develop such vehicles as the AVRE to open up seawalls to allow the vehicles to then get off the beach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources to use

 * MR. CHURCHILL'S TANK: THE BRITISH INFANTRY TANK MARK IV
 * removed site
 * removed site


 * Actually despite what he may of thought, the tank was almost certainly named after this one: Winston Churchill (Cavalier).


 * The clue is in English Civil War and in the other vehicles given names at around the same time.


 * At the same time US-built tanks obtained by the UK were given names from the American Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

High Explosive or Shape Charged?
"Churchill AVRE (Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers) A Churchill III or IV equipped with the Petard, a 290 mm Spigot mortar, throwing the 40 pound (18 kg) "Flying dustbin" with its 28 pound high explosive warhead." Are you sure it is High Explosive? I thought it was shape charged (or Hollow Charged).


 * As far as I can tell it was ordinary HE, normally fired at *very* close range (100 meters or less). DMorpheus 16:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Was it an early HESH type?


 * Yes, it is an early HESH type - it's a non-shaped charge filled with a plastic explosive that spreads out over the target before being detonated by a base fuze - there's a cutaway-diagram of the Petard's projectile in Allied Secret Weapons - a Purnell's History of the World Wars Special - Phoebus - 1975 - (No ISBN)


 * Unlike a shaped-charge, the round is designed to cause damage (to concrete, in this case) by shock rather than by penetration.


 * The picture caption states that the round is a scaled-up version of the one used in the earlier Blacker Bombard. Ian Dunster 10:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also worth pointing out, the spigot was 29 mm, while the barrel calibre was 230 mm. BP OMowe (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Me myself
The following alleged quotation from Churchill has recently been removed without explanation by an anonymous IP: "This tank even has more flaws than me myself!" It's certainly difficult to believe that Churchill used the phrase "me myself". It sounds like the kind of English up with which he would not put. Is this just one of the many apocrophal Churchill lines, or can some more accurate version of it be sourced? Paul B 13:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Churchill did make such a reference at least once, during a long speech to the Commons after returning from American (Dec 41, I think). It's online somewhere, and I've been trying to find that again so we have a good quote to use. It's also rather different from the usual reported anecdote, which our previous unsourced quote seems to be a botched variant of. As you say, it doesn't sound right, and I'm glad someone removed it.


 * It wouldn't be amazing if Churchill made the joke more than once, as his verbal and written output was enormous, and of course anywhere he went all ears would turn to him, then repeat the latest witticisms to friends over tea - spawning variations and no doubt exaggerations. But for sourceable versions, I only know of that one reference so far.24.69.22.73 01:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the speech. See paragraph 2/3 down, search for "A.22". http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/420702a.html


 * While amusing to read, I think that instance illuminates the Prime Minister's debate skill rather than a perception of the vehicle, and should not be included with this Wiki article. Let's wait for a souced version of the pithy remark usually quoted, and usually alleged to have been said during a physical examination of the new vehicles.24.69.22.73 02:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

MK XIII
The section titled MK XIII appears to be an error. Description is very similar to Mk VII. Was there actually a Mk XIII? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.75.175 (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Gearbox
The Merritt-Brown regenerative gearbox was of such a good design that it was used in many tanks after WW II. The Germans also copied it and used it in the Tiger I and Tiger II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.24 (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Up date on Churchill information.
Churchill tank according to specs is 48.5 ton. not 38.5, which would place it with the Comet at roughly 32 to 34 ton. There is actually a reason why people mistake the weight of the churchill. many years ago, there was a miss-print in a reproduce tank stat....which become a favouriate collection item within a series. And, it listed the churchill at 38.5 tons. It's actual weight was 48.5 tons, (with the orginal prototypes at 42.3 tons). Which is why an 88mm couldn't penetrate the churchill frontally over 800 yards. Well not until 43, then the MKVII came out, and negated it again.

Starting at 48.5 tons, the Churchill tank advanced nearly 10 ton, over the course of the war. My Grandfather commanded one(6) with the 8th Army. (got to hear about the 114 grease nipples alot). But was a much loved tank. From memory, orginally churchills weren't so much unreliable, as required high maintenance to keep them going. Of course by 43, they were great. The reason the churchill was so loved from what i learned from RTR tankers, was there was nothing that could kill it.....apart from fuel, or lack there of... The first churchills were also rushed into production, which was probably why they had problems orginally.

How to kill a churchill....turret gun has an open barrell slot. German and Italian gunners learnt to aim for it, hence field mods mounted an upside down barrell ball mounting from sherman turrets in which they slid the 6pdr gun.

The Churchill tank.....according to Churchill, the Prime Minister. Is named after John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. Churchill did indeed write and thank them for naming it after his great great et cetera.. grandfather.....see churchill diaries 3rd volume.

Later however, including today, everyone just says it's named after churchill himself. Even the bovington tank museum makes the same mistake, no one checks facts anymore.

Sincerely

fenir


 * I've added a section on the name to reflect the doubts in the atribution. It needs a proper reference to the "churchill diaries 3rd volume" however. Graham Fountain 13:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.Fountain (talk • contribs)


 * Indeed, it could be any of three books. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, the British do not name ships or vehicles after living people, so if there is a living person with the same name it is usually a forbear that the ship or vehicle is named after.


 * BTW, that is why there was some embarrassment with the Queen Mary and why she was not originally to have been given that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a hard and fast rule - HMS King George V (1911) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You are quite right. I didn't know of that ship. I wonder if it was actually named after George V of Hanover, the name being allocated some time before King Edward VII died, there therefore being no KG V of England yet at that time. Probably not, but a curious if-remote possibility.


 * Sometime before 18 April, 2022, someone edited the Name section to remove any references to the John Churchill theory, leaving only the Winston Churchill claim and presenting it as undisputed fact, which it is not. I've added the "dubious" tag as a quick fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:1A8A:E780:C59:AD8D:C4A:6DB9 (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Alternate armaments
Besides the 3-inch gun, are there any historical records of the Gun Carrier variant mounting guns like the QF 3.7-inch AA gun and Ordnance QF 32-pounder, or a 75 mm Vickers HV fitted to a Churchill tank? Wolcott (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If they were known, they'd have been in the article by now. Same principles as in my answer on Talk:Tortoise heavy assault tankGraemeLeggett (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Churchill tank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090201111336/http://remuseum.org.uk:80/articles/rem_article_assaultbridge.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/articles/rem_article_assaultbridge.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Slot in the track area?
Does anyone know what the slot at the front of the track area is for? It's the diagonal one in front of the side hatch. You can see it in most of the photos, notably the first. It is not just an opening, it looks like L or Z-shaped metal fitting that is screwed/bolted on. I assume it serves some purpose? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The black area? It's not really a slot as such, just a gap between parts.  Below and behind it is the armoured box of the sponson, with the idler wheel carried on steel plates ahead of this, with a slightly lower top edge which forms the bottom of the slot. This is clearer in early marks.  The first marks had little in the way of track guards, but these were added first at back and front, then all the way along (this made stowage and infantry carriage easier). The guards weren't strong though and were often lost in service. British tanks of this period (cf Matilda II) were designed to cope with thick mud (and also snow, as Russian Churchills found) and it was thought that good clearance around the tracks aided mud shedding more usefully than enclosing dry dust thrown up.  All through the Churchill's service though, this gap was preserved as a mud chute.
 * Mid period marks had an external channel section fastened just below this gap (see photo). This too was intended as a mud channel, although it's often described as being a tow rope carrier or paying-out guide (despite the tow rope being stowed below it).
 * The original A20 prototype didn't have this mud slot, but it did have an armoured slot over the side doors, and that was a deliberate MG port. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is it. So I am trying to understand where the mud is chuted too, because it would appear, especially with the external channel, that this would be pushing mud into the tracks rather than away. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's mud caught in the track links. This is lifted up at the rear, travels around the rear sprocket - where much is thrown off as the track bends - and then moves forward along the top run. There's a lot of loose mud on the front run of a Churchill's track, as any that comes loose anywhere on that run still gets dragged along with it, along the run along the top of the sponson (no idlers or slack track on a Churchill). It doesn't come clear of the track until the track clears the front of the sponson, at this gap.
 * To avoid mud clogging, the Churchill also had a couple of little ploughs which could be lowered onto the track, behind the roadwheels and before the sprocket. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

CS identiification?
Can anyone tell what mark of Churchill this is, on the left? The right is a Mk IV with a counterweighted 6pdr.

The hull howitzer is there, suggesting it's a late survival of a Mk I. But what's in the turret? Surely that's another 3" howitzer? Is this an odd combination of a Mk IICS turret on a I hull? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks more like the 6 pdr with the muzzle ring to me. Keep in mind, the 57 could be bored out to fire 3" ammo, so the barrel isn't as distinctive as you think. I know the QF 75 was on the Church, but I don't recall any of them lacking the brake. I'll admit it looks too long though. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like a early rounded turret. This modelling article references a dual howitzer Churchill. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I thought it was, I just hadn't heard of it before. I'll have to look in Fletcher. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Crap, I was looking at the one on the right. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It could be a Churchill IICS with 2-pr in the hull and 3in howitzer in the turret. See page 52 of Chamberlain and Ellis's "The Churchill Tank"  Lkchild (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)   On second view I'm not sure - it does look more like the howitzer Lkchild (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It is probably a 3" CS hull gun with a QF 75mm in the turret. The bore of the latter is far too large for a 2 pdr. OTOH the vehicle on the right appears to have a 6 pdr with a muzzle counter-weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Churchill tank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100821012019/http://www.northirishhorse.net/articles/7.html to http://www.northirishhorse.net/articles/7.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426085917/http://northirishhorse.net/articles-2/Australia/2.html to http://northirishhorse.net/articles-2/Australia/2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141231032408/http://churchilltank.com/ to http://churchilltank.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.royaltankregiment.com/9th_RTR/appendices/Appx%2B5%2BThe%2BChurchill%2BTank.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparent plagiarism?
While Googling for more information about this so-called "fan driven by the clutch", suspecting this was someone mistaking a normal clutched fan for one driven by the clutch, I came across the Google transcription of this book, which is word for word exactly what the "Design" section says. It's possible that the book is plagiarizing Wikipedia, but I doubt it. Maybe this is somehow in the public domain, but it should still be avoided and credit given where people's work is copied verbatim. https://books.google.com/books?id=LcidHt4zzDgC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=churchill+tank+clutch+fan&source=bl&ots=0ipef0Vgrh&sig=chrb6aCV3ivIz0hMKLSsN9mtV1s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEkKzD2ejYAhUOC6wKHcyACcIQ6AEITzAI#v=onepage&q=churchill%20tank%20clutch%20fan&f=false AnnaGoFast (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Someone seems to have been copying a bit too literally. However that book is dated 2011, and the content was added here by in November 2010. The dates aren't clearly conclusive, but on the whole, Graeme's been here long enough to know that's not how it's done, and so I'd be inclined to trust their judgement. There are plenty of museum guidebooks lifting large chunks from WP, as indeed thev've acknowledged here.
 * As to investigating Churchill details any further, then the usual source would be, which is largely based on the contemporary handbooks. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think back then I wa working from the HMSO publication. Possibly I may have used a verbatim phrase form that and the other book likewise.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * as to the clutch itself. These being non-unitary engines, the clutch housing is a separate box to the engine and the gear box(es) there's no reason to doubt that the fan was connected to a shaft from the clutch. I don't have a copy of the HMSO book any more but I might still have a couple of photocopies of pages with the armour spec and cross sections. The clutch might be described on them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no text in the HMSO book about the fan, but there are a couple of illustrations. It's bolted to the outer rim of the clutch cover, so it rotates continuously with the engine, whether the clutch was engaged or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

please check
I feel strange these two lines of the table

Churchill VII 1944 (together with Churchill VIII) 1,400

Churchill VIII 1944(together with Churchill VII) 200

I would expect 1945 in the second.

thanks 176.206.34.69 (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)