Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Churchill Tank by DarkWizard83 Churchill Tank by DarkWizard83
Designed to replace the Matilda II and Valentine infantry tanks, the original design of the Churchill series of tanks was of the same philosophy as World War I-era tanks had been - large, heavily armored, but slow moving vehicles that pushed the front forward, clearing obstacles, trenches, and pillboxes for the advancing infantry. However, the advent of Blitzkrieg warfare made this design obsolete. In a panic, British designers tried to modernize the design before production began - but what came off the assembly lines in 1941 was arguably just as worse as the outdated design it had replaced, the first Churchill's were slow, mechanically unreliable, and had an extremely weak and ineffective armament. As the wartime Prime Minister it was named after declared "This tank even has more flaws than me myself!"

The entire program was almsot scrapped until designers finally produced the Mk. III, a far more modern and mechanically reliable vehicle with sufficient speed, armor, and firepower to challenge the German Panzers, which it did to great effect during the Second Battle of El Alamein in October of 1942. On D-Day in 1944, the Mk. VII - the type pictured above - received its baptism of fire as British and Canadian forces stormed onto the beaches of Normandy, it's new 75mm gun capable of disabling almost any German tank with a single blow, and soldiered on until war's end.

Churchill Mk.VII Vehicle Stats:
Type: Infantry tank
Manufacturer: Vauxhall
First deployed: 1942

Crew: 5
Length: 7.4 m
Width: 2.4 m
Height: 3.5 m
Weight: 40 tons

Armor: 152mm
Armament, primary: 1 x 75mm OQF Mk.V L/40 gun
Armament, secondary: 3 x 7.92mm Besa MG
Ammo stowage, primary: 84 rounds
Ammo stowage, secondary: 7,125 rounds

Powerplant: Bedford Flat 12 350hp water-cooled gasoline engine
Max speed: 20 km/h
Max range: 228km

Operators: Australia, Canada, Soviet Union, UK
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmrcrazy134:
mrcrazy134 Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2014
From what I see, it looks like it had a design flaw, albeit a missable one if a person wasn't taking their time aiming.
Reply
:iconmidway2009:
Midway2009 Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Awesome beast. :salute:
Reply
:iconsamjkl:
samjkl Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2014  Student Artist
The Churchill VII had an OQF 77mm MK II primary gun and Bedford twin six engines
Reply
:iconmaxhd2490:
MaxHD2490 Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2012
looks like a nice tank the british they had :)
Reply
:iconcolliewolf2010:
colliewolf2010 Featured By Owner May 26, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
it was. its armour was the thickest of most british tanks we were feilding so the crew were well protected, it struggled when going toe to toe with a tiger and panter though.

it could also climb very steep terrain as well because of its long hull and heavy weight.
Reply
:iconblitzkriegoperative:
Blitzkriegoperative Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2011  Hobbyist Writer
My favourite heavy tank (I'm British myself)

They could of done more to this tank like make an anti-tank version by replacing the turret and replacing it with a anti-tank gun.
Reply
:iconscorpion-strike:
Scorpion-Strike Featured By Owner May 24, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
They did experiment with widening the hull to fit a 17 pounder into the turret. The resulting contraption was named "Black Prince" but I don't think it ever saw production, certainly not before the war ended.
Reply
:icondavidkrigbaum:
DavidKrigbaum Featured By Owner Aug 20, 2014
There was a prototype (now at the Tank Museum in Bovington, UK) but that was it.
Reply
:iconpointman116:
pointman116 Featured By Owner Jun 11, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
its a sturdy look old thing.
Reply
:icongortmundy:
Gortmundy Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2011
Churchill was eventually a very good tank. It's long chassis made it very good at climbing hills and over other obstacles and its armour could withstand an 88 hit.

Sherman was an adequate tank. It had oki armour, an oki gun and oki maneuvering. But it could be produced in crazy numbers.

Americans wouldnt go for the Firefly as they dont use "foreign" guns in their tanks.
Reply
:iconmalgrumm:
malgrumm Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015
actually the Firefly was produced in the UK by the the British because of their desire to fit the more powerful 3 inch 17 pounder AT gun to a mobile tank. it was accepted for production at the time because the Challenger and Cromwell tank designs at the time were plagued with problems although it did take several attempts to successfully mount the 3 inch 17 pounder AT gun to the produced shermans. still only 2,100-2,200 of these tanks were built but they served the British well from D-Day onwards even though the tank itself was just a stopgap until the better British tanks could be sorted out.
Reply
:iconsingle-leg:
single-leg Featured By Owner Mar 2, 2011
Ha! this is at Aberdeen right!

Yeah give me a fast ass M10 TD over a Sherman or even this but the Churchill is still a cool looking tank! I think it was well protected. I mean 88's pretty much went through everything they hit..

The Fireflies and the TD's showed that if they just gave the Sherman a better gun it would have saved a lot of tankers lives in the European theater..Even Eisenhower was pissed at this on the eve of D-Day.

That Tank destroyer doctrine for the US and whatever the British were thinking for their many lousy tanks(but they made the 17 pounder for the firefly) made it the hard slog for the western allied tankers..
Reply
:iconhybridhavoc:
HybridHavoc Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2011  Professional Interface Designer
Hi, I used a part of this tank for this photoshop chop - [link]

Thank you.
Reply
:iconshadownickmcnick:
shadownickmcnick Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2010
wow thanks for all the info on this tank...i really dont know too much about it so this really helps.
Reply
:iconblitzkregoperative:
BlitzkregOperative Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2008
Beautifiul tank named after the most famous English person ever
Reply
:icontimbo101:
Timbo101 Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2007  Hobbyist Photographer
one thing you have to remember, when designers were designing this tank, they were still thinking of ww1. thus explains the long design. Also, 3 churchill were sent to the north african Desert, and proved quite sucessfull against the africa corps
Reply
:icongary-garrisson:
Gary-Garrisson Featured By Owner May 21, 2006
They say the Chuchill's armor is good enough to withstand 75mm but not 88mm.
Looks like Jagdtiger's gonna kill it from behind.
Reply
:iconrbl-m1a2tanker:
RBL-M1A2Tanker Featured By Owner May 20, 2006
It's a shame that the Centurion didn't make it to the war, it was definately a far better tank than the Churchill. The Churchill stood too high (like the Sherman), had poor visibility, and elevation and field of fire for the main gun. Plus the armor isn't even sloped, even though they knew that sloping armor added to the protection of the vehicle.

How the Brits came up with poor or weak tank designs in the war is beyond me.
Reply
:icondarkwizard83:
DarkWizard83 Featured By Owner May 22, 2006
Deperate times call for desperate measures - in the form of rushed designs?
Reply
:iconrbl-m1a2tanker:
RBL-M1A2Tanker Featured By Owner May 22, 2006
I can understand that for the Crusader, Valentine, and even Churchills, but their Cromwell tank was designed when times weren't desperate, and things were improving overall for the Allies. It was supposed to be their best, and it wasn't comparible a Pershing, T34-85, or Panther. They just didn't do that good in the war. Which is why it's such a shame they didn't get the Centurion out. That was a good vehicle and easily made up for the bad designs of before.
Reply
:iconvelensnowdrop:
VelenSnowdrop Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2010
What about the Comet? Or the Firefly for that matter. I'd -much- rather have a Firefly then a regular Sherman or an M10 for that matter.

Also don't say the Comet didn't take much part in the war, neither did the Pershing.
Reply
:iconrbl-m1a2tanker:
RBL-M1A2Tanker Featured By Owner Sep 19, 2010
I don't know anything about the Comet, I only looked at the Churchill in comparison to other vehicles that were supposed to be considered their best. From the stats of the Comet, I would say it was a good vehicle, and probably had as much impact as the Pershing did. Had the war continued (if it was even possible), it likely would have had a more significant impact than say the Churchill here.

I wouldn't argue though that I'd rather have a Firefly over a Sherman or M10. Then again, the Sherman was under everything and the M10 was a tank destroyer, not exactly made for taking a hit (but can give a hell of one!). :)
Reply
:iconvelensnowdrop:
VelenSnowdrop Featured By Owner Sep 20, 2010
Don't get me started on the AVRE and the Chuchill Croc either. :P
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download JPG 1304 × 978




Details

Submitted on
May 20, 2006
Image Size
569 KB
Resolution
1304×978
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
6,859 (3 today)
Favourites
122 (who?)
Comments
23
Downloads
99

Camera Data

Make
PENTAX Corporation
Model
PENTAX Optio 50
Shutter Speed
3429/1000000 second
Aperture
F/3.3
Focal Length
8 mm
ISO Speed
50
Date Taken
Jan 8, 2006, 2:38:00 PM
×