Longstop Hill - Churchills

[pipsqueak]

Quick question... why do the Churchills not have any HE rounds for their 6-pounders?

[archibaldthe1]

I don’t have original documentation, but from a couple of articles I found (written by Yuri Pasholok - Graviteam’s “tank consultant”) , it’s implied that Churchill III didn’t carry any HE (although the ammunition was in theory available)

[pipsqueak]

I haven't found the original source but, and don't laugh, Wiki states:

"The tanks then reached the defensive rim, eliminating the surprised German strong points one-by-one with Besa machine guns and 6-pounder."

Which would suggest the 6-pounders did carry HE rounds in this battle. Or do we have a source that confirms that they only used machine guns?

[archibaldthe1]

But you may be right. Here is North Irish Horse ( https://www.northirishhorse.com/ ) battle reports for the engagement:

Lieut. Pope encountered another machine-gun and mortar post and, finally, a 75 mm. gun badly sited to fire down the western re-entrant, after one round of 6-pounder H.E. and a burst of Besa the crew surrendered.

Major Welch supported this attack very successfully, his own tank having the special task of dealing with a pillbox which was knocked out by 6-pounder A.P. followed by H.E. A very effective smoke screen was put down by the close support tank.

Little bit of inconsistency in this document: on 29th, Major Welch is firing 2-pounder, and on 8th - a 6-pounder. But these are war-time notes, so we can't expect them to be perfect. So maybe we'll see the HE on 6-pounder in one of the updates. Nice job @pipsqueak - i just assumed that similar to 2-pdr, no one bothered with 6-pdr HE, so never thought to look into it

[Bobby]

https://www.keymilitary.com/article/churchill-tank-mark

[archibaldthe1]

Publicado originalmente por Bobby the Zebra:

https://www.keymilitary.com/article/churchill-tank-mark

Would you mind posting the relevant part? The article is subscription-only, but I am very curious what it says regarding the subject.

[Bobby]

Copy the URL and paste it into your browser(s) i haven't subscribed but it asks for it through steam with me.

Here's some info from the page

Perhaps we ought to say a word or two about the gun. To begin with there was a belief, not just in Britain, that a tank’s turret gun should not extend beyond the front of the hull. This was engendered by a fear that when a tank was descending a slope the end of a longer barrel would stick into the ground. So where the six-pounder was concerned the version for use in tanks (the Mark 3) had the same barrel length as the original towed weapon, that is to say 96.2in, but later it was decided to risk the greater length to get better performance so a Mark 5 gun was introduced with a barrel length of 112.2in. Later still Messrs Vickers-Armstrongs devised a system for converting the barrel to fire American 75mm ammunition, which at short range did not have the anti-tank capability of the six-pounder but at least made it capable of firing high explosive rounds, which the sixpounder could not. A few of these modified guns were fitted to Mark III Churchills in Normandy, making them Mark III*.

Elements of the Calgary Regiment (14th Canadian Army Tank Regiment) which took part in the Dieppe Raid of August 1942, included Churchills Mark I, II and III so the Canadians were the first to take the Churchill into action, including the six-pounder version. Of 29 tanks taken ashore, all had to be left behind, where they were treated as archaic curiosities by the Germans, who failed to appreciate that they would improve and be back in two years’ time in an invasion that would end the war.

Six Churchill Mark III constituted King Force (aka the Special Tank Detachment) under Maj Norris King MC of the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars, in order to gain operational experience. All six tanks were in action at El Alamein, of which five survived, the other one was knocked out by an Australian anti-tank gun while reversing out of action, the gunners being unfamiliar with the shape.

The five surviving tanks were in action again at the end of the month, being directed against Tell el Aqqaqir where once again they seem to have been a magnet for enemy anti-tank guns, although none were ever penetrated, and when the positional period of the battle was over, they were withdrawn to Cairo. Two earlier Churchills sent out to the desert (not Mark II) performed reasonably well once they had been rebuilt, following the voyage.

Twenty fifth Army Tank Brigade, consisting of three tank regiments (less those lost at sea) landed at Bone, (now Annaba) Tunisia in February 1943, they were followed by 21st Army Tank Brigade about a month later. So, there were six Churchill tank regiments in the country equipped with Marks I, II, III and IV tanks although we can’t say for sure how many of each they had, or which type was used for a particular action. Latterly, as might be expected, the Mark III was eclipsed by the Mark IV with the cast turret. Even so some Mark III Churchills were seen in Normandy, a few fitted with the 75mm gun and designated Mark III*, but by that time an Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot round had been perfected for the six-pounder gun, which gave it the ability to penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger tank, at shorter range but still no worthwhile high explosive capability.

On account of its turret the Mark III was a very distinctive version of the Churchill and had it not been for a shortage of armour plate should have been more common than it is. Even so it was the first type of Churchill to mount the six-pounder gun and to that extent fulfilled Brig Pope’s ideal. If it wasn’t for the shortage of armour and its inherent weakness the Mark III might have gone on to become one of the main production variants of the Churchill tank. As it is a surprising number seem to have survived in different parts of the world and in different guises.

[archibaldthe1]

Thanks! For those interested in North Africa 75 modification (with Sherman’s 75mm M3 gun), here is something from Churchill-dedicated site:
http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/a22/index.htm (you have to go to articles/NA75 section)
Or for Russian-speaking audience:
https://warspot.ru/18230-cherchilli-neposredstvennoy-podderzhki

[trooperrob]

was going to say, I thought the us 75mm gun was fitted by an enterprising engineer in Africa, using the guns from beyond repair Shermans,
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/g0txnw/something_rarer_the_churchill_na_75_churchill_ivs/
captain Morrell

I love stories about guys in the field having bright ideas and producing a superior piece of kit!

[archibaldthe1]

To avoid confusion, if someone is trying to follow: NA75 mod was built after Tunisia, so if the game were to be adjusted, we would get puny HE from the 6-pounder gun. So Churchill’s won’t become adequate, just a bit better :)

[archibaldthe1]

Another "resurrection" :) But I found some indirect evidence of Churchills firing HE: https://imgur.com/M9cwaWG (from British lessions learned doc base on Tunisia campaign). I suppose they could mean "HE" from a 3-inch howitzer, but that's highly unlikely given the timing.