Five Things About the Churchill with The Chieftain - World of Tanks

[@chrislsheppard7626]

re: Performance of the Churchill at Dieppe. In fairness, no tank was going to have an easy time traversing a chert stone beach with an degree angle of repose of up to 20 degrees. Yet half of the landed Churchills did make it across the beach and into town. But facing obstacles in the streets, most eventually returned to the beach to cover the withdrawal. Hence the post battle photos showing the beach littered with abandoned tanks.

[@vaclav_fejt]

Alto, the cast iron track links were fragile and easily broke, especially on that surface. (Source: MHV)

[@scottkrater2131]

From what I heard, the Germans never used the Churchills captured during the Dieppe raid. They believed they were obsolete models sacrificed by the Canadians on the beach.

[@simongee8928]

Indeed. As I had learned, the issue was also with the beach pebbles / stones jamming the multiple small bogie wheels. Interesting to speculate what the outcome may have been if the Churchill had been equipped with Christie suspension and thus much larger wheels.

[@Modernnannenginemarineengine]

I hear you ! But it was worked out that a certain of Gauge STONES jammed the Drive wheels and Bogeys. Shame decent tanks with the 6pounder. Excellent weapon 57mm .

[@benjaminguilatcoiv]

@@simongee8928 apparently the priority of Jesuit run America was to give the Christie suspension tech to Communist Russia, as per usual..

[@alphaone5406]

To me one of the most underrated tanks of WW2

[@AWMJoeyjoejoe]

Yep. Up there with Cromwell.

[@dogsnads5634]

As a tank crewman if you wanted to live you went to a Churchill unit. Lowest casualty figures for any allied tank units. Decent armour, multiple escape hatches, didn't brew up easily...

[@KuK137]

@@dogsnads5634 "Lowest" because the thing was so useless it wasn't used in any serious attack. By this standard T-55 is now the most survivable Russian tank...

[@dogsnads5634]

@@KuK137Nonsense. It was used heavily across NW Europe and Italy (as well as the Eastern Front). Built in the thousands...

[@silverhost9782]

Feels like most British tanks are actually underrated. Even the bad ones.

[@frederickvondinkerberg7721]

As I am from Luton where these were built I can let you know that when the Luftwaffe bombed Luton they made £5 worth of improvements to the town

[@fus149hammer5]

Could we invite them back for another try?😂

[@davethompson3326]

Those improvements were savagely clawed back in the 70-80s

[@HRHtheDude]

Lol wut?

[@PassportToPimlico]

@@fus149hammer5 If you go to Wardown House, you will see a display of the most Luton thing ever. Peace Day 1919. There was some disagreement as to who should be in the Peace day parade culminating with the burning down of the town hall and the mayor having to flee Luton.

[@fus149hammer5]

@@PassportToPimlico I remember reading something about that and a article on the local news.

[@francisjoussot3521]

Slow and antiquated but got the job done. As an infantry tank they were ideal. My father's Churchill made it all the way from Gold beach to Breman,being converted to a Crocodile on the way.

[@28pbtkh23]

Hell. What a journey!!!

[@mylesdobinson1534]

Also the Churchill was trialled in Bougainville by the Australian Army after the war against the Sherman and Chaffee for use in jungle warfare to which it was chosen as being better to push through the jungle. This was to replace the Matilda that had proved so effective against the Japanese.

[@wazzabear]

And 50 plus tanks served into the 50's with Sentinels

[@mylesdobinson1534]

At the Cairns Artillery and tank museum, low and behold out the front is one of our Churchill's 😁

[@aaronleverton4221]

@@wazzabear Do you mean AC1s? The only service they ever saw was doubling for Panzers in The Rats of Tobruk.

[@Splodge542]

I had a very interesting conversation with an old boy who had trained as a Croc driver but didn't go to war as hostilities had ended. He said it was a lovely tank to drive but he was appalled by the cruelty of the weapon when the crew flamed a sheep and a rabbit warren during training and their laughing at the fleeing blazing bunnies. He said there was no need for that.

[@alfnoakes392]

See Lindybeige's vid about the Crocodile "The Most Effective Weapon of World War Two". Very interesting and refreshingly humanitarian viewing. A mate who was in the Territorials accidentally shot a sheep but did not lose sleep over it ...

[@Splodge542]

@@alfnoakes392 Thanks I'll watch it. I think the gent was 19 in 1945. Seems very young to be crewing with a thing like that.

[@aaronleverton4221]

@@Splodge542 The younger the better, they don't know how horrible it is until they do it.

[@borderreiver1555]

Get them young theres a clue in the name infant...try ...aplies to all arms

[@exharkhun5605]

That's rather passive aggressive of Vauxhall: "Oh, you want a tank done in 8 months? We'll put your name on it."

[@tvgerbil1984]

They did send some Mk V's and VI's to Burma to crush the Japanese but like all things to do with the Churchill's, they took too long to get there. They arrived just when the Japanese gave up.

[@mark37f]

A nice, quick breakdown of the Churchill - thanks. Unfortunately WoT can foul up anything of quality, in this case by having overdramatic music playing too loud in the background.

[@Seth9809]

Aw, they love you too.

[@pavelslama5543]

When it comes to the cross-country performance, there were a few notable occasions where the allies had more types of tanks, but Churchill proved to have the best cross country performance. It could cross anti tank ditches and other types of uneven terrain. Its climbing was also influenced by the length of its tracks, another leftover from the times the British though its gonna be constantly crossing trenches.

[@dogsnads5634]

It was also far better in muddy conditions than other tanks. Some were used on flooded terrain in the Low Countries to support US troops as Sherman's couldn't get traction in the conditions.

[@arkadiy9321]

On the hill-traversing ability as it compares to Pz IV. I believe there is a little inaccuracy in the story - the German tanks were encountered by NIH (not the national insurance :) - North Irish Horse) after the battle of Longstop Hill already concluded (a bit to the NE from the Longstop, around Sidi Zekri). So those Pz IV’s did not have to climb Djebel Rhar, thus we don’t know whether they’d make it or not and cannot say that they are just as “goat-like” as Churchills.

[@cgross82]

It was impressive watching the Churchill drive by the reviewing stand at Tankfest 2019!

[@paulaseabee8442]

Dunno about the Churchill but my "Oh bugger, the tank is on fire!" t-shirt purchased from your channel certainly started as a talking point about the Comet! 😄

[@FrenchTaunter12]

Whenever armored warfare comes up as a topic at the dinner table it's usually brought up by one of these people: 1. Me 2. La moi 3. Yours truely 4. Also me

[@Imprudentman]

When I started playing Word of Tanks, Churchill was my favorite tank. It was the Lend-Lease version of the Churchill with red stars. Very suitable for those who start the game.

[@PhilippBrandAkatosh]

the thing with wot is, infantry is missing and a lot more, try mowas 2 for example and use the Churchill you will see that it´s greatest problem are the Hugh tracks and that it´s so damn slow, i really tried to get it working but every time i fielded it the tracks were shot and then infantry mobbed it up..... and i really gave my best

[@Imprudentman]

@@PhilippBrandAkatosh It seems to me that with infantry the game will turn into something completely different than the confrontation of tanks. Indeed, in fact, Word of Tanks is an ordinary online RPG, only with a tank bias.

[@PhilippBrandAkatosh]

@@Imprudentman the thing is pure tank combat is not realistic in the first place never happened in real life as far as i know

[@Imprudentman]

@@PhilippBrandAkatosh The best means in battle against tanks are tanks. Some American general said after the Second World War. For example, the battles at the Sandomierz bridgehead on August 12, 1944. ml. Lieutenant Oskin on the T-34-85 destroyed the Royal Tiger from an ambush. The game is just a simulation of some aspect of real combat. That's how I perceive it.

[@PhilippBrandAkatosh]

@@Imprudentman in mowas 2 you can send out elite infantry with bazookas sneaking thou the grass and on top of that you can do the shot on the side armor of the enemy tank yourself, you can also place infantry with Molotovs in buildings and when the enemy armor comes thou then you can give em hell.

[@simongee8928]

I like the Chieftain's presentations as they are always factual with any personal views he gives are based on personal or proven experience of others. And I like his dry sense of humour - ! 😁

[@benjaminguilatcoiv]

..when he said "if ever the subject of Churchill tanks ever came up in a dinner conversation" nah the only way that'll happen is if you bring it up yourself 😉

[@sammni]

My grandad remembered the tanks coming out of Harland and Wolf and said ..... He remembers one going through the side of a building because of the cobblestone roads. The tracks slipped

[@taffwob]

A similar problem with Centurions based in Germany judging by the anecdotes I've heard.

[@dennisvandermarkt8263]

Great day when the chieftain posts a video. My day just got better

[@PalisadeFence]

I think you misspoke when you said one of the Irish Churchills broke down and was buried at The Curragh. It was at the range in Glen of Imaal. On a related note, have you ever seen the photos of the time they flipped a Churchill into a ditch while attached to its tank transporter trailer on the road between The Curragh and the range? Red faces all round, I'd say.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Right you are, the Glen it was.

[@edevans5991]

We've Americanized him. You can't now expect him to have any kind of grasp of world geography.

[@Norvik_-ug3ge]

The Irish Churchill tanks story was interesting. Even having tanks would be controversial now, although with the invasion/special military operation (delete according to viewpoint) of Ukraine, some people here are waking up to the idea of having genuinely capable defence forces in a military alliance instead of the badge of statehood-toy armed forces we have.

[@alamore5084]

I love the thick armour on the Churhill. My fave is the Crocodile flame thrower version.

[@thomaslinton5765]

Somehow, in 79years, no tank has ever been the topic of conversation at any dinner table at which I was present. 0___0

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

You have odd dinner partners

[@thomaslinton5765]

@@TheChieftainsHatch I can see how you might thin that. However, the Lewis Gun has come up more than once, likely due to the "wall hanger." On the other paw, hanging a tank on the dining room wall might be a problem. 🙂

[@davethompson3326]

You are eating in terrible company. Promise me they are at least capable of discussing the historical changes of organisation and use of the Roman Legion?

[@thomaslinton5765]

@@davethompson3326 Doubtful, at best.

[@WorldoftanksNAarchived]

What are some facts about other tanks that others might find interesting? Share them in a reply to this pinned comment!

[@foxtrotromeo25]

There's a Churchill still sitting in Curragh Camp.

[@bofoenss8393]

Apparently, a Churchill AVRE (I think) with bascinet landed on D Day and was meant to fill a water filled ditch shortly behind the beach. It dropped the bascinet and drove over. Except it sank beneath the water. So a bridge laying Churchill used the drowned one as foundation to put the bridge in place. It was thus used and eventually sank completely into the ditch where it sat until the film crew of The Longest Day came along, found it, dug it up and refurbished it so you actually see it driving in the background for a second or two as Lord Lovat is speaking to the (slightly) drunk French mayor. Lovat is seen guiding the Frenchman away form the path of the Churchill. At least, according to myth.

[@HappyDuude]

Theres still a Churchill at the military museum in the Curragh, along with a few other esoteric vehicles

[@michellepeoplelikeyoumurde8373]

Thought the Republic army still used them ? Sorry you don't have any tanks

[@calessel3139]

"TOG was the answer to the question nobody asked" -- LOL

[@gryph01]

All hail the mighty TOG! 😁

[@cheesenoodles8316]

I give the Churchill high marks for beastly appearance, very proper for a tank. Decent in the other criteria. I always wondered how maintenance and repair was ... IE : The suspension and tracks.

[@dogsnads5634]

Initially reliability was awful. But Vauxhall then did a very far sighted thing...they sent their representatives out to the units for long periods of time, helped them with maintenance, listened to them and came back with improvements to the factory that were then added to new production and re-fits. They did this throughout the war in a very modern continuous improvement style. It ended up being one of the most reliable tanks in the Allied arsenal. If only everyone had done this to the same level...

[@CZ350tuner]

Somehow, you missed out the fact that the fact that the Churchill Mk.I rounded turrets were all cast in the United States and then shipped over for installation.

[@danb4900]

That explains why its so different and unique

[@justforever96]

Because this is an exhaustive history and that is an extremely important fact that ought to be included in any presentation on the Churchill? I suspect there are a large number of facts about the Churchill that he didn't get to include in this 11 minute video.

[@larrybomber83]

That was great stuff. I really enjoyed that. Thank You Chieftain!

[@dermotrooney9584]

Lovely. Nice to know where the Carrickfergus came from.

[@spectralcoffee5177]

Always liked the look of these

[@rogersmith7396]

Was'nt Churchill more water proof than Titanic? I think it had more internal subdivisions.

[@timengineman2nd714]

BTW, just like the British/Imperial units of Gallons, Quarts, Pints, and Cups are larger than their US counterparts, an Imperial Carriage Weight is larger (i.e. heavier) than the US! It is 120 pounds .vs. 100 pounds (~54.55 Kg .vs. 45.45 Kg). Also, when dealing with History involving English/British sources stating weights, odds are the Tons listed are actually Long Tons of 2,240 pounds (~1,018.2. Kg) .vs. U.S. (i.e. short) Tons of 2,000 (~909.1 Kg) with a metric ton (Tonne in some references) of 1,000 Kg (~2,205 pounds). Such is the "fun" of an amateur historian, such as myself, when I'm doing reports..... Odds are, since The Chieftain is talking about British Equipment in this (and other videos) the Carriage Weight (Cwt) he is. referring to is the heavier 120 pound one. (Note: when looking up Carriage Weight, I'm finding numerous references to how much a modern Horse Drawn Carriage weighs, not the unit of measurement!!!) Once again "fun"....

[@CharlesStearman]

Cwt is usually the abbreviation for hundredweight (C being 100 in Roman numerals), which is 112lbs or 1/20 of a long ton.

[@88porpoise]

@@CharlesStearman all due to the bloody Stone that the British use. A hundredweight should be 100 pounds (it is literally the name of the unit), but that wouldn't be an even number of stones (14 pounds) so they ended up with 112 pounds instead.

[@gleggett3817]

@@88porpoise The OED has a quote from 16th Century saying the hundredweight was "not just 100 but is 112 pounds" and other quotes give weights up to 120 lb but also involve different pounds

[@88porpoise]

@@gleggett3817 Sure, prior to the nineteenth century weights and measures in Britain were not standardized. That is why some units vary between the US and Britain, because they standardized on different variants in use at the time. For example the Imperial gallon is based on a historical gallon of ale, the US fluid gallon is based on a gallon of wine, and the US dry gallon is based on a gallon of grain. Troy weights for precious metals are also a remnant of that. Even one stone could be a multitude of weights from 8 to 20 pounds (and those pounds could vary) based on location and/or type of good being weighed. The further back you go the more variance you find. But a "hundredweight" is literally in the name that it is a hundred of a given weight (the pound). But to fit into a system with a 14 pound stone, the British used 112 pounds when they standardized their measures in the 1830s. The stone wasn't nearly as popular in the US, so their hundredweight is a hundred pounds.

[@RailfanDownunder]

Australian 1st Armoured Regiment used Churchills till they were replaced by Centurions in 1955

[@ericamborsky3230]

One thing to keep in mind is that even the "slow" British infantry tanks are still twice as fast as an average human can jog and still faster than an average human can run.

[@gleggett3817]

And that's a human not burdened by a rifle, backpack, ammo for Bren gun, water bottle, shovel....

[@dogsnads5634]

And its also across country...there is some film on YT of Churchills moving at max speed across country, and they're not actually that much, if any, slower than Sherman's or PzIV.

[@justforever96]

It still takes them longer to complete a given route march and is easier to get a good sight on them, as well as taking longer to retreat out of fire or to close distance to an enemy. So it's relevant. Slow is an entirely relative term. Any slow thing is faster than something else. The slowest of cars is still far faster than walking or even a horse. But it's still a slow car. Although it is silly when they say "infantry tanks didn't need to be any faster than the infantry". They generally were. They just didn't need to be enormously faster or to cover long distances between sections of the battlefield in short times, or reach 50 miles behind enemy lines in a day. If they were really geared to the speed infantry advance they would do about a mile an hour and still be faster.

[@doubleducks814]

OMG I pass that tank in Carrickfergus all the time and I always thought it was a British tank!

[@alastairward2774]

Same, I wonder what they'd make of an Irish tank in the middle of that town if they knew where it came from.

[@gliderdan3153]

@@alastairward2774 Unless someone is a bigot then it shouldn't matter , on a side note, some churchills were built in Carrickfergus

[@douglasstrother6584]

Squire has a great episode on a Churchill a Hetzer!

[@misolgit69]

So the 17 pdr wouldn't fit in the 3in 20cwt mount or did nobody bother that surely would have made one hell of an interim T/D or were the timelines not in synch

[@General_Cartman_Lee]

The Gun Carrier prototypes were ready in spring 1942, the first 17 Pounder prototypes were also ready in spring 1942. I assume they wanted the Gun Carrier to be ready with a proven gun instead of changing it for the 17 Pounder while that was also in early testing. By the time the 50 Gun Carriers were ready the A30 Challenger prototype with the 17 Pounder was already in testing and the idea to fit a 17 Pounder in a Sherman also came up.

[@nor0845]

2:55 ‘Goose Stepping’ British troops ??? Then I noticed the Polish officer beside Churchill.🙂

[@social3ngin33rin]

omfg, so this is how the Churchill GC made itself into the game -_-

[@michaelwright2986]

A tank first released into the wild in Alpha version, with release notes.

[@mauricelevy9027]

Interesting topic but jumping from Churchill to Centurion without a mention of The Cromwell ?

[@justforever96]

It's not a history of British tank development. It's obscure facts about Churchill. In that case, they were replaced by Centurion, that's why he mentioned it. Cromwell is completely extraneous to the subject of the video.

[@danieltaylor5231]

What does Lindybeige have on The Chieftain to get him to make this video?🤔🤔

[@rdfox76]

Nothing. It's because Chieftain's Darjeeling nendoroid was whispering into his ear as he slept.

[@DrRussian]

@@rdfox76 Im... going to need sauce on this one boss.

[@rdfox76]

@@DrRussian I can't remember exactly which one, but one of his "Chieftain Q&As" on his personal channel has said nendo on his desk. (It may be the one where he outfits the Elbonian armored corps?)

[@kathleenmcmanus8509]

Possibly interesting fact...There is a Churchill Tank on the sea front in Carrickfergus...because they where built just down the road

[@julianhumphries995]

No mention of its success on D Day in a multitude of engineering rolls then

[@justforever96]

It's a video about things you probably don't know about about the Churchill, not "Five things that anyone who knows anything about Churchill probably can tell you".

[@alastairbarkley6572]

The British 6pdr 57mm Churchill gun may lack high explosive ooomph but, compared with the Sherman's 75mm gun, the 6pdr had VASTLY better AP performance.

[@djraythefurry0420]

See I'm not the biggest fan of world of tanks do to the unrealistic aspects of it so I tend to prefer war thunder , however there is something that makes me consistently want to play world of tank blitz and also world of tanks on PS4 and I think part of it is because I'm addicted to the panzer 4 with the 105 mm howitzer which honestly chieftain I would like to see a video of you going over the multiple different pziv prototypes from the dicker all the way to blueprints because honestly there are so many pz IV models lol 😂

[@Treblaine]

Ireland: "wow only £1000 each?" UK: "No, for the lot, you sure you want them?"

[@angrydoggy9170]

These days vehicles get tested before going into production, so no need for an extensive manual with all the known defects. Unless of course it’s a Cyber truck.

[@ashleybevis9769]

The gun was shorter than the tank , because the British where scared of getting the gun stuck in the ground when going across ditches, I’ve heard dam gun elevation, sounds similar like a game I no

[@alastairward2774]

That always bothers me in World of Tanks, when a barrel obviously goes through a rock or hill, though the game would be a bit much if they tried to include that sort of accuracy.

[@jaym8027]

That must be the Churchill that is at the War Memorial in Carrickfergus, County Down. It's just a short walk from the Castle. Carrickfergus is less than a half hour from the Titanic Museum in Belfast should you find yourself in the area.

[@lambhdeargh]

You might want to edit your comment, Carrickfergus is in County Antrim.

[@jaym8027]

Thanks to the gentleman who very kindly pointed out that Carrickfergus is in County Antrim, not County Down. My apologies to the good people of both those places for my error. I look forward to getting back soon.

[@NorthDownReader]

@@jaym8027 "Thanks to the gentleman who very kindly pointed out that Carrickfergus is in County Antrim, not County Down." We Bangor folk envy the Carrickfergus folk for only one thing - their view of our County Down coast is far better than our view of their County Antrim coast.

[@lambhdeargh]

@@jaym8027 You are very kind Dear Sir, as much as we may differ, we do share the lack of useful politicians on both these isles

[@lambhdeargh]

@@NorthDownReader Ironically, a drive up the coast was usually from Belfast (to us hellions) to the giddy heights of Portrush! But as we all love to say "Up Down" for our more challenged neighbours!

[@danceswithowls4000]

Good show Chief

[@DeniatitadenCompostela]

They could have used the Churchill Crocodile to light one of Churchill's cigars.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

Harland & Wolff : what are we supposed to build ? something planned by a Landship committee! O.K. easy.

[@alastairbarkley6572]

The Churchill is an AMERICAN TANK!! Vauxhall Motors had been owned by General Motors since 1925.

[@fivenine5905]

It didnt need to be fast, it only needed to keep up with a man walking.

[@justforever96]

Except they weren't used as infantry tanks and it turned out that it _was_ very useful to be able to go faster.

[@fivenine5905]

@@justforever96 its literally classed as a heavy infantry tank. and was designed from the ground up "to move as fast as a man walking". the end. do some reading

[@mttspiii]

Wait up, so there was a plan for a 152mm Churchill Derp Carrier?

[@davethompson3326]

Want!

[@Charles-xe2qh]

Tank design and production was not a high point of the British war effort. The majority of tanks we produced seemed to be of dubious value.

[@michellepeoplelikeyoumurde8373]

What about the centurion?

[@barbararice6650]

Yes British tanks weren't designed by water toilet nonces 😑

[@DrCrispycross]

Ahh, the Centurion. Would’ve been the best tank of WW2 but it only turned up in November 1945. Oops.

[@paulbantick8266]

I prefer The Tank Museum's information.

[@patrickmurray9409]

I have a Matilda tank for Russia, a pos. But its a piece of history. World of tanks helps to tell rhis story,at times. The story of my purdel is a great story to tell.

[@nickthenoodle9206]

Enjoyed that, but Shermans could not make a neutral turn. Australians tested Shermans and Churchills in Jungle, with the Churchill the winner, towing a Sherman out of a swamp the latter got stuck in. A little too much bias here on the Shermans mobility, when the Sherman is a clear winner in other aspects of its design.

[@jamess7576]

That is one scenario for mobility. But mobile superiority in one specific case is not the end all be all. Another mobility factor is speed which the Sherman is significantly superior in. The Churchill may be better in the jungle, but for a road march I am taking the Sherman.

[@nickthenoodle9206]

@@jamess7576 Perhaps, but I've never heard of a Sherman unit go to the leader of their country to retain their tanks, when the other option is something faster.

[@dogsnads5634]

@@jamess7576 Road march undoubtedly the Sherman is better, by a very good amount. But across country? Churchill by a margin.

[@jamess7576]

@@dogsnads5634 Right, I am not dogging the Churchill it had it's role and place. I just don't think Patton could have had a similar advance through central France and then the advance into Germany in 1945 with the Churchill. For those operations it would be hard to find a better tank available at the time than the M4.

[@nickthenoodle9206]

@@jamess7576 An advance really needs reliability rather than speed. By 44, Churchills were as reliable as Shermans.

[@Mart16g]

My Grandad drove one through Europe from 1944 to the end of the war. Never passed his car driving test though……

[@georgeoconnor7861]

as panzer crew Churchil is scarry beefy old slow man.

[@GNML6836]

Your favourite in WOT !

[@davidrussell8689]

It just looked so wrong but better than no tank at all I guess

[@carlpolen7437]

Is it really a successful tank thouth? It was meant to be an infantry tank. But the hull mounted larger howitzer never worked. Which left the massive tank with a dinky little gun in the turret for most of the war. Famously, the Brits had to tank the Shermans 75 mm gun and put it in the Churchill just to give it some firepower greater than the tiny 57mm it had at the time, and this was relatively late in the war. By the way, the hole where the hull mounted howitzer was meant too be mounted was never actually filled in, the Brits just stuck a machine gun in the rahter large weakness and called it a day. The churchill was also extremely slow, which decreased its use in any type of dynamic battlefield. It was increadibly loud, the crew could rarely hear the radio. The turret had to be redesinged MULTIPLE times becauses of many failures. There were a lot of other issues as well. Too many to go into right now. I know its near and dear to Brit hearts, but.. I think this tank was more successful in post-war propaganda than it ever was in reality.

[@Mr_Bunk]

That is an incredibly delusional and misguided take. All of the flaws you ascribe to the Churchill could be easily applied to other tanks, and some aren’t even flaws, like the constantly upgraded turret. Maybe if you try to look at the tank objectively without the bad faith you’ve displayed here, then you’ll find a tank more capable and tough than many of its German opponents, and one that, whilst sometimes overrated by militarily-inclined Anglophiles and not as good as the Sherman, isn’t the useless pile of junk you’re making it out to be.

[@carlpolen7437]

@@Mr_Bunk I really despise commenters like you. Commenters like you who don't actually adress a single point raised, but just... say the other is delusional or misguided. What you did here isn't constructive at all. It rully isn't? Did you discuss ANYTHING I pointed out about the Churchill? You did not. So...congratulations... I guess? I don't understand what the word vomit you posted above actually says about my specific claims regarding the Churchill. Claims which I will again point out - you never address. So... yeah. I'm the misguided one. Sure. Go crack a book and actually educate yourself.

[@carlpolen7437]

Also, how the hell is a turret that had to be replaced multiple times because if it was hit it spalled inside and killed the crew NOT a flaw? Inquiring minds want to know.

[@Mr_Bunk]

@@carlpolen7437 Flaw =/= bad tank. Many tanks reached their full potential after intermediate upgrades, including new turrets. Also, none of the Churchill's various turrets ever had serious spalling issues.

[@carlpolen7437]

@@Mr_Bunk Never had spalling issues? You're on crack. You're own British Dr. Fletcher, of Bovington Mueseum affiliation, literally has a video on Bovington's official KZbin channel where he discusses, among other things, the spalling issues of the Churchill turret. But I suppose you know better than your own Dr. Fletcher?

[@DaesDroolMoes]

Cold church

[@iskandartaib]

Wonder if Lindy didn't know these five things... 😁

[@HRHtheDude]

Tell me me you love the Sherman without telling me you love the Sherman!

[@AsbestosMuffins]

churchill seems like it should be an outdated design, yet they managed to make it good enough to compete against the german tanks and all that low speed power it had let it handle the terrain well

[@konradhenrykowicz1859]

Strange to see troops wearing battledresses and tin hats yet marching goose step? :), Yes. Winston was just visiting Polish forces in Scotland :)

[@thecamocampaindude5167]

I wonder if the uper frontal plate was thick enough to withstand an 88 shell

[@calessel3139]

The Mk VII+ models with 152mm armor plate were capable of withstanding 88mm Flak18/36 L/56 frontally at all but point blank range, but earlier versions were vulnerable to penetration at normal combat ranges (

[@David-tm4yj]

I think the Churchill is in Carrickfergus.

[@alanbrown5593]

Don't tanks usually appear, in discussion, at dinner parties ?

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

What I learned: Somebody BURIED a tank....

[@barbararice6650]

It was a infantry support tank the Infantry were prepared to follow, you can actually see that in fighting footage 😑

[@lastguy8613]

I remember reading a German commander describing it as a mad tank that could scale incredible heights. Can't remember which one sorry

[@DrCrispycross]

That was the German commander at Steamroller farm. Two Churchills climbed a very steep slope, one had a very close shave with an 88 and they proceeded to shoot up the German unit stationed there. The Germans withdrew with their leader apparently saying he’d been attacked by a mad tank battalion that had scaled an impossible slope.

[@mtssman]

Could anyone please explain why "cwt" is part of description? I understand its meaning but am curious how it came to be. Rifle ammo uses description such as 5.56 x 45mm. I can see the reason behind both numbers but fail to understand "cwt" since it is just the mass/weight of the barrel and breech. Was there a deeper meaning for "cwt"? Perhaps some sort of old classification? I mean technically speaking one can keep the 3 inch bore but with very big breech block and super thick barrel, but obviously there is no point in doing so...

[@mebsrea]

It helped to distinguish between different pieces of artillery having the same bore diameter. A 3" mountain gun would be a much lighter, thinner, shorter-barreled, lower-velocity gun than a 3" naval gun, and would use entirely different ammunition. To use as an example the rifle round you mentioned, the 5.56 x 45 mm (.223 caliber) round is of only negligibly greater diameter than a .22 LR bullet, but if you see their respective cartridges side by side, it's clear that the 5.56 x 45 is much larger, with a longer bullet and greatly larger powder capacity. An action and barrel designed for the .22 LR would have to be strengthened considerably, i.e. made heavier and thicker, to cope with the forces generated by the more powerful round.

[@thegodofhellfire]

That seemed like more than 5 things 😅

[@johnkoenig326]

Can we hear Five Things About The Chieftain with the Chieftain?

[@retepeyahaled2961]

When the Germans inspected the Churchill tanks from Dieppe, they thought they were fooled. They could not believe that the newest British tank was such an outdated, slow and under-armed model. In the mean time, the Germans were developing the Tiger and the Panther, so once they found out that they were NOT being fooled, they could not believe their luck because they then knew that they were years ahead in tank development.

[@charlesjhemphilliii4792]

How come Rommel had better success with the Churchill tanks? And couldn't it be a little faster?

[@englishpassport6590]

The Churchill Tank came in to be extremely useful during the british army's advance through the pillbox infested Reichwald forest to the Rhine. The German Army didn't think the Reichwald could be penetrated by tanks, the Churchill proved otherwise. The Churchills just went through the tree's knocking them over going like a knife through butter.. It rained heavily during the whole time during the battle of the Reichwald but it didn't stop the Churchills. Shame the American Army didn't want Churchill's for themselves the Churchill could have saved thousands of American lives in the slaughterhouse debacle that was the Hurtgen Forest... the Hurtgen example paved the way to the Ardennes...

[@Pugiron]

Best gunnery practice the Germans ever got

[@gary6549]

Did the irish army ever get the spitfire engine into the churchill

[@livingroomtheatre174]

6th thing about the Churchill 10+1, 11 Churchill tanks were hunted down by the 2 x Hunting Panthers (Jagdpanthers) on the Western front. And interestingly none of the Jagdpanthers (those two) were lost in the action!

[@FrankJmClarke]

Ahhh, after months of talk of a Brexit border in the Irish Sea, a man who knows where the North Channel is!

[@bradyelich2745]

WG stop nerfing my Ram. Why did u not give the Ram the long barrel 57mm that Canada produced in 1943?

[@toonmag50]

It's far too confusing a Chieftain talking about a Churchill. Tanks eh, ?

[@schreckpmc]

Wait a minute. Shouldn’t 2-pounder be hyphenated?

[@andrewuwizard]

+

[@Mishn0]

Good information, great presenter, good images....really HORRIBLE image transitions. Super annoying, but, if this kind of production is what the kids want, Ok. Not for me though.

[@gliderdan3153]

Alright Karen

[@Mishn0]

@@gliderdan3153 Ooh, sick burn dude. I didn't ask to see his manager or threaten to shut him down. I merely gave criticism to so they could maybe improve the video. What are you? Twelve?

[@calvingreene90]

If the wild eyed 17pdr boys would have created a new turret for Churchill instead of trying to fit the gun in Sherman the good guys would have been better off.

[@General_Cartman_Lee]

The Churchill's turret ring diameter was too small to fit a turret large enough for the 17 pounder. It's not only the gun size but the recoil length and shell size that requre more space. The Churchill apparently had a 54" turret ring while the Sherman had 69". Fitting a 17 Pounder into a Churchill was the reason they came up with the Black Prince but it came too late as they already had the Sherman Firefly and war was coming to an end.

[@calvingreene90]

@@General_Cartman_Lee A lazy Susan can be bigger than the bearing ring and a turret can be bigger than the turret ring. You can start with looking at the Israeli M-50 Super Sherman and how the extended the turret.

[@General_Cartman_Lee]

@@calvingreene90 Yes, the Israely even mounted the gun more forward. But the more forward you mount the gun the bigger the counterweight at the back of the turret has to be. And you also need the large turret ring in order to fire the gun in an elevated position. You can mount the gun higher to be able to do that but then you need a higher turret roof in order to fire the gun depressed. The guys at Vuaxhall surely thought about a bigger turret before going for a redesign of the entire tank leading to the Black Prince.

[@calvingreene90]

@@General_Cartman_Lee You can make the turret roof tilt when the gun depresses past level without undo risk. It is not a great solution but Churchill Firefly is possible and with them Shermans would not have been degraded into specialized tiger killers instead of Tanks.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

@@calvingreene90 I think you're missing his point, if one wishes to fire the gun with the barrel elevated, because range, then the breech will be depressed, at which point the turret ring size becomes rather relevant when the breech recoils.

[@m_hub3957]

FIX YOU GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@blue2sco]

Can you turn down the music? Would rather hear The Cheiftan thanks.

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

I'm sorry, but I really don't see a successful Design in an Churchill. It was more or less a lucky coincidence/situation that made this tank succeed. Production and use of this tank ended rather quickly after ww2 and had no further influence in cold War designs OR Tank/Army doctrines. This tank was in a favorible position in late ww2. Just switch all Churchill Tanks in British service with all Tiger Tanks in German Service. I'm pretty sure that the Tiger Tank, even with all its drawbacks, would have performed WAY better. While the Churchill on the other hand wouldn't have stayed its ground in a defensive role like the Tiger did. For me personally is the Churchill the most overrated Tank in WW2, even before Tiger and Panther.

[@General_Cartman_Lee]

Without any doubt the Churchill and the infantry tank concept in general were an obsolete idea. But if you compare it with other tanks Britain came up un the late 30s and early 40s following their doctrine the Churchill was not the worst tank you can have. And the chassis was very versatile, you get howitzer, flame thrower, recovery, bridge laying and mine sweeping vehicles.

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

@@General_Cartman_Lee I didn't said it was the worst, I said it was the most overrated. Sure, this thing worked, but It wasn't as good as many say/believe. And the extra versatile chassis? Really? I mean Germans used obsolete chassis for that, the Russians also. Or the M3 Lee/Grant Chassis, really versatile. But that didn't made the tanks good. I think the Churchill worked because everything else worked well. Imagine Churchills in a hasty retreat. Or in a defensive situation. It is screwed. But put a Tiger/Sherman or whatever in a similar Infantry Support situation, I don't think they would fail. I really don't wanna sound like a Wehraboo, really not. But I still believe the churchill is the most overrated tank of ww2.

[@General_Cartman_Lee]

@@papaaaaaaa2625 I have never seen anyone saying the Churchill was a really good tank or that it was the tank that won the war. As you say, it worked under the circumstances where it was used. It was slow, it was underarmed most of the time but it was what they had. It was useful in certain situations but at that time the war was nearly over. Reminds me a bit of the Pershing...

[@alganhar1]

The Churchill was not retained after the war because a little thing called Centurion came along. You may have heard of it. Why continue using old designs when you have just come up with the best tank of its time period ever built? The UK did not continue using the M4 Sherman for long after the war either, and the M4 did not contribute to further British Tank development either, but does that make the M4 Sherman an unsuccessful design? Of course it does not. Using your specific parameters I could make the argument that virtually no tank design of WWII was successful due to the complete and overwhelming superiority of the Centurion, which do not forget started its design life DURING the war and was almost ready for service at the wars end, albeit with the 17 rather than the 20 pounder for which it had been designed. Which is why it is a poor argument, ill thought out. The Churchill was not the best armoured fighting vehicle of WWII, no one is trying to claim it was, but unsuccessful? It did what they asked it to do, which made it successful. The problem with the Churchill was not the vehicle, but the concept the vehicle had been designed for, a specific slow moving heavily armoured Infantry Support Tank. That was an outdated concept but one that was in part brought about because until the advent of the Rolls Royce Meteor the British lacked a really good tank engine which would have enabled them to build more balanced designs. It is perhaps illuminating when you note that the two best British tanks of WWII, the Comet and Centurion (if only just in the latters case) both had the Meteor engine. Lack of a really good engine means that compromises have to be made elsewhere. Which in part explains the Infantry/Cruiser tank concepts as without a really good engine it is all but impossible to build a balanced vehicle when it comes to the Armoured Vehicle Triangle of armour, firepower and speed.

[@High_7]

One of the worst tanks of ww2.