Com-Central.net

photos of the3 churchills at bovington

dennis

community.webshots.com...ity=kRviGZ

Thank you for more great photos.

Question: what is the main armament on the first tank? To me it looks like a 17 Pounder.....but i thought the Churchill's turret was too small for a gun that big.

Good eyes! Thats actually a Black Prince, not technically a Churchill. It was based on the Churchill though...

Neil

This seems to be a real mess of pics taken on "Black Price" or "Super Churchill" (17 pdr), postwar model, Churchill Mk. VII (75 mm US origin ammo) and a pretty rare early Churchill Mk.I (A 22) probably?? with 40 mm gun turret mounted and 76,2 mm hull mounted howitzer...

Some points on early mark Churchill which seem to be strange from my point of view:
- the shape of turret I am not familiar with (a test or pre-production vehicle?)
- late "all round vision" commander's cupola
- different elevation angle of gun and coax MG
- a mixture of two types of road wheels

Bloody well done, thanks.

- Neil_Baumgardner

Good eyes! Thats actually a Black Prince, not technically a Churchill. It was based on the Churchill though...

Neil

Thank you! I had heard of the Black Prince, but never seen one. Until today!

- palic

This seems to be a real mess of pics taken on "Black Price" or "Super Churchill" (17 pdr), postwar model, Churchill Mk. VII (75 mm US origin ammo) and a pretty rare early Churchill Mk.I (A 22) probably?? with 40 mm gun turret mounted and 76,2 mm hull mounted howitzer...

Some points on early mark Churchill which seem to be strange from my point of view:
- the shape of turret I am not familiar with (a test or pre-production vehicle?)

This particular Churchill Mk I was discussed on here before. The turret appears to be original - albeit with a cut-down barrel.



www.com-central.net/in...=churchill

Neil

- Jinx

Thank you! I had heard of the Black Prince, but never seen one. Until today!

Here's a pic I took of the same tank two years ago - it appears they have spaced them out more. Hopefully I can get some good shots if I get to go this summer...



Closeup of the turret



Neil

ToNeil_Baumgardner: Thank you for zeroing me in the thread on pics taken in Bovvy...
I was there 5 yers ago and have to say some exhibits were hidden that day.
"Black Prince" is really pretty interesting beast...
I think BP and Centurion are/were tanks with TC cupola moved from left to right position on the turret roof. Compare that with Cromwell and Churchill etc.

There is a fair amount that is always hidden away - true for just about any large museum like Bovington.

Take a look at Dennis' "Bovington unseen" albums.

community.webshots.com...wbridge5/4

The Churchill Mk I appears to have been rotated out from storage, in place of the wierd T-72 vismod Vickers tank that was at the same spot for many years.

Neil

For a long time i have wondered something about the Churchill: why are its road wheels so small? Tanks like the Sherman and T-34 have large road wheels, Panzer Mks. III and IV have medium-sized wheels, Panthers and Tigers and variants have complicated interweaved - and large - wheels.....but the Churchill really stands out with those little casters down there. Any rationale for that?

I know the earlier Matilda tanks - both Mks. I and II - had small road wheels, but they were much smaller and lighter vehicles. And the post-war Conqueror had rather small wheels, too.....so could this be a British thing? Most other British tanks - i.e. the cruisers (including the Centurion), the Chieftans and Challengers - have large wheels.....but not the Churchill, Matilda(s), and Conqueror.

And are the small road wheels the main reason why these tanks are all quite slow? Or is that more of a power-to-weight ratio issue?

The Churchill was the last in the line of 'Shelled Ground Tanks' which goes back to the original Heavy Tanks of WWI. The long track length was meant to give it a good trench crossing ability combined with the ability to support infantry assaults across heavily shelled ground.

The larger wheels and longer travel suspension systems used by other tanks in WWII, Whether it was torsion bar, Christie, Volute spring suspension or some other were needed on those tanks because of the higher speed of the modern 'cruiser' tanks. The Churchill wasn't fast (neither was its ancester the Matilda) It's max speed was 15 MPH with a crosscountry speed of about 8 MPH. At those speeds it didn't need a complex suspension.

The Centurian was the first of a new line of 'Universal Tanks' that combined both the Infantry and Crusier tank line. I never thought the Conquerer had that small of wheels. And it did have a torsion bar suspension. The Churchill had small individual coil springs at each wheel station.

I am leaving on a trip early in the morning so I'll be out of touch for a week. So if I don't respond to a thread you'll know why.

- bsmart

The Churchill was the last in the line of 'Shelled Ground Tanks' which goes back to the original Heavy Tanks of WWI. The long track length was meant to give it a good trench crossing ability combined with the ability to support infantry assaults across heavily shelled ground.

Well, i guess in the Churchill's case, any suspension is preferable to no suspension.

The larger wheels and longer travel suspension systems used by other tanks in WWII, Whether it was torsion bar, Christie, Volute spring suspension or some other were needed on those tanks because of the higher speed of the modern 'cruiser' tanks. The Churchill wasn't fast (neither was its ancester the Matilda) It's max speed was 15 MPH with a crosscountry speed of about 8 MPH. At those speeds it didn't need a complex suspension.

Soooo.....since it was never intended to go fast, they designed it so that it couldn't go fast? (I wonder how many committees it took to come up with that plan.....?)

The Centurian was the first of a new line of 'Universal Tanks' that combined both the Infantry and Crusier tank line. I never thought the Conquerer had that small of wheels. And it did have a torsion bar suspension. The Churchill had small individual coil springs at each wheel station.

The following webpage has six photos of Conquerors. Maybe it's because it is so large a tank, but those wheels do look rather small to me.

home.freeuk.net/armour.../fv214.htm

But maybe it's just me.

I am leaving on a trip early in the morning so I'll be out of touch for a week. So if I don't respond to a thread you'll know why.

I hope you have a good trip!

Here is a good side view of a Conqueror taken from the link i posted above.

I definitely wouldn't call those large wheels.....but i guess you might be able to make a case for "medium".

- bsmart

The Centurian was the first of a new line of 'Universal Tanks' that combined both the Infantry and Crusier tank line. I never thought the Conquerer had that small of wheels. And it did have a torsion bar suspension.

Centurion and Conqueror both used Horstman type suspensions, did they not?

Hello Jinx,
Were is this Conqueror (and Cent in the background) located??

Regards,
Lesley