What is the differnece between the Heavy/Infantry Churchill vs the Cruiser tank Cromwell?
Why do they call it cruiser?

Hey there,
While I will not claim to be an "expert" on British armour, the idea here is that the British military during WWII designated it's tanks by the intended purpose in combat.

The basic "classes" were -

Light Tank - Reconnaissance tanks, lightly armored and not very heavily armed - typically machine guns or a 2 pounder

Cruiser Tank - Medium to heavily armoured and typically well armed (for a British tank). Cruisers were intended for Tank vs Tank fighting Examples include Crusader, Cromwell and Sherman

Heavy/Infantry Tank - Heavily armoured and not so well armed. These tanks were used to support the infantry. Examples - M3 Grant, Matilda and Churchill.

Hope this helps.
Later,
Tim

The differences between these tanks was to put advantages of these tanks in different places ..the Churchill was slow moving but well armoured used to help support attacking infantry ...While the Cromwell was to be used for break outs as they were fast ,lighter armor but still had the 75mm gun able to handle most german tanks(yeah right!!)

Rick

Hi

You've gotten the correct info so far!
The Cromwell ended up being used for a recce tank in NW Europe because of it's speed and thin armor. The MBT for the Brits was definitely the Sherman. The Churchill was not used by Armoured Divisions very frequently, but in Armoured Brigades it was common. Infantry were supposed to have armor support from the Armoured Brigades using Churchills. There are lots of stories about how tough the Churchills were. And they were used into the 50s by the British Army. They had amazing hill climbing ability, and the armor was very thick, comparable to a Tiger. Of course the little pop-gun used at first wasn't much use against armored opponents.

The Tamiya kit of the Churchill is quite nice, despite its age (See my review in the Review section), and the Cromwell/Centaur is a fantastic kit by all reports.

Cheers
Andy

Thanks for the info from all, I have purchased both the Tamiya Churchill and Cromwell tanks.. Thnaks for the R&D
John

Welcome to the wonderful world of British armour (don't forget that u!)

The british armoured division was based similariliy to how the Royal Navy's classified it's ship. 3 basic classes all designed to serve a specialized function.

Cromwells were intended as cruiser tanks, but were most often used for reconnaisance (spelling I know) and spotting units for artillery divisions, since by D-Day british classified 'light tanks' and tankettes were useless from a reconnisance perspective (slow and lightly armoured). There were just more Shermans around, so they served as the brit MBT. Cromwells were used in Korea, and an upgunned version was designed after korea but the centurion got full attention of the defense department.

Churchills could take a beating, one of the only allied tanks (including soviet) that could take more then one direct hit from a tigers 88. I read a quote somewhere from a british commander.
. I think that speaks volumes. I've been thinking about a Black Prince Churchill up armed with a 17pdr which would have been a tiger killer (unfortunately it was only a prototype).

Love to see your results.

Jeff

Hello,

British WWII tanks are cool. Not as common as the Shermans, nor as tough as the Tiger, yet were amazingly reliable and well engineered. Also amazingly adaptable. For the single "BergeTiger", there were countless Churchill engineering derivatives.

Cromwells:

1. Fastest tank of the Allied armies (M18 Hellcat was comparable, but a tank destroyer).
2. Good armor (not too heavy, not too light).
3. Evolved into later forms with 17 pdr (Challenger, Avenger, Comet...).

Cromwells and Centaurs are the beginning of the British tank supremacy in NW Europe. Their derivatives, Challenger, Avenger, Comet (...) were almost a match for German Panthers and Tigers, albeit lighter. The Cromwell directly/indirectly influenced the Centurion tank (which really kicked butt!)

Churchills were known for:

1. Amazing mobility over rough terrain.
2. Tough armor, somewhat comparable to Tigers.
3. Universal applicability as engineering vehicles.

Infantry tanks, similar in concept to StuGs. For the Churchills though, they are one of a kind for flexibility and dependability. Only weakness is the puny gun. But a later variant, the Black Prince, mounted the 17 pounder, probably became the British equivalent to a Tiger tank. Too bad, they were replaced by the Centurions, which IMHO was an excellent choice!

Enjoy your British tanks!
Cheers!
-=Yc.W=-

Hi there Tank Mage!

Nice to see you on Armorama!

Cheers
Andy

According to veterans the Cromwell was a far better tank to drive and fight than the sherman (more space and easier to see out and escape!), and the 75mm was good enough too ( ok - I admit it was just a British redesign of the shermans gun) . There just weren't enough of them. Oh, and they didn't toast their crews so often either.

THANKS GUYS...I DIDN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT BRITISH WW2 ARMOR NOW I DO...I HAVE GOTTEN INSIDE A CHIEFTAN BACK IN THE LATE 70'S....LOVED THE BOILING WATER OPTION FOR MAKING TEA .................... FOR REAL!!!!!!

It was only the British who used the concept of cruiser tanks in WW2. (It was similar to the false concept of battlecruiser designs for ships ie armour sacrificed for more speed). All other nations had discarded the idea in favour of medium tanks. The British always lagged behind in tank design because gun development and vehicle development were not linked. Most other nations designed the best gun possible and then built a vehicle to use it in the best way possible The British were slow to utilise sloped armour, the first tank to incorporate this was the centurian which came out too late to see action. (Ironically the centurian went on to become on of the best AFVs of the 50s and 60s.)

Even today British Army vehicles, Hardskin or Softskin, is fitted with a 'Boiling Vessel' for boiling water for a 'brew-up' (making tea) - maybe even to use with their ration packs!

The British Soldier will put up with conditions and equipment most armies would laugh at, but as long as he (or she) can make tea they will do a good a job as any soldier, anywhere.

it certainly is true that modern brit vehicles carry boiling vessels,check Europa Militaria's 'warrior company' for great interior shots,one for the superdetailers!During the first gulf war photos were everywhere of 7th Armoured chaps 'brewing up' much like the Desert Rats 50 years ago

the black prince churchill was not a variant and only a prototype.

after d-day the 17-pounder was the only allied A-T gun really effective at dealing with tigers and panthers, so it was decided to mount it on as many vehicles as possible. being the best armoured british tank the churchill was the obvious choice to create a tiger killer.

the width of british tanks was dictated by the gauge of the railway wagons that would transport them, because they needed to fit through tunnels.
this is why british tanks are narrow compared to tanks of other nations.
because of this the turret ring of the churchill was too small to mount the 17-pounder, but in mid 1944 the rail gauge rule was dropped so work began on widening the churchill's hull.
this led to the black prince prototypes. these prototypes by all accounts were excellent vehicles but the introduction of the comet and centurion meant the projct was cancelled.

joe

Check this thread out: http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum13/HTML/001900.html. I asked a question on TankNet weeks ago on how good the Cromwell was. The link I posted is that thread.