I saw a couple of vague references to an "upgun" of some of the Lend-Lease Churchills to a larger Soviet main gun, one ref. said 45mm, another alluded to the 76mm. Can anyone confirm , or better yet, know of a picture?
I'm building an old Aurora Churchill in 1/48th, already have a Churchill NA 75 conversion, thought this one would look nice.
Dan Wilson
Colorado, USA
Hosted by Jacques Duquette
Churchill upgun
Jabberwocky
Joined: March 27, 2012
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 6 posts
Posted: Monday, March 26, 2012 - 02:57 PM UTC
ChrisDM
Joined: January 01, 2010
KitMaker: 717 posts
Armorama: 697 posts
Posted: Monday, March 26, 2012 - 03:01 PM UTC
Sorry Dan, but its a myth
I've looked at countless churchill pictures over the last few years and have never seen a shred of evidence to support this
Chris
I've looked at countless churchill pictures over the last few years and have never seen a shred of evidence to support this
Chris
ChrisDM
Joined: January 01, 2010
KitMaker: 717 posts
Armorama: 697 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 29, 2012 - 08:45 PM UTC
You're welcome 
Jabberwocky
Joined: March 27, 2012
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 6 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 31, 2012 - 03:20 AM UTC
Quoted Text
You're welcome
Yes, thank you for your opinion. The trouble with (admittedly a pipe dream) such as this, is that not having seen a picture of one proves little, except that you (and I) have not yet seen proof. I'll continue to search, and maybe my "what-if" shelf gets a new model.
Best regards,
Dan
ChrisDM
Joined: January 01, 2010
KitMaker: 717 posts
Armorama: 697 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 31, 2012 - 04:07 AM UTC
If there is absolutely no evidence of it Dan, and considering I make a living out of learning about and kitting churchills, I think I might dare to be so bold as to call it an educated opinion, but I accept that I do not know everything there is to know about churchills
That being said, if it happened I would have thought someone would have found some kind of evidence by now
I have also never seen a picture of an elephant playing the ukelele. That doesn't mean I would hold the discovery of a viruoso ukelele playing elephant to be possible as long as there was the very slight possibility someone might produce a ukelele playing elephant picture
Personally I am of the opinion that sometimes a picture of something does not exist because......it didn't happen?
My hat is ready to be cooked and eaten, regarding either the ukelele loving pachyderm or the mythical 76mm churchill but somehow I am not overly worried about having to munch on it
But if we're taking what-if fantasy tanks, hey: knock yourself out
That being said, if it happened I would have thought someone would have found some kind of evidence by now
I have also never seen a picture of an elephant playing the ukelele. That doesn't mean I would hold the discovery of a viruoso ukelele playing elephant to be possible as long as there was the very slight possibility someone might produce a ukelele playing elephant picture
Personally I am of the opinion that sometimes a picture of something does not exist because......it didn't happen?
My hat is ready to be cooked and eaten, regarding either the ukelele loving pachyderm or the mythical 76mm churchill but somehow I am not overly worried about having to munch on it
But if we're taking what-if fantasy tanks, hey: knock yourself out
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Monday, April 02, 2012 - 08:47 AM UTC
Chris - the essential question is: Could the Churchill turret take a 76mm at all? Would it have been possible, without a whole new turret, to shoehorn a Russian 76mm gun in there? People like to dream of upgunned tanks until the reality of physics sets in....
goldnova72
Joined: February 21, 2009
KitMaker: 627 posts
Armorama: 592 posts
Posted: Monday, April 02, 2012 - 09:18 AM UTC
For the sake of interest ... the Brits got the US 75 mm gun into the Churchull, the so called NA75 . Has the Soviet 76mm a larger breach block than the 75 or is it a matter of how the recoil system was set up ? Could they have turned the gun on its side like the Brits did with the 17 pounder ?
Too much work to redesign when the Germans are knocking on your tank works gates. ?
Didn't the Soviets upgun a Valentine to 76mm ? Just one proto type ?
Too much work to redesign when the Germans are knocking on your tank works gates. ?
Didn't the Soviets upgun a Valentine to 76mm ? Just one proto type ?
ChrisDM
Joined: January 01, 2010
KitMaker: 717 posts
Armorama: 697 posts
Posted: Monday, April 02, 2012 - 01:23 PM UTC
Jacques, the original question was:
To which the answer is 'no'
if the question was could it be done? then thats much more difficult to answer. The breech of the russian 76.2mm gun isn't that big, but is larger than that of the 6pdr/ OQF 75mm. But it depends on the travel of the recoil too. The 6pdr/75mm was a tight fit in a churchill turret whilst still allowing for maximum recoil without smashing the radio
The question also remains whether the russians would have had a few hundred 'spare' guns lying around to be fitted into the tanks, and whether they would have had the time to do it. The impression I have got from what I've read is that in some cases they didn't even add their own markings, they just issued them and sent them out to face the Germans
But as I said, what-ifs are a whole different story from 'did get dones'
Quoted Text
Can anyone confirm , or better yet, know of a picture?
To which the answer is 'no'
if the question was could it be done? then thats much more difficult to answer. The breech of the russian 76.2mm gun isn't that big, but is larger than that of the 6pdr/ OQF 75mm. But it depends on the travel of the recoil too. The 6pdr/75mm was a tight fit in a churchill turret whilst still allowing for maximum recoil without smashing the radio
The question also remains whether the russians would have had a few hundred 'spare' guns lying around to be fitted into the tanks, and whether they would have had the time to do it. The impression I have got from what I've read is that in some cases they didn't even add their own markings, they just issued them and sent them out to face the Germans
But as I said, what-ifs are a whole different story from 'did get dones'
Jabberwocky
Joined: March 27, 2012
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 6 posts
Posted: Monday, April 02, 2012 - 04:23 PM UTC
I have been thinking about this, and was wondering if the Soviets did ANY other regunning. Of course, look at the Su-76i, based on the PzKw III. I even built a model of it years ago based on pix shown in AFV News. So the capability was there, the inclination, quite probably, just as the Brits did with the NA 75. I prefer to keep an open mind, and as more and more good data comes out from our new eastern bloc modelling friends, who knows?
And, while we have been looking at pictures for years, who among us was looking for a funny gun/mantlet on a soviet Churchill? And how many pictures are there so far of any lend =lease vehicles? Not a prime candidate nor politically correct for Soviet military photogs.
dan
And, while we have been looking at pictures for years, who among us was looking for a funny gun/mantlet on a soviet Churchill? And how many pictures are there so far of any lend =lease vehicles? Not a prime candidate nor politically correct for Soviet military photogs.
dan
ChrisDM
Joined: January 01, 2010
KitMaker: 717 posts
Armorama: 697 posts
Posted: Monday, April 02, 2012 - 10:25 PM UTC
The problem with that Dan is that the soviet 76mm was an external mantlet gun. The mounts etc are configured for that and could npt be changed to suit an internal mantlet tank due to balance and stresses on the mount
The churchill of course, like all british tanks at that point, was in internal mantlet tank
There are length implications with remounting it inside a turret in an internal mantlet: ie it wouldn't fit by about 18 inches.
I have seen a LOT of pictures of soviet Churchills. and none had an external mantlet. not one.
there are plenty of pictures out there if you look for them, but the soviets only received around 260 and only really used them for around 18 months. They did remain in service longer than that with some units, but not many as it was superceded in Russian use by the JS series and more KVs as they became available. This is the reason pictures are not so plentiful as the others, because statistically speaking there just weren't that many about in comparison to russian tanks
It's design, a slow moving breakthrough tank designed to support infantry operations against fixed points of resistance to create a gap for exploitation by faster tanks, did not suit Soviet tank doctrine, so it didn't get as much use
You have to remember it was used at a time when Soviet tank production had been severely disrupted by the German advance and thereafter where production could not yet keep pace with demand. As the situation improved in Russia production started to catch up and the soviet choice was soviet tanks over lend lease tanks. Not because as many will say their superiority necessarily (although in many aspects they were better tanks) but because of how it simplified supply, and as anyone who has studied armoured warfare will tell you, armoured operations are a battle of logistics as much as armour. Each tank requires dozens of people behind teh lines just to keep its tank full of fuel and its ammo bins full of shells. This is far easier when you have one type of MG ammo to worry about and one set of shells
Going back to this mythical possible picture though; you don't have to look for a funny mantlet, it would be immediately apparent due to the fact the churchill was internal mantlet and the T34/ KV1/ JS series were external mantlet. It would stand out a mile
I'm sorry but I am 100% certain on this: it did not happen, the picture you are looking for does not exist. Sorry
The churchill of course, like all british tanks at that point, was in internal mantlet tank
There are length implications with remounting it inside a turret in an internal mantlet: ie it wouldn't fit by about 18 inches.
I have seen a LOT of pictures of soviet Churchills. and none had an external mantlet. not one.
there are plenty of pictures out there if you look for them, but the soviets only received around 260 and only really used them for around 18 months. They did remain in service longer than that with some units, but not many as it was superceded in Russian use by the JS series and more KVs as they became available. This is the reason pictures are not so plentiful as the others, because statistically speaking there just weren't that many about in comparison to russian tanks
It's design, a slow moving breakthrough tank designed to support infantry operations against fixed points of resistance to create a gap for exploitation by faster tanks, did not suit Soviet tank doctrine, so it didn't get as much use
You have to remember it was used at a time when Soviet tank production had been severely disrupted by the German advance and thereafter where production could not yet keep pace with demand. As the situation improved in Russia production started to catch up and the soviet choice was soviet tanks over lend lease tanks. Not because as many will say their superiority necessarily (although in many aspects they were better tanks) but because of how it simplified supply, and as anyone who has studied armoured warfare will tell you, armoured operations are a battle of logistics as much as armour. Each tank requires dozens of people behind teh lines just to keep its tank full of fuel and its ammo bins full of shells. This is far easier when you have one type of MG ammo to worry about and one set of shells
Going back to this mythical possible picture though; you don't have to look for a funny mantlet, it would be immediately apparent due to the fact the churchill was internal mantlet and the T34/ KV1/ JS series were external mantlet. It would stand out a mile
I'm sorry but I am 100% certain on this: it did not happen, the picture you are looking for does not exist. Sorry
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 - 05:58 AM UTC
All accounts I have seen on Soviet use of lend-lease vehicles stated that they fully intended to give the equipment back to the lender IN PRISTINE CONDITION when the war was over, almost as if it had never been used 
. I have repeatedly heard this in regards to the US M4A2 and M4A2E8 tanks and P-39 aircraft. Not sure if that would extend to ALL lend-lease.
My question about the Churchill is not to prove that it WAS modified, but could it even have BEEN modified. Your explanation about the gun mantlet makes me think NO. Modification would probably been more annoying that just setting up the logistic train for the Churchill's.
However, along the lines of the NA75, could the M1A1 76mm gun have been adapted to the Churchill? I suppose if the Soviets had WANTED to (not that they did) they could have done the same thing as with the NA75 and seriously modified the turret to accept the Soviet 76.2mm gun. Remove the radio if necessary... Just not sure if it would all fit size-wise inside the turret, with recoil and the need for room to load ammo as well.
. I have repeatedly heard this in regards to the US M4A2 and M4A2E8 tanks and P-39 aircraft. Not sure if that would extend to ALL lend-lease.My question about the Churchill is not to prove that it WAS modified, but could it even have BEEN modified. Your explanation about the gun mantlet makes me think NO. Modification would probably been more annoying that just setting up the logistic train for the Churchill's.
However, along the lines of the NA75, could the M1A1 76mm gun have been adapted to the Churchill? I suppose if the Soviets had WANTED to (not that they did) they could have done the same thing as with the NA75 and seriously modified the turret to accept the Soviet 76.2mm gun. Remove the radio if necessary... Just not sure if it would all fit size-wise inside the turret, with recoil and the need for room to load ammo as well.
ChrisDM
Joined: January 01, 2010
KitMaker: 717 posts
Armorama: 697 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 - 02:21 PM UTC
Hi Jacques,
no they couldn't. The eternal problem when upgunning the Churchill was not really modification of the turret, but the size of the turret ring, which was 54.25 inches. This was restricted by the realive narrowness of the hull and deck in comparison to other tanks
the Sherman turret ring was 69" which allowed for consirably larger guns provided you could adapt the turret, as indeed the Americans and British did to house the radio on teh 76mm and firefly
no they couldn't. The eternal problem when upgunning the Churchill was not really modification of the turret, but the size of the turret ring, which was 54.25 inches. This was restricted by the realive narrowness of the hull and deck in comparison to other tanks
the Sherman turret ring was 69" which allowed for consirably larger guns provided you could adapt the turret, as indeed the Americans and British did to house the radio on teh 76mm and firefly
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - 03:56 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The eternal problem when upgunning the Churchill was not really modification of the turret, but the size of the turret ring, which was 54.25 inches. This was restricted by the realive narrowness of the hull and deck in comparison to other tanks
So there is the answer. I seriously doubt, with 99.99% certainty, that the Russians rearmed the Churchill. There just is NO room to put a bigger gun in without making it a bigger turret. And adding a new turret would not work because of the hull limitations. Thanks for the info Chris.
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - 04:24 AM UTC
And if anyone was thinking about Soviet returreting Churchill hulls, the Churchill turret ring as stated by Chris was 54.25 inches (1378mm) and the T-34/76 turret ring was 55.90 inches (1420mm). So that is a no go as well. 
Jabberwocky
Joined: March 27, 2012
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 6 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - 03:07 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi Jacques,
no they couldn't. The eternal problem when upgunning the Churchill was not really modification of the turret, but the size of the turret ring, which was 54.25 inches. This was restricted by the realive narrowness of the hull and deck in comparison to other tanks
I'll have to disagree on this point. The size of the turret ring in this case (Soviet f-34 76mm gun in a Churchill turret) is not relevant. If you will read the excellent and contemporary article found on Track 48 titled NA 75 Churchill, you will see that several of your arguments against this possibility were also questions that had to be and were answered in the NA 75 project. External vs internal mantlet, same deal comparing Soviet F-34 (external)mount and US M34 (external) 75mm mount and Churchill (internal) mantlet. Ditto the relative sizes of the US 75mm and the Soviet 76 F-34 guns. Not very different with the exception of weight. the Soviet gun is approx. 100# (45kg) heavier than the US 75mm, and I'll concede that that could be a problem.
My point is that if (and they did) the US M3 75mm gun, external mantlet and all, was mounted in the Churchill IV turret during the war, in a field maintenance facility in North Africa without the benefit of advanced machine shop equipment, it could also have been done by the Soviets. I'll prefer to defend "Could have been done" rather than "never happened".
Chris, I did find a picture of a Churchill with what appears to be an external mantlet, but a smaller gun tube than I would have liked to see...may I send it to you via PM? Maybe you can tell me what I'm looking at.
Dan
the Sherman turret ring was 69" which allowed for consirably larger guns provided you could adapt the turret, as indeed the Americans and British did to house the radio on teh 76mm and firefly
ChrisDM
Joined: January 01, 2010
KitMaker: 717 posts
Armorama: 697 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - 04:10 PM UTC
Dan, the NA75 was a very specific variant produced in small numbers to meet a very specific need. It is also very very well known because of its unusualness
If a 76mm f-34 armed Churchill had existed, I firmly believe their would be some evidence to support it available to us by now
Its impossible to prove something doesn't exist but seriously, in years of studying churchills, all variants and all marks, used by various nations (including Canada, the Soviet Union, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, India and Iraq) I have never seen any evidence to support this
If you want to believe that lack of evidence that something did not exist is proof that it could have happened, go ahead
If you ever find that picture please do send it to me
Chris
If a 76mm f-34 armed Churchill had existed, I firmly believe their would be some evidence to support it available to us by now
Its impossible to prove something doesn't exist but seriously, in years of studying churchills, all variants and all marks, used by various nations (including Canada, the Soviet Union, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, India and Iraq) I have never seen any evidence to support this
If you want to believe that lack of evidence that something did not exist is proof that it could have happened, go ahead
If you ever find that picture please do send it to me
Chris
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 05, 2012 - 02:05 AM UTC
The point is not if, given unlimited resources and time could the churchill have been re-armed...I am sure it could have. The point is whether the Soviets would have done it and how extensive the re-arming would have been. I am all for keeping hope alive, but I wanted to acknowledge the "difficulties" in looking for such a beast.
1. The Soviets rarely, if ever, modified Lend-lease equipment. They did not like having to receive it and the intent, as spoken by many war vets who used the equipment, was to return it when the war was over, in pristine condition as if never used. Hard to do that with a modified turret that was re-gunned. They went so far as to keep the .50 cal AAMG's on the Shermans (M4A2 and M4A2E8) even though they could have re-armed with DShK's and then put them back on.
You might say, they would just write a re-armed vehicle off as battle loss when done. That wasn't the style of the Soviet system then, especially as you went higher up the military and political chains. They accepted Lend-Lease as a necessary evil, not a welcome resource (the leadership, not the soldiers).
As a caveat, if the Soviets bought something outright, or captured it in battle, then all bets were off. That just goes to show that they WOULD do a lot of mods and COULD do them in the field. But they had to have outright ownership of the vehicle.
2. Putting the F-34 gun system on the churchill turret would actually present more problems than you think as the entire assembly of the gun, mount, and trunnions is different. It COULD be done, but the engineering would be even harder than the conversion of the NA75, not only because of the interior/exterior mantlet mountings, but also because of the above points and also the center of gravity of the gun and the extra weight.
3. I added the bit about the T-34/76 turret because it occurred to me that it might have been re-gunned that way and then returned to original specs by re-applying the churchill turret later. That would not work.
4. Why? There is no good reason for them to re-arm the churchill. All the waste of resources (at a time of scarcity) to do the work so they can make a tank that is essentially a KV-1...
If they woudl have done anything, I would see the Soviets making a Churchill into a SU style vehicle with casement and 85-100mm gun (or even 122mm) before I see them re-gunning it to 76mm.
Keep looking and prove me wrong, if nothing else I love seeing one-offs and strange stuff, but it may not be out their to find...
1. The Soviets rarely, if ever, modified Lend-lease equipment. They did not like having to receive it and the intent, as spoken by many war vets who used the equipment, was to return it when the war was over, in pristine condition as if never used. Hard to do that with a modified turret that was re-gunned. They went so far as to keep the .50 cal AAMG's on the Shermans (M4A2 and M4A2E8) even though they could have re-armed with DShK's and then put them back on.
You might say, they would just write a re-armed vehicle off as battle loss when done. That wasn't the style of the Soviet system then, especially as you went higher up the military and political chains. They accepted Lend-Lease as a necessary evil, not a welcome resource (the leadership, not the soldiers).
As a caveat, if the Soviets bought something outright, or captured it in battle, then all bets were off. That just goes to show that they WOULD do a lot of mods and COULD do them in the field. But they had to have outright ownership of the vehicle.
2. Putting the F-34 gun system on the churchill turret would actually present more problems than you think as the entire assembly of the gun, mount, and trunnions is different. It COULD be done, but the engineering would be even harder than the conversion of the NA75, not only because of the interior/exterior mantlet mountings, but also because of the above points and also the center of gravity of the gun and the extra weight.
3. I added the bit about the T-34/76 turret because it occurred to me that it might have been re-gunned that way and then returned to original specs by re-applying the churchill turret later. That would not work.
4. Why? There is no good reason for them to re-arm the churchill. All the waste of resources (at a time of scarcity) to do the work so they can make a tank that is essentially a KV-1...
If they woudl have done anything, I would see the Soviets making a Churchill into a SU style vehicle with casement and 85-100mm gun (or even 122mm) before I see them re-gunning it to 76mm.
Keep looking and prove me wrong, if nothing else I love seeing one-offs and strange stuff, but it may not be out their to find...
arpikaszabo
Joined: February 13, 2006
KitMaker: 674 posts
Armorama: 637 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 05, 2012 - 02:34 AM UTC
Quoted Text
You might say, they would just write a re-armed vehicle off as battle loss when done
The Soviets kept many operational vehicles to themselves. I saw photos of operational Sherman hulls (minus turret, dont remember the model) used as engineering equipment, maybe civilian, I think into the 60s. They might have kept a few Churchills, too.
AlanL
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 05, 2012 - 03:08 AM UTC
Hi folks,
I've been following the thread and the question that seems missing is why would the Soviets bother? Apart from the whole fit issue I cannot see them diverting resources to upgun the Churchill with all the inherrant problems when they were producing a much superior tank in the T34 and KV 1.
The concept makes little sense to me. No evidence exsists that such a project was undertaken and their priorities would have been focused on fast mass production of proven armour.
As Chris points out the NA 75mm only came into being through need, the concept was specific to one theatre of war and very limited numbers.
Whilst one should never say never this is perhaps a fun project for those interested in What Ifs, so it's a non runner as far as I can see.
Cheers
Al
I've been following the thread and the question that seems missing is why would the Soviets bother? Apart from the whole fit issue I cannot see them diverting resources to upgun the Churchill with all the inherrant problems when they were producing a much superior tank in the T34 and KV 1.
The concept makes little sense to me. No evidence exsists that such a project was undertaken and their priorities would have been focused on fast mass production of proven armour.
As Chris points out the NA 75mm only came into being through need, the concept was specific to one theatre of war and very limited numbers.
Whilst one should never say never this is perhaps a fun project for those interested in What Ifs, so it's a non runner as far as I can see.
Cheers
Al
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 05, 2012 - 08:21 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextYou might say, they would just write a re-armed vehicle off as battle loss when done
The Soviets kept many operational vehicles to themselves. I saw photos of operational Sherman hulls (minus turret, dont remember the model) used as engineering equipment, maybe civilian, I think into the 60s. They might have kept a few Churchills, too.
Yes, for whatever reason, once the tanks were refurbished like new and prepared for shipment back to their respective countries, orders came down to take the turrets off for storage and the hulls to be used for farming use (which was done during the war as well). A good read to understand Soviet use of the Sherman in particular is Commanding the Red Army's Shermans.
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 05, 2012 - 08:23 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Apart from the whole fit issue I cannot see them diverting resources to upgun the Churchill with all the inherrant problems when they were producing a much superior tank in the T34 and KV 1.
Would a F-34 76mm armed Churchill be inferior to a KV-1? I figure they would be roughly similar...KV maybe a bit faster but lighter armored, Churchill slower but tougher to kill. All speculation though....
Jabberwocky
Joined: March 27, 2012
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 6 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 05, 2012 - 10:07 AM UTC
I'm surprised I didn't catch this earlier. The 6 pounder was a 57mm gun. Not 75mm.
The "reason" for the mythical Soviet F-34 gunned Churchill could very well have been the same as that for the NA 75. Larger gun, better ammunition available, especially for HE, which would be quite possibly more useful for a slower infantry tank.
As to whether the Soviets had the time to dio this, witness the series production of SU-76i, based on PzIII and a larger, more complicated and resource draining project than placing an existing gun in an existing turret. I'm done, you'll find me looking at Churchill pictures for a few years.
Dan
The "reason" for the mythical Soviet F-34 gunned Churchill could very well have been the same as that for the NA 75. Larger gun, better ammunition available, especially for HE, which would be quite possibly more useful for a slower infantry tank.
As to whether the Soviets had the time to dio this, witness the series production of SU-76i, based on PzIII and a larger, more complicated and resource draining project than placing an existing gun in an existing turret. I'm done, you'll find me looking at Churchill pictures for a few years.
Dan
ChrisDM
Joined: January 01, 2010
KitMaker: 717 posts
Armorama: 697 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 05, 2012 - 03:41 PM UTC
Dan, the OQF 6pdr (57mm) had better armour piercing performance than the US 75mm in trials. So much so in fact that in Normandy and beyond, Churchill units kept half their fighting troop strength as 6pdr for this role and thw other half as 75mm 'all rounders'. Enough 75mms were available by then and conversion of existing tanks was easy, but they preferred the 57mm for AP
Also it is worth noting that very few NA75s were made. They were used in a support role within troops and squadrons, not as main gun tanks. For this the units preferred the 6pdr. The NA75 was there to be called up to lay smoke, deal with an emplaced AT gun or blockhouse, or for rarer indirect fire 'shoots'
more mms does NOT always equal better performance
I saw something very interesting yesterday; soviet diagrams showing how and where to hit a panther with various types of ammunition and the effective ranges. AP performance, according to the diagram, of teh 76mm is better than the 6pdr but not massively so.
Bear in mind what makes a 75 or 76mm truly effective is not the few extra mm over a 57, its when you give it a longer barrel and bigger breech (to allow for larger charges and shells carrying more propellant)
This is demostrated by the 75mm KwK 42 l/70 of the Panther, with far outperformed the KwK 40 L/43 and L/48.
It is also proved very well by the 17pdr (76.2mm) with 55 calibres, which far outperformed the OQF 75mm, US 75mm and Russian 76mm guns.
In both cases it was because these longer guns had large breeches which could accomodate a long shell filled with propellant, and a long barrel, both of which contributed to a very high muzzle velocity. In an age of primarily kinetic solid shot AP, velocity is more important than the size of projectile, (although of course both are important)
I'm not sure the Russian 76mm would perform at such a better level that it would be worth the trouble to redesign the churchill turret to accomodate it
Another thing to remember about the NA75: it was designed for a theater where tank crews encountered less tanks and more AT guns. In Russia, tank on tank combat was more widespread
Also it is worth noting that very few NA75s were made. They were used in a support role within troops and squadrons, not as main gun tanks. For this the units preferred the 6pdr. The NA75 was there to be called up to lay smoke, deal with an emplaced AT gun or blockhouse, or for rarer indirect fire 'shoots'
more mms does NOT always equal better performance
I saw something very interesting yesterday; soviet diagrams showing how and where to hit a panther with various types of ammunition and the effective ranges. AP performance, according to the diagram, of teh 76mm is better than the 6pdr but not massively so.
Bear in mind what makes a 75 or 76mm truly effective is not the few extra mm over a 57, its when you give it a longer barrel and bigger breech (to allow for larger charges and shells carrying more propellant)
This is demostrated by the 75mm KwK 42 l/70 of the Panther, with far outperformed the KwK 40 L/43 and L/48.
It is also proved very well by the 17pdr (76.2mm) with 55 calibres, which far outperformed the OQF 75mm, US 75mm and Russian 76mm guns.
In both cases it was because these longer guns had large breeches which could accomodate a long shell filled with propellant, and a long barrel, both of which contributed to a very high muzzle velocity. In an age of primarily kinetic solid shot AP, velocity is more important than the size of projectile, (although of course both are important)
I'm not sure the Russian 76mm would perform at such a better level that it would be worth the trouble to redesign the churchill turret to accomodate it
Another thing to remember about the NA75: it was designed for a theater where tank crews encountered less tanks and more AT guns. In Russia, tank on tank combat was more widespread
Kylewaaagh
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 34 posts
Armorama: 32 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 05, 2012 - 05:45 PM UTC
In the Soviet Union, the absence of evidence was was, in itself, evidence.
Through this logic, it can be concluded that the Churchill was up-gunned.
Through this logic, it can be concluded that the Churchill was up-gunned.
EdCraft
Joined: December 27, 2010
KitMaker: 187 posts
Armorama: 186 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 05, 2012 - 07:32 PM UTC
Dear friends !
I see, You have made giant discussion about Churchill 76-mm upgunning, though there is no any basis for this discussion.
Yes, the Soviets COULD to upgun the Churchills. But they HAVE NOT DONE this ever.
During any War appears many ideas, models, suggestions and offers from different designers, engineers, other technicians and even from barely-studied amateurs. Some of those ideas are reached to prototype or experimental models and mock-ups stage. And only very few things from these selected ideas will be adopted as serial vehicles or weapons.
The same way we can to expect with Churchill upgunning. MAYBE, somebody THOUGHT about this possibility; and even maybe, the matter with upgunning came up to some outline drawings of new gun mount. BUT MAYBE NOT !
- Maybe, this unknown "designer" has not wanted to develop further his idea;
- maybe, after exact calculations and researches he has understood, that this idea is very difficult for realization, and it was cancelled;
- maybe, this idea was cancelled, because there was other task given to this "designer";
- maybe, he has not sources enough for this work;
- maybe, the bosses of this "designer" have not allowed him to work further...
And so on, and so on....
As result, we HAD NOT ANY upgunned Churchill at that time.
The single "modification", that was made by Russians with some Churchill tanks, was the welding of special grousers to Churchill tracks to prevent the sliding on ice and hard snow.
Thus, "76-mm Churchill" is "what-if" object only.
I see, You have made giant discussion about Churchill 76-mm upgunning, though there is no any basis for this discussion.
Yes, the Soviets COULD to upgun the Churchills. But they HAVE NOT DONE this ever.
During any War appears many ideas, models, suggestions and offers from different designers, engineers, other technicians and even from barely-studied amateurs. Some of those ideas are reached to prototype or experimental models and mock-ups stage. And only very few things from these selected ideas will be adopted as serial vehicles or weapons.
The same way we can to expect with Churchill upgunning. MAYBE, somebody THOUGHT about this possibility; and even maybe, the matter with upgunning came up to some outline drawings of new gun mount. BUT MAYBE NOT !
- Maybe, this unknown "designer" has not wanted to develop further his idea;
- maybe, after exact calculations and researches he has understood, that this idea is very difficult for realization, and it was cancelled;
- maybe, this idea was cancelled, because there was other task given to this "designer";
- maybe, he has not sources enough for this work;
- maybe, the bosses of this "designer" have not allowed him to work further...
And so on, and so on....
As result, we HAD NOT ANY upgunned Churchill at that time.
The single "modification", that was made by Russians with some Churchill tanks, was the welding of special grousers to Churchill tracks to prevent the sliding on ice and hard snow.
Thus, "76-mm Churchill" is "what-if" object only.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.