| The "Churchill" Heavy Tank in the USSR |
|---|
 MAIN MENU SOVIET AFVs LEND-LEASE AFVs  |
| The "Churchill" Heavy Tank in the USSR |
|---|
|
MAIN MENU SOVIET AFVs LEND-LEASE AFVs |
The heavy infantry tank Mk.IV "Churchill" is known on a phrase ostensibly told English prime-minister: "this tank carrying my name has more drawbacks than me". Yes, it had obsolete design: to increase room for the tank crew, the designers of the "Vorksholl Motors" corporation have mounted some elements of transmission under the hull so the track was bent around it, as a tanks of the World War One. The tank had a 12-cylinder petrol engine of 350 h.p. that provided it with 27 km/h speed. First models (Churchill I and Churchill II) were armed with 40 mm gun - too weak for a heavy tank. Further tanks were armed with either 76 mm gun or 57 mm gun. The tank had 152 mm frontal armor. Tank's transmission was quite reliable, however tank had two major disadvantages: first, the tracks were too vulnerable from shells and shell's fragments because they were too high. And second - the track often jammed the tank's turret. However, 5400 vehicles (all models) have been built and in British Army this tank served to 1952. Soviet Union received 301 of both Churchill III and Churchill IV. This two models had the minimal changes - some changes in turret design. Probably, USSR had receive some flamethrower Churchills IV (one of those tank showing in Kubinka museum). Interesting fact - during the Kursk battle, the 5th Guard Tank Army had 35 Churchills. They were the unique heavy tanks of this army. |
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Crew, men | 5 |
| Weight, kg | 39 574 |
| Armor, mm | 19-152 |
| Armament | 1 x 6 pdr 2 x 7.92 mm "Besa" TMG 1 x .303 (7.71 mm) "Bren" AAMG |
| Ammo | 6 pdr: 84 rounds 7.92 mm: 4950 rounds 7.71 mm: 600 rounds |
| Engine | Bedford "Twin-Six", 12-cylinder petrol, 350 h.p. |
| Range, km | 144 |
| Max. speed, km/h | 27 |
* I received several antagonistic letters from persons who're disagree with this "liberate" term. They claim Vyborg was Finnish and was captured by Soviet troops in 1944. However these gentlemen forget the fact Vyborg was found in 12th century by the Novgorod's settlers (i.e. by the Russians). In 1293 it was captured by the Swedes. In 1710 it was taken back (or liberated) by the tsar Peter the First and till 1918 it was Russian, therefore over 200 years it was Russian. I want to note that all this time (800 years) the Finland din't exist as independent country and thus couldn't possess it. The Finns possessed it fewer 50 years (1918-1944) and now all claims like "This is our city" seem to me incorrect. The fact many citizens in Vyborg are Finss means nothing since a city is rather belong to a country, not a nation. For example, there are many Jewish living in Moscow, but this doesn't mean Moscow belongs to Israel.
Anyway, please, don't send me letters with your opinions because I know your point of view but disagree. I won't reply on your letters. Since the Russian Military Zone is my website, I will post there my thoughts and opinions. I didn't mean to offend anybody, however I think I have a right to use it. If you disagree you have a right to start your website and write there whatever you like. Finally, all our debates would be useless since they will change nothing but will raise additional hostility between the Finns and the Russians.
Sources:
|
