Churchill -1 reply

Please wait...

Sputty

Master of Kittens

50 XP

13th January 2004

0 Uploads

927 Posts

0 Threads

#1 15 years ago

Anyone else feel the Churchill is too weakly armored? I thought it was a big, heavy tank that could withstand just about any shot well. Anlushanc may need to tell me if I'm htinking correctly or not though




Hobnail

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

3rd November 2003

0 Uploads

9 Posts

0 Threads

#2 15 years ago

Too weakly armoured against what?

It was renowned for being underpowered and undergunned, contempory tanks were being fitted with sloped glacis plates and turret fronts whilst the Churchill looked like a shoebox with a turret on top.




Mazz

BFE-WAW

50 XP

16th November 2003

0 Uploads

1,245 Posts

0 Threads

#3 15 years ago

i do know its WAY to small.




FryaDuck

All my base are belong to n0e

50 XP

30th September 2003

0 Uploads

515 Posts

0 Threads

#4 15 years ago

The Churchill is 3/4 of the size it should be and should be bigger than the trucks.




ArminAce

I follow teh Moo!

50 XP

21st December 2002

0 Uploads

678 Posts

0 Threads

#5 15 years ago

hehe compare photos and screenshots ... it has the right size ... bf has a bad "view sight" for soldiers




FryaDuck

All my base are belong to n0e

50 XP

30th September 2003

0 Uploads

515 Posts

0 Threads

#6 15 years ago

I don't need to compare photos and screenshots.

I have 1/35th scale models (Tamiya, Dragon, Academy, ICM etc) of all the tanks in FH (although I am missing some Polish) I don't need to look at a pic. I can pick up a Tiger and put it next to the Churchill, ok, and the results are;

The Churchill is longer than the Tiger but only 6/8 its width and 7/8th its height roughly.




Kingrudolf

Fan FH Mapper

50 XP

9th October 2003

0 Uploads

1,345 Posts

0 Threads

#7 15 years ago

Yeah I also thought the Churchill was way bigger. I also find that the Churchill has weak armour, could use a bit of improvement. But seriously, it's gun is WAY too weak.. one time me and another player encountered a Stug II or III, not sure, in our Churchills and we both shot tons of rounds into the Stug, but he wouldn't even cough out some smoke. He just wasted us horribly one by one, we really got pwned. I mean c'mon..




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#8 15 years ago

Don't know how thick the armor was on the Churchill, but I do know that without sloped armor, it's at a disadvantage, just speaking in terms of physics. Blah blah blah, T34's revolutionary design, blah blah blah, sloped armor means effect of more inches, blah blah blah, sloped armor = shots rebound... Come on guys, you know this speech. :)

Not sure on the size or power of the gun, though. Also bear in mind that tank damage has been reduced and/or tank armor has been upped across the board to prevent one-shot tank battles (unless you hit 'em dead-on on the side or rear).

Oh, one thing. I LOVE the way the turrets pop off on some of the explosion animations. Very cool. Now if only we could do one where the ammo cooks off and fries the infantry surrounding the tank, and/or the top hatch blows off in a gout of flame. :)




ArminAce

I follow teh Moo!

50 XP

21st December 2002

0 Uploads

678 Posts

0 Threads

#9 15 years ago

there where a lot of different churchuill versions ... the one in FH has only a 6 pounder .... thgis is a WEAK gun ..... especially at longer distances.....either you go closer to your enemys or go and grab a better tank if you want to deal more damage to the enemys




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#10 15 years ago

The Churchill has good armor and was as heavily armored as the Sherman Jumbo but you also have to remember the German A/T guns were excellent. The Churchill VII had up to 152mm thick armor on the hull front and 102mm on turret face. This is not enough when faced with Panthers and Tigers or PAK 40, PAK 43, PAK 44, and FLAK 37.

For assaulting bunkers and machine gun nests the Churchill was excellent, but against tanks it was slow and poorly armed.

Its main claim to fame was its ability to climb hills that no other tank could. In Tunisia in 1943 the Churchill was the only tank that could climb the hills to provide armor support to the infantry. In the hilly country of Korea in 1950 the Churchill was again the only tank that could climb many of the hills to provide support to the infantry fighting on top.

The Churchill was designed long so that it could navigate over the trenches anticipated in the next war with Germany. It was a Infantry tank that was supposed to replace the Matilda II.

The more common version of the Churchill carried the same 75mm gun as the Sherman so it would not have been much better against tanks than the 57mm was.