[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 580: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 636: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4511: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3257)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4511: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3257)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4511: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3257)
UK Tank Talk • CHURCHILL AT KURSK
Page 1 of 1

CHURCHILL AT KURSK

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:41 pm
by FUNKER
Here is a snap that suprised me :shock: but maybe not you :?:

http://www.panzer.punkt.pl/artykuly/kur ... rchill.jpg

A Churchill tank that was at the battle of Kursk. :shock:

I know tne British sent armour to the Soviets, but I understood they were not impressed with what they got :?:

Is there anybody building or got a 1/6 scale Churchill running?

Re: CHURCHILL AT KURSK

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:50 pm
by Colonel_Kramer
Look carefully at the man on the right, he has a knight's cross. Unless it has been added at some point in time I think you might find these are Germans. Also I think you might find that the track link over the left most man is that of a tiger.

So were did the Chruchhill come from then?

Re: CHURCHILL AT KURSK

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:59 pm
by rivetcounter
:idea: I have to agree with you colonel they are German and looking rather relaxed considering there tank has been knocked out but I have to disagree with the Tiger track link they are the normal Churchill tracks.

Re: CHURCHILL AT KURSK

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:25 pm
by FUNKER
I think it is a Churchill which has been knocked-out by the Germans and they, the Germans, have probably been set-up by the photographer.
Most of the best photos of T34s etc. are taken by Germans, but only after they have been knocked-out.
I would suggest that our resident Churchill fans would confirm that it is a Churchill? especially with that little pea-shooter for a gun.
To me the really interesting thing is that it was at Kursk.
Also that it was originally a soviet "owned" Churchill

Re: CHURCHILL AT KURSK

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:29 pm
by Bulldog
If you look really carefully you can see where the quiff and guitar has been airbrushed out, this is actually one of the earliest recorded sightings of Elvis, before he was famous.

Ps. Thats Lord Lucan to his right

Re: CHURCHILL AT KURSK

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:06 pm
by Trackpins
Funny, funny man. :D

You brighten my afternoons.

Many thanks.

Peter.

Re: CHURCHILL AT KURSK

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:43 pm
by Colonel_Kramer
I agree with the tracks on the Churchill but look carefully at the far left, I fell sure that is the link of a tiger.

Re: CHURCHILL AT KURSK

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:10 pm
by rivetcounter
:idea: There are a couple of links joined together so it must be the tank’s track run the Churchill tracks are similar in appearance to Tiger links but about half the width.

I doubt that the Churchill has been knocked out it is probably a captured tank and the picture may not be at Kursk it may not even be in Russia, It looks as though the Germans have gone to some trouble to hide the tank from view this was a practice widespread in Europe I have seen other photographs in books claiming Panzer III and IV to be Tigers and Panthers to be Tiger II.

When did the Churchill come into service? And does any one know what mark and when that mark was introduced.
:shock: :shock:

Re: CHURCHILL AT KURSK

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:34 pm
by kieren
its definately a churchill.

the main guns looks a bit big for a 2pndr, the turret looks like a mk3 but it may have been up-gunned to the 6pndr or 75mm which would mean its not called a mk3, but i cant recall what number they were given.

definately churchill track, between the links you can see a kinda V shape, classical. and they are a bit narrower than pz tracking.

*1 week or so from churchill and tiger1 into into http://www.wwiionline.com

ive been beta testing , and the churchill (75mm) can chew through the tigers side armour at sub 500m - woot.

Move importantly, my chuchill has 18 of its 22 running wheels, and i stated mounting the drive shafts / motors tonight.

with any luck i'll still hit deadline of jan 22nd.

Re: CHURCHILL AT KURSK

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:47 pm
by Dave T
There were indeed Churchills at Kursk. See: http://www.battlefield.ru/lendlease/churchill.html
and
http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html
The Russians Tankers were pretty scatthing about most of the British armour sent to them, but they liked the "Emchas" - M4s - Shermans. The artificial leather seat coverings were much prized to make footwear!
It would be good to see some Soviet lend -lease models.

Re: CHURCHILL AT KURSK

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:38 pm
by missyd
Dave T wrote: .... The Russians Tankers were pretty scatthing about most of the British armour sent to them, but they liked the "Emchas" - M4s - Shermans. The artificial leather seat coverings were much prized to make footwear! It would be good to see some Soviet lend -lease models.
Not shure the russkis liked the M4 ... riding in a Sherman in winter was like a daylong stay in a deep freezer. The draft created by the ventilator for aircooling the engine was terrible. :?

Re: CHURCHILL AT KURSK

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:49 pm
by Dave T
You are right Danielle, the RKKA did find lots of faults with the Shermans too as Loza describes, and the engine fans had a strange effect on his respiration! However, apart from the leatherette shoemaking materiaL, the Sherman was praised for its mobility on roads, and was favourably compared with T34s for survivability, which I find particularly surprising given the "Ronson" and "Tommy Cooker" reputation in the west. Loza theorises about Soviet main rounds packing a bigger punch but being more likely to explode in the event of a fire. The diesel powerplants must have been a major factor too. I also find it tthat the Soviets had half of their 4000 odd Shermans with 76mm guns - better than the standard 75 mm commonplace in the west.