Another GV Comparison...

[Nefarious]

Thats right, 2 Scenario's Down, 3 to go in the ROW5 Tournament.

Now, as it is I have a *Edited for Secrecy* force of Churchill Mk VII's.

I'm fighting a reasonable sized force of what I beleive consists of Two Tiger Tanks, and and least Four Panzer IV's and unknown number of Halftracks.

Ive confirmed two Panzer IV's killed from shots around 400m. When I saw the Tiger's I fired some smoke rounds and deployed my Armor to better Posistions. But  some of my Churchills have taken shots from these tanks, with no success, mulitiple ricochets.

I guess what I'm asking is, Was the Churchill VII that great of a tank, from Shots of what I think are from 88mm and 75mm guns?

Or am I in that great of a Posistion, Hull down, that they cant land successfull hits?

[Karnak]

Well, it had thick armor as I recall, but it was weakly armed.  It was slow, very slow on flat terrain, but it's gearing meant it actually climbed hills faster than a Sherman or Panzer IV.

[justin_g]

Churchill VII had thicker armour than the Tiger I iirc. Front 150mm/side 100mm I believe.

[Urchin]

Yea, the Churchill had some seriously think armor... and the 6-pdr is a better AP gun than the 75/76mm on the Shermans.  You probably still can't take a Tiger from the front, but if you can crawl one of the Churchill's around the side you have a pretty good shot at knocking it out.

[Karnak]

A Churchill might not be a bad base defense tank, or spawn point breaker, in AH.  It's slow, but it wouldn't be perked so you would have a very heavily armored tank to use that wasn't perked.

Ok, we need an M4A3 Sherman and a Churchill VII in AH.

[Aubrey]

There was Russian tank that was just huge  an A something or am I recalling wrong. I thought I saw some years ago an osprey book on it.