Churchill Tank

[lyric1]

Would be nice to have I forgot how ugly that tank is though.

[BigPlay]

I say bring this piece of junk on. My money is other than town teardown no one will use it much after feeding someone's scalp pole over and over again. It got descimated at Normandy against the Germans and it would have the same thing happen to it in here. But people want representation no matter if it will be used or not. How many B-25 c's do you see flying around. Not many. Why ? Because they are one of the easiest bombers to kill and rarely ever make it to their target. The Churchil's main gun (a hull gun) was not designed to kill tanks. The tank was designed to support infantry not duke it out with other tanks.

I would love to see it...... almost as I would love killing it.

[Cthulhu]

The Churchil's main gun (a hull gun) was not designed to kill tanks.

The hull gun was only on the early models. By the time they got to the Churchill III, the hull gun was history. And by the time the Mk VII appeared, with a turret mounted 75mm, the Churchill had been elevated from being truly abysmal to merely slow and crappy.

[SmokinLoon]

One of the tank additions to the AH realm that we do NOT need is a Churchill.  Far too slow and it offers nothing a T34 or Firefly cant already do.  I have a feeling the developers will only add a new gv if it fills a specific role and is otherwise missing from the game.  If anything, another T34 type vehicle such as the 40mph Cromwell could have a go at things. 

Find a role that isnt performed in the game and present it.  Otherwise...

I think it would be neat to be able to perform commando raids via jeep (drop off TnT instead of supplies/troops) or send in Russian Cossacks on horseback to the map room F T W!!!!   

EDIT: For some odd reason, I hit submit too early.  I forgot to add my true worth while idea (and odds are an already debated topic as well).  But, if AH is willing to add in another gv, a tank in particular, then I suggest the M18 Hellcat (50mph), M10 Wolverine (30mph), or even the Marder III (25mph).  All three of these tank destroyers would make the three tanks we currently have think twice about sitting still and picking off buildings or FLAK (or other tanks) and not worry about anything else out there.  I suggest the "gunner view" when not zoomed in the gun sight be from the open turret in position #3 (and still be zoom-able).  That would give the "tank destroyer" a little bit of an edge in finding the target.  Heck, maybe is not allow HE ammo to be used (or maybe 5 shells or so?)

#1: Driver
#2: Gunner sight
#3: Gunner open view (with zoom)
#4: AA MG if applicable 
 
Worthy idea, I'd say, ol' Boy!   

[E25280]

Interesting that you say the Churchill offers nothing a T-34 or Firefly can't do, then offer up a T-34 look-alike (in game terms, anyway) of the Cromwell and a Panzer look-alike (in game terms) in the M-10?

The Churchill would offer more in terms of game variety than either of these two.  It would be a slow, heavily armored, medium armed tank.

We have a fast, poorly armored, lightly armed vehicle (M-8)
We have a medium speed, poorly armored, lightly armed vehicle (LVT-4)
We have a medium-high speed, medium armored, medium armed vehicle (T-34)
We have a medium speed, medium armored, medium-high armed vehicle (PzkwIV(H))
We have a medium speed, medium armored, heavily armed vehicle (Firefly)
We have a medium speed, heavily armored, heavily armed vehicle (Tiger).

So, the Churchill is something we do not already have.

Your M-18 has merit because it would be fast, lightly armored but medium-high armed (something we do not have).
German/Russian TDs of any kind would have merit because we presently have no "turretless tanks."

I don't see a great need for an M-10 or a Cromwell.  Similarly, I see no reason for a tank like a Pershing, which in game terms would be just like the Tiger.  Any of these might be "cool to have", but given the very limited scope of the ground war, I would love to see more actual variety of capability rather than purely catering to a "cool factor."

My two cents, opinions may differ.

[BigPlay]

The hull gun was only on the early models. By the time they got to the Churchill III, the hull gun was history. And by the time the Mk VII appeared, with a turret mounted 75mm, the Churchill had been elevated from being truly abysmal to merely slow and crappy.

True, however the 75mm was still a low velocity gun usless for killing tanks at range.

[Cthulhu]

True, however the 75mm was still a low velocity gun usless for killing tanks at range.

Just pointed out the Mk VII because it was the first version which had a decent weapon mounted in the turret. The previous 6 pounder gun proved inadequate for destroying fortifications (the primary role of an infantry support tank). When you're lobbing HE, a bigger bore is everything. The Churchill was never intended to be a tank killer.

[NoBaddy]

Did someone mention "flamethrowers"????

[SmokinLoon]

Interesting that you say the Churchill offers nothing a T-34 or Firefly can't do, then offer up a T-34 look-alike (in game terms, anyway) of the Cromwell and a Panzer look-alike (in game terms) in the M-10?

The Churchill would offer more in terms of game variety than either of these two.  It would be a slow, heavily armored, medium armed tank.

We have a fast, poorly armored, lightly armed vehicle (M-8)
We have a medium speed, poorly armored, lightly armed vehicle (LVT-4)
We have a medium-high speed, medium armored, medium armed vehicle (T-34)
We have a medium speed, medium armored, medium-high armed vehicle (PzkwIV(H))
We have a medium speed, medium armored, heavily armed vehicle (Firefly)
We have a medium speed, heavily armored, heavily armed vehicle (Tiger).

So, the Churchill is something we do not already have.

Your M-18 has merit because it would be fast, lightly armored but medium-high armed (something we do not have).
German/Russian TDs of any kind would have merit because we presently have no "turretless tanks."

I don't see a great need for an M-10 or a Cromwell.  Similarly, I see no reason for a tank like a Pershing, which in game terms would be just like the Tiger.  Any of these might be "cool to have", but given the very limited scope of the ground war, I would love to see more actual variety of capability rather than purely catering to a "cool factor."

My two cents, opinions may differ.

I offered up the M10 only because it is a legit tank destroyer and can do little else, just like the M18 or Marder III.  The M10 (or the M18 or Marder III) is no where near as effective on buildings (lack or at most just a few HE rounds) or tough to destroy via the air as the Firefly, Tiger, and T34 are.     

I also advise against the turretless tank for reasons of being repetative.  A tank is a tank in AH, and haing the admin/developers devote time and resources to a turretless tank would be a waste, imo.  The open topped tank destroyers is really the only current void the gv aspect has (other than Russain Cossacks or British bicycle troops  ).

[BigPlay]

Just pointed out the Mk VII because it was the first version which had a decent weapon mounted in the turret. The previous 6 pounder gun proved inadequate for destroying fortifications (the primary role of an infantry support tank). When you're lobbing HE, a bigger bore is everything. The Churchill was never intended to be a tank killer.

exactly that's why I feel this thing would be a waste of time. No tank killing ability.

[SuperbKi11er]

exactly that's why I feel this thing would be a waste of time. No tank killing ability.

Tank killing isn't everything. M-8 lacks major tank killing capabillities, people still shoot at panzers with it.

[100goon]

y not britian does need a tank

[Cthulhu]

y not britian does need a tank

Because there's far better British armor to be had. This thing would get slaughtered.

[BigPlay]

Tank killing isn't everything. M-8 lacks major tank killing capabillities, people still shoot at panzers with it.

people still shoot at Tigers with m-16's . I say bring on the Churchill so all of these people who want it can die in it. Oh and since there is no representation for the Brits as far as dive bombers go please bring in the fairly Battle so they can die in that piece of junk as well. After all..... who cares about survivorability country representation is more important. Oh that's right, Polland isn't represented here either so we will need a Yugo as well, or was that CZ built who cares their all garbage !!!!!!!!!!!

[Cthulhu]

people still shoot at Tigers with m-16's . I say bring on the Churchill so all of these people who want it can die in it. Oh and since there is no representation for the Brits as far as dive bombers go please bring in the fairly Battle so they can die in that piece of junk as well. After all..... who cares about survivorability country representation is more important. Oh that's right, Polland isn't represented here either so we will need a Yugo as well, or was that CZ built who cares their all garbage !!!!!!!!!!!

I agree. I say we throw open the "Wouldn't it be cool?" flood gates. Here's a random list of really cool hardware we need now (in no particular order):

Brewster Buffalo (you had to see that coming)
Boulton Paul Defiant (another gimme)
Fiat CR. 32
Fairey Fulmar (to go with the equally lethal Battle)
Ju 86P (to keep the Ta 152's entertained)
M3 Lee
Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
Ba 349 Natter
Bell Airacuda (yeah pre-war I know, but I bet m00t could still kick my bellybutton in it.)
Bv 40
Any Japanese tank
Blackburn Roc
and on, ad nauseum......

Oh, and the Fairey Battle, you're dead on.... Junk.