Churchill IV with L/50 Q.F. 6 pounder: APDS for British Heavys.

[Would you like to see this in-game?]
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

Basic History:

When the Churchill was first being developed the intent was always that the tank would be fitted with a high velocity 6-pounder cannon with a L/50 barrel, and it was only the delays in that guns introduction caused by the fall of france and the subsequent invasion scare that resulted in the Churchill Mk 1 and Mk 2 with their 2 pounder cannons. A subsequent issue with production capability would result in the first 6 pounder tank cannons being made to a reduced barrel length of L/43, and these would be the initial weapons for the welded turret of the Churchill MK III. Issues with the welded turrets would result in a new cast turret being designed and implemented as the Churchill Mk IV, and with this mark of tank would finally come the long barreled 6 pounder cannon that had been intended from the start.


This tank would not see combat in North Africa, being used in Italy and northwest Europe. While generally overshadowed by 75mm cannon armed Churchill’s (either the NA75’s that were developed in a desperation bid to get better HE shells out of their heavy tanks or the converted MK III’s, IV’s, and VI’s and VII’s) the Churchill’s with the long 6 pounder were ordered to be retained by General Montgomery at a ratio of one 6 pounder for every 3 75mm tanks. This was chiefly due to their superior penetration when compared to the 75mm tanks, and their ability to use APDS.


Purpose in game:

In game, the addition of the Churchill IV would do the following:

  1. Compel Gaijin to fix the penetration of the Churchill III and German Capture Churchill III. These tanks are modeled with the MK III 6 pounder cannon with the shorter barrel. The addition of a tank with the longer barrel would force a correction onto the earlier model to differentiate them.
  2. Provide the British with a heavy tank in this range with competitive penetration and armor. With the APDS rounds the Churchill IV would be able to reliably penetrate Tigers, KVs, and T-34’s from the front at combat ranges as well as Panther turrets.


  1. Provide a upgrade from the Churchill III that maintains its style of play. Going from the Churchill III to Churchill VII is a bit strange as you trade a pretty decent gun for one that is much worse, get a slower tank, but have mostly improved armor. Going from the Churchill III to IV would be a straight increase in penetration, same speed, and a straight increase in armor once the add-on armor is researched.

Churchill III did receive add on armor in real life, but this was a dedicated rework from the Churchill III to the Churchill III*, which involved replacing the short 6 pounder cannon with either a long 6 pounder or a QF 75mm, and as a result is not reflected in game. Churchill IV’s received 20mm add on armor plates to the sides of the tanks for a total of 83.5mm of armor thickness.


Most importantly, in Europe Churchill tanks universally received tracks applied to the front of the tank and front and turret sides. Add to this a thicker turret roof that removes a very frustrating weak spot against Russian shells and the Churchill IV makes a logical improvement in armor that leads into the Churchill VII better.


taken from the churchill III/IV instruction book are the following properties of the tank.

taken from the Valentine X handbook are the following values for the L/43 and L/50 6 pounder cannons.

The gun is statwise as it is on the current Churchill III, with the exception of the APDS. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a good chart that shows the ballistic performance at all ranges such as those that exist for the 17 pounder APDS and 2 pounder littlejohn. If anyone has one, I’d like that. in fact the only period source I have that attaches any value to the 6 pounder APDS is this picture here, from tank archives.

It lists the penetration at 1000 yards and 30 degrees as 118mm, and fortunately other rounds on the table have their penetrations line up well with what is already in game, so we at least have that point to go off of. Also, I will yoink this chart away from @Fireball_2020 (god knows where they got it) and say that this should give a pretty good idea of the rounds performance.


The final thing to note would be the armor of the tank, taken from ‘Mr. Churchills Tank: The British Infantry Tank Mk IV’ by David Fletcher, shown on page 91. See below, and make note of the 20mm applique armor applied to the sides of the tank.


I think that it would be really cool to have a Churchill that had penetration values that did not mean that it had to snipe weakpoints on T-34s. With the NA75 added to the game, most of the groundwork for the Mk IV has already been set. Let me know what you think below.


The chief source for this information is ‘Mr. Churchills Tank: The British Infantry Tank Mk IV’ by David Fletcher, with mentions of my other sources in the body of text when necessary.


Very interesting! +1

1 Like

So thanks to @Peasant_wb I now have access to the legitimate 6 pounder APDS curve.

While this may conflict with my previous information (the muzzle velocity is 200 ft/sec less) they also provided me with a addendum to that table that corrects the muzzle velocity, core weight, and penetration values to match this curve.

So there we go, all the info to add the 6 pounder APDS into the game.


Churchill IV is my all time favourite tank, so a big fat +1 to any suggestion for it. Just hope Gaijin wouldn’t give it a ridiculous BR because of the APDS.

1 Like

I’ve been getting into the British tree a bit more, more Churchills would be great to see, especially with better guns.

1 Like

I believe you are incorrect here.

Both of the Churchill Mk IIIs fire their AP round at 891 m/s (roughly 2923 ft/s), APC round at 883 m/s (roughly 2897 ft/s) and the APCBC round at 847 m/s (roughly 2779 ft/s).

These muzzle velocities are 1 m/s (about 3 ft/s) below the muzzle velocity I’ve read when fired from the 6 pounder L/50, except for the APCBC round which actually surpasses the muzzle velocity I’ve read by a decent bit (2725 ft/s or 830 m/s, which is even what one of your sources states).

With all that said, stuff like the Cromwell I use the smaller, L/43 cannon, and have noticeably lower MVs for their AP rounds.

1 Like

Yup +1

1 Like

So my wording sucks here.

The visual model is of the short 6 pounder. The penetration values and muzzle velocities are of the long 6 pounder. The churchill III in game (the north africa/dieppe flavor) should have muzzle velocities reduced to match the short 6 pounder. The curret muzzle velocities should be used for the Churchill IV (except for the apcbc which just needs to be fixed)


Oh I understand now.

Yes, I do feel like this new Churchill would be interesting. It would also likely being the current Churchill Mk IIIs to a lower BR due to them having worse weaponry.

This, I reported the issue years ago. Still hasn’t been fixed. To throw in my hat and describe the issue as simply as possible:

  • Churchill Mk. III that’s in-game has been modelled with a 6-Pdr Mk. III, when I say modelled I mean the actual tank model.
  • Churchill Mk. III stats and in-game performance is that of the 6-Pdr Mk. V, so the stat card and ammunition have the performance of the 6-Pdr Mk. V.

Which means Gaijin have either given the vehicle the wrong stats or wrong gun.

Though in saying that, Mk. III’s also got the longer 6-Pdr Mk. V as well. So this doesn’t necessarily have to be a Mk. IV.

In my humble opinion: this is a bad idea. The British Churchill MK.III is already overtiered and should go down to 3.7, not go up (which it will if it gets access to APDS).

The heavy tanks should be positioned in the tech tree in such a way as to emphasize their unique characteristic (the armor). By moving it up BR the player now has less opportunities to avail of its unique feature. The tank becomes more generic, and if I wanted to play with a genetic WW2 tank, I would’ve chosen a Sherman (no offence :).

In truth this is the case where adding something actually reduces the overall whole, not enhances it. I understand your enthusiasm after finding the penetration figures for 6pdr APDS shell and wishing to try it in the game, but, again, IMHO this a bad idea.

The suggestion is not asking the Churchill Mk.III to get APDS. It’s actually saying that the Churchill Mk.III has the wrong cannon (as visually it uses the shorter 6 pounder cannon) and should have lower velocities and penetration, while the Churchill Mk.IV could be added with this improved 6 pounder and potentially APDS rounds.

Consequently if anything the Mk.III would go down in BR.


I see, my bad. :D

1 Like

if I recall correctly all Churchill III’s that got the long 6 pounder also got 30mm applique on the turret fronts, as well as the 20mm side plates and 20mm turret side armor. That tank would functionally be the same as what I propose.

What FlipAllTheTables said, with the additional statement that the MK IV that I am proposing would have the 20mm extra side armor, as well as additional track armor to improve it over the Churchill III in game. Turret roof is also thick enough to keep out absurd russian bias shells

Now that I did not know, and make the IV significantly more interesting.

what, the 20mm sides, or the tracks, or the thick roof?

Yeah, I had skimmed over that part of the suggestion.

Not all of them, there’s a few distinct eras of Churchill III. It gets quite complicated.

  • Early Churchill Mk. III (L/43) basically the exact same hull as the Churchill Mk. II with the old style side air intakes.
  • Mid Churchill Mk. III (L/43) basically the one we see in-game. With the new style of side air intakes plus a whole load of reliability improvements
  • Churchill Mk. IIIR (L/43) early Churchill Mk. III’s improved to the above standard
  • Mid Churchill Mk. III (L/50), effectively any of the 2 above but with the improved 6-Pdr Mk. V
  • Mid Churchill Mk. III AVRE as above but with the spigot mortar
  • Late Churchill Mk. III (L/50) with the add-on applique armour
  • Late Churchill Mk. III AVRE with the add-on applique armour
  • Churchill Mk. III* with the add-on applique armour and QF 75mm

Do you have a good way of identifying mk3 and mk5 6pdr? All I know is that apart from being marginally longer the mk5 use a bigger counterweight, which also made me wonder if the cromwell mk1 is modelled with the correct gun stats

1 Like