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

These are early and mid/reworked Churchill’s with 6-Pdr Mk. III

IMG_3618
IMG_3619

Here’s mid and late Churchill’s with 6-Pdr Mk. V

IMG_3620
IMG_3622
IMG_3621

Here’s Cromwell with both versions of 6-Pdr

IMG_3623
IMG_3624

There’s about 6 different types of 6-Pdr Mk. V counter weights.

3 Likes


image
Churchill mk3 Late I believe

Plus for some reason the 6 pounder APDS has been in the files since like February of this year

  • 57 mm Q.F. Mk. V : Shot Mk.1BT APDS (Unused) :
    • Added Sabot Mass = 0.693996 kg
    • Sabot Caliber : 27.94 → 36.83 mm
    • Bullet Type : APDS → APDS Early
    • New Breaking Armor Thickness Effective parameter = True
    • New Breaking Armor Thickness parameter = [30, 150]
    • New Breaking Critical Speed parameter = 1160 m/s
    • New Breaking Distance parameter = 0.1 m
    • Now use DeMarre Equation
    • Penetration : 177 mm at 10 m → 185 mm at 0 m

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/11dhl2w/datamine_dev_server_223144_224020_part_5/

5 Likes

Another one I would like to see is the Churchill IX, basically the IV but with VII armor

I will again speak without my references, but if i recall correctly david fletcher (who wrote the book on the things) has doubts that they ever existed. At a minimum none have been photographed to my knowledge

Dont give me hope.

Some were definitively built. Purely a prototype basis with no weapons. I’ve seen archive photos shared by Ed Francis.

They were never fielded though.

As I understand it, Churchill IX was just another way to refer to the Churchill IV with an L/50 6pdr and applique armor.

That really isnt the case. The intent of the churchill IX, X, and XI was to rework churchill III, IV, and V (6 pounder armed tanks to IX, 75mm to X, and Churchill V to XI) to have the same armor as the Churchill VII. This required replacing the suspension ( to take the weight) and transmisson (to haul the weight) with those on the churchill VII. The turrets would be replaced with churchill VII turrets, and the hull armor thickened. This was to start at the end of 1944

I have no idea how they intended to increase the hull armor, as the reason the churchill VII was able to increase its armor was because they had removed the riveted onto frame construction and were able to put those weight savings into the armor. Unless they tore down the reworked churchills and replaced all of their plates I dont see how they could just add on armor without becoming grossly overweight. Further, parts of the churchill III-V front armor is actually thicker than the churchill VII (overlap of 2 3.5 inch plates) so that would be wierd to work around. I think I’ve read that they would just tear out the entire front plate and weld in one from a churchill VII.

At any rate, this is a far deeper modernization than just adding 20mm plates to the side of a Churchill IV, a addition that far predates the start of the IX-XI rework program.

4 Likes

image0-4

Like this?
(This was on the old churchill mk3 late suggestion)

3 Likes

I think thats accurate, yeah.

With the added note that the churchill IV through VI LT would probably not have applique armore added. For whatever reason they did not make cast applique armor for those tanks, so only the flat faced churchill III would get applique armor on the turret.

Found Ed Francis’s archive photo. This is a Mk. IX LT. It was definitely prototyped, but never fully produced.

3 Likes

As someone who has a black prince, no. This would get dropped with it and both are way too slow to even make use of APDS(which is also very inaccurate requiring it to get even closer) even with now being in slightly better BR. And often if you get into ideal range you die due to your barrel being destroyed because of how low HP it has tho thats more of a black prince issue.
If anything it needs a BR nerf due to needing half a match to get to the front and thats if you spawn at start xD

I don’t see an APDS 6-Pdr Churchill being higher than 4.3 or 4.7 at the highest. Something like this:

Churchill Mk. III is a mess and needs to be split into 2 vehicles. The vehicle model is armed with a 6-Pdr Mk. III but the in-game performance is that of the 6-Pdr Mk. V. It’d also be nice if they added a “Late” version. So it should look something like this:

3.7:

  • Churchill Mk. III (L/43): Add M86 APHE, would have worse performance than the US version due to less shell velocity thanks to the shorter barrel.

4.0:

  • Churchill Mk. III (L/50): Add M86 APHE, same performance as the US version, and APCR Shot Mk. I.

4.3 (new vehicle):

  • Churchill Mk. III Late: Has the turret and hull applique armour. Add M86 APHE, APCR Shot Mk. I, and APDS Shot Mk. I.
6 Likes

+1 for the Churchill IV with the 6pdr L/50. The combination of armour and rapid firepower would be very competitive at its BR range.

The incorrect penetration values on other vehicles carrying the 6pdr L/43 could hopefully be resolved at the same time.

+1 for sure

+1 for sure, for 4.7 also with side applique and add-on tracks

No. Anyone who has the horribly over BRed APDS churchill(black prince) can tell you how bad that already is at anything but brawling due to gun dispersion with APDS(i.e. it can miss a stationary tiger 2’s broad side past 400m) and well being a churchill.
IF you think thats some god round just get a black prince in test drive and you will see that its not anything worth talking about and even the regular shells are better at BRs that other churchills are at. That and if they did add APDS they would have to up BR it to 6.0 like the already too high black prince.

Or instead of nerfing a premium tank, just fix the visual model to the longer barrle. As germany also captured those.

huh, I never had those dispersion issues. Don’t think that they would have to BR it to 6.0, challenger has APDS at 5.3 and Comet has APDS at 5.0, so a tank with weaker APDS in the 4-5 range seems fine.

1 Like

Don’t think there is any photographic evidence of that.
besides, premium tanks get nerfed all the time with BR changes. VIDAR and TURM III for example. reducing the penetration, but dropping the BR to compensate seems fine to me.