Announcing the Churchill Mk.IV Tank, StuG III Ausf.G Mobile Assault Gun and IAR-80/81 Pre-Orders!

[moustache]

1 hour ago, Peasant said:

Early Churchill variants are not a good match against Tigers and Panthers. They are just about a fair match against late Pz.IVs and Stug IIIs upgraded with 80mm of frontal armour and long 75mm guns.

 

The 75mm L/48 german gun can reliably perforate 89mm/30° at up to 600m and at 0° up to 1300m.

 

The 6pdr L/50 gun firing plain AP is able to perforate 80mm of armour at 25° angle (not at 30°, because this shell just shatters under those conditions) up to 900m and at 0° up to 1100m. I dont think the more advanced APCBC shell was available for this tank in early/mid 1943 on soviet front, but it's close enough so that devs can add it anyway if they feel like Churchill struggles against german tanks.

Mmmh, hoping they want to get out of the kursk period, but I doubt it... well, in the end, it won't be a killer as some people were saying... a little disappointed...

[352ndOscar]

Problem I see HB is that it shows the 6 Pounder “L53” AP round.  The MkIV’s sent to Lend Lease Russia were either L43 or L50 and only a very few of the L50’s at that.  So, those rounds would be great for Infantry support against soft-skinned targets like troops and vehicles, buildings, and a side or rear shot PzIII’s and maybe PzIV’s; which is what they were intended for.  It’s going to be a lucky shot indeed at under 400m for either of these two to do anything other than annoy the crap out of a Tiger, plus, as slow as the Churchill is, the Tiger is going to blow a hole in it long before that happens.  I‘Ve read the Russia appraisal of the MkIV just like others have done.  To say they were less than impressed with any aspect of the Churchill is an understatement.  Yea, it had a lot of armor, but, it was constantly throwing tracks, leaked like a sieve, and it was extremely hard to service in the field.

 

Given Jason’s previous statements; those of you holding out for a 75mm 1944 Churchill are going to be disappointed.  This lend lease MkIV is for Kursk and Battle_of_Prokhorovka.

Edited August 16, 2022 by 352ndOscar

[JV44HeinzBar]

15 hours ago, moustache said:

it's nice, but a little weird: is there an error in the color legend? and even a more general error?

I find it hard to understand: for example, between 1.2km and 1.1km, on the flank, the shell penetrates, but between 1.1km and 700m, it will break, to penetrate again below 700m... ( I tried with other guns and tanks, and this configuration sometimes happens...)

 

S! Moustache,

I took the liberty of redoing the above pic targeting the hull of the PzVI. I unchecked "show projectile shattering". It basically shows where the round fails to penetrate now.

 

HB

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by JV44HeinzBar
keeps trying to merge responses

[352ndOscar]

First off, I’m not even going to consider anything marked “Assumed”.  

So, you got to get this slow-a$$ed tank within 500 yards to even make a dent in a Tiger I.  Good luck with that.  Meanwhile, I’m going to punch holes in you a 2000 yards.

[moustache]

17 hours ago, Eeafanas said:

http://wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74:6-pounder-anti-tank-gun&catid=40:anti-tank&Itemid=58

 

 

reading the link given by @Eeafanas, I came across this sentence which scares me a little:

"In July 1943 design of composite rigid ammunition was called for, the design for this was approved in October 1943. Discarding Sabot ammunition was called for in November 1943 and this was approved in January 1944."

does this concern APCR and APDS shells?

[Peasant]

2 hours ago, moustache said:

 

reading the link given by @Eeafanas, I came across this sentence which scares me a little:

"In July 1943 design of composite rigid ammunition was called for, the design for this was approved in October 1943. Discarding Sabot ammunition was called for in November 1943 and this was approved in January 1944."

does this concern APCR and APDS shells?

APDS stands for "Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot". 

 

[moustache]

16 minutes ago, Peasant said:

2 hours ago, moustache said:

 

reading the link given by @Eeafanas, I came across this sentence which scares me a little:

"In July 1943 design of composite rigid ammunition was called for, the design for this was approved in October 1943. Discarding Sabot ammunition was called for in November 1943 and this was approved in January 1944."

does this concern APCR and APDS shells?

APDS stands for "Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot". 

 

Mmmh, that's not really my question: when he talks about composite shells, what shell is he talking about? APDS and APCR, simple AP...? basically, can we hope to have them with the churchill during the kursk period, or do we have to resign ourselves to the idea of only shooting potatoes?

[Peasant]

48 minutes ago, moustache said:

Mmmh, that's not really my question: when he talks about composite shells, what shell is he talking about? APDS and APCR, simple AP...? basically, can we hope to have them with the churchill during the kursk period, or do we have to resign ourselves to the idea of only shooting potatoes?

 APCR stands for "AP composite rigid". It's the British therm equivalent to the American "HVAP" . 

Yes, potatoes only, unless we'll get a 1944 expansion pack. 

[moustache]

6 minutes ago, Peasant said:

58 minutes ago, moustache said:

Mmmh, that's not really my question: when he talks about composite shells, what shell is he talking about? APDS and APCR, simple AP...? basically, can we hope to have them with the churchill during the kursk period, or do we have to resign ourselves to the idea of only shooting potatoes?

 APCR stands for "AP composite rigid". It's the British therm equivalent to the American "HVAP" . 

Yes, potatoes only, unless we'll get a 1944 expansion pack. 

arf, sad... at worst, he will be nice against Pz IV...

[352ndOscar]

Enough debate…..

something positive, wake up music…….

 

 

[LachenKrieg]

On 8/16/2022 at 3:56 PM, 352ndOscar said:

Problem I see HB is that it shows the 6 Pounder “L53” AP round.  The MkIV’s sent to Lend Lease Russia were either L43 or L50 and only a very few of the L50’s at that.  So, those rounds would be great for Infantry support against soft-skinned targets like troops and vehicles, buildings, and a side or rear shot PzIII’s and maybe PzIV’s; which is what they were intended for.  It’s going to be a lucky shot indeed at under 400m for either of these two to do anything other than annoy the crap out of a Tiger, plus, as slow as the Churchill is, the Tiger is going to blow a hole in it long before that happens.  I‘Ve read the Russia appraisal of the MkIV just like others have done.  To say they were less than impressed with any aspect of the Churchill is an understatement.  Yea, it had a lot of armor, but, it was constantly throwing tracks, leaked like a sieve, and it was extremely hard to service in the field.

 

Given Jason’s previous statements; those of you holding out for a 75mm 1944 Churchill are going to be disappointed.  This lend lease MkIV is for Kursk and Battle_of_Prokhorovka.

Taken from the battle report provided by @Lofte

 

"Tanks MK-4 "Churchill" give a greater effect when operating from ambushes, which was shown by the battles on
11.7.43 in the area of the farm STALINSKY."

 

The word AMBUSH, even in an AFV, implies a sneak attack, and usually from the side/rear. Should make for some interesting game play especially when a team works together.

[LachenKrieg]

Great demonstration @Eeafanas.

 

The other advantage with tanks is that they have better mobility, and the ambush can be a little more dynamic. With AT weapons, the ambush is usually set up in a more stationary way using choke points and planned corridors of travel to pin the enemy down.

 

With tanks, its much easier to roll out of a tree line, or crank around the corner of a building at just the right moment.

[moustache]

good, the churchill? in 4 days max? no news...

[moustache]

hey, wasn't it supposed to come out at the end of the summer? because officially today is the last day of summer

[TIGRE88]

52 minutes ago, moustache said:

hey, wasn't it supposed to come out at the end of the summer? because officially today is the last day of summer

 

supposed to come out at the end of the summer  when they have free time....   ??

joking aside, I saw the announcement message from the beginning of the topic and it says this :

we plan to release them in 2022 just as soon as they are ready!

 

this means that the Churchill could well be available on the last day of 2022 in December.. another 3 months  to wait, maybe.. or not...

Edited September 23, 2022 by TIGRE88

[moustache]

59 minutes ago, TIGRE88 said:

joking aside, I saw the announcement message from the beginning of the topic and it says this :

we plan to release them in 2022 just as soon as they are ready!

ah damn, the last info I remember was the release at the end of summer... moreover, in the last devblogs, it seemed well advanced... maybe a devblog tonight?

[TIGRE88]

8 minutes ago, moustache said:

ah damn, the last info I remember was the release at the end of summer... moreover, in the last devblogs, it seemed well advanced... maybe a devblog tonight?

 

yes the Churchill seemed to be almost finished... but we'll see if it arrives soon...

what is sure is that its turret will not escape the bug... Tank Crew :  the only tank game in the world where a turret has its own life....??...........?.......

[ShampooX]

I was thinking the Stug would come first since most of the visual components and animations are already in the game.  Lots of cut and paste.   But I guess it'll be the Church.

[TIGRE88]

Churchill 

CHURCHE 

ILL ......     

 

the churche is ill ....  friday night prank... forget..... 

[Spinnetti]

Here's a fun new bug in addition to the crappy ballistics So if you speed up the time to 8x and shoot something, the explosion repeats over and over.....

[ghbucky]

Is the Churchill supposed to only have AP ammo? Or is this something that will be fixed?

[moustache]

18 minutes ago, ghbucky said:

Is the Churchill supposed to only have AP ammo? Or is this something that will be fixed?

only AP...

 

[ghbucky]

2 minutes ago, moustache said:

only AP...

 

I think this is a bug. There is an option to select AP ammo in the customizations, but right now that selection does nothing.

[moustache]

Just now, ghbucky said:

I think this is a bug. There is an option to select AP ammo in the customizations, but right now that selection does nothing.

nah, it's not a bug, historically, the russians had, at least at the time of kursk, only AP shells... the devs confirmed it in one of the discussions linked to churchll...

[ghbucky]

Why are we being restricted to only what was available at Kursk when we are using Churchills in Normandy?

 

SMH

 

[edit] We even have an official British skin.

Edited October 12, 2022 by ghbucky

[moustache]

5 minutes ago, ghbucky said:

Why are we being restricted to only what was available at Kursk when we are using Churchills in Normandy?

ask the developers... if they answer you...

[ickylevel]

The question is , which is the worst allied tank? This one or the su122? At least the su122 can pierce and has better mobility.

[No_Face]

On the one hand I want to buy Churchill, on the other hand I don't want to throw 21€ (yes, because for me, French, buying on the devs' website is more expensive than buying on Steam because of the dollars --> euros conversion) out the window since I play mainly in multiplayer and there's little chance to meet other tankers if we don't have a strong gesture from the devs proving they want to continue to make TC live and develop.
I know it may sound weird as a sentence since the Churchill has just been released and we'll have the Stug, but the patch note for example, let's be honest, doesn't concern TC, there are maybe 3 lines out of 66 and these few fixes seem so anecdotal. (Camouflage correction?)
 

Anyway, I'm a bit torn for the moment.

 

[Gibe]

Churchill!
So much waiting for a coffin slow of the tank tracks.
After testing with a friend, his only positive point are the smokes.
The Sherman still has a bright future ahead of it.
To stay polite...
Disappointed, disappointed and disappointed !

[migmadmarine]

On 10/12/2022 at 8:10 AM, ghbucky said:

Why are we being restricted to only what was available at Kursk when we are using Churchills in Normandy?

 

SMH

 

[edit] We even have an official British skin.

Because Prokorovka is the only tank based title in the franchise, and all of their stand alone collector vehicles are ones that appeared at or adjacent to battles covered by mainline packages. Since none of the other mainline packages are tank focused, Prokorovka is the one it is geared toward, and this is how they have geared their model since the departure of the original director. I agree, it would be nice to see it have options for other fronts, and maybe it will yet if another TC product is released, but this decision is in keeping with their practices so far. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

I've been enjoying it.

 

 

It's a different experience to be sure, but that's not a bad thing.  The smoke mortar is fun as well.

I think the dirt being expelled in front of the tracks is a bit excessive, but other than that I like it.

[johnwick4001]

Plenty of snobs in here who will instantly shout down any plea for any development which isn't precisely in perfect timing with historical accuracy.

Forget about those Tiger B , JS II, Firefly, etc variants...even though they have added on approx 60 Gigs in trees and landscape.

The situation is even worse with the flight sim part of the series, Heaven help anyone who asks for a variety in POV to visually appreciate a beautiful ground attack run or a well aimed burst of 30 mm along a enemy's fuselage...you can't do that!! Thats the "wonder woman" view... its cheating!!!

 

[moustache]

2 hours ago, johnwick4001 said:

Plenty of snobs in here who will instantly shout down any plea for any development which isn't precisely in perfect timing with historical accuracy.

Forget about those Tiger B , JS II, Firefly, etc variants...even though they have added on approx 60 Gigs in trees and landscape.

The situation is even worse with the flight sim part of the series, Heaven help anyone who asks for a variety in POV to visually appreciate a beautiful ground attack run or a well aimed burst of 30 mm along a enemy's fuselage...you can't do that!! Thats the "wonder woman" view... its cheating!!!

Uuuh, I didn't understand anything, sorry

[moustache]

okay @johnwick4001, but otherwise, apart from trolling, could you explain more clearly, like in slightly more correct English?

[Dogbert1953]

I would like to buy the Churchill, but if it only has Eastern Front markings and setup. Then i would have to pass, as i have no interest in the EF, tanks or aircraft. I do all my simming on the Western Front maps. Anyone know if there is going to be an update to include the Hobart Funnies ?

[moustache]

12 minutes ago, Dogbert1953 said:

I would like to buy the Churchill, but if it only has Eastern Front markings and setup. Then i would have to pass, as i have no interest in the EF, tanks or aircraft. I do all my simming on the Western Front maps. Anyone know if there is going to be an update to include the Hobart Funnies ?

there is a "bonus" skin of Canadian troops (or English, I don't know...)... for the moment, no news of a future for TC... the "special" tanks seem to me little likely...

maybe more news in a few weeks...

 

[No_Face]

10 minutes ago, Eeafanas said:

As the saying goes : "A picture is worth a thousand words."

[Wardog5711]

I only posted the ones in the official media thread that had the better lighting. A lot of the first pics are too dark.

[moustache]

my God! @Eeafanas, where did you get this information from?!? how beautiful... they are different from the one posted by @Chien de garde5711... moreover we see a point of view of the loader, and an MG 34 placed on the ground... maybe we can get started on this post and use it?

on the other hand, I am a little afraid, I do not see the telescopic optics of the commander?

 

Ah, a question by the way, for all: you manage to get this type of light in the tanks in game? there's a big shot of Reshade, right?

Edited November 16, 2022 by moustache

[Wardog5711]

I have all of those pics. No point putting them up in the official media thread since they are already posted here. 

But going forward, if you folks want to see darker pics, I can upload them too.