Talk:Churchill tank

message: Given the naming convention of British tanks, Covenanter, Cromwell, Crusader etc and the early stage in the war when Churchills reputation was yet to be confirmed, is it not more likely that the tank was named for the 1st Duke of Marlborough, John Churchill?
:Most sources I've read indicate that it was named after the prime minister, likely as a morale thing.  Have you any sources that say otherwise? Oberiko 12:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are no sources to back the other in the article either, and I presume it is unlikely to name a tank a living person, let alone the leader of the country at the time. Nikevs 23:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What sources? I can't seem to find anything reliable. It's claimed on a lot of web pages, but that's probably just inference. I happen to agree that it's more likely the tank was named after the general, not the prime minister. But neither theory should be in the article without a reliable source. --Isaac R 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure I read something in one of Churchill's wartime memoirs, (either the second or the third) where he reprints the telegram he sent to the manufacturer thanking them for naming it after his illustrious ancestor. Also in Britain it's extremely unusual for things to named after any living person who isn't royalty. J.Rigger 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It was the Black Prince. It had a widened hull based on the Churchill but with a larger-diameter turret ring to accept a 17 pdr.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.24 (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 2.74 meter height of the Chruchill is described as a "low silhouette" in this article, a claim I have never heard before for the Churchill. The Sherman is normally considered a very high tank at 2.8 meters. DMorpheus 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the silhouette could be considered low relative to the vehicles overall length.  Incidentally, the Churchill was indeed named after Winston, partly as a morla booster, partly in recognition of his involvement with the invention of the tank back in WWI.  He was, after all, quite a famous man even before the first world war broke out... Getztashida 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: * MR. CHURCHILL'S TANK: THE BRITISH INFANTRY TANK MARK IV
* removed site
* removed site
::Actually despite what he may of thought, the tank was almost certainly named after this one: Winston Churchill (Cavalier).
::The clue is in English Civil War and in the other vehicles given names at around the same time. 
::At the same time US-built tanks obtained by the UK were given names from the American Civil War.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources to use

message: The section titled MK XIII appears to be an error. Description is very similar to Mk VII.  Was there actually a Mk XIII?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.75.175 (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MK XIII 

message: The Merritt-Brown regenerative gearbox was of such a good design that it was used in many tanks after WW II. The Germans also copied it and used it in the Tiger I and Tiger II.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.24 (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gearbox

message: Besides the 3-inch gun, are there any historical records of the Gun Carrier variant mounting guns like the QF 3.7-inch AA gun and Ordnance QF 32-pounder, or a 75 mm Vickers HV fitted to a Churchill tank? Wolcott (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If they were known, they'd have been in the article by now. Same principles as in my answer on Talk:Tortoise heavy assault tankGraemeLeggett (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate armaments 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Churchill tank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090201111336/http://remuseum.org.uk:80/articles/rem_article_assaultbridge.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/articles/rem_article_assaultbridge.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can anyone tell what mark of Churchill this is, on the left?  The right is a Mk IV with a counterweighted 6pdr.
The hull howitzer is there, suggesting it's a late survival of a Mk I.  But what's in the turret? Surely that's another 3" howitzer?  Is this an odd combination of a Mk IICS turret on a I hull? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks more like the 6 pdr with the muzzle ring to me. Keep in mind, the 57 could be bored out to fire 3" ammo, so the barrel isn't as distinctive as you think. I know the QF 75 was on the Church, but I don't recall any of them lacking the brake. I'll admit it looks too long though. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like a early rounded turret. This modelling article references a dual howitzer Churchill. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, that's what I thought it was, I just hadn't heard of it before. I'll have to look in Fletcher. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Crap, I was looking at the one on the right. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It could be a Churchill IICS with 2-pr in the hull and 3in howitzer in the turret.  See page 52 of Chamberlain and Ellis's "The Churchill Tank"  Lkchild (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably a 3" CS hull gun with a QF 75mm in the turret. The bore of the latter is far too large for a 2 pdr. OTOH the vehicle on the right appears to have a 6 pdr with a muzzle counter-weight.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CS identiification? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Churchill tank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100821012019/http://www.northirishhorse.net/articles/7.html to http://www.northirishhorse.net/articles/7.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426085917/http://northirishhorse.net/articles-2/Australia/2.html to http://northirishhorse.net/articles-2/Australia/2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141231032408/http://churchilltank.com/ to http://churchilltank.com/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.royaltankregiment.com/9th_RTR/appendices/Appx%2B5%2BThe%2BChurchill%2BTank.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I feel strange these two lines of the table
Churchill VII 1944 (together with Churchill VIII) 1,400
Churchill VIII 1944(together with Churchill VII) 200
I would expect 1945 in the second.
thanks 176.206.34.69 (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  please check