Jump to content


The top speed of British Churchill tanks.


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

Poll: Should British Churchills be faster. (43 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Should British Churchills be faster?

  1. Yes (26 votes [57.78%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 57.78%

  2. No (19 votes [42.22%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 42.22%

Vote Hide poll

Private_Pearts #1 Posted 22 April 2018 - 08:08 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22630 battles
  • 526
  • [WOPR] WOPR
  • Member since:
    02-24-2015

This isn't meant to be about gameplay vs historical accuracy. Well okay it is a bit, I am just trying to get a feeling for what other people think.

 

When I played through the British heavy line I couldn't understand why the Churchill's were only able to to 20kph at tier 5, 6 and 7, it was purgatory, especially at tier 7. Then I noticed that the Soviet Churchill is a good 8kph faster. Quite speedy by comparison. The I did a little digging and found that real Churchill's had a max speed of 15mph (24kph).

 

Linky:

http://www.tanks-enc...churchill-na-75

 

Okay this is Wiki but it is another linky:

https://en.wikipedia.../Churchill_tank

 

Perhaps WG took their information from this site:

http://ftr.wot-news....-or-a-good-one/

 

It wasn't a very well liked tank:

http://tankarchives....-churchill.html

 

Anyway it'd be nice if the tier 7 at least was as fast as the tier 5 Soviet version, maybe the Soviets changed the gearing or some such.

Anyway what do you think?


Edited by Private_Pearts, 22 April 2018 - 08:09 PM.


Balc0ra #2 Posted 22 April 2018 - 08:38 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 67348 battles
  • 17,064
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
IMO tier 5 and 6 in terms of speed is not the worst. Tho 4 km extra would not hurt. Tier 7 tho def needs it. 28 would be more like it for that one tbh. As it's worse off tier for tier vs the 5 & 6.

Edited by Balc0ra, 22 April 2018 - 08:39 PM.


Bexleyheath #3 Posted 22 April 2018 - 08:49 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5844 battles
  • 357
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    01-07-2018

AFAIK, the Churchills in WoT are both slower and are much worse at traversing terrain than the real deal. One of the things Churchills are famous for is their astounding ability to climb steep slopes and hills that no other tank could, allied or german.

 

My impression of the Churchills in WoT are that their primary function is to act as a "progress blocker" to discourage players from ever getting to the really good british tanks; The Conquerors and the Caernevron.

And it's no surprise that the Soviet lend-lease Churchill III is a much better tank than any of the british mainline ones, as WG tends to favour everything russian.



magkiln #4 Posted 23 April 2018 - 07:53 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24723 battles
  • 750
  • [EKKE] EKKE
  • Member since:
    09-21-2015

View PostBexleyheath, on 22 April 2018 - 08:49 PM, said:

AFAIK, the Churchills in WoT are both slower and are much worse at traversing terrain than the real deal. One of the things Churchills are famous for is their astounding ability to climb steep slopes and hills that no other tank could, allied or german.

 

My impression of the Churchills in WoT are that their primary function is to act as a "progress blocker" to discourage players from ever getting to the really good british tanks; The Conquerors and the Caernevron.

And it's no surprise that the Soviet lend-lease Churchill III is a much better tank than any of the british mainline ones, as WG tends to favour everything russian.

 

They're not much slower than in real life. They were designed to move at the infantry's walking pace, so speed was never a priority. Perhaps buff the Churchill I to 28 km/h and the Churchill 7 and BP to 24. But I agree that their terrain performance should be a lot better. They should be able to reach that (limited) top speed quickly and on any kind of terrain. Reducing the ground resistance would help a lot to make them perform well on soft/wet ground (Lakeview and Karelia maps).

Lord_Edge #5 Posted 23 April 2018 - 08:39 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5989 battles
  • 834
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016
IMO if WG are going to make the churchill as ungodly slow as it was in the name of historical accuracy, then they should also give it the ability to drive up any slope that isn't vertical like it could.

Bexleyheath #6 Posted 23 April 2018 - 09:33 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5844 battles
  • 357
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    01-07-2018

One thing that I've heard somewhere (think it was lindybeige) that I've never been able to corroborate, is that the Churchill wasnt so slow because it was underpowered compared to other contemporary tanks. As the tank was specified and designed to follow along infantry on foot, it didnt require speed. So, they used low gear ratios in the gearbox in order to maximise toque and give the tank the power to push itself up slopes and over obstacles. With a more normal gearbox, it would have been able to go 30-35kmh(18-22mph) although it wouldnt have been nearly as good at climbing.

 

Is this just something some youtuber dreamt up, or have anyone heard the same thing from a reputable source?



cracktrackflak #7 Posted 23 April 2018 - 10:24 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 15167 battles
  • 703
  • [ARRSE] ARRSE
  • Member since:
    11-05-2011
"Historical performance" is no excuse for the in-game performance, as every other tank in the game wildly exceeds its "historical" speed, as well as most other parameters. E.g. a T-54 or T-62 in game behaves like a sports car or go-kart; in real life they are fairly slow and clunky. You should see a typical soviet tank try to engage reverse gear and back up...

TheR3dBaron #8 Posted 23 April 2018 - 10:32 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 34677 battles
  • 3,015
  • [REMY] REMY
  • Member since:
    01-22-2013
Voted no because I have been through the pain and suffering myself and I'd hate to find out I could have avoided that :)

Cobra6 #9 Posted 23 April 2018 - 10:35 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16343 battles
  • 15,990
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

Either they need to be 50% faster *OR* need to get actual functional armor that can viably bounce guns it meets.

 

Cobra 6



Thornvalley #10 Posted 23 April 2018 - 10:55 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 35590 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    01-27-2015
Out of all the tanks I've played, BP is the worst one in the game. It needs to do around 30 kph to be somewhat useful.

FitGirl #11 Posted 23 April 2018 - 11:11 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 1 battle
  • 66
  • [WGNET] WGNET
  • Member since:
    02-25-2018

Strongly disagree

 

I do not want to have a quick one,  WoT will makes this things faster, with loss on HP / armor ... ? oO

 

 



NoobySkooby #12 Posted 23 April 2018 - 12:27 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 15019 battles
  • 3,692
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

View PostPrivate_Pearts, on 22 April 2018 - 08:08 PM, said:

This isn't meant to be about gameplay vs historical accuracy. Well okay it is a bit, I am just trying to get a feeling for what other people think.

 

When I played through the British heavy line I couldn't understand why the Churchill's were only able to to 20kph at tier 5, 6 and 7, it was purgatory, especially at tier 7. Then I noticed that the Soviet Churchill is a good 8kph faster. Quite speedy by comparison. The I did a little digging and found that real Churchill's had a max speed of 15mph (24kph).

 

Linky:

http://www.tanks-enc...churchill-na-75

 

Okay this is Wiki but it is another linky:

https://en.wikipedia.../Churchill_tank

 

Perhaps WG took their information from this site:

http://ftr.wot-news....-or-a-good-one/

 

It wasn't a very well liked tank:

http://tankarchives....-churchill.html

 

Anyway it'd be nice if the tier 7 at least was as fast as the tier 5 Soviet version, maybe the Soviets changed the gearing or some such.

Anyway what do you think?

 

I noticed exactly the same thing, compared to the Brit Churchill, the Russian one feels like a sports car.

NoobySkooby #13 Posted 23 April 2018 - 12:30 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 15019 battles
  • 3,692
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

View PostBexleyheath, on 23 April 2018 - 09:33 AM, said:

One thing that I've heard somewhere (think it was lindybeige) that I've never been able to corroborate, is that the Churchill wasnt so slow because it was underpowered compared to other contemporary tanks. As the tank was specified and designed to follow along infantry on foot, it didnt require speed. So, they used low gear ratios in the gearbox in order to maximise toque and give the tank the power to push itself up slopes and over obstacles. With a more normal gearbox, it would have been able to go 30-35kmh(18-22mph) although it wouldnt have been nearly as good at climbing.

 

Is this just something some youtuber dreamt up, or have anyone heard the same thing from a reputable source?

 

They had a decent reputation in Korea for climbing the hills, probably down to that gearing, i understand the Centurion too kept up the British pride in that war.

TungstenHitman #14 Posted 23 April 2018 - 12:34 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 24115 battles
  • 4,392
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016
No it should not. Regardless of mm pitting it as bottom tier most battles it is a heavily armored tank for it's tier and so the sacrifice for having better armor is a slower tank. You can't have it all your own way, if you want good armor with better mobility go for a better trade. Kv1 vs KV1s sort of thing. armor vs speed.

Edited by TungstenHitman, 23 April 2018 - 12:34 PM.


Thrael7 #15 Posted 23 April 2018 - 01:00 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 23496 battles
  • 2,000
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012
I'm still at Churchill VII. It's not even a long grind but knowing that I have to endure the BP after that... I just can't.

Bexleyheath #16 Posted 23 April 2018 - 01:58 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5844 battles
  • 357
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    01-07-2018

Im through that and 70 games into the Churchill Black Prince. It feels like the least horrible of the three, but Im a slightly less awful player now than when I went through the mk1 and the mk7, so maybe it's not the tank?

 

Crikey! I just looked at tanks.gg and the British heavies seems to be the grindiest line there is. You need a total of 251,000XP(!) to reach Tier 8 compared to 237,155 for the Soviet T8. And you'll need to grind a majority of all that XP in a Churchill variant. It seems WG really doesnt want people to play british heavies :o



Evil_Toast_RSA1 #17 Posted 23 April 2018 - 02:10 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 3811 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    07-04-2017
I'm on the Churchill VII right now, so yes please! Also, I would not mind if it got armor that works and if possible, a gun that might intimidate the enemy slightly. 

Private_Pearts #18 Posted 23 April 2018 - 02:46 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22630 battles
  • 526
  • [WOPR] WOPR
  • Member since:
    02-24-2015

View PostEvil_Toast_RSA1, on 23 April 2018 - 02:10 PM, said:

I'm on the Churchill VII right now, so yes please! Also, I would not mind if it got armor that works and if possible, a gun that might intimidate the enemy slightly.

 

Oh that's the next thing on my list. An A barrel 20 pounder would be about right considering that at the same tier the Tiger 1 gets a long 88 with 203mm of pen. As far as I know Tiger 1s only ever got the L43.

 

However. Asking WG for useable speed AND a useable gun? On a British tank? Dream on sweet Prince. Dream on. You might just as well ask for a Chieftain at Tier 10. It ain't going to happen. And if it does it'll be the worst Tier 10 in the game because, well, reasons.



FitGirl #19 Posted 23 April 2018 - 03:00 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 1 battle
  • 66
  • [WGNET] WGNET
  • Member since:
    02-25-2018

View PostEvil_Toast_RSA1, on 23 April 2018 - 02:10 PM, said:

I'm on the Churchill VII right now, so yes please! Also, I would not mind if it got armor that works and if possible, a gun that might intimidate the enemy slightly. 

 

No let him so, Its a good tank, British tech do not need any changes. Mastered C.VII 2 days ago - he is fine and cute :)

Balc0ra #20 Posted 23 April 2018 - 03:03 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 67348 battles
  • 17,064
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostTungstenHitman, on 23 April 2018 - 12:34 PM, said:

No it should not. Regardless of mm pitting it as bottom tier most battles it is a heavily armored tank for it's tier and so the sacrifice for having better armor is a slower tank. You can't have it all your own way, if you want good armor with better mobility go for a better trade. Kv1 vs KV1s sort of thing. armor vs speed.

 

Tier 5? Not really. Tier 6 sure. There the armor still works as top tier tbh. But it's 4km/h. So it's not game breaking.

 

But for the Black Prince? Well see the armor is indeed strong still. But most tanks that have armor, and lack speed. Have a strong gun to compensate for it. BP don't even have that, nor much DPM. If they gave it a 20 pdr. I could live with the slow speed. But if they want to keep the 17 on it. It needs more speed. Not traverse or ground resistance. Just more top speed. Even if it took 6 years to get from 20 to 28. It still needs it with that gun.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users