@Background Pony #9FE9  
“Their combat record wasn’t stellar.” Does not equal; “Utter Failure.” I do believe that my original post is accurate for what it said. If you took anything I said as, “smug arrogance” or “condescending”, then I believe you are reading too much into what was said, as I was simply trying to state the facts and be enlightening… For what it is worth, I am sorry that this debate was fruitless. I earnestly wish you the best. :)

@the-furry-railfan  
Thanks, I’ll have to have a look!

@cdpaliden
 
You referred to the Chruchill’s combat record being less than stellar, all but voicing it as being an utter failure of a vehicle. I cited several examples where it was effective in open battle, and where it accomplished great deeds. You claim that many of those are somehow unfair, that they weren’t rightly earned somehow, yet that quite frankly doesn’t hold water. The Tiger Mk. 1 and 2 are both regarded as being powerful vehicles of war despite their design faults, yet almost always they were fighting other vehicles which could not equal them in firepower. That does not immediately render their accomplishments, or their abilities, against their competitors suddenly null and void. Blitzkrieg tactics were far ahead of their time, and resulted in swift victories in France despite the French having superior armoured military designs due to developing only the technology rather than tactical acumen. Yet no one declares that to somehow not count because it wasn’t a “fair assessment” according to you.
 
Still, sticking with the examples themselves, let’s answer them one by one.
 
Firstly, the battle you cite was indeed against fixed position weapons, but that was the very thing the tank was noted to excel against. Serving as an Infantry tank, it was built to withstand sustained fire from such emplacements, draw fire and maintain protection for the units it was covering. I don’t see why this should be brushed aside purely because it was doing well at the very role it was intended for. Bare in mind, this was the same front defended by Panzers, flak 88 guns and 5CM Pak 38’s which multiple efforts by prior allied tanks had failed miserably to take, with six achieving what dozens of M3s, M4s and Crusaders had failed to accomplish. This was no mere fluke either, as their follow-up engagement further proved that the durability of the Churchill Mk III was a valued asset. Tell el Aqqaqir, following a failed counter attack against the Allies, had been heavily reinforced and fortified by German elements, with multiple anti-tank weapons and a sizable number of Panzer variants. Kingforce (the group of Churchills deployed there for proving purposes) was sent in again, with exactly the same result. They withstood everything thrown at them, taking out six enemy tanks (including two Panzer Mk IVs) and three anti-tank guns.
 
Secondly, the battle in question you cite there was still a case where two isolated tanks faced down a force several times their size. This sort of outnumbered and surrounded situation would have left them vulnerable to flanking, being overwhelmed by enemy numbers or even having infantry take them out as you describe. Yet despite that they still emerged victorious, taking down several times their number of hostile units, despite this being the exact sort of situation which had cost the French so many of their tanks early into the war. They were considered to be superior to the German designs, but that hadn’t stopped them being blown up thanks to the sheer numbers they were facing.
 
Thirdly, the damage you cite was still enough to force the crew into retreat and was hardly so minor that their reactions were purely down to panicking. Several crewmen were wounded by volleys from three Churchills, and the turret itself was rendered immobile. To quote the full example (using Wikipedia again admittedly because it’s the easiest to directly quote, but the same information can be found in Bob Carruthers’ Tiger in Combat, Thomas L. Jentz’s Germanys Tiger Tanks: Tiger I & Tiger II: Combat Tactics among others) - “A solid shot hit the Tiger’s gun barrel and ricocheted into its turret ring, jamming its traverse, wounding the driver and front gunner and destroying the radio. A second shot hit the turret lifting lug, disabling the gun’s elevation device. A third shot hit the loader’s hatch, deflecting fragments into the turret.”
 
So, the Tiger’s turret couldn’t be raised, couldn’t turn, they couldn’t call for help, and the driver was badly wounded by shrapnel, meaning they could not easily maneuver the vehicle. This is also after exhaustion following a fighting retreat, the loss of multiple German vehicles to British tanks, and considerable attrition. Yet somehow you deem this Tiger’s defeat as being no example of the Churchill’s abilities, or an accomplishment of any kind. Odd that. Stranger still you’d mention briefly that a Churchill was totaled in turn, without any quotes to cited examples to back up that point I might add, but avoid the subject of the battle itself. Specifically that the Churchill itself was instrumental in winning the Battle of Longstop Hill by pulling off a maneuver only they could accomplish, spearheading an attack which was thought impossible and breaking an extremely bloody stalemate.
 
Finally, please find me an example of two infantry running head on at a fully armed and operational Churchill over terrain bereft of all cover, with it facing them and no anti-tank weapons on hand, and abruptly blowing up the enemy vehicle. If you can’t your point isn’t relevant to the above image in the slightest.
 
I’d discuss this further, but quite frankly the smug arrogance and condescending tone of your replies means I have no wish to be involved in this debate any further. Simply because your father accomplished something does not mean you need to practically sneer at others and reply to them as if they were your lessers. Make a final response if getting the last word in means so much to you, but I wash my hands of this conversation. Good day.

@Astrotrain  
The one that features the TOG more prominently is Occupational Hazards, the first story written between myself and my close friend Minty Candy; Readable here  
This story, as it says in the image tags, is Empty Quiver, the second story written between myself and my friend; Again, readable here

@the-furry-railfan  
There’s a TOG in this story? What story is this?

@Background Pony #9FE9  
Trust me, unless you have a degree in WWII history, I’m sure I know more about these tanks than you. I don’t mean to be rude, it’s just that my father has a Masters in European History, with a focus on the World Wars and that’s all we talk about. However, I will shoot down your argument professionally.
 
The first example you gave was against fixed position pak-guns, not really a fair assessment of their performance. The second was against more pak-guns and out-dated Pz.III’s escorting a mechanized force in column. In the final example, the crew of the Tiger panicked and fled from what was otherwise minor damage - the Churchill in question? Totalled. Along with several other Churchill tanks that were with it.
 
Secondly, find me a tank that is not vulnerable to infantry AT-bombs. The Soviets used them all the time! Both the sticky and magnetic variety…
 
So, I think my points still stand.

@cdpaliden
 
Way to try and quickly cover up the fact you utterly overlooked their accomplishments,even when it was a single Google search away. As for the Cromwell, such a point is not relevant to what you brought up. You cited the Churchill’s combat record as being poor or at the very least unremarkable, and so easily defeated they could be taken down easily, I cited some very obvious and very easily accessible information which disproved both points.

@cdpaliden  
Call it a mix of ridiculously sturdy and easily repairable engineering, and pony magic, and leave it at that. Last story we had a bloody TOG II and T-34-76, and both are still functioning in this one, set 20 years later on.

@the-furry-railfan  
Yeah, if you’re going with the ~200 years in the future, that is a long time for a tank to be recoverable, let alone functioning. :P

@cdpaliden  
Still is 20 kilos of something that isn’t exactly pleasant to take to the face, or be in the general vicinity of someone else taking it to the face. Not that it matters, since they don’t have to combat it anyways in the story, and aside from that it’s an easily recognizable and rather iconic tank - if we were going for something that was more sensible on the grounds of repelling infantry, as far as the presence of a functioning tank in a post-apocalyptic setting can be sensible in the first place, we would have.

@the-furry-railfan  
Not C4, C4 wasn’t invented until 1956. If it’s firing HE, it’s likely taggant, but don’t quote me, I am not a master in the subject of explosives.
 
@Background Pony #9FE9  
Way to quote Wikipedia. Also, maybe you should read the section above that, where it said that they almost lost their contract to the Cromwell, which was a much better tank. ;)

@the-furry-railfan  
An AVRE, eh? Lovely machine, got one in a museum just down the road from me.

@cdpaliden
 
Ahem,
 
“Six Mk III Churchills (with the 6 pounder) saw action in the Second Battle of El Alamein in October 1942. This detachment, called “Kingforce”, supported the attack of 7th Motor Brigade. The Churchills were fired on many times by German anti-tank guns, but only one received more than light damage. One tank was said to have been hit up to 80 times.
 
Kingforce was disbanded after El Alamein – it had been formed to test whether the Churchills could operate in Africa. Instead, a full tank brigade (the 25th Army Tank Brigade) of three regiments was sent to Africa, and went into action in February 1943 during the Tunisian campaign.
 
Churchill tanks took part in containing the German offensive of Operation Ochsenkopf in February – March 1943. At a place called Steamroller Farm two Churchill MKIII tanks of 51 RTR got ahead of their squadron. They came across an entire German transport column which they ambushed and completely shot up before they rejoined. The end result was the destruction of two 88 mm, two 75 mm and two 50 mm, four lesser anti-tank guns, twenty-five wheeled vehicles, two 3 inch Mortars, two Panzer Mark III tanks, and infliction of nearly 200 casualties.
 
A Churchill tank in a hull down defensive position made a particular contribution to Allied success. In one encounter on 21 April 1943 during the start of the Battle of Longstop Hill a Churchill tank of the 48th Royal Tank Regiment got the better of a German Tiger I heavy tank. A 6 pounder shot from the Churchill lodged between the Tiger’s turret and turret ring, jamming the turret and injuring the Tiger crew. The crew abandoned the Tiger, which was subsequently captured by the British. Known as Tiger 131, this Tiger was the first captured by the Western Allies and was particularly useful for intelligence. Tiger 131 has since been restored to full working condition and is now on display at The Tank Museum in the United Kingdom.”

@cdpaliden  
Well, it is an AVRE Churchill, however - yanno, the variant that traded the 6-pounder gun for a more respectable 290mm spigot mortar that throws about 20kg of C4 at your face. If they were gonna have something to worry about, they’d have known by now, because the building they were sheltering inside would be more of a crater.
 
Good thing the Brit in that tank is on their side!

Don’t worry, it’s only a Churchill. Their combat record wasn’t stellar… Quick, get a sock, some tar and a a little taggant and you can deal with it.

Welp, you’re about to get Churchill’ed…