Infantry tank A22 Churchill Crocodile

Suggestions
1

Hello bajtársak and fellow forumdwellers,

Britain had a very unusual tank classification system compared to other nations.
Infantry tanks were designed to be slow as walking pace so infantry could keep up with it hence the “infantry tank” designation, they were heavily armoured and their task was to suppress enemy as well as clear obstacles.
Cruiser tanks on the other hand were designed to be as fast and light as possible to keep up with cavalry.
Both class concepts are obvious dead ends, tanks need to be supported by mechanised or at the very least motorised infantry, this however did not stop the overly conservative British General Staff from commissioning new tanks that were out-dated even before the first tank rolled off the assembly line.

Winston Churchill famously said:

“That is the tank they named after me when they found out it was no damn good!”

The main design flaw of the Churchill tank is that it was designed for the battlefields of the first world war, a mistake that made it the most fearsome Allied tank for Axis soldiers.
The Churchill could climb hills and mountains other tanks could not, often surprising Germans that thought the hill to be tank proof.
Its long design and wide double-tracks allowed it to cross even the widest trenches.
Its thick armour was impervious to all standard German anti-tank guns, anything below an 88mm would easily ricochet off the frontal plate at normal fighting distances.

The Churchill tank carried Britain to victory, it filled a unique role no other Allied tank in the west could, breaking through even the most fortified defensive lines.

The Churchill Crocodile is the most impactful and terrifying variant.
Its 152mm thick frontal armour can withstand hits from any Panzer.
The main armament is a 75mm Ordnance QF howitzer, inadequate against most tanks but excellent against soft targets as well as gun emplacements.
The tank´s most fearsome aspect is the flamethrower built into its hull, a deadly tool against dug-in enemies or fortified bunkers.
Its unusually well protected tracks make disabling the tank a difficult task.

Its psychological aspect is undeniable, the appearance of a Churchill Crocodile tank made even the most battle-hardened and fanatic soldiers think twice about holding their position.
Though the Crocodile is powerless against Panther and Tiger tanks, it’s a straight upgrade from the Jumbo tank, a true rolling bunker with a flamethrower.

ww2-britain-churchill-crocodile-tank-fire
ww2-britain-churchill-crocodile-tank-fire1200×898 704 KB

18 Likes
2

Unless they make vehicle flamethrowers more functional (i.e. don’t let them go through walls) this should absolutely not be added, especially with how long range the flamethrower was.

2 Likes
3

I love me a good Churchill tank, the Crocodile would be a insanely fun tank to drive in BR IV, I think it should come as either a event or premium, leaving the more regular Mk IIs, IVs and VIIs to be in the tech tree!

However, I do have some thoughts and objections to the context and history section if I may be so bold to correct in this otherwise marvoulous suggestion!

First correction - Cruisers were the cavalry

The claim that cruiser tanks were designed to keep up with cavalry is false, by the 1930s even the British (hehe) had realized that mounted warfare was over. What endured was their battlefield role, fast and mobile units used for exploitation and manoeuvre, and the cavalry traditions being transfered to armoured regiments (look up the Equestrian roots of British armoured units, it’s fascinating, their vocabulary is borrowed directly from former cavalry units). They were not meant to fight with cavalry, they were the cavalry.

Second Correction - Me just rambling about how everyone is stupid

As for the Churchill itself - calling them “outdated before they rolled off the line” is a bit harsh. Their armour was excellent for the time, they could cross terrain others wouldn’t dare, and after early teething troubles later models were very reliable and effective. The fact they stayed in production and saw heavy use (even in the Korean War) speaks volumes about their value. Plus, British doctrine wasn’t about tanks slugging it out one-on-one; it leaned heavily on combined arms. The mark VII Churchill’s 75 mm gun was a solid compromise, balancing high-explosive firepower with decent anti-tank ability, fitting the infantry support role perfectly.

It’s also important to remember British tank doctrine was quite unique and shouldn’t immedietly be dismissed as outdated without applying the same yardstick to other nations, who often got it more wrong that they did. For example, look at early war German tank doctrine vs late war, the fact that the British didn’t do a similar transformation of roles means they were in some way more correct. Not wholly correct, but clearly whatever they were doing was doing something right for them to continue doing it throughout the war.

The future of tanks was the Main Battle Tank (MBT) concept, which hardly anyone was chasing during the war itself. The British approach focused on specialised tank roles - just like everyone else, though the nature of these roles differed. This doctrine suited their version of combined arms tactics and well-planned strategic operations, where tanks operated as part of a greater whole. A dedicated infantry support tank makes perfect sense within that model because it was never meant to take on tanks alone.

The real lesson learned during the war, and implemented after it, was the need for a versatile MBT combining firepower, protection, and mobility in a single platform. The Soviets dabbled in this out of industrial necessity, and the US made an early formal attempt, but it was the British who developed the first truly modern MBT with the Centurion, near the war’s end. So rather than being outdated, British doctrine was a distinct, influential approach that laid the groundwork for modern tank warfare, just with the benefit of hindsight that others lacked before them.

4 Likes
4

It is and yet its true.
Unlike Tiger, IS or Pershing tanks, the Churchill could not exploit the gap it had created by breaking through.
But its flaws were also its advantages since it was deisgned for the brutal muddy trench warfare which is why it has better weight distribution, lower ground pressure better protected tracks ect than other tanks of the time which were designed for modern battlefields.

Lets face it, the Sherman was the main British tank between 1942-45 for good reason, but the Churchill in its own role was King.
No other Allied tank was so good in breaking through enemy lines.

2 Likes
5

Unfortunately for you @Valkay, I’m a Battlefield 5 player. I’ve played as and faced off many in my time playing. I have a 45% to 49% to solo one if added.

6

Lucky for you, you can respawn in BFV, something WW2 soldiers could not look forward to.

1 Like
7

I mean a bit unfair to compare it to at least two of them, and for the other, they weigh more in on different scales rather than on different sides of the same scale.

Yap

Both designed to fill similar but ironically polar opposite roles. And even when you compare them, if anything the Churchill (at least the later mk7’s, though even the mk3’s, not counting the mk1’s) filled more of it rolls better, arguably at least.

Not to mention the Churchill wasnt meant to exploit those gaps since the idea of exploiting gaps wasnt really British doctrine(WW1 did a serious number on British planners), youd be hard pressed to find a non specialised british unit that would aim to exploit such gaps on the strategic level unlike the commonly formed Kampfgruppe working under the idea of the Schwerpunkt concept.

I mean a great example of this comes from even the somewhat heavily biased work of Otto Carius, Tigers in the Mud. Where he talks of the flaws of the Tiger, or his common retelling of accounts, where often he would be able to punch through enemy lines with his tigers, but not even medium armour was able to follow in his tracks, let alone light armour or infantry, meaning he had to often fall back from a position due to be unable to defend his unit from enemy infantry infiltration tactics.

While as the the Churchill was able to hold its newly established bridgehead, often with ease, since its an extreme task to move a heavy enough AT gun into place to even engage it, let alone knock it out. Of course its slower speed allowed infantry to follow with greater ease, especially since it could lay down a more suppressive field of fire than a Tiger. In turn allowing the more “specialised” units, aka the cruiser tanks to exploit said gap, where their thinner armour would be more applicable vs lighter and less numerous enemy defences.

I know that isnt exactly a fair yap, but to go into true detail I would genuinely have to write at least one sizeable book, if not more, especially when you begin getting into opposing forces doctrinal use of artillery and etc.

Further Yap

As for the other two, I mean comparing two fairly later war tanks, while ignoring their issues, the Pershing being actually very good but particularly late war, (Ignoring early teething issues, but like name a tank that didnt have early teething issues, I dont think there is a single one in history).

While the IS suffering famously from its reload speed that was counted in lunar cycles, the horrible crew ergonomics (somehow making early wartime production KV’s and T-34’s, often without turret baskets, look comfy), its massive lack of ability of ability to defend itself from infantry, a reliability figure that makes the Tigers transmission feel better about itself and the ongoing issues with soviet, or well lack of soviet quality optics, among other things.

Frankly there is good reason the IS’s never saw combat in Korea where the Soviet and Chinese combined forces threw the kitchen sink at US and UN forces, while on the other hand the Churchill saw not only extensive service, but relatively well liked service there.

Honestly people fall into the trap of playing Top Trumps far too often with tanks, regularly forgetting the very practical and set in reality secondary and tertiary design features or flaws.

8

no, till japs get their own flamethrower tanks first

1 Like