WoT: Churchill I

This guide's well-written, but considering the module weaknesses of the Church I (particularly those flimsy, protruding tracks), playing it without repair sounds like an excruciating experience. Also, the bonus from Recon is pretty pathetic. If you really must sit in a bush at the back and feel you desperately need those extra 5 metres of view range, just put binoculars or coated optics on it instead and free up that skill for something less worthless.Honestly, you'd be better off playing it from just behind the front line. Let KVs eat shells while you shoot shit. Heavies trying to be TDs are always mildly irritating for their allies, particularly in tier 5 games where they really are needed in the thick of it.
I uninstalled WoT because of this horrific line of tanks. The Churchill I was OK for its tier, but I warn all of you now, the line only gets worse and worse before you can get a decently competitive tank at tier IX, but only after you upgrade it fully. Don't be like me and suffer though this line. Choose something else to play!
I liked playing the Churchill I, and I am halfway to the Black Prince and still enjoying the Churchill VII.I also got the III to train my plethora of KV-line soviet heavy crews, but that's another story.
Chu1 is meh, the weak turret is the killer, everyone knows it and shoots right for it. My best matches just came by following a KV and cleaning up the slop.The Chu7 is fun as long as your top half of list, no one can touch you if you keep your front to them and angle.It does all payoff with the Black Prince, just today I tanked an IS-2, IS, 2 Tigers frontally for about 5 min, dealt about 2.5k in damage, absorbed 9k in potential damage before a su-122-44 finally flanked me in Fishermans Bay. Needless to say we won the match. And this is w/o the top gun yet, as with the crazy fire rate + short range you engaged in with a BP, weak spot shooting is simplistic.
Surely, with any tank, you should be doubting whether or not you are doing it right if you cannot get above 50% with it ~ such as in your case. At the last update, a whole 66 battles and 48% later with this crappy tank you decide to write yet another garbage article.... why?You only have to identify your use of camo as the first perk on a heavy ~ I'll say that again, A HEAVY ~ and alarm bells should be ringing. Skill set should go as follows: Repair on all except commander with Mentor until you hit your first 100% perk. Sixth Sense/Repair, Snap Shot/Repair, PM/Repair, Safe Stowage/Repair. Only when you are on your 4th perk (retrain and BIA infront of all the above) should you even be thinking about camo.How can in not occur to you that camo is a waste of time on any heavy except as a late, highly skilled crew perk? Even in that second replay (I couldn't see the first) you shoot the M4A from at least 300M and still get spotted, tracked, and left out in the open. Only by sheer luck and the fact they were all shooting people to your right did you not get murdered. The same % in repair would have led you into safety sooner, where you could then angle or sidescrape (hint, hot tip there) your way out to continue 'blasting.' Moreover, how can you recommend such a poor choice of perks for your crew, when you yourself have not even got beyond the first perk for your crew in this tank? You haven't even researched what might be good, just gone with your own 'I think this will work' and then churned it out in two pages of essentially bad advice.One other thing; this tank's strength (if any) are in the gun. Given the only module to increase final accuracy is vents, that's a no brainer. Given the RoF, GLD to shorten the aim time. The final module can either be the Rammer to squeeze out those last tenths of a second out of the gun, or Spall Liner, given the slow speed and hence vulnerability to arty, and angling you SHOULD be doing. Hell, if you are really bothered about view range, even optics is better than binocs on a heavy.Yes it's a bad tank, yes the KV-1/BDR smash it for its tier, and in the wrong hands this is amplified tenfold ~ demonstrated here. Yes, I am angry, and you can drink my tears with your fingers in your ears. You know why I'm angry? Because as a new player reading this, I would think 'this guy obviously knows his shit, I'm going to put camo on all my heavies.' And that's what makes me angry. The advice in this article breeds the type of player that makes this game so frustrating at times, sitting in some bush in a heavy with 100% camo when he should be at or just behind the front; but no, he's smug and content that his enemies can't see him while they slaughter his team mates.
This tank made me really regret selling my Matilda.
To be honest, I'd prefer WOT articles with Meagain's focus and tone. Anyone can spin a few hundred words out of describing the modules and I'm just not interested in the historical details of tanks in an article about game mechanics (by all means, write separate historical articles for me to ignore).This guy obviously knows his basics (skill progression, camo mechanics), he compares the tank to the current meta, he understands the underlying role a heavy has on tactics and team morale and, best of all, he advocates aggression in a game full of pansy-arse knicker-wetters. This is already the level of journalism we get here on EVE. We have the same level on DOTA and LOL for christ's sake. I would like to read more on this level for WOT.
The Churchill 1 was in my personal experience a step down from both the Matilda and valentine. It's slow, had worse armour for it's tier were it counts and even it's top gun doesn'tt make up for it's shortcomings on all other fronts.Sure unlike the KV-1 it doesn't have huge frontal weak spot on it's drivers hatch even tough the rest of the frontal armor still sucks, but it's side armor and back armor doesn't stop any rounds whatsoever. The turret is also a big killer, with both the Mk1 and Mk3 turrets being armored with paper or something.The funny thing is that the Premium version of this tank, the Russian Churchill Mrk3, is a lot better then the Mk1, even if the Mk1 is fully upgraded.All in all the Churchill 1 is a tank I don't recommend to anyone, at that tier level the tanks from other nations are more fun in general or easier to play.Even it's gun doesn't safe it for me, as I can get that on the Cromwell, which is a much more fun tank to play.No, if I want shitty armored tanks, at least give me French tanks, at least those got speed and fire power to back up it's paper armor.
Well looks like im minority, but I kind of like playing with this tank though its certainly weaker then its counterparts.
Yet another article in the "Saiphas Cain should stop posting about tanks" portfolio.
It really doesn't have a decent camo factor. It has the highest base value (please note) compared to the other T5 heavies; compare it for yourself against the TD's, the mediums, the lights of the same tier: http://www.wotinfo.net/en/camo... There is no, zilch, zero justification for going camo on ANY heavy unless it's a late crew perk.You didn't just 'mention' it, you mentioned the bloody word TEN times on the last page. I quote: "The Gunners should be trained in Camouflage," "The Driver should be trained in Camouflage," "The Loader should be trained in Camouflage," etc. For someone that's just raved about it, why on earth is your crew then NOT trained in camo? Why then do you advise stealth two sentences on in your reply?You should not be gearing your tank to do something it's bad at. It's almost as if you've realised the tank is terrible (which it really is) then tried ways to make it unterrible with equipment/skills that don't compliment the tank at all, making it even worse in the process. Maybe that's one of the biggest mistakes people make about WoT, I don't know. How can I put this... in Mother Russia, tank drives you?Really, I couldn't give a toss about win rates. But they're a pretty good 'ah so that's why' when you've just seen a guy sit in a bush at the back of the map for the last ten minutes, or have just read some terrible 'art' encouraging exactly that.Spall liners primarily protect against splash. They're not meant as an "I win FU arty" button, merely as an aid. Given the speed of the Churchill it can be slow popping in and out of arty cover. In the recent changes to 8.6 you are far, far more likely to get splashed than take a direct hit. If you're regularly getting shot in the side or the engine by an arty, that is your fault, not the Churchill's.If that was art, you are Damien Hirst. I would actually have found it incredibly refreshing and given you rave reviews, had you literally only typed 'this thing is a piece of shit' next to a picture of a Churchill.
I like where you're going with this but I have an editor and they're not going to accept that for a submission.I actually hadn't heard of Damien Hurst before but wow... that is some imagery.I'm figuring the possibility of using it as a tier 5 heavy version of the T-28. I camo and sniper the hell out of the T-28, a tank with not fantastic camo values and people have a hard time detecting me even firing until they're disturbingly close. The T-28 gets good at stealth long before maxxing out camo skills so I figure the Churchill will get good but it will take the full monty to do it. The 3.37 on the T-28 firing VS the 2.3 on the Churchill is bad, but it's the best available. I do not have a magic bullet to make the Churchill good. I don't think any combination of crew skills will keep it from being murdered on a regular basis, I'm just hoping with stealth skills people will play conservatively with it. I can't imagine how much polish this turd would take to compete favorably but I figure as much as you hate when people do it, holding back and trying to snipe will at least keep them alive a little longer than charging in and being torn apart early. The advantage of sniping is if you do it right you don't take damage until the enemy closes, by which time you should have inflicted a few hits on them thus weakening them and making the finisher easier.The French hated the English Longbowmen because they could kill knights at range and that just isn't sporting. You're supposed to let the knights get stuck in and kill all your dudes or you're just not playing fair.
That's the key right there man. If you're trading agility away you'd better gain a lot of firepower and armor for it. If I could substitute the T-28 in matches for the Churchill I I'd be happier, even if that meant facing tier 7 opponents.
What do you like about it, and what makes it a good tank in your hands? I'm curious.
New artilery viewfinder for version 0.8.6/0.8.7.http://hostujmy.pl/download/94...

Tanks are all about balancing firepower, mobility, and armor. The M4 and T-34 are good examples of this balance whereas other tanks will make various compromises on one leg to devote additional mass to the other two. On paper the Churchill I sacrifices a great deal of mobility for higher than average firepower and armor. The Challenger's historical analysis of the Churchill makes for a glowing review but doesn't translate well to its in-game effectiveness. For comparative purposes I will use quotes from Mr. Cutland's article when citing differences in implementation.

Suspension of disbelief

The Churchill I has tracks that go around the tank with no guards. Any track that is exposed attracts a great deal of fire, both targeted and incidental. Because the treads stick out so far in front of the main hull, you cannot pop out to fire without risking suspension hits in advance of your own turret exposure. The Churchill is an exception to my preference for track tanking. I rarely leave the house without my steel toe boots, and I'm not a fan of leaving the hangar in a tank with its drive train flapping in the breeze like a set of HP bearing trucknuts either.

 While a Churchill might only do 14Mph, it would be able to do that speed on any surface it didn’t sink in.

While no tanks get stuck in mud in WoT, the high torque does not translate into game implementation. The Churchill I is no better at hill climbing than any other slow, heavy tank.


Mark III has welded turret and 6 pounder main gun

The discrepancy in weapon selection and naming scheme is a matter of turret upgrade implementation. The Churchill I in WoT would compete unfavorably with other Tier 5 heavies if it were limited to historically accurate weaponry for the Mark III turret upgrade, never mind that the Mk.III is a completely different hull. The gun depression of the 75mm Vickers HV in the Churchill III turret is 4' at best and the maximum elevation is a mere 12'. While few tanks have truly outstanding vertical gun ranges, the Churchill, using the only competitive gun, is limited to a mere 16' total elevation control. This is the same as the AMX 12t. In order to mount the 75mm Vickers HV, you must use the Churchill III turret, which has a better view range but thinner frontal armor contrary to this statement.

The Mark III*
As all the guns shared a common mounting system a few MKIII’s had 75mm’s fitted. These were used by the 6th guards armoured Brigade in Normandy; they also had added armour on the turret.

Lower-end guns have better elevation and declination characteristics but with a considerable reduction in firepower. Small rocks and gradient changes are enough to elevate the front of the tank beyond the point of targeting opponents directly in front of it with the Vickers. When fighting on uneven ground the Churchill I must frequently be maneuvered just to bring the target into vertical range.

Walk for your life!

The Churchill has a 39 ton weight limit and a 25.7 km/h speed limit, which is difficult to reach even driving downhill. Compared to the T1 Heavy at 57.9 tons and a 35.4 km/h speed limit, the Churchill I makes an inferior ram tank. While speed limits do not tell the whole story, the T1's best engine develops nearly three times the horsepower of the Churchill I's. 

Due to the tank's low agility and vulnerability to flanking, using it in a sniping role is recommended.

It's not blood, it's liquid pride

The Churchill I has the most HP of any Tier 5 non-premium tank and will survive a number of hits on pure "buffer tanking." The claim of 177mm frontal hull armor is misleading, since not only is that a maximum covering only a small portion of the hull, but the tank is riddled with weak points.

The tank with the lowest crew casualty rate was the Churchill.

The British tree in WoT is marked by very weak modules and the Churchill I loses modules and crew at an alarming rate even against standard AT shells. Expect the Churchill I to be given priority targeting by artillery due to its low maneuverability and propensity to suffer multiple criticals.

In real world tanks, crew casualties were frequently caused by fire, which isn't a consideration in WoT. Unfortunately, the additional side crew escape hatches in the Churchill I hull do not aid in crew survivability in-game. Since every crew member on the Churchill I seems to have their own personal thin patch of armor, one can expect multiple crew fatalities per match.

The gun is pretty good right?

The 75mm Vickers HV compares favorably to other tier 5 heavy tank guns, though it may feel like it's strapped to a static emplacement at times. Large, slow moving tanks make stable gun platforms, and the Churchill I is an exceedingly stable gun platform, but it must remain exposed during reloads to maximize the fire rate. It has little difficulty hitting targets on the move after the dispersion buff, though others also have little difficulty hitting it back. While the Churchill is nearly invulnerable against tier 3 and 4 tanks and against inexperienced players, the 8.6 accuracy buff makes it exceptionally easy to aim for the Churchill's numerous weak points.<--pagebreak-->

Where am I? What Plane/Mech/Tank/Ship am I in?