Churchill Mk II***FINISHED***

[PeterB]

I thought I might build this.

 

 

 

The Churchill is an interesting tank to model as there were quite a few versions of the gun tank, not to mention the various “Funnies” - the bridgelayers and the various uses of the AVRE. There were in fact 8 main production versions together with many older models being updated as well, resulting in the Mks IX to XI. The main differences were in the turret and armament, but modifications were also made to the hull including then the track guards, side escape hatches, and the air intakes to name but a few.

 

Like the Matilda I and II and the Valentine, the A.22 Infantry Tank Mk IV was designed to accompany infantry during assaults on defended positions and as such it was quite heavily armoured, ranging from 16mm to 102mm in the early versions, much thicker than on the Valentine and somewhat greater than that on the Matilda II. Perhaps as a result it was rather slow, with a top road speed of around 15mph, but that was of no great consequence when working with infantry, and it did prove to be quite good at climbing hills in both the desert and Italy, which may be one of the reasons it survived an attempt to cancel production, though perhaps the idea of calling it the Churchill also helped!

 

In common with most other early British tanks, it initially carried an Ordnance QF 2pdr anti-tank gun in the turret, which in its day was about the best of its kind, but it only fired solid shot, which was good at piercing German tank armour but could not fire either HE or smoke, which was a major disadvantage for an Infantry tank. Presumably the problem was that it was thought that a 40mm round could not carry enough explosive to make it worthwhile, but eventually a HE round was developed in 1942, but by then the 2pdr was being replaced by the 57mm 6pdr. Interestingly the US 37mm gun used in the turret of their early Light and Medium tanks got round the problem to some extent by firing a canister round containing 122 lead balls and that was reportedly effective against infantry. The Brits decided to solve the problem in the Churchill I by fitting a 3” howitzer in the front of the hull to fire HE and smoke, but this was not entirely successful as the elevation and traverse were limited, and the position of the mounting meant that it could not be fired from a “hull down” position. Having already built the Hasegawa model as a Mk.I, I am now building the kit alternative version in which the 3” howitzer was replaced with a Besa machine gun. I will call this the Mk.II, though there is some disagreement between my 3 main sources.

 

David Fletcher in his Crowood book on the Churchill call this the Mk.II, as do Chamberlain and Ellis in their “British and American Tanks of WWII”, but in his Osprey book on the Churchill, Perrett insists that the “true Mk II” was one where the 2pdr and 3” howitzer were swopped round so that the latter was in the turret and the former was in the hull, though he does admit that few of these were produced and that some Mk.I had the howitzer replaced with a Besa. Fletcher mentions an incident in North Africa at the end of February 1943 when 51RTR were involved in an attack on a feature called Steamroller Farm. They were primarily equipped with 6pdr Churchills, but as their new Mk V with 95mm howitzers had not yet arrived were using a handful of Mk.I for close support, and after the action complained about not being able to fire from a hull down position, He says that they suggested having the 3” howitzer mounted in the turret and that as a result a few were modified accordingly. Chamberlain and Ellis also mention this version which they call the Mk IICS, and again say that only a few were actually produced and I have yet to find any photos of one.

 

More as I go along.

 

Pete

Edited August 7 by PeterB

[ToE1984]

Hi Peter,

welcome to the GB and good luck with the build! The modifications in the course of the Churchill's front line service history are truly interesting, seems there was some flexibility for making those modifications based on the crew feedback. 

I am building the same kit in parallel as a Mk. I of 9 RTR. Quite a nice kit for its age I have to say. Although I currently wonder whether the shape of the turret is okay. It seems to me that the stowage box is placed too far to the rear and that the kit's turret lacks an edge at the right-hand sideright above the visor and behind the actual place of the stowage box. Quite hard to described but this photo of the tank I am going to build illustrates the issue quite nicely, I think. Any thoughts on that? 

Cheers

Thomas

[PeterB]

15 hours ago, ToE1984 said:

Hi Peter,

welcome to the GB and good luck with the build! The modifications in the course of the Churchill's front line service history are truly interesting, seems there was some flexibility for making those modifications based on the crew feedback. 

I am building the same kit in parallel as a Mk. I of 9 RTR. Quite a nice kit for its age I have to say. Although I currently wonder whether the shape of the turret is okay. It seems to me that the stowage box is placed too far to the rear and that the kit's turret lacks an edge at the right-hand sideright above the visor and behind the actual place of the stowage box. Quite hard to described but this photo of the tank I am going to build illustrates the issue quite nicely, I think. Any thoughts on that? 

Cheers

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

 

I have compared my old Mk. I with a drawing by George Bradford and you are right in both respects I think. Once I find time I will PM you a copy.

 

Pete

[PeterB]

Here is a "Tank Chat" on the Mk. I and Mk. II that I have also posted on Thomas' Mk. I build thread.

 

 

Pete

[IanC]

Nice to see a couple of these being built. I always thought it was one of Hasegawa's better AFV kits, and certainly an interesting subject. Also, a far simpler build than Airfix's Mk VII! 😀 

[PeterB]

7 hours ago, IanC said:

 Also, a far simpler build than Airfix's Mk VII! 😀 

 

Yu are certainly right about that Ian - instead of 44 individual wheels and 22 suspension units you get this-

 

 

 

Even so I messed up the first one as you may be able to see - I glued the suspension arms (part 17) to the inner hull (10) before adding the wheels (19) and then realised I had located part 17 too high up, using the locating ridge the hull unit would be glued on to instead of the lower one so the wheels were out of line. I have corrected it now but would advise gluing the wheels to the suspension first so the alignment is more obvious - @ToE1984 can learn from my mistake hopefully.

And a short while later I have this-

 

Just the exhaust pipes, headlights, Besa mg and extra fuel tank (if I fit it) to go on and the hull will be done and ready for painting before I add the tracks.  As mentioned in the tank chat video, unlike many tanks of the period the Churchill did not have return rollers (small wheels to carry the upper run of track), relying instead on skids like the early WWI tanks. It also was unusual in that instead of having one toothed sprocket and one smooth idler wheel on each side, it had two sprocket wheels. You can clearly see the large rectangular access hatches on the hull sides - on the Mk. VII these were replaced with smaller circular hatches, which is perhaps one of the reasons that earlier models were preferred for conversion to AVRE, though it might just be because they were surplus.

 

Pete

 

Pete

Edited August 9 by PeterB

[PeterB]

One of the nice things about old tank kits is that they usually do not have too many parts (except of course for the Airfix Churchill with all those wheels), so they don't take long to build.

 

 

I have replaced the turret guns with a set of metal ones from Aber. As Thomas mentioned earlier in the thread, Hasegawa do not seem to have got the right hand side of the turret quite right - according to the scale drawings by  George Bradford, and plenty of photos, the location for the stowage box was not far enough forward and the shape of the casting behind that was slightly different. I decided not to try and modify the turret shape, but I have moved the box a little.

 

Speaking of stowage, one noticeable feature in most photos of Churchills is the tube mounted on the rear left side of the turret. 

 

 

 

As you can see, Hasegawa include the tube as did Matchbox in their bridgelayer kit, but Airfix do not in their Mk. VII.  I did at first wonder if it was like the long tube on the Panther and held the cleaning kit for the main gun barrel but as you can see from the stowage diagram below it was for flags, though I am not sure exactly when and how they were used!

 

 

 

The equivalent diagram for the Mk.VII also shows the tube which is says is for "Set, Flags, Tank Distinguishing" though late in the war it was not always carried  judging by photos.

 

Time to mix some paint.

 

Pete

Edited August 10 by PeterB

[PeterB]

I have painted it using Mike Starmer's mix for SCC2 using Tamiya paint - Nato Brown, Yellow and Black.

 

 

In real life it is a little more "ginger" than in the pic. Now all I have to do is to decide what decs to put on, add the radio aerial, and it will be ready for a coat of varnish. I will be modelling it as a tank used for training in the UK in 1942.

 

Pete

Edited August 11 by PeterB

[Milan Mynar]

It looks very good.

[ToE1984]

That’s some really swift progress and a great outcome! A very neat build and a nice paintjob! Also thanks for the explanation on the equipment fitted to the turret exterior.

 

Looking forward to seeing this one in full markings!

[PeterB]

On 8/11/2025 at 10:42 PM, ToE1984 said:

Looking forward to seeing this one in full markings!

 

The actual markings are potentially a problem as I have very little information on early Churchills whilst training in the UK. Hasegawa only provide a WD Census number aka serial for the Mk.II but according to a list I have, that may actually be for a Mk. III though there is some uncertainty as numbers were allocated in advance and not always applied to the correct model on the production line - for example the original batch was intended to be all Mk. I but after 300 were built they switched to Mk. II. Later in the war when the armoured forces were grouped into formations with infantry, artillery etc as detailed in the link I sent  you earlier on 9 RTR, and then they would carry formation signs and the so called "Arm of Service" sign on the on the front and rear of the hull together sometimes with a name, and I am researching that at the moment. I can manage to print decals for the Formation and AOS signs, but names are not possible unless I buy an aftermarket decal sheet.

 

I will see what I can manage but it is not likely to have "full" markings I fear.

 

Pete

Edited August 15 by PeterB

[Courageous]

The Mk II is looking pretty neat, pity about the lack of decals.

 

Stuart

[ToE1984]

17 hours ago, PeterB said:

 

The actual markings are potentially a problem as I have very little information on early Churchills whilst training in the UK. Hasegawa only provide a WD Census number aka serial for the Mk.II but according to a list I have, that may actually be for a Mk. III though there is some uncertainty as numbers were allocated in advance and not always applied to the correct model on the production line - for example the original batch was intended to be all Mk. I but after 300 were built they switched to Mk. II. Later in the war when the armoured forces were grouped into formations with infantry, artillery etc as detailed in the link I sent  you earlier on 9 RTR, and then they would carry formation signs and the so called "Arm of Service" sign on the on the front and rear of the hull together sometimes with a name, and I am researching that at the moment. I can managed to print decals for the Formation and AOS signs, but names are not possible unless I buy an aftermarket decal sheet.

 

I will see what I can manage but it is not likely to have "full" markings I fear.

 

Pete

Hi Pete,

I am facing the same issue with my plan to make „INDUS“. I consider free-hand or maybe tape-assisted using a felt-tip pen or crayon. Not sure yet, but I will definitely have a trial off the model first. Then again, „INDUS“ is rather easy with many straight lines in the letter. What’s your tank‘s nickname?

In any case, I have not come across aftermarket decals for the tank you build. 

Cheers

Thomas

[PeterB]

6 hours ago, ToE1984 said:

Hi Pete,

I am facing the same issue with my plan to make „INDUS“. I consider free-hand or maybe tape-assisted using a felt-tip pen or crayon. Not sure yet, but I will definitely have a trial off the model first. Then again, „INDUS“ is rather easy with many straight lines in the letter. What’s your tank‘s nickname?

In any case, I have not come across aftermarket decals for the tank you build. 

Cheers

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

 

I am thinking of doing this-

 

https://flic.kr/p/2rngspH

 

It does not seem to have a name and I will have to guess the serial, but I should be able to do the rest of the markings.

 

Pete

[PeterB]

As you will have gathered I have decided to model my Churchill Mk. II in the markings of 144 RAC whilst part of 33 Tank Brigade as it was in those days. My late father never discussed his war experiences with me other than a comment “I used to service them” when I showed him my Airfix kit of a Grant tank and when I was learning to drive he told me he passed his driving test in a carrier (Lloyd or Universal) fitted out as a battery charger for tanks. It was only after both he and my mother died that I got a copy of his service record and discovered the true story. He joined The King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry's 7th Battalion, which was mechanised, and trained as a fitter with REME before being posted to India, arriving in October 1941 – one of the convoy escorts as far as Capetown was the battlecruiser HMS Repulse which was on her way to Singapore where she was soon sunk by the Japanese. The following month his Battalion became 149 Regiment Royal Armoured Corps, and during his 3 year stay in India and Burma he would indeed have serviced Grant tanks and maybe Stuarts as well. He was still with the regiment when they were involved in the fighting at Kohima which was particularly nasty and could be one of the reasons why he did not want to talk about his service. My mother always used to complain that he never got any medals, but in fact he did, including the Burma Star, and I managed to get them sent to me eventually – I have no idea if he was ever aware he was entitled to them, or if he simply chose not to collect them.

 

Anyway, the point of this is that 144 Regiment was another of the infantry turned armoured units, originally being the 8th Battalion of the East Lancashire Regiment, which also converted in November 1941, and joined 33 Tank Brigade which had been created in October of that year. It comprised 43 RTR, 144 RTR and 148 RTR which converted from the 9th Battalion Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire) at the same time, together with a couple of infantry regiments, the 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry and the 1st East Riding Yeomanry, so the badge of the 43rd (Wessex) Infantry Division is a bit of a puzzle. I would have expected the AOS of “68” to be on a coloured rectangle but that does not show in the pic so I have gone for red as it was just a single brigade. I have had a go at creating decs for both this and my Crocodile. Both 144 and 148 would have equal seniority in terms of the date they converted so unless it goes back to the seniority of their original regiments I presume it goes on their number – this seniority business is rather complicated.

 

 

Not entirely clear in the photo but the Wyvern looks like this. This small is pushing the limit on my old HP Deskjet!

 

 

And this is what they look like on the front of the tank - not too bad I think.😄

 

 

That just leaves the rest of the decs to go on.

 

Pete

Edited August 13 by PeterB

[ToE1984]

Looking great with those decals! Also great to see you build something with a strong connection!

[PeterB]

14 hours ago, ToE1984 said:

Looking great with those decals! Also great to see you build something with a strong connection!

Thanks,

 

If , as it seems, quite a few infantry units were converted to Armoured in November 1941 including 144, 148 and 149 RTR, then Dad could just as easily have been repairing Churchills in the UK instead of being shipped out to India, so there is a sort of connection. I still have an old Airfix Grant in my stash, and I am trying to find out what markings 149 used so I can build one he may have worked on.🙂 One thing I got wrong on some of my early tank builds was the placement of the AOS and formation signs -  viewed from the front the AOS is on the left and from the back it is on the right and the formation sign is vice-versa!

 

Pete

Edited August 14 by PeterB

[PeterB]

Decs on and ready for a finishing coat of varnish.

 

 

 

I used the kit decs for the red and white stripes but nothing else as the serials are suspect - I used a set from one of Mike Starmer's useful sheets for them. In fact I was initially puzzled by the kit decs as there are far more than needed for the 2 schemes on the instructions but now I have realised that the sheet must be common to both the Churchill and their Crusader Mk.III, which 2 of the 4 serials are for, as are the 1st and 6th Armoured Brigade badges. I have not added troop/squadron markings to the turret as I cannot see any in the photo and Hasegawa say not to use them when the red and white markings are present - not able to find a reason why that might be, but perhaps they are correct.

 

Pete

Edited August 15 by PeterB

[Rob Sutto]

That's looking really good, Pete 

[Stef N.]

Agree with Rob, that is looking ace. 

[PeterB]

Radio aerial fitted and varnished so I am calling this one done.

 

 

A nice easy build, the only slightly tricky part was working out possible markings and them making them!

 

Pete

[PeterB]

I have just found a photo of a Churchill in the UK in mid 1942 with both the red and white flash and troop/squadron markings on the turret so Hasegawa seem to have got that wrong! Not to worry, i won't bother changing it now.

 

Pete

[ToE1984]

Hi Pete,

great result, I really enjoyed following your build! The appearance in SCC2 looks very good and your approach on the markings gives it a unique touch!

Cheers

Thomas

[Courageous]

Nicely done Pete well researched.

 

Stuart

[IanC]

A superb little model, Peter. The colour looks spot on, too.