Tank info please

My main research project is into the events around my father's RAF service in WW2.
However, as part of a wider family geneology project I am also covering family members involvement in WW2.
My uncle is sat on the left of the tank in the attached photo. The chap in the middle looks forlorn and knackered.
Info on the sort of tank and anything else that can be gleaned from the photo would be gratefully received.
Thank you, David

 

It's a late Churchill, a Mk. VII, I think.

 

Is that an Archer (17-pr anti-tank gun on a Valentine chassis) in the background?

The man in the middle looks like he has a Royal Artillery capbadge; I can't remember if the RA grenade was prescribed for the beret.

 

Looks more like a very late Churchill Mk VII from an Armoured / Engineer regiment so it's possible the background is a Valentine "funny"- and some would be wearing the RA cap badge- probably 79th Hobo's "Funnies" Division
Cheers

 

Is that an Archer (17-pr anti-tank gun on a Valentine chassis) in the background?

The man in the middle looks like he has a Royal Artillery capbadge; I can't remember if the RA grenade was prescribed for the beret.

Yes you are right it is an Archer. If you enlarge the image it is easier to confirm.

Cheers
Kevin

 

The chap in the middle looks forlorn and knackered.


Nah, 'e wuz just checkin' 'is boots was clean...

Yes, it can't be anything other than a Churchill VII.

The Valentine Archers, IIRC, were all taken over by the RA because the gun pointed the wrong way for tankers. Could the bloke with the RA badge be from the Archer?

Regards,
MikB

 

Mikb

Not necessarily as they blended in with the RAC types depending on the specialist type of tank they were crewing

Cheers

 

Nah, 'e wuz just checkin' 'is boots was clean...

Yes, it can't be anything other than a Churchill VII.

The Valentine Archers, IIRC, were all taken over by the RA because the gun pointed the wrong way for tankers. Could the bloke with the RA badge be from the Archer?

Regards,
MikB

The 'Archer' (a name I don't think it actually got during the war but am happy to be corrected) was never a tank, nor was it a 'tank destroyer'. It was always a self-propelled anti-tank gun. Always intended for the RA.

 

Fruitcake

I see you say:
The 'Archer' (a name I don't think it actually got during the war but am happy to be corrected) was never a tank, nor was it a 'tank destroyer'. It was always a self-propelled anti-tank gun. Always intended for the RA.

I, and perhaps others, have always considered any military vehicle that had a canon and tracks was a tank and so I googled for a definition of Tank and this was one that came up;

Tank   noun
1.
a large receptacle, container, or structure for holding a liquid or gas: tanks for storing oil.
2.
a natural or artificial pool, pond, or lake.
3.
Military . an armored, self-propelled combat vehicle, armed with cannon and machine guns and moving on a caterpillar tread.
4.
Slang . a prison cell or enclosure for more than one occupant, as for prisoners awaiting a hearing.
5.

From an ex-Tankie

Ron

 

... any military vehicle that had a canon...

... would have been crewed by the RAChD!

 

David Fletcher's HMSO book on the Churchill Tank is a good investment, or if you can get it, the Tamiya Photographic Album of the Churchill Tank.
My Avatar shows a Mk VII of 141 RAC albeit it's a Crocodile.

 

And would have been crewed by the RAChD!

 

Fruitcake

I see you say:


I, and perhaps others, have always considered any military vehicle that had a canon and tracks was a tank and so I googled for a definition of Tank and this was one that came up;

Tank   noun
1.
a large receptacle, container, or structure for holding a liquid or gas: tanks for storing oil.
2.
a natural or artificial pool, pond, or lake.
3.
Military . an armored, self-propelled combat vehicle, armed with cannon and machine guns and moving on a caterpillar tread.
4.
Slang . a prison cell or enclosure for more than one occupant, as for prisoners awaiting a hearing.
5.

From an ex-Tankie

Ron

Ron, I am inclined to agree but the British Army made a distinction. The 'Archer' was not given to tankies not because the gun faced the wrong way, but rather because it was never destined to operate as a main battle tank as most know it, but rather as a self-propelled anti-tank gun.

The best way I had it explained to me was that the Archer was the result of what happened when the British Army fitted tracks and an engine to the 17 Pdr to make it more mobile. It was never destined for the Royal Armoured Corps, but always the Royal Artillery. The barrel facing the wrong way was, therefore, largely immaterial.

 

I do find it all very interesting though, thank you. David