Thursday, 3 March 2011

Canada Forward

Some of my WWII Canadian forces in 28mm. The infantry are Warlord Games and the tank is a Corgi 1:50 scale die cast model.

The scene depicts a late war Canadian section advancing to contact behind a Churchill infantry support tank.

No 1: The Section Leader, an NCO.
No 2: The Second In Command
No 3: Four Riflemen
No. 4: First Bren Gun LMG Team, with rifleman.
No 5: Second Bren Gun LMG Team, with rifleman.

British and Commonwealth sections would normally split into two in an attack, the leader and riflemen, and the second in command with Bren gun teams. They would work their way to the objective, firing and moving alternatively until the rifle subsection could close assault and the Bren gunners would move to a position to cut down any enemy fleeing survivors.

The aim of a British and Commonwealth assault was not just to take an objective but to kill as many of the defenders as possible.


  1. Nice paint job John, and a good bit of info too!!

  2. shame the canadians had to go to battle with the ugliest and possibly one of the worst tanks of WW2.

    Good paintjob though!


  3. Dear Seb


    Re Churchill.

    Well, none of the Anglo-American tanks were much good by Russian or German standards but I think you are being a little hard on the Churchill.

    Once the chronic unreliability problem was sorted it turned out to be a useful siege tank with heavy armour (best of any allied tank) and obstacle climbing ability.

    There were Churchills at Kursk. They were annihalated, of course.

    Funnily enough, the Russians liked the Valentine, the Churchill's predecessor and used it throughout the war.


  4. Great stuff - the diecast option for vehicles meshes in well. Looking for a source out here in Oz

  5. Dear Man
    Try Ebay for Corgi, you can get them for about half new price,

  6. Dear John,

    Saying that the churchill was the ugliest tank of WW2 is harsh and a matter of opion, i give you that.

    But having a tank with massive armour but armed only with a cannon slightly better then a pea shooter was crazy.
    You don't want a tank for anti infantry uses.

    Yes, it was great at crossing hard terrain.
    Yes, it had great armour.
    yes, it was great vs infantry.


    -Crews spent more time fixing the engine then they did fighting.
    -Design was poor because it happenend a lot that the turret was hit so it couldn't turn anymore trapping the crew inside. crews nightmare was being burned alive when they got hit because that happened a lot..
    -the tank was so big and slow it was easily out manouvered.
    -the armour was good vs infantry untill the germans realized 1 panzerfaust on the tracks would render it useless.
    -when all german tanks were fitted with high velocity shells the tanks became useless and a shell magnet. Germans saw them as target practise.

    The only thing it had really going for it is that it could surprise attack because it could climb hills and cross through forrests wich were though untakable by the germans.

    The Churchil became a little better when they were fitted for specialized roles with the AVRE and crocodile versions.

    Still,....good paintjob.

  7. The best tanks were of course hungarian tanks. ;)
    They destroyed the russians, captured Moscow and then later stopped D-day! And that's how we won the war!

    But seriously i think the best was the T-34 series and the ugliest were the T-28.

  8. Dear Seb
    All true, regretably, the Churchill was designed to fight WWI trench warfare - which is why it made a good siege machine.

    But look at the rest of the sorry bunch of 1943 western tanks. The Crusader, arguably the worst tank Britain ever made - unreliable, inadequate armour, inadequate gun - is a good example.

    It says something that the best tank available to the British Army in until the Sherman came on stream was the American M3 - called a grave for seven brothers by the Russians.


  9. Dear Igi
    Yeah, the T34 was the innovation. The world's first main battle tank. Astonishing to think that it was deployed in '41. Not counting the Firefly, which was a stopgap, Britain and America did not produce tanks as good until the Comet, Centurion and Pershing.

  10. UK and US tanks were crap as that was what was asked for by the armies!

    By the time it was realised it was too late, though worth noting that while too late for WW2, [I know a few were tested in Germany] the Centurion was a very succesful tank for 30 years after the war, but was developed during the war, as was in the US case the Pershing, leading to the Patton etc.