Tank tanks of the Churchill ARK family (UK)

15
Following the unsuccessful amphibious assault in Dieppe, the British command made a number of important conclusions. Among other things, the need was identified tank bridgelayers or bridge tanks. Such a technique was supposed to help tanks and other armored vehicles, providing an offensive in difficult terrain. Soon, army and industry specialists developed a number of new engineering armored vehicles, including several variants of the Churchill ARK tank bridge.


Tank-bridge Churchill ARK Mk I in working position. Demonstration tests, February 13 1944




Hobart toy


The leading role in the creation of new engineering equipment was played by the 79-I Panzer Division under the command of General Percy Hobart. At that time, she created a number of techniques for various purposes, known under the playful nickname "Hobart's toys." In 1942, the specialists of the 79 division started designing a bridge-laying machine with a dropable bridge, and a new project appeared in 1943, which was more simple.

The new concept was quite simple. From the Churchill infantry tank, it was proposed to remove the tower and remove other "extra" equipment. On top of the body were two longitudinal three-section ladders. A tank with such equipment could in a minimum time turn into a gauge bridge, and its hull turned out to be the main support.

The use of the finished chassis of the Churchill tank ensured unification with other military equipment, facilitating production and operation. The carrying capacity of such a chassis was sufficient for the transportation of new equipment, and the strength allowed any existing armored vehicles to be launched over the bridge.


ARK Mk I helps another “Churchill” climb an obstacle. Tests 11 March 1944


The project received the designation Armored Ramp Carrier - "Armored carrier ladder." Initially, this name was abbreviated to ARC, but later the changed name Churchill ARK appeared - literally "Ark".

Churchill ARK Mk I


The first version of the tank bridge was designed and built in the autumn of 1943. It implemented all the main proposals and determined the main features of the technical appearance. New modifications of the "Ark" to a large extent repeated the first option, designated as ARK Mk I.

On the chassis of the Churchill tank of the Mk II or Mk IV modification, sections of the gauge bridge should have been mounted. Its central elements were rigidly fixed on the fenders of the chassis and had a corresponding length. The front and rear sections of the smaller ladders were pivotally fixed.

No drive of swinging parts was foreseen. They freely moved in a vertical plane and could lay down on obstacles, providing entry and exit of other equipment. The organization of the bridge took the minimum time. In fact, the “Ark” needed only to approach an obstacle and take the required position, turning it into a bridge.

Tank tanks of the Churchill ARK family (UK)
Tank-bridge Churchill ARK Mk II in transport position. All differences from the previous design are clearly visible.


The Churchill ARK Mk I tank bridge could organize crossings of various types of obstacles. Opening the ramps, he created a track bridge up to 10 m long and 3,3 m wide with sections of 2 feet wide (600 mm). The "Ark" provided the intersection of moats and scarpes, climbing obstacles, etc. On it, without any problems could drive any armored vehicles of the British army.

Tests of the experimental ARK Mk I were performed in the fall and winter of 1943-44. In February 1944, it was decided to launch mass production. The army ordered fifty tanks-bridges on the Churchill chassis of the Mk II and Mk IV versions. Basically, it was about the restructuring of existing infantry tanks. This technique was to participate in the landing in Normandy.

British and Italian pattern


After the start of fighting in France, in July 1944, the 79-I Panzer Division carried out a significant modernization of its tank bridge. With its help, it was planned to increase the basic characteristics and simplify the solution of tasks. This version of the machine was designated as ARK Mk II. Subsequently, the label UK pattern was added to the name, so as not to be confused with another similar modification.


Crossing armored vehicles across the river. Savio (Italy), October 10 1944 The tank bridge of the "Italian model" is almost completely flooded


The tank bridge ARK Mk II was different construction sections. First of all, the length of the swinging ladders was increased. The left elements of the bridge were also changed - their width doubled, to 1,2 m. Thanks to this, not only various tanks, but also cars with a smaller gauge could ride the "Ark". The design of the fixed central sections has also changed, as a result of which their dismantling for access to the engine compartment has been simplified.

In the transport position, the elongated ladders were placed at an angle and held by a system of masts and cables. At the command of the crew, the locks on the cables were opened, and the ramps under their own weight fell to the ground. To leave the position, the help of other engineering equipment was required, which was able to raise the ladders to their original position.

At the testing stage, new moving ladders of different lengths were tested, which made it possible to overcome wide obstacles. The final version of the ARK Mk II received devices that allowed organizing a ferry 12-15 m long. In addition, there were additional mounted sections 3 m long for installation on standard ramps.

Churchill ARK Mk II UK pattern entered the supply of troops and replaced in the series produced Mk I. Maximum unification allowed the operation of two machines at the same time without any problems.


The same crossing, view from a different angle. In the background - a stuck enemy tank


In the same period, military engineers of the 8 Army operating in Italy proposed another version of the "Ark." This small-scale tank bridge was originally called Octopus, but later received the designation ARK Mk II Italian pattern. In the manufacture of such machines, American-made ladders of 4,65 or 3,7 m length were used. They were fixed on hinges to the body; a cable system was also used to hold it in a transport position. There were no central sections on the hull: the bridge’s flooring turned out to be the tank’s own tracks. Bridge tanks of the “Italian model” were made by military workshops by rebuilding Churchill Mk III tanks.

Experimental samples


During 1944, several new designs were proposed on the basis of the existing Churchill ARK with various features. Unlike the bridge tanks Mk I and Mk II of two versions, they did not reach serial production.

The first was the Lakeman ARK tank bridge. This project involved the use of a base tank in its original configuration. A gauge bridge was installed on it with the help of high trusses and hung over a standard tower. With the help of such a machine, another technique could overcome higher obstacles. In addition, the Lakeman ARK retained some of the combat capabilities of the tank. However, such a sample was considered unnecessary, and he did not advance beyond the tests.


Two Mk II Italian patterns formed a bridge over a ravine and a river. Italy, April 10 1945


The Great Eastern Ramp project included the installation on the tank of a more complex three-section bridge, located with a slope back. The front section of such a bridge was supposed to lie on the central one and drive forward with solid-fuel rockets. The tests of the experimental tank-bridge were successful, and an order appeared for the 10 pre-production vehicles for military tests. However, the war in Europe was coming to an end, and soon this order was canceled as unnecessary.

"Ark" in operation


The tank bridge based on Churchill was created specifically for future landings in continental Europe. Accordingly, the first cases of the use of such equipment on the battlefield date back to 6 on June 1944. The action of the British units on the Normandy coast was provided by the ARK Mk I tank tanks. The equipment of the following modifications appeared later, after the start of the fighting.

"Arks" made in Great Britain were used mainly on the "second front". The grouping of troops operating in Italy did not receive such equipment, but built it on its own from existing tanks. Thus, the necessary tank tanks were available on all sectors of the front and were actively used.

The predominantly offensive nature of the operations of the Allied armies in Western Europe contributed to the frequent use of engineering equipment. Churchill ARK of all modifications were regularly used to transport combat vehicles through ditches, escarpments, ponds and other obstacles. Over time, new methods of using tank tanks were mastered. So, deep trenches or ravines could be crossed with the help of two "Arks"; while one stood on the roof of the other. The use of several machines made it possible to create bridges of increased length.


Experienced Tank Bridge Churchill Great Eastern Ramp


In total, several dozen Churchill ARK bridge tanks of three versions were built and sent to the front. A few more options for this technique did not go beyond the landfill. Until the end of the fighting in Europe, production vehicles provided overcoming obstacles and made an important contribution to the fight against the enemy.

After the war, the surviving "Arks" remained in operation for a long time. At the same time, new methods of their application were worked out. So, the Twin-ARK project proposed the use of two tanks at once with reinforced and elongated ramps. They should have been placed side by side, which made it possible to organize a longer and wider crossing capable of withstanding tanks of new models.

However, Churchill ARKs remained in service for not too long. The basic Churchilli were removed from service and replaced with new tanks, which lost one of the main advantages of the Ark. In the fifties, tank tanks of this family were removed from supply and gave way to new models of engineering equipment with similar tasks, but with different equipment. Bridge tanks were considered unpromising and replaced with full-blown pavers with a dropable bridge.
  • Ryabov Kirill
  • Imperial War Museum / iwm.org, Chamberlain P., Eliis C. "British and american tanks of World War II"
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

15 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    11 August 2019 05: 53
    My father, the deputy engineer of a tank company, when guiding a crossing over a ravine with the help of a bridge-laying machine, threw the latter into an unsuccessful maneuver into this ravine. As a result of a craniocerebral trauma, service at the Military Commissariat, dismissal due to disability. Thank you, although he remained alive, his grandson waited, but he died early anyway.
  2. -5
    11 August 2019 13: 59
    Bridge tanks were considered unpromising and replaced with full-blown pavers with a dropable bridge.

    Indeed, I look at the photo and wonder - whatever the child wouldn’t amuse .....
  3. +5
    11 August 2019 14: 01
    Cool technology, although looking at small obstacles it seems - you can get around without bridges. But the photo where the panther drowns refutes it.

    "The front section of such a bridge was supposed to lie on the center and go forward with solid-propellant rockets."
    Everything is fine in this action :)
  4. +3
    11 August 2019 17: 24
    ,,, with the proper imagination, can be used not only for crossings, but to mislead the enemy "miracle weapon" laughing
  5. 0
    11 August 2019 18: 23
    Yeah, Dieppe taught the British a lot ...
    1. 0
      12 August 2019 14: 09
      Yeah, Dieppe
      ,,, orders and glories someone wanted.
      1. 0
        12 August 2019 14: 18
        It was not a matter of orders and glory. The British simply wanted to test the very possibility of a landing in France. Having drawn the appropriate conclusions, the landing in Normandy subsequently failed.
        1. 0
          12 August 2019 14: 22
          ,, Mountbatten, 5 thousand Canadians sent for slaughter, without the approval of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. request
          1. 0
            12 August 2019 14: 29
            Once it was to coordinate, the decision had to be taken immediately. And the death of the Canadians, in any case, was not in vain.
  6. +1
    11 August 2019 21: 28
    Such cuttlefish, it is not surprising that specialized bridge layers were more promising. recourse
    1. +3
      12 August 2019 09: 32
      And on the contrary, I liked them. Moreover, the tank becomes irrelevant on the battlefield, so it can be launched with a bridge with a minimum of alterations. But it is not known how convenient it was to operate, especially compared to the first bridge pavers with dropable bridges. It is necessary to read someone’s memories.
      1. +2
        12 August 2019 10: 16
        But it is not known how convenient it was to operate, especially compared to the first bridge pavers with dropable bridges.
        ,,, most likely depended on the place of the crossing. Here, it seems to me, it is more convenient to use the dumped one.

        1. +3
          12 August 2019 11: 21
          Without a doubt. But I'm a little bit about something else. You just need to bring the discarded, bring, unload, decompose, properly installed. If it is compound then assemble.
          And on the tank - he pulled up, stood in place, laid out, if necessary, corrected a little and everything.

          Ps I really love churchchildren, but I’ve never really come across films where the story is associated with it and you can look at it in action, albeit from the artistic side.
          1. 0
            12 August 2019 11: 37
            did not come across films where the story is associated with it
            ,, Are you talking about feature films?
            1. +2
              12 August 2019 12: 03
              Yes, in the documentaries there it is shown very differently, although it would seem.
              Well, for example, here, reading the recollections of tankers who fought on the t-34, they tell how they slept under the tank covered with a tarp. It seems everything is clear, but it’s worth 1 time to see in the film the image for centuries. And where will they show it? Only in the documentary. Well and the like. Weren't Churchill beloved in the army and not particularly lit up in the war? Or I just had no luck meeting films with them.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"