[Juha]

Tony
"The frontal armour needed to keep out the 88-mm could have been fitted on an upgraded Churchill. Take my word for it"

Sorry Tony, I read You message in haste and misunderstood it. I'm sorry of the unnecessary outburst!

But As I wrote, max armour of Churchill VII, the best armoured Churchill, was 6inch (152mm) and the penetrative power of 88mm L/71 with the usual APCBC round, not with the better but rare APCR, was against homogenous armour plate at 30 deg from vertical, 203 mm from 100m, 185mm from 500m, 165mm from 1000m. But the clearly more common 88, that of Flak 18, 36 and 37 was able to penetrate in same situation 127, 117 and 106mm respectively and the 88mm L/56 KwK 36 of Tiger I a bit less, 120, 110 and 100mm. So the front sector of Churchill VII and VIII was already armoured against almost all German AP rounds. And with applique armour, which seems to be common in NW Europe, the noseplate of earlier Churchills seems to be just adequate to keep out APCBC round of the most common German A/T gun Pak 40 and of course those of guns of PzKpfw IV, StuG III and IV and PzJg IV etc.

"An 88-mm in enfilade shooting through the thin side armour would then have been killed at leisure by the remaining oncoming Churchills."

You really don't understand landwarfare! there is a well known case when one Churchill Sqn lost 9 tanks in a couple minutes to flank firing Jagdpanthers, BTW armed with 88mm L/71s.

"to the common Pak of the day, which in 1945 was the 88-mm."

The common Pak in 1945 happen to be 75mm Pak 40.

"In 1918, one of the main tasks of CAS was to take out anti-tank guns."

Please, give me the type of A/T gun in service in 1918.

Tony check your facts, the bitter truth is that from wrong premises the chance to get right conclusion is very near nil.

Juha