Baryatinsky Mikhail Borisovich Weapon stories. Infantry tank Mk.III "Valentine" outside and inside Equipment for Valentine II
The first English tanks (20 vehicles) were delivered to Arkhangelsk by PQ-1 caravan on October 11, 1941. At the same time, to improve the selection and supply of armored vehicles necessary for the needs of the Red Army, three officers of the Armored Directorate of the Red Army arrived in London. They were sent to the central tank depot at Chilville. Together with military experts from other regions, tankers became part of the Engineering Department of the People's Commissariat of Foreign Trade, which was headed by Captain 1st Rank Solovyov. A similar group of military specialists was sent to the United States, where they arrived in January 1942.
The MK.P Matilda II and MK.III Valentine I tanks sent to the USSR, in accordance with the British concept, belonged to the infantry class and therefore were slow-moving, but well armored.
The infantry tank "Matilda I" was adopted by the British on the eve of the Second World War. This 27-ton vehicle was protected by 78 mm armor, which was not penetrated by any German tank or anti-tank gun (with the exception of 88 mm anti-aircraft guns), and was armed with a 40 mm gun or 76 mm howitzer. The engine was a twin diesel engine LES or Leyland with a total power of 174 or 190 hp, which allowed the tank to reach speeds of up to 25 km / h.
In total, until August 1943, 2987 Matildas were produced in the UK, of which 1084 were sent, and 916 arrived in the USSR (the rest died on the way).
English tank bridge layer "Valentine" (Valentine-Bridgelayer) is being tested at the NIBT training ground of the Main Armored Directorate of the Red Army. Kubinka, 1944
MK.1P "Valentine" (according to the documents of the Red Army "Valentine" or "Valentine") was developed by Vickers in 1938. Like the Matilda, it belonged to infantry tanks, but in terms of mass -16 tons, it was rather light. True, at the same time, the thickness of the Valentine's armor was 60-65 mm, and the armament (depending on the modification) consisted of a 40-mm, 57-mm or 75-mm gun. On Valentine I, an ABS carburetor engine of 135 hp was used, replaced in subsequent modifications by AEC and GMC diesel engines with a power of 131, 138 and 165 hp. Max Speed tank was 34 km / h.
"Valentines" were produced from 1940 until the beginning of 1945 in 11 modifications, which differed mainly in armament and engine type. A total of 8275 tanks were manufactured by three British and two Canadian firms (6855 in England and 1420 in Canada). 2,394 British and 1,388 Canadian Valentines (a total of 3,782 units) were sent to the Soviet Union, of which 3,332 reached Russia. In the USSR, "Valentines" of seven modifications were supplied:
"Valentine II" - with a 40-mm cannon, an AEC diesel engine with an HP 131 power. and an additional external fuel tank;
"Valentine 111" - with a triple tower and a crew of four;
"Valentine IV" - "Valentine II" with a GMC diesel engine of 138 hp;
"Valentine V" - "Valentine III" with a GMC diesel engine of 138 hp;
"Valentine VII" - a Canadian version of the "Valentine IV" with a one-piece frontal hull and a coaxial 7.62-mm Browning machine gun (instead of the 7.92-mm BESA machine gun installed on English-made Valentines);
"Valentine IX" - "Valentine V" with a 57-mm cannon with a barrel length of 42 calibers, mounted in a two-man turret without a coaxial machine gun;
"Valentine X" - "Valentine IX" with a 57-mm cannon with a barrel length of 50 calibers, coaxial with a machine gun, and a 165 hp GMC engine.
In addition to the main modifications of "Valentine", in 1944 the Red Army received the MK.II1 "Valentine-bridgelayer" (Valcntine-Bridgelayer) - according to the Soviet terminology "MK.ZM".
Perhaps the Canadian version of "Valentine" (modification VII) was even more reliable and technically more advanced than its English predecessor.
Canadian "Valentines" were supplied to the Red Army from 1942 to 1944, with the bulk of the deliveries occurring in 1943.
Another machine with which the supply of allied weapons to the USSR began should be considered the English armored personnel carrier "Universal" (according to Soviet terminology MK.I "Universal", or U-1, or "Bren"). This light tracked vehicle weighing about 3.5 tons was the most massive armored personnel carrier of the Second World War. From 1935 to 1945, 89595 cars of this class were produced in Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA, of which 2008 (English and Canadian production) ended up in the USSR. The Universal armored personnel carrier was armed with Bren machine guns and the Boys anti-tank rifle, the armor thickness was 7-11 mm. Ford engine with 85 hp allowed a 3.5-ton vehicle with a crew of two and three or four paratroopers to reach speeds of up to 50 km / h.
In the first year of the supply chain, the Red Army received 361 MK.P Matilda and MK.III Valentine tanks, as well as 330 Universal armored personnel carriers. True, only a few of this number were used in battles in 1941, so the role of British armored vehicles in the battles near Moscow was more than modest.
It should be noted that the designation system for British armored vehicles was quite complex and cumbersome. First, the index assigned to the tank by the Ministry of War (MK.II, MK.Sh, MK.IV, etc.) was indicated, then the name of the vehicle ("Valentine", "Matilda", "Churchill", etc.) came, and its modification was indicated (in Roman numerals). Thus, the full designation of the tank could look like this: MK.Sh "Valentine IX", MK.IV " Churchill III" and so on. To avoid confusion in this book, we will use the notation English tanks, adopted in the Red Army during the war years: the name indicating the modification, for example "Valentine IV", "Valentine IX", etc., or without indicating, for example MK.IV "Churchill", MK.SH "Valentine", MK .II "Matilda", etc.
In January 1942, 20 out of 177 produced tanks MK.VII "Tetrarch" (Soviet designation "Vickers VII" or MK.VII) were delivered to the USSR. These were light reconnaissance vehicles, weighing 7.6 tons, armed with a 40-mm cannon and a 7.92-mm BESA machine gun and protected by Yu ... 16-mm armor. 165 - a powerful Meadows MAT carburetor engine allowed the tank to reach a speed of 64 km / h. Most likely, the supply of this type of tank was due to interest in the results of its use on the Soviet-German front.
From the summer of 1942, heavy British MK tanks began to arrive in the Soviet Union in small batches. IV Churchill. They were produced in Great Britain from the summer of 1941 until the end of the Second World War in 16 modifications. Only two came to the USSR, which differed in the way the turrets were made: Churchill III with a welded turret and Churchill IV with a cast turret (in Soviet documents, these modifications did not differ in any way, and all tanks were designated MK.IV, MK.IV " Churchill" or simply "Churchill"). Protected by 77...175-mm armor, the 40-ton tank had a 350-horsepower Bedford carburetor engine and developed a speed of up to 25 km/h. The Churchill's armament consisted of a 57 mm cannon and two BESA machine guns. Starting in the autumn of 1942, these vehicles were sent to equip heavy breakthrough tank regiments. Of the 5640 issued and 344 sent to the USSR, only 253 "Churchill III and IV" hit.
From the beginning of 1942, the United States joined the organization of Lend-Lease supplies on a grand scale, which began to send tanks MZ "General Stuart" (in Soviet terminology, MZ light, or MZl) and MZ "General Lee" (in Soviet terminology, MZ medium, or MZs).
MZ "Stuart" was the most massive lung tank of World War II. From 1941 to 1944, two American firms manufactured 13,859 machines of three modifications. The USSR received modifications of the MZ and MZA1, which differed in the shape of the turret, the method of manufacturing the hull and the number of machine guns. These were 13-ton vehicles protected by 13...45 mm armor and armed with a 37 mm cannon and three (on MZA1) - five (on MZ) 7.62 mm Browning machine guns. 250 hp Continental carbureted engine (or a Guiberson diesel with 210 hp) accelerated tanks up to 50 km/h. In 1942-1943, 340 MZ and 1336 MZA1 were sent to the USSR, and 1232 tanks were sent (including 211 diesel ones).
MZ "Lee", developed in 1941, was a rather archaic design with a three-tiered arrangement of weapons. The production of these three-meter monsters unfolded at the factories of five companies, where in 1941-1942 6258 tanks of six modifications were produced, differing mainly in manufacturing technology and engine type. The USSR mainly supplied vehicles of the MZ modification, weighing 29 tons, having 22-50 mm armor and armament consisting of 75-mm and 37-mm guns and three Browning machine guns. 340 hp Continental R-975-EC2 radial carbureted engine. (or Guiberson diesel) accelerated this car to 42 km / h.
In 1942-1943, 1386 MZs tanks were sent from the USA to our country, and 976 vehicles were received, which were actively used in the battles of 1942-1943.
American medium tank M2A1
Also, judging by Soviet documents, along with the first batches American tanks MZ medium in 1942, several of its "predecessors" - M2A1 tanks (Soviet designation M2 medium) got into the USSR. With a mass of 17.2 tons, the M2 tank was armed with a 37 mm cannon in the turret and six 7.62 mm Browning machine guns in the hull. M2A1 had 32 mm thick armor, 400 hp engine. allowed him to accelerate to 42 km / h. In the United States, only 94 of these tanks were made, which were used in the American army only for training purposes.
However, the M4 "General Sherman" of American production became the most massive foreign tank in the Red Army. The first vehicles arrived in the USSR at the end of 1942, but the peak of supplies came in 1944, when 2345 M4A2 tanks were sent to our country, which accounted for more than 2/3 of all deliveries of foreign armored vehicles that year. And in total in the USA from February 1942 to August 1945, 49234 Shermans of 13 modifications were manufactured. In the USSR, modifications were supplied M4A2 (with a 75-mm gun) and M4A2 (76) W (with a 76-mm gun) with a GMC diesel engine with an HP 375 power. The mass of the tanks was (depending on armament) 31-33 tons, armor - 50 ... 100 mm, speed - up to 40 km / h.
During the war years, 10960 M4A2 tanks were manufactured at American enterprises, 4063 vehicles were sent to the USSR (1990 with a 75-mm cannon, 2073 with a 76-mm gun), and 3664 vehicles were received by military acceptance, including a small amount of M4A2 76 (W ) HVSS with a new horizontal suspension in June 1945, which participated in the war with Japan.
In addition to the linear ones, the Red Army received 127 repair tanks M31 (Soviet designation T-2), made on the basis of the medium-sized MZ, on which the main armament was dismantled and crane equipment and a winch were installed.
In 1944, 52 M10 self-propelled artillery mounts were received from the USA, which were sent to form two self-propelled artillery regiments. Built on the basis of the M4A2 tank, the self-propelled guns had 25 ... 57 mm armor and were armed with a powerful 76.2 mm cannon in a rotating turret open from above. GMC diesel with 375 hp allowed a self-propelled gun weighing 29.5 tons to reach a speed of 48 km / h.
In addition to tanks, armored personnel carriers and various vehicles based on them arrived in the USSR from the USA in large quantities.
American wheeled armored personnel carriers were represented in the Red Army by the White Scout Car MZA1 (in Soviet documents it is referred to as an "armored personnel carrier", armored vehicle, or "semi-armored vehicle" MZA1, or "Scout"). The Scout was perfectly adapted for reconnaissance purposes. With a mass of 5.6 tons, the vehicle had an armor thickness of up to 12.7 mm and could carry 8 people (2 crew, 6 troops). A 110-horsepower carburetor engine allowed the armored personnel carrier to reach speeds of up to 105 km / h. The regular armament of the Scout included 12.7 mm heavy-caliber and 7.62 mm Browning machine guns, not counting the personal crew. In the Red Army, Scout armored personnel carriers were used as part of reconnaissance companies of tank and mechanized brigades, motorcycle battalions of corps subordination and in separate motorcycle regiments of tank armies. During the war years, 20,894 Scout vehicles were built in the United States, of which 3,034 fell into the armored and mechanized troops of the Red Army.
The American half-tracked armored personnel carriers M2, MZ, M9 entered the units subordinate to the GBTU in small quantities (118 units in total), since the bulk of these vehicles - 1082 pieces were sent to artillery (mainly to fighter anti-tank), where they were used for towing 76 ... 100 mm guns.
In tank formations, these armored personnel carriers, capable of carrying from 10 to 13 people, were turned into command vehicles for brigades, corps, and armies. 16-mm armor, a 147 hp engine, which allowed the vehicle to reach speeds of up to 72 km / h, and the presence of an awning allowed the headquarters or operational group of a mechanized unit to control the battle with satisfactory comfort. The defensive armament of the M2 consisted of two Browning machine guns and was identical to the wheeled Scout.
Repair and evacuation tank M31 based on the MZ "Lee" on trials in Kubinka.
On the basis of half-tracked armored personnel carriers of the M2-M9 family, various self-propelled guns were manufactured, which were also supplied to our country.
The T-48 self-propelled guns (Soviet designation SU-57) were a 57-mm cannon installed in the fighting compartment of the American MZ half-track armored personnel carrier. Initially, the order for this design was issued by Great Britain, but then, due to the relative weakness of weapons and the uncertainty with tactical use, some of the vehicles were transferred to the USSR. SU-57 in the amount of 650 pieces entered service with light self-propelled artillery brigades (sabr), as well as divisional and battery-by-battery - into separate armored reconnaissance companies and motorcycle battalions (regiments).
The anti-aircraft control system M15 was a half-track armored personnel carrier MZ with a combined machine gun and cannon armament mounted on it, consisting of a 37-mm M1A2 cannon and two Browning M2 machine guns with a caliber of 12.7 mm. This formidable weapon, capable of destroying not only low-flying air targets, but also lightly armored targets, was supplied to the USSR in small quantities. Of the 2332 M15 ZSUs produced in the USA, only 100 vehicles were in the tank units of the Red Army.
The M17 anti-aircraft gun was armed with four 12.7-mm Browning M2 machine guns in an aircraft rotating mount mounted on the basis of the M5 armored personnel carrier. All 1000 anti-aircraft control systems Ml7, made in the USA, were delivered to the Soviet Union.
All ZSU delivered from the United States were used as part of the mechanized and tank troops of the Red Army. They, along with Soviet towed guns, were equipped with separate anti-aircraft regiments, battalions and companies of corps and tank armies. For example, in January 1945, the 7th Guards Tank Corps included the 287th anti-aircraft artillery regiment, consisting of 16 37-mm anti-aircraft guns and ten ZSU M17.
A 13-ton heavy armored M5 high-speed tractor stands apart among the armored vehicles delivered under Lend-Lease. Built on the basis of the undercarriage of the MZ General Stuart light tank, the tractor had a 235 hp Continental R6572 engine. and was able to tow guns up to 155 mm in caliber, while simultaneously carrying 8-9 people at a speed of 56 km / h. The cabin was open type, with a canvas roof. The driver and the calculation of the guns were located in front of the car. Of the 5,290 vehicles produced by International Harvester, 200 M5 hit the USSR in 1944-1945, which were sent exclusively to the artillery units of the RGK, where they were used to tow 122 and 152-mm hull guns.
In addition to combat vehicles, various repair and recovery equipment was supplied to the Red Army throughout the entire period of the war. Along with the already mentioned repair and recovery tank M31, the Red Army received wheeled English Scammel tractors in two modifications and American vehicles RE028XS, Diamond T-980.
The heavy emergency tractor Scammel was developed for the British army in the variants of a tank towing vehicle (Scammell TRMU / 30) and an evacuation vehicle (Scammell PIONEER SV / 2S). Diesel Gardner GL 102 HP allowed using a trailer to tow cargo up to 30 tons on paved roads. However, during the fighting in North Africa Scammel TRMU / 30 even brought 42-ton Churchills to the front line. A powerful winch-crane was installed on the evacuation PIONEER SV / 2S for repair work.
Deliveries of Scammel to our country began in 1942 and were extremely limited. However, in the UK itself, during the entire period of the war, 548 Scammell TRMU / 30 and 768 Scammell SV / 2S were produced, so several dozen of these tractors delivered to the Red Army were an impressive figure compared to the total production. Prior to the start of mass American deliveries, these machines were distributed along the fronts literally by the piece. So, on the Leningrad front, only one Scammell tractor was subordinate to the front evacuator (the rest of the equipment was Soviet-made), etc.
The American REO transporter with a special trailer was designed to transport tanks and self-propelled guns weighing up to 20 tons on paved roads and on dry dirt roads. The design of the trailer made it possible to load and unload equipment under its own power; when transporting faulty tanks, loading onto the trailer was carried out by a winch. The RE028XS transporter had a Cummings HB-600 six-cylinder water-cooled diesel engine with a capacity of 150 hp. For the safety of transporting tanks and self-propelled guns, there was a set of fasteners (chains, pads, extensions, etc.). During 1943-1944, the Red Army received 190 of these vehicles, however, due to the general trend of increasing the weight of tanks, a tractor capable of towing heavier vehicles was required. They became the new American ballast tractor Diamond T-980. The transporter consisted of a three-axle 8-ton tractor and a three-axle wheeled 45-ton trailer Roger Trailer. It could be used to transport cargo weighing up to 45 tons on dry dirt roads and paved roads. The Diamond T-980 transporter was equipped with a powerful engine-driven winch for the convenience of unloading and loading tanks. In addition, the design of the trailer made it possible to load serviceable tanks under its own power. The power of the Hercules DFXE engine reached 200 hp, which ensured the transportation of cargo on a trailer at a speed of 26 km / h. From 1943 to 1945, 295 Diamond T-980 tractors were received. These vehicles were placed at the disposal of the front and army evacuators. So, as part of the 1st Guards tank army there was the 67th evakorota, in which, in addition to the Voroshilovites and the Kominterns, as of January 1945, there were 2 T-980s. Usually, no more than two vehicles were allocated to the army evacuation equipment. On 08/05/1945, to ensure the evacuation of armored vehicles of units and formations prepared for an attack on Japanese troops in Manchuria, the 1st armored repair and evacuation center was created, from which mixed evacuation groups were allocated to provide army needs. The 1st Red Banner Army received 3 T-34 tractors and 2 T-980 Diamonds, while the 5th Army received 6 T-34s and 2 Diamonds. By the end of the war, the reports of the repair and evacuation services were full of proposals to increase the number of tractors to 4-5 pieces per army.
In the Red Army, wheeled tractors with trailers for transporting tanks to the front line were used extremely rarely. Due to their relative scarcity and the presence of winches, Scammell, REO, Diamond tractors were primarily needed for the rapid evacuation of heavy armored vehicles, especially from areas with swampy terrain.
Tanks T-2 (M31) in a pair tow a heavy KV-1. Polygon NIBT, winter 1942-43.
Since the end of 1943, American and Canadian-made automobile repair shops began to arrive in the Soviet Union in large quantities.
The full fleet of American workshops consisted of up to ten different repair units and was essentially a field tank repair plant. It consisted of the following machines:
1. Mechanical workshop M16A (on the Studebacker US-6 chassis).
2. Mechanical workshop М16В (on US-6 chassis).
3. Locksmith and mechanical workshop M8A (on US-6 chassis).
4. Forging and welding workshop M12 (on US-6 chassis).
5. Electrical repair shop M18 (on US-6 chassis).
6. Workshop for the repair of weapons M7 (on the US-6 chassis).
7. Tool shop (on the StudebekkerUS-6 chassis).
8. Warehouse machines M14 (on US-6 chassis).
9. 10-ton Ml or M1A1 crane (on the WARD LaFRANCE 1000 M1A1 chassis, less often on the KENWORTH 570 Ml chassis).
10. Repair tank M31 (T-2).
The full fleet of Canadian workshops was smaller than the American one and consisted of the following machines:
1 Mechanical workshop A3 (on US-made GMC - 353 chassis).
2. Mechanical workshop D3 (on the American-made GMC-353 chassis).
3. Mobile charging station (CCD) OFP-3 (on a Canadian-made Ford C298QF/F60L chassis).
4. Electric welding workshop KL-3 (on a Canadian-made Ford F15A chassis).
5. Electrical repair shop (on the US-made GMC - 353 chassis).
6. Power plant for 9 kW on a trailer.
The American and Canadian parks were completed, mainly, by the repair units of the army and front-line subordination (mobile tank repair plants, separate repair and restoration battalions, etc.). This made it possible to produce not only medium, but also overhaul armored vehicles, while Soviet equipment of this type was designed mainly for current repairs.
A separate forging and welding workshop was also supplied to the USSR (on the chassis of the American GMC Chevrolet 7107 or Chevrolet Canadian production), which was used to staff repair units directly to tank units. In total, in 1944-1945, 1,590 field and repair shops of all types were delivered to the USSR from Canada (the authors do not have data on the number of American workshops).
ZSU M15A1, Kubinka, 1944
Thus, for the entire period of the war, the USSR received not only combat vehicles and spare parts for them, but also modern foreign-made repair equipment, which ensured the entire cycle of competent operation of the Red Army tank fleet, both domestic and foreign.
In conclusion, it should be noted that one of the problems in assessing the volume of Lend-Lease deliveries is the counting system. In most domestic and foreign works devoted to this topic, the authors operate with Western data, which exceed the Soviet ones by 3-4 hundreds of units. This is due, firstly, to the loss of part of the tanks during transportation by Northern convoys (especially in 1942-1943), and secondly, to the fact that applications Soviet Union for one or another type of equipment was often mistaken for dispatch data. Therefore, different authors have completely different quantitative data.
In addition, most domestic archival materials relating to Lend-Lease are still inaccessible to most researchers. Therefore, it is not yet possible to estimate the actual volumes of deliveries.
The tables given here are compiled according to the admission committees of the GBTU of the Red Army and seem to the authors to be the closest to the truth (tables 3, 4 and 5).
Table 3. Deliveries of armored vehicles to the USSR from Great Britain and Canada from 1941 to 1945 (according to the selection committees of the GBTU KA)
1 Of these, 27 are from Canada. Of these, all 16 are from Canada.
2 From 1943 to 1945, British Cromwell cruiser tanks (six units) converted into Sherman mine sweepers under the name Sherman Crab (three units), Churchill-Crocodile flamethrower vehicles were supplied to the USSR from Great Britain for informational purposes. "(five pieces), AES and Daimler armored vehicles (one copy each), a flamethrower version of the Universal armored personnel carrier called the Wasp, as well as Canadian Bombardier snowmobiles (six pieces).
Table 4. Deliveries of armored vehicles from the USA to the USSR from 1941 to 1945 (according to the selection committees of the GBTU KA)
3 In 1943, 12 MZs tanks from among the supplies for 1942 were raised from the bottom of the Arctic Ocean from the side of a sunken transport by the forces of the repair units of the Karelian Front. After the inclusion of 11 MZs in the units of the Karelian Front, the number of tanks of this type delivered to the USSR in 1943 began to be 175 units.
2 In 1942, under the MZ medium brand, several American M2A1 medium tanks were delivered to the USSR.
3 3 data are given only for armored personnel carriers that came under the jurisdiction of GBTU KA. In addition, from 1942 to 1945, 1082 M2, MZ, M9 armored personnel carriers were transferred to the Chief artillery department for use as artillery tractors. Thus, total half-tracked armored personnel carriers supplied under Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union is 1200 units.
For testing and familiarization in 1943-1945, one heavy tank T26 "General Pershing" five light tanks M5, two light tanks M24 "General Chaffee" and five self-propelled guns T-70 were sent from the USA to the USSR.
Table 5. Deliveries to the USSR of wheeled tank transporters from the USA in 1941-1945 (according to the data of the selection committees of the GBTU KA)
ctrl Enter
Noticed osh s bku Highlight text and click Ctrl+Enter
Tanks "VALENTINE" in parts of the Red Army
Not so long ago, when mentioning any equipment sent to the USSR under Lend-Lease, the authors always noted the insignificance of foreign supplies in comparison with domestic production, as well as the poor quality and archaic design of these samples. Now that the struggle against bourgeois falsifiers has successfully ended with the victory of the latter, it is possible to more or less objectively analyze the merits and demerits of individual models of armored vehicles of Anglo-American production, which were used in significant quantities in parts of the Red Army. This article is about English. light tank MK.III "Valentine", which became the most massive British armored vehicle used on the Soviet-German front, as well as in battles in the Far East.
MK.III "Valentine" (according to the documents of the Red Army "Valentine" or "Valentina") was developed by the company "" in 1938. Like the Matilda, it belonged to infantry tanks, but in terms of mass - 16 tons - it was rather light. True, at the same time, the thickness of the Valentine's armor was 60-65 mm, and the armament (depending on the modification) consisted of a 40-mm, 57-mm or 75-mm gun. On Valentine I, a 135 hp AEC carburetor was used, replaced in subsequent modifications by AEC and GMC diesel engines with a capacity of 131, 138 and 165 hp. tank was 34 km / h.
By Soviet standards, "Valentines" had an archaic design - armor plates were attached to the corners with rivets. Armored elements were installed, basically, almost vertically, without rational angles of inclination. However, "rational" armor was not always used on German vehicles - this approach significantly reduced the working internal volume of the tank, which affected the crew's performance. But on the other hand, all British cars were radio-equipped (radio station No. 19), and also had a diesel engine, which facilitated their operation along with Soviet models.
"Valentines" were produced from 1940 to the beginning of 1945 in 11 modifications, which differed mainly in armament and engine type. A total of 8275 tanks were manufactured by three British and two Canadian firms (6855 in England and 1420 in Canada). 2394 British and 1388 Canadian "Valentines" were sent to Sovietsky (a total of 3782 units), of which 3332 vehicles reached Russia. In the USSR, "Valentines" of seven modifications were supplied:
"Valentine II" - with a 42-mm cannon, AEC diesel engine, 131 hp. and an additional external fuel tank;
"Valentine III" - with a triple tower and a crew of four;
"Valentine IV" - "Valentine II" with a GMC diesel engine of 138 hp;
"Valentine V" - "Valentine III" with a GMC diesel engine of 138 hp;
"Valentine VII" - a Canadian version of the "Valentine IV" with a one-piece frontal hull and a coaxial 7.62-mm Browning machine gun (instead of the 7.92-mm BESA machine gun that was installed on English-made Valentines);
"Valentine IX" - "Valentine V" with a 57-mm cannon with a barrel length of 45 or 42 calibers, mounted in a two-man turret without a coaxial machine gun;
"Valentine X" - "Valentine IX" with a 57-mm cannon with a barrel length of 45 or 42 calibers (most likely a typo. Further in the text - 52 calibers. A.A.), coaxial with a machine gun and a GMC engine with a power of 165 l .With.
In addition to the main modifications of the "Valentine", in 1944 the Red Army also received the Mk.III "Valentine-bridgelayer" (Valentine-Bridgelaer) - in Soviet terminology "Mk.ZM". Perhaps the Canadian version of "Valentine" (modification VII) was even more reliable and technically more advanced than its English predecessor. Canadian "Valentines" were supplied to the Red Army from 1942 to 1944, with the bulk of the deliveries occurring in 1943. The most massive modifications in the Red Army were "Valentine IV" and its Canadian counterpart "Valentine VII", as well as the main version of the final period of the war - "Valentine IX". Moreover, the IX was delivered to the Soviet Union mainly with an artillery system having a barrel length of 52 calibers, while in the British army models with a barrel length of 45 calibers were used. "XI" with a 75-mm cannon was not supplied to the USSR.
It should be noted that the designation system for British armored vehicles was quite complex and cumbersome. First, the index assigned to the tank by the Ministry of War was indicated (Mk.II, Mk.III, Mk.IV, etc.), then came the name of the vehicle ("Valentine", "Matilda", "Churchill", etc.) and indicated by her (in Roman numerals). Thus, the full designation of the tank could look like this; Mk.III "Valentine IX", Mk.IV "Churchill III", etc. To avoid confusion, we will use the designations of English tanks adopted in the Red Army during the war years: the name with the modification, for example: "Valentine IV", "Valentine IX", etc., or without the modification, for example: Mk. III Valentine.
During the four years of the war, foreign-made armored vehicles received various compounds, subdivided | divisions and parts of the armored forces of the Red Army. Therefore, there were many reports on their operational and combat characteristics. Moreover, the assessment of the same vehicle by the middle and senior command staff often did not coincide with the opinion of the tank crew. This is understandable, the command was primarily concerned with the tactical characteristics of equipment - armament, speed on the march, power reserve, etc. - and for the crew, ease of operation, placement of units and the possibility of quick repairs, as well as other parameters of household and technical nature. The combination of these two points of view largely determined the presented sample of armored vehicles.
In addition, the foreign one was designed with the expectation of a higher culture of production and operation. In many ways, it was the technical illiteracy of the crews, the lack of units needed for maintenance that became the reasons for the failure of allied equipment. However, the "chasm" of the gap was not so great, and our tankers very soon got used to foreign vehicles, modifying many of them to suit the specifics of operation on the Soviet-German front.
The first "Valentines" appeared in parts of our active army at the end of November 1941, albeit in small numbers. In this case, only a part of the received 145 Matildas, 216 Valentines and 330 Universals was used. So, on the Western Front on 01/01/1942 "Valentines" were part of the 146th (2-T-34, 10-T-60, 4-Mk.Sh), 23rd (1-T-34, 5 Mk. .III) and 20th (1-T-34, 1-T-26, 1-T-, 60, 2-Mk.Sh, 1-BA-20) tank brigades operating in battle formations 16, 49 and 3rd Army, as well as as part of the 112th TD (1-KV, 8-T-26, 6-Mk.Sh and 10-T-34), attached to the 50th Army. The 171st separate tank battalion, also equipped with Valentines (10-T-60, 12-Mk.II, 9-Mk.III), fought on the North-Western Front (4th Army).
German documents of the 4th Panzer Group note the fact of the first use of English Type 3 tanks (Mk.III Valentine. - Author's note) against the 2nd Panzer Division on November 25, 1941 in the Peshka area. The document stated: "For the first time, German soldiers were faced with the fact of real help from England, about which Russian propaganda was screaming for so long. English tanks are much worse than Soviet ones. The crews that the German soldiers took prisoner scold "the old tin boxes that the British handed them to them."
Judging by this report, it can be assumed that the crews of the Valentines had a very limited training period and did not know the English materiel well. In units of the 5th army, which covered the Mozhaisk direction, the first unit to receive "inotanks" was the 136th separate tank battalion (otb). The battalion completed its formation on December 1, 1941, having ten T-34 tanks, ten T-60 tanks, nine Valentines and three Matildas (English tanks were received in Gorky on November 10, 1941, tankers were trained directly on front). By December 10, during the training of the crews, five Valentines, two Matildas, one T-34 and four T-60s were broken. After bringing the materiel in order, December 15, 1911 136 otb. was given 329 rifle division(sd). Then, together with the 20th tank brigade, he participated in the counteroffensive near Moscow.
On January 15, 1942, the battalion command compiled a "Brief Report on the Actions. Mk.Sh" - apparently, documents with an assessment of the Allied equipment:
"The experience of using "Valentines" showed:
1. Patency of tanks in winter conditions good, movement is ensured on soft snow 50-60 cm thick. Grip with the ground is good, but spurs are needed when icy conditions.
2. The weapon operated flawlessly, but there were cases of undershot guns (the first five or six shots), apparently due to the thickening of the lubricant. The weapon is very demanding on lubrication and care.
3. Observation in devices and slots is good.
4. The motor group and worked well up to 150-200 hours, then there is a decrease in engine power.
5. Armor good quality.
The personnel of the crews underwent special training and owned tanks satisfactorily. The command and technical staff of the tanks knew little. A great inconvenience was created by the crews' ignorance of the elements of preparing tanks for winter. As a result of the lack of necessary heating, the cars hardly started in the cold and therefore kept hot all the time, which led to a large consumption of motor resources. In battle with German tanks(12/20/1941) three "Valentines" received the following damage: one had a turret jammed by a 37-mm projectile, the other had a cannon, the third received five hits on the side from a distance of 200-250 meters. In this battle, "Valentines" knocked out two medium German tanks T-3.
In general, the Mk.Sh is a good combat weapon with powerful weapons, good maneuverability, capable of operating against enemy manpower, fortifications and tanks.
Negative sides:
1. Poor grip of the tracks with the ground.
2. Great vulnerability of the suspension bogies - if one roller fails, it cannot move. There are no high-explosive fragmentation shells for the gun."
Apparently, the latter circumstance was the reason for the order State Committee Defense on the rearmament of "Valentine" with a domestic artillery system. This task and in a short time was carried out at the plant number 92 by the design bureau under the leadership of Grabin. In December 1941, for two weeks, one "Valen-Tyne" was armed with a 45-mm tank gun and a DT machine gun. This machine received the factory index ZIS-95. At the end of December, the tank was sent to Moscow, but things did not go beyond the prototype.
A large number of tanks "Valentine" participated in the battle for the Caucasus. In general, the North Caucasian Front in the period 1942-1943 had a very significant "share" of Anglo-American tanks - up to 70% of total number machines. This situation was explained primarily by the proximity of the front to the Iranian channel for supplying the Red Army with equipment and weapons, as well as the convenience of transporting tanks along the Volga that arrived in the northern ports of the USSR.
Of the armored units of the North Caucasian Front, the 5th Guards Tank Brigade was considered the most eminent and experienced. The brigade began combat operations in the Caucasus on September 26, 1942, covering the Grozny direction to the Malgobek, Ozernaya area (at that time the brigade had 40 Valentines, three T-34s and one BT-7). On September 29, the brigade counterattacked the German units in the Alkhanch-Urt valley. In this battle, the crew of Captain Shenelkov's Guards destroyed five tanks, one self-propelled gun, a truck and 25 soldiers on their "Valentine". 15 for the next few days, fighting in the area continued. In total, during the fighting in the Malgobek area, the brigade destroyed 38 tanks (of which 20 burned down), one self-propelled guns, 24 guns, six mortars, one six-barreled mortar, up to 1800 enemy soldiers. The losses of the brigade amounted to two T-34s, 33 Valentines (of which eight burned down, the rest were evacuated and restored), 268 people were killed and wounded.
Returning to the use of the Valentine tank on the Soviet-German front, we can say that our commanders found the right solution - they began to use these tanks in an integrated manner, together with Soviet technology. In the first echelon (according to the documents of 1942) there were tanks KV and "Matilda CS;" (with a 76.2-mm howitzer), in the second echelon T-34, and in the third "Valentine" and T-70. This tactic has often yielded positive results. An example of this is the reconnaissance in force of the fire system of the German defensive zone in the North Caucasus - the Blue Line.
Forces from the 56th Army were involved in the attack: the 5th Guards Tank Brigade (as of 1.08. 1C), as well as a battalion of the 417th Infantry Division.
Exactly at six o'clock in the morning on August 6, 1943, a volley of Katyushas was fired at the Gorno-Vesely farm (the Object of attack), and immediately behind the fire shaft, three KV-1S rushed forward, followed by three "Valentines" under the command of the guard senior lieutenant G. P. Polosina. The infantry moved behind the slippers. Further, it is interesting to cite the memoirs of G.P. Polosin, a participant in the battle:
“Tacking among the shell bursts (thirty-minute artillery preparation, of course, did not fully suppress the enemy fire system), my Valentine suddenly found itself literally in front of the farmhouse houses. That’s luck! But how are the other tanks? ..
I looked around through the peepholes. I saw that two more "Englishmen" of my platoon - the cars of Poloznikov and Voronkov - were walking a little behind. But heavy HF is not visible. Maybe they fell behind or took it aside: The infantry, of course, was cut off from the tanks even earlier ...
Destroying enemy machine-gun emplacements and bunkers along the way, our tanks reached the hollow. Stopped here. I gave the order over the radio:
- Don't shoot without my order! Save your projectiles. It is still unknown how much it will take like this ... And then to get through to your own ...
The tank commanders answered shortly:
-Understood.
Then he tried to contact the commander of the guard company, Senior Lieutenant Maksimov. And I couldn't. The broadcast was filled to the limit with hysterical commands in German. Apparently, the Nazis were seriously worried about the unexpected breakthrough of Russian tanks in this sector of their defense.
But our position was unenviable. It just so happened that they broke away from the main group conducting reconnaissance in force, and the fuel was running out, alone behind enemy lines, which, however, had not yet fully understood the situation, but this was a matter of time.
Having crushed a German anti-tank gun along the way, our tank jumped out of the hollow into the open space and saw a strange picture. On Voronkov's car, which was 30-40 meters to the right, there were Germans. They mistook "Valentines" for their equipment, pounded their butts on the armor and did not understand why the tankers did not get out. After waiting until the Germans had accumulated up to a dozen people, I ordered to hit them with a machine gun. Then, firing from smoke grenade launchers (this is where this weapon, which was only on British tanks, came in handy) and, having installed a smoke screen, the vehicles returned through the same hollow to the location of their troops. Near Gorno-Vesely, the battle was still going on. HF were hit. One of them stood without a tower. Another a little farther from him buried his cannon in the ground. At its right, flattened caterpillar, two tankers fired their pistols from the advancing Germans. Having dispersed the enemy infantry with fire from cannons and machine guns, we dragged both wounded into our "Valentine". It immediately became clear that he could not penetrate the armor of the KV anti-tank artillery, the Germans used guided mines against them."
During this short raid behind enemy lines, a platoon of guards senior lieutenant G.P. Polosin destroyed five anti-tank guns, crushed five bunkers, 12 machine guns, shot up to a hundred Nazis. But most importantly, with his unexpected blow from the rear, he forced the enemy to fully open his fire system. Which is exactly what was needed.
It remains to be added that all crew members of Polosin's platoon were awarded for this government awards. Personally, Georgy Pavlovich Polosin received the Order of the Red Star.
In the 196th Tank Brigade (30th Army of the Kalinin Front), which participated in the capture of the city of Rzhev, in August 1942, steel plates were welded onto each of the Valentine tank tracks, increasing the track area. Shod in such "bast shoes", the car did not fall through in the snow and did not get stuck in marshy ground middle lane Russia. Mk.IIIs were actively used in positional battles on the Western and Kalinin fronts until the beginning of 1944. For mobility and maneuverability "Valentine" was very fond of cavalrymen. Until the end of the war, "Valentine IV" and its further development "Valentine IX and X" remained the main tank of the cavalry corps. As the main drawback, the cavalrymen noted the absence of high-explosive fragmentation shells for the cannon. And one more thing: it was not recommended to make sharp turns on the "Valentine", since at the same time the sloth's crank bent and the caterpillar jumped off.
By the end of the war, modifications of the Valentine IX and X (along with the American Sherman) were the only types of tanks that the USSR continued to request for supplies to the Red Army. For example, as of June 22, 1944, the 5th Guards Tank Army (3rd Belorussian Front) had 39 Valentine IX tanks, and the 3rd Cavalry Corps had 30 Valentine III tanks. These vehicles completed their military career in the Far East in August-September 1945. The 1st Far Eastern Front included 20 bridge tanks Mk.III Valentine-Bridgelayer, the 2nd Far Eastern Front included 41 Valentine III and IX (267th Tank Regiment) and another 40 Valentine IV were in the ranks of the horse -mechanized group of the Trans-Baikal Front.
Attached to tank brigades by armies 15 and 16, tank-bridge companies (10 Mk.IIIM each) marched along with tanks, but were not used, since tanks and self-propelled guns overcame small rivers and streams themselves, and large obstacles (over 8 m) were not Mk.IIIM could be provided.
The Canadian tanks "Valentine IV" in Soviet terminology were also designated as "Mk.III", so it is quite difficult to determine where the English tanks are and where the Canadian tanks are. Several cars "Valentine VII" took part in the liberation of the Crimea. The 19th Perekop tank corps had the 91st separate motorcycle battalion, which had a Valentine VII tank, ten BA-64s, ten Universal armored personnel carriers and 23 motorcycles.
However, this does not detract from the Canadian share of deliveries to the USSR. After all, almost half of the Valentines delivered were Canadian-made. These tanks, along with British products, participated in many operations of the Great Patriotic War.
One example of the use of Canadian vehicles was the battle of the 139th tank regiment of the 68th mechanized brigade of the 5th mechanized corps of the 5th army to master locality Maiden's Field in November 1943. 139 TP (68 Mbr, 8 Mk, 5 Army) entered the operational subordination of the 5 Army on November 15, 1943. With 20 T-34 tanks and 18 Valentine VII tanks, the regiment was fully equipped and was not used in battles until November 20. After the preparation of the materiel for the battles was completed, on November 20, 1943, in cooperation with the 57th Guards Tank Breakthrough Regiment, armed with KV and T-34 vehicles, and the infantry of the 110th Guards Rifle Division, the tanks of the 139th TP went forward. , the attack was carried out at high speeds (up to 25 km / h) with a landing of machine gunners (up to 100 people) and with tanks attached anti-tank guns. 30 Soviet tanks participated in this operation. The enemy did not expect such a massive swift blow and could not offer effective resistance to the advancing units. When the first line of defense was broken, the infantry dismounted and, having unhooked their guns, began to occupy enemy positions, preparing to repel a possible counterattack. The remaining units of the 110th Guards Rifle Division were brought into the breach. However, the German counterattack did not take place, the German command was so stunned by the Soviet breakthrough that they could not organize resistance during the day. During this day, our troops went 20 km into the depths of the German defense and captured the Maiden's Field, while losing 4 tanks (KV,
At the beginning of 1938 War Department The UK offered Vickers-Armstrong Ltd. take part in the production of the infantry tank Mk. II either develop combat vehicle own design according to similar tactical and technical requirements. The drawings of the new combat vehicle were submitted to the Ministry of War on February 10, 1938, and its full-size model was made by March 14, but the military was not satisfied with the double tower, and for a whole year they thought about whether to accept the project or not. The deteriorating situation in Europe contributed to the fact that on April 14, 1939, an order was issued for the first series of tanks. The contract, signed in June - July of the same year, provided for the supply of 625 Valentines to the British army. Two more firms were involved in their production: Metropolitan- Cammell Carriage and Wagon Co. Ltd. and Birmingham Railway Carriage and Wagon Co. Ltd. In June 1940, the first mass-produced tanks began to come out of the shops of the Vickers plant in Newcastle.
Infantry tank "Valentine II" at the NIIBT Polygon in Kubinka. 1947
Infantry tank "Valentine" had a classic layout with rear drive wheels. The main feature of the hull and turret design is the absence of frames for their assembly. The armor plates were processed according to the corresponding templates so that they were mutually closed during assembly. Then the plates were fastened to each other with bolts, rivets and dowels. Tolerances when fitting various parts did not exceed 0.01 inches.
The driver's seat was located in the center of the front of the tank. For landing and disembarking, he had at his disposal two hatches with hinged covers. Two more crew members - the gunner and the commander (he is also the loader and radio operator) - were located in the tower. In its frontal part, a 2-pounder gun and a 7.92-mm BESA machine gun coaxial with it were installed in a cast mask. To their right, in a separate mask, is a 50-mm smoke grenade launcher. The armament was supplemented by a 7.69 mm Bren machine gun on anti-aircraft installation Lakeman on the roof of the tower. At the rear of the tower were radio station No. 11 or No. 19 and a special opening for ventilation. On the walls of the rotating floor of the fighting compartment of the tower was placed ammunition - 60 shots and 3150 rounds of ammunition (14 boxes of 225 pieces each) for the BESA machine gun; the seats of the crew members were also attached to the floor. Ammunition for the Bren anti-aircraft machine gun - 600 rounds (6 disk magazines) - was in a box on the rear outer wall of the turret. 18 smoke grenades were intended for the grenade launcher.
An engine with power, lubrication, cooling and electrical equipment was installed in the spacious engine compartment. To the right of the engine is an oil filter and two batteries, and to the left is the fuel tank. The engine compartment was closed from the fighting compartment with removable shutters. To access the engine units, the armor plates of the roof of the engine compartment were hinged.
The transmission compartment contained a cooling system tank, two radiators, a single-disk main dry friction clutch, a five-speed gearbox, a transverse gear, two multi-disk dry clutches, semi-rigid connections of the final clutches with final drives and an oil tank.
The undercarriage of each side consisted of six rubber-coated road wheels, interlocked by three into two balancing carts with special springs and hydraulic shock absorbers; drive wheel with removable ring gear and two rubber tires; idler wheel with tensioner and three rubberized support rollers. There were 103 tracks in the caterpillar chain, and their engagement was lantern, in the middle of the track.
Infantry tank MK-III "Valentine IX" at the training ground in Kubinka.
Tanks "Valentine" were produced in 11 modifications, differing in brand and type of engine, turret design and armament. The Valentine I variant was the only one equipped with a 135 hp AEC A189 carburetor engine. Starting with the Valentine II model, only diesel engines were installed on the tank, first AEC A190 with a capacity of 131 hp. from, then, to Valentine IV, - the American GMC 6004, throttled to a power of 138 hp. Since the tankers complained about the congestion of the two crew members stationed in the turret, a three-man turret was installed on the III and V variants, increasing the volume of the standard one due to the new-shaped mask pushed forward. However, the new turret was too crowded for three tankers, and such an improvement turned out to be of little use. With a common identity, the "troika" and "five" differed from each other only in the brand of the engine - AEC A190 and GMC 6004, respectively. The mass of the tank increased by exactly one ton and reached 16.75 tons.
Before a rally on the occasion of the transfer of the first British tanks to the Soviet Union. Birmingham, 28 September 1941.
In the fall of 1941, the production of "Valentine" unfolded in Canada, at the plant of the Montreal company Canadian Pacific Co. Until the middle of 1943, 1420 tanks of modifications "VI" and "VII" were manufactured here, which almost did not differ from the "Valentine IV". The only difference was the brand of the coaxial machine gun: on Valentine VI - BESA, and on Valentine VII - Browning М1919А4. Some of the Canadian-made machines had a cast frontal part of the hull.
In an effort to increase the firepower of the tank, the British installed a 6-pounder gun on the Valentine VIII. At the same time, the number of crew members in the tower was again reduced to two. The course machine gun was also eliminated, which reduced the tank's firepower.
The Valentine IX variant was identical to its counterpart, with the exception of the brand of the power plant: it had a GMC 6004 diesel engine, and the VIII had an AEC A190.
The coaxial machine gun was returned to Valentine X. And due to the fact that the mass of the tank with a 6-pounder gun increased to 17.2 tons, a GMC 6004 diesel engine with a power of 165 hp was installed on the "top ten". The 6-pounder guns were of two modifications: the Mk III with a barrel length of 42.9 calibers and the Mk V with a barrel length of 50 calibers. Ammunition was reduced to 58 rounds.
The last modification of "Valentine", supplied to the Soviet Union, was "Valentine X".
The latest modification - "Valentine XI" - was armed with a 75-mm cannon. At the same time, the coaxial machine gun was again removed - there was simply nowhere to put it. This version was equipped with a GMC 6004 engine, boosted to 210 hp.
On April 14, 1944, the last Valentine tank out of 6,855 military vehicles made in the UK left the factory floor. In addition, from the autumn of 1941 to the middle of 1943, 1420 of these machines were produced in Canada. Therefore, the total number of "valentines" is 8275 units. This is the most massive British tank of the Second World War.
The only country where Valentines were supplied under Lend-Lease was the Soviet Union. Moreover, almost half of the produced vehicles were sent to the USSR: 2394 English and 1388 Canadian, of which 3332 tanks reached their destination.
According to the selection committees of the GBTU of the Red Army, in 1941, 216 tanks were accepted, in 1942 - 959, in 1943-1776, in 1944 - 381. The Red Army received tanks of seven modifications - II, III, IV, V, VII, IX and X. As you can see, cars equipped with GMC diesels prevailed. Perhaps this was done for the sake of unification: the same engines were on the Shermans supplied to the USSR. In addition to line tanks, 25 Valentine-Bridgelayer bridgelayers - the Soviet designation MK.ZM - were delivered. In the documents of the war years, "valentines" are called differently. Most often MK.III or MK.3, sometimes with the addition of the name "Valentine" or, more rarely, "Valentine". It is not often possible to come across the designation of the modification “Valentine III”, “Valentine IX”, etc. However, in the documents of those years, in addition to MK-3, the designations MK-5, MK-7, MK-9 come across. It is quite obvious that we are talking about various modifications of this British tank.
The first "Valentines" appeared on the Soviet-German front at the end of November 1941. In the 5th Army, which was defending in the Mozhaisk direction, the 136th separate tank battalion became the first unit to receive combat vehicles of this type. It was formed by December 1, 1941, and included ten T-34s, ten T-60s, nine Valentines and three Matildas. The battalion received English tanks in Gorky only on November 10, 1941, so the tankers were trained directly at the front. On December 15, the 136th separate tank battalion was attached to the 329th rifle division, and then to the 20th tank brigade, together with which it participated in the counteroffensive near Moscow. As in the case of the Matilda, already during the first battles, such a lack of English tanks was revealed as the absence of high-explosive fragmentation shells in the ammunition load of the 2-pounder gun. The latter circumstance was the reason for the GKO's order to re-equip Valentine with a domestic artillery system. This task was carried out in a short time at plant number 92 in Gorky. On the machine, which received the factory index ZIS-95, a 45-mm cannon and a DT machine gun were installed. At the end of December 1941, the tank was sent to Moscow, but things did not go beyond the prototype.
Tank MK-III "Valentine" is moving to the front line. Battle for Moscow, January 1942.
A large number of "valentines" participated in the battle for the Caucasus. In 1942–1943, almost 70% of the tank units of the North Caucasian and Transcaucasian fronts were equipped with imported equipment. This was due to the proximity to the so-called "Persian Corridor" - one of the routes for the delivery of goods to the USSR, passing through Iran. But even among the troops of the North Caucasian Front, the 5th Guards Tank Brigade stood out, whose tankers from mid-1942 to September 1943 mastered five types of vehicles: Valentine, MZl, MZs, Sherman and Tetrarch, and this apart from domestic technology!
The brigade began combat operations in the North Caucasus on September 26, 1942 in the Grozny direction in the Malgobek-Ozernaya area. At that time, the brigade had 40 Valentines, three T-34s and one BT-7. On September 29, tankers attacked German troops in the Alkhanch-Urt valley. In this battle, the crew of Captain Shepelkov's guards on their "Valentine" destroyed five tanks, a self-propelled gun, a truck and 25 enemy soldiers. In total, over several days of fighting in this area, the 5th Guards Tank Brigade destroyed 38 tanks (20 of them burned down), one self-propelled gun, 24 guns, six mortars, one six-barreled mortar and up to 1800 enemy soldiers. Our losses amounted to two T-34s and 33 "Valentines" (of which eight burned down, and the rest were evacuated from the battlefield and restored), 268 people were killed and wounded.
"Valentine II" in ambush. Battle for Moscow, January 1942.
Tank MK-III "Valentine VII" of the 52nd Red Banner Tank Brigade is heading to the front line. A white rhombus is clearly visible on the tower - the tactical sign of the 52nd brigade. Transcaucasian Front, November 1942.
Canadian tank "Valentine VII" from the 52nd Red Banner Tank Brigade, shot down near the city of Alagir. North Caucasus, November 3, 1942. In addition to the number of the military department, clearly visible on the turret, the belonging of this machine to the modification "Valentine VII" can be judged by the barrel of the coaxial Browning machine gun and the cast frontal part of the hull.
Working out the interaction of tanks and infantry. 1942
Since most of the brigades that were armed with imported equipment were distinguished by a mixed composition, the most correct solution was already found in 1942 - to use domestic and foreign tanks in a complex, so that they complement each other in terms of their combat qualities. So, in the first echelon there were tanks KB and "Matilda" CS with a 76-mm howitzer, in the second - T-34, and in the third - "Valentines" and T-70. This tactic has often yielded positive results.
The 5th Guards Tank Brigade acted in a similar way during the battles to break through the "Blue Line" - the German defensive line in the North Caucasus in 1943. Then, for the attack, in addition to the forces of the brigade (13 M4A2, 24 "Valentine", 12 T-34), the 14th Guards Tank Regiment of the breakthrough (16 KB-1C) was involved, and the battle formations were built in this way, which ultimately contributed to battle success. However, in this regard, it will be interesting to get acquainted with the memoirs of G. P. Polosin, a participant in this battle:
“Tacking among shell explosions (thirty-minute artillery preparation, of course, did not fully suppress the enemy fire system), my Valentine suddenly found himself literally in front of the houses of the farm (Gorno-Vesely. - Note. author). That's luck! But how are the other tanks? ..
I looked around through the peepholes. I saw that two more "Englishmen" of my platoon - the cars of Poloznikov and Voronkov - were walking a little behind. But heavy KB is not visible. Maybe they fell behind or took aside ... The infantry, of course, was cut off from the tanks even earlier ...
Destroying enemy machine-gun emplacements and bunkers along the way, our platoon tanks entered the hollow. Stopped here. I gave the order over the radio:
Do not shoot without my order! Save your projectiles. It is not yet known how much it will take like this ... And then to get through to your own ...
The tank commanders answered briefly: they understood.
Then he tried to contact the commander of the guard company, Senior Lieutenant Maksimov. And I couldn't. The broadcast was filled to the limit with hysterical commands in German. Apparently, the Nazis were seriously worried about the unexpected breakthrough of Russian tanks in this sector of their defense.
But our position was unenviable. It just so happened that the main group, conducting reconnaissance in force, broke away, ammunition and fuel were running out, alone behind enemy lines, which, however, had not yet fully understood the situation, but this was a matter of time.
Having crushed a German anti-tank gun along the way, our tank jumped out of the hollow into the open space and saw a strange picture. On Voronkov's car, which was 30–40 meters to the right, there were Germans. They mistook Valentines for their equipment, pounded their butts on the armor and did not understand why the tankers did not get out. After waiting until the Germans had accumulated up to a dozen people, I ordered to hit them with a machine gun. Then, firing from smoke grenade launchers (this is where this weapon, which was only on British tanks, came in handy) and setting up a smoke screen, the vehicles returned through the same hollow to the location of their troops. Around Gorno-Vesely, the battle was still going on. The KB tanks were knocked out. One of them stood without a tower. Another a little farther from him buried his cannon in the ground. At his right flattened caterpillar, two tankers fired back from pistols from the Germans who were pressing. Having dispersed the enemy infantry with fire from cannons and machine guns, we dragged both wounded into our Valentine. It immediately became clear that, having failed to penetrate the armor of the KB with anti-tank artillery, the Germans used guided mines against them.
A very interesting episode. It is worth paying attention to one essential detail: the successful actions of the platoon are largely due to the presence of reliable radio communications between the vehicles. Which is not surprising, because radio stations were installed on all Lend-Lease tanks without exception!
"Valentine" lined up on the Eastern Front. Army Group Center, February 1942.
Another example of the use of such tactics was the battle of the 139th tank regiment of the 68th mechanized brigade of the 5th mechanized corps of the 5th army for capturing the village of Devichye Pole in November 1943. The regiment had 20 T-34 tanks and 18 Valentine VII tanks. On November 20, 1943, in cooperation with the 56th Guards Tank Regiment of the breakthrough, which was armed with KB and T-34, and the infantry of the 110th Guards Rifle Division, the tanks of the 139th Tank Regiment went forward. The attack was carried out at high speeds (up to 25 km / h) with a landing of submachine gunners on the armor and with anti-tank guns attached to the tanks. In total, 30 Soviet combat vehicles were involved in the operation. The enemy did not expect such a swift and massive strike and could not offer effective resistance. After breaking through the first line of enemy defense, the infantry dismounted and, having unhooked their guns, began to take up positions, preparing to repel a possible counterattack. The remaining units of the 110th Guards Rifle Division were brought into the breach. However, there was no German counterattack - the German command was so stunned by the actions of the Soviet troops that they could not organize a counterattack for a day. During this time, our troops advanced 20 km into the depths of the German defense and captured the Maiden Field, while losing one KB, one T-34 and two Valentines!
The geography of the use of "Valentines" was very wide - from the southernmost sections of the Soviet-German front to the northern ones. In addition to units of the Transcaucasian Front, they were, for example, in service with the 19th Tank Corps of the Southern Front (from October 20, 1943 - the 4th Ukrainian Front) and took an active part in the Melitopol offensive operation, and then in the liberation of Crimea. MK.III tanks were actively used in positional battles on the Western and Kalinin fronts until the beginning of 1944. It should be noted that in many military units imported tanks were modified mainly in order to increase the cross-country ability on snow and swampy ground. For example, in the 196th Tank Brigade of the 30th Army of the Kalinin Front, which participated in the capture of the city of Rzhev in August 1942, steel plates were welded to each track, increasing its area.
Until the end of the war, "Valentines" remained the main tanks of the cavalry corps. The cavalrymen especially appreciated the maneuverability of the vehicle. Most likely, for the same reason, "Valentines" were in service with many motorcycle battalions and individual motorcycle regiments. The staff of the latter at the final stage of the war included a tank company of ten T-34s or the same number of Valentine IX.
"Valentine" on the right bank of the Dniester. 1943
Tanks "Valentine V" (with triple tower) on the march. 1st Belorussian Front, 1944.
"Valentine VII", lined with German anti-tank artillery. Vitebsk region, January 1944.
A column of "Valentines" on the outskirts of Baranovichi. In the foreground is Valentine V. Belarus, 1944.
Tanks of modifications "Valentine IX" and "Valentine X", armed with 57-mm guns, along with "Shermans", almost until the end of the war, continued to be requested by the Soviet Union for Lend-Lease supplies. Largely due to this, the mass production of "Valentines", which were no longer entering the British army, continued to be maintained until April 1944.
In the Red Army, Valentines were used until the end of World War II. So, for example, in the 5th Guards Tank Army of the 3rd Belorussian Front on June 22, 1944, there were 39 Valentine IX tanks, and in the 3rd Cavalry Corps - 30 Valentine III units. Tanks "Valentine IX" were in service with the 1st Mechanized Corps of the 2nd Guards Tank Army during the Vistula-Oder offensive operation in the winter of 1945. Combat vehicles of this type completed their combat path in the Red Army in the Far East in August 1945. As part of the 2nd Far Eastern Front, the 267th tank regiment fought (41 "Valentine III" and "Valentine IX"), in the ranks of the cavalry-mechanized group of the Trans-Baikal Front there were 40 tanks "Valentine IV", and, finally, as part of 1- On the Far Eastern Front, there were two tank-bridge companies with i0 Valentine-Bridgelayer bridgelayers in each.
It is rather difficult to find a more or less complete assessment of the Valentine tank in foreign literature. Too limited in time and scope was its operation in the British army. Basically, it is noted that the tankers praised the tank for its reliability, and scolded it for the tightness of the fighting compartment and the absence of high-explosive fragmentation shells in the ammunition of 2- and 6-pounder guns.
Since several thousand combat vehicles of this type fought on the Soviet-German front, in extremely harsh operating conditions, we will try to analyze the reviews given to Valentine by Soviet tankers. True, for the reasons already mentioned, this will not be easy to do. Evaluations in an exclusively negative way could not be avoided by memoirs either. A typical example of a biased and controversial assessment of the Valentine tank can be found in the memoirs of Major General A. V. Kazaryan.
On the eve of the events described in the spring of 1942, he completed his studies in the 38th Tank Training Regiment. In June, he arrived in the 196th tank brigade as a tank commander. Here is an excerpt from his memoirs.
What can be said about this episode? The young commander, who had just completed an accelerated (4–5 months) course of study, arrived at the unit. In his own words, he was not familiar with the Valentine tank (the 38th Training Tank Regiment was transferred to the training of tankers for the operation of foreign equipment only in March 1942). For a thorough study of such complex military equipment as a tank, three days is clearly not enough, especially for its commander. However, the company commander gave an objective and quite fair assessment of the battle. With such training, its result would be the same regardless of the military equipment involved in it: be it T-34 or Sherman, KB or Valentine. About the latter, by the way, in the above passage you can find some interesting information. It turns out that the armor is weak (this is 60 mm!), And the engine is low-power, and the speed “you can’t squeeze more than 25”, although “according to the technical description, it should give all 40”. Such "information" cannot cause anything but a smile. Behind it lies complete ignorance of the entrusted material part and the peculiarities of its use not only by the tank commander, but by the entire crew. Hence the lamentation at low speed, and references to the mythical technical description at a speed of 40 km / h! "Valentine" is an infantry escort tank, and it does not need high power density and movement speed. Moreover, the average speeds in an attack, as a rule, do not exceed 16-17 km / h (this is the endurance threshold of the crew members of any tank when moving across the terrain), and even less with infantry support - it is difficult to imagine an infantryman running into an attack from speed of 40 km/h! As for the maneuverability of the tank, they are provided not only and not so much by high specific power, but mainly by the L / B ratio. The smaller it is, the more maneuverable the car. At Valentine, it was 1.4, and in this indicator it surpassed the T-34 (1.5).
Forward to the west! Soviet tanks ("Valentine IX") entered the territory of Romania. 1944
Tanks "Valentine IX" pass through the streets of Botosani. Romania, April 1944.
The Valentine IX tanks of the 5th Guards Tank Army are moving into combat positions. 1st Belorussian Front, summer 1944.
A slightly different assessment of the "Valentine" is contained in the memoirs of N. Ya. Zheleznov, who was able to get acquainted with this car in the summer of 1942 at the 1st Saratov Tank School:
“For about a month, we trained in English Matildas and Canadian Valentines. I must say that Valentine is a very successful car. The gun is powerful, the engine is quiet, the tank itself is low, literally the height of a man.”
In fairness, it must be said that A.V. Kazaryan later quite successfully fought on the "Valentine" in the battles in the Rzhev direction, was awarded, became a platoon commander, and then a company. True, somewhere since July 1942, he calls his “Valentine” (by the way, models III or V) “thirty-four”, although, judging by the documents, until November 1942 in the 196th tank brigade of domestically produced tanks, except for T -60 was not. Yes, and the “thirty-four” is somehow strange - with a triple tower and an anti-aircraft machine gun.
In a word, the given fragment of memoirs did not add clarity. Let's try to turn to a more impartial source: documents of the war years. In particular, to the "Brief Report on the actions of MK.III", dated January 15, 1942, which was compiled by the command of the 136th separate tank battalion, which participated from December 15, 1941 in the counteroffensive near Moscow. This report, apparently, can be considered one of the first documents containing an assessment of Lend-Lease equipment.
“The experience of using“ Valentines ”showed:
1. Tanks passability in winter conditions is good, movement on soft snow 50–60 cm thick is ensured. Grip with the ground is good, but spurs are needed when icy conditions.
2. The weapon operated flawlessly, but there were cases of undershot guns (the first five or six shots), apparently due to the thickening of the lubricant. The weapon is very demanding on lubrication and maintenance ...
3. Observation in devices and slots is good…
4. The motor group and transmission worked well up to 150-200 hours, then there is a decrease in engine power ...
5. Good quality armor…
The personnel of the crews underwent special training and owned tanks satisfactorily. The command and technical staff of the tanks knew little. A great inconvenience was created by the crews' ignorance of the elements of preparing tanks for winter. As a result of the lack of the necessary insulation, the cars hardly started in the cold and therefore kept hot all the time, which led to a large consumption of motor resources. In a battle with German tanks (12/20/1941), three Valentines received the following damage: one had a turret jammed by a 37-mm projectile, the other had a cannon, the third received five hits on the side from a distance of 200–250 m. In this battle "Valentines" knocked out two medium tanks T-3.
In general, the MK.III is a good combat vehicle with powerful armament, good cross-country ability, capable of operating against enemy manpower, fortifications and tanks.
Negative sides:
1. Poor grip of the tracks with the ground.
2. Great vulnerability of suspension bogies - if one roller fails, the tank cannot move.
3. There are no high-explosive fragmentation shells for the gun.”
There is no reason to doubt the objectivity of this report, compiled in hot pursuit. It is interesting to note that the Soviet tankers, like their British counterparts, noted the absence of high-explosive fragmentation shells in the cannon's ammunition as a drawback, but did not notice the tightness of the fighting compartment, apparently because the T-34, for example, still had it. closer. A number of design features the tank was criticized exclusively in parts of the Red Army. It goes without saying that in England or Western Europe, and even more so in North Africa or Burma, the water in the tank cooling system did not freeze due to the lack of frost. Most of the shortcomings of "Valentine" (and not just one), mentioned in our documents and memoirs, are associated with a climatic factor that made operation difficult. And here we come to another reason for the negative assessments of this combat vehicle by some of our tankers (as a rule, however, who fought on it for a short time).
Tank "Valentine IX" on the street of Iasi. Romania, August 1944.
Bridge layer Valentine-Bridgelayer at the NIIBT Polygon in Kubinka. 1945
There was a lot of trouble! Flush the cooling system and pour antifreeze into it - chores! At temperatures below -20 ° C, tractor kerosene must be added to domestic diesel fuel (we simply did not have diesel fuel of the required quality, and automobile diesel engines were on Valentines) - chores! To keep the engine warm, it is necessary to cover the radiators with plywood, tarpaulin or an old overcoat (on Valentine, by the way, for this purpose it was recommended to turn off one of the fans by removing the drive belt) - again chores! Of course, domestic equipment also required such measures, but, firstly, it was already created taking into account the quality of domestic fuels and lubricants and the level Maintenance, and therefore, for these reasons, it broke less often. In addition, for broken domestic equipment, they were punished less than for imported ones, for which it was “paid in gold”. This circumstance could not cause anything other than a steady hatred for foreign combat vehicles, including the Valentine, among the deputy technical officers and technicians. And what feelings could a driver experience, for example, reading the following provisions of the instruction manual:
“If, after 4–5 attempts, the engine of an English tank could not be started, it is necessary, if there is a device for starting with the help of ether, to load the pistol with an ampoule, press the primer puncture lever and start the engine with a starter. After starting the engine, do not allow it to run above 800 rpm until the oil temperature reaches 2TC (80°F) and the oil pressure rises to 60-80 psi.
Upon reaching these readings, the speed should be increased to 1000 per minute, and after 2-3 minutes, work can be done at a higher speed.
The movement of the tank can only be started after the engine is completely warmed up and always from the first gear in order to avoid damage (with frozen grease) of the gearbox, differential and final drives.
Like this! Not only do you need to monitor the temperature, but you need to get under way only from the first gear! (On the T-34, as you know, until the end of 1943, they generally used only one second gear, the rest simply did not turn on in motion.) Indeed, some kind of kerosene stove, not a tank! And in general - a phenomenon of a military-technical culture deeply alien to us!
True, by the end of the war, as our own military-technical culture grew and many foreign technical solutions were used on domestic equipment, there were fewer and fewer complaints about Valentine. In any case, about the complex design and heavy operation.
In 1945, in the article "Analysis of the development of foreign tank technology during the war years and the prospects for further improvement of tanks," major general of the tank engineering service, doctor technical sciences Professor N. I. Gruzdev, published in the collection of works of the Academy of Armored and Mechanized Forces, "Valentine" deserved the following rating:
“The MK-III, as an infantry (or, adhering to the weight classification, light) tank, certainly has the most dense overall layout and among this type of tanks is undoubtedly the most successful, although the removal of brake drums outside the hull is certainly wrong. Experience with the MK-III tank stops the discussion about the possibility of expedient use of automotive units for tank building.
The armored bulkhead between the engine and fighting compartments significantly reduces losses in the crew in case of fire and preserves the engine-transmission group during the explosion of shells. Surveillance devices are simple and effective. The presence of equalizers in MK-III and servo mechanisms, despite the low power density, allows you to provide a satisfactory average tank speed of the order of 13-17 km / h.
Characteristic of the British tanks MK-III, MK-II and MK-IV is the preference given to armor; speed and armament are, as it were, secondary; there is no doubt that if this is tolerable in the MK-III, then in other tanks the disproportion is a clear and unacceptable minus.
It should be noted reliably working diesel GMC.
Of all the existing light tanks, the MK-III tank is the most successful. We can say that in the conditions of 1940-1943. it was the British who created the type of infantry tank.
Let's move on to allies. The USSR became the only country where Valentines were supplied under the Lend-Lease program. We were sent 3,782 tanks during the war, or 46% of all Valentines produced, including almost all vehicles made in Canada.
3332 of them reached their destination, 450 cars went to the bottom along with the transports carrying them. Tanks of seven modifications were supplied to us: 2-7, 9 and 10, and the Valentines of the Mk IX and Mk X modifications continued to be requested by the Soviet side for Lend-Lease deliveries almost until the very end of the war.
In the Red Army "Valentines" received different ratings. The command highly appreciated the tanks because of performance characteristics and in August 1942 even sent a request to increase their supplies to the USSR. Tankers had their own opinion. Vali-Tani, like the rest of the British equipment, were difficult to operate and often failed. Especially in hands that had no idea about the proper maintenance of British technology.
Expectedly and quite logically, "Valentines" turned out to be completely unadapted to the climatic conditions of our country. The 40-mm cannon was frankly weak, and there were no HE shells for it. This resulted in attempts to install a domestic 45-mm cannon on the Mk.III, but in the end it turned out to be easier to launch the production of high-explosive fragmentation shells in 1942.
"Valentines" fought on the entire Soviet-German front, starting from Murmansk and ending with the Caucasus, where they were driven through the Iranian lend-lease channel. Especially appreciated "Valentine" our cavalrymen. For maneuverability and good (when finalized with a hammer and file) patency.
The last use of "Valentines" in the Red Army took place already in the Far East during the offensive of Soviet troops in Manchuria.
This is the short one. What can be said, surveying the tank not in terms of numbers, but by touching it with your hands?
Reviews "they" are not enough, which is explained by the fact that half of the tanks out of 8 thousand produced fought with us. British historians noted the excellent reliability of the propulsion system and the tank as a whole, especially in comparison with other British vehicles of that period.
I will not comment at all, it is possible that compared to others, Valentine was just a handsome man.
What did the British scold?
Surprisingly, criticism was caused by ... the tightness of the fighting compartment, bad conditions the work of the driver, a two-man turret and an insufficiently powerful 40-mm cannon, in addition to which there were no fragmentation shells.
I spoke about the cannon and shells above. Agree. As for the rest ... It was the British who were just mad with fat. They didn’t get into the T-34, so they criticize.
In fact, the tank is very comfortable and roomy. That is, a boar of non-tank dimensions (I) is placed there.
Probably, the 75-mm gun took its place with pleasure, but nevertheless, its appearance, albeit on a light (if classified by weight) tank after 1943, is quite justified. But there are also purely British things that can be applauded.
An armored partition (not very impressive, but again - there is!) Between the engine and fighting compartments significantly reduces losses in the crew in case of fire and saves the engine-transmission group during the explosion of shells.
Surveillance devices are simple and effective.
This is the best that a driver-mechanic can count on.
Modern battle tanks Russia and the world photo, video, pictures watch online. This article gives an idea of the modern tank fleet. It is based on the classification principle used in the most authoritative reference book to date, but in a slightly modified and improved form. And if the latter in its original form can still be found in the armies of a number of countries, then others have already become a museum exhibit. And all for 10 years! To follow in the footsteps of the Jane's guide and not consider this combat vehicle (quite by the way, curious in design and fiercely discussed at the time), which formed the basis of the tank fleet of the last quarter of the 20th century, the authors considered it unfair.
Films about tanks where there is still no alternative to this type of armament of the ground forces. The tank was and probably will remain a modern weapon for a long time due to the ability to combine such seemingly contradictory qualities as high mobility, powerful weapons and reliable protection crew. These unique qualities of tanks continue to be constantly improved, and the experience and technologies accumulated over decades predetermine new frontiers of combat properties and military-technical achievements. In the age-old confrontation "projectile - armor", as practice shows, protection from a projectile is being improved more and more, acquiring new qualities: activity, multi-layeredness, self-defense. At the same time, the projectile becomes more accurate and powerful.
Russian tanks are specific in that they allow you to destroy the enemy from a safe distance, have the ability to perform quick maneuvers on impassable roads, contaminated terrain, can “walk” through the territory occupied by the enemy, seize a decisive bridgehead, induce panic in the rear and suppress the enemy with fire and caterpillars . The war of 1939-1945 became the most difficult test for all mankind, since almost all countries of the world were involved in it. It was the battle of the titans - the most unique period that theorists argued about in the early 1930s and during which tanks were used in large numbers by almost all the warring parties. At this time, a "check for lice" and a deep reform of the first theories of the use of tank troops took place. And it is the Soviet tank troops that are most affected by all this.
Tanks in battle that became a symbol of the past war, the backbone of the Soviet armored forces? Who created them and under what conditions? How did the USSR, which lost most of its European territories and with difficulty recruiting tanks for the defense of Moscow, was he able to launch powerful tank formations on the battlefields already in 1943? When writing the book, materials from the archives of Russia and private collections of tank builders were used. There was a period in our history that was deposited in my memory with some depressing feeling. It began with the return of our first military advisers from Spain, and stopped only at the beginning of forty-third, - said the former general designer of self-propelled guns L. Gorlitsky, - there was some kind of pre-stormy state.
Tanks of the Second World War, it was M. Koshkin, almost underground (but, of course, with the support of "the wisest of the wise leader of all peoples"), who was able to create the tank that, a few years later, would shock German tank generals. And what’s more, he didn’t just create it, the designer managed to prove to these stupid military men that it was his T-34 that they needed, and not just another wheeled-tracked “highway”. The author is in slightly different positions that he formed after meeting with the pre-war documents of the RGVA and RGAE. Therefore, working on this segment of the history of the Soviet tank, the author will inevitably contradict something "generally accepted". This work describes the history of Soviet tank building in the most difficult years - from the beginning of a radical restructuring of all the activities of design bureaus and people's commissariats in general, during a frantic race to equip new tank formations of the Red Army, the transfer of industry to wartime rails and evacuation.
Tanks Wikipedia the author wants to express his special gratitude for the help in the selection and processing of materials to M. Kolomiyets, and also to thank A. Solyankin, I. Zheltov and M. Pavlov, the authors of the reference publication "Domestic armored vehicles. XX century. 1905 - 1941" because this book helped to understand the fate of some projects, unclear before. I would also like to recall with gratitude those conversations with Lev Izraelevich Gorlitsky, the former Chief Designer of UZTM, which helped to take a fresh look at the entire history of the Soviet tank during the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union. Today, for some reason, it is customary to talk about 1937-1938 in our country. only from the point of view of repressions, but few people remember that it was during this period that those tanks were born that became legends of the wartime ... "From the memoirs of L.I. Gorlinkogo.
Soviet tanks, a detailed assessment of them at that time sounded from many lips. Many old people recalled that it was from the events in Spain that it became clear to everyone that the war was getting closer to the threshold and it was Hitler who would have to fight. In 1937, mass purges and repressions began in the USSR, and against the backdrop of these difficult events, the Soviet tank began to turn from a "mechanized cavalry" (in which one of its combat qualities protruded by reducing others) into a balanced combat vehicle, which simultaneously had powerful weapons, sufficient to suppress most targets, good cross-country ability and mobility with armor protection, capable of maintaining its combat effectiveness when shelling a potential enemy with the most massive anti-tank weapons.
It was recommended that large tanks be introduced into the composition in addition only special tanks - floating, chemical. The brigade now had 4 separate battalions of 54 tanks each and was reinforced by the transition from three-tank platoons to five-tank ones. In addition, D. Pavlov justified the refusal to form in 1938 to the four existing mechanized corps three more additionally, believing that these formations are immobile and difficult to control, and most importantly, they require a different organization of the rear. The tactical and technical requirements for promising tanks, as expected, have been adjusted. In particular, in a letter dated December 23 to the head of the design bureau of plant No. 185 named after. CM. Kirov, the new chief demanded to strengthen the armor of new tanks so that at a distance of 600-800 meters (effective range).
The latest tanks in the world when designing new tanks, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of increasing the level of armor protection during modernization by at least one step ... "This problem could be solved in two ways. Firstly, by increasing the thickness of the armor plates and, secondly," by using increased armor resistance". It is easy to guess that the second way was considered more promising, since the use of specially hardened armor plates, or even two-layer armor, could, while maintaining the same thickness (and the mass of the tank as a whole), increase its durability by 1.2-1.5 It was this path (the use of specially hardened armor) that was chosen at that moment to create new types of tanks.
Tanks of the USSR at the dawn of tank production, armor was most massively used, the properties of which were identical in all directions. Such armor was called homogeneous (homogeneous), and from the very beginning of the armor business, the craftsmen strove to create just such armor, because uniformity ensured stability of characteristics and simplified processing. However, at the end of the 19th century, it was noticed that when the surface of the armor plate was saturated (to a depth of several tenths to several millimeters) with carbon and silicon, its surface strength increased sharply, while the rest of the plate remained viscous. So heterogeneous (heterogeneous) armor came into use.
In military tanks, the use of heterogeneous armor was very important, since an increase in the hardness of the entire thickness of the armor plate led to a decrease in its elasticity and (as a result) to an increase in brittleness. Thus, the most durable armor, other things being equal, turned out to be very fragile and often pricked even from bursts of high-explosive fragmentation shells. Therefore, at the dawn of armor production in the manufacture of homogeneous sheets, the task of the metallurgist was to achieve the highest possible hardness of the armor, but at the same time not to lose its elasticity. Surface-hardened by saturation with carbon and silicon armor was called cemented (cemented) and was considered at that time a panacea for many ills. But cementation is a complex, harmful process (for example, processing a hot plate with a jet of lighting gas) and relatively expensive, and therefore its development in a series required high costs and an increase in production culture.
Tank of the war years, even in operation, these hulls were less successful than homogeneous ones, since for no apparent reason cracks formed in them (mainly in loaded seams), and it was very difficult to put patches on holes in cemented slabs during repairs. But it was still expected that a tank protected by 15-20 mm cemented armor would be equivalent in terms of protection to the same, but covered with 22-30 mm sheets, without a significant increase in mass.
Also, by the mid-1930s, in tank building, they learned how to harden the surface of relatively thin armor plates by uneven hardening, known since the end of the 19th century in shipbuilding as the "Krupp method". Surface hardening led to a significant increase in the hardness of the front side of the sheet, leaving the main thickness of the armor viscous.
How tanks shoot videos up to half the thickness of the plate, which, of course, was worse than carburizing, since despite the fact that the hardness of the surface layer was higher than during carburizing, the elasticity of the hull sheets was significantly reduced. So the "Krupp method" in tank building made it possible to increase the strength of armor even somewhat more than carburizing. But the hardening technology that was used for sea armor of large thicknesses was no longer suitable for relatively thin tank armor. Before the war, this method was almost never used in our serial tank building due to technological difficulties and relatively high cost.
Combat use of tanks The most developed for tanks was the 45-mm tank gun mod 1932/34. (20K), and before the event in Spain, it was believed that its power was enough to perform most tank tasks. But the battles in Spain showed that the 45-mm gun could only satisfy the task of fighting enemy tanks, since even the shelling of manpower in the mountains and forests turned out to be ineffective, and it was only possible to disable a dug-in enemy firing point if direct hit. Shooting at shelters and bunkers was ineffective due to the small high-explosive action of a projectile weighing only about two kg.
Types of tanks photo so that even one hit of a projectile reliably disables an anti-tank gun or machine gun; and thirdly, to increase the penetrating effect of a tank gun on the armor of a potential enemy, as in the example French tanks(already having an armor thickness of the order of 40-42 mm) it became clear that the armor protection of foreign combat vehicles tends to be significantly strengthened. There was a right way to do this - increasing the caliber of tank guns and simultaneously increasing the length of their barrel, since a long gun of a larger caliber fires heavier projectiles at a higher muzzle velocity over a greater distance without correcting the pickup.
The best tanks in the world had a large caliber gun, also has big sizes breech, significantly more weight and increased recoil reaction. And this required an increase in the mass of the entire tank as a whole. In addition, the placement of large shots in the closed volume of the tank led to a decrease in the ammunition load.
The situation was aggravated by the fact that at the beginning of 1938 it suddenly turned out that there was simply no one to give an order for the design of a new, more powerful tank gun. P. Syachintov and his entire design team were repressed, as well as the core of the Bolshevik Design Bureau under the leadership of G. Magdesiev. Only the group of S. Makhanov remained at liberty, who from the beginning of 1935 tried to bring his new 76.2-mm semi-automatic single gun L-10, and the team of plant No. 8 slowly brought the "forty-five".
Photos of tanks with names The number of developments is large, but in mass production in the period 1933-1937. not a single one was accepted ... "In fact, none of the five air-cooled tank diesel engines, which were worked on in 1933-1937 in the engine department of plant No. 185, was brought to the series. Moreover, despite the decisions on the highest levels of the transition in tank building exclusively to diesel engines, this process was held back by a number of factors.Of course, diesel had significant efficiency.It consumed less fuel per unit of power per hour.Diesel fuel is less prone to ignition, since the flash point of its vapors was very high.
New tanks video, even the most advanced of them, the MT-5 tank engine required for serial production reorganization of engine production, which was expressed in the construction of new workshops, the supply of advanced foreign equipment (there were no machines of the required accuracy yet), financial investments and strengthening of personnel. It was planned that in 1939 this diesel engine with a capacity of 180 hp. will go to mass-produced tanks and artillery tractors, but due to investigative work to find out the causes of tank engine accidents, which lasted from April to November 1938, these plans were not fulfilled. The development of a slightly increased six-cylinder gasoline engine No. 745 with a power of 130-150 hp was also started.
Brands of tanks with specific indicators that suited the tank builders quite well. Tank tests were carried out according to new methodology, specially developed at the insistence of the new head of the ABTU D. Pavlov in relation to military service in war time. The basis of the tests was a run of 3-4 days (at least 10-12 hours of daily non-stop traffic) with a one-day break for technical inspection and restoration work. Moreover, repairs were allowed to be carried out only by field workshops without the involvement of factory specialists. This was followed by a "platform" with obstacles, "bathing" in the water with an additional load, simulating an infantry landing, after which the tank was sent for examination.
Super tanks online after the improvement work seemed to remove all claims from the tanks. And the general course of the tests confirmed the fundamental correctness of the main design changes - an increase in displacement by 450-600 kg, the use of the GAZ-M1 engine, as well as the Komsomolets transmission and suspension. But during the tests, numerous minor defects again appeared in the tanks. Chief designer N. Astrov was suspended from work and was in custody and under investigation for several months. In addition, the tank received a new improved protection turret. The modified layout made it possible to place on the tank a larger ammunition load for a machine gun and two small fire extinguishers (before there were no fire extinguishers on small tanks of the Red Army).
US tanks as part of modernization work, on one serial model of the tank in 1938-1939. the torsion bar suspension developed by the designer of the Design Bureau of Plant No. 185 V. Kulikov was tested. It was distinguished by the design of a composite short coaxial torsion bar (long monotorsion bars could not be used coaxially). However, such a short torsion bar in tests did not show enough good results, and therefore the torsion bar suspension did not immediately pave its way in the course of further work. Obstacles to be overcome: rises not less than 40 degrees, vertical wall 0.7 m, overlapping ditch 2-2.5 m.
Youtube about tanks work on the production of prototypes of D-180 and D-200 engines for reconnaissance tanks is not being carried out, jeopardizing the production of prototypes. 10-1), as well as the amphibious tank version (factory designation 102 or 10-2), are a compromise solution, since it is not possible to fully meet the requirements of the ABTU.Variant 101 was a tank weighing 7.5 tons with a hull according to the type of hull, but with vertical side sheets of case-hardened armor 10-13 mm thick, because: "Sloped sides, causing serious weighting of the suspension and hull, require a significant (up to 300 mm) broadening of the hull, not to mention the complication of the tank.
Video reviews of tanks in which the power unit of the tank was planned to be based on the 250-horsepower MG-31F aircraft engine, which was mastered by the industry for agricultural aircraft and gyroplanes. Gasoline of the 1st grade was placed in a tank under the floor of the fighting compartment and in additional onboard gas tanks. The armament fully met the task and consisted of coaxial machine guns DK caliber 12.7 mm and DT (in the second version of the project even ShKAS appears) caliber 7.62 mm. The combat weight of a tank with a torsion bar suspension was 5.2 tons, with a spring suspension - 5.26 tons. The tests were carried out from July 9 to August 21 according to the methodology approved in 1938, with special attention paid to tanks.