Stories about weapons. Infantry tank Mk.III "Valentine" outside and inside. Tank Mk.III Valentine Engine. Weight. Dimensions. Armament of Valentine in the USSR

The 6-pounder gun left no room in the turret for either the coaxial BESA machine gun or the two-inch breech-loading smoke grenade launcher. They tried to compensate for the loss of the latter by installing two four-inch single-shot smoke grenade launchers on the right side of the turret.

To avoid a detrimental increase in mass for the remaining previous power plant, the British again went to reduce the thickness of the armor - to 43 mm.

Judging by data from the Vickers company, production of Valentines with a 6-pounder gun began in December 1941. If so, the Valentine VIII was the first British tank to be armed with this gun, as the similarly equipped Churchill III and Crusader III left the factory floors in March and May 1942 respectively.

Valentine IX

Variant of the Valentine V tank with a 6-pounder gun in a two-man turret. The last 300 cars of this modification were equipped with a forced diesel engine GMC 6004 with a power of 165 hp. at 2000 rpm, which made it possible to slightly improve the dynamic characteristics of the tank, the mass of which reached 17.2 tons.

Infantry tanks Mk III at the NIBT Test Site in Kubinka. Top - Valentine IX, bottom - Valentine X

Valentine X

In February 1942, the Tank Board decided that the initiative to modernize the Valentine should be left entirely to Vickers. The fact is that the military already considered this combat vehicle unpromising, giving preference to the more powerful Churchill. Less than three months had passed since Vickers announced the creation of a new tank, called the Vampire and designed to replace the Valentine. However, no documentation was presented, and the topic was soon closed, especially since the company was expected to widely participate in the production program of the A27 cruiser tank. However, the production of this car was completed without Vickers, and therefore it was decided to continue production of the Valentine until the end of 1943.

At the last stage of production, the Valentine X became the main model. This vehicle was the latest production Valentine IX (with a 165 hp engine), equipped with an autonomous BESA machine gun mount to the right of the gun. To accommodate the machine gun, the gun's ammunition load had to be reduced by nine shots. Despite the fact that the tests revealed an unbalanced machine gun mount and a limited ammunition supply of machine gun cartridges, in June 1943 new Valentine Xs began to emerge from the factory floors.

Valentine XI

Last serial modification infantry tank Mk III. Soon after the start of production of the Valentine X, it became obvious that instead of the 6-pounder it was quite possible to install a 75-mm gun, the breech of which had almost the same dimensions and weight. Apart from the gun and the GMC 6004 engine, boosted to 210 hp, the Valentine XI was almost no different from the previous version.

* * *

On April 14, 1944, the last Valentine tank out of 6,855 combat vehicles manufactured in Great Britain left the factory floor. In addition, from the fall of 1941 to mid-1943, 1,420 of these vehicles were produced in Canada. Hence, total“Valentines” is 8275 units. This is the most produced British tank of the Second World War.

Production was carried out under no less than 19 orders. All vehicles received identification numbers of the British War Department (WD): 15946-16345, 16356-16555, 17360-17684, 18071 - 18095, 20419-20493, 27121 -27720, 32471 -32700, 32721 -32970, 47098- 47347 , 59684-60183, 66466-67865, 82163-82617, 120690-121149 and 121823-123632.

Valentine IX

Canadian tanks had the numbers: 23204 - 23503, 40981-41430, 73554-74193 and 138916-138945. However, it cannot be said that all vehicles with these numbers were manufactured. It is also impossible to provide exact data on the number of cars of one modification or another produced (except for those given above), as well as indicate which numbers correspond to them. It is only known that tanks of the Valentine II modification began with the WD number T16122, Valentine III with T66591, and Valentine IV with T47314. The numbers were painted in white on the sides of the hull or turret and, as a rule, are clearly visible in photographs, making it easier to identify combat vehicles. For tanks manufactured by Vickers, the WD number was also stamped on a “branded” cast plate riveted to the hull.

However, even in the strict statistics of the pedantic Englishmen, who numbered everything and everyone, there is confusion. For example, in a whole series of well-known photographs Valentine tanks I and Valentine II from the 16th Tank Brigade of the 1st Corps of the Polish Armed Forces in the West combat vehicles carry WD numbers Т1290248, Т1290295, etc. The origin of these seven-digit numbers is unknown to the author.

The story about the modernization of the Valentine tank would not be complete without mentioning two more combat vehicles that were being prepared to replace it. It's about about the Vanguard project. This car, apparently, should be considered as a modification of the Valentine, since in the documents of those years it goes under the name Valentine-Vanguard. Combat weight The vehicle weighed 16.5 tons, was armed with a 6-pounder cannon and a coaxial BESA machine gun, and had a crew of 3 people. The tank was supposed to reach a speed 8 km/h higher than the latest “Valentines” models. Judging by the documents, this machine was tested in 1943, and they did not end entirely successfully. In any case, nothing more is known about this tank, except that the individual components designed for it were used in the creation self-propelled gun Archer.

The latest production version of the Mk III infantry tank - Valentine XI

Infantry tank A38 Valiant

In 1942 - 1943, the A38 Valiant tank began to be developed as a heavier version of the Valentine. Its mass is 27 tons, and the maximum armor thickness reached 112 mm. The initial design included a 6-pounder gun as the main armament, with the possibility of replacing it later with a 75-mm one. The twin installation of a cannon and a machine gun was located in a massive cast mantlet, which practically made up the entire front part of the large three-man turret. The mask was attached to the welded turret with ten huge bolts with a bulletproof head. The increased mass of the tank required changes to be made to the chassis. In 1944, two prototypes were built, differing from each other in the type of power plant and chassis. The Valiant 1 tank was equipped with an American GMC diesel engine with a power of 210 hp. And chassis with six road wheels taken from Valentine (only large-diameter rollers were borrowed). Valiant 2 was equipped with a Rolls-Royce Meteorite carburetor engine producing 450 hp. and chassis from experienced tank AZZ. The end of the war and the concentration of the British tank industry on the Centurion tank brought an end to the Valiant design.

Description of design

LAYOUT The tank is classic with a rear-mounted transmission.

The control department occupied the front of the vehicle. It contained the driver's seat, controls, control panels, two six-volt batteries, a socket for starting the engine and charging batteries from an external power source, a bell to alert the driver from the rear of the tank, TPU, and internal lighting devices.

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 extremely poor quality and archaic design of these samples. Now that the fight against bourgeois counterfeiters has successfully ended with the victory of the latter, it is possible to more or less objectively analyze the advantages and disadvantages of individual models of armored vehicles of Anglo-American production, which were used in significant quantities in units of the Red Army. This article will focus on English light tank MK.III "Valentine", which became the most popular 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 "Valentin" or "Valentina") was developed by Vickers in 1938. Like the Matilda, it was an infantry tank, but in terms of mass - 16 tons - it was rather light. True, 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 cannon. The Valentine I used an AEC carburetor engine with 135 hp, which was replaced in subsequent modifications by AEC and GMC diesel engines with 131, 138 and 165 hp. The maximum speed of the tank was 34 km/h.

By Soviet standards, "Valentines" had an archaic design - armor plates were attached to a frame made of corners using rivets. Armor elements were installed mainly 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 performance of the crew. But that's all English cars were equipped with radio (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, differing mainly in armament and engine type. IN total Three English and two Canadian firms produced 8,275 tanks (6,855 in England and 1,420 in Canada). IN Soviet Union 2,394 British and 1,388 Canadian Valentines were sent (3,782 in total), of which 3,332 vehicles reached Russia. The Valentines were supplied to the USSR in seven modifications:

"Valentine II" - with a 42-mm cannon, AEC diesel engine, 131 hp. and an additional external fuel tank;

"Valentine III" - with a three-man turret and a crew of four people;

"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 part 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 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 caliber. A.A.], coaxial with a machine gun and a GMC engine with a power of 165 hp.

In addition to the main modifications of the "Valentine", in 1944 the Red Army also received the Mk.III "Valentine-Bridgelaer" - in Soviet terminology "Mk.ZM". Perhaps the Canadian version of the Valentine (modification VII) was even more reliable and technically advanced than its English predecessor. Canadian Valentines were supplied to the Red Army from 1942 to 1944, with the bulk of deliveries occurring in 1943. The most popular modifications in the Red Army were the Valentine IV and its Canadian equivalent, the Valentine VII, as well as the main variant of the final period of the war, the Valentine IX. Moreover, the model IX with an artillery system with a barrel length of 52 calibers was mainly supplied to the Soviet Union, while in british army models with a barrel length of 45 calibers were used. Model "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 War Department was indicated (Mk.II, Mk.III, Mk.IV, etc.), then the name of the vehicle ("Valentine", "Matilda", "Churchill", etc.) and its modification was indicated (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 notation British tanks, adopted in the Red Army during the war: name indicating the modification, for example: “Valentine IV”, “Valentine IX”, etc., or without indicating the modification, for example: Mk.III “Valentine”.

During the four years of the war, foreign-made tanks and armored vehicles received various units, subdivisions | divisions and units 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 mid- and senior-level commanders often did not coincide with the opinion of the tank crew. This is understandable, the command was primarily concerned with the tactical characteristics of the equipment - armament, speed on the march, power reserve, etc. - and for the crew, ease of operation, placement of units and the ability to quick repair, as well as other parameters of a household and technical nature. The combination of these two points of view largely determined the conclusion about the presented model of armored vehicles.

In addition, foreign equipment was designed with a higher standard of production and operation in mind. In many ways, it was the technical illiteracy of the crews and the lack of units necessary for maintenance that became the reasons for the failure of allied equipment. However, the “gap” of the gap was not so great, and our tankers very soon became accustomed to foreign vehicles, modifying many of them to suit the specifics of operation on the Soviet-German front.

The first "Valentines" appeared in units of our active army at the end of November 1941, although in small numbers. At the same time, only part of the 145 Matildas, 216 Valentines and 330 Station Wagons received was used. So, on the Western Front on January 1, 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 Northwestern Front (4th Contact Army).

German documents of the 4th Panzer Group note the fact of the first use of British tanks "Type 3" (Mk.III "Valentine". - Author's note) against the 2nd Panzer Division on November 25, 1941 in the Peshki area. The document stated: “For the first time, German soldiers were faced with the fact of real help from England, which Russian propaganda had been shouting about for so long. English tanks are much worse than Soviet ones. The crews that German soldiers took prisoner scolded “the old tin boxes that the British handed them.”

Judging by this report, it can be assumed that the crews of the Valentines had a very limited training period and had little knowledge of English materiel. In the units of the 5th Army, which covered the Mozhaisk direction, the first unit to receive “foreign tanks” was the 136th separate tank battalion (tb). The battalion completed its formation on December 1, 1941, having ten T-34, ten T-60, nine Valentine and three Matilda tanks (British tanks were received in Gorky on November 10, 1941, tankers were trained directly at front). By December 10, during crew training, five Valentines, two Matildas, one T-34 and four T-60s were damaged. After putting the equipment in order, on December 15, 1911, 136th detachment. was assigned to the 329th Infantry Division (SD). Then, together with the 20th Tank Brigade, he took part in the counter-offensive near Moscow.

On January 15, 1942, the battalion command compiled a “Brief Report on the Actions. Mk.Sh” - apparently one of the first documents assessing the Allied equipment:

“The experience of using Valentines has shown:

1. The tanks' cross-country ability in winter conditions is good; movement on soft snow 50-60 cm thick is ensured. Ground traction is good, but spurs are required when there is icy conditions.

2. The weapon worked flawlessly, but there were cases of the gun not firing enough (the first five or six shots), apparently due to thickening of the lubricant. Weapons are very demanding in terms of lubrication and maintenance.

3. Observation through instruments and slits is good.

4. The engine group and transmission worked well up to 150-200 hours, after which a decrease in engine power is observed.

5. Good quality armor.

The crew personnel passed special training and handled tanks satisfactorily. The command and technical staff of the tanks had little knowledge. 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, cars had difficulty starting in the cold and therefore remained hot all the time, which led to a large consumption of motor resources. In a battle with German tanks (December 20, 1941), three Valentines received the following damage: one had its turret jammed by a 37-mm shell, the gun of another was jammed, the third received five hits on the side from a distance of 200-250 meters. In this battle, the Valentines knocked out two medium German T-3 tanks.

Overall, the Mk.Sh is a good combat vehicle with powerful weapons, good maneuverability, capable of operating against enemy personnel, fortifications and tanks.

Negative sides:

1. Poor adhesion of the tracks to the ground.

2. Greater vulnerability of the suspension bogies - if one roller fails, the tank cannot move. There are no high-explosive fragmentation shells for the gun."

Apparently, the latter circumstance was the reason for the order of the State Defense Committee to rearm the Valentine with a domestic artillery system. This task and in a short time frame was carried out at plant No. 92 by the design bureau under the leadership of Grabin. In December 1941, within two weeks, one Valen-Tayne was armed with a 45-mm tank gun and a DT machine gun. This car received the factory index ZIS-95. At the end of December, the tank was sent to Moscow, but things did not go further than a prototype.

A large number of Valentine tanks took part in the Battle of the Caucasus. In general, the North Caucasus Front in the period 1942-1943 had a very significant “share” of the British American tanks- up to 70% of the total number of cars. This situation was explained primarily by the proximity of the front to the Iranian supply channel for the Red Army with equipment and weapons, as well as the convenience of transporting tanks along the Volga that arrived at the northern ports of the USSR.

Of the armored units of the North Caucasus Front, the 5th Guards Tank Brigade was considered the most eminent and experienced. Fighting In the Caucasus, the brigade began 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 German units in the Alkhanch-urt valley. In this battle, the crew of Captain Shenelkov's Guard in his "Valentine" destroyed five tanks, one self-propelled gun, a truck and 25 soldiers. 15 Over the next few days, fighting in this area continued. In total, during the fighting in the Malgobek area, the brigade destroyed 38 tanks (of which 20 were burned), one self-propelled gun, 24 guns, six mortars, one six-barreled mortar, and up to 1,800 enemy soldiers. The brigade's losses were two T-34s, 33 Valentines (eight of them burned out, 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 decision- these tanks began to be used comprehensively, together with Soviet equipment. In the first echelon (according to documents from 1942) there were KV and Matilda CS tanks. (with a 76.2 mm howitzer), in the second echelon there are T-34s, and in the third echelon “Valentine” and T-70. This tactic very often gave 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.

For the attack, forces from the 56th Army were brought in: the 5th Guards Tank Brigade (as of August 1, 1943 it had 13 M4A2, 24 Valentine, 12 T-34) and the 14th Guards Breakthrough Tank Regiment (16 KV- 1C), as well as the battalion of the 417th Infantry Division.

Exactly at six o'clock in the morning on August 6, 1943, a Katyusha salvo was fired at the village of Gorno-Vesely (Object of attack), and immediately behind the barrage of fire, three KV-1S rushed forward, followed by three Valentines under the command of Guard Senior Lieutenant G. P. Polosina. The infantry moved behind the slippers. Next, it is not without interest to cite the memories of battle participant G.P. Polosin:

“Maneuvering among shell explosions (a thirty-minute artillery barrage, of course, did not completely suppress the enemy’s fire system), my “Valentine” unexpectedly found itself literally in front of the houses of the farm. What luck! But what about other tanks?..

I looked around through the viewing slits. I saw that two more "Englishmen" of my platoon - Poloznikov's and Voronkov's vehicles - were walking slightly behind. But heavy HFs are not visible. Maybe they fell behind or were taken to the side: The infantry, of course, had been cut off from the tanks even earlier...

Destroying enemy machine-gun emplacements and bunkers along the way, our tanks reached the ravine. We stopped here. I gave the order over the radio:

Don't shoot without my order! Take care of the shells. It is still unknown how long it will take... And then we will have to fight our way to our own people...

The tank commanders answered briefly:

Then he tried to contact the guard company commander, Senior Lieutenant Maksimov. And I couldn't. The airwaves were filled to the limit with hysterical teams on German. Apparently, the Nazis were seriously concerned about the unexpected breakthrough of Russian tanks in this sector of their defense.

But our position was also unenviable. It just so happened that they were separated from the main group conducting reconnaissance in force, ammunition and fuel were running out, alone in the rear of the enemy, who, 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 ravine into the open space and saw a strange picture. There were Germans on Voronkov’s car, which was 30-40 meters to the right. They mistook the Valentines for their equipment, banged their butts on the armor and did not understand why the tankers did not get out. After waiting until there were up to a dozen Germans, I ordered a machine gun to hit them. Then, having fired smoke grenade launchers (this is where these weapons, which were only on British tanks, came in handy) and, having installed a smoke screen, the vehicles returned through the same ravine to the location of their troops. The battle was still going on near Gorno-Vesely. KV tanks were knocked out. One of them stood without a tower. Another a little further from him buried his gun in the ground. At its right, spread out caterpillar, two tankers fired their pistols away from the advancing Germans. Having dispersed the enemy infantry with cannon and machine gun fire, we dragged both wounded men into our Valentine. It immediately became clear that having failed to 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 guard senior lieutenant G.P. Polosin destroyed five anti-tank guns, crushed five bunkers, 12 machine guns, and shot up to a hundred Nazis. But most importantly, with his unexpected attack from the rear he forced the enemy to fully open his fire system. Which, in fact, was what was needed.

It remains to add that all crew members of Polosin’s platoon were awarded government awards for this. 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 tracks of the Valentine tanks, increasing the track area. Shod in such “bast shoes”, the car did not fall through the snow and did not get stuck in swampy ground middle zone Russia. Mk.III were actively used in positional battles on the Western and Kalinin fronts until the beginning of 1944. Cavalrymen were very fond of the Valentine for its mobility and maneuverability. Until the end of the war, the Valentine IV and its further development, the Valentine IX and X, remained the main tank of the cavalry corps. The cavalrymen noted the lack of high-explosive fragmentation shells for the cannon as the main drawback. And one more thing: it was not recommended to make sharp turns on the Valentine, since this would bend the sloth’s crank and cause the caterpillar to jump off.

By the end of the war, modifications of the Valentine IX and X (along with the American Sherman) remained the only types of tanks that the USSR continued to request for delivery to the Red Army. For example, on 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 ended their military career in the Far East in August-September 1945. The 1st Far Eastern Front included 20 Mk.III Valentine-Bridgelayer bridge tanks, 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 cavalry -mechanized group of the Transbaikal Front.

Dowry tank brigades armies 15 and 16, tank-bridge companies (10 Mk.IIIM each) marched together with tanks, but were not used, since tanks and self-propelled guns crossed small rivers and streams themselves, and large obstacles (over 8 m) could not be secured Mk.IIIM.

Canadian tanks "Valentine IV" in Soviet terminology were also designated as "Mk.III", so it is quite difficult to determine which are actually English and which are Canadian vehicles. Several Valentine VII vehicles took part in the liberation of Crimea. In the 19th Perekop Tank Corps there was the 91st separate motorcycle battalion, which had a Valentine VII bottom, ten BA-64s, ten Universal armored personnel carriers and 23 motorcycles.

However, this does not in the least diminish the Canadian share of supplies to the USSR. After all, almost half of the Valentines delivered were Canadian-made. These tanks, along with British products, took part 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 capture the village of Devichye Pole in November 1943. 139 TP (68 infantry brigade, 8 Mk, 5th Army) entered operational subordination to the 5th 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 battle until November 20. After the preparation of the material unit for battle was completed, on November 20, 1943, in cooperation with the 57th Guards Breakthrough Tank Regiment, armed with KV and T-34 vehicles, and the infantry of the 110th Guards Rifle Division, the tanks of the 139th Tank Division went forward. ,the attack was carried out on high speeds(up to 25 km/h) with a landing force of machine gunners (up to 100 people) and with those attached to tanks anti-tank guns. 30 Soviet tanks took part in this operation. The enemy did not expect such a massive rapid attack and was unable to provide effective resistance to the advancing units. When the first line of defense was broken, the infantry dismounted and, unhooking their guns, began to occupy enemy positions, preparing to repel a possible counterattack. The remaining units of the 110th Guards Infantry Division were brought into the breakthrough. However, the German counterattack did not take place; the German command was so stunned by the Soviet breakthrough that it was unable to organize resistance within 24 hours. During this day, our troops marched 20 km into the depths of the German defense and captured Maiden Field, losing 4 tanks (KV, T-34, two Valentine VII). At the end of the war, Valentine tanks were used mainly in tank companies of motorcycle reconnaissance regiments (10 tanks per staff), mixed tank regiments (standard M4A2 Sherman staff - 10, Mk.III Valentine (III, IV, VII, IX, X) - 11 vehicles) and various cavalry formations: cavalry corps and mixed cavalry-mechanized groups. In individual tank and motorcycle regiments, modifications "IX" and "X" predominated, and in the cavalry corps, modifications "IV" - "VII" predominated. Mk.III "Valentine" III-IV tanks were used on the Soviet-German front in significantly smaller numbers than other modifications and for some reason(?) prevailed in the Northwestern theater of operations as part of the Baltic fronts.

After the end of World War II, equipment supplied under Lend-Lease had to be returned former owners. However, most of the tanks were presented by the Soviet side as scrap and destroyed, and a smaller part of the repaired tanks was transferred to the National Liberation Army of China to fight against the Kuomintang forces.

KITOGRAPHY

Oddly enough, the 1/35 scale model of the British tank is produced exclusively in Russia. It was developed by the St. Petersburg company Alan, which was later divided into Alan itself and UM. The Tank went to UM. Some of the castings were sold to the Korean Dragon, which packed them in their own boxes. Then the Moscow “Maket” bought the mold from UM. So I dwelled in detail on the fate of the “Valentine IV” Mk.III model so that you are not confused by its diversity boxes - the plastic inside is the same.Recently, "Maket" added a new turret, rollers and accessories to the set, turning the tank into a Mk.Sh "Valentine X" or XI, depending on the gun barrel used (both are given).

Thus, only MK.III "Valentine IV" and "Valentine X/XI" exist in the form of models.

(I’ll add on my own behalf - 1/72 “Valentine Mk. III” was previously made by ESCI, now it seems Italeri will reissue it. A.A.)

Tanks "VALENTINE" in units 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 extremely poor quality and archaic design of these samples. Now that the fight against bourgeois counterfeiters has successfully ended with the victory of the latter, it is possible to more or less objectively analyze the advantages and disadvantages of individual models of armored vehicles of Anglo-American production, which were used in significant quantities in units of the Red Army. This article will focus on the English light tank MK.III "Valentine", which became the most popular 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 "Valentin" or "Valentina") was developed by the company " " in 1938. Like the Matilda, it was an infantry tank, but in terms of mass - 16 tons - it was rather light. True, 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 cannon. On "Valentine I" they used a carburetor AEC with 135 hp, which was replaced in subsequent modifications by AEC and GMC diesel engines with a power of 131, 138 and 165 hp. tank speed was 34 km/h.
By Soviet standards, "Valentines" had an archaic design - armor plates were attached to the corners using rivets. Armor elements were installed mainly 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 performance of the crew. But all English cars were equipped with radio (radio station No. 19), and also had a diesel engine, which made them easier to operate together with Soviet models.
"Valentines" were produced from 1940 to the beginning of 1945 in 11 modifications, differing mainly in armament and engine type. A total of 8,275 tanks were manufactured by three English and two Canadian firms (6,855 in England and 1,420 in Canada). 2,394 British and 1,388 Canadian Valentines (3,782 in total) were sent to Soviet Russia, of which 3,332 vehicles reached Russia. The Valentines were supplied to the USSR in seven modifications:
"Valentine II" - with a 42-mm cannon, AEC diesel engine, 131 hp. and an additional external fuel tank;
"Valentine III" - with a three-man turret 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 part 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 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 liters .With.
In addition to the main modifications of the "Valentine", in 1944 the Red Army also received the Mk.III "Valentine-Bridgelaer" - in Soviet terminology "Mk.ZM". Perhaps the Canadian version of the Valentine (modification VII) was even more reliable and technically advanced than its English predecessor. Canadian Valentines were supplied to the Red Army from 1942 to 1944, with the bulk of deliveries occurring in 1943. The most popular modifications in the Red Army were the Valentine IV and its Canadian equivalent, the Valentine VII, as well as the main variant of the final period of the war, the Valentine IX. Moreover, the IX was mainly supplied to the Soviet Union with an artillery system with a barrel length of 52 calibers, while the British Army used models with a barrel length of 45 calibers. "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 War Department was indicated (Mk.II, Mk.III, Mk.IV, etc.), then the name of the vehicle ("Valentine", "Matilda", "Churchill", etc.) and indicated by it (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 British tanks adopted in the Red Army during the war: a name indicating the modification, for example: “Valentine IV”, “Valentine IX”, etc., or without indicating the modification, for example: Mk. III "Valentine".
During the four years of war, foreign-made armored vehicles received various units, subdivisions | divisions and units 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 mid- and senior-level commanders often did not coincide with the opinion of the tank crew. This is understandable, the command was primarily concerned with the tactical characteristics of the 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 everyday and of a technical nature. The combination of these two points of view largely determined the presented model of armored vehicles.
In addition, the foreign one was designed with a higher culture of production and operation in mind. In many ways, it was the technical illiteracy of the crews and the lack of units necessary for maintenance that became the reasons for the failure of allied equipment. However, the “gap” of the gap was not so great, and our tankers very soon became accustomed to foreign vehicles, modifying many of them to suit the specifics of operation on the Soviet-German front.
The first "Valentines" appeared in units of our active army at the end of November 1941, although in small numbers. At the same time, only part of the 145 Matildas, 216 Valentines and 330 Station Wagons received was used. So, on the Western Front on January 1, 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 Northwestern Front (4th Contact Army).
German documents of the 4th Panzer Group note the fact of the first use of British Type 3 tanks (Mk.III "Valentine" - Author's note) against the 2nd Panzer Division on November 25, 1941 in the Peshki area. The document stated: “For the first time, German soldiers were faced with the fact of real help from England, which Russian propaganda had been shouting about for so long. English tanks are much worse than Soviet ones. The crews that German soldiers took prisoner scolded “the old tin boxes that the British handed them.”
Judging by this report, it can be assumed that the crews of the Valentines had a very limited training period and had little knowledge of English materiel. In the units of the 5th Army, which covered the Mozhaisk direction, the first unit to receive “foreign tanks” was the 136th separate tank battalion (tb). The battalion completed its formation on December 1, 1941, having ten T-34, ten T-60, nine Valentine and three Matilda tanks (British tanks were received in Gorky on November 10, 1941, tankers were trained directly at front). By December 10, during crew training, five Valentines, two Matildas, one T-34 and four T-60s were damaged. After putting the equipment in order, on December 15, 1911, 136th detachment. was assigned to the 329th Infantry Division (SD). Then, together with the 20th Tank Brigade, he took part in the counter-offensive near Moscow.
On January 15, 1942, the battalion command compiled a “Brief Report on the Actions. Mk.Sh” - apparently documents assessing the Allied equipment:
“The experience of using Valentines has shown:
1. The tanks' cross-country ability in winter conditions is good; movement on soft snow 50-60 cm thick is ensured. Ground traction is good, but spurs are required when there is icy conditions.
2. The weapon worked flawlessly, but there were cases of the gun not firing enough (the first five or six shots), apparently due to thickening of the lubricant. Weapons are very demanding in terms of lubrication and maintenance.
3. Observation through instruments and slits is good.
4. The motor group worked well up to 150-200 hours, then a decrease in engine power is observed.
5. Good quality armor.
The crew personnel underwent special training and had satisfactory command of tanks. The command and technical staff of the tanks had little knowledge. 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, cars had difficulty starting in the cold and therefore remained hot all the time, which led to a large consumption of motor resources. In a battle with German tanks (December 20, 1941), three Valentines received the following damage: one had its turret jammed by a 37-mm shell, the gun of another was jammed, the third received five hits on the side from a distance of 200-250 meters. In this battle, the Valentines knocked out two medium German T-3 tanks.
In general, the Mk.Sh is a good combat vehicle with powerful weapons, good maneuverability, and is capable of operating against enemy personnel, fortifications and tanks.
Negative sides:
1. Poor adhesion of the tracks to 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 of the State Defense Committee to rearm the Valentine with a domestic artillery system. This task and in a short time frame was carried out at plant No. 92 by the design bureau under the leadership of Grabin. In December 1941, within two weeks, one Valen-Tayne was armed with a 45-mm tank gun and a DT machine gun. This car received the factory index ZIS-95. At the end of December, the tank was sent to Moscow, but things did not go further than a prototype.
A large number of Valentine tanks took part in the Battle of the Caucasus. In general, the North Caucasus Front in the period 1942-1943 had a very significant “share” of Anglo-American tanks - up to 70% of the total number of vehicles. This situation was explained primarily by the proximity of the front to the Iranian supply channel for the Red Army with equipment and weapons, as well as the convenience of transporting tanks along the Volga that arrived at the northern ports of the USSR.
Of the armored units of the North Caucasus Front, the 5th Guards Tank Brigade was considered the most eminent and experienced. The brigade began fighting 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 German units in the Alkhanch-urt valley. In this battle, the crew of Captain Shenelkov's Guard in his "Valentine" destroyed five tanks, one self-propelled gun, a truck and 25 soldiers. 15 Over the next few days, fighting in this area continued. In total, during the fighting in the Malgobek area, the brigade destroyed 38 tanks (of which 20 were burned), one self-propelled gun, 24 guns, six mortars, one six-barreled mortar, and up to 1,800 enemy soldiers. The brigade's losses were two T-34s, 33 Valentines (eight of them burned out, 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 comprehensively, together with Soviet equipment. In the first echelon (according to documents from 1942) there were KV and Matilda CS tanks. (with a 76.2 mm howitzer), in the second echelon there are T-34s, and in the third echelon “Valentine” and T-70. This tactic very 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.
For the attack, forces from the 56th Army were brought in: the 5th Guards Tank Brigade (as of August 1, 1943 it had 13 M4A2, 24 Valentine, 12 T-34) and the 14th Guards Breakthrough Tank Regiment (16 KV- 1C), as well as the battalion of the 417th Infantry Division.
Exactly at six o'clock in the morning on August 6, 1943, a Katyusha salvo was fired at the village of Gorno-Vesely (Object of attack), and immediately behind the barrage of fire, three KV-1S rushed forward, followed by three Valentines under the command of Guard Senior Lieutenant G. P. Polosina. The infantry moved behind the slippers. Next, it is not without interest to cite the memories of battle participant G.P. Polosin:
“Maneuvering among shell explosions (a thirty-minute artillery barrage, of course, did not completely suppress the enemy’s fire system), my “Valentine” unexpectedly found itself literally in front of the houses of the farm. What luck! But what about other tanks?..
I looked around through the viewing slits. I saw that two more "Englishmen" of my platoon - Poloznikov's and Voronkov's vehicles - were walking slightly behind. But heavy HFs are not visible. Maybe they fell behind or were taken to the side: The infantry, of course, had been cut off from the tanks even earlier...
Destroying enemy machine-gun emplacements and bunkers along the way, our tanks reached the ravine. We stopped here. I gave the order over the radio:
-Don't shoot without my order! Take care of the shells. It is still unknown how long it will take... And then we will have to fight our way to our own people...
The tank commanders answered briefly:
-Understood.
Then he tried to contact the guard company commander, Senior Lieutenant Maksimov. And I couldn't. The airwaves were filled to the brim with hysterical commands in German. Apparently, the Nazis were seriously concerned about the unexpected breakthrough of Russian tanks in this sector of their defense.
But our position was also unenviable. It just so happened that they were separated from the main group conducting reconnaissance in force, and their fuel was running out, they were alone behind enemy lines, who, 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 ravine into the open space and saw a strange picture. There were Germans on Voronkov’s car, which was 30-40 meters to the right. They mistook the Valentines for their equipment, banged their butts on the armor and did not understand why the tankers did not get out. After waiting until there were up to a dozen Germans, I ordered a machine gun to hit them. Then, having fired smoke grenade launchers (this is where these weapons, which were only on British tanks, came in handy) and, having installed a smoke screen, the vehicles returned through the ravine to the location of their troops. The battle was still going on near Gorno-Vesely. The HFs were shot down. One of them stood without a tower. Another a little further from him buried his gun in the ground. At its right, spread out caterpillar, two tankers fired their pistols away from the advancing Germans. Having dispersed the enemy infantry with cannon and machine gun fire, we dragged both wounded men into our Valentine. It immediately became clear that, having failed to penetrate the KV’s armor with anti-tank artillery, the Germans used guided mines against them.”
During this short raid behind enemy lines, a platoon of guard senior lieutenant G.P. Polosin destroyed five anti-tank guns, crushed five bunkers, 12 machine guns, and shot up to a hundred Nazis. But most importantly, with his unexpected attack from the rear he forced the enemy to fully open his fire system. Which, in fact, was what was needed.
It remains to add that all crew members of Polosin’s platoon were awarded government awards for this. 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 tracks of the Valentine tanks, increasing the track area. Shod in such “bast shoes”, the car did not fall through the snow and did not get stuck in the marshy soil of central Russia. Mk.III were actively used in positional battles on the Western and Kalinin fronts until the beginning of 1944. Cavalrymen were very fond of the Valentine for its mobility and maneuverability. Until the end of the war, the Valentine IV and its further development, the Valentine IX and X, remained the main tank of the cavalry corps. The cavalrymen noted the lack of high-explosive fragmentation shells for the cannon as the main drawback. And one more thing: it was not recommended to make sharp turns on the Valentine, since this would bend the sloth’s crank and cause the caterpillar to jump off.
By the end of the war, modifications of the Valentine IX and X (along with the American Sherman) remained the only types of tanks that the USSR continued to request for delivery to the Red Army. For example, on 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 ended their military career in the Far East in August-September 1945. The 1st Far Eastern Front included 20 Mk.III Valentine-Bridgelayer bridge tanks, 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 cavalry -mechanized group of the Transbaikal Front.
Attached to tank brigades by armies 15 and 16, tank-bridge companies (10 Mk.IIIM each) marched together 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 could be provided with Mk.IIIM.
Canadian tanks "Valentine IV" in Soviet terminology were also designated as "Mk.III", so it is quite difficult to determine which are actually English and which are Canadian vehicles. Several Valentine VII vehicles took part in the liberation of Crimea. In the 19th Perekop Tank Corps there was the 91st separate motorcycle battalion, which had a Valentine VII bottom, ten BA-64s, ten Universal armored personnel carriers and 23 motorcycles.
However, this does not in the least diminish the Canadian share of supplies to the USSR. After all, almost half of the Valentines delivered were Canadian-made. These tanks, along with British products, took part 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 capture the village of Devichye Pole in November 1943. 139 TP (68 infantry brigade, 8 Mk, 5th Army) entered operational subordination to the 5th 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 battle until November 20. After the preparation of the material unit for battle was completed, on November 20, 1943, in cooperation with the 57th Guards Breakthrough Tank Regiment, armed with KV and T-34 vehicles, and the infantry of the 110th Guards Rifle Division, the tanks of the 139th Tank Division 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 anti-tank guns attached to the tanks. 30 Soviet tanks took part in this operation. The enemy did not expect such a massive rapid attack and was unable to provide effective resistance to the advancing units. When the first line of defense was broken, the infantry dismounted and, unhooking their guns, began to occupy enemy positions, preparing to repel a possible counterattack. The remaining units of the 110th Guards Infantry Division were brought into the breakthrough. However, the German counterattack did not take place; the German command was so stunned by the Soviet breakthrough that it was unable to organize resistance within 24 hours. During this day, our troops marched 20 km into the depths of the German defense and captured Devichye Pole, losing 4 tanks (KV,

Modern battle tanks Russia and the world photos, videos, pictures watch online. This article gives an idea of ​​the modern tank fleet. It is based on the principle of classification used in the most authoritative reference book to date, but in a slightly modified and improved form. And if the last one is in his in its original form can still be found in the armies of a number of countries, others have already become museum pieces. And just for 10 years! The authors considered it unfair to follow in the footsteps of the Jane’s reference book and not consider this combat vehicle (very interesting in design and fiercely discussed in its time), which formed the basis of the tank fleet of the last quarter of the 20th century.

Films about tanks where there is still no alternative to this type of weapon ground forces. The tank was and will probably remain for a long time modern weapons thanks to the ability to combine such seemingly contradictory qualities as high mobility, powerful weapons and reliable crew protection. These unique qualities of tanks continue to be constantly improved, and the experience and technology accumulated over decades predetermine new frontiers in combat properties and achievements of the military-technical level. In the eternal confrontation between “projectile and armor”, as practice shows, protection against projectiles is increasingly being improved, 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 make quick maneuvers on off-road, contaminated terrain, can “walk” through territory occupied by the enemy, seize a decisive bridgehead, cause panic in the rear and suppress the enemy with fire and tracks . The war of 1939-1945 became the most ordeal for all humanity, since almost all countries of the world were involved in it. It was a clash of the titans - the most unique period that theorists debated in the early 1930s and during which tanks were used in large numbers by almost all belligerents. At this time, a “lice test” and a deep reform of the first theories of the use of tank forces took place. And it is the Soviet tank forces that are most affected by all this.

Tanks in battle have become 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 had lost most of its European territories and had difficulty recruiting tanks for the defense of Moscow, was able to release powerful tank formations onto the battlefields already in 1943? This book is intended to answer these questions, telling about the development of Soviet tanks “during the testing days ", from 1937 to the beginning of 1943. When writing the book, materials from Russian archives and private collections of tank builders were used. There was a period in our history that remained in my memory with some kind of depressing feeling. It began with the return of our first military advisers from Spain, and only stopped at the beginning of forty-three,” said former general designer of self-propelled guns L. Gorlitsky, “some kind of pre-storm state was felt.

Tanks of the Second World War It was M. Koshkin, almost underground (but, of course, with the support of “the wisest of the wise leaders of all nations”), who was able to create the tank that a few years later would shock the German tank generals. And not only that, he not only created it, the designer managed to prove to these military fools that it was his T-34 that they needed, and not just another wheeled-tracked "motor vehicle." The author is in slightly different positions, which formed in him after meeting the pre-war documents of the RGVA and RGEA. 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 the entire activity of design bureaus and people's commissariats in general, during the frantic race to equip new tank formations of the Red Army, transfer industry to wartime rails and evacuation.

Tanks Wikipedia, the author would like to express his special gratitude to M. Kolomiets for his assistance in selecting and processing materials, and also thank A. Solyankin, I. Zheltov and M. Pavlov, the authors of the reference publication “Domestic armored vehicles. XX century. 1905 - 1941” , since this book helped to understand the fate of some projects that was previously unclear. I would also like to remember 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. For some reason today it is common for us to talk about 1937-1938. only from the point of view of repression, 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. Gorlinky.

Soviet tanks, a detailed assessment of them at that time was heard 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 and 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 soviet tank began to transform from “mechanized cavalry” (in which one of its combat qualities was emphasized at the expense of others) into a balanced combat vehicle, simultaneously possessing powerful weapons sufficient to suppress most targets, good cross-country ability and mobility with armor protection capable of maintaining its combat effectiveness in shelling with the most widespread anti-tank weapons probable enemy.

It was recommended that large tanks be supplemented with only special tanks - amphibious tanks, chemical tanks. The brigade now had 4 separate battalions of 54 tanks each and was strengthened by moving from three-tank platoons to five-tank ones. In addition, D. Pavlov justified the refusal to form three additional mechanized corps in addition to the four existing mechanized corps in 1938, believing that these formations were immobile and difficult to control, and most importantly, they required a different rear organization. The tactical and technical requirements for promising tanks, as expected, were adjusted. In particular, in a letter dated December 23 to the head of the design bureau of plant No. 185 named after. CM. Kirov new boss demanded that the armor of new tanks be strengthened so that at a distance of 600-800 meters (effective range).

The newest 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 stage...” 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 not difficult to guess that the second way was considered more promising, since the use of specially strengthened 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 especially 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 widely used, the properties of which were identical in all areas. Such armor was called homogeneous (homogeneous), and from the very beginning of armor making, craftsmen sought to create just such armor, because homogeneity ensured stability of characteristics and simplified processing. However, at the end of the 19th century, it was noticed that when the surface of an 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. This is how heterogeneous (non-uniform) armor came into use.

For 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 consequence) to an increase in fragility. Thus, the most durable armor, with other equal conditions It turned out to be very fragile and often pricked even from the explosions of high-explosive fragmentation shells. Therefore, at the dawn of armor production, when producing homogeneous sheets, the task of the metallurgist was to achieve the maximum possible hardness of the armor, but at the same time not to lose its elasticity. Surface-hardened armor with carbon and silicon saturation was called cemented (cemented) and was considered at that time a panacea for many ills. But cementation is a complex, harmful process (for example, treating a hot plate with a jet of illuminating gas) and relatively expensive, and therefore its development in a series required large expenses and improved production standards.

Wartime tanks, 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 level of protection to the same one, but covered with 22-30 mm sheets, without a significant increase in weight.
Also, by the mid-1930s, tank building had learned 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 fire video up to half the thickness of the slab, which was, of course, worse than cementation, since while the hardness of the surface layer was higher than with cementation, 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 slightly more than cementation. But the hardening technology that was used for thick naval armor was no longer suitable for relatively thin tank armor. Before the war, this method was almost not used in our serial tank building due to technological difficulties and relatively high cost.

Combat use of tanks The most proven tank gun was the 45-mm tank gun model 1932/34. (20K), and before the event in Spain it was believed that its power was quite sufficient to perform most tank tasks. But the battles in Spain showed that a 45-mm gun could only satisfy the task of fighting enemy tanks, since even 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. Firing at shelters and bunkers was ineffective due to the low high-explosive effect of a projectile weighing only about two kg.

Types of tanks photos so that even one shell hit can reliably disable an anti-tank gun or machine gun; and thirdly, to increase the penetrating effect of a tank gun against the armor of a potential enemy, since in the example French tanks(already having an armor thickness of about 40-42 mm) it became clear that armor protection foreign combat vehicles tend to increase significantly. There was a sure way for 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 shells with greater force. initial speed to a greater distance without correcting the aiming.

The best tanks in the world had a large-caliber cannon, and also had big sizes breech, significantly more weight and increased recoil response. And this required an increase in the mass of the entire tank as a whole. In addition, placing large-sized rounds in a closed tank volume led to a decrease in transportable ammunition.
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 the 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 in the wild, who, since the beginning of 1935, had been trying to develop his new 76.2-mm semi-automatic single gun L-10, and the staff of plant No. 8 was slowly finishing the “forty-five”.

Photos of tanks with names The number of developments is large, but mass production in the period 1933-1937. not a single one has been accepted..." In fact, none of the five air-cooled tank diesel engines, work on which was carried out in 1933-1937 in the engine department of plant No. 185, was brought to series. Moreover, despite the decisions the highest levels about the transition in tank building exclusively to diesel engines, this process was constrained by a number of factors. Of course, diesel had significant efficiency. It consumed less fuel per unit of power per hour. Diesel fuel was less susceptible to fire, since the flash point of its vapor was very high.

New tanks video, even the most advanced of them, the MT-5 tank engine, required a reorganization of engine production for serial production, which was expressed in the construction of new workshops, the supply of advanced foreign equipment (they did not yet have their own machines of the required accuracy), financial investments and strengthening of personnel. It was planned that in 1939 this diesel would produce 180 hp. will go to serial tanks and artillery tractors, but due to investigative work to determine the causes of tank engine failures, which lasted from April to November 1938, these plans were not implemented. 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 had specific indicators that suited tank builders quite well. The tanks were tested according to new technique, specially developed at the insistence of the new head of ABTU D. Pavlov in relation to combat service in wartime. The basis of the tests was a run of 3-4 days (at least 10-12 hours of daily non-stop movement) 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, “swimming” in water with an additional load that simulated an infantry landing, after which the tank was sent for inspection.

Super tanks online, after improvement work, seemed to remove all claims from the tanks. And the overall progress 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 testing, 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 turret with improved protection. The modified layout made it possible to place on the tank more ammunition for a machine gun and two small fire extinguishers (previously there were no fire extinguishers on small tanks of the Red Army).

US tanks as part of modernization work, on one production 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 did not show good enough results in tests, and therefore the torsion bar suspension did not immediately pave the way for itself in the course of further work. Obstacles to overcome: climbs of at least 40 degrees, vertical wall 0.7 m, covered ditch 2-2.5 m."

YouTube about tanks, manufacturing work prototypes D-180 and D-200 engines for reconnaissance tanks are not being developed, jeopardizing the production of prototypes." Justifying his choice, N. Astrov said that the wheeled-tracked non-floating reconnaissance aircraft (factory designation 101 or 10-1), as well as variant of the amphibious tank (factory designation 102 or 10-2), are a compromise solution, since it is not possible to fully satisfy the ABTU requirements. Option 101 was a tank weighing 7.5 tons with a hull-like hull, but with vertical sides sheets of cemented armor 10-13 mm thick, since: “The inclined sides, causing serious weighting of the suspension and hull, require a significant (up to 300 mm) widening of the hull, not to mention the complication of the tank.

Video reviews of tanks in which the tank’s power unit was planned to be based on the 250-horsepower MG-31F aircraft engine, which was being developed by industry for agricultural aircraft and gyroplanes. 1st grade gasoline was placed in the tank under the floor of the fighting compartment and in additional onboard gas tanks. The armament fully corresponded to the task and consisted of coaxial machine guns DK 12.7 mm caliber and DT (in the second version of the project even ShKAS is listed) 7.62 mm caliber. The combat weight of the tank with torsion bar suspension was 5.2 tons, with spring suspension - 5.26 tons. Tests took place from July 9 to August 21 according to the methodology approved in 1938, with special attention being paid to tanks.

The first British tanks (20 vehicles) were delivered to Arkhangelsk by caravan PQ-1 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 Red Army Armored Directorate arrived in London. They were sent to the central tank depot in Chilville. Together with military experts from other regions, tankers became part of the Engineering Department of the People's Commissariat Foreign trade, which was headed by Captain 1st Rank Soloviev. 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 cannon or a 76 mm howitzer. The engine used was a pair of LES or Leyland diesel engines 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 Great Britain, of which 1084 were sent, and 916 arrived in the USSR (the rest died en route).

The 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 "Valentin" or "Valentine") was developed by Vickers in 1938. Like the Matilda, it was an infantry tank, but in terms of mass - 16 tons - it was rather light. True, 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 cannon. The Valentine I used an ABS carburetor engine with 135 hp, which was replaced in subsequent modifications by AEC and GMC diesel engines with 131, 138 and 165 hp. The maximum speed of the tank was 34 km/h.
"Valentines" were produced from 1940 to the beginning of 1945 in 11 modifications, differing mainly in armament and engine type. A total of 8,275 tanks were produced by three English and two Canadian companies (6,855 in England and 1,420 in Canada). 2,394 British and 1,388 Canadian Valentines (3,782 in total) were sent to the Soviet Union, of which 3,332 vehicles reached Russia. Seven modifications of “Valentines” were supplied to the USSR:
"Valentine II" - with a 40-mm cannon, AEC diesel engine with a power of 131 hp. and an additional external fuel tank;
"Valentine 111" - with a three-man turret 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 solid frontal hull part 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, installed 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 GMC engine with a power of 165 hp.
In addition to the main modifications of the Valentine, in 1944 the Red Army also received the MK.II1 Valcntine-Bridgelayer - in Soviet terminology, MK.ZM.
Perhaps the Canadian version of the Valentine (modification VII) was even more reliable and technically advanced than its English predecessor.
Canadian Valentines were supplied to the Red Army from 1942 to 1944, with the bulk of deliveries occurring in 1943.
Another vehicle that began supplying allied weapons to the USSR is the English armored personnel carrier “Universal” (in Soviet terminology, MK.I “Universal”, or U-1, or “Bren”). This light tracked vehicle weighing about 3.5 tons was the most popular armored personnel carrier of the Second World War. From 1935 to 1945, 89,595 vehicles 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 a Boys anti-tank rifle; the armor thickness was 7-11 mm. Ford engine 85 hp. allowed a 3.5-ton vehicle with a crew of two and three to four paratroopers to reach speeds of up to 50 km/h.
In the first year of operation of the supply system, 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 British armored vehicles in the battles near Moscow she 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 War Ministry was indicated (MK.II, MK.Sh, MK.IV, etc.), then the name of the vehicle (“Valentine”, “Matilda”, “Churchill”, etc.) 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”, etc. To avoid confusion in this book we will use the designations of British tanks adopted in the Red Army during the war: a name with an indication of the modification, for example, “Valentine IV”, “Valentine IX”, etc., or without an indication, for example MK.IV "Churchill", MK.Sh "Valentine", MK.II "Matilda", etc.

In January 1942, 20 of the 177 MK.VII Tetrarch tanks produced (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 16 mm armor. The 165-strong Meadows MAT carburetor engine allowed the tank to reach a speed of 64 km/h. Most likely, the supply of this type of tank is due to interest in the results of its use on the Soviet-German front.
Since 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 were delivered to the USSR, differing 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 reached speeds of up to 25 km/h. The Churchill's armament consisted of a 57 mm cannon and two BESA machine guns. Beginning in the fall of 1942, these vehicles were sent to staff heavy breakthrough tank regiments. Of the 5,640 produced and 344 sent to the USSR, only 253 Churchill III and IV ended up.
From the beginning of 1942, the United States joined in organizing deliveries under Lend-Lease on a typical scale, and began sending to our country tanks MZ "General Stewart" (in Soviet terminology, MZ light, or MZl) and MZ "General Lee" (in Soviet terminology, MZ average, or MZs).
MZ "Stuart" was the most widespread light tank Second World War. From 1941 to 1944, two American companies manufactured 13,859 vehicles of three modifications. The USSR received modifications of the MZ and MZA1, differing 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. Continental carburetor engine rated at 250 hp. (or a Guiberson diesel engine with 210 hp) accelerated the tanks to 50 km/h. In 1942-1943, 340 MZ and 1336 MZA1 were sent to the USSR, and 1232 tanks were delivered (including 211 diesel ones).

The Lee MZ, developed in 1941, was a rather archaic design with a three-tier arrangement of weapons. The production of these three-meter monsters took place 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. Continental R-975-EC2 radial carburetor engine producing 340 hp. (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

In addition to tanks, armored personnel carriers and various vehicles based on them came to the USSR from the USA in large quantities.
American wheeled armored personnel carriers were represented in the Red Army by the Scout Car MZA1 from White (in Soviet documents it is referred to as an “armored personnel carrier,” armored vehicle,” or “semi-armored vehicle” MZA1, or “Scout”). "Scout" was perfectly suited for reconnaissance purposes. Weighing 5.6 tons, the vehicle had an armor thickness of up to 12.7 mm and could carry 8 people (2 crew, 6 troops). The 110-horsepower carburetor engine allowed the armored personnel carrier to reach speeds of up to 105 km/h. The standard armament of the Scout included 12.7 mm heavy 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 ended up in the armored and mechanized forces of the Red Army.
American half-track armored personnel carriers M2, MZ, M9 arrived in 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 anti-tank fighter), 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 that 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 M2's defensive armament consisted of two Browning machine guns and was identical to the wheeled Scout.

Repair and recovery tank M31 based on the MZ "Li" during testing in Kubinka.

The M17 anti-aircraft SU was armed with four 12.7 mm Browning M2 machine guns in an aircraft rotating mount mounted on the M5 armored personnel carrier. All 1000 Ml7 anti-aircraft SUs manufactured in the USA were delivered to the Soviet Union.
All ZSUs supplied from the United States were used as part of the mechanized and tank forces of the Red Army. They, along with Soviet towed guns, equipped individual anti-aircraft regiments, battalions and companies of corps and tank armies. For example, as of January 1945, the 7th Guards Tank Corps included the 287th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Regiment, consisting of 16 37-mm anti-aircraft guns and ten M17 ZSUs.
Standing apart among the armored vehicles supplied under Lend-Lease is the 13-ton heavy armored high-speed tractor M5. Built on the chassis of the MZ General Stewart light tank, the tractor had a Continental R6572 engine with 235 hp. and was capable of towing guns with a caliber of up to 155 mm, while simultaneously transporting 8-9 people at a speed of 56 km/h. The cabin was open type, with a canvas roof. The driver and gun crew were located in the front of the vehicle. Of the 5,290 vehicles produced by International Harvester, 200 M5s reached 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 were 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 Scammel heavy rescue tractor was developed for English army in tank towing (Scammell TRMU/30) and recovery vehicle (Scammell PIONEER SV/2S) versions. Gardner GL diesel engine with 102 hp. allowed using a trailer to tow a load of up to 30 tons along paved roads. However, during the battles in North Africa Scammel TRMU/30 even brought 42-ton Churchills to the front line. The recovery PIONEER SV/2S was equipped with a powerful winch-crane for repair work.
Deliveries of Scammel to our country began in 1942 and were extremely limited. However, in Great Britain 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 in comparison with the total production volume. Before the start of mass American deliveries, these vehicles were distributed to the fronts literally one by one. So, on the Leningrad Front, the front evacuation company had only one Scammell tractor (the rest of the equipment was Soviet-made), etc.
The American REO transporter with a special trailer was intended for transporting tanks and self-propelled guns weighing up to 20 tons on paved and 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 done using a winch. The RE028XS transporter had a six-cylinder Cummings HB-600 water-cooled diesel engine with a power of 150 hp. For the safety of transporting tanks and self-propelled guns, there was a set of fastening devices (chains, blocks, guy wires, etc.). During 1943-1944, the Red Army received 190 of these vehicles, however, due to the general trend of increasing tank weight, a tractor capable of towing heavier vehicles was required. It was 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 Roger Trailer. It could be used to transport loads weighing up to 45 tons on dry dirt roads and paved roads. For ease of unloading and loading tanks, the Diamond T-980 transporter was equipped with a powerful engine-driven winch. In addition, the design of the trailer made it possible to load serviceable tanks under its own power. The Hercules DFXE engine power 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 produced. These vehicles were placed at the disposal of evacuation units of fronts and armies. Thus, the 1st Guards Tank Army included the 67th evacuation squadron, which, in addition to the Voroshilovites and Cominterns, included 2 T-980s as of January 1945. Usually, no more than two vehicles were allocated to the army evacuation vehicles. On August 5, 1945, to ensure the evacuation of armored vehicles of units and formations prepared to attack Japanese troops in Manchuria, the 1st Armored Repair and Evacuation Center was created, from which mixed evacuation groups were allocated to meet army needs. The 1st Red Banner Army received 3 tractors based on the T-34 and 2 T-980 Diamond, and the 5th Army received 6 T-34 and 2 Diamond. By the end of the war, reports from repair and recovery services were full of proposals to increase the number of tractor-trailers to 4-5 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, the Scammell, REO, Diamond tractors were primarily necessary for the rapid evacuation of heavy armored vehicles, especially from areas with swampy terrain.

T-2 (M31) tanks in tandem are towing a heavy KV-1. NIBT training ground, winter 1942-43.

ZSU M15A1, Kubinka, 1944.

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 supplies.
The tables presented here are compiled according to data from the admissions committees of the GBTU of the Red Army and seem to the authors to be closest to the truth (Table 3, 4 and 5).
Table 3. Supplies of armored vehicles to the USSR from Great Britain and Canada from 1941 to 1945 (according to the admissions committees of the GBTU KA)

Ctrl Enter

Noticed osh Y bku Select text and click Ctrl+Enter