Another Lend-Lease. Infantry tank "Matilda": strange does not mean bad
Still, these British Isles are not all like people. Especially in the times we are talking about, especially regarding tanks. Okay, pounds-inches, but there was a classification - you can grab hold of your head and tear it off.
People here had light, medium, heavy tanks. And the British - cruising, infantry ... That's about the infantry tank "Matilda" we will go.
Infantry tank "Matilda II" was designed to accompany the infantry. This followed from its name, which is generally clear and understandable.
The 27-ton machine was protected by 78-mm armor, which at that time did not penetrate any German gun. The exception was the 88-mm anti-aircraft gun and the later-developed 75-mm anti-tank gun.
Armed with a tank 40-mm cannon or (somewhat later) 76-mm howitzer. The engine used was a pair of AES or Leyland diesel engines with a total power of 174 or 190 hp, which allowed it to reach speeds up to 25 km / h.
In general, a very unhurried and well-booked tank, if in numbers. If we compare the "Matilda", then it is appropriate comparison with the KV-1, whatever one may say, with a heavy tank.
Here is the essence of the infantry tank. He does not need to be fast, the infantry in any case will not give more speed than 5 km / h. In attack - 10. So 25 km / h is quite. Enough, since the "Matilde" did not have to, according to the idea, catch up with anyone or quickly get out of someone. This tank was to crawl along with the infantry and support it with fire, armor and caterpillars.
Generally, let's say, “Matilda” was not entirely within our understanding. Especially when it comes to comparison with the Soviet counterparts.
In terms of booking, Matilda exceeded our heavy KB (78 mm versus 75 mm), but was inferior to 76-mm cannon in firepower.
The 40-mm English cannon for armor penetration was not inferior to our “forty-five” light tanks. Our tank crews noted "the reliability of the diesel engine and planetary gearbox, as well as ease of management of the tank."
Armor, speed and maneuverability of a heavy tank and light weapons. Medium tank?
So, by the way, "Matilda" and recorded. Medium tank. And put on a par with the T-34, which generally looks so-so. Tanks are different in nature and purpose, as well as the ability to perform tasks.
One of the main drawbacks of the Matilda’s weapons was the absence of high-explosive fragmentation projectiles for the 40-mm cannon. Therefore, already in December 1941 of the year, on the basis of an order of the State Defense Committee, the design bureau of Grabin at plant No. 92 developed a project for rearming Matilda 76-mm ZIS-5 cannon and DT machine gun.
However, rearmament was not required. The British allies made proper conclusions and already in the spring of 1942, an MK.II Matilda CS infantry fire support tank arrived in our country, armed with 76,2-mm howitzer, which has high-explosive shells in ammunition. In fact, from this point on, the Matilda could fight not only with the enemy’s armored vehicles.
The downside was the lack of armor-piercing shells for howitzers.
That is, the tank existed in two ways: anti-tank and anti-personnel. It looks somewhat illogical, but this was the alignment.
A total of 1943 2 "Matild" was released in the UK until August 987, of which 1 084 pieces were shipped, and 918 arrived in the USSR. The difference in the combat account of the Luftwaffe and kriegsmarine.
From the moment the Matilds first arrived in the Red Army, our tankers drank sorrow with them. This is noted in the mass of memoirs and official reports.
"Matilda" arrived in the USSR, equipped with the so-called "summer" caterpillars, which did not provide the necessary traction with the ground in winter conditions. A delivery, I recall, began in the prewinter period.
Therefore, there have been cases when tanks rolled down ice-covered roads into ditches.
To solve this problem, special metal "spurs" had to be welded on the tracks of the tracks. Yes, the first British tanks, which “shook” our mechanics, were precisely “Matilda”.
Further more. In severe frosts, the pipelines of the liquid cooling system, located close to the bottom, froze even when the engine was turned on.
If you look closely at the tank rigging, you can clearly see a number of small “windows” located in the upper part of the bulwark. Somewhere in the African desert, through these “windows”, sand was pouring freely from the tracks, which was what they were intended for.
And here, in the realities of Russia? Moving through the solid mud and swamps, the tank was constantly packed with mud behind the bulwark of the tank, as a result the caterpillar was often simply wedged. The engine is gloh and in the ensuing silence, the crew, swearing and remembering its iron English horse with unkind words, climbed to get the entrenching tools and towing cables.
Memories of the front-line soldiers presented more than one story about how the crews of the Matilds had to stop almost every 4 – 5 kilometers and clean the chassis of their tanks with a crowbar and shovel.
In general, it seems that we got a sort of capricious and even greenhouse lady, which is unrealistic to use in our conditions.
Yes, in Soviet times, so it was presented. Allegedly, the Allies supplied the choice muck. However, the British have nothing to do with it, they supplied us with such equipment, which we ordered them ourselves. But as it turned out that the tank, intended for conducting combat operations in the African deserts, got to fight on the Russian roads, in the forests and swamps, this question still remains without a clear and precise answer. As well as the names of those who selected and ordered tanks.
Nevertheless, the "Matilda" got into our army and nothing could be done about it, except for their use.
Yes, and complaints about the "fragility" of British tanks, let's say, are not entirely fair. Crews of tanks were prepared in Kazan. The materiel was studied in Gorky, where tanks were run in. Fifteen days, which the crew assigned for the development of not the simplest imported equipment, were clearly not enough. So, quite a lot of English tanks failed due to the fault of the crews, both because of the complexity of the equipment and the time pressure of the wartime, and due to the low level of crew training.
The general conclusion on the English infantry tank was as follows:
We decided to write about the undercarriage of British tanks exclusively in negative colors. But the tests of the specialists of the test range of armored vehicles in Kubinka showed that the "Matilda" had obviously positive sides.
For example, the presence of bulwarks not only complicated the installation of the undercarriage and made the tank heavier, but at the same time facilitated the overcoming of the snare and anti-tank hedgehogs. In addition, the screens protected the chassis from being hit by projectiles.
In general, the Matilda chassis was recognized not bad, but rather specific.
The average speed on a bumpy and snow-covered road was 14,5 km / h, while the tank consumed 169 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers. Off-road speed fell sharply - to 7,7 km / h. The fuel consumption of 396 liters per 100 kilometers increased significantly. In such conditions, the tank had enough fuel for only 55 kilometers.
It is not surprising that in our realities the additional fuel tank on the tank body became regular.
The tank showed a very good passability in the snow. 600 mm were the maximum depth of the snow cover for him, not every medium tank overcame such drifts. Problems arose when climbing on snowy areas: due to poor adhesion with the ground, the tank could not overcome the rise in steepness in 12 degrees.
However, if we close our eyes to congenital problems with mudflow, then, according to reports and reports, the Matilda was quite a tank.
“MK-II tanks in battle showed themselves from the positive side. Each crew spent the day of the battle up to 200 — 250 shells and 1-1,5 ammunition ammunition. Each tank worked on 550-600 hours, instead of the 220 hours put.
Armor tanks showed exceptional stamina. Individual machines had 17-19 hits of 50 caliber mm projectiles and not a single case of frontal armor penetration. On all tanks there are cases of jamming of towers, masks and disabling of guns and machine guns. ”
In the battles in winter 1942, "Matilda" proved to be from the positive side. Thick armor, comparable to the armor KV-1, partly compensated for the far from the best organization of combat interaction. The German 50-mm anti-tank guns Pak 38 were far from always able to write down the Matilda, despite its clumsiness and slowness.
In the spring of 1942, the Matilda were actively used in battles in parts of the Western, Kalinin and Bryansk fronts, where they were mainly positional battles. And because of its powerful armor, the tank proved to be quite convenient just for use in such battles.
In the spring of 1943, the Soviet Union refused to import tanks "Matilda" - by this time it became clear that they no longer meet modern requirements. In the British army, by the beginning of 1943, not a single “Matilda” remained in the line units either. Nevertheless, these tanks were actively used in 1943 battles of the year, and in the main strategic areas.
But by the summer of 1944, only isolated Matilds remained in the tank units of the Red Army, and by the fall they could be found only in training units.
TTX tank "Matilda"
Combat weight, t: 26,95
Crew, prs: 4
Number released, pcs: 2987
dimensions
Body length, mm: 5715
Width, mm: 2515
Height, mm: 2565
Ground clearance mm: 400
Reservation
Body forehead (top), mm / degree: 75 / 0
The forehead of the body (middle), mm / deg: 47 / 65 °
Body forehead (bottom), mm / deg: 78 / 0
Board of the case, mm / hail: 70 / 0
Body feed (top), mm / deg: 55 / 0
Bottom, mm: 20
Housing roof, mm: 20
Tower mm / deg: 75 / 0
weaponry
The gun: 1 x 40-mm QF, ammunition 67-92 projectile
Machine gun: 1 × 7,7-mm Vickers, ammunition 3000 cartridges
Engine: 2 in-line 6-cylinder diesel engine liquid cooling, power 87 l. with. each.
Highway speed, km / h: 24
Speed over rough terrain, km / h: 15
Cruising on the highway, km: 257
Cruising over rough terrain, km: 129
In general, the "Matilda" was simply too specific a tank that was not intended for such a theater of military operations as the Soviet-German front. To say that it was a bad tank, even through the prism of subsequent political relations, is still not entirely correct.
The tank was unique, and everything that he could give was taken from him in 1941-43.
Based on:
https://warspot.ru/10282-matilda-tolstokozhaya-ledi-na-sovetsko-germanskom-fronte
https://fishki.net/2157335-tanki-matilyda-v-krasnoj-armii.html
People here had light, medium, heavy tanks. And the British - cruising, infantry ... That's about the infantry tank "Matilda" we will go.
Infantry tank "Matilda II" was designed to accompany the infantry. This followed from its name, which is generally clear and understandable.
The 27-ton machine was protected by 78-mm armor, which at that time did not penetrate any German gun. The exception was the 88-mm anti-aircraft gun and the later-developed 75-mm anti-tank gun.
Armed with a tank 40-mm cannon or (somewhat later) 76-mm howitzer. The engine used was a pair of AES or Leyland diesel engines with a total power of 174 or 190 hp, which allowed it to reach speeds up to 25 km / h.
In general, a very unhurried and well-booked tank, if in numbers. If we compare the "Matilda", then it is appropriate comparison with the KV-1, whatever one may say, with a heavy tank.
Here is the essence of the infantry tank. He does not need to be fast, the infantry in any case will not give more speed than 5 km / h. In attack - 10. So 25 km / h is quite. Enough, since the "Matilde" did not have to, according to the idea, catch up with anyone or quickly get out of someone. This tank was to crawl along with the infantry and support it with fire, armor and caterpillars.
Generally, let's say, “Matilda” was not entirely within our understanding. Especially when it comes to comparison with the Soviet counterparts.
In terms of booking, Matilda exceeded our heavy KB (78 mm versus 75 mm), but was inferior to 76-mm cannon in firepower.
The 40-mm English cannon for armor penetration was not inferior to our “forty-five” light tanks. Our tank crews noted "the reliability of the diesel engine and planetary gearbox, as well as ease of management of the tank."
Armor, speed and maneuverability of a heavy tank and light weapons. Medium tank?
So, by the way, "Matilda" and recorded. Medium tank. And put on a par with the T-34, which generally looks so-so. Tanks are different in nature and purpose, as well as the ability to perform tasks.
One of the main drawbacks of the Matilda’s weapons was the absence of high-explosive fragmentation projectiles for the 40-mm cannon. Therefore, already in December 1941 of the year, on the basis of an order of the State Defense Committee, the design bureau of Grabin at plant No. 92 developed a project for rearming Matilda 76-mm ZIS-5 cannon and DT machine gun.
However, rearmament was not required. The British allies made proper conclusions and already in the spring of 1942, an MK.II Matilda CS infantry fire support tank arrived in our country, armed with 76,2-mm howitzer, which has high-explosive shells in ammunition. In fact, from this point on, the Matilda could fight not only with the enemy’s armored vehicles.
The downside was the lack of armor-piercing shells for howitzers.
That is, the tank existed in two ways: anti-tank and anti-personnel. It looks somewhat illogical, but this was the alignment.
A total of 1943 2 "Matild" was released in the UK until August 987, of which 1 084 pieces were shipped, and 918 arrived in the USSR. The difference in the combat account of the Luftwaffe and kriegsmarine.
From the moment the Matilds first arrived in the Red Army, our tankers drank sorrow with them. This is noted in the mass of memoirs and official reports.
"Matilda" arrived in the USSR, equipped with the so-called "summer" caterpillars, which did not provide the necessary traction with the ground in winter conditions. A delivery, I recall, began in the prewinter period.
Therefore, there have been cases when tanks rolled down ice-covered roads into ditches.
To solve this problem, special metal "spurs" had to be welded on the tracks of the tracks. Yes, the first British tanks, which “shook” our mechanics, were precisely “Matilda”.
Further more. In severe frosts, the pipelines of the liquid cooling system, located close to the bottom, froze even when the engine was turned on.
If you look closely at the tank rigging, you can clearly see a number of small “windows” located in the upper part of the bulwark. Somewhere in the African desert, through these “windows”, sand was pouring freely from the tracks, which was what they were intended for.
And here, in the realities of Russia? Moving through the solid mud and swamps, the tank was constantly packed with mud behind the bulwark of the tank, as a result the caterpillar was often simply wedged. The engine is gloh and in the ensuing silence, the crew, swearing and remembering its iron English horse with unkind words, climbed to get the entrenching tools and towing cables.
Memories of the front-line soldiers presented more than one story about how the crews of the Matilds had to stop almost every 4 – 5 kilometers and clean the chassis of their tanks with a crowbar and shovel.
In general, it seems that we got a sort of capricious and even greenhouse lady, which is unrealistic to use in our conditions.
Yes, in Soviet times, so it was presented. Allegedly, the Allies supplied the choice muck. However, the British have nothing to do with it, they supplied us with such equipment, which we ordered them ourselves. But as it turned out that the tank, intended for conducting combat operations in the African deserts, got to fight on the Russian roads, in the forests and swamps, this question still remains without a clear and precise answer. As well as the names of those who selected and ordered tanks.
Nevertheless, the "Matilda" got into our army and nothing could be done about it, except for their use.
Yes, and complaints about the "fragility" of British tanks, let's say, are not entirely fair. Crews of tanks were prepared in Kazan. The materiel was studied in Gorky, where tanks were run in. Fifteen days, which the crew assigned for the development of not the simplest imported equipment, were clearly not enough. So, quite a lot of English tanks failed due to the fault of the crews, both because of the complexity of the equipment and the time pressure of the wartime, and due to the low level of crew training.
The general conclusion on the English infantry tank was as follows:
“The MK-IIa tank has, in comparison with the medium tanks of the USSR, the USA and Germany, the advantage that it combines powerful circular armor protection with relatively small dimensions and combat weight.
Positive quality is also approximate equivalence of armor protection of the frontal part, sides and stern of the tank.
The armament of the MK-IIa tank (40-mm tank gun) makes it possible to destroy most enemy tanks - TI, T-II tanks in any part of the hull and turret; T-3, T-4 and Prague-38-T - with the exception of shielded front sheets.
The tank has quite satisfactory visibility.
The combat weight of the tank is quite acceptable from the point of view of rail transportation and cross-country road bridges and crossings.
The disadvantages of the tank MK-IIa include:
a) poor dynamics of the tank, due to the low power density. This disadvantage limits the ability to dynamically overcome obstacles.
b) limited maneuverability of the tank. The tank is in the full sense of the word Infantry (infantry), as low speeds and a small reserve of fuel make it difficult to use it in isolation from bases and other types weapons».
Positive quality is also approximate equivalence of armor protection of the frontal part, sides and stern of the tank.
The armament of the MK-IIa tank (40-mm tank gun) makes it possible to destroy most enemy tanks - TI, T-II tanks in any part of the hull and turret; T-3, T-4 and Prague-38-T - with the exception of shielded front sheets.
The tank has quite satisfactory visibility.
The combat weight of the tank is quite acceptable from the point of view of rail transportation and cross-country road bridges and crossings.
The disadvantages of the tank MK-IIa include:
a) poor dynamics of the tank, due to the low power density. This disadvantage limits the ability to dynamically overcome obstacles.
b) limited maneuverability of the tank. The tank is in the full sense of the word Infantry (infantry), as low speeds and a small reserve of fuel make it difficult to use it in isolation from bases and other types weapons».
We decided to write about the undercarriage of British tanks exclusively in negative colors. But the tests of the specialists of the test range of armored vehicles in Kubinka showed that the "Matilda" had obviously positive sides.
For example, the presence of bulwarks not only complicated the installation of the undercarriage and made the tank heavier, but at the same time facilitated the overcoming of the snare and anti-tank hedgehogs. In addition, the screens protected the chassis from being hit by projectiles.
In general, the Matilda chassis was recognized not bad, but rather specific.
The average speed on a bumpy and snow-covered road was 14,5 km / h, while the tank consumed 169 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers. Off-road speed fell sharply - to 7,7 km / h. The fuel consumption of 396 liters per 100 kilometers increased significantly. In such conditions, the tank had enough fuel for only 55 kilometers.
It is not surprising that in our realities the additional fuel tank on the tank body became regular.
The tank showed a very good passability in the snow. 600 mm were the maximum depth of the snow cover for him, not every medium tank overcame such drifts. Problems arose when climbing on snowy areas: due to poor adhesion with the ground, the tank could not overcome the rise in steepness in 12 degrees.
However, if we close our eyes to congenital problems with mudflow, then, according to reports and reports, the Matilda was quite a tank.
“MK-II tanks in battle showed themselves from the positive side. Each crew spent the day of the battle up to 200 — 250 shells and 1-1,5 ammunition ammunition. Each tank worked on 550-600 hours, instead of the 220 hours put.
Armor tanks showed exceptional stamina. Individual machines had 17-19 hits of 50 caliber mm projectiles and not a single case of frontal armor penetration. On all tanks there are cases of jamming of towers, masks and disabling of guns and machine guns. ”
In the battles in winter 1942, "Matilda" proved to be from the positive side. Thick armor, comparable to the armor KV-1, partly compensated for the far from the best organization of combat interaction. The German 50-mm anti-tank guns Pak 38 were far from always able to write down the Matilda, despite its clumsiness and slowness.
In the spring of 1942, the Matilda were actively used in battles in parts of the Western, Kalinin and Bryansk fronts, where they were mainly positional battles. And because of its powerful armor, the tank proved to be quite convenient just for use in such battles.
In the spring of 1943, the Soviet Union refused to import tanks "Matilda" - by this time it became clear that they no longer meet modern requirements. In the British army, by the beginning of 1943, not a single “Matilda” remained in the line units either. Nevertheless, these tanks were actively used in 1943 battles of the year, and in the main strategic areas.
But by the summer of 1944, only isolated Matilds remained in the tank units of the Red Army, and by the fall they could be found only in training units.
TTX tank "Matilda"
Combat weight, t: 26,95
Crew, prs: 4
Number released, pcs: 2987
dimensions
Body length, mm: 5715
Width, mm: 2515
Height, mm: 2565
Ground clearance mm: 400
Reservation
Body forehead (top), mm / degree: 75 / 0
The forehead of the body (middle), mm / deg: 47 / 65 °
Body forehead (bottom), mm / deg: 78 / 0
Board of the case, mm / hail: 70 / 0
Body feed (top), mm / deg: 55 / 0
Bottom, mm: 20
Housing roof, mm: 20
Tower mm / deg: 75 / 0
weaponry
The gun: 1 x 40-mm QF, ammunition 67-92 projectile
Machine gun: 1 × 7,7-mm Vickers, ammunition 3000 cartridges
Engine: 2 in-line 6-cylinder diesel engine liquid cooling, power 87 l. with. each.
Highway speed, km / h: 24
Speed over rough terrain, km / h: 15
Cruising on the highway, km: 257
Cruising over rough terrain, km: 129
In general, the "Matilda" was simply too specific a tank that was not intended for such a theater of military operations as the Soviet-German front. To say that it was a bad tank, even through the prism of subsequent political relations, is still not entirely correct.
The tank was unique, and everything that he could give was taken from him in 1941-43.
Based on:
https://warspot.ru/10282-matilda-tolstokozhaya-ledi-na-sovetsko-germanskom-fronte
https://fishki.net/2157335-tanki-matilyda-v-krasnoj-armii.html
Information