Tanks of England during the Second World War

65
In the interwar period, light, medium, infantry and cavalry were developed and produced in England. Tanks. Light tanks were presented MK.VI with light armor and machine gun weapons, medium - Medium Mk.II with light armor and a 47-mm cannon, cavalry - Mk.II, Mk.III, Mk.IV, Mk.V with medium armor ( 8-30 mm) and a 40 mm gun. Only the infantry Matilda I was distinguished by powerful armor (60 mm), but it was equipped with machine gun weapons.





Since the beginning of the war, none of these tanks have shown themselves; all of them were inferior in their class to German Pz.II, Pz.III and Pz.IV. During the war, English tank builders had to develop and launch into production a new generation of tanks that took part in the European theater of operations in North Africa. A significant number of them were supplied under Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union.

Light tank Mk.III Valentine


The most successful lightweight and most massive English tank of the Second World War was developed in 1938 year and launched into mass production in 1940, 8275 tanks of various modifications were produced in total.

The layout of the classic tank with the placement of the engine compartment in the rear of the tank. The crew of the tank three people, the driver was housed in the hull, the commander and the gunner in the tower. On some modifications of the tank crew was a man 4, in the three-seater turret housed the commander, gunner and loader. In order to reduce the weight of the hull and tower of the tank were significantly clamped in size, which significantly worsened the habitability of crew members.


Light tank Mk.III Valentine


By design, the hull and the tower were riveted, but they were assembled not on a frame, but by fastening parts to each other with bolts and rivets, which required high precision in the manufacture of parts. The hull and turret were assembled from rolled armor plates, on separate modifications the hull and turret foreheads were cast, on the last modifications the tank construction was completely welded. With a weight of 15,75 tons for a light tank, he had satisfactory armor, armor thickness of the hull and sides of the 30-60 mm, tower 65 mm, bottom 20 mm, roof 10 mm. The tower had a cylindrical shape and was mounted on a box for a tower.

For the driver's landing, there were two hatchways in the upper side plates on the sides of his workplace; besides, he had a viewing hatch in the middle of the upper frontal armor plate for observation. round on a rotating chase. The seats of all crew members were equipped with periscope viewing devices.

The armament of the tank consisted of an 40-mm long-barreled QF2 L / 52 cannon and a 7,92-mm machine gun. On the latest modifications of the tank was installed 57-mm gun QF6 or 75-mm gun OQF 75mm.

A diesel engine with a power of 135 hp, providing 25 km / h speed and 150 km cruising range, was used as the power plant.

The chassis on each side consisted of six rubber-supported road wheels, two large-diameter and four small, and three rubber-supported rollers. Three road wheels were interlocked in two trucks, a large roller each truck is located on the primary balancer, mounted on a bracket on the tank hull. A secondary hinge is attached to the primary balancer, with a rocker with two small rollers placed on it. Each bogie was suspended with a spring spring with a telescopic hydraulic shock absorber.

The tank was widely used on many fronts in Europe and North Africa, including the Red Army. Under the Lend-Lease, 3782 Mk.III Valentine tanks of various modifications were supplied to the USSR until the end of the war.

In general, the tank received a positive assessment of tankers, while the reliability of the power plant based on a diesel engine, low visibility on the battlefield, good mobility was noted. Among the shortcomings, weak armaments with the 40-mm cannon were noted, the absence of high-explosive fragmentation projectiles to the cannon and low reliability of the undercarriage, when at least one track roller failed, the tank could not move.

Medium infantry tank Mk II Matilda II


Medium tank Mk II Matilda II was designed to support infantry, developed in 1938 year and began to enter the army in 1939 year before the war, took part in the first battles with the Germans in France. In total, the 1943 year was released 2987 tanks Matilda II of various modifications, it was the only English tank that went through the entire war.

The layout of the tank is classic, with a crew of 4 man. The hull was assembled mainly from rolled armor plates and partially cast armor parts (bow, turret box and stern), which were connected to each other by guds. The tower was cylindrical in shape with small angles of inclination; it was made of one curved armor sheet; in later specimens it was cast. On the roof of the tower was placed commander's turret with a double-wing hatch.

The tank was distinguished by a powerful reservation at the level of Soviet heavy KV tanks and from English tankers it was nicknamed “thick-skinned lady”. At the beginning of the war, he could not hit a single German tank. Armor weight of the tank 26,95 tons provided protection at the level of a heavy tank, thickness of the hull armor forehead top / middle / bottom 75 / 47 / 78 mm, top sides 70 mm, bottom sides 40 mm 20 mm, the bottom and roof 75 mm .


Medium infantry tank Mk II Matilda II


The armament of the tank consisted of an 40-mm QF2 L / 52 cannon and a paired 7,7-mm machine gun, a significant drawback of the gun was the absence of a high-explosive fragmentation projectile. Subsequently, the 76,2 inch Howitzer Mk.I 3-mm howitzer with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile was installed on the CS modification.

Two Leyland diesel engines with a power of each 87 (95) hp, providing speed on the 24 km / h highway and a cruising range of 257 km, were used as the power plant.

The chassis on each side included ten support rollers assembled in pairs in five carriages, five supporting rollers. Each of the carriages had a balanced block type “scissors” suspension with horizontal spring springs. Virtually the entire undercarriage was protected by side armored screens.

Tank Mk II Matilda II was distinguished by high reliability and very powerful for its time booking, which increases the survival of the tank and crew on the battlefield. The German 37-mm anti-tank gun was powerless against his armor. At the initial stage of the war, until the Germans appeared more powerful anti-tank guns, this tank remained an invulnerable enemy.
.
Under the Lend-Lease, the Mk II Matilda II tank was delivered to the Soviet Union; in total, 918 tanks were supplied. The first deliveries were made at the end of 1941, in frosty weather. Tanks were not adapted for these conditions, fuels and lubricants froze. and the caterpillars did not provide the necessary traction with the ground in winter conditions. Subsequently, these problems were resolved, and the tank was confidently operated in the Red Army until the middle of 1943.

Heavy infantry tank A22 Churchill


The A22 Churchill tank was the most defended English tank of the Second World War period, developed in 1940 and produced in 1940-1945, in total 5640 tanks of various modifications were produced. From the tank required high firepower, survivability and maneuverability to support the advancing infantry, the suppression of firing points and the reflection of counterattacks of enemy tanks.

The tank was a classic layout with the crew of a 5 man, the driver and gunner were housed in the hull, and the commander, gunner and loader in the turret. The hull structure was welded from rolled armor plates. The design of the tower was hexagonal in form, on various modifications cast or welded from cast parts. With a weight of 39,57 tonnes, the tank had powerful anti-missile protection. The thickness of the armor of the forehead of the 101 mm hull, the sides of the 76 mm, the forehead of the 88 tower mm, the roof and the bottom of the 19 mm.


Heavy infantry tank A22 Churchill


On versions Mk.I and Mk.II, the 40-mm gun QF2 L52 was used as the main armament. The ammunition consisted of only armor-piercing shells, high-explosive fragmentation shells were not. On versions Mk.III and Vk.IV was installed 57-mm gun QF6 L43, and on versions Mk.V 57-mm gun QF6 L50. On versions Mk.VI and Mk.VII was installed 75-mm OQF 75mm L36,5, which had armor-piercing ammunition and high-explosive shells in the ammunition load. As an additional weapon, two 7,92-mm BESA machine guns were used, one paired with a cannon, the other coursework in the tank body, and an anti-aircraft 7,7-mm machine gun.

The Twin-Six engine with a power of 350 hp, providing 27 km / h speed and 144 km cruising range, was used as a power plant.

The undercarriage on each side contained 11 small-diameter track rollers with an individual balancing suspension on cylindrical spring springs. The upper part of the chassis closed armored screen.

The tank A22 Churchill on Lend-Lease with 1942, was supplied to the USSR. Total was delivered 253 tank. The tank was used in battles in the Battle of Stalingrad, on the Kursk Bulge, and in the lifting of the blockade of Leningrad. The Red Army commended its powerful booking and good handling. As drawbacks, the difficulty of operating in winter and poor maneuverability in off-road conditions were noted.

Cruising tank Mk.VI (A15) Crusader


The tank was developed in the 1939-1940 years and went to the troops mainly to replace the same class cruiser tank Mk.V (A13) Covenanter. The tank was produced in 1940-1943's, in total 5300 (5700) tanks were produced.

The tank is a classic layout with a crew of 5 (4) man, weighing 19,3 tons. In the case on the right side there was a place for a driver, over whose head was installed a box cabin with a two-wing upper hatch, three viewing instruments and a Besa machine gun. To the left of the wheelhouse there was a cylindrical turret, also equipped with a Besa machine gun and a top hatch reclining to the starboard.


Cruising tank Mk.VI (A15) Crusader


During the operation of the first samples of the tank in the army, the machine-gun turret was dismantled due to its inexpediency by the forces of the field workshops, and the cutout under it was brewed with an armor plate. In the process of upgrading both machine guns from the hull were removed because of their low efficiency, respectively, the crew was reduced to four people due to the exclusion of the machine gunner in the tank hull. On the roof of the hull a three-seat tower of complex shape was installed, unified with the tower of the A13 tank. At the rear of the tower’s roof was a commander’s hatch that was slid back.

The design of the hull and the tower were riveted from sheets of rolled steel. The armor protection was not high, the thickness of the armor of the 22-34 case, mm, the sides of the 18-20 case, mm, of the 32 tower, mm, 16, and the roof of 14, mm.

The tank’s armament consisted of an 40-mm QF2 L / 52 cannon and a paired 7,92-mm machine gun; on later samples, the 40-mm cannon was replaced with an 57-mm QF6 cannon, the 76,2-mm howitzer was mounted on the CS series tanks.

The Liberty Mk.III engine with a power of 340 hp, providing speed on the 44 km / h and power reserve 255 km, was used as the power plant.

The tank's running gear was based on the Christie suspension, each side had five rubber-coated twin large-diameter rollers with shock absorption on vertical spring springs.

Tank Crusader had good mobility, but weak security. Many of its modifications were widely used at the initial stage of the Second World War as part of the French and British armies. In 1940, most of the tanks of the first and second modifications were dropped from Dunkirk and captured by the Germans. In North Africa, the Crusader tank was the main tank of the British army before the battle of El Alamein, when the incoming M3 “Lee” American tanks began to supplant it.

Cruising tanks Mk.VII (A24) Cavaler, Mk.VIII (A27L) Centaur and Mk.VIII (A27M) Cromvell


At the end of 1940, in England, they began to design the A24 Cavaler, a new cruiser tank developed on the basis of the A15 Crusader cruiser tank components and assemblies as part of the Cromvell program. Without testing, the tank was launched into a series, in 1942-1943, 500 tanks of this type were launched.

The tank was a classic layout, weighing tons of 26,95 and crewed by a 5 man. In the triple tower housed the commander, gunner and loader. To the body of the driver and assistant driver shooter machine gun.

The design of the hull and turret was rectangular in shape without any rational tilt angles and assembled from rolled armor plates and fastened to the frame with the help of bolts. To the left of the driver in the front sheet was set exchange rate gun. The landing of the crew was carried out through two hatches in the roof of the tower and one hatch in the roof of the hull.

The tank had a satisfactory reservation, the thickness of the armor of the 57-64 hull forehead, mm 32 sides, the 76 tower's forehead, mm 14 roof, and the 6,5 bottom.


Cruising tank Mk.VII (A24) Cavaler


The armament consisted of an 57-mm QF6 cannon and two 7,92-mm BESA machine guns, one was paired with a cannon, the other was mounted in a case.

The Liberty L12 engine with a power of 400 hp, providing speed on the 39 km / h and power reserve 265 km, was used as the power plant.

The chassis was borrowed from the A15 Crusader tank with a Christie suspension containing five rubber-coated large-diameter skating rinks with an individually reinforced vertical spring suspension on each side.

Tank A24 Cavaler practically did not take part in the hostilities. It was mainly used as training for the training of tank crews and became the base for the A27L Centaur tank.

The Centaur A27L tank was developed as a simplified intermediate version between the A24 Cavaler and the A27M Cromvell with the Meteor engine, which has not yet been completed. A total of 1942 to 1944 year was released 3134 tank A27L Centaur. The first samples of the A27L Centaur practically did not differ from the A24 Cavaler. The Centaur III was equipped with the 75-mm Mk VA L50 cannon, while the modification of the Centaur IV infantry support tank used the 95-mm howitzer for firing high-explosive fragmentation shells.


Cruising tank Mk.VIII (A27L) Centaur


A27L Centaur tanks also practically did not participate in hostilities, a small party of Centaur IV was involved during the landing in Normandy in 1944, the remaining tanks were upgraded to the level of Cromvell.

The A27M Cromvell tank was one of the most famous tanks of the Second World War. With the new Meteor engine, it began to be released only from the 1943 of the year, the 1945 of these tanks was released on the 1070 of the year. Also, a considerable number of tanks A27L Centaur was upgraded to the level of Cromvell. In total, the army had 4016 tanks of all series of the Cromvell family. In the body of the tank, the exchange gun was removed and the crew was reduced to four people. Reinforced roof booking up to 20 mm, bottoms up to 8 mm, tank weight increased to 27,9 tons. On the Cromvell Vw version, the hull and turret were welded and the frontal hull reservation was increased to 101 mm, and on the Cromvell VI modification, an 95-mm howitzer was installed.


Cruising tank Mk.VIII (А27M) Cromvell


As the power plant on А27M Cromvell was used Rolls-Royce Meteor engine with 600 horsepower, providing speed on the highway 64 km / h and cruising range 278 km.

A27M Cromvell tanks participated in many operations in North Africa and European theaters. In terms of firepower, they were seriously inferior to the German and American tanks of that period.

Cruising tank А30 Challenger


The A30 medium cruiser tank fighter Challenger was developed as a support tank designed to fight German tanks at long distances in addition to the Cromvell tank. The tank was developed on the basis of the elongated chassis of the Cromvell tank with a six-bearing chassis and armed with the most powerful 76,2-mm cannon at that time. In the 1943-1944, only 200 tanks of this type were launched, since with the advent of the American Sherman tank with better performance, the Challenger tanks were no longer necessary.

By design, the Challenger was not much different from the Cromvell. The layout was classic, only a driver was placed in the building, the course machine gun was excluded, in a larger tower there were four people - the commander, gunner and two loaders, the main attention was paid to weapon service.


Cruising tank А30 Challenger


The hull and the tower were welded. Reservations have been enhanced, the thickness of the armor of the 102 hull forehead, mm 32 sides, 64 mm forehead, 20 mm roof, 8 bottom, and the tank weight reached 33,05 tons.

The armament of the tank consisted of a long-barreled 76,2 QF17 L55 cannon and a coaxial 7,62-mm machine gun.

As a power plant, a Rolls-Royce Meteor 600 horsepower engine was used, providing speed along the 51,5 highway km / h and power reserve 193 km.

The undercarriage of the tank was a modification of the elongated undercarriage of a Cromvell tank with a Christie suspension and six track rollers.

The A30 Challenger tanks were notable for the convenience of crew work in a large turret and high efficiency of defeating enemy armored vehicles. But because of the small number of tanks released, they did not have a serious impact on the fighting.

Cruising tank A34 Comet


The A34 Comet tank was a further development of the Cromvell tank, created on the basis of the units and assemblies of this tank and was the most advanced British tank that took part in the hostilities of the Second World War. The tank was developed in 1943 year, taking into account the experience of using the Cromvell tank in combat, 1944 samples of this tank were released in 1945-1186.

The tank of the classic layout, the crew of the 5 man, the driver and the gunner-gunner were housed in the hull, the commander, gunner and loader in the tower. The hull and turret were welded; the tank had a satisfactory anti-projectile armor with a tank weight of 35,78 tons. The thickness of the armor of the forehead of the hull 76 mm, the sides of the 43 mm, the forehead of the tower 102 mm, the roof 25 mm, the bottom 14 mm.


Cruising tank A34 Comet


The armament of the tank consisted of 76,2-mm gun QF77 L55 and two 7,92-mm BESA machine guns, one mounted in the turret, the second heading in the body.

As a power plant, a Rolls-Royce Meteor 600 hp engine was used, providing 47 km / h speed and 200 km cruising range.

Chassis with Christie suspension with five rubberized rollers of reduced diameter and four supporting rollers. Individual suspension on cylindrical spring springs with hydraulic shock absorbers.

In general, A34 Comet was rated as the best English tank of the war period and one of the best tanks used by the warring sides in World War II for firepower, excellent visibility, security and mobility.

Heavy cruising tank A41 Centurion


The A41 Centurion tank was developed in 1944 year as a vehicle combining the qualities of cruising and infantry tanks with significantly enhanced and improved weapons and protection. One of the tasks was to provide comfortable working conditions for the crew, and therefore, due to the spacious layout, the tank's weight reached 42 tons and its mobility was limited. The tank did not take part in hostilities.

The tank was a classic layout with a crew of four people. Created using advanced components and assemblies tanks Cromvell and Comet. The hull and the tower were welded from rolled armor plates, on individual modifications the tower was cast.


Heavy cruising tank A41 Centurion


The tank’s armament consisted of an 76,2-mm QF17 L55 cannon and installed in a ball joint to the left in the niche of the main cannon of the twin-set 20-mm cannon and 7,92-mm BESA machine gun;

As a power plant, a Rolls-Royce Meteor 600 hp engine was used, providing 37 km / h speed and 176 km cruising range.

In the undercarriage, a “Hortsman” type suspension was used with three carriages with pairwise interlocked support rollers of average diameter, helical springs, hydraulic shock absorbers, two for each trolley, and six supporting rollers. The upper part of the suspension covered armored bulwarks.

The A41 Centurion tank was developed at the end of the war and did not participate in hostilities, but it remained in service with the British Army for decades and was constantly improved by installing more powerful weapons and enhancing reservations, which led to a decrease in its mobility.

Production and level of tanks of England during the war


In England, in contrast to the unsuccessful experience of developing tanks in the interwar period, during the war, tanks of all classes were developed, which proved themselves well in combat operations at the first stage of the war. During the war years, mass production was organized and about 28 of thousands of light, medium and heavy tanks were produced. British tanks were distinguished by good armor, satisfactory mobility, but weak weaponry. Subsequently, this deficiency was overcome and the last cruising tank A34 Comet met all the main requirements of the military and was successfully used in combat and, according to experts, was one of the best tanks of World War II.

English light tanks Mk.III Valentine, medium infantry Mk II Matilda II and heavy infantry A22 Churchill were supplied under lend-lease to the Soviet Union and throughout the war were successfully used on many fronts. In total, 4923 tanks were supplied, including 3782 tanks of the Mk.III Valentine, 918 tanks of the Mk II Matilda II and 253 tanks of the A22 Churchill.
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    29 July 2019 18: 13
    Tank A22 Churchill was the most protected British tank during World War II.

    Winston Churchill said: "This tank has even more flaws than mine"
  2. +2
    29 July 2019 18: 41
    Thanks, great review!
  3. +6
    29 July 2019 18: 46
    British tanks, in my daughter's language, "Very cute boxes." especially "Comet" and "Centurion" In general, the Tamiev models of 1/35 of these tanks, this is something, the assembly from the box, is very, very good. And if in truth, well, the Britons are lagging behind in tanks, they are always late to the level, we are the same lagging behind in shipbuilding. We must accept. Comets came to the war very, very late, with what fright they are the best GB tanks, it is not clear, they were not marked with anything like that. "Centurions", these YES, these fought a lot, but only later in Israel, in the photo in the "Centurion" screensaver, a very post-war modification with a 105 mm gun.
    1. +2
      29 July 2019 19: 07
      Quote: Popov Konstantin Ivanovich
      The comets went to war very, very late, with what fright they are the best GB tanks, it’s not clear, they weren’t marked like that

      Well, in terms of performance, it’s kind of better than the rest of the British tanks. I can’t vouch, because British tanks frankly know so-so, but, it seems, the comet was really the best? Of English, of course
    2. +1
      30 July 2019 10: 54
      "especially" Comet "and" Centurion "///
      ----
      Centurion with 105 mm L7 gun
      with a cumulative projectile, it dominated tank-against-tank battles until the early 70s.
      Only 115 mm Soviet cannon with OBPS mounted on the T-60 was able to withstand it at distances of up to 1.5 km
      1. +1
        31 July 2019 09: 23
        On the T-62! T-60 light tank 1941. Armed with a 20 mm ShVAK automatic cannon.
        1. -1
          31 July 2019 09: 38
          Yes of course. Thanks for the amendment! drinks
  4. 0
    29 July 2019 19: 01
    Perhaps with the Comet, only the T-44 could be compared. At the end of the war, hypothetically, our tanks in the implementation of Operation Unthinkable would have been opposed by a very dangerous enemy, the British managed to raise their level of tanks to a very decent level.
    1. +1
      29 July 2019 19: 32
      Quote: Fayter2017
      Perhaps with the Comet, only the T-44 could be compared. At the end of the war, hypothetically, our tanks in the implementation of Operation Unthinkable would have been opposed by a very dangerous enemy, the British managed to raise their level of tanks to a very decent level.

      There were not many of them, this is their main problem. But what was good about the British tanks was their guns.
      1. 0
        31 July 2019 09: 27
        What is good in guns without HE shells. 42 mm for BS only. Ours in the war with them suffered and wanted to change by 45 mm.
        1. -1
          31 July 2019 13: 55
          Quote: John22
          Ours in the war with them tormented and wanted to change to 45 mm.

          Specifically, you can find out with what weapons that tormented then?
          I know that the 57-mm cannon of the Valentine even penetrated the Tiger, and the American Sherman, which became the Firefly, after receiving the English cannon, was the best of the Shermans. Well, legends tell about the Centurion cannon.
  5. +2
    29 July 2019 20: 05
    A few clarifications.
    Tanks of England during the Second World War
    The title of the article is not correct. England is only part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
    Light tank Mk.III Valentine
    Tank MK.III Valentine belongs to the infantry tanks (Infantry tank).
    Light British tanks of the interwar and military period:
    Light Tank Mk I
    Light Tank Mk II
    Light Tank Mk III
    Light Tank Mk IV
    Light Tank Mk V
    Light Tank Mk VI
    Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch I
    Light Tank Mk VIII
    Of these, during the Second World War, the last three were produced in small quantities.

    20 Tetrarchs were supplied to the USSR under Lend-Lease.
    1. +3
      29 July 2019 21: 24
      Yes, somehow the author has dealt with the United Kingdom very quickly, depriving it of all "connections", and leaving England alone for divorce. smile

      Good evening, Victor! hi

      I didn’t understand why the Centurion was woven into the article, he did not participate in battles, he was not noticed at the front. But you never know what was invented during the war ... The Germans have invented a lot of things, but what's the point?
      By the way, I read only good reviews about the tank itself, of the serious negatives only its great weight.
      1. +1
        29 July 2019 21: 42
        This author has a lot of mistakes, indicating a superficial knowledge of the issues covered.
        By the way, if we are to approach it objectively, then it would be necessary to write an article about the tanks of the British Commonwealth. After all, even New Zealand, waiting for the Japanese to land, made an attempt to create a "tank" out of scrap materials and a tractor.
        1. 0
          29 July 2019 22: 32
          Something like our NI - "Fright". It seems, as far as I remember, in Odessa they made and armed the DShK,
          1. +1
            29 July 2019 22: 43
            Yes, only then ordinary corrugated steel came into play, and the armament consisted of six Bran machine guns.
  6. +4
    29 July 2019 20: 13
    The author started cruising tanks with the Mk.VI (A15) Crusader, however, it is necessary to start with the A13 Mk III Covenanter, which went into the army after Dunkirk and of which 1771 were produced.
  7. +1
    29 July 2019 23: 53
    It is interesting that the British had developments on high-speed aviation diesels in the early 30s (the diesel version of the Rolls-Royce Condor is a V12 with a capacity of 500 hp), but they didn’t want to (I don’t believe that they couldn’t) create a powerful tank diesel, an analogue of our B2.
  8. -1
    30 July 2019 07: 59
    Rivets. Rivets. And again, rivets ... Well, I understand that England had a fleet at that time was not one of the last.
    But! Specialists, explain. Were there problems with welding and casting there?
    British 2MV tanks can be recognized immediately. Without even knowing the materiel.
    1. 0
      30 July 2019 08: 42
      I will express my assumption. The rivet producers had a serious lobby in parliament :) or the conservatism of British designers was evident. In Centurion, rivets are almost invisible.
    2. 0
      30 July 2019 09: 57
      Bulletproof steel is very difficult to boil, special technical processes and preferably special equipment are needed. The Britons slept through the introduction of welded structures, and they could also have produced them at the beginning of the war, but did not for the same reason why they did not go into the T-34M series. If they began to cook bulletproof steel, productivity would drop, and tanks were needed
      1. 0
        30 July 2019 10: 12
        Well on the T-34 rivets are not visible. And their bodies were welded exactly. And semi-automatic.
        1. +1
          30 July 2019 10: 38
          So I'm not talking about rivets in general, but about maintaining the pace of production. The T-34M corrected the shortcomings and not the manufacturability of thirty-four, according to the pre-war plans, it was the T-34M that was to become the main one in the production of Soviet industry, but because of the outbreak of the war it was necessary not only to maintain production, but also to increase, and each new product is extremely difficult part of the series. The Britons need high-speed supplies of equipment to the troops, so their eyes were turned on archaic. The introduction of armored steel welding is a complex process, because of which the plant may stop for a month, and achieving production rates in a couple of months, which is very undesirable in war conditions
          1. 0
            30 July 2019 10: 51
            The pace of conservation and increase in the production of BTTs in a total war is important. And the USSR it was the introduction of semi-automatic welding of armor allowed to increase the production of tanks.
            But. here shaving and can not. Rivets.
    3. 0
      30 July 2019 10: 59
      "Well, I understand that England has a fleet" ///
      ----
      And how were the first English tanks put together in World War I?
      These are land armadillos in their pure form. laughing Ship assembly.
      They did not come from a car, but from an armadillo.
      1. 0
        30 July 2019 11: 15
        The layout of the tanks, at the initial stage of their development, was designed from the imagination of the designers. Remember at least the design of the wheel from RI.
        My humble opinion. England’s tank technology then lagged behind. All other countries in the late 30s were poured and welded.
        1. 0
          30 July 2019 11: 33
          Booking technology lagged. They made first-class guns. On the American Sherman also put the English 75 mm gun.
          And their running was decent.
          Except Churchill the centipede. lol Engines are medium.
          1. +1
            30 July 2019 15: 04
            On the American Sherman also put the English 75 mm gun.

            Strange statement. Do you have the facts?
            1. -1
              30 July 2019 15: 20
              Tank Sherman Firefly.
              It was equipped with an English "17-pounder" - much more powerful than the American 75 mm cannon. With her, even the Tigers began to more or less successfully hit.
              1. +1
                30 July 2019 15: 26
                So they would have written that 17 pounds! And in millimeters it is 76,2!
                And the British themselves set it! But not the Americans!
              2. +1
                30 July 2019 15: 48
                You have surpassed the British too - you put a 105-mm French cannon CN105-F1 into the Sherman's turret!
                1. 0
                  30 July 2019 15: 56
                  Yes, he almost had a tower fly off the shoulder straps from this gun. They made a hefty muzzle brake. laughing
                  1. 0
                    30 July 2019 15: 58
                    And the trunk was shortened by 1,5 m. And the counterweight to the tower was welded!
                    And the case used cast. They were considered stronger than welded ones.
              3. +1
                30 July 2019 18: 32
                Quote: voyaka uh
                Tank Sherman Firefly.
                It was equipped with an English "17-pounder" - much more powerful than the American 75 mm cannon. With her, even the Tigers began to more or less successfully hit.

                This is a purely British modification of the Sherman, used only by the British.

                The Yankees put their 76,2-mm M1 cannon into the Sherman - and then only after numerous demands from the front. Moreover, despite the proposals to install the already worked out 17-pounder, the Yankees still made their cannon with a lower initial speed. For almost the entire top of their armored forces believed that "tanks do not fight with tanks", the task of the tank is to destroy soft targets and infantry, and for this a high initial speed is harmful (more speed - thicker the wall of the projectile - less explosive, in addition, the high-speed projectile is deeper burrows into the ground before rupture). And to combat tanks, tankers have standard tank destroyers with 76,2-mm and 90-mm guns, with which tankers must closely interact.
                1. 0
                  30 July 2019 21: 06
                  Yes ... I heard something about it ... General Patton shouted: "I do not need anti-tank self-propelled guns, send only Shermans!"
      2. +2
        30 July 2019 13: 54
        They first passed through the Admiralty.
  9. 0
    30 July 2019 11: 25
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Centurion with 105 mm L7 gun
    with a cumulative projectile, it dominated tank-against-tank battles until the early 70s.
    Only 115 mm Soviet cannon with OBPS mounted on the T-60 was able to withstand it at distances of up to 1.5 km

    nevertheless, with a reservation about not heavy tanks.
    I doubt that a 120mm IC projectile or a 152 mm ISU centurion shell would have survived.
    The same American T29, Pershing could well compete.
    1. +1
      30 July 2019 14: 03
      An IP projectile would surely destroy Centurion. But for this it was necessary to get into it. The fact is that such a battle - IS-3 against the Centurions was truly in the Six Day War of 1967.
      Egyptian ISs never hit. But the Centurions fell.
      And gradually, from great distances, tank by tank, the ISs were disabled.
      1. +1
        30 July 2019 15: 19
        Do not flatter your own tankers. the bulk of the 72 IS-3 Egyptians p \ just threw for the convenience of running to the rear!
        At the same time, several (of course there is no exact data) M48 were hit by IS-3 crews.
        Tank with a pike nose
        Alexey Statsenko
        warspot.ru
        Four "Magah-3s" of another company of the battalion commanded by Captain Dani encountered five IS-ZM counterattacks. The Israelis were rescued by the speed of their tanks and the rate of fire of turret guns. Within a few minutes, all five IS-3Ms were set on fire, but the new IS-122s who approached started a long-range battle, at which Soviet tanks with their powerful frontal armor and XNUMX-mm guns had the advantage. As a result of the battle, only four tanks remained from the entire Israeli company.

        It is a pity the number of tanks in the Israeli company is not indicated before the start of the battle!
        And not a single "Centurion" is in the article.
        1. 0
          30 July 2019 15: 26
          So I wrote: the battle between the IS-3 and the Centurions. ISs did not fall into the Centurions. But in the French AMX and Patton were hit.
          The Egyptians abandoned not only the ISs, but also other tanks. The fight was completely lost. The Egyptian tankers had a choice: either captured or fleeing.
          1. +1
            30 July 2019 15: 30
            Is "Centurion" and M48A2 the same thing?
            The battle was with tanks "Magakh-3" (М48А2). Where did the Centurions come from? From dampness?
            If you have a complete model list of this tank unit - announce it!
            1. -1
              30 July 2019 15: 34
              The centurions were transferred to this area specifically to stop the onset of IS-3. They completed the rout of the Egyptian tank army.
              1. +1
                30 July 2019 15: 44
                ... The advanced units of the 7th Tank Brigade ran Rafah on the move and moved along the highway further, towards El Arish. But the tanks that followed them came under fierce shelling in a narrow passage between the dunes. Overcoming strong resistance in the southern part of Gaza and in Rafah, the paratroopers of the 35th brigade desperately fought. The Fugue Majister training aircraft came to the rescue - they were urgently adapted to the role of light attack aircraft. These aircraft carried only two 7,62 mm machine guns and two 50 kg bombs, but they were very useful for suppressing Egyptian batteries. The resistance of the Egyptians in Rafah was soon broken, and the 7th brigade tankers rushed to El Arish. Fortified anti-tank positions closed the way here. The first attempt to break through the Egyptian defense ended in failure. Moreover, this attack was a complete surprise for the Egyptians - they did not expect such "shock" pace of advancement from the tanks of General Tal. The units of the 7th brigade managed to get down from the positions of the VET unit only after the third attack, at the cost of losing 17 “centurions”. However, the Egyptians immediately counterattacked and restored the situation, dropping the Israelis back to their original positions. General Tal personally intervened in the course of the battle, he did not wait for reserves, but made a risky decision: the remaining "centurions" again try to attack the Arab positions along the highway, and the M48 battalion bypasses the enemy’s fortifications from the south along impassable dunes. The tank crew completed the task. But at what price! Without exception, all the M48 tanks participating in the attack received shells or mortar shells, the battalion commander was killed, the chief of staff and the commanders of all three companies were wounded. On the morning of June 6, El Arish was in the hands of the Israelites.

                Baryatinsky Mikhail Borisovich. Israeli tanks in battle.
                And it turns out that the main enemy of the IS-3 in that battle was the M48!
                1. +1
                  30 July 2019 15: 49
                  This is a description of the difficult battle of Al-Arish.
                  In 1973, the losses of the Centurions from the T-62 were even greater.
                  Centurion was a great tank. With his help, Israel won two wars. But the losses were significant.
                  1. 0
                    30 July 2019 15: 54
                    You know better. In different places there were these fights or nearby!
                    But besides the "Centurions" you had many more different models of equipment there!
                    And do not forget about them! They shot. They were shot at. Really they did not bear losses ...
                    And it turns out, as in South Vietnam - the "Reds" did not hit any of our tanks, but the battalion lost all the tanks due to falls from bridges!
                    1. +1
                      30 July 2019 15: 59
                      "they were shot. Surely they did not suffer losses ..." ////
                      ---
                      Carried, of course. In the Doomsday War in the Golan, the casualties were huge. There was one battle-grinder point blank. From several hundred to tens of meters. No infantry, no aviation, no artillery, no ATGM. Only tanks against tanks.
                      1. 0
                        30 July 2019 16: 05
                        No one wants to belittle the professionalism and courage of your soldiers!
                        But you shouldn't forget that sometimes you "got the nuts"!
                        You are really LUCKY with your opponents (why the hell did you have to get out from under the Umbrella Air Defense after crossing the Suez Canal in 1973)! But that's my personal opinion!
          2. 0
            30 July 2019 16: 05
            and what was centurion better than patton?
            I can only say that patton by area was a hefty target
            1. +1
              30 July 2019 16: 11
              I will explain. The M-48 and M-60 had a weak spot. The tower turned hydraulically. And the liquid was very flammable. When a tank was pierced, a fire immediately enveloped the entire tower. Losses among tankers were large.
              This disadvantage could not be outweighed by any advantages, like excellent OMS and comfort for the crew (in our heat it is important (.
            2. +1
              30 July 2019 16: 15
              I will supplement it. Centurion did not have some uniquely thick armor. But the layout was very rational. All shells were at the bottom of the hull and protected from splinters and cumm.stroy. There were few fires.
              Even with through penetrations of the tank by the OBPS, the entire crew used to survive.
              1. 0
                30 July 2019 16: 22
                I read reports that centurions were several times more resistant to shelling and, in fact, were the only machine that could withstand regular hits
  10. +1
    30 July 2019 12: 05
    Quote: Fayter2017
    Perhaps with the Comet, only the T-44 could compare.

    And what about the 85mm T-34-85 gun on the forehead the 3-inch armor will not take? Or would these thin caterpillars provide a 36-ton Comet tank with mobility comparable to the T-34-85?

    Quote: Fayter2017
    the British managed to pull their level of tanks to a very decent level.

    And what is this level to compare with? With the IS-3 or IS-4 tank, the British Centurion with its 76mm cannon did not stand nearby. And the volume of production of a medium / cruiser tank of 1 thousand units per year somehow does not pull at a "decent level". A half-pound Sherman with a six-pounder is the level.
    1. -1
      30 July 2019 15: 46

      And what about the 85mm T-34-85 gun on the forehead the 3-inch armor will not take? Or would these thin caterpillars provide a 36-ton Comet tank with mobility comparable to the T-34-85?

      It can and will take it in the forehead, close, only the English gun is much more powerful and the t-34 will pierce the miserable frontal armor from any distance, but it is unlikely that the T-44 with 100 mm inclined armor.
      Comet speed will be higher, range less.
      1. -1
        30 July 2019 15: 48
        83,4 mm were also placed on the Centurions, and then 105 mm was a completely competitive tank for any heavy.
  11. +1
    30 July 2019 13: 59
    Absolutely scanty review. Cromwell in Africa turns out to have fought !! Valentine has 3 crew members in the tower at once. The flaws of the wagon text ...
    1. 0
      30 July 2019 15: 08
      Well, actually, before installing the new 57mm gun, a small series of valentines with a triple turret and a 40mm gun managed to get out. After placing the 57mm gun, there was no room for another crew member again.
  12. +2
    30 July 2019 14: 13
    Quote: voyaka uh
    And gradually, from great distances

    impossible. L7 with a sub-caliber was not able to break the IS-s from the distances at which they worked the last year and a half of the war with Germany. There is some confusion here.
    most likely, the battle was failed at the tactical level.
    1. 0
      30 July 2019 15: 43
      Quote: voyaka uh
      "especially" Comet "and" Centurion "///
      ----
      Centurion with 105 mm L7 gun
      with a cumulative projectile, it dominated tank-against-tank battles until the early 70s.
      Only 115 mm Soviet cannon with OBPS mounted on the T-60 was able to withstand it at distances of up to 1.5 km
  13. +1
    30 July 2019 16: 09
    Quote: DesToeR
    And what about the 85mm T-34-85 gun on the forehead the 3-inch armor will not take? Or would these thin caterpillars provide a 36-ton Comet tank with mobility comparable to the T-34-85?

    T34 and comets are similar, but
    T34 - the tank is still anti-personnel, and comets - anti-tank. And in a number of little things the t34-85 is better, but especially better than that. that it has a spacious tower, so the centurion is significantly inferior.
    the only thing the centurion was better at was armor penetration and the quality of shells.
    but the t34-85 guns were enough for all purposes except the forehead of ferdinand and king tiger.
    1. 0
      30 July 2019 19: 49
      Probably you mean Comets, not a centurion.
      1. 0
        31 July 2019 09: 58
        yes, skidded laughing
  14. Dry
    0
    30 July 2019 17: 30
    Самые страшные были австралийские танки.https://www.google.com/search?q=австралийский+танк&oq=авс&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l2j35i39.2431j0j8&client=tablet-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=GfFpogMxGgVoZM:
    1. The comment was deleted.
  15. +1
    30 July 2019 18: 27
    The A27M Cromvell tank was one of the most famous tanks of World War II.

    A very controversial statement, given the quantity and the fact that the issue had its maximum in 1944.
    At a minimum, you can name a dozen more famous tanks.
  16. 0
    14 September 2019 12: 03
    with average booking

    TS, I understand that bulletproof?

    Those. not a single truly medium, heavy tank, with a diesel engine, anti-cannon armor, a long-barreled cannon, the correct layout, a welded hull, was neither invented nor released by Britain "into the fields"?

    And why are you comparing only with German tanks, while Soviet tanks are modestly "omitted"? So, the USSR was the leader in the production of the best tanks in the world with record numbers at the beginning of the Second World War. And the potential was such that dozens of them were stamped a day only at one plant!

    It’s somehow one-sided!
  17. 0
    14 October 2019 23: 52
    Winston Churchill joked that the Churchill tank had more shortcomings than himself