US tanks during the Second World War

In the interwar period in the United States, the main emphasis was on the development of lungs. tanks, and only in the mid-30s began to pay serious attention to the development of medium tanks. However, by the beginning of the war, the US Army did not have a fleet of light and medium tanks of the appropriate level. A total of 844 light tanks and 146 medium tanks were produced. Neither in quantity nor in quality did they satisfy the needs of the army, and during the war they had to develop and organize the mass production of all classes of tanks that were operated in the US and Allied armies.




Light tank M3 / M5 General Stuart


The General Stuart Light Tank was the largest and most famous American light tank during World War II. The tank was developed in 1940 on the basis of the light tank M2A4, from 1941 to 1944, 22743 tanks of this type were produced.

The tank had a layout with a front transmission and engine in the stern of the tank. The crew of the 4 man’s tank, the driver and the gunner of the machine gun were located in front of the tank, the commander and the loader in the tower. The driver and the gunner were landing through two hatches in the frontal armored plate of the hull; when replacing the vertical armored plate with an inclined hatch, they were transferred to the roof of the hull. The crew landed in the tower through the hatch in the roof of the tower. The commander’s turret and turret for the anti-aircraft machine gun were also installed on the roof of the tower.


Light tank M3 / M5 General Stuart


The design of the hull and turret were riveted from armor plates. On tanks of later series, they switched to a welded structure. The hull of the tank is box-shaped, the tower is multi-faceted with vertical walls and a sloping roof, in later specimens replaced by a horseshoe-shaped one.

With a tank weight of 12,94 tons, the tank had a satisfactory bulletproof reservation, the thickness of the forehead armor of the 38-51 mm hull, 25 mm sides, 25-38 mm turrets, roof and bottom 13 mm.

The armament of the tank consisted of an 37-mm M6 L / 53,1 gun (L56,6) and five Browning 7,62-mm machine guns. One machine gun was coaxial with a gun, one was mounted in a ball mount in the frontal plate of the body, two in the sponsons of the body, which were controlled by a driver using trigger cables, and one anti-aircraft gun on the roof of the tower.

As a power plant was used aviation Continental engine with a capacity of 250 hp, providing a speed of 48 km / h and a range of 113 km. The Guiberson diesel engine was installed on the part of the tanks.

The chassis on each side contained four rubberized rollers of small diameter, paired in two trolleys suspended on vertical springs, three supporting rollers, a front driving and rear steering wheel.

Due to the shortage of Continental aircraft engines in 1941, it was decided to launch in a series a simplified version of the tank that received the M5 index, with two Cadillac engines with a total power of 220 hp, providing 48 km / h and 130 power reserve km The thickness of the lower frontal sheet on this modification was increased to 64 mm, the weight of the tank reached 15,4 tons.

The tank was distinguished by high driving performance and good reliability, but weak weapons, large dimensions, and the aircraft engine was fire hazard and consumed a large amount of high-octane gasoline. Reservation of the tank was satisfactory at the first stage of the war, with the advent of more advanced German tanks and anti-tank guns, it was almost unprotected.

The Lend-Lease tank was delivered to the Soviet Union; in 1941-1943, 1232 tanks were delivered, including 211 diesel ones. He took part in the war on many fronts, at the first stage of the war, Soviet tankmen gave him a satisfactory rating, in the future he had to be replaced with more protected tanks.

Light Tank M24 General Chaffee


The General Chaffee light tank was developed in the 1943 year, the Soviet T-34 was guessed in all its appearance, was produced in the 1944-1945 years, all of which produced 4070 (4731) tanks.

The layout of the tank was with the front transmission, and the engine - in the stern of the tank. The crew of the 4 (5) man, the driver and the machine gunner were located in the hull, the commander and gunner in the tower. The shooter performed the functions of a loader, moving to the tower, on command tanks the loader was introduced into the crew.


Light Tank M24 General Chaffee


The hull of the tank was box-shaped welded from rolled armored plates mounted with rational angles of inclination. The upper frontal sheet was installed at an angle of 60 degrees to the vertical, and the lower one at an angle of 45 degrees, the sides at an angle of 12 degrees. A tower of complex geometric shape was placed on a turret box. The commander’s cupola was installed on the roof of the tower. The reservation was bulletproof, with the weight of the 17,6 tank, the thickness of the armor of the forehead of the hull 25 mm, sides 19 mm, tower 38 mm, roof and bottom 13 mm.

The armament of the tank consisted of an 75-mm M6 L37,5 gun, two 7,62-mm machine guns, one coaxial with a gun, the second course in a ball bearing in the front plate of the hull, and an 12,7-mm anti-aircraft machine gun on the turret roof.

As a power plant, two twin Cadillac 44Т24 engines with a total power of 220 l were used. sec., providing a speed of 56 km / h and a range of 160 km.

The undercarriage on each side consisted of five double rubberized road wheels and three support rollers. The suspension of the track rollers was individual torsion bar with shock absorbers.

The tank took part in hostilities at the end of the war and was distinguished by good speed, maneuverability, maneuverability and ease of use, while the armor did not provide protection from the German anti-tank weapons and the 75mm tank gun was inferior to the guns of German tanks.

M3 General Lee Medium Tank


The M3 General Lee tank was developed in the 1940 year, taking into account the positive experience of Germany using tanks of troops at the first stage of the war and as an alternative to the German medium tank Pz.IV. The tank was developed on the basis of the M2 medium tank using a significant part of the components and assemblies of this tank. In total, 1941 tanks of this type were produced in 1942-6258.

The layout of the tank provided for a four-tier arrangement of weapons. Two coaxial 7,62-mm machine guns were installed on the first tier in the frontal part of the hull, a 75-mm gun with an angle of horizontal guidance of 32 degrees was installed on the second tier in the sponson of the hull, an 37-mm gun and coaxial 7,62-mm machine gun were installed on the third in the tower, the fourth in the commander's cupola was an 7,62-mm machine gun. In connection with this arrangement, the tank was very bulky, its height reaching 3,12 m.


M3 General Lee Medium Tank


According to the layout and composition of weapons, the tank was designed for 6 (7) people. In the front of the hull there was a transmission, behind it a control compartment and a fighting compartment, the engine was located in the stern of the tank. The driver’s seat was in the left front of the case. On the right side of the front of the case, behind the 75-mm gun, there were places of the gunner and loader. In the tower, the commander was centered behind the 37-mm gun and served the 7,62-mm machine gun in the commander’s turret. To the left of the gun was the spot of the gunner, to the right of the loader. Due to the limited internal volume of the tank, the radio operator on subsequent samples was excluded from the crew and its functions were assigned to the driver.

For landing the crew on the sides of the hull rectangular doors were provided, for landing the driver had a hatch located on the right side of the upper windshield. To the left of the driver's hatch in the lower frontal sheet there was an embrasure for the installation of coaxial machine guns. Sponson for the 75-mm gun was installed in the right front of the case. The hull design was of complex configuration and rather exotic for the purpose of crew comfort and high firepower. With the M2A2 modification, the hull was welded, and the tower, sponson and commander’s turret were cast. Access to the tower was through the hatch in the roof of the commander’s turret.

With a weight of 27,9 tons, the tank had satisfactory armor protection, the thickness of the armor of the forehead of the hull 51 mm, sides 38 mm, turret 38-51 mm, roof and bottom 13-22 mm.

The armament of the tank consisted of an 75-mm M2 L28,5 gun (M3 L37,5), an 37-mm M6 gun (L56,5), equipped only with armor-piercing shells for hitting armored vehicles, and four 7,62-mm machine guns. The gun in the sponson was equipped with a gyroscopic stabilizer in a vertical plane.

As a power plant, the Continental aircraft engine R-975EC-2 with an output of 340 l was used. pp., on the tanks of the latest versions, a spark of GM 6046 diesel engines with a total power of 410 hp was installed, which ensured speed along the 39 km / h highway and 193 km range.

The chassis on each side contained six double rubberized rollers of small diameter, combined into three trolleys with a spring suspension. A roller supporting the upper branch of the caterpillar was mounted on the upper part of each trolley.

For delivery to England, the M3 "Grant" I modification was developed, in which the tower was changed and the commander’s turret was missing, a low superstructure with a double-leaf hatch was installed in its place. Since 1942 of the year, Grant II tanks, a modification of the M3A5 with American-style towers and minor changes in equipment began to be produced for England.

The M3 General Lee tank was widely used at the first stage of the war, especially in operations in North Africa, where it could still withstand the German PzKpfwI and PzKpfwII. With the advent of more advanced tanks and anti-tank artillery in Germany, the M3 began to seriously lose, and in 1942 its production was curtailed in favor of the more powerful M4 Sherman.

The Lend-Lease tank was delivered to the Soviet Union; in total, 976 tanks were delivered. The M3 tank was not particularly popular with Soviet tankers. The main claims were to the power plant due to high fuel consumption and fire hazard, as well as poor passability, inefficiency of the 37-mm gun and the vulnerability of the tank from enemy fire due to insufficient armor protection and high tank silhouette.

M4 General Sherman Medium Tank


The M4 General Sherman was the largest US tank in World War II. The tank was developed in the 1941 years, produced in the 1942-1945 years, all in all, the 49234 tank was produced.

The tank was a further development of the M3 medium tank with the placement of the 75-mm gun not in the sponsor of the tank body, but in a rotating tower. This tank has become a platform for creating a large number of special equipment and self-propelled guns.


M4 General Sherman Medium Tank


The M4 tank borrowed many components and mechanisms of the not entirely successful M3 tank - the lower body, the chassis and the 75-mm cannon. The tank had a classic German layout with a front transmission, engine in the stern and a fighting compartment in the center of the tank. The crew was five people, the driver was located in front of the hull to the left of the transmission, the gunner-radio operator on the right. The commander, gunner and loader were located in the tower. For landing the mechanic - the driver and the radio operator, each had a hatch in the upper frontal sheet, in later versions the hatches were transferred to the roof of the hull. For landing the crew in the tower there was a double-wing hatch in the roof of the tower, later a commander’s turret was installed.

The tank had a great height due to the vertical installation of a star-shaped aircraft engine and cardan drive transmission, while the large internal volume provided comfortable crew accommodation.

The hull of the tank was welded from rolled sheets of armor and a cast front of the hull, consisting of three parts and assembled using bolts, subsequently it was a single welded part. On the part of the tanks the hull was completely cast, but because of the difficulties of production, this was abandoned. A significant part of the tanks had a rubber foam lining inside to exclude the destruction of the crew by secondary fragments when they hit the tank.

With the weight of the 30,3 ton tank, it had satisfactory security, the thickness of the armor of the forehead of the hull 51 mm, sides 38 mm, turret 51-76 mm, roof 19 mm and bottom 13-25 mm. On a small batch of cars, the reservation of the forehead of the hull was brought to 101 mm and the sides to 76 mm by welding additional armor plates.

The armament of the tank consisted of an 75-mm M3 L / 37,5 gun, two 7,62-mm machine guns, one coaxial with a gun, a second course gunner in the ball bearing, and an 12,7-mm anti-aircraft machine gun on a turret on the tower roof. The M3 gun in its characteristics corresponded to the Soviet F-34 gun. With the advent of the Germans new tanks PzKpfw V "Panther" and PzKpfw VI "Tiger" this gun was no longer able to hit them, in connection with this, a new 76,2-mm M1 L / 55 gun with more effective armor-piercing shells was installed on the tank. An armament stabilizer was installed on the tank, which stabilized the gun vertically. On the modification of the tank direct support infantry M4 (105) installed 105-mm howitzer M4.

The tank was equipped with the Continental R975 C1 star engine in 350 horsepower, the M4A2 modification of the 6046 horsepower diesel engine GM 375, and the specially developed V4Ford GAA 3 engine in the M8XX modification. The power plant provided speed on the 500 km / h highway and 48 km range.

The undercarriage was borrowed from the MZ tank and on each side included six rubberized rollers, paired in pairs in three trolleys suspended on vertical springs, and three supporting rollers. On the latest tank modifications, the suspension was modernized (HVSS suspension), the rollers became double, the springs were horizontal and hydraulic shock absorbers were introduced.

M4 tanks were delivered under Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, all in all 3664 tanks were delivered, they were used on almost all fronts until the end of the war. In general, the M4 tank corresponded to the Soviet T-34-76, Soviet tankers noted the convenience of the crew and the high quality of instrumentation and communications equipment.

M4 tanks were used on almost all WWII TVDs. The M4 was distinguished by good reliability under various conditions. The high height of the tank led to a large frontal and side projection and made it vulnerable to enemy fire. The armament of the tank was at the level of the Soviet T-34-76 and was inferior to the German tanks PzKpfw IV, PzKpfw V and PzKpfw VI. Armor protection was lower than that of Soviet and German tanks. Mobility was satisfactory, but the chassis was vulnerable to enemy fire. In general, the M4 tank was a reliable and unpretentious tank of World War II and was positively evaluated by the tankers of the different countries in which it was used.

Heavy Tank M6


The M6 heavy tank was developed since the 1940 of the year, in the 1942-1944 years the 40 tank models were manufactured, tests of the tank samples showed its futility, and in the 1944 year the work on the tank was stopped. M6 tanks did not take part in the hostilities.

The tank was a classic layout. Weighing 57,5 tons, with a crew of 6 people. The hull of the tank was in two versions - cast and welded, the tower was cast, a commander’s cupola was installed on the roof of the tower.


Heavy Tank M6


The reservation was insufficient for a heavy tank, the thickness of the armor of the forehead is 70-83 mm, sides 44-70 mm, towers 83 mm, bottom and roof 25 mm.

The armament of the tank consisted of coaxial 76,2-mm M7 L / 50 guns and 37-mm M6 L / 53,5 guns, two coaxial 7,62-mm machine guns in the gunner’s body and two 12,7-mm machine guns. One of them was mounted on the turret of the roof of the tower. An unsuccessful attempt was made to install an 105-mm cannon on the tank.

An 825 horsepower engine was used as a power plant, providing 35 km / h highway speed and 160 km range.

The chassis on each side contained eight road wheels, pairwise interlocked in four trolleys suspended on horizontal springs, and four support wheels. Chassis was closed with armored screens.

The tank was outdated from the beginning of the design, the heavy weight limited the mobility of the tank, the 75-mm gun did not provide the necessary firepower, and the reservation did not provide protection from the enemy’s anti-tank weapons. In this regard, work on it was stopped, and the manufactured samples of the tank were used only as training tanks.

M26 General Pershing Heavy Tank


The most successful U.S. tank during the Second World War, which laid the foundation for a new generation of American tanks. The tank was created to replace the M3 Sherman tank to fight the German heavy tanks PzKpfw V "Panther" and PzKpfw VI "Tiger", against which the M3 could no longer resist. The tank has been produced since January 1945, in all, 1436 tank models were produced.

M26 was developed as a medium tank, but due to its heavy weight it was retrained into heavy tanks, after the war it became a medium tank back. The tank had a classic layout, they refused to place the transmission in the nose of the tank, leading to an increase in the height of the tank and complicating the design. The power plant was located in the stern, the control compartment in front and the combat center of the tank. The crew of the 5 tank is a man, a driver and an assistant driver — a machine gunner was placed in the front of the hull, a commander, a gunner and a loader in the tower. The hull of the tank was welded from rolled armored plates and cast parts, the tower with a developed aft niche was cast. The armor mask of a gun 115mm thick was bolted to the forehead of the tower. The commander’s cupola was installed on the roof of the tower.


M26 General Pershing Heavy Tank


With the weight of the 43,1 ton, it had a powerful reservation, which provided good protection against enemy anti-tank weapons. The thickness of the armor of the forehead of the body: bottom 76 mm, top 102 mm, sides 51 mm, forehead of the tower 102 mm, sides 76 mm, roof 22 mm and bottom 13-25 mm.

The armament of the tank consisted of a long-barreled 90-mm M3 L / 50 gun, two 7,62-mm machine guns, one coaxial with a gun, the other directional in the tank body, and an 12,7-mm anti-aircraft machine gun mounted on a turret on the roof of the tower.

The V8 Ford GAF ​​engine with 500 horsepower, which was mounted on the M4A3 tank, providing 32 km / h highway speed and 150 km range, was used as a power plant.

The chassis on each side contained six double rubberized rollers on an individual torsion bar suspension, the first and third pairs of rollers were equipped with hydraulic shock absorbers, and five supporting rollers.

The M26 General Pershing tank was developed at the end of the war, taking into account the experience in the development and use of Soviet T-34, KV and IS tanks, as well as German PzKpfw V Panther and PzKpfw VI Tiger tanks and used the ideas implemented on these tanks.

In general, the tank showed quite satisfactory characteristics, was used at the last stage of the war in the European theater of war, and successfully opposed the last German tanks. The experience of using the tank in World War II and the Korean War confirmed the correctness of the chosen concept of the tank and the combination of its main characteristics in terms of firepower, security and mobility. The M26 General Pershing tank served as the basis for the creation of the next generation of American tanks.

US tank production during the war


Tanks developed in the United States during World War II were successfully used throughout the war on various theater of operations in the US and Allied armies. American designers were able to create and organize the mass production of light, medium and heavy tanks, which in their characteristics met the level of tanks of that period.

No fundamentally new technical solutions were proposed in the tank design, the ideas of German and Soviet designers were mainly used. Thus, the use of a “German” layout with a front transmission on most tanks led to a complication of the tank’s design when transmitting torque from the engine to the transmission, increasing the dimensions and reducing the reliability of the tanks. In terms of firepower, American tanks were inferior to German and Soviet tanks, and only on the M26 General Pershing tank did the firepower of the tank seriously confront the last German tanks.

The overall high industrial and technological level of the United States made it possible to organize the production of tens of thousands of tanks in a short time and ensure their high quality workmanship. A total of 83741 tanks of various types were produced. This allowed large quantities to supply tanks to their army and allies and to maintain a sufficient level of their equipment with armored vehicles, contributing to the achievement of victory over Germany.

5872 tanks were delivered to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease, including the 1232 of the M3 / M5 General Stuart, the 976 of the M3 General Lee and the 3664 of the M4 General Sherman.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. yehat 13 August 2019 18: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    in my opinion, the Americans had only 3 successful tanks - the M3, Sherman and a series of self-propelled guns like the M10.
    everything else was either so-so or not involved in ww2.
    It is also worth noting that the Americans are the only ones who implemented howitzer self-propelled guns at a good level on a par with the Germans.
    1. Vasily Ponomarev 13 August 2019 18: 36 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: yehat
      in my opinion, the Americans had only 3 successful tanks - the M3, Sherman and a series of self-propelled guns like the M10.
      everything else was either so-so or not involved in ww2.
      It is also worth noting that the Americans are the only ones who implemented howitzer self-propelled guns at a good level on a par with the Germans.

      I do not agree with you, the m4 was not bad, but from the self-propelled guns I think only Ferdinand is normal and Su 152
      1. Alf
        Alf 13 August 2019 19: 01 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
        I think only Ferdinand is normal

        Ferdinand is a great tank destroyer. That's just the weight ...
        1. Gray brother 13 August 2019 20: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Alf
          Ferdinand is a great tank destroyer. That's just

          That's just the Germans on the Kursk Bulge used them as assault guns for some reason.
          1. Alf
            Alf 13 August 2019 20: 17 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Gray Brother
            Quote: Alf
            Ferdinand is a great tank destroyer. That's just

            That's just the Germans on the Kursk Bulge used them as assault guns for some reason.

            Well, yes, that's just for some reason they’ve never been thrown into the attack again.
            1. Gray brother 13 August 2019 20: 17 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Alf
              Well, yes, that's just for some reason they’ve never been thrown into the attack again.

              The priest was ill.
              1. Alf
                Alf 13 August 2019 20: 20 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Gray Brother
                Quote: Alf
                Well, yes, that's just for some reason they’ve never been thrown into the attack again.

                The priest was ill.

                And the tractors ran out. Or maybe the geheimestatspolitsay became interested in "misuse" of the materiel. Oh, it hurt, probably, had to those who gave such orders.
                1. Gray brother 13 August 2019 20: 34 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Alf
                  Or maybe the geheimestatspolitsay became interested in "misuse" of the materiel.

                  The Gestapo has nothing to do with it.
                  It was just a momentous moment when the Germans began to do purely in military art.
                  Fedya was no longer needed; things and hatters were needed, a lot.
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 13 August 2019 20: 48 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    Quote: Gray Brother
                    Fedya no longer needed

                    But he was not needed before, it was created only because a 90 chassis with electric transmission was formed.
                    1. Gray brother 13 August 2019 21: 00 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      Quote: Alf
                      And he wasn’t needed before,

                      But the Wuderwaffe, however, was needed to overcome.
                      Only when you are made one of the medium tanks with weaker weapons, is it like a bell.
                      Not everyone knew right away, but those who got it, they tried to bang the Fuhrer a little less than a year later.
                      1. yehat 21 August 2019 12: 07 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Do you seriously think that everything was locked on one Hitler?
                        Fascism is a mandatory unity of capital with the state.
                    2. yehat 21 August 2019 12: 14 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      was not needed, but it came in handy and showed at least a recouped efficiency.
                      moreover, on the eastern and western front.
                      In the conditions when armies attacked Germany, massively armed with T34, Shermans and Valentines, any adequate anti-tank weapon was in demand. Ferdinand, for all its unusual features, turned out to be a completely applicable tool, which quickly after the Kursk Bulge mastered and worked out the tactics of application. Ferdinand was not too overweight and had acceptable mobility and, like Is-2 and Tiger-2, from afar in the forehead was practically invulnerable. This self-propelled gun managed to shoot not only at tanks, but even at armored boats and ships.
                      True, the yagdpanther was more effective.
                      1. Gray brother 21 August 2019 16: 34 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: yehat
                        turned out to be a perfectly applicable tool

                        In a global war, resources and man-hours rule, not technology.
                        Too much was spent on both the one and the other. And then they burned him anyway.
                        In this scenario, it is better to do three things instead of one Fedi, but the Boshs constantly tried to build an invulnerable wunderwafle, on which they got burnt.
      2. yehat 14 August 2019 10: 33 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
        but from ACS I think only Ferdinand is normal and Su 152

        Ferdinand cannot be considered normal for 2 simple reasons - it cannot do long marches and does not have a machine gun. If you want to offer something, somehow Elephant - a redone Ferdinand after the Kursk Bulge.
        finally, ferdinand quickly became obsolete - it was relevant only a year.
        but what you didn’t like the m10 is not clear
        it’s an analogue in cost, not even a thing3, but a su-76, a marder and other analogues
        and against their background it looks just super.
        1. Saxahorse 14 August 2019 22: 33 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: yehat
          but what you didn’t like the m10 is not clear
          it’s an analogue in cost, not even a thing3, but a su-76, a marder and other analogues

          Why is it that a car made on the basis of a medium tank, with a tank turret, with a special diesel engine suddenly has an analogue in cost to an ersatz from auto parts like Su-76 or Marder? Sorry, you didn’t guess at all.
          1. yehat 15 August 2019 10: 13 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            but what, the su-76 or the marder is not on a tank chassis?
            1. Saxahorse 15 August 2019 22: 34 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: yehat
              but what, the su-76 or the marder is not on a tank chassis?

              No, of course :))))) More precisely, Marder III was based on a Czech tank, Marder 1 and 2 on the basis of trophy tractors (i.e. for nothing), but the Su-76 is a completely unique assembly of spare parts.
        2. John22 16 August 2019 08: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The most interesting thing is that no one recalls the Soviet SU-152 and SU-76, which also did not have built-in machine guns. And nothing - the crews managed the captured MGs and, if necessary, used them. This is by memoir.
          1. Gray brother 21 August 2019 16: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: John22
            SU-152 and SU-76,

            The first is artillery, this is not the technique that should stand in the first line, it is simply resistant to counter-battery combat.
            In the second - the cabin is open, so there are options.
        3. Gray brother 21 August 2019 16: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: yehat
          and does not have a machine gun.

          In later versions there was a machine gun.
    2. Alexey RA 13 August 2019 18: 53 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Quote: yehat
      in my opinion, the Americans had only 3 successful tanks - the M3, Sherman and a series of self-propelled guns like the M10.

      That is, they were successful in the main wartime light tank, the main wartime medium tank and the main wartime tank destroyer - in other words, most of their armored vehicles. smile
      1. yehat 14 August 2019 10: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, they did not immediately become the main ones)))
      2. yehat 14 August 2019 17: 14 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        By the way, from the age of 43 we also produced very worthy armored vehicles.
        and t34-85, and su-85, and su-100, etc. True, I believe that the su-76 was too unsuccessful.
        Yes, she did quite a bit, but the price paid was not weak for that.
        in general, somehow the Red Army was not very lucky with light tanks and light self-propelled guns, in my opinion.
        maybe they just started the production at the wrong time, because they were left overboard
        Great cars like T50, LTP, etc.
        1. minirulet 15 August 2019 16: 41 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Sorry, but the T34-85 began to be produced in January 1944, and the SU-100 in general in September 1944. And the SU-76 was a very successful light self-propelled gun. For my money, of course.
          1. yehat 15 August 2019 17: 29 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Hmm, something about T34-85 I had enough
            but for example, the su-122 took part in the New Year’s fights in the winter of 41-42
            Su-85 went into production in the 43rd.
            kv-85, is-1 43rd year
    3. minirulet 15 August 2019 16: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The M4 Sherman with a 76mm gun was even better than the T34-85 in terms of characteristics. Moreover, our tankers were very fond of this American. For comfort, first of all, and a good weapon, which for a moment punched the Tiger in the forehead confidently from 500 meters.
      1. CTABEP 15 August 2019 20: 09 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Yes, I was also surprised when the Sherman long-barreled 76mm gun with the f-34 t-34-76, it was not inferior to our 85-mm armor, although the offs was easier. And the article somehow galloped across Europe.
    4. MoJloT 21 August 2019 12: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      a series of self-propelled guns like the M10.
      Yes fact, the M18 Hellcat is a masterpiece, but you need to wield such a machine professionally as a dangerous razor, there may not be a second chance.
  2. Simon 13 August 2019 19: 03 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    We must pay tribute to the Americans that during the war they supplied the USSR with tanks, especially when our plants were transferred beyond the Urals and while they were being mounted, American tanks helped to maintain the front with fascist Germany, and when our plants began to produce their Soviet tanks, then the American ones in fact, they were no longer needed, since they were already obsolete.
    1. Saxahorse 13 August 2019 22: 05 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: Simon
      We must pay tribute to the Americans that during the war they supplied the USSR with tanks, especially when our plants were transferred beyond the Urals and while they were being mounted, American tanks helped to maintain the front with Nazi Germany,

      On the contrary. American tanks appeared only in 1943. However, even then they were not redundant.
      1. PilotS37 14 August 2019 08: 13 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Simon
        We must pay tribute to the Americans that during the war they supplied the USSR with tanks, especially when our plants were transferred beyond the Urals and while they were being mounted, American tanks helped to maintain the front with Nazi Germany,

        On the contrary. American tanks appeared only in 1943. However, even then they were not redundant.

        The bulk of the Shermans came at the end of 1943 - 1944.
        The hitch in the barrel was English equipment: here it began to arrive in tangible quantities to us at the end of 1941 ... A lot of English tanks were in the units defending the Caucasus in 1942, "so most of them were delivered by" southern route through Iran.
    2. MoJloT 21 August 2019 12: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      We must pay tribute to the Americans that during the war they supplied
      to Germany a lot of things. And in general, earned in the war to the fullest.
  3. Nycomed 13 August 2019 19: 13 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    There is a good movie with James Belushi and the General Lee M3 tank starring Sahara, about military action in North Africa.
    1. Bumblebee_3 13 August 2019 19: 49 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Nycomed
      The film "Sahara" is a copy of the Soviet film "13". Only a tank was added, and instead of the Basmachi, German troops.
      1. Nycomed 13 August 2019 19: 55 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        "Sahara is a television movie, a remake of the 1943 film of the same name, telling about the defense of a well in the desert by a combined squad of allies during World War II."
        What copy of "13" are you talking about?
        1. Pedrodepackes 13 August 2019 20: 34 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Quote: Nycomed
          "Sahara is a television movie, a remake of the 1943 film of the same name, telling about the defense of a well in the desert by a combined squad of allies during World War II."
          What copy of "13" are you talking about?

          He spoke incorrectly, not a copy, but was shot based on "13", this is what is written in the credits of the film of the 43rd year, indeed, the plot is very similar. By the way, the play "13" was written based on a British story, I forgot the name, unfortunately.
          1. Nycomed 13 August 2019 20: 47 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            And so it was necessary immediately. But I really liked the Amer film.
            1. Pedrodepackes 13 August 2019 21: 22 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Nycomed
              But I really liked the Amer film.

              which one is the 43rd or 95th?
              1. Nycomed 13 August 2019 21: 26 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                I didn’t see the 43rd, unfortunately. But be sure to look at the occasion. hi
                1. Pedrodepackes 13 August 2019 21: 28 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: Nycomed
                  sure to look at the occasion

                  interestingly filmed, surprised that they pay tribute to the soldiers of the USSR and China, not that in the 95th as if only the Americans fought. True, the Germans are shown quite stupid, just like in our films of that time.
                  1. Nycomed 13 August 2019 21: 35 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    So there is nothing surprising in this, and ours did about the same. Remember the military newsreel that was shown to us during the Soviet era. Of the Lend-Lease technique, only occasionally will the AeroCobra flash. And now they have already taken all the tapes from the zagashniks, here you can see “Matilda” and “Valentine”, and I don’t even speak about “Shermans”.
  4. Undecim 13 August 2019 19: 24 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    The author left several samples "overboard".

    Light tank M22 Locust. The output amounted to 830 cars, 260 of which were sent to Britain.
    1. Undecim 13 August 2019 19: 37 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7

      Experienced heavy (assault) tank T14. Issued in the amount of two pieces.
      1. Undecim 13 August 2019 19: 55 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7

        Experienced light tank T20. It was developed as a successor to Sherman, and the result was T26 Pershing.
        1. Undecim 13 August 2019 20: 05 New
          • 9
          • 0
          +9
          As for the Sherman tank, he had many modifications, some of which can be considered an almost new model.

          This is M4A3E2 Jumbo. 254 of these tanks were made for landing in Normandy.
          The Sherman Jumbo reservation was as follows: VLD - 100 mm, transmission compartment cover - 114-140 mm, sponsons - 76 mm, gun mask - 178 mm, forehead, sides and rear of the tower - 150 mm. Due to the enhanced reservation, the weight increased to 38 tons
          1. Vahe mardanyan 13 August 2019 20: 37 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Also M10, although it is considered self-propelled guns, but still Sherman.
            1. Alex_You 14 August 2019 02: 23 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              M10 from Sherman is only a chassis, even more precisely from M3 Lee. Although, as for me, the M18 Helket is better.
  5. Vahe mardanyan 13 August 2019 19: 42 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    The US industry was just super. So it takes 4-5 years to get out of nothing to one of the leaders in tank building. And if you take into account the number of armored vehicles and armored personnel carriers. We must give them their due.
    1. paul3390 13 August 2019 20: 11 New
      • 10
      • 3
      +7
      If they fought with Aloizyevich on their territory, the exhaust would have been clearly different .. And the USSR, if the war had gone overseas, would obviously have shown very different results. The release of equipment in greenhouse conditions is not such an achievement. That's when to lose half of the country - and still release more adversary and win - yes, this is really admirable ..
      1. Vahe mardanyan 13 August 2019 20: 33 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        And who argues with this? Just let’s take into account that both the USSR and Germany had a good tank-building school at the beginning of the war. And they didn’t have it. Which tanks did they have m2 and m3 and those in scanty amounts. The Union had previously created quite successful T-28s and HFs, not to mention cheese T-34 ohms. The Germans were not bad cars.
        And they took on the fly did Sherman at the level of T 34 and pz iii, pz iv, and from 43-44 they created M24 and M26. At the same time, one should not forget that the land theme for the United States did not have such significance as for the USSR and Germany. They had their own, quite fierce naval war with Japan. The fleet and aviation ate a lot of resources.
        1. Mordvin 3 13 August 2019 21: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Vahe Mardanyan
          The fleet and aviation ate a lot of resources.

          Yeah, Churchill robbed them three quarters of gold. Well, just like we have Pavlov’s reform.
      2. PilotS37 14 August 2019 08: 20 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        If they fought with Aloizyevich on their territory, the exhaust would be clearly different.

        I strongly suspect that if the Wehrmacht could somehow cross over the Atlantic, then Washington would be taken at about the same time as Paris (if not faster).
        ... and ours would then chop off Alaska and a half of Canada back to the heap ... wassat wassat wassat
    2. Ural-4320 13 August 2019 21: 38 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Indisputable fact. However, in the USSR, GAZ for 7 years developed, tested, mastered, produced such an amount of both wheeled and tracked vehicles that modern Russia could not even dream of. And we still use developments in the field of SUVs, although they were initially in the role of catching up.
  6. Vahe mardanyan 13 August 2019 20: 12 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    I read a couple of years ago that American engineers also had a hand in creating the t-34-85 and IS, and after that they got the I24 and M26. Technology exchange so to speak. Who is in the know.
    1. Amurets 13 August 2019 23: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Vahe Mardanyan
      I read a couple of years ago that American engineers also had a hand in creating the t-34-85 and IS, and after that they got the I24 and M26. Technology exchange so to speak. Who is in the know.

      At the expense of the fact that the Americans applied to the creation of the T-34-85 and IS-2 tanks, I still doubt it, but the fact that they carefully studied our tanks says the report on their tests at the Aberdeen Proving Ground and our tank builders took into account their comments. American assistance in the production of the T-34-85 consists in the supply of machines for boring shoulder straps of tank towers up to 1800mm. But this is not connected with the tests of our tanks in the USA. Https: //topwar.ru/4717-ispytanie-t-34-i-kv-na-aberdinskom-poligone-v-ssha-1942-god.html A more detailed review of second link.
      https://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/1742246.html
    2. Potter 13 August 2019 23: 35 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, there was nothing like it. The only "technology exchange" - the samples of the KV and T-34 were sent to the states, they were tested in Aberdeen, reports with the opinion of American engineers came back to the USSR. A year later, they arrived approximately, by the beginning of 1943, when our tanks were already noticeably different in design from the transferred samples.
      1. Vahe mardanyan 14 August 2019 06: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Thanks for the answer
  7. Avior 13 August 2019 20: 26 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    The history of American tank building before Sherman in several paragraphs.
    Formulation of the problem
    . the US military, somewhat dumbfounded by the scale of the tank battles of the Old World, suddenly remembered that in the American army the number of these useful vehicles barely exceeded three hundred. Moreover, with most of them, European tanks in one hangar would not have stood up.

    The first attempts
    . , the designers decided that the medium tank should be more than light and have more powerful weapons. What is understood in Europe as powerful weapons was unknown, so it was decided to simply stick eight machine guns into the tank and see what happens. So the M2 medium tank was born. It is known that of the six members of the commission of the Artillery Department, the first to see the new tank, three shot themselves, two fainted, and one became a buen and almost bit the chief designer.

    Second attempt
    . The result was a compromise. Two guns were put on the tank, the larger one in the hull, and the smaller one in the tower. At the same time, the evil "corpses", in order to laugh at the "towers" on the night before the tests, added another turret to the tower, a smaller one, with a machine gun. Like they wanted towers - choke. The tank was called the M3 "General Lee,"

    Result
    . The effectiveness of the tank exceeded all expectations: in the first battle, the crews of the three newest Pz IIIJ died of laughter and the battlefield remained with the British

    The solution to the tank issue
    . American tankers appeared at the theater of operations. Having fought a little, they demanded that they be given a tank with one gun, but in the tower. Many engineers objected to such a revolutionary alteration of the structure .... General Patton took the side of the tankers, promising to shoot the Chief Designer from his favorite mother-of-pearl revolver, and the engineers, grunting, finally issued a tank of normal construction.

    laughing
    1. Vahe mardanyan 13 August 2019 21: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Just class
  8. Catfish 13 August 2019 22: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    With a tank weight of 43,1 tons, he had a powerful reservation, providing good protection from enemy anti-tank weapons.


    My T-54 is practically a contemporary of Pershing, but it is a medium tank weighing 46 tons and a 100 mm D10T gun, Pershing is a heavy tank weighing 43 tons and a gun caliber of 90 mm. I won’t take it upon myself to compare the reservation, I just don’t remember how it was with ours, I served for a long time, I forgot it, but in terms of armament and weight they are almost the same, although in speed “half-four” will give the American a head start at 50 km / h with a hook, I drove it myself, I know what I'm saying . Nevertheless, almost identical tanks at the same time (ours a little later) were in service with different countries, but ... one heavy, the second medium. A different approach to type definitions?



    So, regardless of anything - just the Americans in Kubinka.
    1. Potter 13 August 2019 23: 36 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The mass of the T-54 is 36 tons. Described on the top ten. The milestone of 45 tons switched only to the T-90, as I recall.
      1. yehat 14 August 2019 10: 46 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Milestone 45 tons switched only to the T-90

        But what about is-3, t10, is-4, is-7? they were not light and more than 45 tons
        Yes, the same KV-1 was also not a ballerina. 41-year variants weighed more than 47 tons
      2. Catfish 14 August 2019 15: 51 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        You are right, colleague, I have a typo - "closed". He served for a long time, and old age, she is not a joy. Thank you for correctly understood and corrected. hi drinks
        I, in the Hungarian tanks, besides the Turan, stuck a couple more, also from Kubinka. Take a look if interested.
    2. Snakebyte 14 August 2019 13: 55 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The T-54 is still a post-war tank.
      For 1944, the Pershing was quite a heavy tank (compare with the KV or the Tiger), for armor and weapons. But, by the end of the war, medium tanks had weapons and heavy armor at the start of the war, surpassing them in mobility.
      After the war, the Americans transferred the M26 to medium tanks.
    3. yehat 14 August 2019 17: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I was surprised at one thing in Kubinka - both German and Russian tanks are all sort of compressed, compact.
      even the mouse for its performance characteristics is far from huge
      and the Americans are like picks with a huge silhouette, especially the hefty M60
      By the way, this colored pershing in the kubinka was not when I was there.
      our post-war tanks look at the top of asceticism and functionality.
      very compact.
      I don’t remember if the m6 was in Cuban, I wanted to look at it or at t1 heavy.
      1. hohol95 14 August 2019 17: 10 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        and the Americans are like picks with a huge silhouette, especially the hefty M60

        The main thing is COMFORT of the crew!
        1. Catfish 14 August 2019 20: 22 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          If everything that the Americans sent with them came to our crews ... Okudzhava wrote in his book “Be healthy, schoolboy” that an unopened barrel of rum was found in the American battalion received in the battalion. there were no more coveralls for the crew - they stole it. drinks
          1. hohol95 14 August 2019 22: 28 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            I won’t say anything for Okudzhav, but -
            D. F. Loz wrote about this in sufficient detail in his memoirs as applied to Sherman:
            “Most military equipment supplied to the USSR under Lend-Lease; went to the country by sea caravans, which were unloaded at the ports of Murmansk or Arkhangelsk, from where it was transported by rail to destinations. The Sherman we received was carefully pasted over with thick dark paper saturated with a moisture-proof compound, which was absent only on the driver’s hatch - it had already been removed for access to the control compartment, since the tanks were underway from the port to the loading station on the platforms.
            It took almost two days to clean “Emcha” from this “clothing”. We must pay tribute to the American side: the cars for long-distance shipping were excellently prepared. During my stay at the front, I had to get new Sherman tanks five times, and always, when they were re-mothballed, I did not find a drop of moisture inside. But they did not go by the sea for a day or two ...

            Of course, if only the LOGINS did not climb tanks with flashlights in their hands and crawled into them through the hatches of the mechanical drives ...
            The rear doors are so flexible and insidious!
            1. Catfish 14 August 2019 22: 36 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              At the beginning of the eighties I talked (over a bottle) with one uncle who happened to fight in the Sherman and Matilda. He opened his mouth and goggled in amazement when I told him in what configuration the lend-lease technique originally came to us. My colleagues from the Museum of the Armed Forces enlightened me on this occasion, they had plenty of material in the archive.
              1. hohol95 14 August 2019 22: 47 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                So they climbed ...
                We climbed freight wagons with "Difsit" on the hauls and various key stations in Soviet times!
                Some on the go managed to open the cars!
                We opened the house in the garden in the winter - we punched out the roof on the veranda! There is NO electricity on the line! Fumbled in the darkness. They took away spoons and forks and a knife from a hacksaw blade.
                A stainless steel tank of liters on 20, cabbages, tarpaulin welded 5 pieces, a sprayer and everything else remains in place!
                Did not make out in the dark!
                1. Catfish 14 August 2019 22: 51 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  I think that when the first Lendliz tank was opened at the port of arrival and saw what kind of “wealth” was stored there, then theft was simply put on stream and probably with blessing, if not by direct order of the higher authorities.
                  1. hohol95 14 August 2019 22: 54 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    So we will think badly about Soviet people?
                    It was and was! But not everyone climbed the "pockets" and not everyone ate a "tyrennaya second front"!
                    They fought, transported equipment, fed the army, treated and so on ... soldier
                    1. Catfish 14 August 2019 22: 57 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Of course, not all, but a drop of tar in a barrel of honey is not a reason for great joy.
                      1. hohol95 14 August 2019 23: 03 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Then take a look at the recommended Amer series "Trick 22". Or leaf through the book on which this series is filmed! It is clear that there were people under the saying "To whom is war, and to whom is mother dear?" But they have always been! Even primitive people!
                        The primitive people of the mammoth are inundated!
                        One and says - Divide it equally!
                        So the first COMMANDER appeared.
                        The second said - The first to feed women and children!
                        So the first POLITRUK appeared!
                        The tribe went to bed!
                        In the morning they wake up, but there are NO remnants of a mammoth!
                        This was the first INSTRUCTOR to work!
                      2. Catfish 15 August 2019 00: 08 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        I read the "Trick" back in the 72nd year. In the nineties I saw x / f from the book; the series, of course, saw too. Neither the film nor the series made an impression, although it is clear that for such a thing as "Trick", in order to shoot something, you just need to be a brilliant artist. Well, not everyone can be Tarkovsky ...
                        The joke is beautiful. In the form in which I know it was:
                        "So appeared, etc." laughing
              2. Mordvin 3 14 August 2019 23: 08 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: hohol95
                We opened the house in the garden in the winter - we punched out the roof on the veranda! There is NO electricity on the line! Fumbled in the darkness. They took away spoons and forks and a knife from a hacksaw blade.
                A stainless steel tank of liters on 20, cabbages, tarpaulin welded 5 pieces, a sprayer and everything else remains in place!
                Did not make out in the dark!

                My friend did the same. In addition to the forks and spoons, the old bamboo broken fishing rods were pulled, the old net was torn, and they did not pay attention to the brand new tent (the most valuable). Probably, they thought, some kind of rag is lying around and lying around. And so, yes, these summer cottagers-metalworkers got it already, they drag everything in a row.
                1. hohol95 14 August 2019 23: 12 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  The fact is that almost the entire line is depopulated! People threw their 6 acres! Even during the day it is no longer comfortable there! There was a long time ago - a woman came in the morning, and her Quakines are digging her potatoes! She is screaming! They shoved her bayonet over her head. On the spot!
                  And recently, there was a complete FUN! Grandfather went to "check" the empty gardens for draining and disappeared!
                  Searched for THREE days! And he wandered around the district and could not go out on the track! SCLEROSIS!
                  1. Mordvin 3 14 August 2019 23: 30 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: hohol95
                    The fact is that almost the entire line is depopulated! People threw their 6 acres!

                    So many people abandoned it because it was full of thieves. Where the watchman is not abandoned, on the contrary, they are even building new houses, judging by country cooperatives with and without security. My uncle, where he is being guarded, has a pair of working televisions, and a Japanese video player, and indeed there is enough good. And the aunt - where there is no protection, there is nothing, she carries spades with her, because even her glass jars steal constantly. And I bombed the whole house of grandfathers, even the brick stove was dismantled and put up.
    4. Catfish 14 August 2019 20: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I shot all this in Kubinka about 20 years ago and the M6 ​​was definitely not there then, but there was an Israeli Isherman. hi
  9. Sergey to 14 August 2019 18: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Konstantin. Greetings. T-54 weighs 36 tons, his forehead is -100 mm, side 80 mm, tower -200 mm.
    1. Catfish 14 August 2019 20: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Good evening, Sergey. Thanks for the info. hi
  • Fayter2017 14 August 2019 00: 46 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Somehow, the author missed the version of the m4a3 tank with 76,2 mm long-barreled weapons, which in armor penetration exceeded 85 mm t-34, but was inferior to the German ones.
    1. Alexey RA 14 August 2019 10: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Fayter2017
      Somehow, the author missed the version of the m4a3 tank with 76,2 mm long-barreled weapons, which in armor penetration exceeded 85 mm t-34, but was inferior to the German ones.

      This gun is in the article - in the paragraph on the Sherman’s weapons options:
      The M3 gun in its characteristics corresponded to the Soviet F-34 gun. With the advent of the Germans new tanks PzKpfw V "Panther" and PzKpfw VI "Tiger" this gun was no longer able to hit them, in connection with this, a new 76,2 mm gun M1 L / 55 with more effective armor-piercing shells was installed on the tank.
  • yehat 14 August 2019 10: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Simon
    American tanks helped keep the front with fascist Germany

    American tanks almost did not help to keep the front in the 41st
    in the 42nd they helped a little in the Caucasus (m3), but there the main role of the armor was played by the English.
    The Americans provided the main assistance only in the offensive of the end of 43-45gg - here there is something to say thank you, without American supplies we would not even be able to advance so quickly and would suffer noticeably more losses, but not the tanks played the main role here again.
    1. Sergey to 14 August 2019 18: 57 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      American tanks, before the appearance of Sherman, frank bullshit, and honestly, it would be better if they did not deliver them until the end of 1943, until the Sherman appeared, I am silent about the English and French, otherwise they will be banned. Aircraft YES, it’s better instead of tanks, airplanes delivered the same money according to Lend Lease. More benefit would be.
  • yehat 14 August 2019 17: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    The M3 gun in its characteristics corresponded to the Soviet F-34 gun

    only the shells of the Americans were a little better, but the location of the gun was enchanting.
    1. Alexey RA 16 August 2019 16: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: yehat
      that's just the shells of the Americans were a little better

      "A little better" - this is still pretty mildly said. Where the domestic 76,2-mm BBS cracked on the armor, the American 75-mm shell pierced this armor and passed behind it without significant deformation of the hull (1943 Russian report on shelling the “tiger”). Alas, the Yankees could afford to use high-quality steel with such a percentage of alloying additives that the USSR could not afford for mass production BBS.
      Quote: yehat
      but the location of the gun was enchanting.

      Well so ... what else to expect from the second model of a serial medium tank in the history of US tank construction, and even designed in conditions of "grab bags - the station leaves". smile
      1. maximghost 16 August 2019 19: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Here is a very obscure story. On the other hand, there are those rezultaty of shelling a tiger (normal and CT, if my memory has not lost its way). On the other hand, the Soviet armor penetration tables, where this figure is practically equal for the Soviet 76.2mm gun and the American 75mm and the Soviet 85mm guns and the American 76mm, respectively. Somehow this can be faded by the fact that the quality of Soviet shells was uneven depending on the time and place of production. But where the truth really is, I still can not understand.
        1. Alexey RA 19 August 2019 11: 44 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: maximghost
          On the other hand, the Soviet armor penetration tables, where this figure is practically equal for the Soviet 76.2mm gun and the American 75mm and the Soviet 85mm guns and the American 76mm, respectively.

          As the uv. M. Svirin, almost all armor penetration tables are a bare theory, Jacob de Mar. And this is easy to believe, seeing in the tables the numbers of armor-piercing projectile shells at a distance of as much as one and a half kilometers. smile
          Our main problem in the first half of the war was precisely the design and quality of armor-piercing shells. That is, in theory it should punch, but in practice - either the body breaks on the armor, or the hardened head part breaks off. In caliber 76,2 mm, this problem was solved only in 1943. And the practice was finally brought to theory only after the war (the same uv. M. Svirin wrote that post-war tables of armor penetration to war shells cannot be used - these are completely different shells, even if the index is the same).
  • zenion 14 August 2019 17: 18 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Mass graves from the USA as a "gift".
    1. Catfish 14 August 2019 20: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Do you think it's better to burn in BT?
  • yehat 15 August 2019 10: 28 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: sergey k
    American tanks, before the appearance of Sherman, frank bullshit, and honestly, it would be better if they did not deliver them until the end of 1943, until the Sherman appeared, I am silent about the English and French, otherwise they will be banned. Aircraft YES, it’s better instead of tanks, airplanes delivered the same money according to Lend Lease. More benefit would be.

    Well, I don’t know. Stuart was one of the best light tanks of the war. From England, Matilda-2 and Valentine were also good cars (at the beginning of 42 years). Churchill was peculiar, but armored very seriously.
    I only have a mixed opinion about m3. Very weird tank.
    But the females of the “so-so” level were sent to us quite a few - Hurricanes, unsuccessful versions of spitfires, the first versions of p40, etc.
  • yehat 15 August 2019 17: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Who in the subject tell me why the IPs were not released with a 107mm gun?
    it was before the war the most promising cannon for heavy tanks
    1. Alexey RA 16 August 2019 16: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: yehat
      Who in the subject tell me why the IPs were not released with a 107mm gun?
      it was before the war the most promising cannon for heavy tanks

      So at first they wanted to equip a new heavy tank with just a 107 mm cannon. But a number of problems arose. SW M. Svirin described the story of the rejection of the 107-mm gun:
      The tanks were in a hurry to make by July 1943, 107, but even at the stage of manufacturing the prototype difficulties arose, and where no one was waiting for them. Thus, it turned out that 1942-mm ammunition was withdrawn from production at the beginning of 107, and equipment shortages did not allow it to be renewed (moreover, instead of one 85-mm shot, one and a half or two 76-mm or three-caliber four 107 mm). Grenades of pre-revolutionary production and shrapnel, completely unsuitable not only for fighting tanks, but also for destroying field fortifications, prevailed in the stockpiles of XNUMX-mm rounds available in the warehouses.

      In addition, the plant, which was supposed to produce 107-mm guns, went into evacuation and was loaded with the release of other systems.
      1. yehat 16 August 2019 17: 02 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        it would be very interesting for me to see in the metal kv-4 or kv-3 or IS1 (2) with this 107 gun
        and see how it all works together - it would be a Russian analogue of the tiger.
        KV-85, IS-85, IS-1 in my opinion can not be on par with the tiger.
  • yehat 16 August 2019 09: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: John22
    And nothing - the crews managed the captured MGs and, if necessary, used them

    self-propelled guns, like the Shtug-3, usually operated with solid support - infantry and even tanks.
  • yehat 21 August 2019 17: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Gray Brother
    but the Boschs were constantly trying to build the prodigy invulnerable, on which they burnt.

    Ferdinand burned under Kursk when unsuccessfully applied
    and then they acted quite effectively.
    yes, probably 3 pieces were better than one ferdinand
    but ferdinand was not a failure.