Military Review

American SAU of the Second World War. Part I

28
Between the two world wars, several different war strategies were created. According to one of them - in the future it will clearly demonstrate its effectiveness - the main striking means of the army should Tanks. Due to the combination of driving and fire qualities, as well as with the help of good defense, this technique could break into the enemy’s defenses and move relatively deep into the enemy’s positions with minor losses. The only class of weapons that could fight armored vehicles was artillery. However, with great firepower, it had insufficient mobility. Something was needed that possessed both good indicators of armor penetration and sufficient mobility. A compromise between these two things was the anti-tank self-propelled artillery mounts.

The first attempts

In the United States of America, the creation of self-propelled anti-tank artillery systems began almost immediately after the end of the First World War. True, the then SAUs turned out to be unsuccessful - there was no talk of any adoption for service. About the subject of anti-tank self-propelled guns remembered only in the mid-thirties. As an experiment, the 37-millimeter field gun was refined: its caliber increased by 10 mm. The recoil devices and the carriage were reworked so that the gun could be placed in an improvised wheelhouse on the chassis of the lightweight M2 tank. The car turned out to be original and, as it seemed to its creators, promising. However, the very first tests showed the inconsistency of the rework done. The fact is that the increase in caliber entailed a decrease in the relative length of the barrel, which ultimately affected the initial velocity of the projectile and the maximum thickness of the pierced armor. About self-propelled artillery installations again for a while forgotten.

The final return to the idea of ​​a self-propelled tank destroyer took place at the very beginning of 1940. In Europe, the Second World War had been going on for several months already, and overseas they knew exactly how the German troops were advancing. The main offensive means of the Germans were tanks, and this meant that in the very near future, all countries that could be drawn into the conflict would begin to develop their armored forces. Again, the idea to create and bring to mind anti-tank self-propelled gun. The first option to increase the mobility of the M37 3-mm gun was simple. It was proposed to make a simple system for mounting guns on cars Dodge 3 / 4 ton series. The resulting SAU T21 looked very, very unusual. Prior to that, only machine guns were mounted on cars, and guns were transported exclusively using towing equipment. But still the main problem of the new "self-propelled gun" was not unusual. The car chassis did not have any protection against bullets and shrapnel, and its dimensions were not enough to accommodate the entire crew and enough ammunition. As a result, the experimental model of the improvised ACS T21 remained in a single copy.

American SAU of the Second World War. Part I
The anti-tank gun caliber 37 mm tried to adapt to the jeep repeatedly, but the limited dimensions of the body of a cross-country vehicle did not allow to accommodate the calculation with ammunition


As of the 1940 year, anti-tank guns of the 37 caliber of millimeters were still a sufficient “argument” against enemy armor. However, in the very next few years we should have expected an increase in the thickness of the armor and its resistance to projectiles. For a promising tank destroyer, the caliber 37 mm was insufficient. Therefore, at the end of 1940, the creation of a tracked self-propelled gun with a three-inch gun began. The basis for the new machine was the design of the tractor company Cleveland Tractor Company, used as an airfield tractor. In the rear of the reinforced chassis housing mounted gun with a shield. The M75A1897 3-mm cannon, dating back to the 19th-century French design, was slightly modified to accommodate the operation of a self-propelled chassis. Now it was called T7. The very same ACS received the designation T1. The firepower of the new self-propelled gun was impressive. Thanks to a good caliber, it could be used not only against enemy armored vehicles. At the same time, the undercarriage T1 was overweight, as a result of which technical problems regularly arose. Nevertheless, the military-political situation in the world was rapidly changing and the situation demanded new solutions. Therefore, in January 1942, the new ACS was put into service under the symbol M5 Gun Motor Carriage. The military ordered the 1580 units of M5, but the actual release was limited to only a few dozen. The chassis of the former tractor did not cope well with the new loads and tasks, it needed to be significantly changed, but all the work in this direction was limited to only minor modifications. As a result, by the time they were ready to begin large-scale production, the US Army had newer and more advanced self-propelled guns. The M5 program has been minimized.

M3 GMC

One of those vehicles that put an end to the M5 self-propelled gun was an artillery installation based on the brand new armored vehicle M3. In the fighting compartment of the half-track machine, a metal structure was assembled, which simultaneously served as a support for the cannon and a container for ammunition. 19 shells of 75 caliber of millimeters were placed in the support cells. Another four dozen could be put in the boxes, located in the rear of the ACS. A M1897A4 gun was placed on the support structure, which could be horizontally pointed at 19 ° to the left and 21 ° to the right, as well as in the sector from -10 ° to + 29 ° vertically. The M61 armor piercing projectile punched no less than 50-55 millimeters of armor at a distance of a kilometer. Installation of a sufficiently heavy cannon on the armored personnel carrier and stacking for ammunition did not affect the driving performance of the former armored carrier. In the fall of 1941, the self-propelled gun was adopted under the designation M3 Gun Motor Carriage (M3 GMC) and launched into the series. For almost two years, more than 2200 units were collected, which were used until the end of the war.

The T-12 tank destroyer was the M-3 Heftrack semi-tracked armored vehicle, armed with the 75-mm gun М1987М3


In battles on the islands of the Pacific, M3 GMC showed good ability in fighting not only with tanks, but also with enemy fortifications. With regards to the former, one can say the following: the Japanese armored vehicles, possessing not very serious protection (the armor of the Chi-Ha tank had a thickness of up to 27 mm), when hit by a projectile, the M1897A4 cannon were destroyed. At the same time, the own booking of American self-propelled guns did not withstand the 57-mm shells of Chi-Ha tanks, because of which there was no known favorite in the battle of these armored vehicles. At the very beginning of the mass production, M3 GMC received several innovations in the design. First of all, the bulletproof defense of the gun design was changed. According to the results of pilot operation of the prototypes and the first production machines in the Philippines, a metal box was installed instead of a shield. Part of the M3 GMC self-propelled guns was able to survive to the end of the Second World War, although the share of such machines is small. Due to weak protection, which did not withstand the impact of shells of most field and especially anti-tank guns, in the last months of the war more than 1300 SAU were converted into armored personnel carriers - this required dismantling the gun and its support, laying shells, and also move the fuel tanks from the stern of the vehicle in the middle.

On the basis of "General Lee"

Despite significant combat experience, the M3 GMC self-propelled gun was originally meant to be just a temporary measure in anticipation of a more solid vehicle with serious reservations. A little later, the development of M3 GMC was launched two projects that were to come to replace it. According to the first, an M3 howitzer of 1 caliber millimeters was required to be installed on the chassis of the lightweight tank M75 Stuart. The second project meant an armored vehicle based on the medium tank M3 Lee, armed with a gun M3 of the same caliber as in the first version. As the calculations showed, the three-inch howitzer located on the chassis of the light Stuart tank could successfully fight not only against enemy tanks and fortifications. Significant impact would be enough for a fairly quick disabling of its own chassis. The project "Stewart" with a howitzer closed for hopelessness.

T-24 was a "intermediate version" tank destroyer


The second project of SAU, which was based on the tank M3 Lee, continued under the designation T24. By autumn, the first prototype was built. In fact, it was the same “Li” tank, but without the roof of an armored hull, without a turret and with a dismantled sponson for the native 75-mm cannon. Driving characteristics of self-propelled guns were no worse than the original tank. But with the fighting qualities there was a whole problem. The fact is that the M3 gun mounting system was made on the basis of existing equipment for anti-aircraft guns. Due to this “origin” of the support system, aiming the gun at the target was a complex and lengthy procedure. First, the elevation of the trunk was regulated within everything from -1 ° to + 16 °. Secondly, when turning the gun for pointing horizontally, the minimum angle of elevation began to “walk”. At the extreme points of the horizontal sector with a width of 33 ° in both directions, it was + 2 °. Needless to say, the military did not want to get a gun with such wisdom and demanded to remake the ill-fated knot. In addition, the high height of the machine with an open top of the wheelhouse caused censures - once again nobody wanted to risk the crew.

In December, the Tank Destroyer Center, the Center of Tank Fighters, was opened at Fort Meade at the suggestion of the Army Commander General L. McNair. It was assumed that this organization would be able to effectively collect, summarize and use the experience gained regarding the appearance and operation of anti-tank self-propelled guns. It is worth noting that General McNair was a strong supporter of this direction of armored vehicles. In his opinion, tanks could not fight tanks with all possible efficiency. To ensure the advantage required additional armored vehicles with solid weapons, which were the SAU. In addition, 1941 December, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, after which the United States had to increase funding for a number of defense programs, which also included anti-tank self-propelled artillery systems.

The chassis of the tank M-3, which was used to create the T-24 tank destroyer, served as a base for the T-40 self-propelled gun. The T-40 tank destroyer differed from the unsuccessful predecessor by its lower silhouette and more powerful weapon. According to the results of testing self-propelled gun T-40 adopted by the designation M-9


By the beginning of 1942, the T24 project was significantly reworked. By rearranging the internal volumes of the tank chassis, they significantly reduced the overall height of the vehicle, and also changed the mounting system of the gun and the gun itself. Now the angles of horizontal guidance were 15 ° and 5 ° to the right of the axis and to the left, respectively, and the elevation was adjusted from + 5 ° to 35 °. Due to the shortage of M3 guns, the updated self-propelled gun was supposed to carry the M1918 anti-aircraft gun of the same caliber. In addition, the design of the chassis has undergone several more changes, because of which it was decided to issue a new ACS new index - T40. With the new gun, the self-propelled gun almost did not lose in combat qualities, but won in the simplicity of production - then it seemed that there would be no problems with it. In the spring of the 42, the T40 was put into service under the name M9. At the plant in Pennsylvania, several copies of the new self-propelled gun were already built, but then the leadership of the Tank Fighter Center said its word. In his opinion, the M9 had insufficient throughput and speed. In addition, it suddenly turned out that there were not even three dozen M1918 guns in the warehouses, and no one would allow them to resume production. Since there was no time for another revision of the project, the production was curtailed. In August, the 42 of the M9 was finally closed.

M10

ACS M9 was not a very good project. At the same time, it clearly showed the principal possibility of converting a medium tank into a carrier of heavy artillery weapons. At the same time, the military did not approve the idea of ​​a tank destroyer that was not equipped with a turret. In the case of the T40 SAU gun aiming angles, this turned into the impossibility of firing a target moving perpendicular to the gun axis. All these problems had to be solved in the T35 project, which was to be equipped with an 76-millimeter tank gun and a rotating turret. As a chassis for the new self-propelled gun, the M4 Sherman medium tank was proposed. For simplicity of design, the tower of the heavy tank M6, equipped with the M7 gun, was taken as the basis for the armament complex. At the original tower, the shape of the sides was changed to simplify production. We had to work more seriously on the armored hull of the M4 tank chassis: the thickness of the frontal and stern sheets was reduced to an inch. The forehead of the tank did not change. Due to the weakening of the protection, it was possible to maintain mobility at the level of the original Sherman.

The experience of fighting in the Philippines clearly demonstrated the advantages of rational tilting of armor plates, as a result, the initial hull of the Sherman tank, which served as the basis for the creation of the T-35 tank destroyer, had to be redesigned. The self-propelled gun, which had a body with tilted sides, received the designation T-35Е1. This machine was launched into serial production under the name M-10


At the very beginning of 1942, the first prototype of the T35 self-propelled gun went to the Aberdeen Proving Ground. The fire and driving performance of the prototype satisfied the military, which could not be said about the level of protection and ease of operation inside the cramped tower. During the beginning of tests, the first reports of the effectiveness of the inclined arrangement of armor plates began to arrive from the Pacific Ocean and from Europe. This know-how attracted the attention of the customer in the face of the American military department, and he did not fail to write the corresponding clause into the technical requirements for the self-propelled gun. By the end of the spring 42-th were built new prototypes with a rational inclination of the side sheets. This version of the ACS called T35E1 turned out to be significantly better than the previous one, it was recommended for use. By that time, a new technological proposal had been received: to make an armored hull from rolled sheets, and not from cast slabs. Together with the corps, it was proposed to rework the tower, but this was not so easy. As a result, a new design without a roof was created, which had a pentagonal shape. At the end of the summer, the 42-T35E1 was put into service under the name M10, and in September, mass production began. Until the end of the next 1943, more than 6700 armored vehicles were built in two versions: for a number of technological reasons, one of them was significantly redesigned power plant. In particular, the diesel engine was replaced by a gasoline engine.

A number of M10 self-propelled guns were supplied to the UK, where they received the designation 3-in. SP Wolverine. In addition, the British independently upgraded the M10 supplied by installing self-made guns on them. 76 mm QF 17-pdr. Mk. V gave a tangible increase in the efficiency of the fire, although it required some improvements. First of all, it was necessary to significantly change the design of gun mountings, as well as weld additional protection on the armor mask of the gun. The latter was done to close the gap formed after installing a new gun in the old mask, whose barrel had a smaller diameter than the M7. In addition, the British gun turned out to be heavier than the American one, due to which we had to add counterweights to the back of the tower. After this refinement, M10 was given the designation 76 mm QF-17 Achilles.

The M10 tank destroyer armed with an 90-mm T7 gun is being tested


M10 became the first type of American self-propelled guns, which at the same time received good armament and decent protection. True, combat experience soon showed that this defense was insufficient. Thus, an open top tower often led to large losses of personnel in operations in forests or cities. Since in the headquarters and design offices no one was engaged in the problem of increasing security, the crews had to take care of their own security. Sandbags, caterpillar tracks, etc. were placed on the armor. In the front-line workshops, improvised roofs were installed on the tower, which led to a significant reduction in crew losses.

The M10 "Walverain" ACS (M10 3in. GMC Wolverine) of the 702 Battalion of tank destroyers, padded with German artillery on the streets of Ibach (Ubach), Germany. Serial number on the front sheet of the car painted over by the censor


The M10 "Walverain" (M10 3in. GMC Wolverine) 601-th battalion of US Army tank destroyers on the road to Le Clavier, France


Rehearsal of landing on the sandy beaches of a battalion of M10 tank destroyers and several infantry companies at Slapton Sands in England


The camouflaged tank destroyer of the M10 703 battalion of the 3 Armored Division and the M4 Sherman tank are moving through the intersection of the road between Louge-sur-Maire, La Bellangerie and Montreux-o-Ulm ( Montreuil-au-Houlme)


M10 fires in the Saint-Lo area


The M10 of the 701 Tank Fighter Battalion is moving along a mountain road in support of the 10 Mountain Division, which is moving north from Poretta to the valley of the Po. Italy


On the materials of the sites:
http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/
http://armor.kiev.ua/
http://alternathistory.org.ua/
http://wwiivehicles.com/
http://onwar.com/
http://militaryhistoryonline.com/
Author:
28 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Northerner
    Northerner 29 August 2012 10: 50
    +2
    An interesting article, Thanks to the author for the analysis and photo material! I think that everyone will agree that even by arranging the equipment depicted in the photo, it can be judged that the Americans, if they did not lose in quality, obviously caught up with the tech. superiority of the Soviet-style equipment and tried to at least somehow resist their German opponents.
  2. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 29 August 2012 11: 46
    +1
    All the same, I can’t understand why it was not necessary to create a very good tank and a self-propelled gun, which, by and large, differ only in the absence of a roof?
    In my opinion, the armored vehicles of the Western Allies were useless, and if it were not for the overwhelming numerical superiority, we would also have to look at the results of the fighting!
    1. igordok
      igordok 29 August 2012 14: 06
      +3
      Then, and now they are all decided by aviation. So they put it on the armored vehicles.
  3. Baron Wrangell
    Baron Wrangell 29 August 2012 12: 17
    +2
    According to the Americans themselves, their entire armored vehicles 2 mir.voyna at times inferior to the German that tanks that self-propelled guns. on combat 4 Sherman cost one tiger! that's the whole layout. And all their fantasies on the topic that their technique is the best, complete bullshit. They won battles only due to the number of armored vehicles !. But when they met armored vehicles, they usually fled, since they knew that not one of their guns on the tank and self-propelled guns could cope with the German tanks.
    Of course, thanks to the author for the photo, but where are the conclusions! ? where are the numbers! ?
    Well, if you started the song, then come on chorus! Although there is nothing to analyze, no matter how much the sparrows praise, the nightingale will not!
    1. Kars
      Kars 29 August 2012 12: 56
      -2
      Quote: Baron Wrangel
      4 Sherman fighting cost one tiger!

      But nothing that you compare cars of different classes to begin with?
      Quote: Baron Wrangel
      But when they met armored vehicles, they usually ran away

      More than two thousand Shermans were delivered to the USSR under Lend-Lease - did ours also run away?
      Quote: Baron Wrangel
      where are the numbers! ?

      The numbers are here.
      http://vn-parabellum.com/us/armor-divisions-eto-stats.html
      http://vn-parabellum.com/us/armor-looses.html
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 29 August 2012 13: 21
        0
        It was possible not to run away - it seems the village of Villiers-Bocage was called, where they did not manage to escape?
        According to Kahn, or where did the allies (the British and Canadians) lose 600 tanks when attacking in the area and did not advance, consider, not a single step?
        1. Kars
          Kars 29 August 2012 13: 29
          0
          Quote: Brother Sarich
          lost during the offensive in the area of ​​600 tanks

          Should I begin to recall Prokhorovka? Belgorod-Oryol operation?

          Ville-Bocage - it happens, and even with everyone.
          And so let’s not forget that the Americans, Canadians - fought in the middle of nowhere, unknown for what reason - and retreat, leaving some kind of unnecessary French, the Italian locality was not offended by them.
      2. Baron Wrangell
        Baron Wrangell 29 August 2012 13: 26
        +1
        Well read the footnotes! So what?
        information supplied by Americans, this is initially incorrect information! By the way, such facts have long been proven at this forum that the loss of aviation, that the loss of armored forces, Americans are often attributed not to military losses but to technical losses.
        About land lease, we have only one grandfather, heroic grandfather, and so he fought in the Sherman, in my opinion for three years. He told me that they did not like them with us! They often burned, so they tried to use them rarely, there were many losses. But after he moved to our Soviet tank, he fought here.
        Well, for a joke! My son plays the Tank War, and there he does not like American, prefers German and Soviet.
        1. Kars
          Kars 29 August 2012 13: 38
          0
          Quote: Baron Wrangel
          information provided by Americans

          You will not get others.
          Quote: Baron Wrangel
          this is initially incorrect information!

          The same can be said about German and Soviet.
          Quote: Baron Wrangel
          He said that they did not like them with us

          We and on the T-34-76 of the Sormovsky plant refused to go into battle. And they loved, did not like - subjectivity seasoned with post-war pumping.
          Quote: Baron Wrangel
          They often burned

          Like all other tanks.
          Quote: Baron Wrangel
          therefore, we tried to use them rarely

          Berlin, Vienna. Entire Sherman corps
          Quote: Baron Wrangel
          But after he moved to our Soviet tank, then he fought.

          When did he succeed? For three years he fought on the Sherman entered in 1942.
          Quote: Baron Wrangel
          My son plays the Tank War, and there he does not like American, prefers German and Soviet.

          And I prefer Panther and Firefly (though in a different game), and so what?
          1. Baron Wrangell
            Baron Wrangell 29 August 2012 13: 56
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Like all other tanks.

            your bastards! Do not forget that the solarium is just burning, and gasoline is also exploding! so what's worse?
            Quote: Kars
            Quote: Baron Wrangel But after he moved to our Soviet tank, he fought here. When did he succeed? For three years he fought on the Sherman received in 1942.

            here I can be mistaken, I don’t remember the timing of his exact war, but I saw the photo of his 18 summer against the background of the Sherman personally!
            Well, lastly! the memories of our tankers!
            Let's start with the best Lend-Lease tank from the M medium tank, the 4 Sherman.
            Our troops received tanks M - 4 "Sherman" of the following modifications: M - 4 A1, M - 4 A2 and M - 4 A3. Each modification differed from the previous one with thicker armor, the shape and dimensions of the hull and turret, and weapons. The first Shermans began to arrive in the 1942 year. The Sherman’s advantages were their powerful armament, depending on the modification it consisted of either an 75-mm or an 77-mm long-barreled gun. Reservations also ranged from 75 to 110 mm in the front. These were the only overseas vehicles about which our tankers spoke, though not with much, but, nevertheless, respect. “These steel generals were good, good, but, opposite our thirty-four, they were odd,” recalled a veteran of the Great Patriotic War. Sherman’s drawbacks were its bad cross due to narrow tracks, in addition, the M - 4 A3 modification had a high silhouette, which made it a convenient target for enemy artillery. Medium tanks M - 4 "Sherman" were not only the best, but also the most massive Lend-Lease tanks
            1. Kars
              Kars 29 August 2012 14: 20
              0
              Quote: Baron Wrangel
              your bastards! Do not forget that the solarium is just burning, and gasoline is also exploding! so what's worse?


              Thank you laugh. Salyar pairs are much more powerful in detailing.
              And the myth of less fire safety of gasoline has long been refuted.
              Quote: Baron Wrangel
              the memories of our tankers!

              If you beat with such heavy artillery, then I’ll come
              Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitry Fyodorovich Loza as part of the 46-th Guards Tank Brigade of the 9-th Guards Tank Corps traveled thousands of kilometers along the roads of war. Starting to fight in the summer of 1943 of the year near Smolensk on the Matilda tanks, in the fall he moved to the Sherman tank and reached Vienna. Four tanks on which he fought burned down, and two were seriously damaged, but he survived and participated with his corps in the war against Japan, where he passed through the sands of the Gobi, Mount Khingan and the plains of Manchuria.

              In this book, the reader will find talented descriptions of combat episodes, the life of “foreign-made” tankers, the advantages and disadvantages of American tanks, and much more.

              Just read for interest. Http://flibusta.net/b/92231
              and it
              Lend-lease has remained one of the most controversial and politicized problems of Russian history since the Soviet agitprop, which has been silent for decades or directly falsified the true scale and role of allied assistance: even in memoirs, our pilots and tankers often “switched” from “imported” to domestic equipment
              And most of all, it was Lend-Lease’s tanks that were undeservedly glorified as miserable “kerosene” with “cardboard” armor and squalid “fart” instead of guns. Yes, the lightweight American Stuart, for obvious reasons, was weaker than the average T-34, but at the same time an order of magnitude better than the light T-60 and T-70 combined! And in general, if the Lend-Lease tanks were so bad - why did the Red Army use them extensively until the very end of the war as part of the Guards mechanized corps in the areas of main attacks?
              In his new book, a leading specialist in the history of armored vehicles refutes common ideological cliches, with numbers and facts proving that the “Shermans” and “valentines,” along with ISs and “thirty-fours” who reached Berlin, also earned a good memory and the right to be considered symbols

              http://flibusta.net/b/204447
              1. Brother Sarych
                Brother Sarych 29 August 2012 14: 43
                +1
                If so to understand, then there are no more books about Shermans! Yes, and she appeared at a fairly appropriate time - there is almost no one to either confirm what was written by the author or to refute ...
                In some places, it seemed to me that the author was confusing something ...
                1. Kars
                  Kars 29 August 2012 14: 46
                  0
                  Quote: Brother Sarich
                  at a suitable time

                  Oh yes, in 1963 this book had so many chances to appear, right?

                  Is it possible at least one place? Copy-paste is very easy - there is text on the link.
                  Yes, and Vine's memories are included in the collection of Drabkin, I fought on the tank.
                  1. Brother Sarych
                    Brother Sarych 29 August 2012 15: 03
                    0
                    Actually, in the late fifties and early sixties quite a lot of interesting books were printed! And then they became a bibliographic rarity - after. when old veterans died out, these books either fell into the trash, or they could be found in second-hand books ...
                    And who is Drabkin? For me it is not credibility at all ...
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 29 August 2012 15: 12
                      0
                      Quote: Brother Sarich
                      in the late fifties and early sixties a lot of interesting books were printed!

                      And you assume that they did not pass political caesura?
                      And so, in my memory, Konev’s memories crashed into a Tiger with an armed 100 mm gun.
                      Quote: Brother Sarich
                      And who is Drabkin? For me it is not credibility at all ...

                      And who is your authority?
                      And Drabkin is a collector of memories.

                      http://iremember.ru/
                    2. igordok
                      igordok 29 August 2012 17: 56
                      0
                      Quote: Brother Sarich
                      And who is Drabkin? For me it is not credibility at all ...

                      For me, Drabkin may not be an authority, but the soldiers, tankmen, pilots from whom he interviews are authority.
                      1. Brother Sarych
                        Brother Sarych 29 August 2012 18: 01
                        0
                        I will honestly say that the further those events, the more nonsense appears in published memories! Time, unfortunately, is merciless to the participants of those grand events ...
                        What a pity that it was not possible, or perhaps a special desire to preserve the true evidence of those days ...
            2. Tourist Breakfast
              Tourist Breakfast 29 August 2012 14: 30
              0
              your bastards! Do not forget that the solarium is just burning, and gasoline is also exploding! so what's worse?

              "Sherman" M4A2, which were supplied to the USSR, had a diesel engine.

              IN USSR
              The USSR became the second largest recipient of the Sherman. Under the Lend-Lease Act, the Soviet Union received:
              M4A2 - 1990 units.
              M4A2 (76) W - 2073 units.
              M4A4 - 2 units. Trial deliveries. The order was refused due to gasoline engines.
              M4A2 (76) W HVSS - 183 units. Delivered in May-June 1945, did not take part in hostilities in Europe.
  4. Baron Wrangell
    Baron Wrangell 29 August 2012 13: 58
    -1
    Medium tank M - 3 "Grant", aka M - 3 "Medium".
    “I didn’t see the worst tank than this“ Grant ”, the vile arrangement of weapons, the ground clearance is small, in general, the same sores that all overseas foreign cars have, but most importantly, the vile, simply disgusting arrangement of weapons,” said the veteran WWII tanker about the medium American tank M - 3 "Grant". Indeed, the good in this car was not enough. But the most annoying of our tankers was the extremely unsuccessful location of weapons. The 75-mm gun was located in the hull sponson, and the short-barreled 37-mm gun was located in the rotating turret. It turned out that the main weapon of the tank was the 37-mm short-barreled gun, and the powerful 75-mm gun played an auxiliary role. The only advantage of the Grant was its powerful anti-shell armor, but it was not powerful enough to contain the blow of the Panther or Tiger. Our tanks, these tanks did not receive the comforting nickname "mass grave for six", such is the story.
    A common minus of all Lend-Lease foreign cars was their poor maintainability, it was impossible to repair a damaged or damaged car in the field.
    “They were comfortable, these overseas tanks were comfortable, but we needed powerful fighting vehicles, and the capacity of these foreign cars was just not enough.”
    Now let's compare our average tanks of the Second World War with Lend-Lease foreign cars.

    our T - 34, our Steel Swallow / English and American MK - 2 Matilda, Valentine MK - 2 - MK - 11, M - 3 Grant, M - 4 Sherman. What is there to compare, let our tankers better say for me, the participants of those distant, formidable battles: “What would I transfer from T - 34 to another tank, but for no reason” !!! "" Shermans, "" Matilda, "where they are until our thirty-four." In its firepower, T - 34 completely surpassed the Matilda and the Valentines, the Grants and the Shermans. In terms of armor protection, Matilda was superior to the T - 34 - 76, but all its other shortcomings completely covered this plus. The 77-mm long-barreled gun used by the Shermans of the last modifications was inferior in power to the 85-mm gun of the T - 34 - 85 tank. As for the M - 3 Grant tank, there is nothing to compare here, as they say: heaven and earth.
    1. Kars
      Kars 29 August 2012 14: 22
      0
      And the rest is just a set of stamps, for clarity--
      Quote: Baron Wrangell
      77 mm long-barreled gun.

      76.2 mm and armor-piercing was at the level of our 85 mm, while it had the best quality shells.


      and also about salar --- tank detonation T-34
      1. Prohor
        Prohor 29 August 2012 16: 34
        +1
        Guys, you do not rush with clever words without understanding their meaning! The detonation of a single hydrocarbon fuel is in principle impossible; there can only be a detonation of a mixture of fuel vapor and air. The destructive power of such detonation is negligible, the maximum is destroyed tank. And thousands of tanks died not from fuel detonation, but from its BURNING and the consequences of this burning, in particular, the detonation of ammunition.
      2. revnagan
        revnagan 29 August 2012 16: 35
        +1
        Quote: Kars
        and also about salar --- tank detonation T-34

        Or maybe the ammunition detonated? Although the tower is in place ... You can't understand, but you can write anything. And perhaps a "staged" scene of the department of Goebbels and G. Fritsche. The Germans filled a captured tank with explosives and blew it up specially for the photo. , yes, vapors of both diesel fuel and gasoline detonate alike, but when it spills near a small hotbed of ignition, gasoline flares up instantly (try to set it on fire with a match), but diesel fuel burns much worse. After all, situations can be different. did not detonate, but it flows from the punched container, then gasoline will ignite even from a spark, it is guaranteed, but the solar oil is not.
        1. Kars
          Kars 29 August 2012 17: 03
          0
          Quote: revnagan
          Or maybe the ammunition detonated

          These are confirmed facts, and not only this photo. Also, the side tanks exploded.
          Quote: revnagan
          (try to set it on fire with a match)

          A similar experiment with a bucket and a torch is just what Ibragimov describes.
          Only when a tank breaks through the tank, the fragments and core of the armor-piercing projectile have a high temperature. And due to irretrievable losses, 70% of the T-34 burned down. And even diesel fuel does more damage to a person than gasoline - which burns fumes (naturally, relatively)
          1. Brother Sarych
            Brother Sarych 29 August 2012 17: 37
            0
            Yes, it has long been known that it may be harder to light a tan, but also harder to pay off, and for a person it is more dangerous ...
      3. igordok
        igordok 29 August 2012 18: 10
        0
        When the ammunition explodes, the T-34 usually demolishes the tower from the shoulder strap (if the ammunition is not all shot). The T-34 (not the T-34-85) has a shoulder strap, as far as I know the weak spot. And if the sides are demolished, then the gas tank exploded, and most likely it was half empty before the explosion.
        As far as I heard, tankers (like pilots) did not like to go into battle on half-empty tanks.
        And for those who do not believe the power of the explosion, on TV often show houses destroyed in the explosion of gas (gas-air mixture). The main thing is that the ratio was right.
        1. Prohor
          Prohor 29 August 2012 22: 29
          0
          An explosion of a mixture of two gases (household gas + air) and an explosion of a mixture of liquid vapors with gas (fuel + air) are two big differences; in the second case, at normal temperatures, there will NEVER be a "correct ratio" (in fact, this is called the lower and upper concentration flammable limit).
          At home from a gas explosion - yes, they crumble, from an explosion of gasoline vapor and diesel fuel - never!
          To destroy a powerful brick wall, there is enough excess pressure in the front of the shock wave of 2-3 atmospheres (with a volume explosion), this will not destroy the tank ...
    2. Tourist Breakfast
      Tourist Breakfast 29 August 2012 14: 32
      0
      I advise you to read the book by Mikhail Baryatinsky "Lend-Lease Tanks in Battle".
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 29 August 2012 14: 46
        0
        It wasn’t quite clear to me there - the author fulfills the political order, or is it at the behest of the heart?
        1. Kars
          Kars 29 August 2012 14: 56
          0
          Or maybe it's time to get the most truthful information?

          And you can always re-read the confrontation.

          http://flibusta.net/b/70526
          1. Brother Sarych
            Brother Sarych 29 August 2012 22: 10
            0
            The confrontation looks a lot like fiction ...
            1. Kars
              Kars 29 August 2012 22: 21
              0
              Quote: Brother Sarich
              fiction ...

              But this is the main source of tank wisdom of the USSR.
              You can say the classic and the source.

              And by the way, there is no answer about who is the authority for you (in this tank theme, of course)
        2. Tourist Breakfast
          Tourist Breakfast 29 August 2012 15: 00
          0
          Paid by the State Department, intended! Seriously, what doesn’t suit you specifically?
          1. Brother Sarych
            Brother Sarych 29 August 2012 22: 10
            0
            It may not be paid, but the aftertaste after reading remains ...
  5. Tourist Breakfast
    Tourist Breakfast 29 August 2012 14: 50
    0
    I recommend reading the book by Mikhail Baryatinsky "Lend-Lease Tanks in Battle":

    New American tanks were well received in the armored units of the Red Army. For example, in the report of the 5th Guards Tank Brigade, dated October 23, 1943, it was noted:
    “Thanks to its high speed, the M4A2 tank is very convenient for pursuit and has great maneuverability. The armament is fully consistent with its design, as it has fragmentation and armor-piercing shells (blanks), the penetration of which is very high. The 75 mm cannon and two Browning machine guns are trouble-free. The disadvantages of the tank include high altitude, which is a target on the battlefield. The armor, despite the large thickness (60 mm), is poor-quality, as there were cases when at a distance of 80 meters it made its way out of the PTR. In addition, there were a number of cases when the Yu-87 bombed tanks from 20 mm cannons during bombing and pierced the side armor of the tower and side armor, resulting in losses among the crews. Compared to the T-34, the M4A2 is more easily controllable, more resilient during long marches, as the engines do not require frequent adjustment. In battle, these tanks work well. ”
    According to reviews from the troops, when shelling tanks even with fragmentation ammunition, small fragments of fragments from the inside of the armor took place. This did not happen on all machines, but the Americans were nevertheless notified of this defect in April - May 1943. Almost immediately after this, the shipment of M4A2 to the USSR was suspended, and the vehicles arriving from November 1943 had the best quality armor.
  6. Alf
    Alf 29 August 2012 17: 59
    0
    M-10s were delivered to us. 1221 and 1222 shelves, a total of 52 pcs. I read the memories of a tanker, it said that the cars were good, especially praised the presence of Colt Browning, but scolded the open tower and the difficulties of diesel engines in the cold.
    1. Prohor
      Prohor 29 August 2012 22: 34
      0
      But I don’t understand at all why it’s called a self-propelled gun or tank destroyer. Just a tank without a roof, and not one classification says that the tank certainly has a roof .... lol
  7. igordok
    igordok 29 August 2012 18: 16
    +1
    No perfect tanks. You always have to sacrifice something for something.
    And for me the concept is THE BEST (in all respects smile ) tank (WWII, 2MV, modern) - nonsense. It is better to use the term MOST SUCCESSFUL tank. soldier
    1. Prohor
      Prohor 29 August 2012 22: 32
      +1
      ..... what everyone has always recognized the T-34! And rightly so! good