Tank Lend-Lease. Great Britain
Germans inspect the padded British tank "Matilda"
“The Germans will pass through Russia like a hot knife through butter”, “Russia will be defeated within 10 weeks” - the alarming reports of experts from the Foreign Office increasingly troubled Churchill. The course of hostilities on the Eastern Front did not give reason to doubt these disgusting predictions - the Red Army is surrounded and broken, Minsk fell on June 28. Very soon, Great Britain will once again be left alone in the face of an even stronger Reich, which received the resources and industrial bases of the USSR. In the light of such events, the United Kingdom and the United States agreed to only sell weapons and military materials to the Soviet Union.
On August 16, 1941, when Soviet soldiers fought exhausting battles on the outskirts of Kiev, Smolensk and Leningrad, in London, British politicians signed an important agreement on the provision of a new loan to the USSR for a period of 5 years (10 million pounds, at 3% per annum). At the same time, in Washington, the Soviet ambassador was handed a note on economic assistance, which contained a proposal to place Soviet defense orders at American enterprises on favorable terms. Big Business rules are simple: Cash & Carry - "pay and take".
A week later, the situation took a new, unexpected for British and American politicians. A miracle occurred on the Eastern Front - the Red Army moved from an unorganized indiscriminate retreat to a retreat with battles, the Wehrmacht was firmly stuck in heavy battles near Smolensk, the German army suffered heavy losses - all Blitzkrieg plans were thwarted.
“Russians will be able to survive the winter. It makes a huge difference: England will get a long respite. Even if Germany suddenly triumphs, she will be so weakened that she can no longer organize an invasion of the British Isles. ” The new report changed the position of the British government - now everything had to be done so that the Soviet Union would last as long as possible.
Simple and cruel logic
Over the past half century, “Lend-Lease” has been overgrown with many myths and legends - what kind of program it was, what were its conditions and significance for the USSR during the war, these questions are the causes of heated disputes between staunch supporters of anti-Western policies “paid in gold for useless junk” and lovers of democratic values “America has nobly extended a helping hand”. In fact, everything is much more interesting.
The Lend-Lease Bill is just an American law passed by 11 March 1941 of the year. The meaning of the document is simple to ugliness: it was decided to provide the maximum possible material and technical assistance to everyone who fights against fascism - otherwise, there was a risk of surrender to Great Britain and the USSR (at least, it seemed so to transatlantic strategists), and America would remain alone with the Third Reich. Before the Americans there was a choice:
a) go under bullets;
b) get up to the machine.
Of course, supporters of the point “bE” won overwhelmingly, especially the conditions at the American factories were even nothing compared to Tankograd or the industries evacuated outside the Urals.
Assembly "Matilda"
Deliveries from overseas were calculated as follows:
- what died in battle is not payable. As the saying goes, what fell is missing;
- after the war, the equipment that survived the battles had to be returned or, otherwise, redeemed. In fact, they acted even easier: under the supervision of the American commission, equipment was destroyed on the spot, for example, “Aero Cobras” and “Thunderbolts” ruthlessly crushed tanks. Naturally, at the sight of such vandalism, Soviet specialists could not hold back a tear - therefore, urgently, taking into account the Russian ingenuity, documents were forged, the equipment was "destroyed in battle" in absentia, and "what fell, then disappeared." They managed to save a lot.
You need to clearly understand that land-lease is NOT CHARITY. This is an element of a well-designed defense strategy, primarily in the interests of the United States. When signing Lend-Lease Protocols, Americans thought least of all about Russian soldiers dying somewhere near Stalingrad.
The Soviet Union never paid for Lend-Lease in gold; we paid for the supply with the blood of our soldiers. That was the meaning of the American program: Soviet soldiers go under the bullets, American workers go to the factories (otherwise soon American workers will have to go under the bullets). All the talk about “paying off the billionth debt, which the USSR does not want to return for 70 years” is ignorant talk. Only payment for surviving property officially left after the war in the national economy of the Soviet Union (power stations, railway transport, long-distance telephone communication nodes) is discussed. This is a few percent. Americans do not claim more - they know the price of lend-lease better than we do.
Matilda loading in port
In the autumn of 1941, the UK, itself receiving assistance from overseas, decided to apply this scheme in relation to the USSR. The Russians are fighting - we are doing everything so that they will hold out as long as possible, otherwise the British will have to fight. Simple and brutal logic of survival.
Regarding the infamous cruiser Edinburgh, on board which was 5,5 tons of Soviet gold - this was the payment for supplies made before the Lend-Lease Act was extended to the USSR (22 June 1941 g. - October 1941 g.)
The first wishes of the Soviet Union regarding the volume and composition of foreign supplies were very prosaic: Arms! Give us more weapons! Aircraft and tanks!
Wishes were taken into account - October 11 1941. The first 20 British Matilda tanks arrived in Arkhangelsk. In total, until the end of 1941, 466 tanks and 330 armored personnel carriers were delivered to the USSR from the UK.
It should be emphasized that British armored vehicles - this is clearly not something that could change the situation on the Eastern Front. For a more sober assessment of Lend-Lease, you should look at other things.For example, deliveries of trucks and jeeps (car lend-lease) or food supplies (4,5 million tons).
The value of "Matilda" and "Valentine" was small, but, nevertheless, "foreign cars" were actively used in the Red Army, and, it happened, remained the only machines on the strategically important areas. For example, in 1942, the troops of the North Caucasus Front were in a difficult situation - being cut off from the main industrial bases of the Urals and Siberia, they were 70% manned with foreign armored vehicles that came along the "Iran corridor".
The best British medium tank "Cromwell". Analogue T-34. Not delivered en masse in the USSR
In total, during the Great Patriotic War, the 7162 units of British armored vehicles arrived in the Soviet Union: light and heavy tanks, armored personnel carriers, bridge layers. About 800 machines, according to foreign data, were lost along the way.
The list of arriving vehicles that filled the ranks of the Red Army is well known:
- 3332 tank "Vallentaine" Mk.III,
- 918 tanks "Matilda" Mk.II,
- 301 tank "Churchill",
- 2560 of Universal armored personnel carriers,
- tanks "Cromwell", "Tetrarch", as well as specialized vehicles in quantities unworthy of mention.
It should be noted that the concept of "United Kingdom" implies all the countries of the British Commonwealth, because, in fact, Valentine's 1388 tanks were actually assembled in Canada.
Also, in 1944 year 1590 repair shops it was delivered from Canada to equip mobile tank repair plants and armored units, include: machine shops A3 and D3, electromechanical workshop (on the chassis of the GMC 353 truck), a mobile charging station OFP-3 and electrofusion workshop KL-3 (on the Canadian Ford F60L and Ford F15A chassis, respectively).
From a technical point of view, the British tanks were not perfect. In many ways, this contributed to the wonderful classification of combat vehicles and their division into "infantry" and "cruising" tanks.
The "infantry tanks" were machines of direct support: slow, well-protected monsters to overcome defensive lines, destroy enemy fortifications and firing points.
“Cruising tanks”, on the contrary, were light and fast tanks with minimal protection and small caliber weapons, designed for deep breakthroughs and swift raids on the enemy’s rear.
Wounded "Valentine" in the region of r. Istra
In principle, the idea of an "infantry tank" looks quite attractive - according to this concept, the Soviet KV and IS-2 were created - highly protected tanks for assault operations. Where high mobility is not required, and priority is given to heavy armor and powerful weapons.
Alas, in the case of British armored vehicles, a sound idea was hopelessly ruined by the quality of performance: "Matilda" and "Churchill" were hypertrophied in the direction of increasing security. British designers failed to combine the conflicting requirements of armor, mobility and firepower in the same design - as a result, the Matilda, which was not inferior in booking HF, turned out to be extremely slow and, in addition, was armed only with 40 mm tools.
As for the British "cruiser tanks", as well as their counterparts - the Soviet tanks of the BT series, their use for their intended purpose, in conditions of war with a trained enemy, turned out to be impossible: too weak armor leveled all other advantages. “Cruising tanks” were forced to look for natural shelters on the battlefield and act from ambushes - only in this case could success be ensured.
A lot of trouble delivered the operation of foreign technology - the tanks arrived according to the British standards of picking, with markings and instructions in English. The equipment was not sufficiently adapted to domestic conditions, there were problems with its development and maintenance.
And yet, it would be incorrect to attach the label “useless trash” to British tanks, at least - the Soviet tankers won many remarkable victories on these machines. The British armored vehicles, in spite of the absurd comparisons sometimes made to the Tigers and the Panthers, were quite consistent with their class of light and medium tanks. Behind the unsophisticated appearance and scanty “paper” performance characteristics, there were combat-ready machines that combined quite a few positive aspects: powerful booking, well-thought-out (with rare exceptions) ergonomics and a spacious fighting compartment, high-quality manufacturing of parts and mechanisms, synchronized gearbox, hydraulic rotation of the tower. Especially Soviet specialists liked the Mk-IV periscope observation device, which was copied and, under the designation MK-4, began to be installed on all Soviet tanks, beginning in the second half of 1943.
Often, the British armored vehicles were used without regard to its design features and limitations (after all, these vehicles were obviously not designed for the Soviet-German front). However, in the south of Russia, where climatic and environmental conditions corresponded to those for which British tanks were created, the Vallentines and Matilda showed themselves from the best side.
Queen of the battlefield
Infantry tank "Matilda" Mk II.
Combat weight 27 tons. 4 crew
Reservations: 70… 78 case front, mm 40 board… 55 mm + 25 mm paddle screens.
Armament: 40 mm anti-tank gun, Vickers machine gun.
The speed on the highway 25 km / h, on the cut-off terrain 10-15 km / h.
In the winter of 1941, the British "Matilda" could so unpunished ride through the battlefields of the Soviet-German front, as if she rolled onto the Borodino field in 1812. 37 mm anti-tank "knockers" Wehrmacht were powerless to stop this monster. Opponents of "fire hazardous" carburetor engines may exult - there was a diesel on the "Matilde", and not one, but two! Each power xnumx hp - it is easy to imagine how high the mobility of this car was.
Part of the machines arrived in the USSR in the configuration “Close Support” - infantry fire support vehicles with 76 mm howitzers.
Actually, this is where the advantages of the British tank end and its disadvantages begin. To 40mm gun was not fragmentation shells. The crew of four was functionally overloaded. "Summer" tracks did not keep the tank on a slippery road, tankers had to weld steel "spurs". And the side screens turned the operation of the tank into a complete hell - mud and snow were packed between the screen and the caterpillars, turning the tank into an immobilized steel coffin.
Part of the problems managed to be solved by developing new instructions for the operation of the tank. Soon a production line of 40 mm fragmentation shells was launched at one of the plants of the People's Commissariat of Ammunition (by analogy with the technological process of 37 mm ammunition). There were plans to retool the Matilds with the Soviet 76 mm F-34 gun. However, in the spring of 1943, the Soviet Union finally refused to accept tanks of this type, but single Matilda still met on the Soviet-German front right up to the middle of 1944.
The main advantage of the Matilda tanks was that they arrived very on time. In the initial period of the Great Patriotic War, the Matilda Technical Specifications fully corresponded to the characteristics of the Wehrmacht tanks, which allowed the use of British armored vehicles in a counteroffensive near Moscow, the Rzhev operation, on the Western, South-Western, Kalininsky, Bryansk fronts:
«
... tanks MK.II in battles proved to be from the positive side. Each crew spent the day of the battle up to 200 – 250 shells and 1 – 1,5 ammunition ammunition. Each tank worked on 550 – 600 hours instead of 220. Armor tanks showed exceptional stamina. Individual machines had 17 – 19 hits with 50 caliber mm projectiles and not a single case of frontal armor penetration. ”
Best in class
Infantry tank "Valentine" Mk.III
Combat weight 16 tons, crew 3 people.
Reservations: 60 mm case forehead, 30… 60 mm case board.
Armament: 40 mm anti-tank gun, BESA machine gun.
Speed on highway 25 km / h.
One of the most important qualities of a riveted armored hull tank "Valentine" was a special arrangement of rivets - story knows many cases where a projectile or a bullet hit a rivet led to serious consequences: the rivet flew into the hull and cruelly crippled the crew. On Valentine this problem did not arise. It's amazing how the designers managed to install such a powerful and high-quality booking on such a small tank. (However, it is clear how - due to the close fighting compartment).
In terms of security, “Valentine” repeatedly surpassed all of their classmates - the Soviet BT-7, or the Czech Pz.Kpfw 38 (t), in service with the Wehrmacht, had only bulletproof booking. The meeting of “Valentine” with the more modern PzKpfw III also did not promise anything good for the German crew - the British tank had good chances of destroying the “troika”, while remaining itself unharmed.
A direct analogue of the “Valentine” tank was most likely the Soviet light tank T-70, which surpassed the “British” in speed, but was inferior to that in security and did not have a regular radio station.
The Soviet tank crews noted such a flaw in Valentine as a disgusting view from the driver. On the T-34 on the march, the mechanical drive could open its hatch in the frontal armor plate and dramatically improve the visibility - on the "Vallentine" there was no such possibility, you had to be content with a narrow and uncomfortable viewing slot. By the way, Soviet tankmen never complained about the close combat compartment of a British tank, because on the T-34 it was even closer.
In November 1943 of the year, the 139-th tank regiment of the 5-th mechanized corps of the 5-th army conducted a successful operation to liberate the village of Maiden Field. The regiment consisted of X-NUMX T-20 and 34 “Valentine” tanks. November 18 The 20 of the year, in conjunction with the 1943 Guards Tank Regiment of the Breakthrough, and the infantry of the 56 Guards Rifle Division, tanks of the 110 Tank Regiment went ahead. The attack was carried out at high speeds (up to 139 km / h) with an assault rifle on armor and with anti-tank guns attached to the tanks. In total, the operation involved 25 Soviet combat vehicles. The enemy did not expect such a swift and massive strike and could not provide effective resistance. After breaking through the first line of enemy defense, the infantry dismounted and, having unhooked the cannons, began to take up positions, preparing to repel a possible counterattack. During this time, our troops advanced 30 km into the depths of the German defense, losing one KB, one T-20, and two Valentine.
Valentine in North Africa
"Valentine - Stalin" is sent to the USSR
Bridgelayer based on "Valentine"
Land cruiser
Infantry tank "Churchill" Mk IV
Combat weight 38 tons. Crew 5 man.
Reservations: 102 mm case forehead, mm 76 case board.
Armament: two 40 mm guns (!), Two twin BESA machine guns.
Speed on highway 25 km / h.
British attempt to create a heavy tank, similar to the KV. Alas, despite all the efforts of the designers, the masterpiece did not work out - Churchill was morally obsolete even before its appearance. However, there were also positive moments - for example, a powerful booking (later it was strengthened to 150 mm!). Outdated 40 mm guns were often replaced with 57 mm or even 76 mm howitzer guns.
Due to its small size, Churchill didn't gain special fame on the Soviet-German front. It is known that some of them fought on the Kursk Bulge, and Churchilli from the 34-th separate guards breakthrough tank regiment was the first to break into Orel.
Best of all, William Churchill himself joked about this car: “The tank that bears my name has more flaws than me.”
Kiev residents welcome the liberators
Flame-throwing tank "Churchill-Crocodile". This modification is stored in Kubinka.
The universal carrier
Light multipurpose armored personnel carrier.
Combat weight 4,5 tons. 1 crew + 4 paratrooper.
Body armor: 7 ... 10 mm rolled steel armor
Speed on highway 50 km / h.
The Universal Carrier fought around the world: from the Soviet-German front to the Sahara and the jungles of Indonesia. 2560 of these nondescript, but very useful machines got to the USSR. Armored personnel carriers "Universal" found use mainly in reconnaissance battalions.
Soviet intelligence officer on the BTR "Universal"
Facts and figures are taken from M. Baryatinsky's book “Lend-Lease Tanks in Battle” and D. Loza’s memoirs “Tankman on a Foreign Car”
Information