Red Star Foreigners

71
The role in the victory over the enemy, the quality and capabilities of the combat equipment supplied by the allies under the Lend-Lease, remain at the center of the heated debates that are conducted by both professional historians and amateurs. Often in the debate on "what is better - Sherman or T-34?" Dominated by emotions and politics. However, a sober look at the facts and figures do not give a clear answer to such questions.

Deliveries of armored vehicles to the USSR began in the fall of 1941. On September 3, Stalin sent a letter to Churchill, the content of which the prime minister had brought to President Roosevelt. Stalin’s message spoke of a deadly threat looming over the Soviet Union, which could only be removed by opening a second front and urgently sending 30 tons of aluminum to the USSR, as well as at least 000 aircraft and 400 tanks monthly. In accordance with the First (Moscow) Protocol, the United States and Great Britain pledged to supply 4500 tanks and 1800 tankettes within nine months.

Armor is strong

The first in the USSR in October 1941 with the convoy PQ-1 were the English Matilda. The British adopted the infantry tank Mk II Matilda on the eve of the Second World War, it was most widely used in North Africa and on the Soviet-German front. This 27 ton machine was protected by a 78-mm frontal armor and armed with an 42-mm cannon. Depending on the modification, two 6-cylinder AES or Leyland diesel engines were installed in tanks with a total power of 174 or 190 hp, the maximum speed reached 24 km / h - more for an infantry direct support vehicle and was not required.

For the 1941 – 1942, the Matilda was the least vulnerable machine, surpassing our KB in this respect: only shells of the German 88-mm anti-aircraft guns could "take" it, but not tank and anti-tank guns. The “Matilda” cannon was not inferior to our “forty-five” and, like her, until the summer of 1942, German tanks of all types were struck.

The power plant and the Matilda planetary gearbox were very reliable, but the well-protected undercarriage was difficult. It worked perfectly on flat solid ground, but it was quickly breaking down on Russian roads. The small volume of the three-seat turret and the small diameter of the turret charm did not allow the artillery system of a larger caliber to be placed in it, which predetermined the fate of the Matilda: by the 1943, it was no longer used in the combat units of the British army. Until August, 1943 "Matild" was released by 2987, of which the British delivered 1084 to the USSR.

Tank crew favorite

The McI Valentine was also an infantry tank. By weight (16 t), he rather belonged to light ones, although by thickness of armor (65 mm) exceeded other heavy machines. Its maximum speed was the same as that of the “Matilda”, which was explained by a less powerful engine. The Valentine I installed a carburetor engine with 135 horsepower, while the rest of the modifications were diesel engines AES and GMC with 131, 138 and 165 hp engines.

Despite the increase in power, the dynamic characteristics of the machine did not change, since its mass increased: starting with Valentine VIII instead of 40-mm they put 57-mm cannon, and on Valentine XI - with a gun of 75 mm.

A special feature of this tank was the lack of skeletons to build the hull and turret; Bronelists processed by templates and sizes so that they mutually closed. When assembling the housing separate units joined by bolts and rivets. In contrast to the "Matilde", the chassis of "Valentine" was not booked: moreover, the brake drums were located outside the body, which adversely affected their survivability. The drawback was the dense layout of the fighting compartment, especially for vehicles with a three-seat tower models III and V.

British and 2394 Canadian Valentines were sent to the Soviet Union; in the latter, instead of the English coaxial 1388-mm BESA machine gun, the American 7,92-mm Browning М7,62А1914 was installed. Machines were supplied with 1- and 40-mm guns. The Soviet tankmen "Valentine" was the most popular of British tanks. Suffice it to say that in 57 – 1944, its production was preserved solely for the satisfaction of Soviet applications.

Namesake premiere

The heavy infantry tank Mk IV Churchill is better known from the phrase allegedly said by the legendary English prime minister: “The tank that bears my name has more flaws than me.” Yes, his device was very archaic: in order to increase the volume of the hull, the designers of the Vauxhall motors company placed the undercarriage elements under the hull, the caterpillar skirted it, like those of the First World War period.

But they achieved this goal: in the power compartment they installed a Bedford 12-cylinder horizontal engine with an 350 horsepower, and thanks to a wide sheet sheet, they used a tower with 57-mm (starting with Churchill III) and then with 75-mm cannons . A 40-mm gun was installed on Churchill I and Churchill II, which was not enough for a heavy tank, so an 76-mm howitzer was also mounted in the front plate. 152-toned machine protected by 40-mm armor developed speed up to 25 km / h.

Reliable, in general, the undercarriage had significant drawbacks: the high frontal branch of the caterpillar was vulnerable to artillery fire, and the caterpillar itself often wedged the tower. Nevertheless, until the end of the war we released 5460 «Churchill". In the 1942 – 1943 in the USSR, the 301 tank modifications III and IV were installed, differing only in the method of manufacturing the tower. Perhaps they sent several Churchill-Crocodile flame-thrower tanks (such a machine is on display at the Museum of armored vehicles in Kubinka).

A typical drawback of British infantry tanks, typical of Soviet tanks of the first period of the war (excluding KB), was a small amount of combat compartment and the inability of the undercarriage to Russian conditions. In general, these were reliable vehicles, superior to the German ones in terms of armor protection, and capable of effectively fighting them in terms of armor until the Tigers and Panthers appeared on the battlefield.

Full speed ahead on good gasoline!

The first American tanks that arrived in the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program were the lightweight M3 General Stuart and the average M3 General Lee, better known as the M3 and M3. The M3 is deservedly considered the best light tank of World War II. The British tankers who fought in North Africa forgave him both the weak armament and the fire hazard of the aircraft engine, but the Stuart allowed them to constantly hang on the tail of the pursued German-Italian troops.

The tank’s dynamic performance was excellent: a Continental 7 cylinder engine with an HP 250 power. clocked up a 12-ton car to 58 km / h; tank mobility and efficiency of its running gear found amazing. That's just the 37-mm gun, which is not inferior to the Soviet 45-mm in terms of armor penetration, turned out to be rather weak by the 1942 year. Place the same more powerful artillery system did not allow the size of the tower. Nevertheless, the M3l was produced before 1943, until it was replaced by a more advanced M5, which had both advantages and disadvantages of its predecessor.

In 1942–1943, the Red Army received 1665 M3 and M3A1 tanks, which, if they were not superior, then not inferior to the Soviet T-60 and T-70. With the general simplicity and reliability, the M3l showed a significant drawback: if the T-60 and T-70 automobile engines willingly consumed low-grade gasoline, the Stuart motor preferred exclusively high-octane aviation, on our fuel, it quickly failed.

Vulnerable three-story building

The other "general" - М3с - our tankers dubbed the "common grave for seven". Having met the war with virtually no tanks, the Americans often made decisions lying on the surface, because there was no time for a deep elaboration of the projects. Therefore, 75-mm cannon was placed in the side sponsor (ledge), which was much easier and faster than developing the original tower. The limited firing angle of the 75-mm gun was compensated by installing a turret with an 37-mm cannon, and a machine gun above the turret.

Thus, a 27-ton three-story mastodon with a height of 3 m was formed; The 340-strong nine-cylinder star-shaped aircraft engine Continental accelerated this multi-magnificence up to 42 km / h, so the M3s were as good as German tanks for mobility. As for weapons, for all the flaws in its layout, it remained quite powerful until 1942.

According to the British, General Lee turned out to be the strongest tank they had in North Africa: its 75-mm cannon cracked any German machines as a nut, and 37-mm armor confidently held the attacks of enemy shells. It was worse with the survivability of the chassis. In the 1941 – 1942, the 6258 “Lee” produced six modifications that differed only in manufacturing technology. 1386 tanks M3 arrived to us. Despite the impressive appearance, the Red Army men and commanders did not care about them what the nickname given to them meant so much.

M4 Sherman and T-34: not twins, but brothers

Realizing the inborn flaws of the “General Lee”, the Americans engaged in the creation of a medium tank with an 75-mm gun in a bash-not circular rotation. All models of this tank, which received the army name М4 General Sherman, were similar in appearance. Only the type of power plant differed, and the guns, turrets, and layout were the same. Outwardly, only the M4А1 with a molded case stood out. Baptism "Shermans" received in November 1942 of the year in North Africa near El Alaimen and proved to be the strongest in this theater of operations.

At the beginning of 1943, they appeared on the Soviet-German front. Since the US Army was considered the standard carburetor engine, the model M4A2 with two 6-cylinder diesel engines GMC 6046 power 375 hp it did not find use in it and was mainly exported to England and the USSR.

Armament and booking "Sherman" are not inferior to the T-34. The smaller tilt angle of the armor plates was compensated for by their greater thickness, and the 75-mm gun before the appearance of the Tigers and the Panthers hit German tanks of all types. However, a new gun with a caliber of 76 mm with an initial speed of an armor-piercing projectile 810 m / s allowed the Sherman to hit the enemy's heavy tanks at a distance of up to 1 km. Soviet tankers liked the Shermans with their viscous armor 50 – 75 mm thick; on 1944 – 1945 machines, its thickness reached 75 – 100 mm.

Patency МХNUMXА4 of the first series, equipped with rubberized tracks, was limited, and soon they were replaced with new ones - with a rubber-metal hinge (silent-block), which increased the survivability of the fingers connecting the tracks. In addition, the grouser spurs were attached to the tracks. With rubber caterpillars, the Sherman accelerated to 2 km / h.

Significant deficiencies had a suspension of this tank - the same as the M3. At the end of March, the 1945 of the year changed its structure: instead of two rollers in the cart, two paired ones were used, the buffer springs were made horizontal, rather than vertical, as before; on the carts put the shock absorbers. At the same time solved the problem of lubrication.

An important advantage of the Shermans - like other American and British tanks - was the presence of a conventional or large caliber anti-aircraft machine gun; on the Soviet EC-2 and heavy self-propelled guns they appeared only in 1944 year. A total of 10 960 tanks МNNUMXА4 were manufactured, 2 vehicles arrived in the USSR - including 4063 with 1990-mm gun and 75 - with 2073-mm gun. In May-June, the 76 of the year received several vehicles with horizontal suspension, which, as part of the 1945 mechanized corps, participated in the defeat of the Kwantung Army.

In general, the Sherman was reliable and easy to use, which was confirmed by its tests in the winter and summer of 1943. By the end of tests М4А2 passed 3050 km without serious damage. Losing T-34 in the dynamics of movement (due to a less powerful power plant) and in side stability (the higher and narrower Sherman often fell on its side), the American tank had a number of important advantages.

In particular, one additional crew member (5 man at Sherman versus 4 man in T-34) allowed the functions of the gunner and the tank commander to be separated. The combination of these functions in the Soviet tank often led to a slow reaction to enemy fire and, as a result, to defeat in tank duels.


Red Star Foreigners

British women are preparing the tank "Matilda" for shipment to the USSR under the Lend-Lease. In the UK then everything Soviet was very fashionable and popular, so that the workers with sincere pleasure displayed Russian words on the tank's armor.


The crew of the British medium tank Mk II Matilda II, delivered to the USSR under the Lend-Lease. Bryansk Front, summer 1942 of the year.


Loading tanks "Matilda" in one of the British ports to be sent to the USSR.


Cromwell MK VII The story of the lend-lease armored vehicles would be incomplete, if not to mention a few cars sent specifically for testing. These are five American tanks М5, two М24 "Chaffee" and one М26 "General Pershing", as well as six British "Cromwell". Add 115 armored repair and recovery vehicles M31, created on the basis of the medium tank M3, and 25 of the Valentine Bridalleader roadblocks.


A company of General Li, the M3s of American tanks, supplied under Lend-Lease in the USSR, is being pushed to the front line of the Soviet 6 Guards Army. July 1943 of the year.


The jubilant residents of Sofia greet Soviet soldiers entering the Bulgarian capital on “Valentine” tanks, which were supplied to the USSR under Lend-Lease.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Best novel
    -3
    25 May 2013 07: 33
    "In particular, one additional crew member (5 people in the Sherman versus 4 people in the T-34) made it possible to separate the functions of the gunner and the tank commander. Combining these functions in a Soviet tank often led to a slow reaction to enemy fire and, as a result, to defeat in tank duels. "Where does the information come from? The crew of the T-34: commander, gunner, loader, mech-water and gunner-radio operator. If in the future the crew was reduced to 4 people, only by abolishing the gunner-radio operator, but not by combining the commander and gunner These are the original Swedes, they shoot mech-water, he is the gunner (STRV tank), but we are not like that.
    1. +10
      25 May 2013 07: 50
      memoirs of fur-waters Sherman Romanenko Anatoly (comments on his grandson)

      From his memories:
      1. Very good viscous armor. At the Berlin exhibition, the tank had either 5 or 12 (I don’t remember) stuck shells in the frontal.
      2. The ammunition rack is either in glycol, or in water (I don't remember), very high explosion safety. Grandfather said the Sherman gave the crew a LOT of time to evacuate.
      3. An excellent gun and shells for it, according to my grandfather, even in comparison with the T-34-85 "my hand was one and a half times longer", although I considered the T-34-85 a good machine.
      4. A large nomenclature of shells, even propaganda.
      5. Good quality optics.
      6. A very easy-to-drive car, "the driver-mechanics loved it very much, but the fact that we are constantly on the march, in a breakthrough."
      7. "From the inside, everything is painted white, when the first tanks were received, inside there was a set of fur leather raglans for the entire crew and a box of cigarettes with a camel on a pack without a filter. Then the rear personnel left nothing."
      8. Very reliable and high-torque Cummings diesels (or GMC ??? I will specify). "Just luxury, not motors!"
      9. I remember my grandfather stubbornly talked about the mortar on the roof of the tower - has anyone heard of such a modification of the Sherman? I told him that maybe he was confusing a mortar and a large-caliber machine gun - my grandfather laughed and said, "If you stick your hand out of the hatch and put a mine into the pipe, what kind of machine gun is it? It helped us a lot in the city .." Maybe a homemade product from a rembat ?.
      1. +2
        25 May 2013 08: 17
        Quote: Vadivak
        I remember my grandfather stubbornly talked about the mortar on the roof of the tower - has anyone heard of a similar modification of the Sherman
        Maybe on Churchill? There 50,8 mm mortar with smoke grenades
        1. +3
          25 May 2013 23: 52
          Quote: Denis
          Maybe on Churchill? There 50,8 mm mortar with smoke grenades

          Kars knows for sure, I think some kind of homemade
          1. +3
            26 May 2013 00: 53
            All I could find
            I read in Russian tanks №62, but there is nothing to scan

            TACTICAL AND TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INFANTRY TANK Mark IV Churchill III
            BATTLE WEIGHT, t: 39,574.

            CREW, pers .: 5.

            OVERALL DIMENSIONS, mm: length - 7442, width - 3251, height - 2450, clearance - 530.

            WEAPONS: 1 gun Mk III or Mk IV caliber b pounds, 2 machine gun BESA caliber 7,92 mm, 1 anti-aircraft machine gun Vgep caliber 7,7 mm, 1 smoke grenade launcher caliber 50,5 mm.

            Ammunition: 84 artillery rounds, 4950 cartridges for machine guns BESA, 600 cartridges for machine gun Vgep, 30 smoke grenades.
            Quote: Vadivak
            I think some kind of homemade
          2. +2
            26 May 2013 09: 45
            ___________________
            1. +2
              26 May 2013 09: 46
              ________________
      2. +4
        25 May 2013 17: 42
        On the militia are the memoirs of Vasily Loza "Tankman in a foreign car", there is much written about Matilda and Sherman. About Sherman, unlike Matilda, he speaks very warmly, basically, his impressions agree with what you wrote: a reliable engine with a huge, by our standards, resource, an accurate and powerful gun, an excellent sight, a good walkie-talkie.
      3. +3
        25 May 2013 18: 55
        Quote: Vadivak
        inside there was a set of fur leather raglans for the entire crew and a box of camel cigarettes on a pack without a filter. Then the logisticians left nothing. "


        on the picture:

        A rare photo of Soviet tank crews with the Stunt M3A1, in American headsets, with the Thompson M1928A1 submachine gun and the M1919A4 machine gun. American technology was left fully leased by Lend-Lease - with equipment and even small arms for the crew.
      4. Vovka levka
        +9
        25 May 2013 21: 19
        Quote: Vadivak
        memoirs of fur-waters Sherman Romanenko Anatoly (comments on his grandson)

        From his memories:
        1. Very good viscous armor. At the Berlin exhibition, the tank had either 5 or 12 (I don’t remember) stuck shells in the frontal.
        2. The ammunition rack is either in glycol, or in water (I don't remember), very high explosion safety. Grandfather said the Sherman gave the crew a LOT of time to evacuate.
        3. An excellent gun and shells for it, according to my grandfather, even in comparison with the T-34-85 "my hand was one and a half times longer", although I considered the T-34-85 a good machine.
        4. A large nomenclature of shells, even propaganda.
        5. Good quality optics.
        6. A very easy-to-drive car, "the driver-mechanics loved it very much, but the fact that we are constantly on the march, in a breakthrough."
        7. "From the inside, everything is painted white, when the first tanks were received, inside there was a set of fur leather raglans for the entire crew and a box of cigarettes with a camel on a pack without a filter. Then the rear personnel left nothing."
        8. Very reliable and high-torque Cummings diesels (or GMC ??? I will specify). "Just luxury, not motors!"
        9. I remember my grandfather stubbornly talked about the mortar on the roof of the tower - has anyone heard of such a modification of the Sherman? I told him that maybe he was confusing a mortar and a large-caliber machine gun - my grandfather laughed and said, "If you stick your hand out of the hatch and put a mine into the pipe, what kind of machine gun is it? It helped us a lot in the city .." Maybe a homemade product from a rembat ?.

        We were told from childhood what everything is bad in the bourgeoisie. It is good that articles and comments appear where there is no Ur patriotism, but the real state of affairs is shown. Because hatred leads to trouble.
    2. +5
      25 May 2013 09: 48
      Quote: Roman Best
      T-34 crew: commander, gunner, loader, mech-water and gunner-radio operator.

      This corresponds to the Т34-85 tank, in the T-34-76 tank there was simply not enough space for the third crew member in the tower, so the tank commander was acting as a gunner
    3. +2
      25 May 2013 09: 59
      Quote: Roman Best
      ... Where is the information from? T-34 crew: commander, gunner, loader, mech-vod and gunner-radio operator ....

      There we are talking about the winter-summer of the 43rd.
      So, respectively, the T-34-75 with a double tower. In it, the commander and gunner are one person.
      "Nut" mod. The 43rd, of course, is wider than the "pie" :) But, one fig, the shoulder straps did not allow equipping three places. This happened only on the T-34-85.
    4. +4
      25 May 2013 10: 05
      Quote: Roman Best
      T-34: commander, gunner, loader, mech-water and gunner for the sake of

      Specify T-34 - T-34-76 or T-34-85
    5. Explore
      +1
      25 May 2013 11: 14
      There were really 34 crew members in the T-76-4, of which 2 were in the tower (commander-gunner and loader).
      With the adoption of the T-34-85 with a larger tower in the tower were able to accommodate the 3rd crew member (i.e. to separate the responsibilities of commander and gunner).
      In the future, indeed, the process of decreasing the number of people went (at first they removed the radio operator arrow, and after a while the charging one).

      So there is no mistake.
    6. +3
      25 May 2013 17: 31
      Five people became in the T-34-85, the T-34 - 4.
    7. Nord007hold
      0
      26 May 2013 16: 39
      Here, apparently, I mean the T-34 with a double tower of models from 1940-1943.
      In 1943, the T-34 \ 85 was released, in the new tower of which a third person was added.
    8. 0
      27 May 2013 15: 33
      Here in such T-34 \ 76 crew 4 people, five - in the T-34 \ 85. hi
      I apologize - the picture has disappeared. hi
  2. +4
    25 May 2013 07: 55
    An 40-mm cannon was installed on Churchill I and Churchill II, which was not enough for a heavy tank, so the 76-mm howitzer was also mounted in the front sheet
    He also had an 50,8 mm mortar in the tower, an ammunition load of 30 smoke mines
    I heard the most good reviews about Matilda
    But here is the exactingness to fuel and manufacturability ...
    If most 34-k were repaired with a sledgehammer and such a mother in the front line, then Lend-Lease had to be transported to repair plants
    By the way, like tigers

    In winter, on the Leningrad front, at the request of the crews, Churchill's regular catalytic heaters were replaced with domestic stoves
    According to all the complaints about the cross, the cars were designed for Europe
  3. +6
    25 May 2013 14: 36
    The advantage of the "Sherman" was also the presence of a radio station, and as a rule, even two - HF and VHF. It was even cooler than the Fritzes on the T-3 and T-4. There, VHF radio stations had only tanks from the platoon commander and higher (like we have on the T-34), and the others had only VHF receivers (which was also a big plus compared to the T-34). Only on "Tigers" and "Panthers" radio stations began to be massively introduced (and that did not always work out), which indicates that the Germans were lagging behind the Americans in this matter.
    The big drawback of the Shermans was the large turning radius. The transmission did not allow to deploy it in place, like Soviet tanks. If I'm not mistaken, there was no PMP on the Sherman, so the turn was carried out using a system of differentials. This was a huge disadvantage in combat in a forest or in a village. The turning radius of the Sherman was roughly the turning radius of a truck of the same length. Thus, on a narrow street or a forest clearing, he was forced to turn around in 2-3 moves, which made it possible for the enemy to aim well.
    The high center of gravity made the Sherman prone to toppling over hills and steep climbs.
    The advantage of the "Sherman" was the rather quiet, low-noise operation of the chassis, which often misled German intelligence officers. On the march, the Sherman, not stepping on the gas, made a noise like a large truck, the tracks clanked weakly.
    The disadvantage of the "Sherman" was a decent height, which made it easier for the gunners of German anti-tank guns.
  4. +3
    25 May 2013 15: 07
    Something else.
    In the USSR, the Sherman tank was supplied with a 375 hp General Motors diesel engine, and in Great Britain, mainly with a Continental 350 hp gasoline engine.
    The Americans themselves preferred Shermans with a 500 hp Ford gasoline engine.
    Gearbox 5-speed manual with synchronizers in 2-3 and 4-5 gears. The checkpoint is located in front of the tank, which is also characteristic of German tanks.
  5. Larus
    -2
    25 May 2013 15: 42
    I don’t know how much they are discussing, but our liberal fosterlings already specifically declare that if it were not for Lindlis, then the USSR would have definitely lost, because. there was nothing of their own and they no longer accept the other
    1. +6
      25 May 2013 18: 19
      I would not lose, but it would have been harder.
      Also, our tankers and pilots would somehow manage without the lend-lease, but it would be so difficult for motorists and signalmen. Explosives, food, medicine and equipment for hospitals were also not superfluous, and were supplied regularly. And the supply of aluminum with rubber gave our industry a lot. Do not believe me - read "Wings of Victory", the memoirs of Shakhurin, People's Commissar of the Aircraft Industry.
      It is clear that they would have won anyway. But more blood would be shed.
      1. Larus
        +1
        25 May 2013 18: 49
        It’s clear that they helped, well, but I’m talking about something else, they are about these mantras, if it weren’t for help, the USSR had lost, they are already singing for granted.
      2. +1
        25 May 2013 18: 57
        Quote: Sour
        but motorists and signalmen would be oh, how difficult. Explosives, food, medicines and equipment for hospitals were also not superfluous, and were delivered properly. And supplies of aluminum with rubber gave a lot to our industry.
        Yes

        on the picture:

        Soviet machine gunners on the American Harley-Davidson WLA-42 motorcycle with a sidecar from the Soviet M-72 and a DP-27 machine gun in one of the German settlements.
        1. +1
          25 May 2013 19: 05
          on the picture:

          Sending the Valentine tank to the USSR under the Lend-Lease program. The tank with the inscription "Stalin" is transported by truck from the factory to the port.

          The photo was taken on September 22, 1941, when at the tank factory Birmingham Railway Carriage and Wagon Co. a solemn meeting was held, to which the Soviet ambassador Ivan Maysky was invited. On the photo "Valentine" modifications Mk.II.
          1. 0
            25 May 2013 19: 06
            on the picture:

            Soviet gunners on the march - jeeps are pulling 45 mm guns.
            1. 0
              25 May 2013 19: 12
              on the picture:

              M16 MGMC air defense mobile gun in Berlin. 1st mechanized corps. May 1945.
              1. +1
                25 May 2013 19: 14
                on the picture:

                "Forward to Berlin." Column of Soviet armored vehicles.
                These are American-made MZA1 Scout Car armored vehicles armed with Colt-Browning M1919 and M2 machine guns (7,62 and 12,7 mm caliber, respectively).
    2. +6
      25 May 2013 18: 20
      Quote: Larus
      but our liberal fosterlings already specifically declare that if not for Lindliz, then the USSR would have definitely lost, because there was nothing of their own and they no longer accept the other


      Well, they don’t understand what’s going on in their heads (uplifters), but to say that Lend-Lease is not necessary is to spit on the graves of sailors of the North Sea, submariners, pilots who died during the caravans and individual ships, as well as border guards and The Northern and Karelian (from September 1, 1941) fronts frustrated the attempts of the German-Finnish troops to seize our ice-free ports and the railway connecting the port of Murmansk with the main part of the country.

      on the picture:

      Studebaker trucks in the transport reserve of the Red Army command.
      1. 0
        25 May 2013 18: 28
        on the picture:

        Reception of marines on torpedo boats of American construction, type A-1 "Vosper" Vosper) in the Romanian port of Constanta (Constanţa).
        In July 1944, torpedo boats of the Vper type A-1 delivered by Lend-Lease were transferred to the Black Sea Fleet from the Northern Fleet: TK-220, 221, 223,225, 227, 229, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236 .
        Boats from the 3 of the Konstanz Division torpedo boats of the Black Sea Fleet.
        1. +3
          25 May 2013 18: 49
          can't resist feel - fighting bears in the Soviet fleet WERE !!!

          on the picture:

          Sailor of the Guards cruiser of the Black Sea Fleet of project 815 "Red Caucasus" (until December 14, 1926 - "Admiral Lazarev") with a ship's pet on the background of a 100-mm twin-gun twin-mount marine anti-aircraft installation of the Minisini system.
          1. Marek Rozny
            +3
            26 May 2013 00: 24
            Carlson, thanks for all the pictures.
            1. +1
              26 May 2013 01: 36
              Marek Rozny hi
              I can share a photo where there are two fighting teddy bears donated by the Black Sea Fleet to the Northern wink .
    3. Roll
      -3
      25 May 2013 20: 39
      fellow And how do we know would lose the USSR without a land lease. I think I lost. Now it’s easy to speak, and in November 1941 Moscow was mined, and the mummy of Lenin was evacuated and Stalin wondered a week whether to leave Moscow or not. It could well have lost the war. But if the USSR lost the war, the Nazis would crush England and, together with Japan, crush Amerov. Roosevelt and Churchill and Stalin understood this, so Land Liz is not a handout but a coalition aid. Stalin did a lot to make it happen.
      1. Avenger711
        -2
        25 May 2013 22: 17
        In November, there was no 41st aid, and Stalin would not have left until the last.
        1. Roll
          +1
          26 May 2013 10: 53
          laughing And why do you have such confidence in Stalin’s actions? If you had 100 confidence that Moscow would not have stood its ground, they would not have created an underground, and so on. I agree that there wasn’t any real help from Lend Lease in 1941, but the fact that we were not alone in the war with the fascists raised the morale of the army very much, at the level of order 227. And in general, no serious historian can say before the victory near Kursk, that victory was directly guaranteed to us.
      2. +3
        26 May 2013 01: 37
        Quote: Rolm
        And how do we know would lose the USSR without a land lease. I think I lost.


        no, I didn’t lose!
        I personally do not beg for Lend-Lease, but I know for sure that without Lend-Lease our losses would have been greater.
  6. +2
    25 May 2013 17: 41
    Very interesting situation. In our historical literature, Sherman was always highly valued, well, some flaws were indicated and that was all. I read the western story. literary, so actually they have an opinion about Sherman that is generally contradictory. Like the tank itself is good, technically, but can not be compared with German tanks for military use. It turns out that during the battles in Normandy, the American department was bombarded with reports and indignation over the Shermans. The main cause of dissatisfaction with Amer. tankers is a guaranteed defeat of Sherman when hit by it. tank and anti-tank shells, moreover, their veterans claim that Sherman broke out immediately. Their military department responded irritably that the Sherman bombings when they were hit by enemy fire were not due to the design flaws of the tank, but to the fact that the crews overloaded the tank with ammunition. Later they had a debate on this subject, but everyone was calmed by the military’s analytical note, even if Amer. tank troops will suffer losses in the amount of 50%, they still surpass the Germans in the number of tanks. And the position is such that talking about the Tigers and Panthers, if the Shermans could not win the duel fights with the T-IV. Like, if the T-IV fell into Sherman, then it was guaranteed to fail, and getting Sherman in his counterpart did not always disable the enemy’s tank, 50/50 depending on where the projectile would hit.
    Strange disagreement.
  7. Avenger711
    +1
    25 May 2013 17: 44
    The Sherman is a good car with a bad weapon. 76 mm was not enough, because she had a weak land mine. And 75 passed against tanks. The 85 mm gun for the T-34-85 is a more reasonable approach.
    1. +2
      25 May 2013 18: 29
      Quote: Avenger711
      The Sherman is a good car with a bad weapon. 76 mm was not enough, because she had a weak land mine. And 75 passed against tanks. The 85 mm gun for the T-34-85 is a more reasonable approach.

      You are very mistaken.
      Sherman with 75 and 76 mm was delivered to us, approximately the same.
      Penetration of the 75 mm version was comparable to the F-34.
      But 76 mm, with a length of 57 calibers, its effectiveness in German armor was even higher than that of the Zis-S-53.
      1. Avenger711
        0
        25 May 2013 22: 22
        B-34 to the 44th was already a very obsolete weapon. A 76 mm American cannon as an anti-tank weapon is really good, but the main task of the tank is not to fight tanks, so taking enemy tanks with a simple caliber buildup with a passing buildup of high-explosive force, without using expensive tubes that accelerate an expensive caliber projectile to monstrous speeds, is a very logical solution. Yes, and medium-caliber shells German armor very well kept, so just breaking it out of the same D-25T on the IS-2 was also very reasonable.
        1. +1
          26 May 2013 05: 12
          Quote: Avenger711
          .... 76 mm American cannon as an anti-tank weapon is really good, but the main task of the tank is not to fight tanks, ..

          Means, I simply did not understand you. Here, most often they mean by "goodness" the action on the armor :)
  8. +2
    25 May 2013 19: 02
    on the picture:

    Soviet flying boat American-made PBN-1 "Catalina" in flight to the port of Dalniy for landing.
    1. +2
      25 May 2013 19: 19
      Quote: Karlsonn
      on the picture:

      Here is another foreign car (Ford GPA) that turned out to be very useful to the Red Army, significantly brought victory closer and reduced losses ...
      1. +1
        25 May 2013 19: 32
        svp67 hi

        exactly, I forgot about them good .

        on the picture:

        Soviet torpedo bombers of the field modification A-20G "Boston" of the 51st mine and torpedo Tallinn Red Banner Air Regiment in the sky over Berlin. In the center - Boston A-20G-30-DO N5 (43-9561). On the right side of the picture is the tip of the engine nacelle of the left engine of the second Boston. Photo from the photo archive of the Orlenko regiment. On the back of the photo is the caption: “Germany. Airfield Kolberg. Flight to Berlin. May 28, 1945. Remember the friend of the school, the Patriotic War and other joint affairs of Grigory Chekanov (plane N5). Volosovo - Leningrad. September 14, 1945 "

        When the A-20G was converted into a torpedo bomber, torpedo bridges were placed in the lower part of the fuselage, an additional gas tank was installed in the bomb bay, which made it possible to equalize the Boston and IL-4 range, and the four upper machine guns were removed in the bow, glazed and made a navigational cabin.

        Below under the planes you can see: the dark forest in the distance is Tiergarten Park, the Reichstag is visible in front of it, a small white “match” is visible on the territory - this is the Victory Column. Housing estates are the Prenzlauer Berg district, east of Wedding, north of Friedrichsain. In the lower left corner is visible part of the Friedrichshain park.
        1. 0
          25 May 2013 19: 35
          on the picture:

          The Soviet Ford GPA "Seep" amphibious car rides along the Muhu (Moon) - Saaremaa (Ezel) dam in the Moonsund archipelago. October 1944

          During the Moonsund landing operation to seize the islands of Saaremaa (Ezel), Hiiumaa (Dago) and Muhu (Moon), the 283rd separate motorized battalion of special purpose was equipped with similar amphibians.

          Source: Estonian History Museum (EAM) / N23007.
          1. 0
            25 May 2013 19: 38
            on the picture:

            Spitfire fighter on the catapult of the Molotov cruiser. Spitfire fighters in 1944 were based on the Molotov cruiser to study the problems of using naval aviation.
  9. bubble82009
    0
    25 May 2013 19: 22
    so to listen to memoirs to watch films of different programs, so the Allies supplied us with not the best equipment.
    1. +2
      25 May 2013 19: 42
      on the picture:

      Captain Fedor Ivanovich Shikunov, fighter pilot, squadron commander of the 69th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment of the Guard in the cockpit of his P-39 Aerocobra aircraft (Bell P-39N-1 Airacobra). 1st Ukrainian Front.

      F.I. Shikunov was born in 1921. Since 1939 in the ranks of the Red Army. In 1940 he graduated from the Taganrog Military Aviation School of Pilots named after V.P. Chkalov was left at the same school as an instructor pilot. In the army since October 5, 1943. As part of the 69th GIAP (5th VA), he fought on the Stepnoy, 2nd Ukrainian and 1st Ukrainian fronts. In total, he completed 206 sorties, shot down 52 enemy planes in 25 air battles (M.Yu. Bykov in his studies found documentary evidence of 21 personal and 1 group victories). March 15, 1945 Guard Captain F.I. Shikunov was shot down and died in an air battle in the area of ​​Friedewald (according to other sources, he was shot down by fire from the ground while blocking the air of the Neuss airfield). He was awarded the orders of Alexander Nevsky, Fighting Red Banner (twice), Red Star, and medals. In 1998, by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation for courage and military valor shown during the Great Patriotic War, he was posthumously awarded the title of Hero of the Russian Federation.
      1. +2
        25 May 2013 20: 20
        Quote: Karlsonn
        P-39 "Aerocobra" (Bell P-39N-1 Airacobra).

        For some reason, speaking of aviation, first of all, and for the most frequent and last, remember only foreign fighters, but I believe that these aircraft were no less, if not more important:
        B-25


        And this aircraft was the MOST important acquisition:
        Li-2, aka X-47, DS-3

        1. +1
          25 May 2013 20: 36
          svp67

          Quote: svp67
          For some reason, speaking of aviation, first of all, and for the most frequent and last, remember only foreign fighters, but I believe that these aircraft were no less, if not more important:
          B-25



          crying


          Quote: Karlsonn
          Soviet torpedo bombers of the field modification A-20G "Boston" of the 51st mine and torpedo Tallinn Red Banner Air Regiment in the sky over Berlin.


          but I have one (proudly paces )

          on the picture:

          Mitchell American bomber B-25J-30/32-NC (serial number 44-31162) with Soviet identification marks flying over Alaska during a Lend-Lease ferry to the USSR.
          1. 0
            25 May 2013 20: 40
            Quote: Karlsonn
            crying


            request
            1. 0
              26 May 2013 01: 39
              I not only posted pictures of fighters, but also torpedo bombers.
              1. 0
                26 May 2013 09: 31
                Quote: Karlsonn
                I not only posted pictures of fighters, but also torpedo bombers.


                The fact is that the B25 could be used and was used as a transport aircraft and a long-range bomber, that is, those vehicles in which
                our Air Force experienced DEFICIENCY ...
        2. +1
          25 May 2013 21: 11
          Quote: svp67
          Li-2, aka X-47, DS-3
          It’s not a Lend-Lease, they bought and made a license for it before the war in the USSR
          1. +2
            25 May 2013 21: 20
            Quote: Denis
            It’s not a Lend-Lease, they bought and made a license for it before the war in the USSR

            Yes, but also:
            - 707 C-47, DS-3 aircraft received under Lend-Lease
            1. +2
              25 May 2013 21: 28
              Quote: svp67
              707 C-47, DS-3 aircraft received under Lend-Lease
              I'm talking about Lee-2
              By the way, a little Katalin and in Taganrog collected
    2. +4
      25 May 2013 20: 31
      They supplied what they had.
      Thank them for that.
      It’s just that ours was often better.
      It is a pity that OUR is not always the best.
    3. +2
      25 May 2013 21: 09
      Quote: bublic82009
      so listen to memoirs watch films different programs, so the Allies supplied us with the best equipment
      There were all kinds of things. There were no armored personnel carriers in the USSR before Scout, nor were motorized infantry. Her tasks were carried out by the cavalry
      A lot of good trucks were delivered, but Spitfaers were units. And the B-29 didn’t want to deliver to any
  10. +1
    25 May 2013 19: 22
    on the picture:

    Corporal Stepan Vasilievich Ovcharenko for the Maxim machine gun. The Maxim is mounted at the rear of the Willis.

    The American army off-road vehicle Willys has been supplied to the Red Army under Lend-Lease since the summer of 1942 (modifications to Willys MB and Willys MA). In total, about 52 thousand vehicles were delivered to the USSR until the end of the war.

    My photo name:

    "Feet in your mouth, I fought on a cart in the Civil War!"
    1. -1
      25 May 2013 19: 26
      Ovcharenko Stepan Vasilievich was born on 15.08.1913/27.08.1998/XNUMX, Poltava region, Kremenchutsky district, the village of Gorishne-Plavni on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX. resident: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk region, Dneprodzerzhinsk.
      26.06.1941/15.07.1941/22.01.1945 was called Krinichansky RVK Dnipropetrovsk region., From 1/187/72. on Leningrad, from XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX on the XNUMXst Ukrainian Front, a senior sergeant, commander of the calculation of an machine gun XNUMX rifle regiment XNUMX rifle divisions.
      1. +1
        25 May 2013 19: 28
        famous and namesake wink
  11. Skuratov
    +3
    25 May 2013 20: 14
    A significant role was played by the supply of medicines, cars, aluminum, radio equipment, but not tanks. One grandfather once told (in WWII he fought as a tanker, first as a loader, ended the war as a commander of a tank company) that imported tanks were not so hot in combat use, they were "taken" by a 50 mm PT gun, a weak running gear, but inside it was very comfortable , only this comfort burned very well.
    1. +3
      25 May 2013 21: 13
      Quote: Skuratov
      only this comfort burned very well.
      Sponge rubber so that the fragments do not fly apart and the head does not beat hard
  12. +2
    25 May 2013 21: 21
    What everyone is unanimous in the memories is the meticulous preparation of the equipment delivered by the sea. Everything that is glued and smeared will not get a drop inside, though it was then cleaned (here also unanimity) for a long time and very abusively
    That would be with whom it was necessary to talk or read to screenwriters whose tank in the Arctic convoy shoots aircraft from the deck from the deck
    1. -1
      25 May 2013 23: 40
      Sometimes they did shoot (cleaned by sailors). Most of the Soviet "merchants", except for "maxims" as air defense, did not have anything (we hoped for an escort, but we remember about the PQ-17), therefore, they fired from tanks and aircraft (bombers The second navigator with the captain specially, during loading, put the necessary objects in the right places. Although the main goal was self-defense against the surfaced submarine submarine (having met a single "merchant" the Germans tried to sink him with artelery, saving torpedoes). V. Pikul has a very interesting description of Unfortunately I do not remember the name, if you want to find it, I highly recommend it.
    2. +1
      25 May 2013 23: 55
      These are meticulously Americans, but the British quite often delivered fighter jets in dispossessed form (took off some navigational instruments), moreover it used to be used, with worn out engines.
  13. +2
    26 May 2013 00: 05
    Quote: Argon
    .U. V. Pikul is very interestingly described, unfortunately I do not remember the name, if you want, you will find it, I highly recommend it.
    Probably "Ocean Patrol", there they made a trap vessel with camouflaged guns from an old sailing schooner? The British used this in the 1st World
    As a child, I was pickling Pikul until I became wiser and disappointed, I read. He is very free, if not to say stronger, deals with history. And this episode is only his invention
    And as for
    Happened and shot (cleaned by sailors)
    Allow me to disagree. Was it preserved in order to bring it, but what would become of the equipment on the deck open to all the waves? Kirdyk and only, would bring scrap
    1. 0
      26 May 2013 12: 00
      No, not an "ocean patrol", my knowledge does not live on in his works, I gave them as an example. I trust my father more than 20 years who worked in the MMP and found those people who went with convoys.
      1. -1
        26 May 2013 14: 44
        Honestly, I do not see a connection between the receptions of the British and the firing of the "cargo" available on board. By the way, the weapons transported on the ships of the United States and England were accepted upon arrival, the same ones that were loaded on our ships were considered already accepted, at least a conosament was registered for the captain, and he bore all responsibility for him. The allies thus insured themselves, will it come or not? And the price for payment is already included. Regarding the safety of the cargo; the risk of damage from enemy fire was much higher than from the almost fresh water of the northern seas and the northern atlantic. By the way, the bulk of the cargo is in the holds and is not subject to atmospheric influences. I have read such reviews in the press about the work of V. Pikul more than once, I will not argue about the descriptions of "deep legends of antiquity" but about the Great Patriotic War, sorry, there are, of course, sketches on everyday topics, but they only colorize the plot of the official history, no more - "Square of the Fallen Fighters" or "Sea Tales" as an example.
        1. -1
          26 May 2013 14: 55
          And at the expense of "wiser" do not harbor illusions, the old people say, "Live and learn, and die, everything will have to be a fool" - Respectfully.
          1. +3
            26 May 2013 22: 16
            Quote: Argon
            And don't entertain illusions about "wiser"
            I don't eat, it's my own fault, I didn't add a "little", but wanted
            And about the shooting, I don’t know about that, but it seems that the ammunition was transported separately
        2. +1
          26 May 2013 22: 23
          Quote: Argon
          official story plot color
          They give a different color. In "Boys with bows" there is such a thing about the boy's school. We saw the inscription ELEPHANT-Solovetsky special camp. Previously there were thieves and murderers, but now we will study
          There were many thieves and murderers there, should he not know?
          About sailors in the revolution is so generally disgusting
          1. 0
            27 May 2013 00: 41
            Don’t think that I want to offend, but I see that as a person you formed after 92 you probably don’t know some Soviet realities. If he wrote that from the mid-20s to the beginning of the 30s there was a camp in Solovki where political prisoners were held, we they would have read it in the year 95 not earlier, the authorities didn’t perceive it unequivocally into the Writers' Union if I’m not mistaken. On the other hand, as far as I know, the entire contingent of the camp was divided into three parts, political, unreliable, criminal
            1. +2
              27 May 2013 01: 25
              Quote: Argon
              If he wrote ...
              And wasn’t it more honest not to write such as not to lie?
              When I was formed as a person it’s not for me to judge, but I was born a long time ago
              Many, now outlandish things such as the October star, the pioneer camp, the advice of the squad or the horn, will not surprise me. Unless they cause nostalgia
              But this is, like Pikul’s work is not about armored vehicles, hardly anyone is interested
              So we won’t ...
  14. +1
    26 May 2013 17: 48
    M3 with our tankmen dubbed the "mass grave for seven."

    More often it is abbreviated: "BM-7".

    I read that the crew of the M3 Lee tank (for the USSR) consisted of 7 people,
    and its modification for the British aircraft "M3 Grant" - only from 6.
    Who will tell you whom the British have abolished?
    1. 0
      26 May 2013 17: 54
      Quote: Mister X
      Who will tell you whom the British have abolished?

      "Party organizer ..." winked



      Model Purpose Crew
      M3 medium tank 6
      М3А1 medium tank 6
      М3А2 medium tank 6
      М3А3 medium tank 6
      М3А4 medium tank 6
      М3А5 medium tank 6
      Grant I cruiser tank 6
      Grant II cruising tank 6
      Grant CDL (Lee CDL) channel 6 tank
      RAM Mk I tank NPP 5
      RAM Mk IItank NPP 5
      ACI "ScntineI" cruiser tank 5
      ACII "Sentinel" cruiser tank 5
      M7 "Priest" self-propelled guns 7
      "Sexton" self-propelled guns 6
      "Kangaroo" APC 2
      ARV BREM 5
      ARV I BREM 5
      1. 0
        26 May 2013 18: 02
        How could they have fought without the party organizer?
        1. +1
          26 May 2013 18: 04
          Quote: Mister X
          How could they have fought without the party organizer?

          And in their cars, instead of a party organizer, a portrait of King George VI hung
          1. 0
            26 May 2013 19: 32
            Oh god Save the king!
            And we are at the same time with him ...
            1. 0
              26 May 2013 21: 25
              Quote: Mister X
              Oh god Save the king!
              And we are at the same time with him ...

              Fact...
  15. -1
    26 May 2013 17: 52
    For me, new to the fact that the British tanks DOS. At the beginning of the war, the USSR received several thousand modifications. Thanks to the author for the info. I have read about battles with the participation of "Soviet" Shermans many times. But how effective were the battles with the participation of Soviet-British tanks with German panzers, I never read
  16. Kovrovsky
    -1
    27 May 2013 17: 22
    It is a pity that we were not supplied with Sherman-Firefly! And the allies had few of them!
  17. Best novel
    0
    28 May 2013 09: 33
    I’m sorry, the concrete embarrassment turned out. And for the tankman it’s generally unforgivable. I'll go shoot myself.
  18. 0
    25 February 2016 04: 06
    Article + Objectively, concisely, intelligibly, and simply honestly. We have many people forget folk wisdom, the road spoon for dinner! Of course, our industry produced a huge amount of equipment, but it was later, and lendlize helped out just in time.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"