In the desert and in the jungle: Anglo-American tanks in battles and ... in the debate (part one).

As you know, during the Second World War, the US industry released more tanksthan any other warring country. These tanks fought both in the US army and in the armies of their allies, including the USSR. Of course, this was the success of American industry. But ... American specialists in this field at that time already pointed out serious shortcomings in the construction of the American armed forces. And often it is not even clear what caused this. It would seem that many of them are completely obvious, and even quite easily removable.



Tank М3 "Grant" at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in the USA

Note that the defeat of the Germans at the Kursk Bulge really strongly influenced the mindsets of our Anglo-American allies, who first reveled in their own major success in North Africa. “It is noteworthy that the Red Army’s summer victories rather than the Anglo-American successes in Tunisia and Sicily necessitated a quick revision of the Allied plans only ten weeks after the Washington Conference,” a Reuters correspondent wrote in August 1943, and this statement can not be attributed to the number of exaggerations peculiar to journalists. Fearing that the Soviets would be ahead of them, the Anglo-Americans forced preparation for the landing operation in northern France and simultaneously increased their pressure on the Italian front, where after their landing in Sicily, German troops began to deploy in the middle of summer 1943.


Day "D", landing in Normandy.

Preparations for the landing across the English Channel were very serious, but when 6 June 1944 of the year the troops of England, the USA and Canada finally launched Operation Overlord, it turned out again that the Allied tanks were still qualitatively inferior to the Panzerva!


English tank "Matilda-IICS" with a lightweight 76,2-mm gun. Tank "fire support".

During the battles in the sands of North Africa, even such a heavy-armored tank as the “Matilda” turned out to be poorly protected from German 88-mm shells. And he was of little use for maneuvering offensive operations. Well, the British 57-mm tank guns were still inferior to the new German 75-mm guns, not to mention the Tiger cannon. That is why the British tank builders tried to prepare more such vehicles as the Cromwell and Sherman Firefly (Firefly) with the long-barreled 17-pound 76-mm gun, which the English had designated as the 77-mm gun, to the landing force through the English Channel. His armor-piercing projectile had an initial speed of the order of 900 m / s, almost like the “Panther”, but the whole thing is that these tanks did not begin to arrive in June, and not in July, but only in August 1944, when the losses Allies in the tanks have already exceeded all imaginable sizes.


English tank "Cromwell".

On all other vehicles, including most of the famous Sherman tanks, the 75-mm tank gun of the Westerflute arsenal was installed, designed on the basis of the French 1897 field gun of the year of manufacture. Moreover, it was subsequently cut off so that its barrel did not protrude beyond the envelope of the front of the hull of the first American truly medium-sized MH Li / Grant tanks. The fact is that the Americans entered World War II, having only about 300 tanks, and they had to build up their tank power in a great hurry. As a result, the main efforts were expended on working out the undercarriage and the engine-transmission unit in order to produce tanks in the largest possible quantities. But the American military specialists somehow forgot about the balance of weapons, although they put on this weapon a system for stabilizing the barrel in a vertical plane. However, it would be best to “give the floor” to such a British historian as Max Hastings, who examined in detail the shortcomings of the Anglo-American 1944 machines of the year in his book Operation Overlord *, in which he can read the following:

"How could the American and British industries produce a lot of magnificent aircraft, strikingly diverse radar equipment, radio bombs, a three-axle amphibious truck, a jeep and, nevertheless, send their armies to fight against the Wehrmacht, supplying them with tanks that are much inferior to the enemy in armor and slaughter the strength of the guns? An English tanker officer who had just arrived in France, in June 1944, recorded a conversation with his regimental adjutant on tank affairs at the front.
- What is the most important thing for Germans?
- "Panthers". "Panther" can pierce the "Churchill" like butter, for a whole mile.
- How does Churchill catch up with the Panther?
- Sneaking up to the "Panther". When direct contact occurs, the gunner tries to fire an enemy tank’s embrasure into the armored car below the cannon. If he succeeds, the projectile will pass through the thin armor above the driver's head. - Has anyone succeeded?
- Yes. Davis from squadron C. He is now in the rear at headquarters, trying to rebuild his nerves.
- How does Churchill catch up with the Tiger?
- They say they need to go two hundred yards away and shoot through the periscope.
- Has anyone succeeded?
- Not".

It is clear that it was not without its caustic satire, but the real situation is not too different from this. stories. And all this is a consequence of the short-sighted position of the Allied leadership. So Colonel George Macleod Ross, who participated in the development of American tanks, wrote after the war that the War Department had made a mistake by developing fighting vehicles separately from tank guns. Ross, among other experts, argued that you first need to create a tank gun, and then make a tank for it, and not adapt to it what is! He drew attention to the fact that during the war the British put a number of models of tanks on stream, without taking into account which enemy vehicles they would have to fight and armor of what thickness they would have to pierce. Tanks were developed in Chobham, and guns in Woolwich. As a result, the British made an excellent gun with a projectile in 17 pounds in June 1941 of the year, and put it on the Sherman tank only in August of the 1944 year, and in numbers too small to have a serious impact on the course of Operation Overlord. Ross, who worked at the US Army Artillery and Technical Supply Office in Detroit as a liaison officer, lamented how much material resources were spent by the British on the production of 25 000 tanks without sufficient results. Montgomery from North Africa seems to have sent a telegram saying: "All we need is an 75-mm gun." And in the subsequent years of the war, Churchill and Cromwell tanks received 6-pound and 75-mm cannons, instead of ... getting them A - from the very beginning and B - to get a 17-pound long-barreled weapon as a result!



To the Americans, it still warms the soul that it was they who, starting from scratch, achieved that it was they who played the main role in the production of tanks during the war years. But Russell Weigley, the most famous American specialist on the problems of the US Army during the war, pointed out their main problem: the Sherman tank did not have good artillery weapons. Unlike the Germans who produced the 24 630 tanks, and the British, who produced the 24 843 tank at the end of the 1944, the Americans “riveted” the tanks in a staggering number - 88 410 of which the English put.

In the desert and in the jungle: Anglo-American tanks in battles and ... in the debate (part one).

Production of tanks in the United States during the Second World War.

For the most part, these were the Shermans, which first appeared in 1942 and became the main strike force of the allies in the battles of 1944 - 1945. So, from the total number of tanks in Normandy, as many as two thirds were Shermans. And only one-third - the British tanks: "Kromveli" (7-I armored division) and "Churchill" (79-I division and several separate armored brigades). The Sherman was a reliable machine, very convenient for maintenance, and its tracks were five times more durable than tracks of German tanks. The weight of the tank in 33 tons compared with the 43 tons of "Panther" and 56 tons of "Tiger" made the tank more maneuverable. The speed of the Sherman on rough terrain was also higher than that of the Germans. In addition, the Sherman had two other important advantages over the German "opponents": he had more than them, the speed of rotation of the tower and also a higher rate of fire.


МХNUMXА4 "Sherman" with additional armor protection from sandbags.

But there were “Sherman” and two very big drawbacks: first, he easily caught fire, for which the soldiers called him “a stove for heating food”. It was a constructive flaw and they fought with it, welding additional sheets on the armor and loading it into the tank ... less ammunition. The second drawback, even more important, was the low tactical and technical characteristics of its weapons. For example, the 75-mm Sherman cannon had an initial speed of 2050 feet per second versus 2900 feet per second for the British 17-pound gun and 3340 feet per second for the German 88-mm tank gun. At a distance of 200 yards, the armor penetration of the English gun was almost three times greater than the similar capabilities of the 75-mm American gun. The Tiger could hit Sherman tanks 4000 yards away, but at that distance the American tank could not penetrate the Tiger’s frontal armor at all. But even when the Sherman received his own 76-mm gun, he had to get close to the Tiger for 300 yards in order to have at least some chance of knocking him out. "German TV and T-VI tanks not only withstand a greater number of hits," one of the operational research reports of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces headquarters in 1944 marked gloomily, "but also much less likely to catch fire when hit."



Further, it was also noted there that even such a tank as the T-IV, which, by the way, was almost half of the tank fleet of the German tank division, had an 75-mm cannon, with an initial projectile speed 20 percent higher than that of the similar Sherman cannon . The first could pierce the armor in 92 mm at a distance of 500 yards, and the Sherman cannon only 68 mm at the same distance. Moreover, the US Department of War could not even be dissuaded by the lack of information about the success of the enemy in artillery. After all, in May 1942, Major Jarrett from the Artillery and Technical Supply Directorate of the army delivered the trophy 88-mm gun to the USA along with his report, in which he insisted on copying and accepting it for production.


Improvised self-propelled gun "Dikon" based on the truck "Matador".

It is clear that the American designers then pinned their hopes not on the "Sherman", but on his replacement, another, a new tank, called the T-20. Three years of work, seven tests, but in the end only 120 machines were at the front by the end of the war. General Electric worked on the T-23 model. And what about this, wrote Colonel Ross? "There can be no justification for the extreme ignorance in tank tactics in general and in tank operations in Europe in particular, which prompted an indecisive attempt to create a worthy successor to Sherman, while the simple answer was to create a better weapon, which was a lot just easier to create a new tank. "


SAU "Bishop" based on the chassis of the tank "Valentine".

If it was chauvinism - “we will not copy the German 88-mm cannon or the English gun with the 17-pound projectile”, then in the conditions of total war this position seems very stupid. Moreover, the war has already proved the fallacy of the concept of General Leslie McNair, the chief theorist of the American army in those years. In his opinion, tank divisions should be used to develop success and the pursuit of a defeated enemy, and tanks would rarely have to fight with other tanks. He fell prey to the fallacy that formed the basis of the concept of a cruiser of an earlier time. As you know, its speed practically lost its meaning if the ship lacked reliable armor protection.


Production of tanks in the UK during the Second World War.

In the top leadership of the US Army, they were convinced that the Allied armies had such a huge quantitative superiority over the enemy in tanks that one could put up with some technical imperfections. But when the commander of the Sherman tank met with enemy tanks, and the American tank guns did not penetrate their armor, the number, as a factor of dominance on the battlefield, became not very significant. Tank crews had to act with great caution. After all, they knew very well that if their tank gets hit by a projectile, it will almost certainly flash like a candle. And they also knew the sad statistics that only a 50 percent of the crew survived in a tank that was on fire. As General Bradley wrote about this, "this willingness to expend" Shermans "provided little comfort to the crews who were forced to expend themselves together with the machines."

Fig. A.Shepsa

* Max Hastings. Operation Overlord. How the second front was opened. - M .: Progress, 1989
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. dvg79 19 October 2015 07: 12 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    It was interesting to know how the British and Americans themselves rated their tanks.
    1. Landwarrior 19 October 2015 08: 00 New
      • 11
      • 0
      +11
      According to the manual for the fight against German tanks, the consumption of 6-7 "Sherman" on the 1 "Tiger". hi
      1. Stas57 19 October 2015 09: 40 New
        • -2
        • 0
        -2
        Quote: Landwarrior
        According to the manual for the fight against German tanks, the consumption of 6-7 "Sherman" on the 1 "Tiger".

        I do not believe it! (c)

        training manual number, officially name or just give a link?
        1. Landwarrior 21 October 2015 10: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I will find a reprint, I will peel off and lay out winked
          And so, the recommendation to go to the "tiger" with two squads (and squad-4 cars) as if hints.
      2. podpolkovnik 19 October 2015 15: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Landwarrior
        According to the manual for the fight against German tanks, the consumption of 6-7 "Sherman" on the 1 "Tiger". hi

        Enchanting! Thanks, neighing .... good
    2. Malkor 19 October 2015 18: 13 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      In Yemen, even now, their technology is not particularly appreciated.
  2. Mera joota 19 October 2015 08: 37 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    So it’s not quite right to compare medium tanks with heavy ones. Sherman vs. Tiger and Panther will always lose. Install the same 88 mm. the copied gun wouldn’t work out in Sherman, it won’t stupidly fit, except for self-propelled guns ... The trouble is not in Sherman’s weakness, but in the delay in developing a heavy tank ... Well, to be honest, they weren’t in a hurry, the Americans ended WWII without heavy tanks (Pershing is difficult to attribute to heavyweights).
    1. avt
      avt 19 October 2015 09: 41 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: Mera Joota
      So it’s not quite right to compare medium tanks with heavy ones. Sherman vs. Tiger and Panther will always lose.
      I would even say that it’s completely wrong.
      During battles in the sands of North Africa, even such a thick-armored tank as the Matilda proved to be poorly protected from German 88-mm shells.
      laughing The author will not tell you which of the WWII tanks the Allies had ,, well protected "from the 88mm guns of the Germans.
      As you know, during the Second World War, the US industry produced more tanks than any other warring country.
      Can I clarify? Well, like - only the tanks means the author, without self-propelled guns, and here a digital figure of some kind of machine production compared to 1939 to 1945 would lead the Angles, Americans, ours and Germans. Well, for clarity.
      1. kalibr 19 October 2015 10: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        This would be a completely different article. Here we are talking about how the British and American experts themselves evaluated their cars. And the data illustrates the capabilities of industry. Opinion about Matilda belongs to the British. They thought he was well protected. And it turned out - wrong!
        1. Nehist 19 October 2015 15: 42 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Matilda was well protected from German tanks until they received 75mm guns in 43-48 calibres. So until the end of 42 years Motya was an excellently armored car, but his gun was frankly weak
    2. mvg
      mvg 19 October 2015 12: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Pershing in thickness of armor, a 90-mm gun, could very well have fought with the panthers, which he actually did. There are even cartoons about it.
      1. avt
        avt 19 October 2015 12: 19 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: mvg
        Pershing in thickness of armor, a 90-mm gun, could very well have fought with the panthers, which he actually did. There are even cartoons about it.

        wassat laughing laughing laughing Urgently from a computer to fresh air !!!! And if you don’t run, then walk five kilometers at a fast pace. It is still useful to systematically lift something heavier than a mouse, there are some dumbbells.
        1. anip 19 October 2015 19: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: avt
          Quote: mvg

          Pershing in thickness of armor, a 90-mm gun, could very well have fought with the panthers, which he actually did. There are even cartoons about it.

          Urgently from a computer to fresh air !!!! And if you don’t run, then walk five kilometers at a fast pace. It is still useful to systematically lift something heavier than a mouse, there are some dumbbells.


          We read and watch:
          http://vn-parabellum.com/us/m26_cologne.html
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__o2gQzpaK0
          1. avt
            avt 19 October 2015 20: 27 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: anip
            We read and watch:

            And they read for a long time and also looked for a long time on the site, so what? Lonely ,, Pershing "knocked out ,, Tiger", one ,, Pershing "shot in the city ,, Panther". So what ? With the same success, you can claim that the IS-3 triumphantly put an end to ,, tank battle ", and at the same time record the T-44 to the heap. And by analogy
            Quote: mvg
            . There are even cartoons about it.

            To remove a cartoon in the proof, mind you - not a newsreel of times of war. laughing
  3. vnord 19 October 2015 09: 30 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    I read not long ago the memory of our company commander on the T-34. The alignment of one Tiger knocked down in defense (in the caponier) accounted for 4-6 of our T-34s (not T-34-85). The problem was that the Tiger in the caponier, with great range and accuracy of the gun, managed to make several aimed shots while the T-34 approached the distance of an effective shot. They were saved by the presence of howitzers, smoked it from cover, and in the maneuverable battle the T-34 was already easier. At the same time, having received the T-34-85, the situation improved a lot.
  4. Stas57 19 October 2015 09: 35 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    But “Sherman” had two very big flaws: firstly, it easily caught fire, for which the soldiers called him “an alcohol lamp for heating food”. It was a design flaw and they fought with it, welding additional sheets onto the armor and loading into the tank ... less ammunition.

    it's all bziki
    any tank easily lights up, and about 4 they wrote about the T34 (as much with detonation)
    1. kalibr 19 October 2015 10: 14 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Perhaps their experts were better to know, eh?
    2. 97110 19 October 2015 15: 10 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Stas57
      it's all bziki

      Grandfather burned in the tank. English, Matilda. The Germans set fire from a flamethrower. The crew did not leave the crew, they moved away from the shelling in a burning tank, they covered the tank with tarpaulin - it went out. Tell this to the crews of Americans and Germans. Maybe they will.
      1. cth; fyn 21 October 2015 11: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        We had their tanks, but they didn’t have ours, or rather they were, but they didn’t fight them.
  5. bocsman 19 October 2015 09: 40 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    An interesting assessment of our tankers. And they rated the MCH-4 Sherman as a very good car. Of course the gun is rather weak but very accurate. Y. Loza ("Tanker on a foreign car") described the case when everyone who got the Tiger was hit in a cannon because it was not possible to penetrate armor from such a distance! And the Sherman burned supplied to the USSR was worse because it was diesel, it was noted that the ammunition did not detonate because the T-34 also had other little things (such as a larger internal volume, an auxiliary engine for charging the AKM, even a stove for cooking or heating food). Although the T-34 as a whole as a combat vehicle was rated much higher and dreamed of fighting on them. I mean what a good car means a lot, but those who are in it are equally important!
    1. merhy 19 October 2015 10: 17 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Wasn't Sherman considered "the best tank for peacetime service"? :)
      1. veteran66 19 October 2015 11: 12 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        It was believed, yes. But not in the context of the fact that for the war he was the worst
      2. Alexey RA 19 October 2015 15: 54 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: merhy
        Wasn't Sherman considered "the best tank for peacetime service"? :)

        It was considered. At the same time, he met all the requirements of the State Academic Technical University in combat characteristics. And Marshal Fedorenko demanded that the industry bring the operational characteristics of domestic tanks to the level of "Sherman".
        Of the currently available armaments of the Red Army, tank equipment should be the American medium tank Sherman M4A2 with artillery. armament in the form of a 76,2 mm cannon of high power and the Canadian light tank "Valentine" MK-9 with a 57-mm tank gun limited rollback ...
        The indicated tank models compare favorably with the domestic ones in terms of ease of operation, significantly increased overhaul life, ease of maintenance and current repair, and at the same time their armament, armor and mobility make it possible to solve the whole range of tasks put forward by armored forces ...
        According to numerous reviews from tank units, these types of tanks can be considered the best for serving in peacetime, mastering military equipment ...
        I ask you to consider a set of measures for the speedy improvement of the design of domestic tanks, so that they can be compared with the best foreign models in terms of guaranteed mileage, ease of operation, repair and maintenance ...
        1. veteran66 19 October 2015 16: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          According to the recollections of our veterans, Valentine enjoyed respect from them.
          1. Alexey RA 19 October 2015 16: 54 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: veteran66
            According to the recollections of our veterans, Valentine enjoyed respect from them.

            It is not for nothing that he was left in production for another year in Canada - only for our sake.

            And it was not in vain that our tankers asked the entire light tank with heavy armor of the frontal projection throughout the war. It is this niche that has been occupied by Valentine.
    2. voyaka uh 19 October 2015 10: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      If we compare Sherman with T-34-76, then Sherman was superior to him,
      if compared with the T-34-85, then - inferior.
      1. veteran66 19 October 2015 11: 10 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: voyaka uh
        If we compare Sherman with T-34-76, then Sherman was superior to him,
        if compared with the T-34-85, then - inferior.

        Looking at how to compare, Sherman’s guns always surpassed the T-34, not even because of the gun itself, but because of the disgusting quality of the shells (core is fired), see the report on testing the GABTU guns. As for direct comparison, it is impossible to compare any “Sherman” with a specific T-34-85. At the end of the war, for example, appeared "Jambo" and "Fireflay", worthy rivals to German tanks.
        1. Alexey RA 19 October 2015 16: 01 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: veteran66
          Looking at how to compare, Sherman’s guns always surpassed the T-34, not even because of the gun itself, but because of the disgusting quality of the shells (core is fired), see the report on testing the GABTU guns.

          Ahem ... our 76mm BBS did not have a heated core.
          There was a red-hot case of one of the lots of 45-mm BBS, which worked perfectly on medium-hard armor, but pricked on cemented Krupp. However, normally manufactured 45-mm BBS shells also shot at the KC.

          And there was an unsuccessful (but the only possible for our industry) hull design of the 76-mm BR-350A "with fungus". In theory, this “fungus” was supposed to destroy the cemented layer, making it easier for the shell of the shell to penetrate the armor. In fact, the "fungus" often broke off when hit, or along with the "fungus" the shell of the shell was destroyed. And how many mats the technologists poured onto the BR-350A ... one uneven hardening of the case was worth.
      2. zadorin1974 19 October 2015 11: 30 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Sherman was significantly inferior in combat qualities to 34 (even a nut) significantly. This was a high silhouette, not enough width of the hull (as a result of which they often turned over) and insufficient width of the goose (poor patency at the intersection), respectively, less maneuverable. In winter, there were problems with starting (engine also were weaker) well, they burned like "ZIPPO" lighters (as our tankers called them) They exceeded in armor (with the quality of armor plates, Soviet armor steel produced a lot of fragments when hit, crippling the crew even when the hull was not broken, which was not on the Sherman , the armor is elastic — even when pierced by a blank, it didn’t crumble). The gun stabilizer and high-quality sights (no worse than the Zeiss ones). Overhaul mileage is two, three times higher than that of the Red Army tanks (quality of materials and assembly). Well, comfort plus bonuses Sherman’s kit included leather jackets, Colt1911 pistols and Thomson software, and a tool and other stuff (which our crews were very happy about)
        1. voyaka uh 19 October 2015 14: 09 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          I agree with your list.
          I made a comparison of the totality of combat and operational
          qualities, and not just purely military. Long throw, in particular
          Shermans withstood without repair much better than 34s,
          and in the offensives of 44-45, this was an important factor.
          Gunpowder, for example, the Americans had clean, which increased
          shot power.
          1. avt
            avt 19 October 2015 16: 22 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Gunpowder, for example, the Americans had clean, which increased
            shot power.

            I won’t say a word about gunpowder - Zhukov said everything about American gunpowder. We had a lot of high-quality gunpowder, where the Germans cost 75-88mm, we had to go from 76mm to 85-122mm
            Quote: voyaka uh
            comparison of the combination of combat and operational
            qualities, and not just purely military.

            Well, let's put in operation, Sherman "doesn’t go anywhere with 34 - I needed more care, one suspension with its lubrication is worth it. But for a mechanical drive, it’s more pleasant, Sherman,"
            Quote: voyaka uh
            withstand without repair much better than 34 matches

            With proper care. But then again - it was practically a PEACE tank, unlike the 34ki which was sculpted for centuries, again taking into account the available technical and human resources, as much as possible, making production technology as simple as possible, and after the war in the USSR, ALL types of tanks left in service were brought to operational requirements for peaceful time.
        2. Alexey RA 19 October 2015 16: 07 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: zadorin1974
          .This is also a high silhouette, not enough width of the case (as a result of which they often turned over)

          Vines in the unit - 2 coups in 2 years.
          Quote: zadorin1974
          and insufficient width of the goose (poor cross-country ability), respectively, less maneuverable

          Ahem ... a decrease in speed up to a stop and the danger of turning off the engine when shifting gears to the T-34 also clearly do not improve maneuverability.
          Quote: zadorin1974
          Well, they burned like "ZIPPO" lighters (as our tankers called them)

          It remains to find out - where did our tankers find the Sherman gasoline? smile
          Quote: zadorin1974
          They excelled in armor (the quality of the armor plates — Soviet armor steel produced a lot of fragments when hit, crippling the crew even if the hull was not broken — which was not on the Shermans

          But this didn’t appear at once - on the first batches of the Sherman’s armor was fragile and, when hit, gave secondary fragments. Viscous armor appeared after our many claims.
        3. shishkin7676 19 November 2015 08: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The width of the T-34 caterpillar is 500mm, Sherman (for the USSR) 580 mm.
      3. avt
        avt 19 October 2015 12: 37 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        If we compare Sherman with T-34-76, then Sherman was superior to him,
        if compared with the T-34-85, then - inferior.

        wassat ,, Sherman "Waaaaasche, or we’ll look at the modifications over the years, well, there with different trunks, dviglom, again with a suspension !? wassat The workmanship — of course, they had, and the English were better — I was told about this by a distant relative who was mechanically driven at 34ke and, "Valentine" said. "Valentine" he liked - more comfortable.
    3. veteran66 19 October 2015 11: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: bocsman
      And the Sherman burned supplied to the USSR was worse because they were diesel,

      According to the GABTU, according to the results of the first battles of 41 years, the percentage of burned tanks in relation to the wrecked ones in gasoline tanks was even lower (by 1%) than in diesel ones. Flammability of a tank is determined not by fuel, but by fire extinguishing systems and tank protection. For example, German tanks were completely gasoline, and no one called them "lighters." At the same time, when a shell hit the transmission (and the Germans had the box in front), even the transmission oil ignited. In the USA, in order to prevent fuel ignition during aircraft accidents, they tried to thicken the fuel (jet paraffin) to a jelly state, but during field tests the fuel still flared up and was akin to napalm. The experiments were stopped.
      1. Forest 19 October 2015 12: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        According to estimates by American tanks in the United States, the main problem of combustibility in high-octane gasoline. Soviet and German gasoline were of such poor quality that they did not differ much from diesel fuel.
        1. veteran66 19 October 2015 14: 02 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Forest
          the main problem of combustibility in high-octane gasoline

          You see, diesel and gasoline are distinguished by the fact that gasoline (any) burns fumes, and the solarium itself burns. The octane level of gasoline is its ability to delay detonation, and is not related to ignition (by the way, on the 92nd gasoline in winter the car is easier to start than on the 95th, and the solarium has a detonation coefficient higher than that of gasoline)
          1. Nehist 19 October 2015 15: 49 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Who told you that? You apparently didn’t see how the pairs of salar explode !!! Gasoline tanks caught fire and diesel tanks exploded!
            1. veteran66 19 October 2015 16: 38 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Nehist
              Gasoline tanks caught fire and diesel tanks exploded!

              Nobody argues with this, although gasoline tanks also exploded under certain conditions. As for vapors, under the same certain conditions, metals evaporate. It’s just that under normal conditions, a solarium, as a heavy fuel, doesn’t soar, and gasoline produces vapor even at low temperatures.
        2. Alexey RA 19 October 2015 16: 42 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Forest
          Soviet and German gasoline were of such poor quality that they did not differ much from diesel fuel.

          Mwa ha ha ... Would you at least read the documents or something.
          Both T-26, and BT-7, and T-60, and T-70, and Su-76 demanded B-70 / KB-70 aviation gasoline for refueling. Baku or Grozny.
          The use of gasoline for refueling these tanks was prohibited.
      2. Alexey RA 19 October 2015 16: 12 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: veteran66
        According to the GABTU, according to the results of the first battles of 41 years, the percentage of burned tanks in relation to the wrecked ones in gasoline tanks was even lower (by 1%) than in diesel ones. Flammability of a tank is determined not by fuel, but by fire extinguishing systems and tank protection.

        So ... at our gasoline tanks the engine and tanks were taken out of the armored partition and equipped with PPO.
        And the diesel T-34 - tanks in the BO in the entire height of the side. And it was extremely difficult to deliver the software in the BO, EMNIP. Even manual fire extinguishers had to be used in gas masks:
        When using a fire extinguisher in a closed tank, you need to wear a gas mask, since tetrachlor, falling on hot surfaces, decomposes and gives off suffocating gas - phosgene.
        1. veteran66 19 October 2015 16: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And the diesel T-34 - tanks in the BO in the entire height of the side. And it was extremely difficult to deliver the software in the BO, EMNIP.

          So about what the speech, it is not a matter of fuel. Although I have not heard about the PPR in our tanks (I mean the T-26 and BT series)
          1. Alexey RA 19 October 2015 17: 02 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: veteran66
            So about what the speech, it is not a matter of fuel. Although I have not heard about the PPR in our tanks (I mean the T-26 and BT series)

            On the T-60 / T-70 (namely, they appear in the statistics on fires of gasoline tanks in battle) in the MTO were built-in tetrachloride fire extinguishers.
            The T-26 also has:
            The tank is equipped with a fire-fighting equipment system consisting of two portable fire extinguishers, charged with tetrachloride and driven by hand, and a stationary fire extinguisher connected by piping to four sprayers installed in the engine compartment.
    4. 97110 19 October 2015 15: 13 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: bocsman
      And Sherman burned delivered to the USSR worse because it was diesel

      I have not heard about diesel Sherman. My grandfather said about the Americans that they are very tall and burn well - not to jump out.
      1. veteran66 19 October 2015 16: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: 97110
        My grandfather said about the Americans that they are very tall and burn well - not to jump out.

        Obviously, he talked about the first Shermans of the M4A1 and M4A3 series, supplied in limited quantities by Lend-Lease, automobile and aircraft engines were installed there. The main series supplied to us is M4A2, they were diesel. By the way, for emergency leaving the tank, Sherman was better than the T-34, due to the more spacious BO.
        1. 97110 20 October 2015 09: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: veteran66
          Apparently he was talking about the first Shermans.

          I don’t remember what I was talking about - for a long time it was. Maybe there was a talk about Lee or Grant. I am writing what I remember.
          1. veteran66 21 October 2015 16: 05 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, yes Lee / Grant was higher and on aircraft engines, burned well))
      2. Cap.Morgan 19 October 2015 23: 15 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Sherman above thirty-four is only 20 centimeters.
        Not critical.
        1. veteran66 20 October 2015 16: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          And the Tiger is even 30 cm higher than Sherman, and something the German tankers did not panic about this))))
          1. cth; fyn 21 October 2015 13: 04 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            And what they had to panic, they are in the tiger.
  6. mvg
    mvg 19 October 2015 12: 22 New
    • -4
    • 0
    -4
    It is necessary to compare the cost of tanks, the number of released, the% of the number of combat .. How could the 2000 “Tigers” resist the 44000 “Shermans”, even if they were at least three prodigies .. Last Shermans, getting rid of childhood diseases, tightening up armor, with a new 76 mm a cannon is a very formidable enemy. American quality, quantity, gun - no worse than that of the Panther .. Comfort for the crew. How can you compare the T-34, which were collected by women and children, in conditions of lack of manganese, nickel, “knee-high” assembly .. Yes, and most importantly, our tanks were not designed for a long service .. The only examples "from bell to bell" - an exception.
    The first tank that could compete on an equal footing with the “Royal Tiger” would be the IS-3, but did not have time to enter the war. And from the masses - the best, without a doubt, Sherman, a sample of August 44
    1. avt
      avt 19 October 2015 12: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: mvg
      . And from the masses - the best, without a doubt, Sherman, a sample of August 44

      Of the mass wartime, the best T-34 and its continuation 34-85 precisely in the majority because
      Quote: mvg
      collected by women and children, in conditions of lack of manganese, nickel, knee-high assembly ..

      Yes, and the machine park. In contrast, Sherman is "practically a peacetime issue."
      Quote: mvg
      . Yes, and most importantly, our tanks were not designed for a long service ..

      So what ? And what is the life of a tank on a real battlefield, and the same “Sherman"? There are completely different requirements, even for the same operation, a campaign not in the courses on the program for finishing tanks in the USSR according to peacetime standards.
      1. veteran66 19 October 2015 16: 45 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: avt
        And from the masses - the best, without a doubt, Sherman,

        Again, a dispute about anything. The best one that mass production could master the producing country. For us, this is the T-34, for amers - "Sherman".
        1. Aaron Zawi 19 October 2015 17: 49 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: veteran66
          Quote: avt
          And from the masses - the best, without a doubt, Sherman,

          Again, a dispute about anything. The best one that mass production could master the producing country. For us, this is the T-34, for amers - "Sherman".

          I agree. We must also take into account that, unlike European countries and the USSR, tank building as an industry in the USA was absent until 1940, with the exception of single orders. The US tank fleet in 1940 was worse than the Poles in 1939, but by 1043 they began to produce tanks not only in large quantities, but also in relatively good quality in terms of performance characteristics.
    2. Forest 19 October 2015 12: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The 76-mm gun of the M1 Sherman was much worse than the 85-mm gun of the T-34-85 and 75-mm Panther - both in penetration, in muzzle energy, in the capabilities of a high-explosive projectile (and for a tank like Sherman this is very important). The sub-caliber shells had an extremely high spread, so it was difficult to shoot at a distance.
      1. voyaka uh 19 October 2015 14: 02 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The Americans replaced the unsuccessful 76 mm gun with an excellent
        English 75 mm. She gave about the same results,
        like the T-34-85.
      2. Alexey RA 19 October 2015 16: 14 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Forest
        Sherman’s 76-mm M1 gun was much worse than the 85-mm T-34-85 and 75-mm Panthers - both in penetration, in muzzle energy, and in the capabilities of a high-explosive projectile

        Heh heh heh ...
        10.American 76-mm armor-piercing shells penetrate the side sheets of the Tiger-B tank from a distance 1,5-2 times greater than domestic 85-mm armor-piercing shells
        1. Forest 19 October 2015 22: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The Americans replaced the unsuccessful 76 mm gun with an excellent
          English 75 mm. She gave about the same results,
          like the T-34-85.

          If about Firefly - then here is 17-pound without complaints. 75-mm was on the first models, then replaced with its 76-mm.
          Quote: Alexey RA

          10.American 76-mm armor-piercing shells penetrate the side sheets of the Tiger-B tank from a distance 1,5-2 times greater than domestic 85-mm armor-piercing shells

          C-53 shot at distance 100 with a BR-365K projectile about 125 mm of armor at 90 degrees, at 1000 m from 95 to 100 to various sources. The M72 shell of the M1 guns on 100 m took 116 mm at 90 hail, on 1000 m 90-100 mm according to various sources. At 2 km the guns also had the same penetration in the form of 75-80 mm. As you can see, the difference on 1 km is too small, and the main battles took place at a distance of 300-500 m. These are not Tigers with their jewelry guns and excellent optics. The board of the Royal Tiger is 82 under 25 city. I do not think that the KT board could make its way through the Sherman from a distance of 3 km. This penetration difference can be attributed to armor-piercing shells from a set of 85-mm anti-aircraft guns somewhere near Moscow in the 41-ohm.
          1. Alexey RA 20 October 2015 10: 25 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Forest
            S-53 pierced at a distance of 100 m with a BR-365K projectile about 125 mm of armor at 90 degrees, at 1000 m - from 95 to 100 to various sources. The M72 shell of the M1 gun per 100 m took 116 mm at 90 degrees, for 1000 m 90-100 mm from various sources.

            90% of the armor penetration tables are the bare theory. Jacob de Mar - an ideal shell for perfect armor with a conditional coefficient of hardness. It’s not for nothing that such pearls are found in these tables as armor penetration with a projectile at a distance of one and a half kilometers. smile
            Another part of the tables relates to post-war shells that differed in normal workmanship.
            And the harsh reality of 1944 is given in the report:
            6. Armor-piercing 85-mm shells of D-5 and C-53 cannons do not penetrate the front hull of the tank hull and do not produce any structural damage from the 300 distance.
            7. The side armor plates of the tank differ in sharp unequal strength compared with the front plates and are the most vulnerable part of the armor hull and turret of the tank.
            8. The hull side plates and turret of the tank are punched by armor-piercing shells of the 85-mm domestic and 76-mm American cannon from the 800-2000 distance m.
            9. The side sheets of the hull and turret of the tank do not penetrate the 76-mm domestic cannon with armor-piercing shells (ZIS-3 and F-34).
            10. American 76-mm armor-piercing shells penetrate the side sheets of the Tiger-B tank from a distance of 1,5-2 times greater than the domestic 85-mm armor-piercing shells

            Quote: Forest
            I do not think that the CT side could make its way through the Sherman from a distance of 3 km. Such a penetration difference can be attributed to armor-piercing shells from a set of 85-mm anti-aircraft guns somewhere near Moscow in the 41st.

            Exactly. It's all about the quality of the shells. The Americans could afford to massively make BBS, which for us would be "gold".
    3. Cap.Morgan 19 October 2015 23: 21 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Only the Tigers must also be divided into 50 thirty-four.
      Where does the shortage of alloying metals come from in the USSR? In Siberia - the entire periodic table.
      Royal tigers were released only 700 - 750 cars.
      And the Tigers around 1600.
      The cost of these monsters was prohibitive.
      In the USSR, a series of St. John's Wort - anti-tank self-propelled guns was mastered.
  7. 31rus 19 October 2015 12: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Everything has been counted, checked and analyzed for a long time, read "The First Tank Encyclopedia of German Forces", it is excellent in writing, various sources are taken, analysis is made both in time and in the development of tanks of the member countries
  8. Dimon-chik-79 19 October 2015 13: 15 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Yes, it is unbelievable, but the fact is that aircraft manufacturing and shipbuilding are at a high level, but something went wrong with tank building at that time among the Allies. In other matters, the Japanese gave out the same kind of pearls that you swung
    1. anip 19 October 2015 19: 17 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Dimon-chik-79
      In other matters, the Japanese gave out the same kind of pearls that you swung

      For China and Burma was enough.
    2. cth; fyn 21 October 2015 13: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      When using the cry "Banzai!" All tank characteristics increased by 30%, inf 100500%!
  9. uncle 19 October 2015 13: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In the Finnish army, almost all of the tanks were captured - T-26 and some T-28, T-34, KV. Captured and 2 ISU-152.
  10. timyr 19 October 2015 13: 59 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    Allies threw meat with the Germans. From the memoirs of the head of the re-battalion of the second tank division: since the beginning of the operation, Overlord's division lost 580% of the tanks. The book is called death traps. Patton also helped the Americans. Before landing in Normandy, industrialists asked which tank to produce perching or Sherman Patton insisted on releasing Sherman. Like tanks do not fight tanks. From Yang’s memoirs: I saw how crews were recruiting, scribes and others recruited directly from the pier who couldn’t put anything into tanks, scored 35 crews, 4 whole crews returned from the battle.
    1. Alexey RA 19 October 2015 17: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: timyr
      Before landing in Normandy, industrialists asked which tank to produce perching or Sherman Patton insisted on releasing Sherman. Like tanks do not fight tanks.

      That's right. When the tanks met the enemy’s tanks, both the Yankees and us were ordered to engage in battle only in extreme cases or in the presence of tactical superiority. And it was standardly prescribed to avoid combat and expose motorized rifle with anti-tank vehicles to a panzerwaffe attack.

      So Patton was right. Another thing is that such tactics required good preparation of commanders and well-established cooperation - so that it wouldn’t turn out that the tanks attack in one place, and the anti-tank missile / tank destroyer was guarded in another.

      Actually, the typical targets of tanks can be judged by the BC: EMNIP, 2 / 3-3 / 4 of the shells, the Yankees and I had the OFS and OS.
      Quote: timyr
      From Yang’s memoirs: I saw how crews were recruiting, scribes and others recruited directly from the pier who couldn’t put anything into tanks, scored 35 crews, 4 whole crews returned from the battle.

      And the Sherman is undoubtedly to blame for this. fool
      “Abrams” would not have helped them with such crews.

      In general, judging by Belton Cooper, the BTV Yankees in 1944-1945 somewhat reminded our BTV of the beginning of the war. One attack through a minefield is worth it - when after the failure of the trawls, the remaining crews continued to move through mines without protection, clearing them with their tanks.
  11. uncle 19 October 2015 18: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Germany released the T6 Tiger2- 489, T6 Tiger-1354, T5 Panther-5976, T4- 8686, T3- 5865, self-propelled guns Rhino-494, self-propelled guns Yagdpanthera-415, self-propelled guns Yagdtiger-79, self-propelled guns Ferdinand-90.
  12. james 19 October 2015 18: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Anyone interested is interested - I recommend reading the truth about American tanks, in particular, about the Sherman. By Belton Cooper Deadly Traps. These are memoirs, not fiction.
    http://fanread.ru/book/9382299/
  13. forwarder 19 October 2015 20: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    rout of Germans on Kursk

    And on the Kursk Bulge there was a defeat of the Germans? It will be necessary to write down so as not to forget.
    During battles in the sands of North Africa, even such a thick-armored tank as the Matilda proved to be poorly protected from German 88-mm shells.

    The author will be able to recall some tank that was well protected from German guns of this caliber?
  14. timyr 19 October 2015 22: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    [quote = forwarder] [quote] defeat of the Germans on the Kursk Bulge [/ quote]
    And on the Kursk Bulge there was a defeat of the Germans? It will be necessary to write down so as not to forget.
    And on the Kursk Bulge, the Germans won. It is necessary to write down until I forgot. And what happened there. The Germans retreated, oh no, they just leveled the front line, for some reason closer to Berlin. And where did the German tanks go after the battle of Kursk. Guderian wrote after the battle of Kursk our panzervoysk came into complete disrepair and we never again reached the level of 43 years.
    1. forwarder 19 October 2015 23: 02 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      Quote: timyr
      The Germans retreated

      And when someone stepped back, is it a rout? What, there is no longer such a type of battle as a retreat? When abolished, did I miss something this moment? It turns out that Napoleon defeated the Russian army at Borodino? It will be necessary to write down so as not to forget.
      Quote: timyr
      Guderian wrote after the battle of Kursk, our panzervoysk came into complete disrepair and we never again reached the level of 43

      Guderian is a big dreamer. For understanding people, his memoirs are still comics. To the glory of his beloved, most brilliant and misunderstood.
      In fact, such a stupid donkey as Guderian still had to be searched. And in the Wehrmacht, and in the armies of the allies. Even offhand I do not immediately remember the analogue. Rare was a halfwit.
      However, he was not alone. They were there in 1941. on the eastern front of Germany, a whole "glorious company" was picked up. The prequel of the film "Dumb and Dumber."
      1. Cap.Morgan 19 October 2015 23: 32 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It’s not so good about Guderian.
        All the same, he studied tank business in the USSR and reached Moscow.
        I believe that the Kursk Bulge was not an unconditional victory.
        But after Kursk the strategic initiative passed to us, the Germans could no longer plan such powerful offensives. This is the meaning of the Battle of Kursk.
        1. forwarder 20 October 2015 00: 23 New
          • -3
          • 0
          -3
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          It’s not so good about Guderian.

          The truth is always good.
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          All the same, he studied tank business in the USSR

          Who? Who and what could teach him there?
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          and reached Moscow.

          In the summer of 1941. even a lone shepherd with a pipe from the film Funny guys on a motorcycle with friends would have come. Mind for this big was not necessary. Even far from very smart German "commanders" arr. 1941 their meager mind was enough for that.
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          I believe that the Kursk Bulge was not an unconditional victory.

          Whose?
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          But after Kursk, a strategic initiative passed to us.

          This was not a consequence of the “victory on the Kursk Bulge”. Moreover, without this “victory” this very initiative would have passed to the USSR even faster. Around the fall of 1943 The USSR near Kursk almost lost half of the tank troops. And until the spring of 1944. built new tanks. It took six months. Herr Hitler won an additional period of his life as a result of the "victory of the Red Army in the Battle of Kursk." This was the meaning of the Battle of Kursk for him.
          1. Alexey RA 20 October 2015 10: 44 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: forwarder
            The USSR near Kursk almost lost half of the tank troops. And until the spring of 1944. built new tanks. It took six months.

            Yeah ... just for these six months after Kursk, the USSR liberated the Left-Bank Ukraine, went to the Dnieper, forced it, organized a tank race between bridgeheads and liberated Kiev.
            Moreover, tank armies “destroyed” in the Kursk Bulge took part in this series of operations.
            1. forwarder 20 October 2015 10: 57 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              only in these six months after Kursk the USSR liberated the Left-Bank Ukraine, went to the Dnieper, forced it, organized tank races between bridgeheads and liberated Kiev.

              Do you have any reason to believe that with a doubled number of tanks the Red Army could not do this? This, and a little more?
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Moreover, tank armies “destroyed” in the Kursk Bulge took part in this series of operations.

              And right with the same personnel and on the same equipment? What kind of "arguments" are you bringing here? Sandbox wiring level. Respect yourself a little bit.
    2. The comment was deleted.