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

As for the actions of the British authorities, as Max Higgins writes about it, the latter have been engaged in the entire war only in order to prevent any attempts to publicly discuss the shortcomings of their armored vehicles, although the whole army was aware of them. Labor MP Richard Stokes, who fought in World War I, put a lot of effort criticizing the government for his attitude to tanks, the doctrine of "carpet bombing" and on many other issues that puzzled specialists. Stokes carefully studied all the characteristics of the English and German tanks - the thickness of the armor, the initial velocity of the projectile, etc., and came to the conclusion that the latter have real advantages in battle over the former.


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

Sherman at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in the USA

30 March 1944, he simply demanded that Churchill and the captured Tiger be brought directly to parliament - to the House of Commons - so that parliamentarians could see for themselves the combat capabilities of each of these machines. The Prime Minister replied: “No, sir. I think that the efforts and expenses associated with this, although not very large, but still significant, to justify the satisfaction of the wicked curiosity of my worthy friend. "

Stokes was helped by a small group of critically minded people. 20 July 1944, Ellis-Smith again offered the Prime Minister to give a detailed answer with a clarification of the indicators of British and German tanks. Churchill replied that, when necessary, the British army would be equipped with tanks, at least on the same level with the armed forces of any other state.


In late November 1942, the Shermans appeared on the Soviet-German front.

Then 25 July 1944, Stokes asked the Minister of War if he could give assurances to members of the House of Commons that in Normandy we were equipped with tanks, at least equal to the German Panthers and Tigers for armor and armament? ”. P. Grigg (Speaker of the House of Commons) avoided a direct answer, arguing that openly discussing these issues is not in the public interest. The “backbangers” loudly protested against such an obvious deception, but could not do anything. In early August, 1944, the Stokes again raised the issue of the presence of deficiencies in the British tanks. Like, as we lagged behind the Germans in the 1940 year, so are lagging behind now. And it disgraces us.




According to Higgins, the British government systematically and until the end of the war constantly lied about the possibilities of the Allies to create tanks equal to the German ones, because in reality those simply did not exist!


The Sherman Firefly is the best Anglo-American tank of World War II, combining the reliability and maintainability of the Sherman with a powerful 76,2-mm caliber gun.

For Britain, with its 900-year-old parliamentary tradition, it was all fine to discuss. And there is no need to oppose each other "military secrets" and "freedom of information", but only to think about how to combine them with the maximum benefit for society. Indeed, each not eliminated deficiency is a human life, and even not one. And for the British, though not all, it made a big difference. However, in this case, a clearly totalitarian approach to solving all problems on the sidelines prevailed in the higher echelons of power. Then it will cost Churchill the post of prime minister, but at that time he, of course, did not know about it and considered his point of view the only correct one.


М4А4Е8 "Simple eight". Even this tank crews had to additionally “book” with sandbags, the weight of which reached two tons, because of which the tank sank on the tracks and lost much maneuverability.

True, at the same time - here it is, dependence on the theater of military operations - even if they were not too unsatisfactory in Europe, the tanks of the Americans and British showed themselves from a completely different perspective in the battles against the Japanese troops. Here, in the Pacific, in the jungles of Burma, Indonesia and New Guinea, there was also its own local specifics: lack of visibility among tropical forests, high humidity and intense heat, which significantly hampered the conduct of hostilities for allied tanks. On the other hand, their position was facilitated by the qualitative superiority over the Japanese military equipment, which almost mirrored what happened in Europe. There, the Anglo-American troops won by their air supremacy and the number of combat vehicles. Here, on the side of the same Americans, there was not only quantity, but also quality.


Japanese tank "Type 89". Aberdeen Proving Ground, United States.

For example, the American light tanks MZ "Stuart" armor thickness was from 25 to 44 mm, and the M4 "Sherman" - 38-63,5 mm, while the main tanks of the Japanese army "Ha-go" and "Chi-ha" - had 12 and 20-25 mm, respectively!


Japanese tank "HaGo". Aberdeen Proving Ground, United States.

The Japanese 7-mm machine gun could penetrate armor 15 mm thick at a distance of 200 m, and 20-mm anti-tank gun - 25 mm no more than 250 m. 37-mm gun - 30 mm at a distance of 350 m, and 47-mm gun - 50 mm at a distance in the 500 m. Guns of larger calibers also had insufficient characteristics for fighting tanks: the 75-mm howitzer — 35 mm on 200 m, and the 75-mm gun — 40 mm on 800 m. The Japanese anti-aircraft gun had the largest armor resistance , which projectile pierced 75-mm armor from a distance of 1000 m. But she had a supporting cross, and the wheel course was separated, and otomu she was not sufficiently flexible. In addition, the Japanese were not enough such weapons.


Assault tank T14 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, 1943 year

But the American 75-mm MZ tank gun with the 37,5 barrel length of the M4 tank calibers (with all its flaws on the European theater) easily penetrated 50 mm thick armor at a distance of 1800 m, the 2 mm M12,7 machine gun punched 18-mm armor through a distance 350 m. A 37-mm caliber gun on the M3 tank could “overpower” the 48 mm at a distance of 457 m, and the 75-mm lightweight howitzer was able to penetrate the 91 mm armor at any distance (its range of fire was 8760 m). In addition, the American infantrymen had RPG "Bazooka" caliber 60 mm and with armor penetration to 80 mm at a distance of 150 m.

It was not so easy to fight German tanks with their help, but against the Japanese tanks these grenade launchers were quite effective. weapons.


Production of German tanks during the Second World War.

Usually the battles of American tanks against the Japanese ended in defeat of the latter. Therefore, the main Japanese weapons in the fight against them were not tanks or artillery, but rather extravagant methods based on soldiers' wit. However, this was the case with the soldiers of other warring parties.


Production of armored vehicles during the Great Patriotic War in the USSR.

For example, the Germans, knowing about the bad visibility from the T-34 tank, tried to blind his crew, throwing smoke bombs on his armor, and then tried to undermine the immobile car with explosive charges or set fire to it with gasoline bottles. An exemplary feature film was shot, in which a gallant German soldier, tied up two smoke grenades with a belt, threw it all, like an Argentine bolas, onto a T-34 barrel and ... then easily “defeated” a smoky tank. The effectiveness of this method can no longer comment, but leave on the conscience of the creators of this educational "cinema". In turn, the Soviet soldiers used trained dog bombers, and the same incendiary bottles. Only not with ordinary gasoline, but containing the Molotov cocktail — a self-igniting combustible liquid based on thickened gasoline with the addition of white phosphorus, in fact — the same napalm, although more primitive types of similar weapons were used, ignited by various clever fixtures.

Fig. A.Shepsa
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. PlotnikoffDD 20 October 2015 06: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Lies, lies and lies again! Always, everywhere and to everyone, especially to their own.
    1. kalibr 20 October 2015 07: 13 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      His - first of all!
  2. Aleksandr72 20 October 2015 07: 45 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    With its cumulative projectile, the 75 mm light field howitzer was able to penetrate 91 mm of armor at any distance (its firing range was 8760 m).

    This is pure fantasy. The maximum firing range of this howitzer is indicated (and not the fact that this range was really achievable for her!). The effective range of the cumulative projectile from this short-barreled infantry support weapon, which has its pedigree since the First World War, was much shorter and hardly exceeded the distance of 1 yards (and there are many more!). And the Anglo-Saxons have always been able to lie. Only misinformation on American battleships such as "Iowa", regarding their booking and speed, which is worth it.
    I have the honor.
    1. kalibr 20 October 2015 08: 36 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Well, the penetrating power of a cumulative projectile is maintained at any range, another thing is that you need to get there. And here, of course, the range in 1000 yards was most likely optimal for this gun. But they write like that!
    2. voyaka uh 20 October 2015 10: 10 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      for Alexander72:
      "The effective range of the cumulative projectile from this
      short-barreled infantry support weapon
      since the 1st world war, it was much smaller and hardly exceeded
      a distance of 1000 yards "////

      For your information: effective firing range with a cumulative projectile
      It does NOT depend on the distance to the target. Even if the shell slightly bumps into the armor at the end, penetration will be - the main thing is that a cumm jet of sufficient power is formed.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Aleksandr72 20 October 2015 12: 25 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        For your information, I am well aware of this. Moreover, during the Second World War, the armor penetration of a cumulative projectile was approximately equal to its caliber at all distances of EFFECTIVE firing. It is also known that the rotation of a cumulative projectile around its axis significantly reduces the cumulative effect. If my memory serves me right, Israel at one time, either on its own, or with the help of the French, developed a cumulative projectile for 105-mm rifled tank guns, in which a cumulative warhead was connected to the shell of the projectile itself (with leading belts) using a complex system bearings, which significantly reduced the speed of rotation of the cumulative part relative to the speed of rotation of the projectile itself. I read about this in childhood in the journal Foreign Military Review. I am writing from memory, not having at hand the source, maybe something got it wrong in the technical description.
        My comment related to this passage:
        With its cumulative projectile, the 75 mm light field howitzer was able to penetrate 91 mm of armor at any distance (its firing range was 8760 m).

        I have very, I believe, reasonable doubts that at a distance of 8760 m the cumulative projectile of a short-barreled 75-mm howitzer will hit somewhere slightly smaller than the Japanese islands (Kyushu, Honshu or Hokkaido - of your choice). But certainly he won’t get into the tank. If at all flies.
        Cumulative shells during the Second World War in the arsenal of short-barreled field guns with a low initial velocity of the projectile (guns and howitzers) were used mainly for self-defense when shelling tanks and other armored targets of the enemy at short distances - the same 1000 yards or meters, or even less .
        I have the honor.
        1. igordok 20 October 2015 14: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Aleksandr72
          It is also known that the rotation of a cumulative projectile around its axis significantly reduces the cumulative effect.

          Centrifugal force weakens the penetration of cumulative munitions. But then the Germans used the centrifugal effect for fuses of cumulative shells. It should be very sensitive, but not work when fired.

          https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6612/23231364.e/0_b917d_3082b46b_orig
        2. kalibr 20 October 2015 14: 13 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          You have a good memory! We both read the same magazine and remembered the same words. And nothing messed up. I remember that, too, very surprised. Therefore, I remembered. Amazing
    3. seos 20 October 2015 10: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Each country has its own technology for calculating armor penetration, the Americans fired on soft armor, which is why the characteristics of their guns are greatly overestimated.
  3. dvg79 20 October 2015 08: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I don’t remember who said, "Nowhere else do they lie like on the hunt and in the war. On the other hand, the Allies, inferior in quality, outnumbered and won.
  4. Velizariy 20 October 2015 09: 33 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    bitterly look at these metal misunderstandings that the Japanese proudly called tanks ... A clear contrast in the photo, in which behind the Japanese design you can see the real Panther tank - the fruit of a dark Teutonic genius)
    Given the armor penetration of 12,7 mm "Browning", it is possible with sufficient boldness of the shooter, one machine gun to repel the attack of the Japanese "tanks".))
  5. igordok 20 October 2015 09: 40 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    German graffiti in the occupied territories. The German artist, having seen enough of educational films, depicts the German "discus thrower" throwing an anti-tank mine into the T-34 tank.
  6. voyaka uh 20 October 2015 10: 18 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The British managed to make a good tank with a huge delay
    only in 1945: Comet.
    He participated in the most recent episodes of the war in April 45.
    An excellent Centurion tank grew out of it.
    1. goose 20 October 2015 16: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In principle, the “cromwell" was already suitable in 1944 to fight almost on equal terms with Panther and completely on equal terms with Pz IVH. Another thing is that the Comet remained virtually unhealthy until the end of the war as the Soviet IS-3, and Kromveli showed themselves late in the end of 1944. Considering that the Germans appeared Pz VIB and Panter II, the Americans already had Pershing and Jumbo in 1945 , Comet, still very late. Therefore, the Shermans and their variations really fought, and Churchill.

      In Centurion appeared in principle, in step with the times.
  7. kalibr 20 October 2015 10: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Zero Nil Seventh
    During WWII, the leaders of the "great democracies" began to play "unity around the national leader," along the lines of their German, Italian and Soviet colleagues. Such processes, for some reason, are usually accompanied by lies and increasing incompetence in all spheres. Since, unlike their Eastern colleagues, the leaders of democracies were not armaments fans, the activity of democracies in this field was even less successful than that of Eastern colleagues, due to the complete lack of opportunity to pursue any consistent technical policy.

    This you very truly noticed!
  8. Makslehman 20 October 2015 11: 14 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    Lend-Lease tanks were very disliked in the Soviet units, they denied themselves in every way. There were cases when a tank was rolled out to the front line under fire, so that it would not have to go into battle. M3 (aka BM) received the nickname: mass grave
    1. voyaka uh 20 October 2015 11: 46 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Yes, but it was written that the Walentine infantry support tank did
      until the very end of the war, only and exclusively for the Soviet army.
      They wanted to stop its release, but they were persistent
      applications / orders of the USSR.
      Here are the Soviet infantry on Walentine:
      1. kalibr 20 October 2015 11: 54 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        It turns out a strange thing: tankers scold, and Soviet generals are asking for new bad tanks, on which no one wants to serve! Directly cognitive dissonance of some kind and obviously something here "not that."
      2. bairat 20 October 2015 13: 40 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Although it would seem that the cannon on valentine is not very good, and it is so-so against German tanks, and there weren’t any shells against infantry of the bk.
        1. kalibr 20 October 2015 14: 16 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Yes, for 40-mm. But then they put both 57 and 75 on it ... Just under 44-th year.
          1. bairat 20 October 2015 20: 45 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            For 57mm there were also no landmines, and after replacing the gun in the tower there was no room for a machine gun. A tank without of shells and without a machine gun, this is somehow strange
        2. Alexey RA 20 October 2015 14: 42 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: bairat
          Although it would seem that the cannon on valentine is not very good, and it is so-so against German tanks, and there weren’t any shells against infantry of the bk.

          This is on earlier versions. Later valentines came with a 57 mm cannon, to which were Canadian OS.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Izotovp 25 October 2015 23: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        It was a good tank just to support the infantry, and for this it was created. He was not suitable for an attack in the composition of armored shock corps because he did not even think about it.
        The technique still needs to be used for its intended purpose, which was often not observed in those conditions because of a lack of understanding of its purpose and poor military education.
    2. kalibr 20 October 2015 11: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Oh, do not! You read the memories of the tanker Chibisov from Novosibirsk about how he served on Matilda ... very curious, he analyzes everything there. They are online. Read the reviews of our tankers in the newspaper "Pravda" for 41-th year ... and where is the truth? Where power wanted her to be!
      1. blizart 20 October 2015 12: 56 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Western equipment and tanks in particular, always surpassed the Russian in one-crew living conditions. But you need to remember that technology is a "cast of society" and in any case, a tank for an American guy who at least had his father's Packard at that time could not be like a tank for a Russian boy who had just seen a tractor on MTS. Russian technology simply proved that it was “MOST” for the mass war. As Basill Liddell Garde accurately noted: “Panther tanks were the best, but the crews of the losing country fought on them.” By the way, he describes how painfully long and with what losses the bridgehead in Normandy was expanded. They could not increase the month to a safe one - landing zone, with eight-fold superiority in tanks and complete (!) Air supremacy. I calculated the loss of “Sherman” against “Panther”, it turned out 5: 1. And he “finished off” the composition of the opposing German units, in short: the infirmary of the Eastern Front and one non-nominal (numbered) SS division, the average age with the command staff of 18 years. And when you will be told that you threw their corpses, say: "No, we threw them tanks!"
        1. sssla 20 October 2015 13: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: blizart
          And when you will be told that you threw their corpses, say: "No, we threw them tanks!"

          good good good
        2. Alexey RA 20 October 2015 14: 59 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: blizart
          Western equipment and tanks in particular, always surpassed the Russian in one-crew living conditions.

          As well as a great resource and ease of maintenance and repair.
          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 ...
          Specified Tank Samples compares favorably with domestic ease of management, significantly increased service life of the overhaul mileage, ease of maintenance and repair, and at the same time their armament, armor and mobility make it possible to solve the whole set 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 ...

          What greater mileage and ease of maintenance? This means that during the operation the tanks will travel longer between breakdowns and will be repaired faster. That is, the average number of combat-ready tanks in the formation will be greater, the speed of the march will be higher, and more equipment will reach the battlefield. That is, we get "out of nowhere" additional equipment. smile
          And also this means that the next time you replenish the connection, you will have to send for overhaul / request for the replacement of worn out tanks a smaller number of equipment. That is - less load on the plants.
          1. kalibr 20 October 2015 19: 18 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well done! Powerfully slid !!!
          2. veteran66 20 October 2015 22: 00 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            This means that during the operation the tanks will travel longer between breakdowns and will be repaired faster

            as well as a lesser *** crew after marching before the battle immediately.
        3. shishkin7676 19 November 2015 08: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I read T-34 vs. Panther 9: 1, infantrymen said worse than T-34 (according to the political instructors), tankers said great luck to get to Sherman, in general we need to look at statistics, Shermans fought against T-34 in Korea, and in Sinai against T-55 and T-62.
  9. Filxnumx 21 October 2015 21: 11 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    What greater mileage and ease of maintenance? This means that during the operation the tanks will travel longer between breakdowns and will be repaired faster. That is, the average number of combat-ready tanks in the formation will be greater, the speed of the march will be higher, and more equipment will reach the battlefield. That is, we get "out of nowhere" additional equipment. smile
    Where did I hear something like that? Yeah, I remembered: "war - h ... nya! The main thing is maneuvers." In combat conditions, the average tank life is 2 to 3 battles, rarely -5. Really valuable, according to the recollections of the same Vine, was the presence in M4 ("emcha" in Russian) of an excellent radio station and fur leather
  10. Litsvin 25 February 2016 20: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    All this Anglo-American-Japanese-French-Spanish-Italo-Romanian-Jewish "iron" - not tanks, but "armored carts on tracks."
    I already wrote before, but I repeat again - THERE WERE AND THERE WERE ONLY TWO COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE BEST TANKS MAKE AND MAKE - THESE ARE GERMANY AND RUSSIA (USSR) !!! THE OTHER COUNTRIES WITH THEIR TINNERS ARE EMPTY TABLES FROM THE CYCLE “IF I HAD A GRANDMAN HAD ...... BETWEEN THE FOOT, THERE WOULD HAVE A GRANDFATHER.”