Military Review

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

39
As for the Australians, who also participated in the Second World War and fought with the Japanese, they had to do very hard from the very beginning. The threat of the landing seemed very serious, but how could it be repelled? Of their tanks the Australians didn’t, well, simply didn’t, because the “scrap” that they had received from the British at one time was only suitable for training tankmen. Therefore, they urgently requested tank reinforcements from the metropolis and ... received it. In addition, they ordered a number of tanks for testing in their specific Australian conditions. So, for example, the Cromwell tank came to Australia. But his excellent speed data in the jungle turned out to be useless.



"Matilda" CS - tank "fire support". Museum of the Australian Royal Armored Forces in Papapunyal.

The English Matilda tanks, supplied from England under the Lend-Lease program, were also not very effective at the very beginning of their use. For example, a serious disadvantage of the 40-mm guns of an English tank was the absence of high-explosive shells, and the Australians independently developed and began to produce such shells. But having received them, they did not win much, there was very little explosives in them. Therefore, the main type of tank of this type for them was the Matilda CS - "fire support."


Tank "Cromwell" - a museum piece. Museum of the Australian Royal Armored Forces in Papapunyal.

On the other hand, in the conditions of the jungle, infantry flame throwers showed themselves very well, only since the flame throwers were not protected by anything, the losses were carried very large. The Australians thought that since the guns with a caliber of more than 40-mm in the jungle were not required, then let weapons for their tanks will become a flamethrower, able to effectively smoke the Japanese from their well-disguised fox holes, bunkers and trenches, which are usually poorly influenced by traditional types of tank weapons.

The first Matilda tanks (140 machines) arrived in Australia in July 1942. Then 238 tanks received in August 1943. And in addition to them, they sent 33 tanks СS, armed with 76-mm lightweight guns instead of 40-mm guns. These vehicles went ahead of the tank column and bombarded targets with high-explosive and incendiary projectiles. Their task was simple: to destroy the disguise of Japanese pillboxes, so that a tank with an 40-mm cannon could come close to them and shoot their armored caps.


"Matilda-Frog." Museum of the Australian Royal Armored Forces in Papapunyal.

Meanwhile, 25 machines were converted into flamethrower tanks, which were called "Matilda frog" Mk. I. The charged-radio operator was removed as unnecessary, and a tank with a capacity of 150 gallons of thickened fire mixture was installed in its place. And 100 gallons of this mixture was in a special discharged tank in his stern. “Frog” (which means “frog” in English) threw this fire mix on 80 - 125 m (although this distance was often less than exactly half), but it didn’t play a special role. After all, no Japanese tank or anti-tank guns were able to penetrate his armor!

In order to maximally protect their cars from the shells of Japanese cannons, which often fired from the cover almost point-blank and at the same time marked either caterpillars or under the base of the tower, Australian engineers decided to install cast U-shaped caps on them that covered the caterpillars in front, and the base of the shoulder strap was surrounded by armored parapet. This parapet went around it in both directions from the driver's hatch.


Conversion "Matilda" with parapet and armored caps (they, by the way, could recline!) Caterpillars. Australian Museum of Tanks and Artillery in Carins, Australia.

Then the Australians put a buldoser blade on a number of tanks, and then decided to install on them, in addition, also the anti-submarine bombers "Hedgehog (" Hedgehog "). In general, what a tank "Matilda" was, so he stayed, except that he had an armored package at the stern to launch 7 jet bombs. Weighed one such bomb 28,5 kg, and the weight of the torpex explosive inside it was equal to 16 kg. It was possible to shoot a “hedgehog” on 200 - 300 m (the last range was achieved with an engine of greater power). The driver was raising the package, who had two indicators, looking at which he informed the commander of the angle of elevation.


"Matilda Hedgehog." Museum of the Australian Royal Armored Forces in Papapunyal.

The first projectile was corrective, after which the commander corrected the tip and could have fired in one gulp. To protect the antenna from damage by departing projectiles, bomb No.5 could be fired only by turning the turret with the antenna in the opposite direction. Six tanks were equipped with bombers and they were all sent to Bougainville Island, where there were heated battles with the Japanese. But they were there when the battles were over.


Bomb to the tank "Matilda-Frog." Museum of the Australian Royal Armored Forces in Papapunyal.

It is interesting that the Australians themselves later said that if their British colleagues who fought on the Matilda tanks in the deserts of North Africa, looked at them in the jungle, they would not believe their eyes. "We could not have won the campaign in New Guinea if it were not for the Matilda tanks," the Australian tankers who fought against them said many times.


Churchill-Frog. Museum of the Australian Royal Armored Forces in Papapunyal.

After the end of the war in Australia in the 1948, civilian armed forces (analogous to the National Guard), their 1 tank brigade, received the Matilda tanks, which were then used to train the tankists for seven more years. tanks "Centurion".


Australian Churchill. Museum of armored vehicles and artillery in Carins, Australia.

By the way, one more machine, ideally suited for war in the tropics, was the English heavy tank Mk. IV Churchill. By the way, he was tested together with the American tank "Sherman", which he surpassed in all basic indicators, so that his service in the Australian army, as well as in the "Matilda" tanks, continued even after the war. “The perfect tank for war in the jungle,” said Australian tank crews. But in Russia, our tank crews felt sorry for those of their comrades who fell to serve on these heavy and seemingly awkward Lend-Lease tanks, which, in the conditions of the jungle, turned out to be especially good! By the way, it was used by Australians and again, very successfully, the Churchill-Frog flamethrower tank. It was impossible for the Japanese to escape from its fiery jet even in the jungle!

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

"Sherman" with a composite case: the nose of the cast, the rest of the rolled armor, supplied under a lend-lease to Australia.

Australians created their own tank during World War II only in 1942, and although their design was clearly a success, they didn’t produce it in order not to create unnecessary problems with ... supplies of Lend-Lease tanks, which production of their own Australian tanks could would seriously interfere!


“Sentinel” AS I. Museum of armored vehicles and artillery in Carins, Australia.

Australian medium tank "Sentinel" ("Sentinel") Mk. III - the first and last tank, created in great haste by Australian designers. And it was so that the command of the Australian ground forces issued an urgent order: on the basis of its own technological base to make a tank, not worse than the American MZ "Lee / Grant". At that time in Australia there was no capacity for either casting or for renting armor, there were no suitable engines, so the designers had to solve a difficult task. But in spite of everything, the first three tanks made 1942 already in January, and in July they launched their production at the railway plant in Chullore. Total built 66 tanks, but then production is still stopped.



Sentinel AC IV Thunderbolt is a modification with an 76-mm cannon QF 17 pounder, created on the basis of AC III. Produced only one prototype. But if he went into the series, he would have been much stronger than the Sherman tanks that were supplied by Australia. Museum of armored vehicles and artillery in Carins, Australia.

We can say that the Australians showed maximum resourcefulness. Thus, the entire body of the car was assembled from cast parts, and the ability to install on it the armament of a larger caliber was incorporated into the structure from the very beginning. The tank was lower than the similar Sherman. No powerful tank engine? No problem! The Australians installed a block of three (!) Cadillac gasoline engines with a total power of 370 hp on the tank. The tank had a weight of 26 T (like the T-34 of the very first releases), but at the same time its frontal armor thickness was 65 mm against 45-mm in T-34. True, the gun of the first tank Mk. I was a caliber 40-mm, like all purely British cars. The “silent-block” suspension — an analogue of the French suspension of the Hotchkis tank — provided the car with a smooth ride, although they were overheated due to the heat, like a block of built-in motors.


The armor of the frontal machine gun on the Sentinel ACI tank was surprisingly strange. And it is unlikely that it happened by chance ... However, its “phallic form” is not so much significant as weight. One can imagine what the mass of the counterweight should have been, so that the machine gunner could, without much stress, direct it towards the target!


Line "Sentinel." Fig. A. Shepsa

In the future, even the 25-pound (87,6-mm) field howitzer was installed on the ACII modification, and the frontal armor plate was made with a very large inclination to increase the armor resistance. Then they created a prototype ACIII with two (!) 25-pound howitzers. Finally, the next model was equipped with an 17-pound English gun, which only a year later got on the Sherman Firefly tank. But then the Americans intervened in the case, as a result of which the decision was made not to produce this tank with 25, or with 17-pound, or even with two 25-pound paired guns, and to use the first 66 machines made only for training purposes.


Production of armored vehicles during the Second World War from left to right: USA, USSR, Germany, United Kingdom.
Author:
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 21 October 2015 06: 53 New
    19
    Interesting article. Although, in my opinion, calling the Sentinel tank a successful design is at least somewhat reckless. Ultimately, the success or failure of the design of any type of military equipment and weapons determines its operation and, in particular, experience in combat use. The Australian Sentinel was used only for training tankers. Outwardly and in design, this tank seems to be a symbiosis of the British (the form of the hull and turret) and the American (chassis and engines) tank-building schools. Which is generally not surprising, as Australians, by and large, did not have their own tank building school before World War II, so they only had to do how to compile technical solutions borrowed from others. As for the effectiveness of the Matild and Churchill when used by the Australian troops in the jungle war, this is primarily due to the conditions for the combat use of tanks, which is reflected in the article: Australians and not only they used tanks for the most part to destroy Japanese fortifications, often tanks were used alone, less often by platoon, and very rarely as part of a company. Japanese anti-tank defense until the very end of the war was very improvised in the absence of adequate means of counteracting enemy tanks: the most powerful Japanese anti-tank defense was the 47-mm arr. 1, practically an analogue of our 45-mm 53-K, the Japanese anti-tank mines were very peculiar - intended to be used as universal, they carried an excessively powerful explosive charge to destroy the enemy infantry with a high-explosive action (with a negligible fragmentation) and too weak a charge to defeat armored vehicles (often they could not even kill a caterpillar). The massive use of tanks on the battlefield, as on the Soviet-German front, or at least not even in Western Europe or Northern Europe, by definition, could not be a war with the Japanese, it was too specific a theater of operations. And to support the armored and fire actions of their infantry during the assault on the fortified Japanese positions with their clearly inadequate anti-tank defense, slow-moving and at the same time relatively well-armored infantry tanks were more than enough. By the way, it is quite possible that precisely for this reason Sentinel did not go into a large series - the threat of Japanese troops invading Australia proper by the time this tank appeared was almost eliminated, and the British were better suited for use in the jungle during the assault on Japanese positions "and Churchill. The 17-pound tank gun for defeating lightly armored Japanese tanks was excessively powerful until the very end of the war.
    I have the honor.
  2. qwert
    qwert 21 October 2015 07: 24 New
    +6
    I didn’t think that the Americans riveted more tanks than the USSR. Although given the fact that they were heavy it was not quite possible. It would be better to give a breakdown by light, medium, heavy.
    1. kalibr
      21 October 2015 07: 34 New
      +2
      Heavy M6 and M26 very little, what to consider? The main tanks are 3; М3 easy, М3 medium and М4. And SAU ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Aleksandr72
        Aleksandr72 21 October 2015 07: 51 New
        +6
        Yes, actually the M6 ​​(the former more experienced than the real production vehicle) and the M26 Pershing (aka T-26) as far as I know, the Americans themselves were classified as medium tanks. Only in the USSR were they classified as heavy because of their mass exceeding 40 tons, as well as their relatively strong reservations. So most of the tanks produced during the Second World War in the USA were classified as medium, a large part of the BTT produced were light M3 / M5 tanks and by the end of the M24 war.
        I have the honor.
      3. inkass_98
        inkass_98 21 October 2015 08: 08 New
        +5
        Quote: qwert
        Americans riveted more tanks than the USSR

        Firstly, they were riveted by everyone who was not lazy, and secondly, they did not bother much with the details - they used a lot of automotive components, and not specially designed for the tank.
        Almost all car factories were engaged in the assembly of tanks, and we will not forget that we did not have to curtail production in one place and start in a clean field in another.
        1. inkass_98
          inkass_98 21 October 2015 08: 10 New
          +1
          By the way, the flamethrower Churchill isn't a crocodile? Sir Winston himself said that the tank has more shortcomings than he himself ...
          1. kalibr
            21 October 2015 08: 38 New
            +5
            This is the English he is "crocodile". And the Australians - frog. And as you can see, all its flaws in Asia turned into virtues. So he hurried so to speak!
            1. victor
              victor 21 October 2015 23: 11 New
              0
              Churchill had in mind ... Africa ... By that time, Americans were engaged in the Pacific theater of operations. And it’s easy to show dignity if there’s nothing to beat the enemy (at best to bring down a caterpillar). maybe a better tank, if you eat, you get just good for free. Which is enough with your head.
            2. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 22 October 2015 09: 42 New
              0
              Soviet infantry on Churchill.
    2. forwarder
      forwarder 21 October 2015 10: 16 New
      0
      Quote: qwert
      I didn’t think that the Americans riveted more tanks than the USSR.

      Much bigger. And the Germans riveted more than the USSR, but BTT in general. And since the USSR built almost exclusively tanks and self-propelled guns, in the USSR it was decided to compete ONLY with their production. What you see on the plate, only the signature there is incorrect.
      If we take the overall production of BTT, then the picture will change radically. The USSR will immediately turn into an outsider.
      1. kalibr
        21 October 2015 12: 35 New
        +1
        Where did you get this information? Source?
      2. Cap.Morgan
        Cap.Morgan 21 October 2015 19: 36 New
        0
        In serious battles, a tank is still preferable to an armored personnel carrier.
        At a close investment of time and materials.
    3. opus
      opus 21 October 2015 20: 52 New
      +1
      Quote: qwert
      . Although, given the fact that they were not heavy

      were.
      Compare with the release of our stew so de:
      Т-35("тяжелый",КВ-1 ранних серий,КВ-1,КВ-2(КВ-8),КВ-1С,КВ-85,ИС-1,МС-2,ИС-3.
      You will be surprised at their number, compared with almost 96000 tanks and self-propelled guns issued by the USSR
      ====================================
      The United States did not fight on its land, only in Europe (beyond the Atlantic) or in Asia (beyond the Pacific)

      easier to translate overseas two 30-ton medium tanksThan one 60 ton heavy - According to American tankers, the efficiency of two medium tanks was higher than one heavy

      M103 - the crown of American heavy tanks ... but he was "late"

      The American tankers themselves never favored heavily armored vehicles - they obviously lacked mobility, which was especially appreciated in military exercises. But as soon as the same tankers were under enemy fire, they immediately hung additional trucks, cement bags, spare parts boxes, etc. on their vehicles, trying to improve the protection of the tanks as much as possible.
    4. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 21 October 2015 21: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: qwert
      I didn’t think that the Americans riveted more tanks than the USSR. Although given the fact that they were heavy it was not quite possible. It would be better to give a breakdown by light, medium, heavy.

      More interesting is another. Having no tank building including a design school by 1940, they not only managed to produce relatively combat-ready vehicles in 41/42, but also created a pretty decent Sherman model after fine-tuning by 1943. And the Firefly variant is quite one of the top three WWII medium tanks.
      1. Aleksandr72
        Aleksandr72 22 October 2015 05: 07 New
        +1
        In fairness, it should be noted that the Sherman-Firefly was born at the request of British tankers and was armed with a powerful British 17-pound anti-tank gun with a unitary cartridge with a short but wide sleeve specially developed for its tank version. This tank was in the British armored brigade. For their tank forces, the Americans developed a version of the Sherman with a horizontal suspension of the HVSS type (if I was not mistaken in writing the abbreviation) and a long-barrel M.76,2 2-mm cannon - the main American tank of the last period of the war. At the same time, 76W was added to the Sherman designation. And just because this tank didn’t quite justify the hopes placed on it - it couldn’t fight the Panthers and Tigers effectively enough, the T-26 medium tank was developed - it’s in the M26 series Pershing.
        I have the honor.
  3. Vikxnumx
    Vikxnumx 21 October 2015 08: 33 New
    0
    Quote: inkass_98
    Firstly, they were riveted by everyone who was not lazy, and secondly, they did not bother much with the details - they used a lot of automotive components, and not specially designed for the tank.
    Almost all car factories were engaged in the assembly of tanks, and we will not forget that we did not have to curtail production in one place and start in a clean field in another.

    And to repair all this discrepancy .... when the spare parts are from the "donors" of another group and the Rh factor!
    Yes, and engine sparks ... BTR-60 does not resemble?
    1. Forest
      Forest 21 October 2015 17: 54 New
      0
      Sparks on tanks and armored vehicles have been set since the very beginning of tank building.
  4. dvg79
    dvg79 21 October 2015 08: 37 New
    +4
    I hope the author will continue to please us with new materials, thank him very much.
  5. Polkovodetz
    Polkovodetz 21 October 2015 09: 38 New
    +4
    Above were comments on the ratio of tank production in the Soviet Union and the United States during the war years.
    I will give a few quotes from the book "Fighting vehicles of the Uralvagonzavod. T-54 / T-55." (p. 8-9)
    “Before the outbreak of World War II, the workers 'and peasants' Red Army had approximately 23 thousand tanks and wedges. For the period from July 1, 1941 September 1, 1945 Soviet industry produced 103170 tanks and self-propelled guns. Another 13,4 thousand tanks and self-propelled guns, as well as 3208 tracked and half-tracked armored personnel carriers were transferred to us under Lend-Lease conditions by the Allies. As a result, the total fleet of tracked combat vehicles amounted to almost 143 thousand units. Return losses by May 9, 1945 reached 96,5 thousand tanks and self-propelled guns. Further losses of armored vehicles during the summer battles of 1945. with the Japanese army were insignificant - unless heavy marches finally finished off the resource of old BT tanks. Therefore, we can assume that on September 1, 1945. in the USSR Armed Forces there were about 46 thousand tanks, self-propelled guns and tracked armored personnel carriers (143 thousand minus 96,4 thousand losses). Actually, it’s less, since all the equipment delivered under Lend-Lease and surviving in the battles was subject to return, or at least to demilitarization .... "

    “On the eve of World War II, Great Britain had approximately 1 thousand tanks; the US Army consisted only of experienced or completely outdated vehicles suitable only for the purpose of training crews. During the war, the Americans built 106500 tanks and self-propelled guns, the British - 26485 cars. In addition, 41169 half-track armored personnel carriers were manufactured by the United States factories, and the countries of the British Commonwealth (England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), with a little help from the United States, produced 90 thousand light tracked armored personnel carriers. Do not lose sight of the 19621 American amphibious tank and LVT type armored personnel carrier (they were slightly different from each other). A total of about 284 thousand cars. ”

    “Excluding the transfer from the USSR, the armies of the Western Allies received about 267 thousand tanks, self-propelled guns, tracked and half-tracked armored personnel carriers. If we assume that the Anglo-American troops suffered the same losses in technology as the Soviet tankers, then by September 1, 1945 they have about 170 thousand combat vehicles left, or more than four times as many as the USSR. The troops of the Western Allies could not have equal losses, based on the most primitive statistics: two three German divisions were defeated on the Soviet front.
    By technical reliability, American tanks and armored personnel carriers were considered in the 1940s. exemplary. An indirect evidence of the excess of armored vehicles in the tank units of the United States and Great Britain is the massive alteration since 1943. "obsolete light and even medium tanks in tracked armored personnel carriers or anti-aircraft self-propelled guns ..."
  6. _KM_
    _KM_ 21 October 2015 11: 14 New
    0
    I do not quite understand - what is the ideality of the “Churchill” for fighting in the jungle?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 October 2015 12: 08 New
      +7
      Quote: _KM_
      I do not quite understand - what is the ideality of the “Churchill” for fighting in the jungle?

      An impenetrable tank that can make its way everywhere and cover the infantry with the hull. And speed in the jungle doesn’t really matter.

      In addition, here under "ideal for the jungle"rather understood"ideal for the jungle in which the Japanese are the enemy"Neither you Pak-40 in ambush, nor direct-handed cannon guns, nor PZO to you with the forces of the 203-mm B-4 division. smile All Japanese vocational schools are designed for a maximum of "Sherman". In the worst case, a suicide bomber will come running with a mine.
    2. aviator1913
      aviator1913 21 October 2015 12: 16 New
      +3
      Most likely booking, low speed, crew convenience, good handling, invulnerability to enemy assets
      1. Orang
        Orang 21 October 2015 15: 15 New
        +2
        Quote: aviator1913
        booking, low speed, crew convenience, good handling, invulnerability to enemy assets

        In the USSR, the reliable and tenacious chassis of these tanks was also noted.
    3. alovrov
      alovrov 21 October 2015 12: 45 New
      +2
      Approximately in the same, in what ideality KV2 for the Finnish campaign. You don’t have to drive fast and far, you can shoot at close range, the VET is extremely weak, the danger from the air is minimal. Cromwell or t-34 is generally useless. If the Australians were able to buy KB2, then no frogs would be needed.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 21 October 2015 13: 27 New
        0
        Quote: alovrov
        If the Australians were able to buy KV2, then no frog would be needed.

        Why do you dislike Australians so much? smile

        KV-2 in the form in which it was produced is an unreliable transmission, the engine overheats even when driving on the road (even the lighter KV with a small tower could not develop more than 24 km / h - the temperature of the water and oil in the cooling system, reached 107 and 112 degrees, respectively), the inability to rotate the tower even with a small roll. And one and only type of shells.
        Oh yes, when testing for combat rate of fire (an almost straight road was laid along the landfill, on both sides of which, within the course angle of 10-30 degrees, within the limits of a direct shot (400-600 m), various targets were set - from a “machine gun” to a “heavy tank" (a total of 5 targets)):
        KV-2 showed a rate of fire of 1 shot in 3.5 minutes, which was due, in particular, to the fact that it was impossible to charge the KV-2 gun in motion

        Moreover, when firing from a stop, the rate of fire would not particularly change:
        the need to bring the gun to the loading angle each time and to tear the gunner off the sight each time does not deny the movement or stop of the tank.
        1. alovrov
          alovrov 21 October 2015 15: 48 New
          0
          Do you need another type of shells? 152 mm caliber sea grenade Isn’t that what you need to clear the jungle road? Why recharge in motion if you shoot at a hole in the ground? No one did tank raids in the jungle. All the shortcomings of KV2 in the steppes of Ukraine are nothing in the jungle of Indochina.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 21 October 2015 16: 49 New
            +2
            Quote: alovrov
            Do you need another type of shells? 152 mm sea grenade isn't it just what you need to clear the road in the jungle?

            The problem is that the Japanese also built long-term defense. Against which a concrete projectile would not hurt.

            And even against a bunker, a gun with a higher initial speed would not hurt. Our artillerymen and tankers, the assistant commander, generally asked for the Br-2 assault gun. But I had to do ML-20.
            What is the great initial speed in the fight against bunkers - the history of all our “assault mortars” of 203 mm caliber clearly shows. From time to time, the design bureau shoved 203-mm “cigarette butts” onto the SU-152 base, rejoicing that the gun fits perfectly into the wheelhouse. And from time to time GAU and GABTU chopped these assault SAUs - because the 152 mm howitzer gun pierced a greater thickness than the 203 mm mortar.
            Quote: alovrov
            Why recharge in motion if you shoot at a hole in the ground?

            And KV-2 and on the foot for a long time recharged.

            Plus, do not forget that we have not the middle lane but the jungle. By the way, it is interesting - if the engine cooling system was boiling at 24 km / h at an air temperature of +20 C, then at what speed would it boil at +40?
            1. alovrov
              alovrov 21 October 2015 18: 37 New
              +1
              It would not hurt, probably. But from tanks they shoot at the embrasures - a landmine under 40 kg in weight was enough. And the reload speed of all cars with "big guns" is not small to say the least, because the weight is large and the loading is separate. And what will you do with it? Self-propelled guns worked from closed positions, why compare with a tank - a different application. The job of such a tank is to drive up close and shoot the embrasure. And so that the water does not boil, you can go 10 km / h - where to rush? Dot will not leave ... :)
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 21 October 2015 19: 12 New
                +1
                Quote: alovrov
                It would not hurt, probably. But from tanks they shoot at embrasures - a landmine under 40 kg in weight was enough.

                It is good if the enemy built a frontal fire bunker. The Japanese also built not only them, but also bunkers flank and oblique.
                And to shoot at their embrasures - it is necessary to deploy the tower 90 degrees, substituting the PTO for the thinner sides instead of the forehead and mask. It is better to disassemble such bunkers from the front, or from a long distance.
                Quote: alovrov
                Self-propelled guns worked from closed positions, why compare with a tank - a different application.

                Heh heh heh ... I wrote for good reason - StormSAU. This is a separate subclass of self-propelled guns to work on the battlefield direct fire. Competitor of artillery tanks and NPP tanks. smile
                It was for them that they asked for the Br-2. And it was the SturmSAU with 203 mm mortars mercilessly cut by GAU and GABTU.
                Quote: alovrov
                And so that the water does not boil, you can go 10 km / h - where to rush? Dot will not leave ... :)

                So 24 km / h - this is along the lane. And if you have to gas along the intersection? It was not in vain that the testers wrote that it is impossible to remove full power from the HF engine - cooling does not allow it.

                By the way, a gun with a high initial speed can help here too - it has a longer direct range (so it will not be necessary to approach the bunker 400-500 m). Indeed, for a tank, direct fire is best - and the crew’s qualification is not artillery, and the BC is not rubber ...
            2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Orang
        Orang 21 October 2015 15: 07 New
        -1
        Quote: alovrov
        KV2 ideality

        Better just KV-1.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. shishkin7676
      shishkin7676 18 November 2015 18: 29 New
      0
      Churchill's armor was thicker than that of the Tiger, and then it was thickened.
  7. Leeder
    Leeder 21 October 2015 11: 29 New
    +1
    How many I do not look, and the English tanks are the ugliest! :)
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 October 2015 12: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: LeeDer
      How many I do not look, and the English tanks are the ugliest! :)

      PMSM, the French will give 100 points handicap lime.
      1. kalibr
        21 October 2015 21: 26 New
        0
        Yes, he was somehow not very lucky with the design. But Matilda is even nothing, you do not find, especially in the Australian version?
  8. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 21 October 2015 11: 30 New
    +1
    overall a good article - thanks!
  9. kvs207
    kvs207 21 October 2015 11: 31 New
    0
    Quote: forwarder
    What you see on the plate, only the signature there is incorrect.

    Armored vehicles include tanks and vehicles based on them, so, with a signature, everything is fine.
    1. forwarder
      forwarder 21 October 2015 13: 31 New
      0
      Quote: kvs207
      Armored vehicles include tanks and vehicles based on them, so, with a signature, everything is fine.

      That's just the point that they enter. And on the plate this is not visible, because given the actual release of only tanks and self-propelled guns.
  10. _KM_
    _KM_ 21 October 2015 12: 35 New
    0
    Alexey RA, aviator1913, I realized, thanks.
  11. Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 21 October 2015 19: 28 New
    +1
    Sentinel has a small tower, that is, there is a maximum of 2 people. Commander, serves as a gunner. Experience has shown that this is the wrong decision.
  12. moskowit
    moskowit 22 October 2015 20: 43 New
    0
    I recommend for reading and reference a reliable and detailed source.

    Category: Military History, Popular Science
    Title: Encyclopedia of Tanks. Complete Encyclopedia of World Tanks 1915-2000
    Author: G. Kholyavsky
    Publisher: Harvest
    Год издания: 2002
    Number of Pages: 603
    Format: djvu
    Size: 22,8 Mb
    ISBN: 985-13-0298-8
    Quality: Fair
    Language: Russian


    Description: The book of G. Kholyavsky 'Encyclopedia of Tanks', which we offer to download in a convenient format, is the most comprehensive encyclopedic reference about the tanks of the world produced during the period from 1915 to 2000.

    In the book you can track the successful discoveries and difficulties in the development of world tank building. Here is the history of the creation of the first models, the big names of famous developers, technical specifications and design features, the use in combat conditions and the improvement of tanks, starting with the 1915 of the year.