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.
Our news channels

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

39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +19
    21 October 2015 06: 53
    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, the experience of its use in combat conditions. The Australian Sentinel was used only for training tankers. Externally and in design, this tank seems to be a symbiosis of the British (hull and turret shape) and American (chassis and engines) schools of tank building. Which, in general, is not surprising, since By and large, the Australians did not have their own school of tank building before World War II, so they only had to compile technical solutions borrowed from others. As for the effectiveness of "Matilda" and "Churchills" when used by Australian troops in the war in the jungle, this is primarily due to the conditions of the combat use of tanks, which is reflected in the article: the Australians and not only they used tanks for the most part to destroy Japanese fortifications, often tanks were used individually, less often by a platoon, and very rarely as part of a company. Until the very end of the war, Japanese anti-tank defense was of a completely improvised nature in the absence of adequate means of countering enemy tanks: the most powerful Japanese anti-tank defense system was the 47-mm gun mod. 1, almost an analogue of our 45-mm 53-K, the Japanese tank mines were very peculiar - intended for use as universal ones, they carried an excessively powerful explosive charge to defeat an enemy infantryman with a high-explosive action (with negligible fragmentation) and too weak a charge to defeat armored vehicles (often they could not kill even a caterpillar). The massive use of tanks on the battlefield, as on the Soviet-German front, or at least even as in Western Europe or Northern Europe, in the war with the Japanese, by definition, could not be, too specific theater of operations. And to support the actions of their infantry with armor and fire during the assault on fortified Japanese positions with their clearly inadequate anti-tank defense, there were more than enough low-speed and at the same time relatively well-armored infantry tanks. By the way, it is quite possible that it is for this reason that the Sentinel did not go into a large series - the threat of invasion of Japanese troops into the territory of Australia proper by the time this tank appeared had already been practically eliminated, and the British Matilda were better suited for use in the jungle during the assault on Japanese positions "and" Churchill ". The 17-pounder tank gun for defeating lightly armored Japanese tanks was overly powerful until the very end of the war.
    I have the honor.
  2. +6
    21 October 2015 07: 24
    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. +2
      21 October 2015 07: 34
      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. +6
        21 October 2015 07: 51
        Yes, actually the M6 ​​(which was more of an experimental than a real production vehicle) and the M26 Pershing (aka T-26), as far as I know, the Americans themselves attributed to the class of medium tanks. Only in the USSR were they classified as heavy because of their weight exceeding 40 tons, as well as their relatively strong armor. So most of the tanks produced during the Second World War in the United States belonged to the category of medium tanks, a significant part of the BTT produced were light M3 / M5 tanks and by the end of the war M24.
        I have the honor.
      3. +5
        21 October 2015 08: 08
        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. +1
          21 October 2015 08: 10
          By the way, isn't the Churchill flamethrower a Crocodile? Sir Winston himself said that the tank has more flaws than himself ...
          1. +5
            21 October 2015 08: 38
            This is the British "crocodile". And the Australians have frog. And as you can see, all his shortcomings in Asia turned into advantages. So he was in a hurry to say so!
            1. 0
              21 October 2015 23: 11
              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. 0
              22 October 2015 09: 42
              Soviet infantry on Churchill.
    2. 0
      21 October 2015 10: 16
      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. +1
        21 October 2015 12: 35
        Where did you get this information? Source?
      2. 0
        21 October 2015 19: 36
        In serious battles, a tank is still preferable to an armored personnel carrier.
        At a close investment of time and materials.
    3. +1
      21 October 2015 20: 52
      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 it 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. +1
      21 October 2015 21: 28
      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.

      Another thing is more interesting. Not having a tank building by 1940, including a design school, they not only managed to produce relatively combat-ready vehicles in 41/42, but also created, after fine-tuning by 1943, a quite decent model of the Sherman. The Firefly variant is one of the three best medium tanks of the WWII.
      1. +1
        22 October 2015 05: 07
        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-pounder anti-tank gun with a unitary cartridge with a short but wide sleeve specially designed for its tank version. This tank went to the British armored brigades. 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 spelling the abbreviation) and a long-barreled 76,2-mm M2 cannon - the main American tank of the last period of the war. At the same time, 76W was added to the designation of "Sherman". And only because this tank did not quite justify the hopes placed on it - it could not effectively fight the Panthers and Tigers, the T-26 medium tank was developed - it is also in the M26 Pershing series.
        I have the honor.
  3. 0
    21 October 2015 08: 33
    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 confusion .... when spare parts from "donors" of another group and the Rh factor!
    Yes, and engine sparks ... BTR-60 does not resemble?
    1. 0
      21 October 2015 17: 54
      Sparks on tanks and armored vehicles have been set since the very beginning of tank building.
  4. +4
    21 October 2015 08: 37
    I hope the author will continue to please us with new materials, thank him very much.
  5. +4
    21 October 2015 09: 38
    Above were comments on the ratio of tank production in the Soviet Union and the United States during the war years.
    Here are some 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. 0
    21 October 2015 11: 14
    I didn't quite understand - what is the ideal "Churchill" for fighting in the jungle?
    1. +7
      21 October 2015 12: 08
      Quote: _KM_
      I didn't quite understand - what is the ideal "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.

      Also, here under "ideal for the jungle"rather understood"ideal for the jungle in which the Japanese are the enemy". Neither you have a Pak-40 in ambush, nor you with body guns on direct fire, nor you with a PZO by the forces of the 203-mm B-4 division. smile All Japanese technical equipment is designed for a maximum of "Sherman". In the worst case, a suicide bomber will come running with a mine.
    2. +3
      21 October 2015 12: 16
      Most likely booking, low speed, crew convenience, good handling, invulnerability to enemy assets
      1. +2
        21 October 2015 15: 15
        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. +2
      21 October 2015 12: 45
      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. 0
        21 October 2015 13: 27
        Quote: alovrov
        If the Australians were able to buy KV2, then no frog would be needed.

        Why do you dislike Australians so much? smile

        The KV-2 in the form in which it was produced is an unreliable transmission, the engine overheating 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 water and oil in the cooling system, reached 107 and 112 degrees, respectively), the inability to turn 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 range, on both sides of which, within the course angle of 10-30 degrees within a direct shot (400-600 m), various targets were placed - from a "machine gun" to a "heavy tank" (5 targets in total)):
        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. 0
          21 October 2015 15: 48
          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. +2
            21 October 2015 16: 49
            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.
            The history of all our "assault mortars" of 203 mm caliber shows well what a high muzzle velocity is when dealing with pillboxes. From time to time the design bureau shoved 203-mm "cigarette butts" onto the SU-152 base, glad that the gun fits perfectly into the wheelhouse. And from time to time the GAU and GABTU cut these assault rifles - because the 152-mm howitzer-gun penetrated 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. +1
              21 October 2015 18: 37
              Wouldn't hurt, I guess. But from tanks they shoot at embrasures - a land mine under 40 kg in weight was enough. And the reload speed of all machines with "big guns" is not small, to put it mildly, because the weight is large and the loading is separate. And what can you do about it? ACS worked from closed positions, why compare with a tank - different applications. 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 is the hurry? The pillbox won't leave ... :)
              1. +1
                21 October 2015 19: 12
                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. -1
        21 October 2015 15: 07
        Quote: alovrov
        KV2 ideality

        Better just KV-1.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. 0
      18 November 2015 18: 29
      Churchill's armor was thicker than that of the Tiger, and then it was thickened.
  7. +1
    21 October 2015 11: 29
    How many I do not look, and the English tanks are the ugliest! :)
    1. +1
      21 October 2015 12: 16
      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. 0
        21 October 2015 21: 26
        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. +1
    21 October 2015 11: 30
    overall a good article - thanks!
  9. 0
    21 October 2015 11: 31
    Quote: forwarder
    What you see on the plate, only the signature there is incorrect.

    The "armored" vehicles include tanks and vehicles based on them, so, with the signature, everything is fine.
    1. 0
      21 October 2015 13: 31
      Quote: kvs207
      "Armored" vehicles include tanks and vehicles based on them, so, with the 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. 0
    21 October 2015 12: 35
    Alexey RA, aviator1913, I realized, thanks.
  11. +1
    21 October 2015 19: 28
    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. 0
    22 October 2015 20: 43
    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 by G. Kholiavsky 'The Encyclopedia of Tanks', which we offer to download in a convenient format, is the most complete encyclopedic guide about the world's tanks, produced in 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.

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

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