Military Review

M3 "Stewart": the most massive light tank in history

29
М3 (English Light Tank M3) is a light American tank of the period of the Second World War, which entered into history under the name "Stuart", which was given to him already in the UK in honor of the General of the Civil War in the USA, Jeb Stewart. This tank is the most massive and most famous light a tank period of the Second World War and the most massive light tank in the history of world tank building. This combat vehicle was a direct development of the American light tank M2A4. The tank was developed and mass-produced by American Car and Foundry and Cadillac Car Division (a subsidiary of General Motors). Between March 1941 and June 1944 the tank was produced in series, repeatedly upgrading. A total of 23 tanks of this type were assembled in the United States.


The prehistory of the appearance of the tank M3

By the beginning of World War II, the US Army had two types of light tanks. The infantry units were armed with 292 tank modifications M2A2 and M2AZ. These were double-turreted tanks with machine-gun armaments, with 12,7-mm in one and with 7,62-mm machine gun in another turret. Along with them in the ranks of the motorized cavalry units there were 112 tanks М1 and М1А1. In these tanks, exactly the same machine gun weapons were located in the same turret. Structurally, such tanks had the same chassis, which was applied to each board of 4-x track rollers. Interlocked in pairs with each other in two balancing trolleys, support rollers were suspended on vertical buffer springs. That chassis was, perhaps, the main advantage of anything not particularly remarkable, but by the time of the start of the Second World War and an order of obsolete tanks. But the performance of the chassis is really amazing. In November, the 1934 of the year, the T5 tank, which was the prototype of the M1, successfully completed a test run from the Rock Island arsenal to Washington with a total length of 1450 kilometers. During the run, the average speed of the tank was 48 km / h. Launched from the Rock Island 14 arsenal in November, the tank crew arrived in Washington after 3 of the day, thus breaking all speed records for tracked vehicles. In the future, this undercarriage design was used on all American-made tanks up to the 1945 of the year.

M3 "Stewart": the most massive light tank in history
Light tank М2А4


The fighting, which began in Europe 1 September 1939, quickly demonstrated to the American generals the futility of exclusively machine guns, which forced them to speed up the design work on the creation of a new light tank equipped with artillery weapons. Thus, the M2А4 tank was born. The first light tanks of this type left the assembly line of the American Car and Foundry plant in May 1940. The release of combat vehicle data was completed in March of the 1941 of the year, a total of 365 tanks of this type were collected. Another 10 tanks in April, the company Baldwin Lokomotiv Works produced 1942 of the year. М2А4 combined the features of both pre-war American tanks (archaic for 1940 of the year, for example, were 5 primitive inspection hatches located along the perimeter of the tower), and light tanks of the Second World War period. Without leaving any noticeable trace in the history of tank building, the light tank М2А4 became a very important milestone in the history of the American army. With the advent of the tank in the US troops coincided with the formation of tank divisions. 15 July 1940 in the United States began the formation of the 1 and 2 armored divisions, which received the new light tanks М2А4.

At the same time, light tanks М2А4 were initially used mainly for training purposes. In the battle, these vehicles happened to be visited only once - this happened at the end of 1942 on the island of Guadalcanal in the Pacific Ocean, where they fought with the Japanese as part of the 1 tank corps battalion. Another 4 of such a tank on the program Lend-Lease received the UK. At the same time, soon after the release of the first M2А4 tanks in the USA, the design of an improved version of this combat vehicle began. In particular, the thickness of the frontal armor of the turret and the hull of the tank increased, which resulted in the growth of the mass of the combat vehicle to 12 tons. At the same time, in order to at least somehow reduce the specific pressure, the sloth was decided to be put on the ground. This decision of the American engineers has increased the stability of the tank. For a more reliable protection of the engine, the tank hull aft part was subjected to alteration. The first prototype of the new light tank was created on the basis of the M2А4 in the Rock Island arsenal, and already on July 5 of the year 1940 it was put into service under the designation “Light tank М3”. The first serial tanks M3 company "American Car and Foundry" produced in March 1941, immediately upon completion of the release of the tank M2A4.

Light tank M3

Structurally, the lightweight tank M3 "Stewart" repeated its predecessors, incorporating a number of shortcomings that were common to all American tanks of the 1930-ies. For example, the width of the tank was limited by the size of a standard American floating bridge of pre-war years. A short and high body did not allow to place in the tank turret an artillery system in caliber larger than 37 mm. Narrow tracks, which were borrowed from lighter tanks, caused a high specific pressure and limited combat capability of the combat vehicle on weak soils.



The main advantages of the light tank M3 include its very high operational reliability, as well as excellent dynamic performance. At the time of creation, the armament was also powerful enough to consist of an 37-mm M6 cannon and immediately five 7,62-mm Browning М1919А4 machine guns (one machine gun was paired with a gun was anti-aircraft).

During the serial production of a combat vehicle, changes were made to its design all the time, mainly of a technological nature. So, for example, a multi-faceted riveted turret on the machines of the first lots was replaced by a similar but welded turret, which was then replaced by the so-called "horseshoe-shaped" turret, the side walls of which were formed by one bent armor plate. On the late launch M3 tanks, the hull began to be assembled with partial use of welding. Starting from the second half of 1941, a stabilizer for pointing the 37-mm cannon in a vertical plane appeared on the light tank.

The hull of the lightweight M3 “Stewart” was made of rolled armor plates on the frame of the corners and strips with the help of riveting, while the later releases of the tanks were partially welded. The layout of the tank was as follows - with the rear engine and the front of the transmission units. The crew of the combat vehicle consisted of 4-man - a mechanic and his assistant (shooter), located in the office of control, as well as charging with the commander, who also served as a gunner, housed in a double tank turret.



The whole front sheet of the case of the turret box was occupied by the viewing windows of the driver and his assistant, these windows were completely closed with armor doors, which were folded up. Triplexes were installed in the doors. The viewing window of the mechanic-driver of the Stewart was docked with a rectangular hatch located in the upper front hull plate. The cover of this hatch was folded back and forth, which allowed the crew to land in the tank.

At the same time, only the seats of the tank driver and his assistant, who also served as the shooter from the course machine gun, were sufficiently comfortable. The seats of these two crew members had their backs, which were height adjustable and were even fitted with seat belts. Since the tower of the light tank М3 had no rotating polik, the loader and the gunner (he is the commander) did without seats at all. In the campaign, they were located on the sludge drawers with ammunition, the covers of which specifically had soft pillows, and in battle both served the gun in a standing position.

The main armament of the tank was 37-mm gun M6 with a barrel length 53,5 caliber. The initial speed of the armor-piercing projectile fired from this gun was 884 m / s. At a distance of 500 yards (457 meters), an armor-piercing projectile could penetrate homogeneous armor 53 mm thick, located at an angle 30 to the vertical; at a distance of 1000 yards (914 meters) - 46 mm and at a distance of 1500 yards (1327 meters) - 40 mm. Vertical aiming of the gun at the target was carried out in manual mode using the installed sector mechanism in the range from 100 to + 200. Rough horizontal guidance was also carried out in manual mode, with the flywheel located near the loader's place.



The 37-mm Browning М7,62-1919 machine gun was paired with the 4-mm gun. The total machine gun on the tank was 5. Another tank machine gun was installed in the ball mounting of the upper front hull plate. The fire out of it led the assistant driver. Two more “Browning” were placed in the side sponsons. The ability to adjust these machine guns in the horizontal and vertical plane was severely limited, in fact, the guidance was carried out by turning the hull of the tank. A tank mechanic (or a crew member who took his place) shot from these machine guns with the help of cables in Bowden sheath. The fifth 7,62-mm machine gun was anti-aircraft and was intended for firing at air targets, it was installed on board the tower just behind the commander's turret.

The undercarriage of the Stuart lightweight M3 tank (on each side) included 4 single rubberized road wheels, which were interlocked in pairs in two balance trolleys, which were suspended on two vertical buffer springs; 3 rubberized roller support; not rubberized guide wheel, which was also suspended on the buffer spring and equipped with a screw-type tensioning mechanism.

Light tank МХNUMX "Stuart" received its baptism of fire in North Africa and not under the American, but under the English flag. The defeat of the British troops on the continent and the loss of virtually 3 / 2 of their tanks, forced the British to seek help from their overseas ally. The British could not quickly make up for the losses they had incurred in tanks due to their own production. The first "Stuarts" Great Britain received in July 3, they entered service with the 1941 Royal Irish Hussars. By November of that year, all the 8 regiments of the 3 tank brigade were armed with American vehicles.



18 in November 1941 of the year in 8 kilometers from Gabr-Saleh The 8 th hussars and the 5 th royal armored regiments of this brigade met with the German thrusts 5. As a result of the ensuing tank battle, the British lost 11, the Germans 7 tanks (according to other sources, the outcome for the British was worse, 23 on 8). In December, 1941, the brigade was taken to the rear, which allowed to sum up some of the results of the use of American light tanks in combat conditions. It turned out that in two months of intense warfare in the desert from the 166 "Stuarts" of the 4 Tank Brigade, for technical reasons, only 12 machines failed. The British, who were constantly tormented by their very naughty tanks, were delighted with the "Stuart".

The third after the American and British armies by the number of Stuart tanks was the Red Army, which received 1232 light tanks of modifications M3 and M3A1: 972 tanks in 1942 and 255 in 1943 as part of the lend-lease program. In our country, these tanks called the M3 "light" or just M3l. At the same time, the Soviet tank crew never had a special success. Despite the excellent dynamic characteristics, the tank stood out for its large dimensions, which complicated camouflage. In addition, the tank worked on high-octane fuel that was scarce in the Soviet Union. It was necessary to fill in it aviation gasoline with an octane rating of at least 92, or in case of emergency, other gasoline, but with an octane rating of at least 82. In addition to all of the above, the tank required careful and regular maintenance, which was not in the tradition of Soviet zampotechs.



The main modifications of the tank:

M3. The very first modification of the tank, an option with a riveted hull and turret. In the process of serial production, the turret of the tank became welded, and its shape was changed from multi-faceted to horseshoe-shaped. Late-release tanks were distinguished by the presence of a partially welded hull. Part of the tanks was distinguished by the presence of a stabilizer aiming the gun in a vertical plane, as well as a diesel engine Guiberson T-1020-4 with 220 horsepower hp instead of the petrol power 250 hp. Total 5811 tanks were released M3.

MZA1. The version differs in that the commander's turret was eliminated on the tank, as well as machine guns placed in the airborne sponsors. The hull, chassis and power plant have not changed. A total of this type of 4621 tank was manufactured, of which 211 were equipped with a Guiberson T-1020-4 diesel engine.

M3A3. The version differed fully welded body, which received a new form with beveled cheekbones. The tower acquired a developed aft niche in which a radio station was installed. The armament, the undercarriage and the power plant are the same as those of the MZA1 tank. In total, the 3593 tank of this type was manufactured (taking into account the additional release).

M5. The version was distinguished by a new power plant, which consisted of two carburetor 8-cylinder engines Cadillac Series 42 V8 with a total power 220 hp, as well as the presence of an automatic gearbox Cadillac Hydra-Matic. Also stood out with a new fully welded hull with a maximum thickness of frontal armor 63-mm. The turret of the tank and its undercarriage remained the same as that of the M3-X1. A total of 2076 tanks of this type were manufactured.

M5A1. version of the M5 tank with a turret from the M3А3. In addition, armor cover of the anti-aircraft machine gun installation was introduced, a box for equipment appeared on the stern of the turret, the support rollers became stamped. A total of 7585 tanks of this type were manufactured (including additional release).

M3 tank score

Low evaluation of the combat qualities of the "Stewart" were largely due to its incorrect use. The Second World War demonstrated the unsuitability of all light tanks of that period to combat, even with medium enemy vehicles. Already by 1942, the 37-mm gun of the M3 tank was almost powerless against the increased frontal booking of new modifications of the German PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV tanks. This forced the use of "Stuarts" during flank attacks and from ambushes, as the M3 tank weapon could still penetrate weaker side armor of the "triples" and "fours" at short distances. The side tank and stern armor of the Tigers and Panthers that appeared later, the lightweight tank M3 Stewart could only pierce at close range. The small caliber of the gun was limited and the capabilities of the combat vehicle to support the infantry, fragmentation shells to the 37-mm cannon were powerless even against enemy field fortifications. For this reason, in the Pacific theater of war, American military units converted the “Stuarts” into flamethrower tanks.



Caused a censure and booking, which was originally intended as an exceptionally bulletproof. The armor of the tank provided the crew with full protection from the fire of large-caliber machine guns, at some distances - 20-mm guns. Only in frontal projection there was a chance to repel the projectile of the German 37-mm cannon or heavy Japanese anti-tank guns. She didn’t protect against fire from larger caliber guns at all. According to eyewitnesses, in the case of hit in the tank 88-mm projectile "Tigra", M3 "Stuart" literally tore to pieces. The situation was aggravated by the relatively large dimensions of the light tank, which made it a convenient target on the battlefield and made it difficult to disguise on the ground.

Much better mobile, maneuverable, fast and reliable "Stuart" was adapted to the role of a reconnaissance tank. But high speed also had its price - high gasoline consumption by an aviation engine. Before the appearance of additional discharged fuel tanks on the M3, the range on the highway did not exceed 113 kilometers. The situation with diesel engines was slightly better, but these options were hardly used in the American army.

Performance characteristics of the M3 Stuart:

Overall dimensions: length - 4,43 m, width - 2,47 m, height - 2,64 m.
Combat weight - 12,68 t.
Reservations: hull forehead - 16-44 mm, turret forehead - 38 mm, sides and hull and tower hulls - 25 mm, roof - 13 mm, bottom - 10-13 mm.
Armament - M37 6-mm gun and 5-X7,62-mm machine guns M1919A4.
Ammunition - 103 projectile and 8270 cartridges.
The power plant is an aviation 7-cylinder radial gasoline engine "Continental" W-670-9A horsepower 250.
Maximum speed (highway) - 58 km / h.
Power reserve (on the highway) - 113 km.
Crew - 4 person.

Information sources:
http://las-arms.ru/index.php?id=465
http://vspomniv.ru/Stuart.htm
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/stuart/stuart1.php
http://pro-tank.ru/bronetehnika-usa/.../152-m3-stuard
Open source materials
Author:
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kostya Andreev
    Kostya Andreev 14 June 2016 06: 45
    +11
    And after this, someone says that BT and T-26 are outdated.
    1. gla172
      gla172 14 June 2016 07: 07
      +5
      I agree about BT ....
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 14 June 2016 09: 51
      +2
      Quote: Kostya Andreev
      And after this, someone says that BT and T-26 are outdated.

      Well, generally outdated, weak armor, a weak engine and suspension (a dead end modernization), 3 crew member.
      T50, T60, T70 were a cut above.
      1. Kenneth
        Kenneth 14 June 2016 11: 01
        +2
        T60-70 ersatz is small-sized and hardly applicable but cheap.
        1. goose
          goose 14 June 2016 13: 04
          +6
          Quote: Kenneth
          T60-70 ersatz is small-sized and hardly applicable but cheap.

          The T-70M is far from an ersatz, with extremely decent weapons and armor when compared to the M3. One Elephant was knocked out precisely from the T-70M. The low height of the tank made it possible to really move around the battlefield without being in danger from the VET and get close to them at a distance of up to 400m, where the odds are already equal.
          1. Kenneth
            Kenneth 14 June 2016 13: 57
            +1
            The same ersatz with two unfortunate crew members, one of whom was sitting in an embrace with an engine and tanks, and the other alone was controlled by a gun and command. For which he was discontinued
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 June 2016 10: 43
      +2
      Quote: Kostya Andreev
      And after this, someone says that BT and T-26 are outdated.

      No somebody, and GABTU specialists. Moreover, regarding the T-26, such conversations began already in the second half of the 30s. Alas, the engine and suspension that the T-26 inherited from the original Vickers-6t for some reason very poorly tolerated the growth of the tank's mass by 1,5-2 times. smile
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 14 June 2016 16: 20
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Not someone, but GABTU specialists. Moreover, regarding the T-26, such conversations began already in the second half of the 30s. Alas, the engine and suspension that the T-26 inherited from the original Vickers-6t, for some reason very poorly tolerated the growth of the tank's mass by 1,5-2 times.

        Have you ever tried to carry out an experiment? Load these specialists with two sacks of potatoes and send them on a full march. In V. Emelianenko's book "In the harsh military air" I always liked the slogan in the stable, "The horse is not a motor - it requires care . "In my opinion, the attitude towards tanks was the same as towards engines.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 15 June 2016 09: 38
          +1
          Quote: Amurets
          Have you tried to conduct an experiment? Load two bags of potatoes on these specialists and send them to the march with full calculation

          So what the experts said: if the chassis, transmission and engine of a 6-ton machine gun tank are used for a cannon tank weighing 9-10 tons, then we will get exactly the same technical problems that the T-26 began to pursue in 1937. It was not from a good life that we were negotiating with the Czechs regarding their LT.
          And then Pavlov arrived in time - with Spanish experience in the combat use of LT and data on French tanks.
  2. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 14 June 2016 07: 25
    +1
    At a distance of 500 yards (457 meters), an armor-piercing projectile could penetrate 53 mm thick homogeneous armor located at an angle of 300 to the vertical

    Error in the text. "at an angle of 300 to the vertical". Should be - at an angle of 30 degrees to the vertical.
  3. qwert
    qwert 14 June 2016 07: 25
    0
    And what was the Americans to do? They could not create a heavy tank at all. The average M3 was utter nonsense. I had to stamp M2. By the way, it is interesting to compare it in size and reservation with the Soviet light T-70 and T-80.
    1. Cherkashin Ivan
      Cherkashin Ivan 14 June 2016 09: 38
      +1
      An incomplete comparison will come out. Yes t70 was less than M3, probably this gave him an advantage on the ground. The armor and cannon for LT are also good, especially for starting a war. But there is one very serious problem, a crew of two.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 14 June 2016 14: 41
      -1
      "By the way, it is interesting to compare it in terms of size and armor with the Soviet light T-70 and T-80" ////

      You can compare with the T-34.
      As you can see, the forehead of the T-34 case, as it was in 1940, was 45 mm, so
      and remained in 1945 - 45 mm.
      The tower at T-34-85 received a strong reservation, and the building
      - without changes.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  4. vietnam7
    vietnam7 14 June 2016 07: 49
    +1
    Quote: Kostya Andrei
    And after this, someone says that BT and T-26 are outdated.

    At Drabkin, veterans who fought from the first days of the war admit that Bt was not an outdated tank for its time, thanks to the author for the photo for the article, it would be nice to have captions for them, where and when the photo was taken, in any case you are a plus (although they did not give me a plus put) then thanks for the work!
    1. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 14 June 2016 08: 12
      +5
      Moreover, I happened to read that in 1941 many tankers (especially in the initial period of the war) preferred to fight on the BT-7 than on the T-34, despite the thinner armor and weaker weapons. The reason was that the BT-shka was a well-mastered and familiar tank, all the "childhood illnesses" of which had already been eliminated, and the T-34 was a completely unfamiliar vehicle for many tankers, moreover still very "raw" and unreliable. And the "obsolete" BT-7 and T-26 ended the war in August 1945 in the Far East, despite the fact that the tank forces for the most part had already been re-equipped with industrially spent, reliable and well-mastered T-34-85 and IS- 2.
      Another photo of the hero of the article:
    2. avt
      avt 14 June 2016 09: 28
      +4
      Quote: vietnam7
      Drabkin veterans who fought from the first days of the war admit that BT

      He wasn’t, he just at number 7 exhausted the possibilities of further modernization, which led to the creation of 34 matches.
      Low ratings of the fighting qualities of "Stuart" were largely due to its improper use.
      And turn this chaise as you like, look for “specific tasks” for it, all is one - a weak machine. Created by engineers who lagged behind their European colleagues in life and for whatever reason did not take into account the experience of Europeans - the topic is probably a separate article. perhaps only the Italians got up - armored vehicles, too, somehow not their strong point.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 14 June 2016 11: 04
        +1
        Quote: avt
        Created by engineers who in life lagged behind their European counterparts and for whatever reason did not take into account the experience of Europeans - the topic is probably a separate article.

        And what experience of Europeans in terms of LT could be taken into account at the beginning of 1940?
        French with their AMR 35 and microscopic crews, in which the commander was supposed to be an eight-eyed six-armed?
        Or the British one with their machine-gun perversions like the Light Tank Mk.VI and all kinds of "Cruisers"?

        The Germans were playing for the "bad guys", and their experience in creating Yankee panzers was less available.
        1. avt
          avt 14 June 2016 14: 21
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And what experience of Europeans in terms of LT could be taken into account at the beginning of 1940?
          French with their AMR 35 and microscopic crews, in which the commander was supposed to be an eight-eyed six-armed?

          Well, let's be honest - the Franks made good cars and the same Somua quite a bit reached the suburbs in the linear parts of the Wehrmacht. Well, they did the platform better than the Czechs
          Quote: Alexey RA
          and all sorts of "Cruisers"?

          Well, Kruzak, “Comet,” they normally mutated into quite decent samples, although the Angolan passion for rivets and bolts is certainly amazing. laughing
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The Germans were playing for the "bad guys", and their experience in creating Yankee panzers was less available.

          Oh, Wei! Do not make people funny! Just look at who and how he worked for the benefit of the Reich in the automotive industry! But the tanks were not a hobby for the Amers who were huddling behind the hocks.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 15 June 2016 09: 44
            +3
            Quote: avt
            Well, let's be honest - the Franks made good cars and the same Somua quite a bit reached the suburbs in the linear parts of the Wehrmacht. Well, they did the platform better than the Czechs

            In their niche - good (although cramped towers and small carriages). But imagine a "catfish" conducting mobile battles in North Africa, for example. smile
            Quote: avt
            Oh, Wei! Do not make people funny! Just look at who and how he worked for the benefit of the Reich in the automotive industry! But the tanks were not a hobby for the Amers who were huddling behind the hocks.

            Well, yes, they were more and more specialists in the fleet.
            Although when pinned - on the third attempt (M2 - M3 - M4) they gave out a normal "average" ST. There are a lot of normal STs. smile
  5. kalibr
    kalibr 14 June 2016 08: 25
    +1
    A very good book about Stuart, only dear 95 dollars.
  6. Stas57
    Stas57 14 June 2016 10: 14
    -1
    It was necessary to fill it with aviation gasoline with an octane rating of at least 92, or in case of emergency, other gasoline, but with an octane rating of at least 82.

    instead of American gasoline with an octane rating of 80, it was proposed to use B-78 gasoline, or B-70 with P-9 additive.

    Already by the 1942 year, the 37-mm gun of the M3 tank was almost powerless against the increased frontal reservation of new modifications of the German tanks PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV. This forced the Stuarts to be used during flank attacks and from ambushes, since the M3 tank’s gun could still penetrate the weaker side armor of the “triples” and “fours” at short distances. B

    it turned out that the Soviet 45-mm gun, as well as the English 2-pound (40 mm) gun, were not pierced by armor-piercing shells of a plate with a thickness of 50 mm. As for the 37-mm American gun M5, from a distance of 100 meters it quite calmly pierced both the 50-mm frontal plate StuG III Ausf.B, and 50-mm (25 + 25 mm) forehead Pz.Kpfw.38 (t) Ausf.E. The gun’s power was enough to successfully fight all the enemy tanks produced in the 1941 year.
    http://warspot.ru

    1. Kostya Andreev
      Kostya Andreev 14 June 2016 13: 43
      0
      Tell me what methodology was used, for example, I don’t know, otherwise in one case one method is used, and in the other another. Because in the wiki, the table shows what it pierced, pierced 457-52 mm at a distance of 57 m (depending on the projectile).
      However, it says "It should be remembered that at different times and in different countries, differentaccurate methods for determining armor penetration. As a result, direct comparison with similar data from other guns is often impossible".
      I would like to know in more detail about the methodology!
      1. IImonolitII
        IImonolitII 14 June 2016 23: 45
        0
        In Soviet - this is the data on the testing of tank guns GABTU.
  7. AllXVahhaB
    AllXVahhaB 14 June 2016 12: 36
    +1
    Aviation gasoline for a tank is cool, of course ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
  8. code54
    code54 14 June 2016 20: 06
    0
    Great photo!!!
  9. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 14 June 2016 23: 02
    +1
    In my opinion, of course, the tank was in the concept of the end of the 1930x, but as a combat vehicle as a whole, it was full of guano. And already with the so-called complexity in operation.
  10. serverny
    serverny 14 June 2016 23: 31
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    The Germans were playing for the "bad guys", and their experience in creating Yankee panzers was less available.

    I am ashamed to be so weakly savvy in materiel. Read at your leisure who owned the German manufacturers of engines, armor and armored vehicles.
  11. fa2998
    fa2998 15 June 2016 11: 01
    -1
    Quote: Stas57
    Well, generally outdated, weak armor, a weak engine and suspension (a dead end modernization), 3 crew member.

    In fact, BT was piled up in such a way that it didn’t come in handy at all! Why did it need a wheeled drive! Did they go a lot on wheels? The modernization path — abandoning the wheeled drive gives significant weight savings (you can strengthen the armor), simplified technology and cheap! And we already tried the powerful gun and diesel engine at the last BTs. Obviously we had the T-34, and we focused on it. hi
  12. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 8 December 2016 07: 12
    0
    The British did not call him anything other than Cutie for reliability .....