They had on paper ideas to put 76mm and 85mm guns into most lend lease tanks but it was always just faster to build another T-34 and send it to the front then to take lend lease stuff and send it to a factory to be refit
The 76mm Matilda was built and tested, along with the 45mm Valentine. They did have ideas to rearm shermans and rebuild lend-lease tanks into 100mm SPGs, but that never came to be.
I remember seeing a Valentine that was used in Soviet service at the Canadian tank museum, thing was busted to hell cause it was at the bottom of a bog for 74 years but really cool to see it in person.
Interresting how the Valentine was liked and used effectively on the eastern front. On paper this one looks realy bad with its small turret and (comparably) weak enige. Are there any other tanks that worked better on the front line then they looked on paper? Usually it appears to be opposite, looking at you german heavy tanks.
The Semovente series, especially the M40 75/18 and M41 75/34. On paper they weren't great being based on the italian "mediums" tanks, but their guns proved very capable at dealing with allied armour/infantry and having Diesel engines proved very useful in North Africa due to the lack of fuel... The german Africa Korps with gasoline powered Panzer IIIs and Stugs suffered the lack of fuel more.
I think the problem is that when we look at tanks "on paper," we're comparing them to other tanks. In reality, of course, a tank faces dozens of hills and miles of mud and probably a hundred infantry fighting positions for every opposing AFV it comes up against. So its tank-on-tank performance is a distant third, behind its ability to get around and its ability to deal with the most common threats and and targets it will face. Think about it this way: if you're in the infantry, which would you rather have backing you up: 1. A vehicle that will absolutely lose any head-to-head fight with a Tiger, but which can go anywhere an infantryman can go, shrug off anything but a dedicated anti-tank weapon, and wreck machinegun nests all day long or 2. A vehicle which can beat a Tiger, but which is too heavy and difficult to supply and maintain to be deployed against any but the very stiffest opposition? Bear in mind that there are only ever 1300 Tigers, but over a million MG34s and 42s deployed. So you can expect to face five hundred or more machine guns for every heavy tank. Plus, of course, various other fortifications (improvised and otherwise) with an array of field guns, mortars, etc. Another way to think about it: would you rather do your daily commute in a Honda Civic, or in an LAV III? Now, obviously the LAV is much cooler, and it can do a lot of things the Civic can't... but you're just going to work, on paved roads. Your payload is you and your co-worker. There is no incoming fire heavier than a bug or some bird poop (which the Civic's armor can deflect perfectly well). There are no targets to engage. On paper, the LAV looks WAY more impressive... but in fact the Civic can handle 99.9% of the actual conditions encountered as well or better than the LAV, and it's way less work to keep it operating.
@@trioptimum9027you went a bit off, but you're absolutely correct. On paper (on the couch rather), tanks are compared to other tanks, however in practice tanks are judged by how well they can complete certain tactical or strategic goals. A tank isn't built as "lets do like the enemy, but try better" but as "we need this, that and this therefore the machine has to adhere to these parameters and be able to do this, this and that". Doctrine plays a crutial part in what tanks are supposed to do and with emphasis of which qualities they have to be built. Honestly I hate how tank discussions are often dumbed down to tank duels and stat checks. It's so much more than that.
I used to think that winter conditions for tanks were mostly problems of traction, like in mud (and starting the engine of course). For me an eye-opener was when Stefan Karlsson of Arsenalen showed how in snow even tanks with broad tracks like the Centurion can slide around as if they're on ice because of how the snow compacts to ice under the tracks. The even weight distribution of a tracked vehicle almost exacerbates the problem instead of solving it. The tanks literally slide around at all angles like ice dancers. This taught me that even similar looking design parameters between armies can vary wildly in importance and real world application.
Good to see Valentine getting some respect. For what it was designed for - going forward with infantry - it did pretty well. Amazed that they sent any Cruiser Mk IV at all. A case of showing willing, rather than really wanting to ship in bulk?
6:18 Damn, that's pretty lucky that the driver's hatch was not obstructed. Otherwise it would be one hell of a claustrophobic nightmare to have to wait someone to blowtorch open a hole in there.
It's quite an entertaining video. I saw all these tanks in the Kubinka Museum. Somehow, I kept thinking that the number of Tetrarchs and Cromwell's received under Lend-Lease was much higher, but fewer Valentines, even though I knew that the tank had not taken root badly in the Red Army
I think problem is not about the testing but the fuel. Cromwells meteor engine needs high octane fuel meanwhile soviets used 78 octane fuel even in their fighters.
Well they kinda build their own (T-60/70/80). Not the best, not impressive, not possessing any sort of outstanding quality...but cheap, numerous and easily recoverable and repairable due to usage of extremely common parts.
Apparently, my original comment was removed. Did the soviets try to put a Zis-2 (probably a Zis-4) into the valentine/churchill. Since the 6 pounder only had ap and apc until 43.
No, there's no point in upgrading to another 57 mm gun. The ZIS-2 was a specialized anti tank gun and not as common as the 45 or 76 tested on the Valentine and Matilda.
British tanks in general where pretty terrible and this is coming from a Brit. I have so much respect for the crew that had to drive into battle with them, my great grandfather was in a Cruiser Mk3 in Libya.
They weren't terrible, just obsolete almost every time they were fielded. The Centurion would have been the best tank of the Second World War, but it wasn't done by the time it ended.
@@bobitoi Yeah, but it's funny to read and hear about the terrible (and it's really quite stiff) gearbox on the T-34 and at the same time read the Soviet view of the Matilda: this tank on difficult terrain, such as forest or snow, with tracks of bad design and relatively high weight in relation to weak engine power, the gearbox perfomance much worse than the T-34 and Soviet tankers continuously complained about it.
Well. They were terrible in the Russian conditions since its... Well..... 1, in Russia. 2, Russian logistics being non existent and 3, little training.
@@Ailasher There's a great difference between the people that do evaluations of (foreign) equipment and the people that do acquisition. The British evaluations are extremely thorough, critical and even handed. Even though you'd almost get a whiplash from the difference between how they evaluate points like ergonomics in captured tanks and what they themselves field at the same time. In their defense, they evaluate their own equipment equally harshly. Russian evaluations likewise are remarkably even handed but extremely focused on Russian conditions and doctrine, a lot of what is perceived of as negativity comes from that. They also take into account more troop experience than you'd necessarily think they would (although they sometimes use it as an excuse). The Americans are also pretty thorough, but often more focused on production (as you'd expect). The Germans can be more wishy washy according to how much ideology the author let's slip through. From most countries you can view evaluations as a bit scientific.
I would like to take issue with the Zis-2 being considered on par with the 6 pounder. The Zis-2 was a much more powerful 57mm gun than the 6 pounder was and had better ammo in general. But yes the panther wasn't threatened by either gun much.
Ok a couple of things: The British army sent most of its Matilda's to the far east after the war in North Africa, as they were vastly superior to anything the Japanese had, and the Australian's were on the whole happy with these small but well armoured vehicle in the densely vegetated theatre where combat got very close quarters. So they survived in used in there well into 1945. The A34 Comet was not the sucessor to A27 Cromwell, it was a development to get a better gun (the 17lbr) and engine on the Cromwell platform in the same way as A30 Challenger was, the problem is for both A30 and A34 is they ended up becoming very different vehicles from the original Cromwell than was planned. The true successor to A27 was A41 Centurian and development for that vehicle also started in 1943 but slightly late, and that was a completely different platform which only saw testing and development use in 1945
@TankArchives it uses the same shells as 17lbr (it's still 76.2mm) but with a shorter charge case, but its labeled as 77mm to avoid confusion and the use of the shells in an actual 17lbr - the longer 17lbr cases won't fit in the breach of the '77mm' so there is no danger there
When Britain entered the war, it did so as a fully motorised division with one more following on. That all pretty much got chewed up by Dunkirk. What they had - had at that point was the result of pre war industrial output in the era of anti-war 'thinking'. Losing the Junk at Dunkirk was bad, but - in some ways had it not been lost, then some forward steps on development might have been held up. Even with this, the British were having to try and R&D and resource - in wartime - with massive pressure in multiple areas. In this same Time period, The Soviets were shipping by express trains war material, food, resources to the Germans in massive quantities. The British tank development was hard going and some, or lets be real, the bulk were always behind the battlefield - bar some odd cases like Churchills doing very well in Tunisia being a mountain goat. At a point in time, things suddenly turned and the British immediately offered help to the Soviets on the moment of Barbarossa. The british at this point were on their knees themselves and needed every part, plane and tank - and yet, packed up boatloads of stuff and made many valiant efforts to put kit into Russian hands. In the desert, it is well worth digging into what happened. The tanks got organised all the way through logistics. And the available mileage of tank types, that mileage, and then what was required in the repair and main. echelons - shaped the tank planning and orders. An example of the outcome of this was that the nominally on paper record 'good' matila tanks got retired. The reason - 1000 miles between full or partial rebuilds + man hours required. The ethos shifted to tanks that were more in the 3000 mile window and less downtime, and this was driven through even if tanks were on paper 'worse' - because the idea shifted from what armour and gun a tank had (not completely, but it ceased being the primary focus) - to tanks that were going to operationally cope with a war of movement. So Stuarts, Shermans, Valentines come in and late war all British Tank designs move to a design of 3000 miles between overhauls. There is a deeper story therein - where by end of war, the British tank armies were absolutely no joke and they were capable of very large movements - staying fully intact and with hi service rates and capabilities. If interested the deeper story is well worth a watch here:- ruclips.net/video/Y_1BslhRADk/видео.html In the end - by late war, Britain's tanks were improving and getting better, but they had come down a long road. The Soviets were often very unhappy with what they were given by the British, but the British were stuck with what they had as well. There is always a pitch that the British didn;t do enough for the Soviets. But then maybe the Soviets should not have carved up Poland and then shipped millions of tons of aid to fuel the Germans to build the army they then faced.
@@BruceGreen-q5u I don't think that is correct. But they made up some numbers around Moscow. The Channel Host has done some research in that area. And in most cases these were the relatively poor tanks the British had. But what they had they gave, and it wasn't the case that they held back better types. Britain was not ready for the war.
Ну, в таком случае британцам в конце концов нужно было не заключать мюнхенский сговор и делить Чехословакию для Гитлера и Польши. Видишь, ли в эту игру можно играть вдвоем.
@@Sergpumpan The carving up of the Czechoslovak state was a disgrace. A disgrace. And in doing that Stalin and Russia got excluded. That is true. _it does not_ excuse Poland, or the behaviour of the Russians.
@ да неужели? Представь ты глава коммунистического государства и ты видишь как нацистское государство продвигается к твоим границам при попустительстве крупных капиталистических демократий. Более того ты собираешь переговоры о союзе против нацистского государства с этими капиталистическими демократиями и тебе отказывают. Ты хочешь выиграть время и идешь на сделку с врагом - заключаешь пакт и за счет секретных протоколов ты отодвигаешь границы подальше чтобы в случае войны иметь больше времени для мобилизации. В результате война идёт на запад и ты надеешься что она затянется и даст тебе время для подготовки
I'd argue that the Comet maybe should be on the same tier as the Cromwell or even lower, due to the relative competition it's up against. The Cromwell may be clearly inferior to the T-34-85 and M4 (76) it's contemporary to, but the Comet in 1945 is contemporary to things like the "T-44-100", at that point you have a mid-war chassis with a decent but de-tuned medium AT gun going up against a proto T-54 that's faster and has the armor and firepower to take on much heavier tanks.
It was outgunned only against heavy tanks, fighting which was not his task. His gun was perfect for his role, that's why comparatively few were equipped with better guns even if the capability was there.
The thing to remember is that the Sherman wasn’t actually supposed to go head to head with enemy tanks, unless things went wrong, destroying enemy tanks in U.S. Army doctrine was the job of the Tank Destroyer.
@@MikhailMengsk Few Shermans were equipped with 76 because they didn't have enough of those. If 75 shermans were as "valuable" as 76 then they'd still be used in Korea.
@ That is very wrong, Shermans were generally equipped with the same guns as tank destroyers throughout their service history, with exception for the 90mm as a whole new tank was being made as the next generation solution. Tank destroyer doctrine was meant to prevent enemy attacks, not hunt down tanks.
Video was interesting, but why didn’t you mention Soviet upgunned variants of Matilda and Valentine? 76.2mm version of Matilda and 45mm version of Valentine were fairly interesting models and deserve to be at least mentioned.
These were experimental vehicles, only one prototype of each was built. I talk about it in my book. There were other rearmament projects too, like an 85 mm S-53 in the Valentine.
У британцев металлургия хромала. К 2-фунтовке снаряды с взрывателем были, только пробиваемость у них была ниже плинтуса, немногим больше калибра. Да и взрыватели нередко преждевременно срабатывали. Именно из-за этих снарядов британцы сильно недоверяли американским каморным 75-мм снарядам, предпочитая болванки. Ситуацию описал в конце этой статьи: warspot.ru/14340-afrikanskiy-debyut-shermanov
@@TankArchives Спасибо почему то думал что причина в том что метрополии был дефицит с взрывчаткой и было выгоднее делать авиабомбы чем танковые снаряды
@piercecowley255 I have never seen trials to suggest that, but I have seen trials against a Pz.Kpfw.III tank where solid shot completely expended its kinetic energy in the process of penetration and landed harmlessly in the driver's seat. The report specifically states that had the projectile been a fused shell, the tank would have been a total loss.
@@TankArchives yeah like I said it was just something I was told, although tbf if yoh were the driver of that Pz.kmpf.III you would probably want to bail out after having a round go straight through thr tank and hit you lol
I have heard a rumor that a Churchill III in service with the Red Army shot and destroyed the turret ring of a Tiger tank, defeating its opponent, forcing the crew to abandon the vehicle and resulting in the capture of the Tiger tank. Is this true?
The T-34 could lock one track to rotate in place. Neutral steering only works when both tracks experience equal resistance, which is fine if your tank only operates on pavement but not so much off-road.
hard story. I tried to find information on M-17 and V-2 and its really hard to judge what was the deal with them. Some opinion-based publications telling first or second was much better/worse on formal factors like "more reliable M-17" or less fuel consumption/flammability of V-2. However some data (not strictly) but tells same problems on both yet some facts are much more "commonly mentioned" than others. Like the V-2 and all its succesors have strong vibrations on 1300+-200 RPM or smth (again not clear what is the real border of RPM for those vibrations), once or twise i found mentions of same issue on M-17. Oil consumtion: many say V-2 consumed much oil, but just as this M-17 were noted to "leak like they are fabric". Overheating: T-34 with M-17 had issues (and even ones with V-2 overheated much in summer), again not clear if its "just overheat" or "much worse than V-2" yet it makes sence that a much "bigger" on volume M-17 produced more heat due to smaller efficiency for petrol engines. T-28 usually is posted like "good but forgotten" tank, however again some sources say of low resource and general unreliability of the M-17. So my point is its unclear how much better early V-2s were than M-17s, and main problems of both came from air filters, oil filters, bad gearboxes, and general fails of 1941-1942 e.t.c. yet M-17 was clearly obsolete with its ridiculous volume and low compression ratio leading to overheat (so requiring more space and more powerful coolers on ealy USSR tanks) and huge fuel consumption (and BT T-34 KV-1 IS and some others already had fuel tanks in crew compartment). So generally its unclear what was the thing on those and without being an engine specialist + having REAL test sources (and not "notes" like famous Aberdeen note wich makes no sence in many thing) its impossible to figure out the situation with V-2s.
@@nashaigra8973 Sure early V-2 had problems, half of them probably from the industry evacuation and resource shortages. Either way V-2 was a great decision seeing how it's descendant is still kicking in T-90 with good hp/ton.
Anwser they were a bit thankful at the time but internally they scuff at the idea that lendlease helped although it very much did. Some landlease lathes in so on still at work in post russian occupation states and in russia itself.
Downplaying the significance of Lend-Lease likely comes from Stalin, who was skeptical about it. He wanted the UK to land in France in '41 or '42 and open a second front. He hoped that all that weaponry wouldn't be sent to the USSR but would be actively used by the British in Europe. This would divert some German forces and allow the Red Army to advance much faster and with fewer losses.
@@Robert6889 People forget that USA UK were fighting in Africa since 1940. USA Had another additional theater of war entirely in the Philippines and later pacific which soviets didn't have until at the very end. Russians always try to portray themselves as innocent victims of history. Truth the matter is russians very similar to germans have supremacy complex and will never accept the fact that anyone can helped them. It is very evident even today where they always claim that they are fighting not Ukrainians but countries of NATO.
@Robert6889 "Downplaying the significance of Lend-Lease likely comes from Stalin, who was skeptical about it." Nope. "He wanted the UK to land in France in '41 or '42 and open a second front." In 43. And these two pieces are not connected in any way. "This would divert some German forces and allow the Red Army to advance much faster and with fewer losses." Not “advancing”. Since almost the entire Western history of the Eastern Front of WWII was written by German generals, who were at one end of the stick and only saw the “endless hordes” of the Red Army in the form of more and more divisions, the West lacks a full understanding: on what thin ice the USSR was on in 1941-1942. This is, by the way, when the amount of lend-lease was minimal, but I will not make the mistake of an amateur and claim that it did not make a significant contribution to the Red Army. To understand what I am writing about - it is enough to take a demographic map of the USSR, even maps of modern Russia, Ukraine and Belarus will do, and compare it with the German occupation zone of the USSR.
Two different tanks made for different purposes, so, no point in comparing them. Actually if you like to, Cromwell tanks were probably more comfortable to the crew itself, but the whole scheme for the tank may be considered outdated even for its time
Britain's colonial possessions but no mention of the needs of American colonial possessions - the territories taken from the French, the Spanish, the Mexicans, the indigionous peoples, Hawaii, Phillipines etc - why?
I'm saving the Americans for the next video. American colonial possessions were (and are) much less frequently patrolled by tanks, although once can certainly say that light and fast tanks such as those preferred by the Americans in the mid-30s would be well suited for raids like the Pancho Villa intervention.
@ most early vehicles were already dead meat you had the cruisers which were just bad armor and armament. Then you had the Matilda valentine which were easy prey for 50mm at guns at a close range and for the luftwaffe. Just look at dunkirk
Matilda could shit through any early war german ww2 paper thin peashooter tank, you dont know what you are talking about, Matilda is KV-1 armor at only 27 tonnes
@@danb4900 again. You’re only taking into account the ground. And keep in mind at close distance the pz lv c and d variants with the short 75 could easily knock out a valentine and immobilize a Matilda. Then you have the artillery and luftwaffe coordinating.
I believe the Soviets did toy with the idea of upgunning the Matilda II with their 76mm gun from the T-34 but the idea came to nothing.
They had on paper ideas to put 76mm and 85mm guns into most lend lease tanks but it was always just faster to build another T-34 and send it to the front then to take lend lease stuff and send it to a factory to be refit
The 76mm Matilda was built and tested, along with the 45mm Valentine. They did have ideas to rearm shermans and rebuild lend-lease tanks into 100mm SPGs, but that never came to be.
Matildas came in CS variant too. Some brigades would get a mix of the two.
I remember seeing a Valentine that was used in Soviet service at the Canadian tank museum, thing was busted to hell cause it was at the bottom of a bog for 74 years but really cool to see it in person.
Interresting how the Valentine was liked and used effectively on the eastern front. On paper this one looks realy bad with its small turret and (comparably) weak enige.
Are there any other tanks that worked better on the front line then they looked on paper?
Usually it appears to be opposite, looking at you german heavy tanks.
The Semovente series, especially the M40 75/18 and M41 75/34.
On paper they weren't great being based on the italian "mediums" tanks, but their guns proved very capable at dealing with allied armour/infantry and having Diesel engines proved very useful in North Africa due to the lack of fuel... The german Africa Korps with gasoline powered Panzer IIIs and Stugs suffered the lack of fuel more.
Valentine was hugely popular with British crews too. It was a very good vehicle.
I think the problem is that when we look at tanks "on paper," we're comparing them to other tanks. In reality, of course, a tank faces dozens of hills and miles of mud and probably a hundred infantry fighting positions for every opposing AFV it comes up against. So its tank-on-tank performance is a distant third, behind its ability to get around and its ability to deal with the most common threats and and targets it will face.
Think about it this way: if you're in the infantry, which would you rather have backing you up:
1. A vehicle that will absolutely lose any head-to-head fight with a Tiger, but which can go anywhere an infantryman can go, shrug off anything but a dedicated anti-tank weapon, and wreck machinegun nests all day long
or
2. A vehicle which can beat a Tiger, but which is too heavy and difficult to supply and maintain to be deployed against any but the very stiffest opposition?
Bear in mind that there are only ever 1300 Tigers, but over a million MG34s and 42s deployed. So you can expect to face five hundred or more machine guns for every heavy tank. Plus, of course, various other fortifications (improvised and otherwise) with an array of field guns, mortars, etc.
Another way to think about it: would you rather do your daily commute in a Honda Civic, or in an LAV III? Now, obviously the LAV is much cooler, and it can do a lot of things the Civic can't... but you're just going to work, on paved roads. Your payload is you and your co-worker. There is no incoming fire heavier than a bug or some bird poop (which the Civic's armor can deflect perfectly well). There are no targets to engage. On paper, the LAV looks WAY more impressive... but in fact the Civic can handle 99.9% of the actual conditions encountered as well or better than the LAV, and it's way less work to keep it operating.
@@trioptimum9027you went a bit off, but you're absolutely correct. On paper (on the couch rather), tanks are compared to other tanks, however in practice tanks are judged by how well they can complete certain tactical or strategic goals. A tank isn't built as "lets do like the enemy, but try better" but as "we need this, that and this therefore the machine has to adhere to these parameters and be able to do this, this and that". Doctrine plays a crutial part in what tanks are supposed to do and with emphasis of which qualities they have to be built.
Honestly I hate how tank discussions are often dumbed down to tank duels and stat checks. It's so much more than that.
@@trioptimum9027 good explanation!!
I used to think that winter conditions for tanks were mostly problems of traction, like in mud (and starting the engine of course).
For me an eye-opener was when Stefan Karlsson of Arsenalen showed how in snow even tanks with broad tracks like the Centurion can slide around as if they're on ice because of how the snow compacts to ice under the tracks.
The even weight distribution of a tracked vehicle almost exacerbates the problem instead of solving it. The tanks literally slide around at all angles like ice dancers.
This taught me that even similar looking design parameters between armies can vary wildly in importance and real world application.
Good to see Valentine getting some respect. For what it was designed for - going forward with infantry - it did pretty well.
Amazed that they sent any Cruiser Mk IV at all. A case of showing willing, rather than really wanting to ship in bulk?
6:18 Damn, that's pretty lucky that the driver's hatch was not obstructed. Otherwise it would be one hell of a claustrophobic nightmare to have to wait someone to blowtorch open a hole in there.
It's quite an entertaining video. I saw all these tanks in the Kubinka Museum. Somehow, I kept thinking that the number of Tetrarchs and Cromwell's received under Lend-Lease was much higher, but fewer Valentines, even though I knew that the tank had not taken root badly in the Red Army
If the soviets can't get a cromwell to run faster than a t34, then you should really be more worried about their testing than the tank.
Soviet testers regularly accelerated foreign vehicles past their officially prescribed parameters, so the testing is absolutely fine.
I think problem is not about the testing but the fuel. Cromwells meteor engine needs high octane fuel meanwhile soviets used 78 octane fuel even in their fighters.
@smyrnamarauder1328 the Comet reached its official top speed during trials, and it used exactly the same engine.
It is indeed very intersting how the Valentine was viewed in the Soviet Union. Thx for the Video
Well they kinda build their own (T-60/70/80). Not the best, not impressive, not possessing any sort of outstanding quality...but cheap, numerous and easily recoverable and repairable due to usage of extremely common parts.
Apparently, my original comment was removed.
Did the soviets try to put a Zis-2 (probably a Zis-4) into the valentine/churchill. Since the 6 pounder only had ap and apc until 43.
I believe they used american provided 57mm HE shells on their Valentine/Churchill 6pdrs
Big question is why brits never did anything similar, especialy after getting wrecked so much by at guns (like 88s) in north africa
No, there's no point in upgrading to another 57 mm gun. The ZIS-2 was a specialized anti tank gun and not as common as the 45 or 76 tested on the Valentine and Matilda.
@@TankArchives Thanks for the reply. I figured the reason it was never done is that the 6pdr and zis 4 are rather close in performance.
ZiS-2 uses a longer barrel and higher pressure than the 6 pounder. ZiS-2 had massive problems with barrel quality
British tanks in general where pretty terrible and this is coming from a Brit. I have so much respect for the crew that had to drive into battle with them, my great grandfather was in a Cruiser Mk3 in Libya.
They weren't terrible, just obsolete almost every time they were fielded. The Centurion would have been the best tank of the Second World War, but it wasn't done by the time it ended.
@@bobitoi Yeah, but it's funny to read and hear about the terrible (and it's really quite stiff) gearbox on the T-34 and at the same time read the Soviet view of the Matilda: this tank on difficult terrain, such as forest or snow, with tracks of bad design and relatively high weight in relation to weak engine power, the gearbox perfomance much worse than the T-34 and Soviet tankers continuously complained about it.
Well. They were terrible in the Russian conditions since its... Well..... 1, in Russia. 2, Russian logistics being non existent and 3, little training.
@@Ailasher There's a great difference between the people that do evaluations of (foreign) equipment and the people that do acquisition.
The British evaluations are extremely thorough, critical and even handed. Even though you'd almost get a whiplash from the difference between how they evaluate points like ergonomics in captured tanks and what they themselves field at the same time. In their defense, they evaluate their own equipment equally harshly.
Russian evaluations likewise are remarkably even handed but extremely focused on Russian conditions and doctrine, a lot of what is perceived of as negativity comes from that.
They also take into account more troop experience than you'd necessarily think they would (although they sometimes use it as an excuse).
The Americans are also pretty thorough, but often more focused on production (as you'd expect). The Germans can be more wishy washy according to how much ideology the author let's slip through.
From most countries you can view evaluations as a bit scientific.
@@bobitoi Wrong, T-44 would be the best tank. Especially for soviets.
17:34 the cromwell used a 57mm gun with higher pen than the 75, at least the original one did
The original one that never saw battle. The decision to use 75 mm guns was made in December of 1942.
@TankArchives oh right that's my bad
I would like to take issue with the Zis-2 being considered on par with the 6 pounder. The Zis-2 was a much more powerful 57mm gun than the 6 pounder was and had better ammo in general. But yes the panther wasn't threatened by either gun much.
Ok a couple of things:
The British army sent most of its Matilda's to the far east after the war in North Africa, as they were vastly superior to anything the Japanese had, and the Australian's were on the whole happy with these small but well armoured vehicle in the densely vegetated theatre where combat got very close quarters. So they survived in used in there well into 1945.
The A34 Comet was not the sucessor to A27 Cromwell, it was a development to get a better gun (the 17lbr) and engine on the Cromwell platform in the same way as A30 Challenger was, the problem is for both A30 and A34 is they ended up becoming very different vehicles from the original Cromwell than was planned. The true successor to A27 was A41 Centurian and development for that vehicle also started in 1943 but slightly late, and that was a completely different platform which only saw testing and development use in 1945
The Comet had the same Meteor engine and couldn't fit the 17-pdr. It had the 77 mm gun, which was a shorter and weaker variant of the gun.
@TankArchives it uses the same shells as 17lbr (it's still 76.2mm) but with a shorter charge case, but its labeled as 77mm to avoid confusion and the use of the shells in an actual 17lbr - the longer 17lbr cases won't fit in the breach of the '77mm' so there is no danger there
When Britain entered the war, it did so as a fully motorised division with one more following on. That all pretty much got chewed up by Dunkirk.
What they had - had at that point was the result of pre war industrial output in the era of anti-war 'thinking'.
Losing the Junk at Dunkirk was bad, but - in some ways had it not been lost, then some forward steps on development might have been held up. Even with this, the British were having to try and R&D and resource - in wartime - with massive pressure in multiple areas.
In this same Time period, The Soviets were shipping by express trains war material, food, resources to the Germans in massive quantities. The British tank development was hard going and some, or lets be real, the bulk were always behind the battlefield - bar some odd cases like Churchills doing very well in Tunisia being a mountain goat. At a point in time, things suddenly turned and the British immediately offered help to the Soviets on the moment of Barbarossa.
The british at this point were on their knees themselves and needed every part, plane and tank - and yet, packed up boatloads of stuff and made many valiant efforts to put kit into Russian hands.
In the desert, it is well worth digging into what happened. The tanks got organised all the way through logistics. And the available mileage of tank types, that mileage, and then what was required in the repair and main. echelons - shaped the tank planning and orders. An example of the outcome of this was that the nominally on paper record 'good' matila tanks got retired. The reason - 1000 miles between full or partial rebuilds + man hours required. The ethos shifted to tanks that were more in the 3000 mile window and less downtime, and this was driven through even if tanks were on paper 'worse' - because the idea shifted from what armour and gun a tank had (not completely, but it ceased being the primary focus) - to tanks that were going to operationally cope with a war of movement. So Stuarts, Shermans, Valentines come in and late war all British Tank designs move to a design of 3000 miles between overhauls.
There is a deeper story therein - where by end of war, the British tank armies were absolutely no joke and they were capable of very large movements - staying fully intact and with hi service rates and capabilities. If interested the deeper story is well worth a watch here:-
ruclips.net/video/Y_1BslhRADk/видео.html
In the end - by late war, Britain's tanks were improving and getting better, but they had come down a long road. The Soviets were often very unhappy with what they were given by the British, but the British were stuck with what they had as well. There is always a pitch that the British didn;t do enough for the Soviets. But then maybe the Soviets should not have carved up Poland and then shipped millions of tons of aid to fuel the Germans to build the army they then faced.
British supplied tanks made up most of the tanks used by the Soviets in the Battle for Moscow
@@BruceGreen-q5u I don't think that is correct. But they made up some numbers around Moscow. The Channel Host has done some research in that area. And in most cases these were the relatively poor tanks the British had. But what they had they gave, and it wasn't the case that they held back better types. Britain was not ready for the war.
Ну, в таком случае британцам в конце концов нужно было не заключать мюнхенский сговор и делить Чехословакию для Гитлера и Польши. Видишь, ли в эту игру можно играть вдвоем.
@@Sergpumpan The carving up of the Czechoslovak state was a disgrace. A disgrace. And in doing that Stalin and Russia got excluded. That is true.
_it does not_ excuse Poland, or the behaviour of the Russians.
@ да неужели? Представь ты глава коммунистического государства и ты видишь как нацистское государство продвигается к твоим границам при попустительстве крупных капиталистических демократий. Более того ты собираешь переговоры о союзе против нацистского государства с этими капиталистическими демократиями и тебе отказывают. Ты хочешь выиграть время и идешь на сделку с врагом - заключаешь пакт и за счет секретных протоколов ты отодвигаешь границы подальше чтобы в случае войны иметь больше времени для мобилизации. В результате война идёт на запад и ты надеешься что она затянется и даст тебе время для подготовки
I'd argue that the Comet maybe should be on the same tier as the Cromwell or even lower, due to the relative competition it's up against. The Cromwell may be clearly inferior to the T-34-85 and M4 (76) it's contemporary to, but the Comet in 1945 is contemporary to things like the "T-44-100", at that point you have a mid-war chassis with a decent but de-tuned medium AT gun going up against a proto T-54 that's faster and has the armor and firepower to take on much heavier tanks.
The comet worked tho
The m3 lee was a good tank for North Africa. The sherman was outgunned on the western front until the British fitted a 26 pound gun
ruclips.net/video/9bQHw_n_gPs/видео.htmlsi=ZyPW_HeUMsvDk1Ye the chieftain has a piece dedicated to the Shermans firepower
It was outgunned only against heavy tanks, fighting which was not his task. His gun was perfect for his role, that's why comparatively few were equipped with better guns even if the capability was there.
The thing to remember is that the Sherman wasn’t actually supposed to go head to head with enemy tanks, unless things went wrong, destroying enemy tanks in U.S. Army doctrine was the job of the Tank Destroyer.
@@MikhailMengsk Few Shermans were equipped with 76 because they didn't have enough of those. If 75 shermans were as "valuable" as 76 then they'd still be used in Korea.
@ That is very wrong, Shermans were generally equipped with the same guns as tank destroyers throughout their service history, with exception for the 90mm as a whole new tank was being made as the next generation solution. Tank destroyer doctrine was meant to prevent enemy attacks, not hunt down tanks.
Video was interesting, but why didn’t you mention Soviet upgunned variants of Matilda and Valentine? 76.2mm version of Matilda and 45mm version of Valentine were fairly interesting models and deserve to be at least mentioned.
Because comparatively speaking they were not at all common
These were experimental vehicles, only one prototype of each was built. I talk about it in my book. There were other rearmament projects too, like an 85 mm S-53 in the Valentine.
I LOVE WESTERN TANKS IN SOVIET GREEN PAINT
Извините что не пишу не по теме но есть ли причина того что Британцы и Французы использовали только бронебойные сплошные снаряды для своих орудий?
У британцев металлургия хромала. К 2-фунтовке снаряды с взрывателем были, только пробиваемость у них была ниже плинтуса, немногим больше калибра. Да и взрыватели нередко преждевременно срабатывали. Именно из-за этих снарядов британцы сильно недоверяли американским каморным 75-мм снарядам, предпочитая болванки. Ситуацию описал в конце этой статьи: warspot.ru/14340-afrikanskiy-debyut-shermanov
@@TankArchives Спасибо почему то думал что причина в том что метрополии был дефицит с взрывчаткой и было выгоднее делать авиабомбы чем танковые снаряды
I was always told after Dunkirk they did testing and found aphe only had a slightly higher postnpen damage than ap sk they jsut didn't use it
@piercecowley255 I have never seen trials to suggest that, but I have seen trials against a Pz.Kpfw.III tank where solid shot completely expended its kinetic energy in the process of penetration and landed harmlessly in the driver's seat. The report specifically states that had the projectile been a fused shell, the tank would have been a total loss.
@@TankArchives yeah like I said it was just something I was told, although tbf if yoh were the driver of that Pz.kmpf.III you would probably want to bail out after having a round go straight through thr tank and hit you lol
Interesting video.
Have thought about doing a video for Tanks given to Ukraine Tier List?
I have heard a rumor that a Churchill III in service with the Red Army shot and destroyed the turret ring of a Tiger tank, defeating its opponent, forcing the crew to abandon the vehicle and resulting in the capture of the Tiger tank. Is this true?
You might be thinking of the capture of Tiger 131 in Tunisia. I haven't seen any confirmed kills of a Tiger tank by a Churchill in Soviet service.
@ Thank you!
17:00 id like to see a sherman or t-34 neutral steer
The T-34 could lock one track to rotate in place. Neutral steering only works when both tracks experience equal resistance, which is fine if your tank only operates on pavement but not so much off-road.
So im assuming the Soviets didnt use any Crusaders, Light Mk.VIs, or any British tank destroyers?
No, they did not.
British tanks weren't even suitable for the British, let alone the Soviets. 🤣
IIRC the 'bolts' on the Cromwell turret are for additional armor plates, which were never produced. The turret itself was welded.
You're conflating it with the GMC M10. The Cromwell eventually got a welded hull, but the turret was never welded.
@@TankArchivesthe bolts are to secure the armour plate to the turret, it isn't the turret itself
aka British Tanks Bashing
M-17 engine is a licensed copy of BMW VI though. Clearly superior to Liberties in every way but still no V-2.
hard story. I tried to find information on M-17 and V-2 and its really hard to judge what was the deal with them. Some opinion-based publications telling first or second was much better/worse on formal factors like "more reliable M-17" or less fuel consumption/flammability of V-2. However some data (not strictly) but tells same problems on both yet some facts are much more "commonly mentioned" than others. Like the V-2 and all its succesors have strong vibrations on 1300+-200 RPM or smth (again not clear what is the real border of RPM for those vibrations), once or twise i found mentions of same issue on M-17. Oil consumtion: many say V-2 consumed much oil, but just as this M-17 were noted to "leak like they are fabric". Overheating: T-34 with M-17 had issues (and even ones with V-2 overheated much in summer), again not clear if its "just overheat" or "much worse than V-2" yet it makes sence that a much "bigger" on volume M-17 produced more heat due to smaller efficiency for petrol engines. T-28 usually is posted like "good but forgotten" tank, however again some sources say of low resource and general unreliability of the M-17. So my point is its unclear how much better early V-2s were than M-17s, and main problems of both came from air filters, oil filters, bad gearboxes, and general fails of 1941-1942 e.t.c. yet M-17 was clearly obsolete with its ridiculous volume and low compression ratio leading to overheat (so requiring more space and more powerful coolers on ealy USSR tanks) and huge fuel consumption (and BT T-34 KV-1 IS and some others already had fuel tanks in crew compartment). So generally its unclear what was the thing on those and without being an engine specialist + having REAL test sources (and not "notes" like famous Aberdeen note wich makes no sence in many thing) its impossible to figure out the situation with V-2s.
@@nashaigra8973 Sure early V-2 had problems, half of them probably from the industry evacuation and resource shortages. Either way V-2 was a great decision seeing how it's descendant is still kicking in T-90 with good hp/ton.
Anwser they were a bit thankful at the time but internally they scuff at the idea that lendlease helped although it very much did. Some landlease lathes in so on still at work in post russian occupation states and in russia itself.
Yeah, the steam locomotives and explosives were good.
Downplaying the significance of Lend-Lease likely comes from Stalin, who was skeptical about it. He wanted the UK to land in France in '41 or '42 and open a second front. He hoped that all that weaponry wouldn't be sent to the USSR but would be actively used by the British in Europe. This would divert some German forces and allow the Red Army to advance much faster and with fewer losses.
@@Robert6889 People forget that USA UK were fighting in Africa since 1940. USA Had another additional theater of war entirely in the Philippines and later pacific which soviets didn't have until at the very end. Russians always try to portray themselves as innocent victims of history. Truth the matter is russians very similar to germans have supremacy complex and will never accept the fact that anyone can helped them. It is very evident even today where they always claim that they are fighting not Ukrainians but countries of NATO.
@Robert6889 "Downplaying the significance of Lend-Lease likely comes from Stalin, who was skeptical about it." Nope.
"He wanted the UK to land in France in '41 or '42 and open a second front."
In 43. And these two pieces are not connected in any way.
"This would divert some German forces and allow the Red Army to advance much faster and with fewer losses."
Not “advancing”.
Since almost the entire Western history of the Eastern Front of WWII was written by German generals, who were at one end of the stick and only saw the “endless hordes” of the Red Army in the form of more and more divisions, the West lacks a full understanding: on what thin ice the USSR was on in 1941-1942. This is, by the way, when the amount of lend-lease was minimal, but I will not make the mistake of an amateur and claim that it did not make a significant contribution to the Red Army.
To understand what I am writing about - it is enough to take a demographic map of the USSR, even maps of modern Russia, Ukraine and Belarus will do, and compare it with the German occupation zone of the USSR.
"post russian occupation states"💀
Valentine? Extremely low profile.
Russians love the Sherman
No spoilers for the next video ;)
Cromwell > T34
Two different tanks made for different purposes, so, no point in comparing them. Actually if you like to, Cromwell tanks were probably more comfortable to the crew itself, but the whole scheme for the tank may be considered outdated even for its time
Cromwell superiority hell yea
The Cromwell had a smaller fighting compartment.
@@TankArchives How did they manage this feat?
Britain's colonial possessions but no mention of the needs of American colonial possessions - the territories taken from the French, the Spanish, the Mexicans, the indigionous peoples, Hawaii, Phillipines etc - why?
I'm saving the Americans for the next video. American colonial possessions were (and are) much less frequently patrolled by tanks, although once can certainly say that light and fast tanks such as those preferred by the Americans in the mid-30s would be well suited for raids like the Pancho Villa intervention.
The centurion was not a post war design. First ones were being sent to Europe in April 1945
The Centurions departed Lulworth only in May when Germany already surrendered. The war in Europe was over.
@@TankArchives He said not a post war design bro, and it wasnt, you think the design phase was completed and tanks were also built in may 1945?
@irinashidou9524 Where did he say it was a post war design? It was a post war tank.
I would’ve hated to be in any early war British tank. Like yes let’s add almost no armor and “decent” mobility so we can be easy pickings for 88s
The early tanks had armour equal or better than the Germans ,and the 88mm would chew up tanks right through the war.
@ most early vehicles were already dead meat you had the cruisers which were just bad armor and armament. Then you had the Matilda valentine which were easy prey for 50mm at guns at a close range and for the luftwaffe. Just look at dunkirk
Matilda could shit through any early war german ww2 paper thin peashooter tank, you dont know what you are talking about, Matilda is KV-1 armor at only 27 tonnes
German early war tanks had like >50mm of frontal armour my guy
@@danb4900 again. You’re only taking into account the ground. And keep in mind at close distance the pz lv c and d variants with the short 75 could easily knock out a valentine and immobilize a Matilda. Then you have the artillery and luftwaffe coordinating.