Quantcast
Channel: Tank Archives
Viewing all 1900 articles
Browse latest View live

Kalashnikov's Contributions

$
0
0
"Award Order
  1. Name: Kalashnikov, Mikhail Timofeevich
  2. Rank: none
  3. Position: Veteran of the Patriotic War
    is nominated for the Order of the Red Star.
  4. Year of birth: 1919
  5. Nationality: Russian
  6. Party affiliation: none
  7. Participation in the Civil War and subsequent actions in defense of the USSR (where, when): Bryansk Front from June to November of 1941
  8. Wounds or contusions in the Patriotic War: wounded in action
  9. In the Red Army since: 1939
  10. Previous awards: none
Brief and specific description of personal heroism or achievements: 

The nominee is a participant in the Patriotic War. He proposed the following inventions: a submachinegun and a machinegun. Their originality made a valuable contribution to the field of small arms design. 

On the orders of the GAU, the nominee solved a series of problems during the modernization of the Goryunov machinegun and designed his own carbine for the intermediate round.

The nominee earned the state award of the Order of the Red Star through his participation in the Patriotic War and resilient labour in the design of weapons.

Deputy Chair of the GAU Artillery Committee, Lieutenant General of the Engineering-Artillery Service, Berkalov
Chief of the Artillery Committee Department of Inventions, Engineer Lieutenant-Colonel Popkov

[illegible] October 1945."


Kreslavskiy's KV-4

$
0
0

"Tactical-technical characteristics
1. Combat characteristics
  • Combat mass: 92.6 tons
  • Full length: 9 meters
  • Full width: 4 meters
  • Full height: 3.225 meters
  • Track gauge: 3.15 meters
  • Clearance: 0.6 meters
  • Contact surface length: 6 meters
  • Ground pressure: 0.902 kg/cm²
  • With M-40 diesel engine:
    • Maximum power: 1200 hp
    • Top speed: 45 kph
    • Range: 180-200 km
  • Crew: 6

2. Armour:
  • Sides: 125 mm
  • Front (upper plate): 80 mm
  • Front (lower plate): 130 mm
  • Rear: 130 mm
  • Roof: 50 mm
  • Floor (front): 40 mm
  • Floor (rear): 40 mm
3. Armament:
  • 107 mm gun
  • 45 mm gun
  • 2 DT machineguns for radio operator
  • 1 rear DT machinegun
  • 103 107 mm shells
  • 140 45 mm shells
  • 4000 DT rounds
  • Maximum elevation of 107 and 45 mm guns: +15 degrees
  • Minimum depression of 107 and 45 mm guns: -8 degrees
  • Traverse range of 107 and 45 mm guns: 360 degrees
  • Maximum elevation of the rear DT machinegun: +5 degrees
  • Minimum depression of the rear DT machinegun: -5 degrees
  • Horizontal arc of the rear DT machinegun: 30 degrees
  • Maximum elevation of the front DT machineguns: +18 degrees
  • Minimum depression of the front DT machineguns: -6 degrees
  • Horizontal arc of the front DT machineguns: 30 degrees
Suspension: torsion bars
Road wheels: steel with internal shock absorption
Radio: 10-R
Horizontal arc of the commander's DT: 360 degrees"

Cruiser Tank Mk.II: With Best Intentions

$
0
0
The British army met the start of WWII in a difficult position. The policy of appeasement allowed it to win a year to set up tank production, but it was hard to call the British army prepared for war. This can be seen in the result of the fighting in May of 1940 in France. The British Expeditionary Force used four different types of Cruiser tanks at the same time. Among them was the Cruiser Tank Mk.II, perhaps the most controversial of the quartet.


Half-infantry tank

The story of the Cruiser Tank Mk.II begins in the spring of 1936. The Tank, Experimental, Medium, A9E1, developed as a part of the medium tank program, entered trials in April. The medium tank program was also in trouble: work on finding a successor for the Medium Tank Mk.II was going on for nearly a decade. A new tank, designed under the direction of Leslie Little, showed itself more reliable than its unlucky predecessors. This was primarily due to the suspension, which the British had bad luck with. In addition, the tank turned out to be smaller and lighter, but with the same armour thickness and comparable firepower. The A9E1 also had acceptable mobility. Finally, a replacement for the Medium Tank Mk.I and Medium Tank Mk.II was found.

Experimental Tank A10E1. You can see how the front of the tank changed.

The A9E1 was seen as a prospective platform for another type of vehicle. Back in 1934, requirements for two types of infantry tanks were developed in Great Britain: medium and light. The light tank received the index A11, and after a number of metamorphoses it was accepted into service as the Infantry Tank Mk.I. Requirements for the second tank described a vehicle with a 2-pounder cannon and a machinegun with 25 mm thick armour. Vickers-Armstrongs had the idea to build this tank on the A9 platform, especially since increasing the armour to 25 mm would still let the tank reach the required speed of 16 kph. The tank also already had a three-man turret, which was one of the requirements for the medium infantry tank.

The turret slightly changed due to the thickening of the armour.

The first issues cropped up during the development of the vehicle, indexed A10. The British military changed the requirements for protection. Now they wanted 60 mm of armour. The A9 chassis was not prepared for such a leap in mass. A compromise was reached with 30 mm of armour. This armour couldn't protect from an anti-tank gun, but it could hold out against 20 mm autocannon fire.

The British  military was hardly thrilled, but nevertheless Vickers-Armstrongs received permission for construction of the Experimental Tank A10E1. This vehicle received the WD number T.1479 and registration number BMM835. It entered trials in July of 1937.

Initially, the rear also different from the original vehicle.

The tank was almost identical to its predecessor from the technical point of view. It even retained the 120 hp Rolls Royce Phantom II engine, which showed itself poorly during A9 trials. The biggest difference was a new front hull. Since the infantry variant didn't need machinegun turrets, they were removed. The tank received a sloped upper front plate. The driver's cabin was altered. Special strips were added to the upper front plate to deflect bullets and shell fragments. The rear part of the hull around the engine compartment also changed. The thicker armour was one of the more subtle changes, being only noticeable around plate joints. Reinforcement of the drive sprocket armour was also visible.

The converted A10E1. A machinegunner's station was added. Due to a lack of BESA machineguns, it is replaced by a dummy.

The removal of machinegun turrets reduced the mass a little, but the A10E1 was still more than a ton heavier than its predecessor. This was the cost of thicker armour. Issues with the engine were even more pronounced on this tank than on its predecessor. Meanwhile, the A10E1 ceased to be seen as an infantry tank, as work on the A12, better known as the Matilda, began. This tank had 75 mm of armour, which surpassed any protection requirements.

Nevertheless, the A10 was in no danger of being stuck as a prototype. The British army dispensed with the medium tank class. Instead, they now had cruiser tanks, which had high mobility with thin armour. However, at the time there was no cruiser tanks in existence, so the A9 was classified as a cruiser. As for the A10, it was referred to as a Heavy Cruiser Tank. As with the A9, this seemed a measure of desperation. The A10 could not boast its mobility. Of course, the top speed of 25.6 kph was more impressive than the 16 kph required of an infantry tank, but even compared to the A9's 40 kph this seemed very humble.

The driver's compartment. The fuel tank sits to the left of the driver.

The reclassification into a "heavy cruiser" reflected on the A10E1's exterior. The tank was altered, which changed it visually. The 150 hp AEC A179 replaced the Rolls Royce Phantom II, which changed the engine deck. The cruiser tank required a bow machinegun. The tank's designers refused to add a machinegun turret, so the tank received a wider driver's compartment. The driver was pushed to the left, and space freed up to the right for the gunner. The intention was to use the BESA machinegun (licensed clone of the Czechoslovakian ZB.53 machinegun), but it was not yet finished, so a dummy was used in its place.

Trials showed that the tank has satisfactory characteristics. A second prototype called A10E2 was built. The goal with this tank was to test the suspension for the infantry tank codenamed Valentine. The tank was loaded to the mass of this future infantry tank.

Between the Cruiser Tank Mk.I and the Valentine

The results of the trials triggered another wave of changes for the A10E1. The turret lost its commander's cupola. Changes were identical to those made to the A9 Mk.I turret, with the main difference being the thicker armour. The front of the hull and its internal equipment also changed. In the final version, an additional 143 L fuel tank was installed to the right of the driver. This noticeably increased the tank's range, but it's unlikely that the driver was happy to have such a neighbour. It had to have been unsettling to hug 143 L of fuel splashing around in the most vulnerable part of the tank. The final version of the A10 Mk.I weighed 14 tons, nearly 1.5 tons more than the A9 Mk.I. Of course, this excess weight came at a price.

Production of the Cruiser Tank Mk.IIA. Later it was replaced by the Valentine.

Unlike the A9 Mk.I, Vickers-Armstrongs distanced itself from A10 production. The company already had a contract for the A9 Mk.I, and work on the Infantry Tank Mk.III was underway. The A10 was the odd man out. Elswick Works produced only 10 A10 Mk.I with WD numbers T.8091-T.8100 and registration numbers PMX448-PMX457. A much larger contract was given to the  Birmingham Railway Carriage and Wagon Company (BRC&W). 75 tanks with WD numbers T.5909-T.5983 and registration numbers RMV264-RMV338 were produced there. 75 more tanks were built by Metropolitan Cammell Carriage and Wagon Company (MCCW), one of the subsidiaries of Vickers-Armstrongs. The tanks built here had WD numbers T.9191-T.9265, and did not receive registration numbers. Finally, the largest contract for 100 A10s was to be made with the R. W. Crabtree and Sons company, but in reality it was reduced to 10 tanks with WD numbers T.15115-15124. 

An overwhelming number of photographs of Cruiser Tanks Mk.II are photos of trophies. Here you can see a hole in place of the bow gun.

The first tanks began leaving the factories in late 1939. At this time, British tanks were transitioning from Vickers to BESA machineguns, which reflected on the heavy cruisers. The bow gun was a BESA, but the turret housed a coaxial Vickers gun. These machineguns used a different caliber, and the British could scarcely afford such luxury. As a result, production A10 Mk.Is drove around without bow guns or bow gunners.

Dimension diagram of the Cruiser Tank Mk.IIA.

Not surprisingly, the A10 Mk.I did not last in production for long. Only 45 were built, 12 at MCCW and 13 at BRC&W. In addition to coaxial Vickers guns, these tanks had additional armour on the front of the turret. The Cruiser Tank Mk.IV received similar armour. These tanks did not spend much time in service and disappear almost completely from photographs after the defeat of the British Expeditionary Force.

The Cruiser Tank Mk.IIA, the main production version of the Cruiser Tank Mk.II.

A new variant of the tank went into production in the spring of 1940. This tank was indexed A10 Mk.IIA. Its biggest difference was the addition of the No.3 gun mount, which was also used on a number of Cruiser Tanks Mk.IVA. It combined a 2-pounder gun and a coaxial BESA machinegun. The bow gun and bow gunner returned. This version of the tank was the most common. Another variant of the tank appeared around this time, the A10 Mk.IA CS, armed with a 94 mm howitzer. 30 of these support tanks were built at MCCW.

During trials. The tank turned out to be better protected than the A9, but less mobile.

The peak of A10 production was hit in the spring-summer of 1940. In June 1940 the tanks changed their name: the A10 Mk.I became the Cruiser Tank Mk.II, and later versions were called Cruiser Tank Mk.IIA and Cruiser Tank Mk.IIA CS. The results of fighting in France showed that this tank has no future. In the fall of 1940 production began to wane in favour of the Infantry Tank Mk.III. R.W. Crabtree and Sons was the last company to produce this tank. Constant delays resulted in the last tanks only being delivered in July of 1941. By this time, their army career was at an end.

Slow and unsteady

Many publications dedicated to British tanks pick the Covenanter as their whipping boy. A number of mistakes made in the design meant that the tank never saw combat. There was also a tank that saw battle, but its level of reliability rivalled the Covenanter's. This was the Cruiser Tank Mk.II.

The only photo of the Cruiser Tank Mk.II in France where it is not abandoned or broken.

The first Cruiser Tanks Mk.II entered service in early 1940. These were the initial type, with coaxial Vickers machineguns and without bow guns. The Royal Tank Corps received 42 Cruiser Tanks Mk.II before the end of June of 1940, including the first Cruiser Tanks Mk.IIA. The tanks were first sent to fill up the 1st Armoured Division. Since production was just starting, the saturation progressed slowly. 11 tanks were listed in the 1st Armoured Division by April of 1940, 19 by May, and 31 tanks by the start of the fighting. The tankers did not have time to master their vehicles, which, combined with the expected issues of initial production tanks, coloured the A10's debut.

The typical status of the Cruiser Tank Mk.II in the French campaign.

The German offensive on May 10th, 1940, caught the British by surprise. At this point the 1st Armoured Division was still being outfitted in England. Elements of the division began landing in Calais and Cherbourg starting on May 20th. The 3rd Royal Tank Regiment was the first to see combat. The result of the fighting was sad: as of May 25th, only 3 out of 30 cruiser tanks remained. The total losses of the division by the end of May were 89 cruiser tanks, including 17 Cruiser Tanks Mk.II.

The main cause of losses was not enemy fire. German front line photo albums are full of Cruiser Tanks Mk.II pictured abandoned in ditches and on road shoulders. The cause of this was the series of technical issues that plagued the tank. There is nothing surprising about this. With the same technical "guts" as the Cruiser Tank Mk.I, the Cruiser Tank Mk.II was 1.5 tons heavier. Considering that the tank's predecessor was not a star of reliability to begin with, the result was predictable. Only 2 Cruiser Tanks Mk.II were lost to enemy fire, the remaining 12 tanks were victims of breakdowns.

Tankers of the 342nd CACC and their new vehicles.

Operation Dynamo, the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force, began on May 26th. French units evacuated as well. Elements of the 1st Armoured Division fought to protect the evacuation sites at Dunkirk and Calais. A portion of personnel were successfully evacuated, but the majority of the tanks, including cruisers, were abandoned.

The tanks were briefly used by the French army during the evacuation. After the evacuation of 5 RTR crews, a number of tanks remained in the possession of the French 342nd Independent Tank Regiment, which returned from Norway, having lost their Hotchkiss H 39 tanks. They took over 10 British tanks, including several Cruiser Tanks Mk.II. Alas, there is no detailed information about the use of the tanks in the 342nd CACC. The only thing that can be said for certain was that they took part in the defense of Calais, where French and British forces were evacuated from.

A page from the German manual. This was the name of the Cruiser Tank Mk.II in German service.

All British Cruiser Tanks Mk.II became German trophies as a result of the May-June 1940 campaign. The Germans were not in a hurry to use these tanks. The scattered hulks gave a lot of food for thought. The Cruiser Tank Mk.II seemed questionable even as a training tank.

The Panzerkampfwagen Mk II 742(e) as a training tank.

The Germans called the tank Panzerkampfwagen Mk II 742(e). The fate of most of them was the same as of the Cruiser Tank Mk.I: exhibitions, then junkyards. A number of tanks ended up in training units, and one ended up in Kummersdorf. In April of 1945 it was sent into battle against the Red Army alongside a number of other trophies. The result was predictable: the tank broke down and it was shoved into a ditch.

Cruiser Tanks Mk.IIA from the 1st Armoured Division in Cairo.

The high breakdown rate of the Cruiser Tank Mk.II did not end its combat career. There was a plan to send these tanks to North Africa in June of 1940, but in practice the tanks were not sent until the fall of 1940, and even then in small amounts. These were Cruiser Tanks Mk.IIA with BESA machineguns. Like the Cruiser Tank Mk.I, these tanks received a sand shield from the left side, which reduced the amount of dust that was kicked up during driving. A number of tanks also received additional fuel tanks. Of course, these increased the cruising range, but the question of why put 135 L of fuel on top of the left fender right in the front is a tough one to answer. It was hard not to hit it, and not hard to imagine the consequences of such a hit.

Cruiser Tank Mk.IIA CS lost in Greece due to technical reasons.

Large scale shipments of the Cruiser Tank Mk.II to Africa began in early 1941. 101 tanks arrived by April 1st, including 12 Cruiser Tank Mk.IIA CS. At the time, this was the most numerous cruiser tank in the region.

Technical issues continued to plague the Cruiser Tank Mk.II. Dust and heat were additional stressors. Mass issues with the clutch cropped up. The suspension, road wheel rims, and track links suffered in the African climate. The British were fighting not only the enemy, but their own tanks.

Similar scenes were a common sight on Greek roads in the spring of 1941.

The use of these tanks in Greece was the peak of technical problems. The British sent the 3rd RTR in anticipation of a German invasion, which was filled with Cruiser Tanks Mk.IIA and Cruiser Tanks Mk.IVA. The 3rd RTR had nearly no losses from enemy fire during the fighting in Greece. The unreliable tanks defeated themselves. A critical lack of spare parts made the situation worse. Cruiser Tanks Mk.IIA abandoned on the roadside became a symbol of British participation in the Greek campaign in the spring of 1941. On April 27th, the personnel of the 3rd RTR boarded transports for Crete, having made nearly no impact on the fighting in Greece.

Valentine II and Cruiser Tank Mk.IIA as training tanks, Cyprus, May 1942.

North Africa was the only theatre where the Cruiser Tank Mk.II showed itself in some form of positive light. The thick armour helped, although not always. These tanks played an important role in the fighting of spring-summer 1941. Measures to keep the tanks in working order paid off, and by September 1941 the breakdown rate was reduced. Out of 42 tanks, 31 were functional and ready for battle. By early November, the number of working tanks increased to 52.

Nevertheless, the fate of the tanks was sealed. Operation Crusader was the last that saw early Cruisers (Mk.I though Mk.IV) fight as first line tanks. The appearance of more modern British and American vehicles allowed them to retire. The Cruiser Tank Mk.IIA was used on Cyprus until early 1943. There was also an attempt to use the Cruiser Tank Mk.II as a bridgelayer, but it turned out that even the Covenanter was better suited for this role.

An experimental bridgelayer Cruiser Tank Mk.II.

Surviving Cruiser Tanks Mk.II were used as training tanks. They were freed from this duty in 1943 as hopelessly obsolete. One of these tanks, a Cruiser Tank Mk.IIA CS got lucky, and can now be seen at the Bovington tank museum. Remains of another tank were recently discovered, and a group of enthusiasts is trying to restore this vehicle.

The fate of the Cruiser Tank Mk.II shows how poor the situation with tank building was in Britain at the start of WWII. After that, it's hard to be surprised at the enthusiasm that British tankers showed at the Light Tank M3 that entered service in August of 1941. One can say without a shadow of a doubt that the British army was saved by Lend Lease.

Factory #183 Experiments

$
0
0
"July 2nd, 1940

To ABTU 8th Department Chief, Military Engineer 1st Class, comrade Afonin

Report on experimental work performed at factory #183 in June 1940

The following experimental work was performed in June of 1940.
  1. Trials of two A-7M vehicles ## 0314-2 and 903-03 with substitutes. A number of parts on these vehicles use iron instead of bronze or aluminium. A number of parts were also made from cheaper steels rather than highly hardened steel. Trials were completed, micro-measurements are being performed.
  2. Reliability trials of A-7M #327-45 have finished. The vehicle completed 3000 km trials. The report is being completed.
  3. Two engines from factory #75 are undergoing 150 hour trials. The engines were installed on A-7M ## 0890-3 and 442-55. The first engine worked for 70 hours and was removed due to significant leaking of gases between the cylinder block and head. The second worked for 125 hours, after which gases started penetrating into the water and throwing the cooling system water out through the reductor. A chronic defect of this diesel engine, breakdown of the automatic timing device, was also observed.
  4. Trials of a T-34 #0311-11-3 with track links cast from Hadfield steel, mechanical controls instead of pneumatic servos, and a reinforced cooling fan are being performed.
  5. The A-5 tank with the V-3 engine is being repaired. Work is going slowly due to plant #500 being loaded with production of the T-34 tank. The repairs are also slowed down due to the fact that blueprints and detailed descriptions are absent. The repairs are planned to be completed by July 10th.
  6. Voroshilovets tractor #68 warranty trials continue. 700 km remain.
  7. Tractor #7 with a V-3 diesel engine is being trialled. Trials will be complete in early July.
  8. Completion of the agreement between factory #183 and the Chemical Directorate is delayed. Assembly blueprints are complete, all that remains is for the Chemical Directorate to give final consultations and send the technical project to be approved. All other blueprints can be readied by early August.
  9. Development of a new project for a tractor on the T-34 chassis is complete. Assembly blueprints are being copied and detailed blueprints are being made. The development of detailed blueprints can be finished by August 10-15th. Delays in producing the blueprints can be explained by a shortage of copiers.
  10. Production of pneumatic components for the Voroshilovets tractor is in progress. Two prototypes may be assembled in July.
Senior Military Representation, Military Engineer 2nd Class, Kozyrev
Military Representation, Military Engineer 3nd Class, Baikov"

Upgunning the A-34

$
0
0
"Act

We the undesigned, designer of plant 520 comrade A.A. Maloshtanov, representative of the Kirov factory comrade L.N. Kondrashev, representative of the AU comrade M.R. Vorzheinov, representative of plant 509 comrade E.S. Mezhevikin, compose the present act to certify that the following chances were introduced into the turret of the A-34 during the installation of the L-11 system:
  1. The left carrier of the brass catcher is affixed to the mantlet, and because of this it is installed via an adapter.
  2. The casing of the hand firing mechanism is installed in a new place, as a result of which the trigger was re-welded, the openings in the control panel were re-drilled, and the right side of the brass catcher was trimmed.
  3. The recoil guard was trimmed as it clipped the recoil indicator.
  4. The breech handle was shortened by 20 mm.
  5. The shell catcher lock was shortened by 18 mm.
  6. The elevation mechanism boss was trimmed.
  7. A cylindrical handle was installed to rotate the PT-1 head instead of a flywheel.
  8. Trigger pedals from the 45 mm system were used.
  9. The semiautomatic mechanism cutoff from the L-10 system was installed (the cutoff from the L-11 doesn't fit).
All aforementioned changes do not decrease the quality of work of the L-11 system, except the L-10 cutoff, which does not allow firing with the semiautomatic mechanism disabled."

[signatures]
February 21st, 1940"

Day by Day

$
0
0
"Order of the People's Commissariat of Defense #80-Mss
Moscow
December 27th, 1941

Referring to the decree of the State Committee of Defense #GKO-1043ss issued on December 19th, 1941, I order to:

1. Establish the following schedule for daily production in January of 1942 of tanks, hulls, and engines between the NKTP factories:
Factory
Item
Total in January 1942
10-day intervals of January 1942
1st
2nd
3rd
Tank production
Kirov factory
KV tank
435
12
14/15
17
Factory #183
T-34 tank
430
10
15
18
STZ
T-34 tank
308
9
10
12
Factory #112
T-34 tank
250
7
8
10
Factory #174
T-50 tank
210
5
7
9
Factory #37
T-60 tank
250
6
8
11
Factory #38
T-60 tank
200
4
6
10
Factory #264
T-60 tank
240
6
8
10
Engine production
Kirov factory
V-2 engine
645
16
22
26
STZ
V-2 engine
330
9
12
12
Factory #76
V-2 engine
360
10
12
14
Hull production
Izhora factory
KV hull
380
10
13
15
Factory #200
KV hull
130
3
4
6
Factory #264
T-34 hull
350
10
12
13
Factory #37
T-60 hull
260
6
9
11
Factory #38
T-60 hull
220
5
7
10
Kulebaki factory #178
T-60 hull
100
2
3
5
Murom factory #176
T-60 hull
410
13
14
14
Vyksa factory #177
T-60 hull
260
8
9
10
Factory #183
T-34 hull
450
10
16
18/19
Factory #112
T-34 hull
275
7
9
11
Saratov factory #180
T-50 hull
240
6
8
10
2. Consider that the schedule for January 1942 includes one holiday.
3. All directors of tank, hull, and engine factories must send me encrypted messages regarding the production of tanks, hulls, and engines in January of 1942 daily.

People's Commissar of Tank Production of the USSR, Malyshev"

Spring HEAT

$
0
0
"State Committee of Defense 
Decree #GOKO-1537ss issued on April 4th, 1942
Moscow, Kremlin

On armour-burning shells

To perfect armour-burning shells, perform the following:
  1. Order the NKV (comrade Vannikov) to produce 50 units of HEAT armour-burning shells  for the 76 mm regimental gun according to existing Artillery Committee and NII-6 blueprints within 10 days.
  2. Order the NKChM (comrade Tevtosyan) to issue 5 units each of 40 mm, 50 mm, and 60 mm armour plate for trials of the aforementioned shells.
  3. Order the GAU (comrade Yakovlev) to perform trials of the aforementioned shells against the plates and give conclusions within 5 days.
  4. Order the NKV (comrade Gamov) to organize a group within the NII-6 for the perfection of thermite type armour-burning shells, delivering the first results to the GOKO by May 5th, 1942.
    Include academic Semyenov (Academy of Sciences) and Professor Maksimenko (Leningrad Chemical Technology Institute) into the group.
  5. Order the NKVD (comrade Kravchenko) to supply a group of specialists that previously worked with armour-burning shells to participate in the NII-6 group.
Chair of the State Committee of Defense, I. Stalin"

A Turret for Three

$
0
0
The first project of a light infantry tank, which later transformed into the Valentine, was presented to the War Ministry on February 10th, 1938. The tank that Leslie Little developed was rejected by the British at least once. One of the reasons for the rejection was the two-man turret, as the British wanted to have it house three crewmen. Leslie Little won that time, and in April of 1939 the Infantry Tank Mk.III was approved with a two-man turret. However, the War Ministry returned to the idea of increasing the crew size of the turret, which led to the Valentine III and Valentine V with three-man turrets.

Result of a compromise

The main reason why Little, the chief designer of the Vickers-Armstrongs company, insisted on a two-man turret was the limit in mass. Little already had a bad experience in creating the Cruiser Tank A10. The desire to create a "heavy cruiser" led to a 12.5 ton tank ballooning to almost 14, and compared to the A9 its top speed dropped from 40 to 26 kph. The load on the engine and suspension also increased. This came back to haunt the British: the A10, also known as the Cruiser Tank Mk.II, broke down most out of all British tanks to be ever used in combat. In France, out of 14 A10s lost by the 1st Armoured Division, only 2 were knocked out. The same happened in Greece. A Cruiser Tank Mk.II abandoned by the side of the road was a favourite photography subject for the Germans.

The Infantry Tank Mk.III was designed on the A10 chassis. Naturally, the suspension was altered, but the overall idea was the same as on the A9 and A10. Any requests by the War Ministry like increasing the armour to 75 mm or adding a three-man turret would result in the tank's mass growing. Little fiercely defended the initial form of his creation, managing to get it built in its intended fashion.

Diagram of a three man turret for the Valentine.

Future events showed that Little was right. The only major problem the Valentine had was the AEC A189 engine, which the British military insisted on themselves. Vickers' chief designer insisted on using a diesel engine from the very start. The track links, an evolution of the A9/A10, also behaved poorly. Engine problems stopped after the tank received the A190 diesel engine. Issues with tracks were also resolved around this time.

After completion of the first 308 Infantry Tank Mk.III (Or Valentine I), an improved version known as the Valentine II entered production. 1493 of them were built, making this version the most numerous British tank of its time. Its combined characteristics made it a solid competitor for the title of best British tank. The Crusader surpassed it only in speed, and significantly fell behind in armour and, most importantly, reliability.

However, the British never forgot their desire to have a third man in the turret. It's not hard to understand them: the commander has to be able to do his work without also having to perform the function of a loader.

Cutaway of the Valentine III/V turret. It managed to fit three people.

The Infantry Tank Mk.III first received a three man turret at the design stage, in April of 1939. That time the British military rejected this proposal, but two years later they came back to the idea of a three man turret. By this point, the situation changed. The tank was in production, and nobody would dare radically change the design. Each tank was worth its weight in gold, and supplies of American vehicles had not yet started. In these conditions, Little managed to trade the three man turret for the preservation of the existing turret ring and thinning out of the armour in some places.

The new turret front with the gun mount brought forward.

The stock turret was taken as the basis. The only way to insert a third crewman into it was to stretch it lengthwise. The turret received a bustle, which the radio station was moved into from its special perch. This left some room for the commander in the back of the turret. Issues with the gun mount, which took up a large portion of the space inside, were solved by extending the turret face forward by 140 mm. This allowed the gun mount to move forward by the same distance. However, the armour had to be altered. This allowed the commander to fit into the turret with the existing turret ring.

In addition to the aforementioned transformations, the design of the pistol ports changed. Their shape was unified, and the design improved. The turret roof also changed. The large center hatch was inconvenient to use with the new layout, and it was replaced by a commander's cupola with a three-piece hatch. The front part of the hatch mounted a Mk.IV observation periscope, giving the commander good visibility.

A rare photo of a Valentine III. Most archive photos show Valentine V tanks.

It's hard to call the commander's working conditions in the three-man Valentine turret comfortable. He had barely any room to work with, and the recoiling gun breech was placed right in front of his face. The Matilda's fighting compartment was also hardly a resort, but at least it was taller.

A diagram of the Valentine V. Late production Valentine III tanks were indistinguishable from it.

The new tank received the index Valentine III. The increased size and weight of the turret had to be balanced out by reducing the thickness of the sides to 50 mm. The mass of the tank grew, but not a lot, only to 16 tons. Depending on the configuration it could increase up to 18 tons, but the same was true for the 2-man turret tank as well.

Contract T2455 was signed with Birmingham Railway Carriage and Wagon Company (BRC&W) on June 26th, 1941, for 500 Valentine III tanks. Each tank cost 7500 pounds Sterling, plus the engine and several other components cost 4490 pounds. Another contract, TM6117, was signed with BRC&W on October 7th, 1941, for 435 tanks. Delivery of the last vehicles described by the first contract was due on May 26th, 1942, but the real delivery was rather different.

The tanks started being issued no sooner than early 1942, and production plans had to change as a result. Instead of 500 tanks, only 386 were built to satisfy T2455, 54 more were built as bridgelayers, and 60 as Bishop SPGs. The WD numbers, including bridgelayers and Bishops, ranged from T.59684 to T.60183. Changes were made to TM6117 as well: it was reduced to 305 vehicles, of which 82 were bridgelayers. These tanks received WD numbers T.121823–T.122127. The third contract, TM11534, issued on February 7th, 1942, was cancelled. BRC&W would have built 440 tanks with WD numbers T122258-T123157. In total, 699 Valentine III tanks were built. BRC&W was the only factory that produced Valentine III tanks.

T.66591, the first Valentine V built by Elswick Works.

The issue of equipping British tanks with engines came up by the summer of 1941. The solution was the Valentine IV with a two-man turret, equipped with the American GM 6004 engine. An analogous modification for the three-man turret Valentine was called Valentine V. Externally, the Valentine III and Valentine V were identical. Only the WD number gives a hint as to what kind of tank it really is.

The same tank from the right showing its Parrish-Lakeman Mounting.

The first contract for Valentine V tanks was signed with Vickers-Armstrongs on May 7th, 1941. Contract T2455 ordered 755 tanks with WD numbers T.66466–T.67220. Each tank cost 5520 pounds Sterling, with 4490 more for the engine. The first tanks were scheduled for delivery on March 22nd, 1942, and the deadline was met this time, although the T.66466–T.66590 interval was filled with Valentine IV tanks, not Valentine V. Tanks started receiving three-man turrets at T.66591. The number of Valentine V tanks produced was reduced to 400 units. The remaining 230 were built as Valentine IX.

Valentine V WD number T.67707 built by the Metropolitan Cammell Carriage and Wagon Company.

The majority of Valentine tanks with a three-man turret were built by the Metropolitan Cammell Carriage and Wagon Company. Contract T2454 issued on June 26th, 1941, ordered 645 Valentine II tanks here, but soon the number of tanks was reduced to 40 plus 60 bridgelayers. 545 tanks would be built as the Valentine IV, but even these plans had to change. Instead, 545 Valentine V tanks with WD numbers T.67321–T.67865 were built. MMCW also built 35 two-man turrets and 25 three-man turrets for instructional purposes.

Contract TM6118 for 455 tanks was signed on October 7th. It was the last not only for three-man turret Valentines, but for Valentines with 2-pounder guns as a whole, at least for British manufacturers. This contract was also corrected: 127 Valentine Vs were built, the remaining 328 were Valentine IXs. Vehicles of both types received WD numbers T.82163–T.82617.

Valentine V DD with retracted amphibious equipment.

160 tanks of those produved by MCCW received unusual extra equipment. The Hungarian inventor Nicholas Straussler began working on a system that could turn any tank amphibious since 1941. It was known as the Duplex Drive, or DD for short. The recipe for this transformation was simple: a metallic foundation was installed on the tank, and a rubberized fabric screen with a frame was installed on top. Inflating rubber hoses would raise the screen, which would allow the tank to float. Propellers installed in the rear part of the hull allowed it to move in water.

The same vehicle with the screen up. The propellers can be seen in the rear.

A Tetrarch tank was the first to receive DD equipment, and went through trials successfully. The Valentine tank was deemed the most appropriate for this modification. Unlike the Tetrarch, which had a questionable future, the Valentine was in large scale production. Trials of a Valentine II showed that this equipment works well with this tank. Valentines equipped with GMC engines were deemed the most suitable. A decision to equip two tank divisions with Valentine DD tanks was made in June of 1942. 450 tanks were ordered, 225 of which were expected by January 1st, 1943. The main candidate for conversion was the Valentine IX. Nevertheless, at least 85 Valentine V tanks built to contract T2454 and 75 tanks built to contract TM6118 were also built in this fashion. A number of Valentine V DD tanks received 43 mm thick sides to compensate for their extra mass.

Such a number of amphibious tanks was easy to explain. The British were seriously preparing to land in France in the summer of 1943. However, the landing did not happen, and the deadlines for producing these tanks were missed anyway. Mass production of the Valentine V DD only began in March of 1943. By this point, the British army lots its faith in the Valentine and began to rearm with the Medium Tank M4. It also turned out that the Medium Tank M4 was compatible with the Duplex Drive system, and these tanks went into battle in the summer of 1944. The only thing that the armada of amphibious tanks with 2-pounders was good for was training.

From North Africa to the Pacific

The first shipments of the Valentine with a three-man turret began in the spring of 1942. These tanks arrived in North Africa even later, in the summer of 1942. The Valentine III were the first to reach the front lines. At the time, the majority of the light infantry tank fleet was composed of Valentine II tanks with AEC A190 engines. The GM 6004 engines on the Valentine V were more powerful, but having two similar tanks with different engines in use at the same time was not very convenient. Because of this, even though the first Valentine V tanks were built in March of 1942, their arrival in Africa was delayed.

Valentine III in battle, summer of 1942.

In the summer of 1942, when the three-man turret Valentines had made their debut, use of tanks of this type was already under question. Even though these tanks were superior to the Matilda in mobility, they were still ill-suited for use in the desert. However, the tanks were more effective than the Valentine II, since the commander could do his job instead of having to work double duty. The first Valentine III tanks that arrived in North Africa did not yet have extra fuel tanks, but they were installed soon after. The maximum range increased.

However, the tank's 2-pounder gun could only combat German and new Italian tanks at close ranges. At the same time, the Africa Corps received the PzIII Ausf.L with long barreled 50 mm guns that could defeat the Valentine's armour at medium distances.

This tank was captured by the Germans and ended up in the 10th Tank Division. It didn't spent a lot of time here.

The 23rd Armoured Brigade, where the Valentine III made its debut, lost from 87 to 93 Valentines out of 104 they were issued. Some tanks were captured and used by the Germans. After such a "success", the Valentines were phased out for American Lee, Grant, and Sherman tanks. Nevertheless, the 23rd Armoured Brigade still retained 135 Valentines as of September 14th, 1942.

One of the first Valentine V tanks in North Africa, late 1942. The tanks already have sand shields, but the colour scheme is still "continental". 

Valentine V tanks were finally issued towards the end of the year. These tanks also ended up as a part of the Malta garrison. The Valentine V saw its first battle in December of 1942, and continued to be used in combat until May of 1943, when the German-Italian forces in Tunis capitulated. By this point it was clear that using these tanks against the Germans was pointless. In May of 1943 tank units equipped with Valentines were hurriedly rearmed with Sherman tanks. A number of Valentines were given to the 2nd Polish Armoured Brigade, which continued to use them in the Middle East until Shermans arrived.

Tunis was the last place where the Valentine V was used against the Germans.

In 1943, the Valentine III and Valentine V were issued to the 146th Royal Tank Corps fighting in Burma. Even though the unit already had Grant and Lee tanks, these light infantry tanks ended up serving for a long time. By May of 1944 319 of the tanks were still in service, 72 of them in the 50th Indian Tank Brigade. The Valentine tanks were finally taken out of service in Burma in July of 1944.

Polish Valentine IV and V tanks in Iraq, summer of 1943.

New Zealand also didn't say no to British light infantry tanks. 80 Valentine III tanks and 77 Valentine V tanks arrived in this country. Shipments of Valentines with three-man turrets continued from late 1942 to early 1942. The New Zealand army also ordered 34 Matilda IV CS tanks, but they didn't last long: in May of 1944 these tanks were sent to Australia.

A Valentine III CS tank lands on the Nissan Atoll, February 1944.

The New Zealanders encountered an issue that was one of the biggest issues with British tanks: a lack of 2-pounder high explosive ammunition. The Australians solved this problem by loading 40 mm Bofors HE shells into 2-pounder casings. The New Zealanders chose a different route. The Valentine's gun mount permitted the installation of a 76 mm howitzer. In February of 1943, one Valentine III was converted in the Waiouru tank school to take a howitzer from the Matilda IV CS instead of a 2-pounder gun. The howitzer received an appropriate sight. The ammunition racks were also changed. The tank received 35 rounds, 32 of which were HE and 3 were smoke. 18 tanks were altered this way, and given the title Valentine III CS.

New Zealand's tanks also worked as tractors.

New Zealand's tanks received local registration numbers. They were distributed among three tank regiments, where they served alongside the Stuart III. Only 19 New Zealander Valentine IIIs (including two Valentine III CS) got to fight. In early 1944 tanks of the 3rd Tank Battalion, 3rd New Zealand Tank Division, were used to liberate the Green Islands, to the east of New Guinea. On February 11th these tanks landed on Nissan Atoll. This was the only combat operation to use New Zealand's tanks.

New Zealander Valentine V, 1950s.

New Zealand's Valentines lived a long life. The last of these tanks were only retired from service in 1960. These tanks were rather reliable, and New Zealand had little need of modern tanks. The country had nobody to fight with. A number of these tanks later ended up in Australia, where they were converted into tractors and engineering vehicles. About half of the Valentine tanks preserved to this day has New Zealand roots.

First and last recipients

After the British Army, the USSR was the second largest user of Valentine III and V tanks. Strangely enough, the tanks with three-man turrets went nearly unnoticed by the GABTU. Unlike Canadian Valentines, which went through all sorts of trials in the USSR, the Valentine III and V were nearly ignored in correspondence. This is largely due to the fact that these vehicles differed little in effectiveness compared to the Valentine II and Valentine IV.

Acceptance act for Valentine V tanks that arrived in the USSR. The delivery was not homogenous: it includes Matilda IV, Valentine II, and Valentine V tanks.

Unlike the British army, where initially only Valentine IIIs were used, the USSR first received the Valentine V. These tanks arrived with PQ-16 in June of 1942. The Valentine III was not shipped to the Red Army at all in 1942. However, the stream of Valentine Vs also dried up fairly quickly. The second major shipment was loaded onto the infamous PQ-17. A large number of tanks were lost, and a pause followed. Of 340 Valentine V tanks that were sent to the USSR, 113 were lost en route.

Nevertheless, a small amount of tanks arrived through the northern route in December of 1942. In January of 1943, the first Valentine IIIs arrived with convoy WJ-51B. The last tank of this type that arrived through the north came in February of 1943, and this shipment included Valentine III, V, and IX tanks.

A Valentine V lost in August of 1942. These tanks rarely pop up in front line photo albums.

The next shipment of British light infantry tanks only came in July of 1943. These were Valentine III tanks that arrived through Iran. Here is where things get interesting. As mentioned before, the British army began switching over to the Sherman in May of 1943. A torrent of used tanks hit the USSR. This was obvious from the condition of the tanks that were coming in: they had missing parts and smashed up fenders. There were also complaints about the Valentine VIIs, but at least they were coming in better condition and with a full set of parts. Shipments of Valentine III and V tanks in 1943 were in small batches (51 and 16 in total, respectively). 

A message came in April of 1944 that informed the USSR that it could receive 90 tanks that served in Iraq. Among them was a number of Valentine V tanks, likely those formerly used by the Polish brigade. In this case, they were used by the same former Polish POWs that were shipped from the USSR to the Middle East after the start of the Great Patriotic War. The condition of these tanks was so poor that they had to be repaired right in Baku.

Used Valentine III and V tanks also arrived through the northern route. JW-54 brought 37 Valentine III and 42 Valentine V tanks in December of 1943. In 1944 50 Valentine V and 61 Valentine III tanks arrived through the north. As for the southern route, 54 of these tanks arrived in 1944. The last 11 tanks were received on September 30th, 1944, with 10 Valentine IX tanks, also used. These were the last Valentine tanks that arrived in the USSR. According to British data, the USSR received 346 Valentine III tanks without a single one lost en route.

A list of the last Valentine tanks to arrive in the USSR. The tanks were previously used and required repairs.


The Valentines first saw battle on the Eastern Front in the summer of 1942. The Red Army did not distinguish between versions of tanks with two and three man turrets, which makes it hard to track their combat career. Knocked out Valentine III and V tanks rarely appear in photographs of German soldiers and officers that are now sold on internet auctions. The tanks begin being distinguished in 1944. While in the case with the Valentine III it might be hard to determine the variant, it's different with the Valentine V. These vehicles were sometimes called Mk.5 or Mk.V. In correspondence written in 1944 and later these tanks are separated, as are the Valentien VII (Mk.7 or Mk.VII) and Valentine IX (Mk.9 or Mk.IX).

Valentine V on the front, Belarus, 1944.

The Western Allies stopped using the Valentine with three man turrets by the summer of 1944, but their career hit a second breath on the Eastern Front. Use of these tanks continued in independent tank regiments used by cavalry divisions. For instance, the 87th OTP received 5 Valentine V tanks on November 26th, 1944. As of June 22nd, 1944, 30 Valentine III tanks were listed in the 3rd Guards Cavalry Corps. The 151st Independent Tank Regiment received 6 Valentine III and 4 Valentine IX tanks in February of 1945. A number of these vehicles fought until the end of the war.

Some tanks of this type saw action in Iraq, then on the Eastern Front, and ended their career on the Far East, fighting against Japan.

It is often said that the Valentine's gun was very weak. Downright utopian suggestions to rearm these tanks with 76 mm F-34 or even 85 mm S-53 guns were sent in to the Central Artillery Design Bureau. Nevertheless, these tanks managed to last long enough to fight against the Japanese. FOr instance, Valentine III tanks were present in the Far East with the 267th Tank Regiment, which also cooperated with cavalrymen.



T8 Periscopic Sights

$
0
0
"Periscopic T8 sight

The principle of the T8 periscope does not differ from previously examined periscopes. It combines an observation periscope with a telescopic system. This design is a further step towards the perfection and development of these types of sights.

The significant difference between the T8 sight and other sights of the first and second group is that the degree of magnification is significantly increased, and a collimator device is with a sighting grid is introduced. Thanks to this, the T8 sight and other sights of its type can be called a variable magnification sight.

Characteristics of the sight


1x optical system
6x optical system
Magnification
1x
6x
Field of vision (horizontal)
56 degrees
11 degrees 20 minutes
Field of vision (vertical)
10 degrees
11 degrees 20 minutes
Length
365 mm
Width
178 mm
Thickness
57 mm

Sight optics

The observation block, or 1x optical system, consists of a main rectangular prism and lower half-silvered mirror. Protective glass is installed in front of the mirror.

A collimator device is installed outside of the observation block, consisting of a two-lens condenser aluminium mirror, a collimator lens, and an illumination light. A grid is marked on the flat part of the upper lens of the condenser.

The converted beam of light given by the condenser is reflected by the aluminium mirror and, passing through the collimator lens, hits the lower half-silvered mirror. Due to the fact that the half-silvered mirror allows focused light to pass through, the grid image is overlaid on the image observed through the sight. The focal plane of the collimator lens coincides with the flat side of the upper lens of the condenser, and therefore the grid and the observed image are seen the same distance away, i.e. there is no parallax between the grid and far away objects. The 6x optical system consists of a lens, a prismatic rotation system (Porro prism 1st type), a gird, and an Erfle eyepiece. The main prism of the 1x optical system is used as the upper reflector.

Fig. 10: Optical system of the T8 sight.


Design of the sight

The sight (fig. 11) consists of: the head, the case, optical components, optical component attachments, adjustment mechanisms, and grid illumination mechanisms.

The head of the sight includes: a plastic case, a rectangular prism, and prism attachment parts. The lower part of the case has a metallic base with tabs that the head clips onto. The slanted part of the head contains a table for writing down calibration markings.

The case consists of two parts, firmly connected by bolts. The upper part of the case contains a half-silvered mirror and the lens of the 6x system. The collimator lens and the protective glass are installed between the upper and lower part of the case. The lower part of the case holds the rectangular prisms of the rotating system, installed on a special bridge, the grid of the 6x system, a three part eyepiece, the condenser of the collimator device, and two sockets for lightbulbs. The cap attached between the upper and lower halves of the casing from the outside holds the aluminium mirror of the collimator device. The upper part of the casing has two rotating eccentric clips, similar to the ones on the M4A1 sight. Below the clips are two cylindrical holders that the periscope mounts on in the mount.

The adjustment of the T8 periscope differs from those described earlier. It is performed by moving the grids that are located in the holders, which allows moving the grids in perpendicular directions. The adjustment mechanisms are similar to those used on the M4A1 sight.

Fig. 11: cutaway of the T8 sight.

The small magnification of the T8 periscope is compensated by the addition of the 6x device, tactically sufficient for modern gun systems, as it allows the recognition of targets from up to 3 km away. This corrects the main drawback of earlier sights. In addition, the presence of a grid in the 1x observation block makes it easy to fire on targets up to 1 km away. The sight, like earlier sights, is simple and comparatively cheap.

The grid of the 6x sight (fig. 12) is marked in hectoyards. The vertical dashes and distances between them correspond to 200 yards and are marked for up to 4200 yards. The distances between horizontal dashes correspond to 400 yards. The length of the horizontal dashes and distances between them correspond to 5 mils. The grid of the 1x sight has the same image, but markings up to 1200 yards.

Fig. 12: Grid of the 6x optical system of the T8 sight.

Conclusions

The T8 sight is becoming the primary optical sight of American tanks. These sights have a number of positive qualities:
  1. Good combination of wide observation angle and high magnification.
  2. Relative simplicity of design.
  3. Provide for quick and easy replacement of the vulnerable component (upper head).
  4. Provide a good solution to the problem of clearing the upper window.
Drawbacks include:
  1. The need to have a conversion table for firing different types of shells. Grids are provided for one type only (usually armour piercing).
  2. Poor shape of the grids. In the T8 sight the grid obscures the vision through the sight, although it is convenient to correct fire side to side and the distances marked on the grid (200 yards) are acceptable.
  3. As with all telescopic sights, there is insufficient precision due to the use of a rod device. The latter drawback explains the need to equip all American tanks with a backup sight, a telescopic sight that is rigidly connected with the gun. This is why latest American tanks are equipped with two types of sights: a peritlescopic T8 sight and a telescopic sight that is rigidly connected to the gun."
Tank Industry Herald 10-11, 1945

New Year, New Valentines

$
0
0
"December 30th, 1942

To the Deputy Chief of the GABTU, Major-General of the Tank Forces, comrade Korobkov

Our representatives in England say that 70 Valentine-9 tanks are being sent with the next caravan. The armament of these tanks is as follows:
  1. One 6-pounder gun with elevation of +15 degrees and depression of: forward and to the sides of 8 degrees 30 minutes, to the back 2 degrees 30 minutes. The tank holds 49 artillery shells. Only armour piercing shells are provided.
  2. Bren AA machinegun.
  3. Thompson SMG.
I ask you to give conclusions.

Deputy Chief of the NKVT Engineering Directorate, Colonel Khryaev"


Acceptance of the T-34-85

$
0
0
"State Committee of Defense Decree #4776ss
December 15th, 1943

On the production of the T-34-85 tank with an 85 mm gun at factory #112

The State Committee of Defense decrees:
  1. TheT-34-85 tank designed at factory #183 with the 85 mm gun designed at factory #9 built according to tactical-technical characteristics in attachment #1 is accepted into service with the Red Army.
  2. The People's Commissariat of Tank Production (comrade Malyshev) and director of factory #112 in Gorky (comrade Rubinchik) to organize production of the T-34-85 tank in the following amounts:
    1. In January of 1944: 25 units
    2. In February of 1944: 75 units
    3. In March of 1944: 150 units
      starting with April of 1944, completely switch to T-34-85 production instead of T-34 tanks."



"State Committee of Defense Decree #5020ss
January 23rd, 1944
Moscow, Kremlin

On the increase of production of T-34-85 tanks with an 85 mm gun and wider turret ring

In addition to (and partially altering) State Committee of Defense Decree #4873-ss issued on January 1st, 1944, the State Committee of Defense decrees that:

1. The People's Commissariat of Tank Production (comrade Malyshev) and directors of factory #183 (comrade Maksarev), Kirov factory (comrade Zaltsmann), and factory #112 (comrade Rubinchik) must produce T-34 tanks with an 85 mm gun, a 1600 mm turret ring, and a new turret matching the tactical-technical characteristics established by GOKO decree #4776ss issued on December 15th, 1943, in the following amounts:


January
February
March
April
May
Factory #112
25
75
150
All tanks must have an 85 mm gun and 1600 mm  turret ring
Factory #183
-
-
150
500
Ditto
Kirov
-
-
-
25
Ditto
"

Radio Trucks

$
0
0
"To the People's Commissar of Defense, comrade I.V. Stalin
August 5th, 1941

I report on the execution of NKO order #0243s issued on July 23rd, 1941, on the issue of producing armoured carriers for Army (Front) radios and armouring of the divisional radio.
  1. The Stalin Automotive Factory (ZIS) developed and produced prototypes (models) of RAF type armoured carriers for Army (Front) radios. The radio is installed in two armoured carriers produced on the chassis of the ZIS-5 truck.
    The armoured carrier was approved by the GABTU and US for mass production on July 30th.
  2. The Podolsk Ordzhonikidze factory covered one prototype RSB type divisional radio in armour, which was approved for mass production by the GABTU and US on July 28th, 1941.
  3. Presently, neither the armoured carrier nor the armoured radio are put into production due to a lack of armour production base designated by the Central Plan.
Deputy People's Commissar of Defense, Lieutenant General of the Tank Forces, Fedorenko
Deputy People's Commissar of Defense, Peresypkin"

Valentine With a Long Gun

$
0
0
In the spring of 1943 the variety of British tanks sent to the USSR dropped radically. Matilda tanks were no longer sent, the Churchill nearly vanished from shipping manifests. The Valentine remained the only type of tank sent by the British in large numbers. Even though the British themselves nearly stopped using it by the spring of 1943, they were still in demand with the Red Army. This was especially true for the Valentine IX, the version with a 6-pounder cannon, which had to revert to the two-man turret.

Bigger caliber, less crew

It was clear that the 2-pounder gun was obsolete after the first clashes with German tanks in North Africa in 1941. Work on improving the firepower of British tanks began that same year. The 6-pounder (57 mm) gun, work on which began back in 1938, was the favourite. Mass production began only in 1942. The Mk.II (anti-tank) and Mk.III (tank) variants were shorter than the initial design. However, even the 43 caliber version was quite good. Even the thickening of the front armour of the PzIV to 80 mm did not fully protect it from the new cannon.


A new turret was needed to re-arm the Matilda tank, and this project did not proceed past experimental work. The Churchill also needed a new turret, but this modification was more fortunate. The Churchill III and IV ended up being the longest-living British tanks. Their fighting career began at El-Alamein and ended in 1945 in Berlin.

The career of the Crusader and Valentine with the same gun was less stellar. In both cases, the turrets had to be redesigned. The Crusader III saw battle first, and the new gun was clearly an improvement. However, it was still worse than American Sherman II and III tanks. The Crusader III's career came to an end in the spring of 1943. In the future these tanks were used to make SPAAG chassis and tractors.

The Valentine had to undergo a serious turret modification to receive a new turret. Taking the Valentine III turret as a start, Vickers engineers freed up space by reducing the turret crew to 2 men. The gun fit into the turret, but the coaxial machinegun and smoke bomb launcher were removed. This tank was supposed to be accepted into service as the Valentine VIII, but the order for this variant was cancelled. The British decided to fully switch to the GM 6004 engine. The result was the Valentine IX tank, the only 6-pounder armed Valentine to see service with the British army.

Later, the Valentine X was introduced. This version once again had a coaxial machinegun. The final modification of the tank, the Valentine XI, had a 75 mm gun. These tanks served in the British army until the end of the war, but only as commanders' tanks with dummy guns. As for the Valentine IX, they appeared on the front lines by late 1942, but were removed from combat starting with the spring of 1943.

Cutaway drawing of the Valentine IX made during its study.

The USSR learned about the new type of tank right at the end of December of 1942. Soviet representatives in Britain reported that the USSR will soon receive 70 new tanks armed with 57 mm guns. The first batch of new British tanks arrived with the JW-53 convoy in February of 1943. By then Soviet representatives managed to collect a good deal of information about this tank. On January 21st, 1943, the 20th Tank Brigade showed these tanks in action to the Soviet representatives. According to British information, the 57 mm tank gun could penetrate 40 mm of armour at 1829 meters and 65 mm at 914 meters. The mass of the tank increased to 18-19 tons.

Soviet specialists questioned the reliability of the new tank, since the British tankers let slip that brakes had to be replaced every 400-600 km. Vickers also reported that the load on the chassis was close to its limit. Senior tester K. Olkhovskiy demanded that the British send additional spare parts with every tank. Olkhovskiy visited Elswick Works on March 8-9th. There he learned that the move from the Valentine V to the Valentine IX was done without trials, as the increase in mass was deemed to be slight. There was also a strange situation with acceptance of these vehicles. The War Ministry was incredibly trusting in its interactions with Vickers. Olkhovskiy learned about the modernization of the Valentine IX, on which the coaxial machinegun was to make a return. Finally, Vickers engineers let slip about the development of the Vanguard I, the unsuccessful replacement for the Valentine.

The top view shows how it was possible to fit the crew into the turret along with the 57 mm gun.

The introduction of a Valentine armed with a 6-pounder gun did not mean that it would immediately replace all previous versions. Valentine III tanks arrived with convoy JW-52 along with Valentine IX tanks. The same situation repeated itself. After a long break in shipments by northern convoys, the tanks were shipped along the southern route. The most numerous variant was the Canadian Valentine VIIA. These tanks flowed through Iran, with 711 shipped in 1943. As for the Valentine IX, 49 were sent from the end of July to the end of August, 16 more in September, and 46 in December of 1943. To compare, 324 Valentine IX tanks arrived through the northern route, even with the interruptions. Also, 6 tanks arrived through Vladivostok.

91 Valentine IX tanks came through the southern route in 1944, most of which were used. 36 tanks of this type were received from Polish units located in Iraq. There is a rather significant disagreement regarding tanks sent through the northern route. According to reports for December 1944, 221 tanks arrived with JW-55-JW-58, after which shipments stopped. Including the 324 tanks that arrived in 1943, the total number of Valentine IX tanks that arrived through the north was 545 units. Meanwhile, documents dated July 1st, 1945, list 621 tanks of this type delivered through the northern ports.

Perhaps the difference comes from the fact that many tanks arrived in December of 1943, which led to a 76 tank "surplus". The fact that 621 is the wrong figure is also confirmed by British sources. According to them, 836 tanks of this type were sent to the USSR, and 818 arrived at their destination. If the number of tanks received through the northern route was 621, then the USSR would have received 863 tanks (621 through the north, 236 through the south, and 6 through Vladivostok). It's hard to believe that the tanks multiplied en route, so the number 787 (545 through the north, 236 through the south, 6 though Vladivostok) sounds more believable.

Record of the first Valentine X tanks that arrived in the USSR. 64 tanks arrived in total.

Let us mention the Valentine X, the last variant of the Valentine tank that was sent to the USSR. The first tanks of this type arrived with JW-56A in late January of 1944, and were only recorded in February. Based on the acceptance records, most of these were tanks built at Elswick Works. In total, JW-56 through 58 brought 64 tanks of this type. This almost matches British reports of 74 tanks sent and 66 received. The British sent more than half of all Valentine X tanks to the USSR, as only 135 were produced. This tank was unlucky and almost never got in front of a camera.

A tank destroyer with claws

After the first Valentine IX tanks arrived in the USSR, the GBTU decided to perform proving grounds trials. Based on the correspondence between the GBTU chief, Lieutenant-General Vershinin and the People's Commissariat of Foreign Trade, the results of the trials would determine if more of these tanks would be ordered. It is possible that this order resulted in serious changes to Soviet purchasing policy in the West. Now the USSR received a small batch of tanks to try out before any large shipments of new vehicles.

The Red Army could have received an even bigger surprise in early 1943, as the British seriously considered sending Crusader III tanks. 36 tanks of this type were earmarked for shipment in April of 1943 with JW-55. JW-56 and -57 would bring 421 more of these tanks. The British were trying to dispose of useless tanks that were replaced by the Sherman II, III, and V. Vershinin spoke out categorically against this "gift" in a letter written on March 11th, 1943, where he called the Crusader III a modern tank, but with thin armour. The Liberty engine was identified as another weakness. The "crusade" to the Red Army ended before it began.

Valentine IX at the NIBT proving grounds, March 1943.

According to the trials program signed by Vershinin, an 800 km march would follow the inspection of the tank. 300 km would be done on a highway, 300 on dirt roads, and 200 off-road. The trials would determine the performance on icy dirt and in snow banks. Firing trials to determine the rate of fire and penetration were also performed.

Thanks to optimization of the armour, the weight increased very slightly.

The Valentine IX with WD number T.122725 was sent to the NIBT proving grounds on March 14th. This tank was built by Elswick Works and arrived in the USSR on February 22nd, 1943, on board the "Mossovet" steamship. The Valentine III was supposed to be tested alongside the tank, but there was a mistake. Instead of a Valentine III, a Valentine II was sent, the same one that is currently on display at Patriot Park. This tank with WD number T.27543 received a small upgrade: a "collar" covering up the turret ring from the front and additional armour in the front hull. The characteristics of the tank were also compared to those of the "Valentine III with a GMC engine", likely the Valentine VII that was tested at the NIBT proving grounds in 1942.

The march from the Gorkiy Armoured Vehicles Center to the NIBT proving grounds counted towards the trials.

This stage of the trials revealed that not all was as bad as reports from England made it seem. The mass of the Valentine IX was only 17 tons, the same as of the Valentine VII. The Valentine II was a little lighter at 16.5 tons. The mass remained the same due to thinner side armour. This was acceptable, as tanks were mostly hit from the front. Specialists remarked on the additional 148 L fuel tank. They were installed back on the Valentine IV, but the NIBT proving grounds did not receive such a tank. Overall changes to the chassis mirrored those made to tanks equipped with 2-pounder guns.

A lack of a coaxial machinegun was identified as a clear drawback.

The turret drew the most attention. The Valentine was a record setter in its class when it came to increasing the caliber of the gun. First the 40 mm gun turret was enlarged to fit three men, then it held a 57 mm gun, then even a 75 mm gun was installed. This was managed by stretching out the front and rear of the Valentine III turret. Due to the large 6-pounder gun, the turret once again only fit two people, but now had two hatches. As mentioned before, the coaxial machinegun was removed, and the 2" bomb thrower was replaced with a pair of smoke grenade launchers mounted externally. Neither change was liked by the Soviet testers. Since the tank only carried AP shells, it was only good for fighting enemy tanks. The only weapon that could be used against infantry was the Bren machinegun on an AA pintle mount.

The tank carried 53 rounds for the 6-pounder gun, 4 100 round magazines for the Bren, 10 smoke bombs, and 12 signal flares. Not a lot, especially for an infantry support tank.

The external fuel tank nearly doubled the tank's range.

The working conditions of the turret crew were deemed acceptable. No complaints were made about the commander's station (Soviet experts assumed that the gunner would be the commander, whereas the commander was actually the loader). The workspace allowed the gunner to fire comfortably and the aiming mechanisms could be reached without any discomfort. The loader's station was not as good. A part of the ammunition was only accessible at certain turret traverse angles. This was only true for the main ammo supply, and the ready rack was not impacted. There were no complaints about visibility. The commander lost his cupola, but the number of MK-IV devices was increased to 3. Two periscopes were installed in the front of the turret, the third in its right rear angle. This gave the loader good visibility backwards.

Visibility diagram from the turret.

Mobility trials were quite unusual. The Valentine IX tank chosen for trials was located at the Gorkiy Armoured Vehicle Center. To not waste time, the tank was sent to drive to the NIBT proving grounds on its own. The tank drove for a total of 500 km, 287 km on snow covered highway, 163 on paved roads, and 50 on dirt roads. The average highway speed was 20 kph and average movement speed was 20.9 kph, slightly better results than given by the Valentine II. The average speed on dirt roads and off-road was 12-16 kph, compared to the 12-15 kph of the Valentine II. Fuel consumption was 136 L per 100 km on the snowy highway and 131 L on the clear highway. The range was 230 and 240 km respectively. The addition of an external fuel tank was positively received, as it boosted the range by 90%.

Fears about the suspension were allayed. The minor breakdowns experienced during the march were not connected with it. The armament of the tank was judged about equal to that of the Churchill III.

The 6-pounder gun was tested against a Pz38(t) with predictable results.

The following conclusions were given:
  1. The British "Valentine IX" and "Valentine III" have equivalent mobility.
  2. The tank's armament is meant to fight enemy tanks.
  3. The lack of an HE grenade or machinegun makes it impossible to fight enemy infantry or strongholds.
  4. Additional reliability trials of the 57 mm gun need to be carried out on a number of samples."
The last item has to do with a breakdown of the 57 mm gun during trials. This was not a unique defect, and similar issues were experienced with the Churchill. Some time was needed to correct these problems, as correspondence about this issue continues until the end of the spring of 1943.


New track links with cleats introduced in the summer of 1943.

Spring trials were not the last that the Valentine IX took part in. Later, in August of 1943, another tank of this type arrived at the NIBT proving grounds. This time only the running gear was tested, more specifically, the tracks. In the summer of 1943 British industry finally remembered the Red Army's requirement of equipping its tanks with better grousers. Valentine IX tanks were shipped with extra cleats on each track link. Reports soon started coming in from the acceptance teams and front line units. The cleats could not be removed and had many issues, particularly with tearing up paved roads.

Climbing up a hill showed that the grousers did not help much in summer conditions.

Trials held in August of 1943 showed mixed results. Speed and fuel economy were about the same for tanks with grousers or without. After a 251 km march the grousers wore down by 8-10 mm. Driving on asphalt created small pits in the surface, and turning resulted in destruction of the pavement. A group of tanks driving on roads would leave them in need of serious repairs.

The introduction of such a track link showed that the British designers did not learn from their mistakes. Grousers designed for the Matilda tank also had a very low lifespan on paved roads.

Driving at a tilt also had the same results.

Additionally, no significant change in off-road mobility was noticed during summer trials. A regular Valentine IX had a maximum climb angle of 30 degrees. A Valentine IX with grousers increased this number to 32 degrees, after which the tracks lost traction. As for climbing in softer terrain, the number was the same: 30 degrees. Driving on a tilt was also similar: 29 degrees without grousers, 30 with. After that the track was thrown.

Aftermath of driving on a railway platform.

The effect of the surface on which the tank drove was much more severe. During railroad loading trials, the platform was partially destroyed, both the wooden and metallic components. The asphalt also suffered.

Valentine X in Kubinka, summer of 1944.

NIBT staff assumed that the cleats would be more effective in the winter. There were some doubts about this, as the effectiveness would be better on ice, but in any other case the cleats would not perform as well as the welded on grousers developed back in early 1942. In order to reduce the impact on roads, it was decided to leave the cleats on every fifth track. Whether or not this suggestion was carried out is unknown. At the very least, this was communicated to military QA in September 1943.

No serious trials of this tank were performed.

A Valentine X made it to the NIBT proving grounds as well. Tank T.123484 arrived in the USSR with convoy JW-56A on January 29th, 1944, on board the Fort Slave transport ship. Study of this tank did not progress past a technical description. The NIBT photo album has the same description for this tank as the Valentine IX. The introduction of a coaxial machinegun had an effect on the 6-pounder gun: the amount of ammunition decreased to 44 rounds. The tank carried 1800 rounds for the BESA.

Heterogeneous composition

Valentines with 6-pounder guns began reaching the front lines closer to the fall of 1943. Initially their numbers were few, as shipments along the northern route nearly ceased in the spring of 1943. The situation with 6-pounder guns also had an impact on their shipments. Defects observed during training in the spring of 1943 were the same ones that the British reported: the cover of the cradle and the recoil brake rod became deformed during firing. Issues were reported as late as June 1943, which resulted in some delays with the use of these tanks in combat.

A Valentine IX tank crossing the Dnieper, November 1943.

The new tanks triggered a mixed reaction, mostly because of the lack of coaxial machinegun. Cases where tanks were used in mixed formations were common. Brigades received 2-pounder Valentines along with Valentine IX tanks. They were less effective in combat against enemy tanks, but they had a coaxial machinegun and a bomb thrower. Even these tanks did not have an HE shell. Requests for HE ammunition increased in volume in the summer of 1943. Information of the British having such ammunition came up in May, but no shipments were made either in 1943 or early 1944. Shipments of Valentine IX tanks became truly large scale only in late 1943.

The first shipment of HE ammunition for the Valentine IX. Initially there was a very small number of these shells available.

Help came from the USA. American tank GMC T48 tank destroyers began arriving in the USSR starting with late 1943. They were initially aimed at the British market, and armed with the 57 mm M1 gun, an American copy of the British 6-pounder. The same weapons were used by the British army. The Americans were shocked at the lack of an HE shell for this gun and developed their own. It saved the Valentine.

On March 10th, 1944, trials of American and British 57 mm ammunition were performed at the Gorohovets proving grounds. Firing the GMC T48 (Soviet designation SU-57) showed that the ammunition used by the guns was the same. This was a signal that HE ammunition could be used in Valentine IX and X tanks. The first shipment came in late March of 1944. Tanks were equipped with 50% AP and 50% HE ammunition. However, at first the shipments of HE ammunition were scarce. Because of this, some tanks still only carried AP ammunition in the spring of 1944. The situation finally improved in June of 1944. Soviet crews often used the Bren gun to fire at ground targets.

A Valentine IX that was knocked out and captured by the Germans. Fall 1943.

The use of Valentine IX tanks is described in this report, dated spring 1944:
"The 57 mm gun has good ballistic characteristics. It can penetrate the 82 mm thick side of German T-VI tanks from 600-800 meters. The lack of HE shells makes the tank ineffective against enemy infantry. This tank is used to combat enemy tanks like a tank destroyer."
The introduction of an HE shell permitted the use of homogeneous units. For instance, on March 29th, 1944, the 54th Independent Tank Regiment received 20 of these tanks when it was reformed. Only 8 HE rounds were issued per tank, but this was a start. The regiment was previously equipped with T-80 tanks, so it is doubtful that they viewed this as a downgrade. The regiment largely faced enemy infantry and artillery when fighting alongside the 12th Guards Cavalry Division. By May 14th, it had 12 remaining Valentine IX tanks. These tanks were called MK-IX, MK9, or Mk-9 in documents. Note that tank regiments in cavalry units had a lot of this type of tank. For instance, the 61st Independent Tank Regiment had 15 Mk.IX tanks as of July 8th, 1944. 

A Valentine IX in Vilnius.

Despite some issues, the light tanks with 57 mm guns were remembered fondly in the Red Army. The tank was low to the ground and quite during motion. It could handle its job well. The slow speed was relative, and often the difference in speed was not great when driving on dirt roads or off-road. Valentines were also very reliable, especially when used according to instructions. Many of these tanks remained in service into 1945.

Near Bucharest, Romania, August 1944.

The 151st Independent Tank Regiment is a good example of the use of the Valentine IX in combat. This tank regiment had a mixed composition: in addition to 6 Valentine IX tanks it had 4 Valentine III and 10 "M3 light" (likely the Light Tank M3A1). On March 26th, the regiment crossed the Gron river alongside the 9th Guards Cavalry Division. The tanks drove for 48 km that day and settled down in near the Rendva village in Slovakia. Fighting alongside the cavalry, the tanks pursued their retreating enemy, periodically getting into skirmishes. 30 German soldiers and officers were killed on April 3rd during the battle for Trnava. Šaštín-Stráže was taken on April 4th at the cost of one Valentine III and 1 M3 Light. 4 crewmen were killed, 5 were wounded.

Battles for Lanzhot in Czechia were much more heated. The regiment took an active part in the fighting for the city on April 11th, losing one Valentine IX and 2 Valentine III burned up and 1 Valentine IX and 1 M3 Light knocked out. One enemy tank was destroyed with return fire, one knocked out, and up to 80 soldiers and officers plus one armoured troop carrier were destroyed. Fighting for Trvonice cost two knocked out Valentines and two M3 Lights. In return, the Soviet tankers destroyed 145 soldiers and officers, an anti-tank gun, and an APC. The regiment fought on until April 19th, when orders were given to transfer the tanks to the 9th Guards Cavalry Division. During its fighting career, the regiment claimed 5 burned up and 1 knocked out Panther tanks and 380 enemy soldiers and officers.

Another Valentine in Bucharest.

Only one Valentine IX from the Red Army survives to this day. This tank fell into the Varta river in January of 1945. Tank T.122834 produced by Elswick Works in February of 1943 came into the USSR through Iran on December 29th, 1943. Presently it is being restored by a Polish collector.


New Year, New Weapons

$
0
0
"Decree #443ss of the Committee of Defense of the Council of Commissars
December 19th, 1939
Moscow, Kremlin

On the acceptance of tanks, armoured cars, and artillery tractors into service in the Red Army and production in 1940

Based on the results of trials of new types of tanks, armoured cars, and tractors, produced in accordance with Committee of Defense decree #198ss issued on July 7th, 1938, and #118ss, issued on May 15th, 1939, the Committee of Defense of the Council of Commissars decrees that:
  1. The following are accepted into service in the Red Army:
    1. KV tank: heavily armoured, produced by the Kirov factory based on NKO tactical-technical requirements, with the correction of all defects discovered during trials. The tank must be armed with:
      1. An F-32 gun with a coaxial 7.62 mm machinegun in the gun mantlet.
      2. A separate 7.62 mm machinegun operated by the radio operator.
      3. One 7.62 mm machinegun in the turret bustle.
        Proved for full visibility from within the tank.
    2. T-32 tank: tracked, with a V-2 diesel engine, produced by factory #183, with the following changes:
      1. Increase the thickness of the main armour plates to 45 mm.
      2. Improve visibility from the tank.
      3. Install the following armament:
        1. F-32 76 mm gun with a coaxial 7.62 mm machinegun.
        2. A separate 7.62 mm machinegun for the radio operator.
        3. A separate 7.62 mm machinegun.
        4. An AA 7.62 mm machinegun.
          This tank will be named "T-34".
    3. BT tank: with a V-2 diesel engine, produced by factory #183.
    4. T-40 tank: amphibious, with a torsion bar suspension, high caliber machinegun, coaxial 7.62 mm machinegun, produced by factory #37.
    5. V-2 engine: 450 hp, produced by factory #75
    6. Voroshilovets tractor: artillery tractor with a V-2 diesel engine, produced by factory #183.
    7. ST-2 tractor: artillery tractor with a V-2 diesel engine, produced at the Chelyabinsk Tractor Factory.
    8. STZ-5 tractor: produced by the Stalingrad factory.
    9. BA-11 armoured car: on the ZIS-6-K chassis, 90 hp engine, produced by the Izhora factory.
    10. GAZ-61 light 4x4 truck produced by the Molotov Gorkiy Automotive Factory.
    11. ZIS-5 4x6 truck.
..."

Trial and Error

$
0
0
"To the Chair of the Committee of Defense of the Council of Commissars, Marshal of the Soviet Union, comrade Voroshilov
November 6th, 1940

Experimental exercises held by tank and mechanized units and formations show that issues of controlling tank units are quite complicated. After the first stage of battle, cooperation and communication between tank units and individual tanks breaks down.

Results of lengthy marches and trials of tanks, as well as studies of foreign tanks show that tactical-technical requirements of the SP, T-34, and KV tanks need some corrections.

Commanders of individual tanks and up require the ability to fully and constantly observe the battlefield, the situation, and subordinate tanks, being freed of the requirement to also be the gunner or loader. Presently, observation devices and observation methods for the commander are limited, and there is a need to increase 360 degree vision for individual tanks.

At the same time, it is necessary to reduce the effort on levers and pedals of the tank.

In order to increase the combat quality of the SP, T-34, and KV tanks, add the following items to the list of tactical-technical requirements:
  1. Install 360 degree vision cupolas on the SP, T-34, and KV tanks
  2. Revise the number of crewmen.
  3. Clarify the armament and amount of onboard ammunition.
  4. Install the KRSTB radio for external communication, as it is smaller and simpler to set up than the 71-TK-3.
  5. Use throat microphones instead of bulky microphones for internal communication.
  6. Replace the observation devices of the driver and radio operator with improved ones. The driver also needs an optical observation device.
  7. Demand that the warranty period of a tank be 600 hours before refurbishment.
  8. Replace the T-34's suspension with individual torsion bars, which will free up room inside the tank used up by suspension springs.
  9. In the first half of 1941, factories must develop and prepare for production a planetary transmission for the SP, T-34, and KV tanks. This will increase the average speed of tanks and make turning easier.
Authorized by Marshal of the Soviet Union S. Timoshenko"


PzIV Penetration Trials

$
0
0
I previously posted about some dodgy quality armour the British found in PzIII tanks. Samples obtained from various tanks tended to behave in a similar fashion, but other trials showed that this performance was not exclusive to just one type of German medium tank. The performance of the PzIV's armour against the British 2-pounder was so disappointing, that the British theorized the Germans are saving all of their high quality plate for prospective heavy tanks.

"Firing trials by a 2 Pdr. gun mounted in a Mark IVA Cruiser tank have recently been carried out against a captured German PZKW IV 22 ton tank in the Middle East.

The armour basis of the German tank is:
  • Turret:
    • Front: 30 mm (1.181 inches)
    • Side: 20 mm (.787 inches)
  • Hull:
    • Front superstructure: 60 mm (2.362 inches)
    • Rear: 40 mm (1.57 inches)
    • Side Centre plates: 40 mm (1.574 inches)
    • End plates: 20 mm (.787 inches)
The results of the tests are reported as follows:
  1. Tank engaged broadside at 500 yards. All shots on turret and hull side armour penetrated, passing completely through the tank and also penetrating far side.
  2. Tank engaged head on at 500 yards. All shots penetrated. 3 shots broke up inside tank. 3 shots passed through tank and penetrated 20 mm armour on far side.
  3. Tank engaged broadside at 700 yards. Results as for (a).
  4. Tank engaged head on at 700 yards. All shots penetrated and broke up on far side after penetrating 10 to 15 mm.
  5. Tank engaged broadside at 1100 yards. All shots penetrated.
  6. Tank engaged head on at 1100 yards. All shots penetrated.
  7. Tank engaged head on at 500 yards. 6 rounds fired at thick single and double armour. All penetrated, except one.
Comment: As a result of these trials, 500 yards is considered the maximum effective range against the thickest frontal armour on this mark of tank. The results of these trials are satisfactory confirmation of the penetrative effect of the 2 pounder. 

During the winter months the Germans have undoubtedly been making extensive trials with captured British 2-pdr A.Tk. guns and as a result the vulnerable parts on the tanks have been increased by extra plates being welded or bolted on. See summary 3, reference 1/A/(i)-(v). The Germans apparently considered that their tanks had thus been rendered immune to our 2-pdr. In France, the 2-pdr was used with shell and not shot. Against 2-pdr shell the German tanks may be immune, but as these trials show they are easily penetrated by 2-pdr shot at all reasonable ranges. It is hoped that the full details of German armour plate will be available shortly. It is of the machineable type and therefore easy to produce, but does not appear to be of high quality. It must be borne in mind that the heavier types of tank may be made from a superior quality of plate."

AFV Technical Intelligence Summary No.4, June 1941, 1/RAC TECH/1(SD) Canadian Military Headquarters, London (CMHQ)


T-64's Birthday

$
0
0
"Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR
Decree dated December 30th, 1966
Moscow, Kremlin

On the acceptance of a new medium tank into service with the Soviet Army

The Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR decree to:

1. Agree with the proposal of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR and Ministry of Defense Industry to accept into service with the Soviet Army a new medium tank, equipped with the 5TDF engine, 115 mm smoothbore D-68 gun with HEAT, HE, and subcaliber armour piercing ammunition, a 2318 two-plane stabilizer, a TPD-43B rangefinder sight, and a PKT coaxial machinegun developed in accordance with CC CPSU and Council of Ministers decree #141-58 dated February 17th, 1961 and matching tactical-technical requirements given in attachment #1.

Name the aforementioned tank T-64."

"Comrade N.A. Kucherenko 

Copy into the order.

V. Bakhirov
January 4th, 1967"



Modernization, Polish Style

$
0
0
The 7TP, a Polish modernization of the Vickers Mk.E, was the pride of Polish tank building in the interwar period. Skilfully combining products of the Swiss Saurer company (who made the engine) and the Swedish Bofors company (who made the gun), Polish designers significantly improved the characteristics of the initial tank. The 7TP design also included a number of Polish creations, including the excellent Mk.IV periscope. Polish tanks fought German tanks as equals in the 1939 campaign, and many of them later served in the German army. A number of the tanks ended up in the USSR as trophies, where they were studied.


Trophies of a daring raid

The Polish development of the Vickers Mk.E was not news for the Soviet military. Poland was considered one of the most likely opponents of the Red Army, and the interest of Soviet soldiers in Polish armour was easily explained. The 7TP became known in 1935, when the first tanks of this type were shown in a parade. Information that made its way to the USSR was not entirely correct. There was some confusion about the engine, for instance. Additionally, a Vickers Mk.E with massive air intakes that solved the engine overheating problem was deemed another variant of the 7TP. The USSR also knew about the C7P, a tractor on the 7TP chassis.

Light 7TP tank after restoration. NIBT proving grounds, 1940.

By the start of WWII, Polish armoured forces were very well known to the USSR. The level of information was second only to Czechoslovakia, with whom the USSR was working closely in military technology since 1937. 

Even though Poland was seen as the most likely enemy of the USSR, large scale fighting between the two nations never took place. By the time the "liberation campaign" started on September 17th, 1939, the war was already lost. When the RKKA went on the offensive the majority of the Polish army was engaged with the Germans in the west, but evacuation of government organizations and army units, largely through Romania and Hungary, was already in progress. This explains the low level of losses taken by the Red Army and low level of resistance in the east.

There were, of course, some serious battles, but the appearance of Soviet armour in Lvov by 2 am on September 19th says a lot. These were tanks of the 24th Light Tank Brigade commanded by Colonel P.S. Fotchenkov. In Lvov they fought not with the Poles, but with the Germans, who were also entering the city. Both sides took slight losses. As for the Polish tanks, they never engaged Soviet armour.

The horn and lights were missing, so Soviet-built replacements were installed.

As Soviet tanks neared Lvov, the 10th Motorized Cavalry Brigade of Stanisław Maczek was fighting the Germans at Tomaszów Lubelski. A part of the brigade managed to break through towards the Hungarian border. Hungary ended up with Polish vehicles, including TK-S tankettes, and the interned Polish soldiers later managed to make it to France to continue fighting the Nazis. The majority of the brigade was captured by the Germans. The Wehrmacht captured a number of Renault R 35 tanks that barely saw combat, as well as Vickers Mk.E, 7TP, C7P, and TK-S vehicles. They were gathered at a salvage yard at Tomaszów Lubelski.

The vehicle retained its original camouflage.

Germany and the USSR concluded negotiations on the division of Polish territory by October 5th. The Red Army began to retreat to the agreed positions, while carrying out orders regarding evacuation of captured equipment. An extraordinary raid was carried out as a part of these measures. The commander of the 24th Light Tank Brigade somehow found out about the salvage yard at Tomaszów Lubelski. On October 6th, a mobile force of 152 men was assembled to gather trophies. A raid by this unit returned with 10 Polish tankettes, 9 Polish and 2 German tanks (PzII Ausf.C), and 30 cannons. The Polish tanks included several 7TP and Vickers Mk.E.

The serial number 5091 was written on the rear of the hull.

This was the Red Army's largest "catch" until the start of the Great Patriotic War. Until then, only single samples were obtained. Since the target of the raid was a scrap yard, all vehicles required repairs. This was one of the reasons why so many multiples were taken.

High quality tank

Captured Polish tanks were sent to repair base #7 (Darnitsa, Kiev). A number of the 7TP tanks and C7P tractors were sent from there to be studied. 7TP ##5057, 5091, and 5097, as well as C7P #1153 arrived at Kubinka. None of the tanks were runners, and it was decided to use up two tanks as donors of spare parts.

A diagram of the transmission. The Soviets dubbed this tank "Polish Vickers".

Tank 5091, built in 1938, was restored. Tank 5097 served as the parts donor, as it was more heavily damaged. Parts from this tank were also used to rebuild the C7P tractor.

Unlike the PzII Ausf.C, which was only partially restored, the Polish tank was in complete and running order. This let the tankers carry out full mobility trials. Individual components and assemblies were studied in detail, and diagrams were composed. The fact that there were multiples of some components allowed their retention as study aids.

The Saurer diesel engine was the most interesting part of the drive train.

Soviet specialists did not expect any fantastical revelations from trials of the 7TP. Restoration of the 7TP was complete by the summer of 1940, when study of a captured Finnish Vickers Mk.E was already underway. The Finnish and Polish tanks had the same turret and Bofors gun. Recall that the USSR was producing the Vickers Mk.E under license as the T-26 since 1931. An attempt was made to replace the T-26 in the mid-30s, but the T-46 turned out to be too complicated and expensive. Modernization of the T-26 continued until the end of the 1930s. In 1940, a new SP tank program was launched to build a tank using lessons learned from the Winter War. It was clear that only individual components of this tank could be of any interest.

The main friction clutch on the Polish tank.

The most interesting component was the engine. The USSR was already familiar with the Saurer diesel engine. Since Saurer Dauntless trucks used the same engine, Soviet specialists easily established its origins. This engine was why the engine compartment of the 7TP was increased in size. This engine was interesting as the USSR was planning to equip light tanks with diesel engines as well. The Swiss engine was too big and too weak for this purpose, but the design itself was of some interest. The 7TP was one of the first tanks with a mass produced diesel engine. The USSR began working on diesel engines in the mid-1930s, but production began only in 1939. Another interesting aspect of the tank was the multi-disk dry clutch. The gearbox was similar to the one used on the T-26, but had a number of differences. One of them was the different gear ratios, explained by the tank's new engine.

Diagram of the tank's running gear.

The track links were also altered. They received new pins. The links were wider than on the Vickers Mk.E or T-26, 268 mm compared to 260, but they were also lighter. This reduced the ground pressure and made up for the increase in mass. The suspension of the 7TP was similar to what was used on the Vickers Mk.E and T-26, but it had its differences. The number of leaf springs decreased, and a rigid lever was added to reduce the pressure on the springs. The idler was reinforced in the same way as it was on the T-26.

A diagram of the turret of the Polish tank.

As mentioned above, the turret was similar to the one used by the Finnish Vickers Mk.E. Both turrets traced their roots back to the Bofors company. However, Polish engineers made a number of changes to their product. As a result, the Polish version was an improvement over the original. For instance, a ventilation system was introduced, which was a bonus in combat.

The Polish gun mount was superior to its Swedish equivalent.

The gun mount was also noticeably different. The overall concept that was initially designed for the Strv m/31 remained the same. However, the Polish design was different from the Swedish design from the very beginning. The upper plate was simpler, which simplified production and reduced vulnerability to bullets. The gun mantlet was also simplified and fortified. The difference between the gun mantlet of the 7TP and the Finnish Vickers Mk.E was even more noticeable.

Gun mount, view from the rear.

Some of these changes were connected with the different auxiliary armament. The tank used the Ckm wz.30, the Polish variant of the Browning M1917, instead of the Schwarzlose M.07/12. This machinegun was slightly larger, and therefore the mount (including the mantlet) had to be redesigned. Otherwise, the gun mount was similar to what Bofors designed for the Strv m/31.

The roof of the 7TP turret. 1 indicates the commander's periscope, 3 indicates the loader's periscope with an armoured cover.

The Finnish tank had a large hatch in the center of the turret, the Poles shifted theirs to the right. This hatch was similar to the one used on the Strv m/31. It was not installed right away: initially the crew entered the tank through a two piece hatch in the rear. The new hatch was introduced at the same time as the turret bustle, which housed the radio.

Gunner's periscopic sight.

The Polish tank significantly surpassed the Swedish one in observation. The Swedish tank had fairly simple observation devices to each side, plus two periscopes in the roof. This was inherited from the German Leichttraktor, whose turret served as the starting point for the Bofors design. As for the Polish tank, it had a much more sophisticated design. Instead of simple armoured glass, the tank had prismatic observation devices on its sides, which made it impossible for a bullet to strike their user. The tank captured in Finland also had prismatic observation devices, but slightly different ones.

The periscopic device that the Polish gunner used was far superior. A rod connected it to the gun, and it doubled as a periscopic sight. The sight was not completely intact, but its design was of great interest to Soviet tankers. The tank under study did not have a telescopic sight. Soviet specialists considered it auxiliary.

The commander's observation device.

The periscopic device best known as the MK-IV caused the greatest interest. It was developed by Rudolph Gundlach, and built by the Vickers company under license. Periscopic observation devices were nothing new, but Gundlach's design was revolutionary. The device was simple and compact, allowing for 360 degree vision. Its prism was made up of two components (plus an additional prism for looking backwards). If the upper half was damaged, it could be quickly replaced without leaving the tank.

The simple and comfortable observation device spread across the world. However, the USSR did not adopt it right away. Soviet tanks only received an analogous sight in 1943. It was copied from the observation devices of the Churchill IV, hence the Soviet name for the periscope: MK-IV.

Cutaway diagram of the 7TP.

As on the Finnish Vickers, the ammunition rack was on the side. Polish designers had a better layout, thanks to which the ammunition capacity grew from 50 to 70 rounds. However, this was still smaller than even on the radio variant of the T-26. On the other hand, the majority of the T-26's ammunition was stored on the floor in cases, where it was inconvenient to access. 

A thrown track during trials. The T-26 had a similar problem.

Mobility trials were performed after the tank was restored and a technical description was composed. Trials took place from October 7th, 1940, to October 11th. The tank drove for 312 km, 135 on a highway, 118 on dirt roads, and the rest was spent on special trials. The top speed achieved was 34.7 kph. This was a little lower than what the T-26 could achieve in the same conditions, 38 kph. However, the average speed of the 7TP was higher: 25 kph compared to the T-26's 23.8 kph. The cruising range was 195 km. This was greater than the Vickers Mk.E, but less than the T-26 (269 km), since the T-26 had larger fuel tanks. However, the Polish diesel engine consumed less fuel.

Climbing a slope.

The advantages of the diesel engine showed themselves on dirt roads. The average speed of the 7TP was 17.2 kph, compared to the T-26's 15.5 kph. The range of the 7TP was 130 km in these conditions, and the range of the T-26 was 159 km. Consider that the 7TP carried 110 L of fuel, the Vickers Mk.E carried 180 L, and the T-26 290 L! It is not surprising that the Soviet tankers also wanted diesel engines. The difference between the Polish and Soviet tanks in weight was low (9.5 and 10.5 tons respectively).

The maximum tilt angle was 20 degrees.

The maximum grade the tank could climb was 32 degrees, after which the tracks started to slip. The track traction was also the limiting factor when driving at a tilt. Due to traction issues, the tank could not cross a 1.6 m wide trench. The T-26 did not do any better. The suspension of the Vickers Mk.E had its limitations, which is why the American Light Tank T2's suspension was replaced with one that had large road wheels.

A 1.6 m wide and 0.5 m deep trench was too much for the tank.

Unlike the Japanese Ha-Go tank, which Soviet specialists described negatively, the 7TP was received neutrally. Yes, its design was yesterday's news, but Soviet tankers did not consider it bad. The observation devices received praise, the improvements to the suspension were noted, and the quality of the workmanship was pointed out. The design of the clutch was also considered interesting.

Samples for industry

In addition to studying individual components and assemblies, the NIBT proving grounds also studied the armour of the Polish tank. Thanks to the presence of several vehicles of the same type, large scale studies could be performed, which included firing trials. Polish designers improved the armour protection of the tank compared to the initial Vickers Mk.E. The thickness of the front of the hull and front of the turret platform increased to 17 mm. A part of the plates were homogeneous, and some were cemented. This protected the tank reliably from rifle caliber bullets and noticeably decreased the vulnerable distance for high caliber machineguns. The cost of this was thinner armour around the engine compartment, 10 mm. The thickness of the turret armour was 15 mm.

7TP armour diagram.

The stripped down hull of tank #5057 was fired upon by light and armour piercing bullets from a Mosin rifle, as well as 12.7 mm bullets from the DK machinegun. Trials showed superior resistance compared to the T-26. The front plate could be penetrated by the DK at 100 meters. 15 mm thick armour could be penetrated at 200-250 meters. Trials showed that the gun mantlet is not jammed when fired upon. This was an achievement by Polish designers, but the issue was that the German army did not widely use high caliber machineguns. The 7TP most often came up against the 3.7 cm Pak, which could easily deal with 17 mm of armour. 

Trials of the 7TP turret at the Mariupol branch of NII-48.

The DShK 12.7 mm machinegun also only went into mass production right before WWII. Before 1939, the tankers of the potential enemy would likely run into 45 mm anti-tank guns on the battlefield.

The turret of the Vickers Mk.E before trials. British armour was of lower quality than Polish.

The NIBT proving grounds was not the only place where Polish tanks were shot up. The NII-48 branch in Mariupol tested 7TP and Vickers Mk.E turrets. Testers evaluated the quality of Polish armour as high. The quality of armour plate and joints of the Vickers Mk.E turret was lower. When fired upon with the 45 mm gun, British armour cracked. Unlike British armour, Polish armour did not crack.

7TP in Stalingrad, January 1943. It's possible that this is one of the tanks captured in October of 1939.

Tanks ##5057 and 5097 were scrapped in early 1941. The remaining 7TP and C7P were sent to storage. In April of 1941 it was decided that they would be sent to a museum. Their subsequent fate is unknown, perhaps they were sent to one of the city's organizations. Photos exist of a 7TP with Polish camouflage at the Stalingrad Tractor Factory. In addition, remains of a C7P tractor were found in Volgograd. A model of a T-26 was built with these parts, with a BT turret mounted atop this "centaur". Today this tank can be seen at the Poklonnaya Gora museum in Moscow.


Panther's Side

$
0
0
The Panther's thick front armour could not be penetrated by any Soviet tank gun in use in 1943. This immunity, however, did not apply to the side armour, which turned out to be vulnerable to even the rapidly ageing 45 mm gun.


The sloped part of the sides proved a tough nut to crack. The 45 mm gun doesn't work here, and hits from 300 and then 100 meters do not penetrated. However, other parts of the tank can still be penetrated from this side: the turret has two holes in it from 45 mm APCR (300 and 400 meters) and one from 45 mm AP (400 meters). The vertical side of the hull (unfortunately not pictured) can be penetrated from 500 meters. The rear was also penetrated from 300 meters (also not pictured).

The 76 mm gun has no issues with this armour at all, however. Even firing at an angle of 60 degrees, from 600 meters the armour piercing shell penetrated the side armour. The sloped hull did poorly against this weapon, as you can see, forming a fairly sizeable breach. Despite the thick front plate, even an ordinary T-34 would not have to flank very far to be able to destroy its much heavier opponent.

CAMD RF 38-11469-40 p.22

A Different Angle

$
0
0
There is a strangely prevalent opinion in some circles that everything there was to know about WWII was already known, and that any new information is completely unnecessary revisionism. Those people are naturally wrong, as illustrated pretty conclusively by Yuri Pasholok. Something as fundamental as a measurement went uncorrected for decades.


For instance, if you look up the values of front armour for the SU-122, you'll probably see 45 mm at 50 degrees for the upper front plate, 45 mm at 45 degrees for the lower front plate. This value seems universally accepted, but also wrong.


Both angles are off: the top plate is angled at 52 degrees from vertical, and the bottom is 60 degrees from vertical. This is not just a one-off measurement, and its pretty noticeable in other blueprints as well. A line sloped at 50 degrees is way off on the overall blueprints.



The SU-85 shows the same armour:


The pattern keeps going with the SU-100. SU-100 armour diagrams are closer to the truth, with an angle of 55 degrees on the bottom, as opposed to 60.


This discrepancy is shown not only on paper, but in metal. A measurement of the angle that the upper front plate meets with the roof is pretty clearly 52 degrees on both the SU-100 and SU-85.

Viewing all 1900 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>