Still, in these British Isles, not everything is like people. Especially in those days, which we are talking about, especially regarding tanks. Ok there, lb-in, but there was also a classification - you can grab your head and tear it off.
People had lungs, average, heavy tanks. And the British have cruising, infantry ... That's about the infantry tank "Matilda" we will talk about.
Infantry tank "Matilda II" was intended to accompany the infantry. This followed from its name, which is generally clear and understandable.
27-the ton vehicle was protected by 78 mm armor, which at that time was not penetrated by any German cannon. An exception was the 88-mm anti-aircraft gun and the later 75-mm anti-tank gun..
The tank was armed with a 40-mm cannon or (later) 76-mm howitzer. The engine was a twin AES or Leyland diesel engine with a total power 174 or 190 hp, which allowed speed up to 25 kmh.
Overall a very leisurely and well-armored tank, if in numbers. Comparing "Matilda", then a comparison with the KV-1 is appropriate here, anyway, with a heavy tank.
Here is the essence of the infantry tank. He doesn't need to be fast, infantry anyway more 5 km / h will not give on speed. In attack - 10. So that 25 km / h - quite. enough, as "Matilda" did not need to catch up with anyone or quickly get away from someone. This tank was supposed to crawl along with the infantry and support them with fire., armor and tracks.
At all, so to speak, "Matilda" was not entirely within our understanding. Especially when it comes to comparison with Soviet counterparts.
By booking, Matilda was superior to our heavy KB (78 mm vs. 75 mm), but inferior to the 76-mm cannon in firepower.
40-mm British gun on armor penetration was not inferior to our "forty" light tanks. Our tankers noted “the reliability of the diesel engine and planetary gearbox, as well as ease of control of the tank ".
armor, speed and maneuverability of a heavy tank and armament of a light. Medium tank?
So, by the way, "Matilda" and recorded. Medium tank. And put on a par with T-34, which looks so-so overall. Tanks are different in essence and purpose, as well as the ability to complete tasks.
One of the main disadvantages of the Matilda's armament was the lack of high-explosive fragmentation shells for the 40-mm cannon.. Therefore, already in December 1941 year on the basis of the order of the State Defense Committee Grabin design bureau at plant No. 92 developed a project for the rearmament of Matilda with a 76-mm ZIS-5 cannon and a DT machine gun.
However, rearmament was not required. The British allies made the proper conclusions and in the spring 1942 During the last year, the MK.II infantry fire support tank "Matilda CS" began to arrive in our country, armed with a 76.2mm howitzer, armed with high-explosive shells. Really from that moment on, "Matilda" could fight not only with the enemy's armored vehicles.
The downside of the situation was the lack of armor-piercing shells for howitzers.
That is, the tank existed in two forms.: anti-tank and anti-personnel. Looks somewhat illogical, but that was the alignment.
Total until August 1943 of the year in the UK was released 2 987 «Matild», of which 1 084 pieces were sent, a 918 arrived in the USSR. The difference in the combat account of the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine.
Since the arrival of the first batches of "Matilda" in the Red Army, our tankers drank with them grief. This is noted in the mass of memoirs and official reports..
"Matildas" arrived in the USSR, equipped with so-called "summer" caterpillars, which did not provide the necessary traction in winter conditions. And supplies, recall, started in the pre-winter period.
Therefore, there were cases, when tanks rolled off icy roads into ditches.
To solve this problem, special metal "spurs" had to be welded onto the tracks of the tracks.. Yes, the first British tanks, which our mechanics "shod", were exactly "Matilda".
Further more. In severe frosts, pipelines of the liquid cooling system, located close to the bottom, froze even when the engine was running.
If you look closely at the bulwarks of the tank, a number of small "windows" are clearly visible, located at the top of the bulwarks. Somewhere in the African desert through these "windows", sand poured freely from the tracks, what they were for.
And in the US, in the realities of Russia? Moving through solid mud and swamps, the bulwarks of the tank were constantly filled with dirt, as a result, the caterpillar often just jammed. The engine went off and in the ensuing silence, crew, swearing and remembering his iron English horse with unkind words, climbed to get the entrenching tool and towing ropes.
Memories of front-line soldiers gave more than one story about, how the Matilda crews had to stop almost every 4-5 kilometers and clean the undercarriage of their tanks with a crowbar and a shovel.
In general, one gets the impression, that we got such a capricious and even hothouse lady, which is unrealistic to use in our conditions.
Yes, in Soviet times everything was presented. allegedly, the allies supplied the choicest muck. However, the British have nothing to do with it., they supplied us with such equipment, which we ourselves ordered. And here's how it happened, that the tank, intended for warfare in African deserts got to fight on the Russian off-road, into forests and swamps, this question still remains without a clear and clear answer. As well as the names of those, who selected and ordered the tanks.
Nevertheless, "Matildas" were in our army and nothing could be done about it, except for their use.
And complaints about the "flimsy" of British tanks, so to speak, not quite fair. Tank crews trained in Kazan. The materiel was studied in Gorky, where the tanks were "run in". Fifteen days, which took crews to master not the simplest imported equipment was clearly not enough. So quite a lot of British tanks were out of order and through the fault of the crews themselves., as due to the complexity of technology and time pressure of wartime, and due to the low level of crew training.
The general conclusion on the British infantry tank was as follows.:
“Tank MK-IIa has, compared to medium tanks of the USSR, USA and Germany with the advantage, that it combines powerful circular armor protection with relatively small dimensions and combat weight.
A positive quality is also the approximate equivalence of the armor protection of the frontal part, sides and stern of the tank.
Armament of the MK-IIa tank (40-mm tank gun) provides the ability to defeat most enemy tanks - T-I tanks, T-II to any part of the hull and turret; T-3, T-4 and "Prague-38-T" - excluding shielded front plates.
The tank has quite satisfactory visibility.
The combat weight of the tank is quite acceptable from the point of view of rail transport and cross-country ability on road bridges and crossings.
The disadvantages of the MK-IIa tank include:
a) unsatisfactory tank dynamics, due to low specific power. This disadvantage limits the ability to dynamically overcome obstacles..
b) limited tank maneuverability. The tank is in the full sense of the word Infantry (infantry), since low speeds and a small fuel range make it difficult to use it apart from bases and other types of weapons ".
We decided to write about the chassis of British tanks exclusively in negative tones.. But the tests of specialists at the test site of armored vehicles in Kubinka showed, that "Matilda" had clearly positive sides.
for example, the presence of bulwarks not only complicated the installation of the chassis and made the tank heavier, but at the same time made it easier to overcome obstacles and anti-tank hedgehogs. Besides, screens protected the chassis from being hit by shells.
In general, the chassis of the "Matilda" was recognized as not bad, a, rather, specific.
Average speed on a bumpy and snow-covered road was 14,5 kmh, the tank wasted 169 liters of fuel per 100 km. Off-road, the speed dropped sharply - to 7,7 kmh. Fuel consumption also increased significantly, which stood 396 liter of 100 km. In such conditions, the tank had only enough fuel for 55 kilometers.
Not surprising, that in our reality, an additional fuel tank on the tank hull has become standard.
The tank showed very good cross-country ability in the snow.. The ultimate depth of snow cover for him was 600 mm, not every medium tank has overcome such drifts. Problems arose when climbing in snowy areas: due to poor adhesion to the ground, the tank could not overcome the slope of 12 degrees.
but, if you close your eyes to congenital problems with permeability through mud, the, according to reports and reports, "Matilda" was quite a tank.
«Tanks MK-II in battles showed themselves on the positive side. Each crew spent up to 200-250 shells per day and 1-1,5 ammunition of cartridges. Each tank worked for 550-600 operating hours instead of the prescribed 220 no.
Armor of tanks showed exceptional durability. Some machines had 17-19 hits by a projectile caliber 50 mm shells and not a single case of frontal armor penetration. All tanks have cases of turret jamming, masks and incapacitation of guns and machine guns».
In battles in winter 1942 years of "Matilda" showed themselves on the positive side. Thick armor, comparable to KV-1 armor, partly compensated for the far from the best organization of combat interaction. German 50mm Pak anti-tank guns 38 they could not always credit Matilda, despite her clumsiness and slowness.
spring 1942 of the year "Matilda» were actively used in battles in parts of the Western, Kalinin and Bryansk fronts, where there were mostly positional battles. And because of its powerful armor protection, the tank turned out to be quite convenient just for use in such battles..
spring 1943 years, the Soviet Union refused to import Matilda tanks - by this time it became clear, that they no longer meet modern requirements. In the British army to the top 1943 not a single Matilda remained in combat units. Nevertheless, these tanks were actively used in battles 1943 of the year, moreover, in the main strategic directions.
But by the summer 1944 years in the tank units of the Red Army there were only a few copies of the "Matild", and by the fall they could only be found in training units.
TTX tank "Matilda":
combat weight, t: 26,95
Crew, people: 4
The number of issued, PC: 2987
dimensions:
— body length, mm: 5715
— width, mm: 2515
— height, mm: 2565
— clearance, mm: 400
booking:
housing forehead (top), mm / city: 75/0
housing forehead (middle), mm / city: 47/65 °
housing forehead (through), mm / city: 78/0
body board, mm / city: 70/0
housing feed (top), mm / city: 55/0
Bottom, mm: 20
corps roof, mm: 20
Tower, mm / city: 75/0
weaponry
rifle: 1 x 40-mm QF, ammunition 67-92 shell
Shotgun: 1 × 7.7-mm "Vickers", ammunition 3000 rounds
Engine: 2 in-line 6-cylinder liquid-cooled diesel engine, power 87 l. from. each.
Road speed, kmh: 24
Speed over rough terrain, kmh: 15
Cruising on the highway, km: 257
Cruising cross country, km: 129
In general, "Matilda" was just too specific tank, absolutely not intended for such a theater of war, as the Soviet-German front. Talk about, that it was a bad tank, even through the prism of the subsequent political relations, it is still not entirely correct.
The tank was peculiar, and from him in 1941-43 years everything was taken, what could he give.
Based on materials:
— warspot.ru/10282-matilda-tolstokozhaya-ledi-na-sovetsko-germanskom-fronte
— fishki.net/2157335-tanki-matilyda-v-krasnoj-armii.html
