"British Tank for Soviet Infantry " Topic

"On September 29th, 1941, the first regular Arctic convoy departed from Britain to the USSR. It was indexed PQ-1. On October 11th, 11 transport ships arrived at Arkhangelsk, where they delivered 193 Hawker Hurricane fighters and other military cargo. Among it were 20 Matilda III and Valentine II tanks. So began the delivery of the Valentine tank, which became the most numerous British tank in the Red Army.

Difficulties with initial shipments

The USSR had very little information on what kind of tanks were produced in Great Britain up until September of 1941. For example, in a report dated September 17th, 1941, it is claimed that Vickers makes an 80 ton heavy tank. According to this document, the factory produced one such tank per day. To put it mildly, this data has some inaccuracies. This situation was largely caused by the degree of secrecy that the British maintained.

In reality, the Elswick Works factory at Newcastle-upon-Thyne, belonging to Vickers-Armstrong, was building Valentine II infantry tanks at the time. The Soviet military acquired information about them only towards the end of September. Initially, Soviet documents referred to them as "Mark 2 "Star" (Valentine)". The first shipment of tanks to the USSR was expected to contain 20 vehicles of this type…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting that Soviet intelligence on British tank production was so poor. I'd be more inclined to think the intelligence agencies had the information, but didn't share with the Red Army.

From what I understood, the USSR was glad for anything they could get from the US/UK. Even the Matilda and Valentine. And IIRC they not only got M4 Shermans of various types, but some M3 Stuarts and M3 Lees. They even got some of the US designed M22 Locust Tetrarch light tanks. Used by the UK Airborne. link

A bit of chauvinism evident in some of those trials remarks.

I have read of similar and even more serious flaws in Soviet designs.

Overall though a decent history of the Valentine's introduction.

As to the Lee Legion 4, while the Soviet Army was glad to get any tank sent, the nickname given to the Lee by the tankers was 'The Coffin for Seven Brothers.'

Glad you enjoyed it my friend!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Any tank is better than no tank. The 2pdr valentine wasn't exactly awesome but it was very reliable. The 6pdr valentines remained popular right to the end.

@ goragrad

I am pretty sure that is a Cold War myth and that most M3s sent to Russia were 6-man variants….the M3's 75mm was easily the equal of the T-34's 76.2mm.

As to the Lee Legion 4, while the Soviet Army was glad to get any tank sent, the nickname given to the Lee by the tankers was 'The Coffin for Seven Brothers.'

I've heard that applied to a number of AFVs …

I am pretty sure that is a Cold War myth and that most M3s sent to Russia were 6-man variants….the M3's 75mm was easily the equal of the T-34's 76.2mm.

I have not heard that but I agree it would be a myth that M3 Lee's 75 was equal to a T34's 76.2. AFAIK the 76.2 was superior …

Well, that myth pulled in Zaloga.

As to the comparison between the 75mm and 76.2, depends on the variant. Later 76.2s were significantly better.

Russian soldier's slang referred to nearly all tanks at the time as ‘a coffin for x brothers.' It's just that the monicker for the Grant got reported in the West without understanding that context and grew to mythic stature from there.

The Soviets loved the Valentine . Production was moved to Canada to keep up with the demand. Whilst rather slow it was very quiet ( quieter than Russian tanks at the time) and its the latter attribute they liked for recce duties.

As to the comparison between the 75mm and 76.2, depends on the variant. Later 76.2s were significantly better.

That is the way I understood it, e.g. the M4s' 76mm on later versions was better than the 75mm when it came to anti-tank capabilities …

Russian soldier's slang referred to nearly all tanks at the time as ‘a coffin for x brothers.

Yes, that is the way I understood it as well …

The us m3 75mm gun was used in both later grants and the sherman.
It had slightly better penetration than the soviet f-34 used on the t34/76. Significantly better he as well.
You could say the two were broadly similar in penetration.
I don't follow what later soviet 76 there would be, unless it's maybe 85mm.
In a similar kind of a way.
The soviet 85mm in the t34/85 was roughly similar to the us 76 in the sherman.

Interesting … I thought in both cases the USSR's 76.2 was superior to the M4's 75. And the USSR's 85mm was superior to the US 76mm. But as always I was not there … so … I'll take your word for it Andy.

Ha.
I'm not quite that old.
I've never stood there and watched tests run on ww2 guns or real shermans blazing away at real pz4

There are tables and graphs showing penetration you can just google em nowadays. If you're ever having trouble sleeping then a glass of hot milk and 10 minutes reading some of that stuff could well help :^)

re the coffin for seven brothers you need to understand Red Army humour.

For example the nickname for tank crew is Tushonka – a canned meat stew.

For the Germans it's podsnezhniki (snowdrops) because they spring out of the ground when the snow melts.

The model 1940 had the L-11 76mm, the Model 1941 and later had the F-34.

How good the American M3 75mm was depended strongly in its ammunition. The original AP ammunition was truly inadequate in many dimensions, to the point that the British set up factories in the Nile Delta to disassemble the American ammunition, fill them with new British powder, and fit the AP projectiles from captured German 75mm ammunition! (One of several problems with the early AP ammunition for the M3 was its lack of a bursting charge.)

At the same time, the Soviets had numerous problems with their ammunition, particularly the metallurgy and quality control. This makes the Soviets' penetration capabilities somewhat random. The early shells were also poorly shaped and uncapped.

When you get to Soviet APCR and American HVAP, you need to do another whole set of comparisons, and you need to look at each of the shells in between! It's not at all a simple question of "Oh, this gun was better."

The model 1940 had the L-11 76mm, the Model 1941 and later had the F-34.

And there was a noticeable difference in barrel lenght between the two: 30 calibers versus 40 accroding to the source I checked.

These threads are coming up each several years…I've been commenting on some of them, can do it again.
First, the thorough testing of lend-lease or Soviet prototypes has little to do with chauvinizm. It was about battle effectiveness, ease to use and maintain, and ability to perform in both extreme cold and heat. These reasons were very often ruling out better prototypes for those, that were easier to produce and maintain.
The choice was often made not for something which has a low breaking rate, but for the stuff that could be repaired fast and preferably on site. In 1941 to 1943 Soviet experts were sometimes writing unfavourable reports on lend-lease stuff (i.e. emphasizing the drawbacks, and not mentioning the adavantages) as Stalin's position was "too little, and too bad" for a lot of supplies – you can even see it in the correspondence with Roosevelt and Churchill. These two small tomes are very interesting as a mirror of war and country relations…
One of my grand uncles was a tanker in WWII. He was using Mathildas, Valentines and T-34-85s.
He hated Mathildas (burned twice) been paper thin, easily flammable and with poor weapons, Valentines were much better in his opinion and he also pointed that UK tanks were supplied with good set of instruments, radios, even leather jackest and trousers. They didn't like the helmets though.
He also mentioned that Valentines were quiter, but there was a price for having tracks of this design – autumns and springs you had trouble traversing the mud, while in winter and summer it was ok…

Interesting Barin as the Matilda and Valentine have very similar armour levels and both had Diesel engines. I wouldn't have thought a Matilda is any more likely to burn than a Valentine. He must have been unlucky in the Matilda.

You may be right…very possible that his Valentine wasn't hit, was improved (winter ready, ect) as he got it later at war, when Soviet maintenance crews received necessary experience of using British tanks. I've seen Mathildas been scorned by other veterans in their memoirs, so there might be something…I'll check Russian language sites when I'm back home.

At the same time, the Soviets had numerous problems with their ammunition, particularly the metallurgy and quality control.

I've noticed that penetration statistics on Soviet guns always seem to be lower than the equivalent-sized German and Allied guns -- about one size down (so that a Soviet 85 is roughly equivalent to a German 75 or US 76, for instance) -- and have therefore assumed that the difference was in the ammunition.

re the coffin for seven brothers you need to understand Red Army humour.
For example the nickname for tank crew is Tushonka – a canned meat stew.

Them darn Russkies ! What a Hoot ! [I mean that in the nicest way Barin1 !]

Some good intel there Barin, from your grand uncle ! He was there, he knows the real deal. Buy him a bottle of for me !

But as far as the Matilda and Valentine, I can't imagine after @ 1942 or 43, they could be that "effective" with all the big, better AFVs/BTs about. But I guess they fall under what some have said, any tank is better that no tank. Most of the time … I'll add.

I did read somewhere that some Valentines were deployed to the PTO/CBI. And they didn't fare well … Of course compared to most IJF AFVs/BTs, they probably should have done better. But I was not there … so …

Ha.
I'm not quite that old.
I've never stood there and watched tests run on ww2 guns or real shermans blazing away at real pz4

Nor was I, not even in the movies. But many times on a gaming board or table …

Ok, checked some sites and archive docs – main problems reported are freezing of coolant in winter time, low attrition of original tracks, dirt and mud sticking between the tracks and screens up to complete stop of the tank, lack of HE rounds to the gun and penetration of the gun in general. The armor was much better than on most of Soviet tanks of the first half of the war (50 mm german shell could not penetrate it, but it was not all that Germans had – especially later in war.
We have 2 Matildas saved – one in Kubinka, another in Moscow.
link

and some other pics:
link
Legion 4, we're not getting any younger and veterans are passing out. This year the last of my relatives, who fought in WWII died, he volunteered when he was 16 in 1944. Even the youngest veterans are 90+ now…so there's less and less of them left…

The 2pdr wasn't going to impress at ap by 43 or so. The later marks of valentine had 6pdr though.
There are accounts of soviet tankers stalking tigers in a valentine. They were also fairly tough.

The Russian 76.2mm F-34 firing BR-350A is more accurate than the US LL M3 gun firing M72 AP. The M72 penetrates more up to about 900 meters. The M62 APCBC penetrates slightly more at all ranges. The late war BR-350B AP penetrated more than the M61. The F-34 also had an APCR round mid war.

Legion 4, we're not getting any younger and veterans are passing out. This year the last of my relatives, who fought in WWII died, he volunteered when he was 16 in 1944. Even the youngest veterans are 90+ now…so there's less and less of them left…

I very much agree, I'll hit 61 in a couple of weeks !

But yes, it is rare to find a WWII Vet around. May they all Rest In Peace …

My Dad volunteered and he was 26. He felt it was his duty. And my Mom built P-39s. I think many were sent to the USSR with Lend Lease …

But yes, it is rare to find a WWII Vet around. May they all Rest In Peace …

The last British serviceman who served in WW1 died 92 years after the end of the war aged 110. He was 17 at the armistice. So it may be another 20 years before we see the last of them, but they are getting fewer every year.

@ donlowry

penetration statistics on Soviet guns always seem to be lower than the equivalent-sized German and Allied guns -- about one size down (so that a Soviet 85 is roughly equivalent to a German 75 or US 76, for instance)

I noticed that too, about 40 years ago. I couldn't figure out why a Russian 76.2 was so much worse than a German 75mm, or the 85mm so much worse than the German 88mm, when it came to AP performance. Then I saw the size of the shell case, and between that and the issues noted above about AP quality, all was clear.

IIRC there was a doctrinal view in the Red Army that HE performance was at least as important in a tank gun, if not more so, than AP performance, because enemy tanks are rare, but enemy footsoldiers are everywhere. So you send an 85mmm to do a 75mm's job, because all other things being equal, the warhead is 46% larger. It'll do comparable AP damage to the 75mm, using mass rather than kinetic effect to do so, and will also have a lot more HE effect. Unlike the high-velocity 75mm an 85mm HE round won't bury itself a long way underground before exploding. This was why the Germans persisted with the L/24 75mm, and was also why the British 17-pounder was not much cop firing HE, and hence it made a lot of sense to mix up 17-pounder Shermans with 75mm ones.

If you look at Russian ordnance and think of it as the next size down, it is usually useful in terms of AP effect and better in HE effect.

So everyone else's 37/40mm = Russian 57mm, 50/57mm = 76.2mm, 75mm = 85mm, 88mm = 100mm, 128mm = 152mm, etc.

The last British serviceman who served in WW1 died 92 years after the end of the war aged 110. He was 17 at the armistice. So it may be another 20 years before we see the last of them, but they are getting fewer every year.

IIRC, the last US WWI Vet passed sometime this year. When I go to the Veteran's clinic or hospital, it is rare to see a WWII Vet. But sometimes I see one and even get to talk to them. And at a Veteran's Day event I went this year, there was on WWII Vet. I "held my manhood cheap" and was in awe and reverence … Of course there were a few Korean War Vets, and a number of Vietnam Vets as well. All very evocative, etc.

Some very good intel there 4th Cuirassier ! Thanks !

For more first hand accounts of the Sherman in Russian service I highly recommend "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza" translated and edited by James F. Gebhardt. University of Nebraska Press 1996.

IIRC there was a doctrinal view in the Red Army that HE performance was at least as important in a tank gun, if not more so, than AP performance, because enemy tanks are rare, but enemy footsoldiers are everywhere. So you send an 85mmm to do a 75mm's job…

Agree with 4th Cuirassier on this perspective. My readings provide the same understanding. Well stated!

If you look at Russian ordnance and think of it as the next size down, it is usually useful in terms of AP effect and better in HE effect.

So everyone else's 37/40mm = Russian 57mm, 50/57mm = 76.2mm, 75mm = 85mm, 88mm = 100mm, 128mm = 152mm, etc.

I look at it the other way, but with the same result.

I look at Russian ordnance and think of it in terms of being the next size UP, not down. For equivalent AT power, they used larger calibers with more HE effect.

When the Germans went to 37mm, the Russians went to 45mm.
This is what I identify as the starting point. The contemporary documentation clearly identifies the Russian decision process. They acquired the Rheinmetal 37mm AT gun. Then they deliberately up-scaled it to get better HE effect.

From there it seems to have been a consistent effort to stay one caliber larger than likely opponents:

Germans moved to 50mm, Russians moved to 76.2mm.
Germans to 75mm, Russians to 85mm.
Germans to 88mm, and the west to 83mm or 90mm, Russians to 100mm.
The west to 105mm, Russians to 115mm and 125mm.

They seem to have deliberately stayed one step above for many decades.

Or so I infer.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I guess it is only one side of the truth. You have to consider "native" calibers which existed before, or were developed during WWI.
3" (76 mm) guns were the most produced and used by Russian army in WWI. 6" field howitzers also originate from WWI. Light artillery (37 mm and 47 mm) were also born in WWI.
Two types of 45 mm guns were developed before WWII in 1932 and 1937, and only one in 1942. 57 mm Zis-2 was developed in 1941,etc, etc. Here's a nice link that has artillery type, year of development, produced numbers – and – importantly – role it was supposed to perform. It is in Russian, but there's not much text there anyway.
link
You had the plants, specilaized in production of certain shell and barrel components, so to make a fast conversion it was easier to keep this caliber.
Tanks/self-propelled guns calibres were influenced by the development of German tanks warfare, and Germans were learning their lessons from encountering T-34 and KV-1 in 1941…so we may consider it a two-side development. Mass production of shells was achieved by using women and children, and while some of them were really good, in general their qualification was low. The calibre was taking into account potential flaws in shells and explosives, gun weariness, etc. Since the training of the tankers was not especially good even in the last years of war, each shot must be able to kill.

There's an article on early war tanks and artillery, where the author collected the data on armor penetration, killing distance and other useful info.
link

Barin, good to have you back online! I've missed getting the view from 'the other side.'

May have to put together a scenario or two of Russian Valentines hunting big cats, a friend of mine has more Tigers than were ever at any one battle, need to chop him back down to size a bit.

Older thread now, but one consideration on the relative AP penetrations between Russian and other sources that hasn't been brought up would be the criteria used in defining penetration.

I have read (busy so won't dig it up) on a couple of sites that the Russian system defined successful penetration more restrictively than other countries did.

@ goragrad

Indeed – there was the 50% criterion the west used.

IIRC a 45mm gun = 3pdr.

At least one set of us trials used their own relatively soft steel. You have to be a bit careful with sources of data.

At least one set of us trials used their own relatively soft steel. You have to be a bit careful with sources of data.

More than one. Ordnance did most of their testing on US rolled homogeneous plate. US rolled plate was relatively soft and ductile, depending on specifics at about 220Bh.

These tests led to the conclusion that the US 3-inch and 76mm guns would handle the occasional Tiger quite well enough.

But German armor was generally a bit harder than US plate, about 240Bh for rolled homogeneous for these kinds of thicknesses. Sometimes it was face-hardened to a much higher level (although by 1944 this was no longer done for plates of more than about 50mm thickness), and the Tiger's armor, in particular, was a premium alloy with very good toughness. All in all, the result was that US tests showing reliable penetration of >100mm of armor at 500yds was not a reliable indicator of the ability to penetrate a Tiger's armor.

And although the methods of calculating (and testing) the effects of slope were well known, there was also no published appreciation that a gun that could reliably penetrate 100mm of armor at 30 degrees did not have the ability to penetrate Panther's 80mm of armor at 60 degrees.

Tests conducted in Normandy on captured Panthers at d'Issigny demonstrated that the Ordnance test results were not valid. This led to further Ordnance testing being conducted (and published) specifically on German armor, not US armor.

All from memory. Hope I got that stuff right. Will try to look over sources when I get some time, to correct any errors I might have made. Or if I don't someone else surely will!

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Not sure about the exact numbers but that's what I had in mind Mark.