Lend-Lease
Part 4. Tanks and armored vehicles

Tanks, self-propelled artillery guns, and armored personnel carriers that were supplied under Lend-Lease from the United States are listed in Section III-A of the List, along with small arms and artillery, which I described in part 3 of this series of articles.

American tanks The Second World War is rightly criticized by military historians for its many shortcomings. For example, for thick but fragile armor (frontal armor light tank M3 - 38-44 mm. at 45 mm for the Soviet medium tank T-34), although the Americans themselves were and are of the opinion that American tanks are the height of perfection, and that they had no equal on the battlefields of World War II.
At the same time, they arrogantly criticize our T-34 and KV, although as of 1941 they themselves had nothing even close to this. In June 1941, the US Army had 6 (six) copies of the only model of the M2A1 medium tank with 32 mm in service. armor, which the Americans did not dare to use in battle.

The Germans, who actually experienced the qualities of Soviet tanks, have a completely different opinion.

However, the following circumstances must be taken into account:
1. It is better to have several bad tanks on the battlefield than to have none.
2. Before the start of World War II, the US Army had only 400 tanks, of which only 6 were medium tanks. At that time, the United States adhered to an isolationist foreign policy and did not try to play the role of a world leader. On the American continent there were no states hostile to the United States and no need for powerful tanks and there were no developed tank tactics. One can only be amazed at the speed with which the Americans were able to create quite acceptable models of armored vehicles and produce the required quantity.

From the author. Somehow imperceptibly into consciousness as simple amateurs military history, and venerable historians have crept in with false information about the number Soviet tanks. For some reason they believe that all Soviet tanks are exclusively T-34 and KV. In fact, more than half of our tanks throughout the war were light tanks such as T-50, T-60, T-70. For some reason, the amphibious T-37 and T-38 are also considered tanks, although these vehicles can only be classified as wedges. Thin armor that could be penetrated even by a rifle armor-piercing bullet, and the armament was a conventional caliber DT machine gun. Rather, they were self-propelled machine guns.

3. Of the 7,182 American tanks delivered, 1,683 were light tanks, similar in characteristics to Soviet light tanks.

The Red Army received 1,676 M3 Stewart light tanks of various modifications and 5 M5 vehicles, which were simply a modification of the M3.

Apparently two M24 Chaffee light tanks were received for testing. The tank itself turned out to be very successful. It had a 76-mm cannon, uncharacteristic of light tanks, and remained in service with the US Army almost until the mid-fifties.

From the author. I happened to see one Chaffee in France in the summer of 2013. An interesting feature is that an armored box is attached to the lower rear plate, inside which there are terminals and switches for connecting a field telephone and controlling a tank radio station from the outside. Second feature. At the stern there is a bracket for securing the gun barrel in the transport position. Those. on the march, the tank had to move with the gun facing backwards. Obviously, the barrel was too heavy and put a lot of stress on the barrel lifting mechanism. A similar mount can be seen on Soviet heavy tanks IS-2 and IS-3.

Deliveries of medium tanks to the USSR began with M3 tanks. In addition to designations, Americans usually give tanks a proper name. This tank received two names at once - General Lee and General Grant. Wikipedia indicates that the second name was intended for tanks supplied to the UK. Production of M3 tanks was discontinued in December 1942.
Wikipedia indicates that 976 M3s were delivered to the Soviet Union, but this is clearly the number received by the Soviet Union. The American List indicates that 1,386 vehicles of various modifications were sent.

Analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of American tanks is not the topic of this article, but the M3 outwardly leaves a strange impression. Two guns. One 76 mm. in a sponson with a limited firing sector, and a second 37 mm. in the tower.

Of the 6,258 vehicles produced, 2,877 were received by England, 104 by Brazil and 1,386 by the Soviet Union. The rest made up the fleet of medium tanks of the US Army before the advent of the famous Shermans.

From the author. One of the mysteries of Lend-Lease. The fact that weapons and equipment were supplied to the USSR, Canada, England, France, Holland and China, as well as to some African countries, is quite understandable andunderstandable. But how Brazil and other Latin American countries that were completely far from the war got into this program is a mystery.

Perhaps the most famous medium American tank, which, along with other countries, was also received by the Soviet Union, is the M4 Sherman. We received more than 4 thousand of them. Moreover, half of them had a 75 mm gun, and half had a 76 mm gun. Engines, depending on the modification, could be gasoline or diesel.
In general, our tankers spoke positively about the Shermans.

From the author. One of the Shermans stands in the technology museum in the German city of Speyr. On both sides the armor is densely pockmarked by bullets from heavy machine gun. The tower survived, but in some places there are through holes in the sides. From what distance the fire was fired is not explained.
Author's photo, May 2013.

Apparently, a single copy of the T26 Pershing tank was delivered to the USSR for testing. Usually in sources it is called M26, but in the List it is designated precisely as T26. We consider it a heavy tank, since it weighs 41 tons, but in the List it is classified as a medium tank.

A total of 7,182 American tanks of all types were sent to the Soviet Union during the war years. It should be noted that not all of them made it to Soviet ports. Still, German submarines and planes sank quite a few ships with tanks, including. Suffice it to recall the sad fate of convoy PQ17.

What I mean is that the American and Soviet data may differ quite noticeably. And naturally, for us, the quantity that reached the front is much more important than how many vehicles were loaded into the holds of transport ships.

Usually, all sources give a different figure for tanks sent to the USSR. Namely 7287. And among them are 105 heavy tanks. However, it is not. The List says "Vechicle, Tank Recovery, M31, M32, T26, T26E3, 90 mm Gun." This is what our military calls an ARV, i.e. armored repair and recovery vehicle. Simply put, a tank tractor, the purpose of which is to pull damaged tanks from the battlefield to the rear. Why the Americans installed a short-barreled 90-mm cannon on this ARV is not entirely clear.

In addition to the tanks themselves, quite a lot were sent from the USA self-propelled guns on tracked and half-tracked bases.

Among them is the M15 multi-purpose installation on a half-track armored personnel carrier, known here as the M2. It had mixed weapons - 37 mm. rapid-firing automatic cannon and two 12.7mm coaxial ones. machine gun.

The Americans believed it to be multi-purpose - anti-tank and anti-aircraft, but under the conditions of the Soviet-German front it could be used exclusively as an anti-aircraft weapon. In this case, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the installation could not shoot while moving. Before firing, it was necessary to fold the armored shields to the sides, which then became a platform for the crew.

Obviously for this reason, the M17 installations, which had a quad 12.7mm, were more suitable for us. machine gun. These installations could fire on the move and cover advancing tanks from attacks by German attack aircraft. The Soviet Union received 1000 of them. These units were not supplied anywhere else under Lend-Lease. However, like the M15.

From the author. The well-known German ace Hans Ulrich Rudel, who, according to his assurances, destroyed more than 500 Soviet T-34s and KVs, was obviously very lucky that he never met these American anti-aircraft guns on the battlefield. When meeting at a height of several meters, at which, according to his stories, he attacked and freely shot tanks, this did not bode well for him.

Anti-tank 57 mm. T48 self-propelled gun based on the M2 half-track armored personnel carrier. According to Wikipedia, 962 units were produced, of which only 30 came to England, and 650 to the USSR. They began to arrive to us only in 1943, i.e. already when, after the evacuation of factories to the Urals and Siberia, they launched production at full capacity by 1943.

However, the List indicates that 520 units were sent to the Soviet Union. In our country they are better known under the designation SU-57.

From the author. Sometimes I wonder why, among the many front-line photographs, there are so few images of American weapons. If quite often you can see pictures of the Airacobra and Sherman, then the rest, at best, flicker somewhere in the background. Either there were so few of them in general that they could rarely get into the camera lens, or there was an ideological position - to show only Soviet military equipment and weapons.

Anti-tank self-propelled gun, or as they are also called tank destroyers, T70 is considered the prototype of a very famous American car M18 Helket. In general, it is more of a tank, since the gun is mounted in a rotating turret. But the tower is completely open at the top.

Unfortunately, it was not possible to find an image of the T70. All search engines immediately redirect to M18. Only five of them were sent. Probably for military testing.

The List contains 52 self-propelled guns caliber 3 inches (76.2 mm.), however, the brand is not specified. In search engines, I found such self-propelled guns both based on the Sherman tank (both turret-mounted and mounted in the wheelhouse) and based on the M3 half-track armored personnel carrier. The question remains open.

These self-propelled guns complete the list of tanks and self-propelled guns supplied under Lend-Lease.

It is believed that in the USSR in the pre-war and war years there were no armored cars and armored personnel carriers. However, there is confusion in terminology and insufficient competence of the writers. So, we had a BA-22 wheeled armored vehicle with a capacity of 2 crew members and 10 people. landing force, as well as a B3 half-track vehicle of the same capacity. Combat armored vehicles, among which there were also those armed with a 45-mm cannon there were 21. And two more appeared during the war (BA-64 and BA-64B).

Another question is that industry was unable to produce enough of them and American assistance in this area turned out to be very significant.

The Red Army received 420 M2 half-track vehicles, 420 M5 series vehicles and 2 M3 vehicles. Wheeled armored vehicles M3A1 - 3340 wheeled M3A1. Their capacity was generally small - 7 people. They were mainly used as patrol and reconnaissance vehicles.

96 T16 tracked armored vehicles were also supplied. This is actually an English Bren Carrier base chassis developed in the thirties, intended for the installation of various types of weapons. First of all, machine guns. However, American-made cars were supplied to the USSR. The car could accommodate 4 people.

Apparently for military testing, the Soviet Union received 5 MK II amphibious tracked vehicles. Typically this vehicle is better known as the LVT-2. Obviously, the Soviet command was not satisfied with the characteristics of this vehicle and there were no mass deliveries.

So, a table of armored vehicles, components, spare parts and Supplies for her, supplied to the USSR from the USA under Lend-Lease. Only what was sent under Lend-Lease from the USA! Everything is carefully verified according to the American List.

Light tanks M3, M3A1, M3A2 with gasoline and diesel engines	1676 mash.
Light tanks M5 and M5A1	5 mash.
Light tanks M24 (T24)	2 cars
Medium tanks M3, M3A2 and M3A3 and M2A5	1386 mash.
Medium tanks M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3, M4A5 with a 75 mm cannon	2007 mash.
Medium tanks M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3 with a 76 mm gun	2095 mash.
Medium tank T26	1 machine
Repair and recovery vehicles M31, M32, T26, T26E3 with 90 mm. cannon	105 mash.
Multi-purpose self-propelled unit on the half-track base M15, M15A1	100 installations
Multi-purpose self-propelled gun on the M17 half-track base	1000 installations
57 mm T48 self-propelled anti-tank gun	520 installations
76 mm. self-propelled anti-tank gun T70	5 installations
76 mm. self-propelled guns	52 installations
M2 half-track armored vehicles	402 mash.
M3 half-track armored vehicles	2 mash
M5 series half-track armored vehicles	420 mash.
M3A1 wheeled armored vehicles	3340 mash.
T16 tracked armored personnel carriers	96 mash.
Floating tracked armored vehicles MK II	5 mash.
Antifreeze	836 cubic meters
Axle shafts of driving axles of wheeled vehicles	60 sets
Center differentials of wheeled vehicles	800 sets
Electrolyte for batteries.	1320 cubic meters
Diesel twin engines for M4A2 tanks	50 pcs.
Chrysler automobile engines	5 pieces.
Ford tank engines	2 pcs.
Automotive electrical fuses	50000 pcs.
Tank radiators	601 pcs.
Injectors for General Motors engines 165 hp.	12 pcs.
Injectors for twin tank diesel engines from General Motors	300 pcs.
Machines for installing paired 12.7 mm. machine guns for cars	600 sets
Tank viewing devices	100 pieces.
Lubricating oil	38 liters
Spark plugs for gasoline engines	400000 pcs.
Test stand for twin tank diesel engine	1 PC.
Transmissions of the M3 half-track armored personnel carrier	20 sets
Devices for towing light tanks M3	800 sets
Distributor covers for gasoline engines	1000 pcs.
Battery chargers	201 sets
Portable Air Compressors	50 sets
Cold starting aids	33 sets
Equipment for winter operation of medium tanks M3, M3A1 and M4A2	1192 sets

From the author. The personal impression that arises when considering this list of armored vehicles is that not so many tanks and armored vehicles were delivered that this quantity could be considered decisive at the front. If we take on faith the statement of the German ace G.U. Rudel that he personally destroyed more than 500 Soviet tanks and trained another 500-600 pilots, each of whom destroyed at least a hundred Soviet tanks (in the end, the Luftwaffe “destroyed” 50- 60 thousand Soviet tanks), then all American technology enough for a couple of weeks of war.
More seriously, according to Wikipedia, during the war years the USSR produced about 102 thousand tanks. Against this background, 6651 American tanks do not look particularly impressive.

Sources and literature.

1. Lend-lease Shipments World War II. War Department. 31 December 1946
2. Wikipedia website (ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7)
3. M. Baryatinsky US Armored Vehicles 1939-1945. No. 3 (12). Moscow.1997.
4 N.N. Voronov. In military service. Military publishing house. Moscow. 1963
5.T.Gander, P.Chamberlain. Enzyklopeaedie deutcher Waffen 1939-1945. Motor buch Verlag.Stuttgart. 2008
6.P.Chamberlain, K.Alice. British and American tanks of the Second World War. Astrel. Moscow. 2003
7. G.U.Rudel. Stuka pilot. Centerpolygraph. Moscow. 2003

Tank Lend-Lease

Deliveries of armored vehicles to the Soviet Union began in the fall of 1941. On September 3, Stalin sent a letter to Churchill, the contents of which the latter conveyed to President Roosevelt. Stalin's message spoke of a mortal threat looming over the Soviet Union, which could only be removed by opening a second front and urgently sending 30 thousand tons of aluminum to the USSR, as well as at least 400 aircraft and 500 tanks every month. In accordance with the First (Moscow) Protocol, the United States and Great Britain pledged to supply 4,500 tanks and 1,800 wedges within nine months. Under the latter, the British armored personnel carriers "Bren" and "Universal" often appeared in Soviet documents of those years.

Loading Matilda tanks destined for the USSR in one of the British ports. 1941

The first 20 British tanks were delivered to Arkhangelsk by ships of convoy PQ-1 on October 11, 1941. Already on October 28, these vehicles were delivered to Kazan. In total, by the end of the year, 466 tanks and 330 armored personnel carriers arrived in the Soviet Union from Great Britain. As for the USA, in 1941 they were able to send only 182 tanks to the USSR, which arrived at their destination already in 1942. The arrival of a significant amount of imported equipment required the creation of a military acceptance service and a personnel training system.

Initially, the acceptance and development of foreign tanks took place at the training center in Gorky, where the combat vehicles were sent immediately after unloading. However, already on January 20, 1942, the department for military acceptance of foreign equipment was organized directly in Arkhangelsk, and on April 4 - in Iran. At the same time, the department in Iran dealt only with cars, while the tanks were transported to Gorky, where they were received.

By the middle of 1942, the Arkhangelsk department for the acceptance of armored vehicles included groups in Bakaritsa, Molotovsk and Economy. In addition to it, there was a department for the acceptance of tanks in Murmansk, and the acceptance of cars and motorcycles in Gorky and Iran. In connection with the growth of deliveries along the "Persian Corridor" and through the ports of the Far East, departments for the military acceptance of armored vehicles were organized in Baku (March 1943) and Vladivostok (September 1943). Finally, in February 1945, due to the curtailment of the Baku division, a military acceptance department was opened in Odessa.

MZl and Valentine tanks (background) from the 5th Guards Tank Brigade. North Caucasian Front, August 1942.

As for the training of crews for foreign tanks, it was originally held at the Kazan Tank Technical School. Already on October 15, 1941, 420 crews were sent from training tank regiments to Kazan for retraining on British tanks. However, the facilities of the school base appeared to be limited. Therefore, already in November, crews for the Matildas began to be trained at the 132nd and 136th separate tank battalions. Under the 10th reserve tank regiment, training was organized for another 100 crews (50 each for Matildas and Valentines). At the 2nd reserve auto regiment, 200 armored personnel carrier drivers were trained. They also took care of the repair of imported vehicles: the repair and restoration company of the 146th Tank Brigade arrived at Plant No. 112 in November 1941 to undergo training for the repair of Valentine tanks and armored personnel carriers.

This situation continued until the spring of 1942, that is, until the resumption of mass supplies of armored vehicles under Lend-Lease. Already in March 1942, the 23rd and 38th tank training regiments and the 20th tank regiment were transferred to train crews for foreign tanks. Soon, however, this was not enough. In June 1942, by order of the People's Commissar of Defense, the 190th and 194th training tank brigades were formed to train crews of American and British tanks, respectively, and the 16th and 21st training tank regiments were transferred from training crews for the T-60 to training crews of British and American tanks. The staffing strength of training regiments and brigades made it possible to train monthly 645 crews for light tanks MZl, 245 for medium MZs, 300 crews of Matildas and 370 crews of Valentines.

To ferry tanks arriving along the Iranian route, the 191st Tank Brigade was formed. This formation received trained crews from the 21st training tank regiment, stationed in Yerevan. In February 1943, to train crews directly in Baku, on the basis of the 191st tank brigade, the 27th training tank regiment was formed, and the 21st regiment was transferred to the T-34.

In the winter of 1943, the 190th training tank brigade was transformed into the 5th, and the 194th training tank brigade into the 6th training tank brigade, which, together with the 16th training tank regiment, became part of the Armored Training Center in Gorky. However, the new brigades did not last long in their training capacity. The supply of armored vehicles under Lend-Lease began to decline, and already in October 1943 the 5th training tank brigade was disbanded, and the 6th training tank brigade was reorganized into an officer training brigade in June of the same year.

By the end of the war, the Red Army had three separate training tank regiments for training crews for Lend-Lease equipment: the 16th in Gorky and the 27th in Baku trained crews of M4A2 tanks, and the 20th in Ryazan trained crews of all types of armored personnel carriers.

Personnel for units and divisions armed with various types of self-propelled artillery mounts were trained at the Training Center self-propelled artillery in the city of Klyazma near Moscow.

Team and technical staff in 1942, the Chkalovsk (for the Matilda tanks) and Kazan (for the Valentine tanks) tank schools were prepared. At the end of the war, the Kazan Tank School trained commanders of platoons of Sherman and Valentine tanks, the 3rd Saratov School of Armored Vehicles and Armored Personnel Carriers produced command and technical staff for units that were armed with M2, Scout and Universal armored personnel carriers, and the Kiev The tank technical school trained technicians to service Sherman tanks.

In total, during the years of the Great Patriotic War, various training units trained 16,322 crews for imported armored vehicles.

Tanks MZl and MZs from the 241st tank brigade during exercises before the battles. Stalingrad area, October 1942.

In connection with the entry into the Red Army of a large number of foreign tanks, a special staff of a separate tank battalion was developed, which made it possible to use Lend-Lease vehicles both as part of a battalion and as part of a brigade. At the same time, foreign materiel could be combined into divisions and units in various combinations, since there were at least seven separate tank brigades alone in 1941–1942. In 1943, separate tank regiments of army and front-line subordination began to form, also armed with Lend-Lease equipment. In addition, starting from 1943, M4A2 and Valentine tanks were often equipped with tank regiments of mechanized brigades in mechanized corps. At the same time, a tank brigade as part of a mechanized corps could be equipped with both imported and domestic tanks. As a result, the Red Army had separate tank and mechanized corps of three types of equipment: completely domestic tanks, completely foreign ones, and those with a mixed composition. As for army units, in addition to individual tank regiments, they could include SU-57 self-propelled artillery brigades, reconnaissance and motorcycle battalions and regiments. The latter were often armed with imported tanks and armored personnel carriers. Thus, the armored reconnaissance battalion was armed with up to 20 Scout armored personnel carriers and 12 BA-64 armored vehicles, and the motorcycle battalion was armed with up to 10 T-34 or Valentine tanks and 10 armored personnel carriers. The motorcycle regiment had the same number of tanks, but it had more armored personnel carriers.

Almost immediately after the start of operation of foreign armored vehicles in the Red Army, the question arose about organizing its repair. Already in December 1941, repair base No. 82 was formed in Moscow for this purpose. In 1942–1943, repair bases No. 12 in Baku (then in Saratov), ​​No. 66 in Kuibyshev (then in Tbilisi) and No. 97 in Gorky. The last one was the largest. During January - March 1943, 415 tanks underwent major, medium and current repairs. various types and 14 Universal armored personnel carriers. Repair base No. 2 in Moscow was mainly involved in the repair of armored personnel carriers.

During the war, 2,407 foreign-made tanks were overhauled through the efforts of repair bases.

It should be noted that from the end of 1943, repair shops of American and Canadian production on automobile chassis began to arrive in the Soviet Union. The full fleet of American workshops numbered up to 10 units and was actually a field tank repair plant. The American fleet included mechanical workshops M16A and M16B, metalworking and mechanical workshop M8A, forging and welding workshop Ml2, electrical repair shop M18, weapons repair shop M7, tool workshop and warehouse vehicles M14. All of them were based on the chassis of the Studebaker US6 three-axle off-road truck. The fleet of tank repair shops also included 10-ton M1 Ward LaFrance 1000 or (less commonly) Kenworth 570 truck cranes, as well as M31 (T2) armored repair and recovery vehicles.

The Canadian workshop fleet was smaller than the American one and consisted of mechanical workshops A3 and D3, an electromechanical workshop (all on the chassis of an American GMC 353 truck), a mobile charging station OFP-3 and an electric welding workshop KL-3 (on Canadian chassis Ford F60L and Ford F15A, respectively) . A forging and welding workshop on an American Chevrolet G7107 chassis or a Canadian-made Chevrolet (most likely 8441/SZO) was supplied directly to the repair units of tank units. In total, in 1944–1945, 1,590 automobile repair shops of all types were supplied to the USSR from Canada.

American and Canadian parks were used to staff mobile tank repair plants, separate repair and restoration battalions, etc., of army and front-line subordination. This made it possible to carry out not only medium, but also major repairs of armored vehicles, both imported and domestically produced. At the same time, mobile workshops of domestic production could only provide current repairs.

Finally, the turn of the quantitative aspect of tank Lend-Lease has come. In this regard, it should be noted that, as in the case of the supply of other types of equipment and weapons, the data on the supply of tanks to the USSR, cited in various sources, differ from each other. In the late 1980s, Russian researchers were the first to have access to data from Western sources. Thus, in the book Soviet Armor of the Great Patriotic War 1941–45, the American researcher Steven Zaloga provides fairly complete data on Lend-Lease deliveries. According to Zaloga, 7,164 tanks of all types came from the USA to the Soviet Union, and 5,187 from Great Britain. Information is also provided about equipment lost during transportation: 860 American and 615 British tanks. Thus, a total of 12,351 tanks were delivered to the USSR and 1,475 tanks were lost. True, it is not entirely clear what is at stake, about sent or arrived tanks. If we are talking about those sent, then taking into account the losses, the number of tanks that arrived looks a little different - 6304 American and 4572 British and Canadian. And in total - 10,876.

Let's try to find out how accurate the Western data is. To do this, we use the figures given in M. Suprun’s book “Lend-Lease and Northern Convoys.”

Deliveries of tanks to the USSR

	Commitments	Sent to USSR
From USA	From Britain and Canada	Total
1st Protocol	4500	2254	2443	4697*
2nd Protocol	10 000	954	2072	3026**
3rd Protocol	1000	1901	1181	3082
4th Protocol	2229***	2076	80	2156
Total	17 729	7185	5776	12 961

* 470 tanks were lost along the route:

** the USSR refused 928 tanks from Great Britain and almost 6 thousand tanks from the USA, asking to compensate them with other supplies under the 3rd Protocol;

*** corrected application.

So, we are convinced that both domestic and foreign books provide almost identical data on tanks sent to the Soviet Union. As for losses, this number is quite consistent: according to M. Suprun, before November 1, 1942, 1,346 tanks were lost during convoys. Considering that this was the period of greatest opposition to the allied caravans from German submarines and aircraft, which entailed the greatest losses in ships and in the cargo transported on them, then the “missing” 129 tanks could well have been lost later. If we subtract the lost ones from the number of vehicles sent, we get 11,615 tanks, which is even slightly more than according to American data.

However, in order to understand how many tanks actually arrived in the USSR, it is necessary to attract additional sources. One of these sources, and the most reliable, is information from the selection committees of the Main Armored Directorate of the Red Army (GBTU). According to them, in 1941–1945, 5,872 American and 4,523 British and Canadian tanks arrived from the United States to the Soviet Union (that is, arrived!). In total - 10,395 tanks.

This number, which should be accepted as the most correct, correlates well with the data of S. Pledges. However, the difference is 481 cars, which is generally natural. In most foreign sources, the data exceed the Soviet ones by 300–400 units. This can be explained either by incomplete accounting of losses during transportation, or by confusion with applications, data on dispatch and acceptance. Very often, data from Soviet applications is presented as dispatch data.

All of the above is also true in relation to the supply of other types of armored vehicles. It no longer makes sense to conduct research here, we will operate with the military acceptance data of the GBTU as the most reliable in terms of counting the arrived combat vehicles. From 1941 to 1945, the USSR received 5,160 armored personnel carriers of all types. But this is only through GBTU. In addition, another 1082 armored personnel carriers were transferred to the Main Artillery Directorate of the Red Army for use as artillery tractors. In addition, 1802 self-propelled artillery units arrived in the USSR different types and 127 armored repair and recovery vehicles (ARV).

To summarize, it turns out that 10,395 tanks, 6,242 armored personnel carriers, 1,802 self-propelled guns and 127 ARVs arrived in the USSR. And in total - 18,566 units of armored vehicles.

Let's try to compare these data with the data of S. Pledges. According to them, 10,876 tanks, 6,666 armored personnel carriers, 1,802 self-propelled guns, 115 ARVs and 25 tank bridge layers were delivered to the Soviet Union. Total - 19,484 armored vehicles. In general, these data correlate with information from Soviet military acceptance. At the same time, it is curious that they partially exceed, partially coincide, and partially even less than the Soviet data.

British cruiser tank "Cromwell" at the Kubinka training ground. 1945

Many domestic publications state that the tanks supplied by the allies accounted for only 10% of the 103,000 tanks produced in the USSR during the Great Patriotic War. Similar comparison Looks not only incorrect, but also illiterate. In the USSR, from the 2nd half of 1941 (from July 1) to June 1, 1945, 97,678 tanks and self-propelled guns were produced (according to other sources - 95,252), but military acceptance was accepted from industrial plants from July 1, 1941 by September 1, 1945, there were actually 103,170 tanks and self-propelled guns. As you can see, in both cases we are talking about tanks and self-propelled guns, and from the Lend-Lease side only tanks are taken into account. If we take into account that Lend-Lease equipment arrived in the USSR in the summer of 1945, then we need to take into account the number 78,356. That is how many tanks were accepted by military acceptance from Soviet factories during the specified period of time. The number of self-propelled guns received was 24,814 vehicles. As a result, it can be argued that Lend-Lease tanks accounted for 13% of Soviet production, self-propelled guns - 7%. As for armored personnel carriers, they were not produced at all in the USSR, which means that Lend-Lease deliveries amounted to 100%. If we make a comparison according to the criterion of “light armored vehicles” and compare it with the production of armored vehicles in the USSR (8944 units), we get 70%. It should also be noted that out of 1800 Lend-Lease self-propelled guns, 1100 were anti-aircraft guns, which we also practically did not produce (75 ZSU-37s, produced in 1945–1946, did not take part in hostilities). If we talk about armored vehicles in general, Lend-Lease deliveries amounted to about 16% of Soviet production.

However, this fact, as well as the fact that foreign supplies of armored vehicles were constantly declining, does not at all indicate any malicious intent of the Western allies, as was often noted in Soviet literature. Deliveries were adjusted by the Soviet side, as evidenced by the following document of the GBTU of the Red Army:

“About tanks for the armored forces of the Red Army for the summer campaign of 1943:

For tanks made in Britain and Canada:

1. The order for the light infantry tank Mk-3 "Valentine" with enhanced armament should be extended by an additional 2000 units.

2. Abandon the Mk-6 Tetrarch cruiser tank.

3. Medium infantry tank Mk-2 "Matilda" to receive up to a total of 1000 units. according to the current protocol. The remaining tanks will be armed with 76 mm guns. In the future, the order of a tank of this type should be stopped.

4. Receipt of heavy infantry tank Mk-4 "Churchill" for heavy tank regiments to be carried out in accordance with the current protocol.

5. Armored infantry and weapons transporter "Universal" to receive at least 500 pieces. with a 13.5 mm Boyce anti-tank rifle.

For tanks made in the USA:

1. American light tanks M-ZL "Stuart" to receive up to a total of 1200 units. current protocol. In the future, the order of tanks of this type will be stopped.

2. American light tank M-5L. Refuse the order due to the lack of advantages over M-ZL.

3. Medium tanks M-ZS “Grant” will be received at the rate of 1000 units. current protocol. In 1943, consider replacing them with the supply of new M-4S medium tanks with a diesel engine and improved armor protection in an amount of at least 1000 units.

4. Include in the supply list the light anti-tank self-propelled gun SU-57 in an amount of at least 500 units.”

Until now, we have been talking about the supply of large quantities of armored vehicles. However, there were also minor, so-called trial deliveries, when the Soviet side requested certain samples from the allies and the allies provided them. Moreover, sometimes it was about the most modern, newest combat vehicles. As part of the familiarization deliveries from Great Britain to the USSR, six English Cromwell cruising tanks, three Sherman-Crab minesweeper tanks, five Churchill-Crocodile flamethrower tanks, one copy each of AES and Daimler armored vehicles, and a Wasp flamethrower armored personnel carrier arrived "("Wasp"), as well as six Canadian Bombardier snowmobiles. In 1943–1945, five M5 Stuart light tanks, two M24 Chaffee light tanks, the newest T26 General Pershing heavy tank and five T70 Witch self-propelled guns were delivered from the USA to the USSR for evaluation and testing. All these combat vehicles underwent a wide range of tests and were carefully studied by Soviet specialists.

American self-propelled gun - tank destroyer T70 "Witch", known in the US Army as the M18 "Hellkzt". Test site in Kubinka, 1945.

In this regard, it must be emphasized that such tests were not carried out out of simple curiosity to find out how imported tanks work there. Based on their results, a list of recommendations was compiled for borrowing certain components and assemblies, certain design solutions. At Valentine, for example, NIIBT Polygon specialists recognized the American GMC engine, hydraulic shock absorbers and synchronized gearbox as very valuable. Of particular interest to Soviet specialists was the connection of the gearbox with a “differential planetary rotation mechanism” installed on the “Churchill” and “Cromwell”, and on the “Matilda” - the hydraulic drive for turning the turret. All British tanks without exception liked the Mk IV periscope observation devices. They liked them so much that they were copied and, under the slightly modified designation MK-4, starting from the second half of 1943, installed on all Soviet tanks.

By the way, if we are talking about the MK-4 device, then we need to make a small “lyrical” digression. The fact is that this device is not an English invention. It was designed in the mid-1930s by the Polish engineer Gundlach. Soviet specialists were able to become familiar with the design of this device back in 1939, after studying captured Polish 7TP tanks and TKS wedges. Even then, recommendations were given for its borrowing, but this was not done, for which they had to pay in blood.

However, for various reasons, not all successful solutions migrated from Lend-Lease cars to Soviet ones. For example, according to the results of field tests of prototypes of heavy domestic tanks in the summer of 1943, proposals were made to improve the combat qualities of the IS tank. In terms of armament, among other things, it was recommended to develop and install by November 15, 1943 a hydraulic turret rotation mechanism similar to the American M4A2 tank and a turret anti-aircraft machine gun mount on the hatch of the commander's cupola (also not without the influence of the M4A2, which had a large-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun). In the image and likeness of the Sherman, it was planned to place the loader on the left, and the gunner and commander to the right of the gun, to work out the installation of a hydraulic gun stabilizer and a 50-mm breech-loading mortar for self-defense and setting up smoke screens.

A train with M4A2 tanks in Romania. September 1944.

As you can see, the list of recommendations is very impressive. However, as far as is known, in addition to the anti-aircraft machine gun installation on the IS tank, none of the above was introduced. Technological difficulties played an important role in this.

The nomenclature of mass deliveries of armored vehicles to the USSR under Lend-Lease and the list of vehicles received for review leaves no stone unturned from the widespread opinion that the Allies allegedly specifically supplied us with bad military equipment. The British and Americans supplied us with the same vehicles that they used to fight. Another question is that they did not really correspond to ours climatic conditions and operating principles. Well, the characteristics and reliability of these machines are best judged not by idle speculation, but by specific facts. The first to arrive in the USSR were the English “Matildas” and “Valentines”. Let's start with them.

This text is an introductory piece. From the author's book

A little about Lend-Lease Well, in this chapter the talent of the whistleblower unfolds in full glory. Just a real fireworks display of petty fraud, overexposure and outright lies. Engaging in a detailed analysis of all this foul-smelling vinaigrette is a thankless task, so

From the author's book

Lend-Lease: opinions and assessments Before starting a substantive conversation about Lend-Lease in general and about tank lend-lease in particular, I would like to dwell on the attitude towards this topic in our country. It should be noted right away that even during the Second World War, the assessment of Lend-Lease was

From the author's book

Lend-Lease: figures and facts The idea of ​​a system of assistance to countries opposing Nazi Germany, primarily England, by loaning them weapons and military materials in exchange for certain political and economic concessions (from the English “lend” - to lend, lend

From the author's book

7th TANK CORPS The 7th Tank Corps was formed in the city of Kalinin in May 1942 on the basis of the 3rd Guards Tank Brigade. It included the 3rd Guards Heavy Tank Brigade (commander Colonel Vovchenko), the 62nd Tank Brigade (commander Colonel Gumenyuk),

From the author's book

Tank plan of Stalin I.V. Stalin, for all his shortcomings, was distinguished by sound judgment and the ability to quickly assess the situation. We remember that on September 3, 1942, he declared that “nothing worked out with the tank armies.” The 3rd, 4th and 5th Tank Armies still continued to operate,

From the author's book

10th Tank Corps Commander – Brigade Commander Vershinin. By the beginning of the war, it included the 1st, 13th light tank and 15th rifle and machine gun brigades, staffed by well-trained personnel. The tanks were badly worn out by long marches - more than 800 km -

From the author's book

Tank plan of Stalin I.V. Stalin, for all his shortcomings, was distinguished by sound judgment and the ability to quickly assess the situation. We remember that on September 3, 1942, he declared that “nothing worked out with the tank armies.” The 3rd, 4th and 5th Tank Armies still continued to operate, but

From the author's book

Soviet Lend-Lease In 1941, the Red Army Air Force received 150 additional I-16 fighters from China; the aircraft were assembled at a plant in Urumqi. The plant in Urumqi was built with the help of Soviet specialists specifically for the assembly of the I-16. By 1941, I-16 deliveries to the Chinese Air Force by air

From the author's book

In battles with Lend-Lease aircraft In August 1941, deliveries of Hurricane fighters to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease from Great Britain began. The planes arrived by sea to the ports of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk. After assembly and flight testing, the first Hurricanes were used, mainly

From the author's book

Chapter 7. Information on Lend-Lease In March 1941, the American Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act. Officially it was called the American Defense Assistance Act. The effect of this law extended to England and other states against which Germany launched a war. The Law on

From the author's book

Chapter 2 The Vicissitudes of Russia and Lend-Lease At first, Berliners were shocked and frightened by Hitler's Napoleonic enterprise; nevertheless, they convinced themselves that victory in the east was assured after some time. And behind the ripples of the waves of the narrow English Channel, ready

From the author's book

Tank biathlon From August 1 to August 15, 2015, another competition in tank biathlon, which became part of the large-scale international competition “International Army Games 2015”. This year the Tank Biathlon hosted

From the author's book

Museum "Allies and Lend-Lease" Moscow, st. Zhitnaya, 6 Allies: an English pilot, a Soviet officer, an American infantryman in full regular uniform and with weapons. 1942–1945 Motor from the Hercules power plant. Manufactured by Ford and supplied

From the author's book

Tank biathlon in Alabino Based on materials from the Press Service and Information Directorate of the RF Ministry of Defense On August 14, 2013, the first All-Army Tank Biathlon Competition started in Alabino, Moscow Region. Over the next three days, the best competed in combat skills.

From the author's book

XXXIX Tank Corps “From the beginning of May, the feeling of a major enemy offensive soon became increasingly clear. Information was received about the movements of tank and artillery formations, the equipment of firing positions and the concentration of infantry in front of everything

Help from the British and Americans Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War of 1941 - 1945 is a fairly extensive topic. During the war, the USA and Great Britain constantly increased their supplies of raw materials, materials, resources, equipment necessary for the USSR, military equipment and equipment. The role of Lend-Lease is assessed differently in various sources, but with some confidence we can say that any help from the allies was clearly not superfluous for the USSR, because its army was opposed by the strongest military machine of the West, which, like a steam roller, swept through Europe in 1939 - 1941, crushing the armies of Poland, France, Norway, Denmark and England, providing the Third Reich with absolute dominance in this part of the globe.

We will not consider all aspects of Lend-Lease and all the products that the United States and Great Britain supplied to the Soviet Union during the Second World War. Let's consider only the ground armored vehicles that the Soviet army received from its Western allies, namely tanks and armored personnel carriers. Between 1941 and 1945 The USSR received more than 12 thousand under the Lend-Lease program. tanks. Naturally, against the background of the tremendous efforts of the Soviet industry, which produced more than 50 thousand copies of the "thirty-four" alone in four years, not counting other types of tanks, such figures for Anglo-American deliveries are not at all fascinating. This does not mean that the Allied equipment was not needed by the Soviet army, but it does mean that in the absence of American and British equipment in the Lend-Lease program, the disaster for the USSR would not have happened - the Soviet industry provided the army with tanks even without external help.

Let's consider what types and types of armored vehicles the British and Americans sent to the Soviet Union. Let's start with American equipment, primarily with tanks: Sherman medium tanks, various modifications (with 75 mm and 76 mm guns) - 4102 units delivered, Stuart light tanks (M3A1 and M5) - 1681 units, including M5 Stuart tanks there were only 5 units, the rest were M3A1, M3 Lee and its modifications - 1386 units were delivered. Also, by the end of the war, 2 M24 Chaffee tanks and 1 new American medium tank M26 Pershing were sent. These deliveries amounted to only about 12% of the Soviet tank fleet during the war. Now let's move on to anti-tank self-propelled guns - the Americans supplied the USSR with 650 T48 self-propelled guns, which were produced on half-track chassis specifically for deliveries under Lend-Lease, as well as 52 M10 Wolverine self-propelled guns and 5 M18 Hellcat self-propelled guns.

In addition to tanks and self-propelled guns of the tank destroyer class, the United States supplied the Soviet Union with anti-aircraft "self-propelled guns" - ZSU, designed to combat air targets. These were the M17 MGMC ZSU - 1000 units delivered and the M15A1 MGMC ZSU - 100 units delivered. As for self-propelled guns and self-propelled guns, during the Great Patriotic War, about 23 thousand self-propelled guns and self-propelled guns operated on the Soviet-German front. And the number of Lend-Lease equipment among these thousands of combat vehicles is very small and barely approaches the modest figure of 8%. The situation with armored personnel carriers was much worse in the USSR. It was with them that the Americans helped the Soviet army the most - the USSR was supplied with: M3A1 "Scout" armored personnel carrier - 3340 units, M5 armored personnel carrier - 421 units, M9 armored personnel carrier - 419 units, M2 armored personnel carrier - 342 units, T16 armored personnel carrier - 96 units, LVT armored personnel carrier - 5 units, and finally, M3 armored personnel carrier - 2 units. Actually, armored personnel carriers as a class of equipment were not produced at all in the USSR, so the help came at a very opportune time.

Now let's list the equipment that Great Britain sent to the Soviet Union. These are primarily light infantry tanks "Valentine" of various modifications - 3332 units, 918 medium infantry tanks "Matilda", 253 heavy tanks "Churchill", 19 light tanks "Tetrarch" and 6 medium cruising tanks "Cromwell". In addition to tanks, during the war years Britain supplied the USSR with 2,560 “Universal Carrier” armored personnel carriers, which, due to the complete lack of production of this class of equipment in the USSR, was even more significant help for the Red Army than the supply of mediocre British tanks. In conclusion, let’s summarize all the American and British tanks in the tables for a more visual overview of the supplies of armored vehicles by the Lend-Lease allies to the USSR.

Deliveries of US armored vehicles to the USSR in 1941 - 1945

Name of the technique	Vehicle class	Number of delivered machines
Sherman	Medium tank	4102
Stuart	Light tank	1681
M3 Lee	Medium tank	1386
M24 Chaffee	Light tank	2
M26 Pershing	Medium tank	1
M17 MGMC	ZSU	1000
M15A1MGMC	ZSU	100
T48	self-propelled guns	650
M10 Wolverine	self-propelled guns	52
M18 Hellcat	self-propelled guns	5
M3A1 Scout	Armored personnel carrier	3340
M5	Armored personnel carrier	421
M9	Armored personnel carrier	419
M2	Armored personnel carrier	342
T16	Armored personnel carrier	96
LVT	Armored personnel carrier	5
M3	Armored personnel carrier	2

Supplies of British armored vehicles to the USSR in 1941 - 1945

Giving a general assessment of the equipment supplied to the USSR under the Lend-Lease program, we can say that its presence on the Soviet-German front did not have a decisive impact on the course of military operations. This is explained by the fact that the Soviet industry fully provided the army with tanks on its own, and the Soviet T-34 or IS-2 tanks were an order of magnitude superior to the Lend-Lease models. Neither the American M3 Lee nor the British Churchill, not to mention the light tanks suitable only for auxiliary tasks, aroused delight among Soviet tankers. The best tank, which came from the West to the main front of World War II, is considered to be the Sherman. It generally corresponded to the Soviet "thirty-four" model of 41-43 years ("T-34-76"), but in difficult conditions of the eastern front, for example in winter, problems often arose with its operation. However, Soviet tank crews, as a rule, quickly mastered American tanks and overcame their shortcomings with their own ingenuity and ability to find a non-standard approach to solving any problem.

The really worthwhile assistance to the Soviet Union from the West was the provision of armored personnel carriers, which the domestic industry did not produce, at the disposal of the Soviet army. In general, Lend-Lease certainly supported Soviet army and the economy during the war with Germany - from the USA and Britain during the implementation of this program came a large number of a wide variety of raw materials, equipment and products - metal, rubber, machine tools, cables, radio stations, receivers, shoes and uniforms, as well as food and much more. All this undoubtedly supported the USSR in the decisive battle with fascism, but even without this, the Soviet country, even being somewhat weakened, could have fought fighting against Germany. However, if we talk specifically about tanks, then for various reasons, American and British tanks did not play a significant role in the battles on the eastern front, firstly due to their small numbers, and secondly due to the USSR having its own tank fleet, superior in quality indicators of Allied equipment received under the Lend-Lease program.

“We got used to the fact that the equipment and weapons that were supplied to us were quite effective for the period of delivery. These were quite advanced samples. Yes, with shortcomings, but advanced and often superior or unparalleled in our country.

The hero of our story today is so controversial that he causes loud controversy even today. Almost all specialists and fans of military vehicles of the past talk about its initially unsuccessful design.

It’s not for nothing that this tank was discontinued as quickly as it was accepted. By the way, few people know this, but this particular tank holds the record for speed of creation. None fighting machine in the world has not been developed and put into service in such a short time.

So, the hero of our story is American medium tank M3 Lee, better known to us as M3s "Lee".

Here it is simply necessary to make a small historical note regarding the Soviet designation of the tank. The American M3 and the Soviet Lend-Lease tank M3s are actually the same vehicle. It's just that the letter "c" is nothing more than a designation for "average".

There is one more aspect that simply needs to be highlighted at the beginning of the material. Among those who study World War II tanks, there is an opinion that another tank, known as the M3 Grant, American-made but commissioned by Great Britain, is nothing more than an exact copy of the M3 Lee.

Yes, the Grant really copied the Lee, but it had enough differences to be an independent machine. It’s not for nothing that he received the name of General Ulysses S. Grant, commander of the northern troops during the Civil War.

Let us remember that General Robert Edward Lee commanded the Southerners at the same time. And the American version of the M3 "Lee" is named after this general. A kind of specific Anglo-American humor, the essence of which is not entirely clear to us.

Especially since Grant beat Lee.

By the way, both cars received their names as a gift from the British. In Britain, cars went under different indexes.

Likewise, what some readers think about the differences in engines is incorrect. You often hear about Grant diesel engines and Lee gasoline engines. Alas, the Grants had both gasoline and diesel engines. Why and how this happened is not the topic of today’s material.

Let's start the story. February 1942. City of Slobodskaya Kirov region. Here the formation of the 114th tank brigade takes place. The soldiers and officers of the brigade are surprised every day. Scouts and signalmen receive Harley motorcycles. Drivers of outlandish cars “Ford-6”, “Chevrolet”, ““.

But the tankers are most surprised. The brigade receives M3s tanks and light M3l tanks that are completely “not ours” in appearance. 69 new medium tanks unknown to the Red Army.

This is exactly how we met Soviet soldiers with a new American tank. Deliveries of M3s to the USSR began in February 1942.

The first battle of the M3 "Lee" took place in May 1942. Our army attempted an offensive on the Barvenkovsky bridgehead during the second battle for Kharkov. Alas, we remember how this attempt ended. Our troops suffered a severe defeat.

Let us remember that at that time we lost 171 thousand killed, 100 thousand wounded, 240 thousand prisoners. 1,240 tanks were lost (destroyed, abandoned, captured). The Germans and Romanians then lost 8 thousand killed, 22 thousand wounded, 3 thousand missing.

What did the soldiers and officers of the 114th Tank Brigade see? Why appearance did the machines have such a stunning effect on the tankers?

The fact is that the new car was “three-story”. In the literal sense of the word. On the ground floor, in the sponson, a 75-mm gun with a horizontal aiming angle of 32 degrees was installed.

The second floor, a turret with a circular rotation, is equipped with a 37 mm cannon with a coaxial machine gun. The turret was driven by a hydraulic drive, but if necessary, it could also be rotated mechanically.

But there was also a third floor. True, fortunately, this floor could not boast of a cannon. A machine gun was installed in the commander's cupola, which could be used against both ground and air targets.

The question immediately arises about the most powerful gun. Why is it located in the sponson and not in the tower?

By the way, let’s again step away from the story for a second. It is necessary to clarify the word “sponson” for land readers. The word is naval. So, a sponson is a protrusion above the side (in the navy) or a “growth” on the side of an armored vehicle (for those who are used to resting on the ground).

So why in sponson? The answer is simple. The 37-mm gun was no longer suitable for tankers. It no longer performed anti-tank functions. And according to American tradition, the designers did not think much about the problem.

If 37 mm is not enough, then you need to take one that will satisfy everything. And somehow shove it somewhere. So the 75 mm M2 gun was chosen. And then, logically, it is necessary to modify or develop a new vehicle body and turret. In fact, it is necessary to change the car itself.

But, let us remember, there was a war going on, and the US Army really needed a well-armed medium tank...

This is how sponson appeared with right side housings. The gun lost a huge part of its firing range. However, the timing of adoption has not changed.

Why did this happen to this car? Here it is necessary to consider the history of the creation of tank units in the United States. We have already written that at the beginning of World War II, the Americans did not have tank forces.

The only tank that the Americans had was the extremely unsuccessful M2 (produced 1939-41). The tank was produced in two modifications and a total of 146 vehicles were assembled (52 M2 and 94 M2A1).

It was by copying many components of this machine that the designers created the M3. Transmission, power point, chassis. Many people talk about the archaic layout of the M3 tank. Indeed, by the 40s of the 20th century, such an arrangement looks ridiculous.

In general, it was precisely the situation “I made him out of what was there.” And American designers had very little at their disposal.

The hull of the M3 tank has a prefabricated design. Armor plates made of rolled armor were attached to the prefabricated frame with rivets (or bolts). The lower frontal part consists of three separate cast parts, bolted together. This can be seen in the photo.

To access the tank, rectangular doors were provided along the sides of the hull; the driver entered his seat through a hatch located on the right side of the upper frontal plate, where his viewing devices were also located.

To the left of the driver's hatch in the lower frontal plate there was an embrasure for installing a coaxial machine gun.

The cast sponson for the 75 mm gun was installed in the right front part of the hull and was attached to it with rivets.

For access to the engine compartment, there were hatches in the stern and bottom, and its roof was removable. Air was supplied to the engine through armored boxes mounted above the tracks. They also housed fuel tanks.

The cast cylindrical turret was installed offset to the left on a ball bearing and was equipped with a hydraulic drive. The gun was mounted in a mantlet, which also housed a machine gun and a periscope sight.

For observation, there were viewing slots in the sides of the tower, covered with glass blocks and hinged armored covers.

The cylindrical commander's cupola with a machine gun was located on top of the tower offset to the left; the cupola was rotated manually. Access to the turret was through a double-leaf hatch in the roof of the commander's cupola.

Let's look at the potential opponents of the Americans - the Germans. Which German car was opposed to the American one? The M3's opponent was supposed to be the Pz.IV. The German tank was also armed with a 75 mm cannon.

If we talk about the design as a whole, the car had a number of critical shortcomings. This is also a weak reservation. This is also the height. This is also a completely ugly placement of weapons, which simply “ate up” the potential that could be achieved from a vehicle with such weapons.

The Americans quickly realized that the tank was not only crude, but also unpromising. That is why it was problematic to meet the M3 in the American army already in 1944-45. And the Americans are not the first in terms of the number of these armored vehicles.

A total of 6,258 units of this tank of all modifications were produced.. The modifications differed mainly in engines and manufacturing technologies. Of these, 2/3 were transferred under Lend-Lease to the British and the USSR. A small part (about a hundred cars) were transferred to other countries.

Congratulations, you saved this nightmare for those who needed it most.

The British can rightfully call the M3 “Lee” their car. It was in the British army that the largest number of these tanks were located. More than 2 thousand units.

Winston Churchill. I was not afraid to wander around the fronts.

The British were the first to receive this horror and used it in the battles for North Africa. Suddenly (for lack of a better word), I liked “Lee.” It was fast enough; it penetrated the armor of German tanks without any problems if the vehicle was positioned correctly in relation to the enemy.

Another historical character, Montgomery himself near his personal tank.

True, the “Lee” itself could barely handle enemy shells; the armor of the medium tank was 37 mm. Despite all the shortcomings, this tank was the only one the British had that could withstand German tanks in Africa; even in 1942, during the battles for El Alamein (July-August), it was called “the last Egyptian hope.”

1,386 tanks were shipped to the USSR. This is according to American data. According to Soviet data, the USSR received only 976 vehicles. The loss of almost 30% of supplies is still of interest to historians and specialists. Cars either drowned in northern seas, or got lost in the Iranian deserts.

But be that as it may, this imperfect, archaic, awkward machine still played its role in the first period of the war. When the German tank wedges rushed into the vastness of Russia, when our industry did not have time to provide the front with new and other vehicles, the M3 went into battle. Often the first and last.

Little known fact. These tanks took part in the great tank battle of World War II - the Battle of Kursk. We found a photo of the M3 "Lee", which died in this battle in July 1943. Tank "Alexander Nevsky".

Even in 1944, “Lee” still fought in our army. And one, probably the most persistent, even took part in the defeat of the Japanese at Far East. Somehow I remember the partisans with St. George’s crosses for the First World War...

The tank received derogatory nicknames from ordinary Soviet tank crews, it was called “faggot”, “kalancha”, the adjectives “two-story” and “three-story” were used in relation to it, and ironic indices were assigned: VG-7 (“certain death of seven”), BM-7 ( “mass grave for seven”) and stuff like that.

Tactical and technical data of the M3 "Lee" tank:

Weight, t: 27.9
Length, mm: 5639
Width, mm: 2718
Height, mm: 3124
Ground clearance, mm: 432

Armament:
- 75 mm M2 gun
- 37 mm M5 gun
- 3 (4) 7.62 mm M1919A4 machine guns

Booking: homogeneous steel armor
- body: 51 mm
- board: 38 mm
- feed: 38 mm
- bottom: 13 mm
- turret: 51 mm (front), 38 mm (side)
- body roof - 13 mm

Engine types: R-975EC2, GM 6046, Guiberson T-1400 Series 3, Chrysler A-57 Multi-Bank

Highway speed, km/h: 39
Power reserve, km: 193
Crew, people: 7

IN Soviet time assistance from the United States and Great Britain under Lend-Lease was either kept silent or significantly downplayed. And this despite the fact that the Soviet Union received from its Western allies over 20 thousand aircraft, over 20 thousand armored vehicles (tanks, self-propelled units, armored personnel carriers), more than 300 thousand tons of non-ferrous metals, 2586 thousand tons of aviation gasoline, about 0.5 million cars. Lend-Lease armored vehicles accounted for 20% of the entire fleet of armored forces of the USSR. Help from the USSR was provided at the most difficult moment; only in 1941, the armored units of the Red Army lost over 72% of all their armored vehicles, and the Wehrmacht divisions were rushing towards Moscow, and they had to be stopped. The arrival of lend-lease armored vehicles to the Soviet troops had many difficulties: long distances and threats to supply routes (especially in the Atlantic, where the German navy was rampant), training Soviet tank crews to drive models of equipment that were technically complex, many examples of lend-lease armored vehicles did not suitable for the war conditions on the Eastern Front. But Lendlease tanks, of which over 10 thousand units were delivered to the USSR, also had many advantages: armor that, when hit by a shell, did not produce fragments that could destroy the crew, simple design of the vehicle, reliability of the units, long service life of the tanks. And most importantly, Lendlease tanks provided comfortable conditions tank crew during the battle. “In our tanks, everything had to be done manually: turning the turret and aiming the gun, but in the Sherman everything was electric,” is a fragment of the memoirs of veteran tanker Vladimir Golovachev. “I confess, I loved him (“Valentine”). First of all, for reliability and safety. The armor protection of the “Valentine” was what was needed - the shell stuck like dough, without producing fragments. The tank was better than our T-60 and T-70,” tanker Ivan Litvinenko.

Under Lend-Lease, the Soviet Union received American light tanks M-3 "Stuart", American medium tanks M4A2 and M4A2 (76) W "Sherman", M-3 "Lee", British infantry tanks Mk II "Matilda", Mk III "Valentine" and Mk IV "Churchill". The Red Army began to use lend-lease tanks in large numbers starting in 1942. Especially a lot of foreign equipment participated in the battle for the Caucasus, where American and British tanks accounted for more than 60% of the entire armored fleet. So, as of February 1, 1943, on the North Caucasian Front, among 275 combat-ready tanks, there were 15 M-3 Lees, 123 Stuarts, 38 Valentines and 10 Shermans. This mass use foreign armored vehicles in the Caucasus was due to the proximity of one of the supply routes for Lend-Lease equipment of the USSR, through Iran. Units equipped with lend-lease tanks inflicted serious damage on Wehrmacht divisions. Thus, the 5th Guards Tank Brigade operated on the North Caucasian Front, which included 40 Valentines, 3 T-34s and one BT-7. During the fighting in the Malgobek area, which took place in September 1942, the brigade destroyed 38 German tanks and assault guns, 24 artillery pieces, 6 mortars and up to 1800 Wehrmacht soldiers and officers. On September 11, 1942, in the Malgobek area, 2 Stuarts under the command of Lieutenant Alexander Yakovlevich Pavkin, while in ambush, engaged in battle with 16 German tanks, destroyed 11 of them without loss on their part. In the March battles of 1943, the 92nd tank brigade distinguished itself, armed with light Stuarts. The brigade destroyed 14 tanks, 4 mortars, 5 anti-tank guns, up to 400 German soldiers, losing 29 Stuarts. Foreign tanks were used by the Red Army in large numbers until the end of the war. So, in 1944, the 1st Red Guard Mechanized Corps (1st Belorussian Front) included, in addition to Soviet tanks, 136 Shermans, 49 Valentines, 2nd tank army- 140 Shermans, 10 Valentines, 5th Guards Tank Army - 64 Shermans, 39 Valentines.

In the Red Army, among the tank aces who fought on domestic models of armored vehicles, craftsmen appeared who fought on foreign tanks. The crew of the M4A2 tank Colonel Druzhinin Leonid Mikhailovich (40th separate tank regiment) in the battles on the Eastern Front managed to destroy 16 German tanks, 11 anti-tank guns, more than 200 enemy soldiers and officers. "Sherman" under the command of Guards foreman Pavel Voronin (1st Guards Mechanized Corps) in battles in Hungary and Austria (January-April 1945) destroyed 10 German tanks and assault guns. On January 21, 1945, in the battles for the settlement of Sesktneter, three tanks (including Voronin's tank) repulsed eight attacks of German tanks, while destroying 5 enemy vehicles without loss on their own side. On January 22–23, 1945, in the battles for the village of Ferenc, Voronin's tank destroyed a Panther, knocked out two German tanks and burned two armored personnel carriers. Fighting on the Matilda, Captain Kondraty Ivanovich Naumov (10th Tank Corps) distinguished himself. From August 14 to August 20, 1942, Naumov’s tank, as part of the group of captain I. Mishukov, defended the crossing of the river. Zhizdra near the village of Vosty. A group of 4 Matildas, reinforced with an anti-tank gun, destroyed 21 german tank, two vehicles and up to two companies of enemy infantry. The list of Soviet tank aces also includes Lieutenant Valentin Dmitrievich Pashirov (71st Mechanized Brigade, 9th Mechanized Corps). In the battles for the village of Khotiv, Kiev-Svyatoshinsky district, Kiev region, on November 6, 1943, “Valentine” Pashirov, pursuing retreating German tanks, destroyed more than a platoon of enemy soldiers, 10 vehicles, 10 firing points, and two tanks. When Pashirov's tank was knocked out, the wounded tank commander continued the battle, using a machine gun and hand grenades. Pashirov died. The tank gun commander of the 50th Separate Guards Breakthrough Heavy Tank Regiment, Petr Sergeevich Polnadezhdin, fought on the Churchill heavy tank. Polunadezhdin distinguished himself in battles on Polish territory. On July 21, 1944, he destroyed a mortar battery, disabled an assault gun, and killed over 10 enemy fighters. In August 1944, near the town of Magnushev, Polonadezhdin knocked out three German tanks. On January 15, 1945, in the area of ​​Mühlhausen, Senior Sergeant Polunadezhdin’s tank knocked out 4 assault guns, a German tank and several vehicles. During the period from April 16 to April 25, 1945, Polonadezhdin's tank destroyed 4 guns, 2 bunkers, 4 tanks, 3 assault guns and an armored personnel carrier.

The Red Army lost most of the tanks supplied under Lend-Lease in the battles of 1941–1945. What did foreign tanks do to defeat Germany and her allies? Quite a bit of! Firstly, they saved thousands of lives of soldiers, covering them both on the offensive and in defense. Secondly, they ensured the rapid advancement of Red Army formations in offensive operations of 1943–1945. Thirdly, Lendlease tanks destroyed a large amount of German military equipment and manpower. Fourthly, Lend-Lease armored vehicles became “reserve power” in those sectors of the front where there was a shortage of domestic armored vehicles and the enemy was advancing. Lend-Lease made it possible for the Soviet Union to survive in the most difficult times, to complete the bloody massacre in 1945, and not, say, in 1947 or 1949. But the main thing is glory to the Soviet soldiers, who were able to quickly master imported equipment and skillfully use it against the enemy. First of all, the people won the war.