Still, in these British Isles, not everything is like people. Especially in those times that we are talking about, especially with regard to tanks. Okay there, pounds-inches, but there was also a classification - you can grab your head and tear it off.
People had light, medium, heavy tanks. And the British - cruising, infantry … Here we will talk about the infantry tank "Matilda".
Infantry tank "Matilda II" was designed to accompany the infantry. This followed from its name, which is generally clear and understandable.
The 27-ton vehicle was protected by 78-mm armor, which at that time was not penetrated by any German cannon. The 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 (somewhat later) with a 76-mm howitzer. As an engine, a twin AES or Leyland diesel engine was used with a total capacity of 174 or 190 hp, which made it possible to reach speeds of up to 25 km / h.
In general, a very leisurely and well-armored tank, if in numbers. If we compare the "Matilda", then it is appropriate to compare it with the KV-1, whatever one may say, with a heavy tank.
This is the essence of the infantry tank. He does not need to be fast, the infantry in any case will not give more than 5 km / h in speed. In attack - 10. So 25 km / h is quite. Enough, since "Matilda" did not need to catch up with anyone or to quickly unwind from someone. This tank was supposed to crawl along with the infantry and support it with fire, armor and tracks.
In general, let's say, "Matilda" was not entirely within the framework of our understanding. Especially when it comes to comparison with Soviet counterparts.
In terms of armor, the Matilda was superior to our heavy KB (78 mm versus 75 mm), but was inferior to the 76-mm cannon in terms of firepower.
The 40-mm British gun was not inferior to our forty-five light tanks in terms of armor penetration. Our tankers noted "the reliability of the diesel engine and the planetary gearbox, as well as the ease of control of the tank."
Armor, speed and maneuverability of a heavy tank and armament of a light one. Medium tank?
So, by the way, "Matilda" was recorded. Medium tank. And they put it on a par with the T-34, which in general looks so-so. Tanks are different in nature and purpose, as well as in their ability to perform tasks.
One of the main drawbacks of the Matilda's armament was the absence of high-explosive fragmentation shells for the 40-mm cannon. Therefore, already in December 1941, on the basis of the order of the State Defense Committee, the Grabin design bureau at plant No. 92 developed a project for the rearmament of the Matilda with a 76-mm ZIS-5 cannon and a DT machine gun.
However, rearmament was not required. The British allies drew the appropriate conclusions and already in the spring of 1942, the infantry fire support tank MK. II "Matilda CS", armed with a 76, 2-mm howitzer and high-explosive shells, began to arrive in our country. In reality, 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. It looks somewhat illogical, but that was the alignment.
In total, until August 1943, 2,987 Matildas were produced in Great Britain, of which 1,084 were sent, and 918 arrived in the USSR. The difference is in the combat score of the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine.
From the moment the first batches of "Matilda" entered the Red Army, our tankers drank grief with them. This is noted in the mass of memoirs and official reports.
"Matildas" arrived in the USSR, equipped with the so-called "summer" tracks, which did not provide the necessary traction in winter conditions. And supplies, let me remind you, began 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 "shod" our mechanics, were the "Matilda".
Further more. In severe frosts, the 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, you can clearly see a number of small "windows" located in the upper part of the bulwarks. Somewhere in the African desert, through these "windows", sand poured freely from the tracks, for which they were intended.
And here, in the realities of Russia? Moving through solid mud and swamps, mud constantly accumulated behind the bulwarks of the tank, as a result, the caterpillar often simply jammed. The engine went out and in the ensuing silence, the crew, cursing and remembering their iron English horse with unkind words, climbed to get the entrenching tool and towing cables.
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, it seems that we got a kind of capricious and even hothouse lady, which is unrealistic to use in our conditions.
Yes, in Soviet times, everything was presented. Say, the allies supplied selected muck. However, the British have nothing to do with it, they supplied us with the equipment that we ourselves ordered. But how it happened that a tank intended for warfare in the African deserts got to fight on the Russian off-road, in 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, the "Matildas" ended up in our army and nothing could be done about it, except for their use.
And complaints about the "flimsy" of British tanks, shall we say, are not entirely fair. Tank crews were trained in Kazan. The materiel was studied in Gorky, where the tanks were tested. Fifteen days, which were given to the crews to master not the simplest imported equipment, was clearly not enough. So, quite a few British tanks were out of order and due to the fault of the crews themselves, both due to the complexity of equipment and the time pressure of wartime, and due to the low level of training of the crews.
The general conclusion on the British infantry tank was as follows:
“The MK-IIa tank has, in comparison with the medium tanks of the USSR, the USA and Germany, 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.
The armament of the MK-IIa tank (40-mm tank gun) provides the ability to defeat most enemy tanks - T-I, T-II tanks in any part of the hull and turret; T-3, T-4 and Prague-38-T - except for the 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) the unsatisfactory dynamics of the tank, due to the low power density. 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), as low speeds and low fuel range make it difficult to use in isolation from bases and other types of weapons."
It was customary for us to write about the chassis of British tanks exclusively in negative tones. But the tests of the specialists of the test site of armored vehicles in Kubinka showed that Matilda had clearly positive aspects.
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. In addition, the screens protected the chassis from being hit by shells.
In general, the Matilda's chassis was not considered bad, but rather specific.
The average speed on a bumpy and snow-covered road was 14.5 km / h, while the tank consumed 169 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers. On the off-road, the speed dropped sharply - up to 7, 7 km / h. Fuel consumption also increased significantly, amounting to 396 liters per 100 kilometers. In such conditions, the tank had enough fuel for only 55 kilometers.
It is not surprising that in our reality the additional fuel tank on the tank hull has become standard.
The tank showed very good cross-country ability in the snow. The maximum depth of snow cover for it was 600 mm; not every medium tank could overcome such drifts. Problems arose when climbing on snowy areas: due to poor traction with the ground, the tank could not overcome the 12-degree slope.
However, if we close our eyes to the innate problems with cross-country ability, then, according to reports and reports, "Matilda" was quite a tank.
“Tanks MK-II showed themselves from the positive side in the battles. Each crew spent up to 200-250 rounds and 1-1, 5 rounds of ammunition per day of the battle. Each tank worked 550-600 hours instead of 220 hours.
The armor of the tanks showed exceptional durability. Individual vehicles had 17-19 hits with a 50 mm shell and not a single case of penetrating the frontal armor. On all tanks there are cases of jamming of towers, masks and the incapacitation of guns and machine guns."
In the battles in the winter of 1942, "Matilda" showed themselves on the positive side. Thick armor, comparable to that of the KV-1, partly compensated for the far from the best organization of combat interaction. The German 50mm Pak 38 anti-tank guns were far from always able to chalk up the Matilda, despite its awkwardness and slowness.
In the spring of 1942, Matildas were actively used in battles in the Western, Kalinin and Bryansk fronts, where they were mainly positional battles, and because of its powerful armor protection, the tank turned out to be quite convenient just for use in such battles.
In the spring of 1943, the Soviet Union refused to import Matilda tanks - by this time it became clear that they no longer met modern requirements. In the British army, by the beginning of 1943, not a single Matilda remained in combat units either. Nevertheless, these tanks were actively used in the battles of 1943, and in the main strategic directions.
But by the summer of 1944, only a few copies of the Matilda remained in the tank units of the Red Army, and by autumn they could only be found in training units.
TTX tank "Matilda"
Combat weight, t: 26, 95
Crew, people: 4
The number of issued, pcs: 2987
Dimensions (edit)
Body length, mm: 5715
Width, mm: 2515
Height, mm: 2565
Clearance, mm: 400
Reservation
Body forehead (top), mm / city: 75/0
Body forehead (middle), mm / city: 47/65 °
Body forehead (bottom), mm / city: 78/0
Body board, mm / city: 70/0
Body feed (top), mm / city: 55/0
Bottom, mm: 20
Body roof, mm: 20
Tower, mm / city: 75/0
Armament
Cannon: 1 х 40-mm QF, 67-92 rounds ammunition load
Machine gun: 1 × 7, 7-mm "Vickers", 3000 rounds of ammunition
Engine: 2 in-line 6-cylinder liquid-cooled diesel engines, 87 hp with. each.
Speed on the highway, km / h: 24
Speed over rough terrain, km / h: 15
Cruising on the highway, km: 257
Cruising cross-country, km: 129
On the whole, the Matilda turned out to be simply too specific a tank, completely not intended for such a theater of military operations as the Soviet-German front. To say that it was a bad tank, even through the prism of the subsequent political relations, is still not entirely correct.
The tank was peculiar, and everything that it could give was taken from it in 1941-43.
