1942 British Tanks for Russia

May 1942. British Movietone News. Vignettes of the British Crusader, Covenanter, Matilda and Valentine tanks being readied for shipment to the north Russian port of Murmansk.

Crusader: One of the primary cruiser tanks of the United Kingdom during World War II, the Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI Crusader (A15) was perhaps the most important British tank of the North African Campaign. However, due to its reputation for unreliability and relatively thin armour, it was replaced by American tanks for the invasion of Italy. Over 5,300 were built.

Valentine: The most numerous British manufactured tank of World War II, the Tank, Infantry, Mk III, Valentine was known mainly for its low cost and high reliability.

Covenanter: The Tank, Cruiser, Mk V, Covenanter (A13 Mk III) was a British Cruiser tank of the Second World War. It was named for the Covenanters, a Scottish religious faction in the British Isles at the time of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. The Covenanter was the first cruiser tank design to be given a name.

Matilda: The Tank, Infantry, Mk II, Matilda II (A12) (sometimes referred to as Senior Matilda) was a British tank of World War II. In a somewhat unorthodox move, it shared the same name as the Tank, Infantry, Mk I (A11). The name Matilda itself comes from a cartoon duck. Matilda is also an old Teutonic female name meaning "mighty battle maid".

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Crusader
• Covenanter
• Valentine
• Matile
• British
• Tanks
• Lend
• Lease
• Murmansk

[primpal08]

Stalin signed the pact because he thought Germany would be tied up fighting France and the UK for years while he had his way with Eastern Europe. He thought that after a few years of fighting, both sides would be so weakened that he would then be able to push his own forces westward with little resistance. Even after France fell Stalin still believed that Germany would be tied up invading the UK.

[Polykov1]

"Крусейдеров" в РККА небыло. Только "Матильда", "Тетрарх", "Валентайн" и "Черчиль". В ограниченных количествах (по одному- два) поставлялись "Кромвель" и "Комета".

[MyDemon73]

Британские танки мусор

[primpal08]

@Tyco200 True, most of the Soviet armour was destroyed within the first few weeks of the war. They failed to see the shortcomings in their military during the invasion of Finland years earlier. Stalin believed they could overcome any enemy with their superior numbers. After they were invaded they were forced to face reality. It was found out after the collapse of the Soviet Union that Stalin had tried to sue for peace at one point but that Hitler had refused.

[Tyco200]

@primpal08 Let's face it. Russia had nothing good for armor during the 30s. Besides the American built Christie Machine, with a simple modified turret (made to carry the BT-7's *Russian designation for the Christie Machine under license* amazing 47mm gun), and the British 6-Ton medium tank, with its own 47mm gun, they had absolutely nothing for their own. T-28 had major mechanical problems, horrible crew spaces, a stubbed 75mm gun, and its ammunition exposed. T-35 was an absolute disaster.

[eagleclawproduction1]

@1Dougy85 valid point, also only 20 italian units were fully manned and armed, and Antonio beach was a strategic move to help end the slaughter and stalemate of the gustav line ( monte cassino ) and they had 73 italian units at the begin, but it was probably more like 20 or less left do to the fact that 1. mst didn't even support the war, and 2. they are really bad at fighting, so lets call it 10 before the armistice, maybe 5 or 6 after ( or less )

[1Dougy85]

@eagleclawproduction1 I think the Germans forgot the Italian units also. You think they had 73 Italian units backing them up? Not in Italy. Italy signed the armistice the same day the allies started to land in Italy and were disarmed. The Italian army even provided truck transport to some allies complete with drivers. There were some Italian soldiers that volunteered to fight for the Germans but numbered only a few battalions. Also Anzio beachhead lowered the German concentration at Gustav line.

[eagleclawproduction1]

@1Dougy85 lets fact this in then, italy - 1 division for every 4.3 miles or so, russia - one division every 4.45 miles. well I guess the concentration wasn't all that much higher, so the germans where very equal with their distribution of troops, wait I forgot the italian units, I think they had 73 italian units backing them up, probably decreased to about 70 or maybe mid 60's, so lets say there was a total of 80-96 divisions facing the allies on italy, thats one division every mile

[1Dougy85]

@eagleclawproduction1 Your math is good but your facts are off, 40 miles wide? At which point? The Gustav line was 90 miles coast to coast. The eastern front was 1,000 miles

[eagleclawproduction1]

@1Dougy85 23 divisions covering a peninsula less then 40 miles wide, compared to 220 covering a front around 2,000 miles long, divide it up and you have a german division for about every 2 miles for italy and a german division every 9 miles for Russia - much heavier concentration

[1Dougy85]

@eagleclawproduction1 I agree with everything you say except the much heavier concentration of Germans in Italy. With German allies on the eastern front the axis concentration was the same as Italy. The point I was trying to make was the scale of war for the western allies was much smaller than on the eastern front.