Comments on: Soviet opinion on Lend-Lease US tanks

By: oldfart

oldfart — Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:14:29 +0000

Well, non-turreted SPG/TD is at least little lower.

By: EnsignExpendable

EnsignExpendable — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:49:54 +0000

The document doesn’t call the M3A1 half-tracked, it calls it half-armoured.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 03:26:01 +0000

No, they considered possible to use ALL of the tank weapons after this.

By: Sin

Sin — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:03:54 +0000

What its referring too more than likely is the Injector Nozzles. Since a diesel is much higher compression than a gas engine the fuel must be compressed and injected into the combustion chamber. The wear item in this case is the injector nozzle, as it suffers the fuel being injected through it with high pressure, and the stress of ignition. Back then fuel was basically rotgut yak butter, thus even with filters, contaminants would get into the fuel system and pass through the injectors. Today, with proper heat treating and alloys this isn’t a issue but back then it would be like someones sandblasting the injector to a bigger size, causing the engine to run poorly.

By: Harnisfechten

Harnisfechten — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:49:21 +0000

I hope they mean doing this after stripping out the 75mm……..otherwise, I can’t see how you would fit 10 infantry inside….

By: Harnisfechten

Harnisfechten — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:44:41 +0000

lol gotta love russian conclusions. “when hull down, we can’t fire the hull-mounted gun!!! TERRIBLE TANK”

strange, considering how fond they were of self-propelled guns/TD’s

By: Kazuki

Kazuki — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 05:13:48 +0000

It was also a gasoline engine, whereas most Soviet vehicles used diesel, this causes logistics headaches for no real advantage offered by the vehicle relative to its contemporaries.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 01:26:36 +0000

Post & document is in russian ofc, so someone need to translate it. My english is too bad for it.
http://litl-bro.livejournal.com/6464.html

Google-translated relevant part:

“Internal dimensions of the tank M-3 medium allow to place inside the tank, in addition to the crew, 10 people armed with PPShs. When placing and transportation of the specified number of gunmen firing from all arms of the tank is possible. As a result, we consider it possible to recommend the tank M-3 medium as a means to transport infantry “

By: imagifyer .

imagifyer . — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 23:50:02 +0000

Actually the Australian Armoured forces in the Pacific didn’t really like the M3 lee/grant (they used both) nor the M3 light and they got used very little in the pacific for the most part, because they were either A. unsuited to the conditions of jungle combat (M3 light) or B. being delivered unfit for service and requiring several months of maintenance to brought to working order for even emergency use. The favoured tank in the pacific was the Matilda mkII which proved excellent in jungle conditions and almost invulnerable to most light Japanese anti-tank weapons

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:39:51 +0000

The M4A4 engine was found to be high maintainence and offers no real advantage