Steel Soviet Union

In this world, it does not mean that whoever invented something will have a unique and absolute advantage. It is just like the ancient Chinese invented Cuju, but the football in the 21st century is played so badly that it is unbearable to watch.

This is probably the case with tanks first created and invented by the British.

When Malashenko came to the warehouse and saw 50 British tanks neatly parked in front of him, Malashenko felt almost despair.

"Damn it, just let me use the T34, I admit it! Have you now reduced yourself to the point where you have to use British people's rubbish for free?"

Just like the Spitfire fighter jets that the British aided to the Soviet Union were castrated to the point where they looked like eunuchs in a brothel, although the tanks aided to the Soviet Union were real uncastrated versions, the quality and model batches were really unbearable. .

There are two types of British tanks parked in the warehouse in front of Malashenko at this moment: Matilda II and Valentine IV infantry tanks.

Unlike Germany and the Soviet Union, the two countries with the most advanced tank technology in World War II, the British, who took the lead in inventing the "Little Wanderer" tank during World War I, had their own unique methods of how to use and define tanks. In brief, they are generally distinguished. There are two different tank categories: infantry tanks and cruise tanks.

The so-called infantry tank, as its name implies, is a type of tank that covers infantry in launching frontal assaults against enemies holding strong positions and fortifications. This type of tank generally plays a mainstay role in the British armored unit sequence. It is equipped with heavy armor with better protection performance but poor mobility.

Another major series of British tanks is called the cruise tank. As its name suggests, its role is very similar to the British Royal Navy's definition of a cruiser. Normally, cruise tanks perform tasks such as long-distance raids, flanking, and fire reconnaissance. This type of tank has good mobility, but the armor protection is so weak that even ordinary small-caliber anti-tank guns cannot It’s hard to resist.

Literally speaking, infantry tanks seem to be positioned equal to heavy tanks of Germany and the Soviet Union, while cruise tanks are close to medium tanks, but in fact the real situation is very different from this.

The Matilda II, defined as an infantry tank, has a total combat weight of only 3 tons, which is less than the 28-ton combat weight of the Soviet Union's main T34 medium tank.

The overall armor defense layout of the tank follows the previous generation design, which is mainly vertical armor. Although the vehicle is small and very crowded, which concentrates the weight of armor defense to a certain extent, the physical thickness of its front armor is mostly 75 mm, which cannot be used with It is comparable to the T34 medium tank with sloped armor.

What’s even more bizarre is that the Matilda II infantry tank uses two AEC 6-cylinder diesel engines arranged side by side. A single engine outputs 95 horsepower, and the two engines output a total of 190 horsepower in parallel. The power-to-weight ratio is only a pitiful 7, which is no match for the T34, not to mention the KV1, which can make this younger brother laugh out loud.

Another type of tank supported by the British is not much better. The performance of the Valentine IV infantry tank is equally unbearable.

The frontal protection performance of the Valentine IV infantry tank ranges from 60 to 65 mm, which is not as good as the previously mentioned Matilda II infantry tank.

The power system was replaced with a 138-horsepower diesel engine from General Dynamics of the United States. The tank has a total combat weight of 18 tons and a unit power-to-weight ratio of 6. It is slightly more powerful than my grandma's Matilda II, which was stupid enough.

What's even more damning is that both tanks are equipped with the British's ancestral QF 2-pounder gun, with a caliber of only 40 mm. It's not even as good as the 50 mm tank gun on the German Panzer III tank, and it's not even equipped with it. High explosive bombs. The armor-piercing firepower is so bad that it can't even do anti-infantry and fortification tasks well!

In addition, there is something even more speechless.

The tank armor-piercing elastics manufactured by the British are not bad in performance and quality. The later 17-pounder gun once reached the peak of British World War II tank guns. For a considerable period of time, it became the only weapon in the hands of the Western Front Allies that could effectively kill tigers and repel leopards. A powerful weapon, the APDS armor-piercing projectile that opened a new chapter in the world of tank shells was also the first to be invented by the British.

The most painful problem is that the full-caliber armor-piercing projectiles manufactured by the British are all large iron lumps without charge. The solid material of the warhead can only kill the opponent's tank by the armor fragments that collapse when it penetrates the opponent's tank armor and the armor-piercing projectile itself.

British armored troops on the Western Front battlefield often encountered some very embarrassing situations: a German tank whose armor was penetrated by a single shot seemed to be paralyzed on the spot and completely killed.

If they are lucky, the German armored soldiers will simply abandon the vehicle and run away when they encounter a loser. However, those SS armored soldiers who are desperate for their lives can often continue to shake the tank turret to seek revenge on the British. One shot went in and killed two people without igniting the gasoline and exploding the ammunition rack. Armor-piercing bullets made by the British were often so deceptive.

Malashenko, who traveled back in time from later generations, has a very clear understanding of the characteristics and shortcomings of British tanks in World War II.

To be honest, even if Malashenko used the captured German tanks, he did not want to use these crappy British tanks that were even more Japanese.

Although the caliber of the Kraut's main gun is small, the armor-piercing projectiles fired also have warhead charges. A few dozen grams of warhead charges plus projectile fragments are enough to kill the members inside the tank or seriously injure them on the spot and lose their combat effectiveness. Generally speaking, It is said that as long as the armor is penetrated, there is no possibility of cheating.

But these Japanese British tanks, after you shoot through them, you still don’t know if there is anyone alive in the German tank on the opposite side, ready to pretend to be dead and trick you. If you want to ensure that such a thing does not happen, it is best to shoot repeatedly and then make up for it. One shot.

But on a battlefield where the situation is changing rapidly, there are not many opportunities for you to replenish your guns. Even if you have the conditions to do so, it will be a huge waste of time and make the fighter plane fleeting. These shabby British tank guns are simply more bloody than the tanks themselves. exist!

His mind was filled to the brim with the terrible British tanks in front of him. He covered his forehead with his hands and felt that his head was as big as a pumpkin. He really didn’t know what to say and how to make these British tanks better. A slight increase in combat power is the biggest problem Malashenko faces now.

"Hey, damn you, how on earth are you going to serve these shabby British tanks!?"

Lavrinenko, who was standing aside, had no idea what Malashenko was struggling with at the moment. Seeing that there were so many brand-new British tanks available, Lavrinenko was much happier than Malashenko at the moment. For these British guys, Tank had no idea how much he was cheating, so he immediately spoke to Malashenko as if to cheer him up.