Russian tank production in WW2

I am a writer and I need some advice.
In 1942 the UK was shipping tanks to the Russians at great cost to the North African campaign. At the same time the Russians were relocating their tank factories behind the Urals. In the winter of 1942/3 they built 15000 T34 tanks with which they defeated Hilter's armour at Kursk in the spring of '43.
My questions are:-
What tanks was the UK shipping?
How did these tanks compare with the T34?
Is the figure of 15000 anywhere near correct?
Where behind the Urals were they built?
Am I right in believing that the labour force was predominantly female?
Most grateful for any guidance.

 

Well, the brits shipped anything they could find. There were churchills , shermans , mark 1 through 4's , cromwells , matildas, valentines. just about everything. They used the mark series in less active theatres like eastern russia and Iran. After 1943, T-34 tank production was about 1000 a month. By wars end 55% of all russian tanks were T-34's.

The only allied tank that could really match the T-34 was the Sherman.They were both around 30 tons , they were both mobile, had good range , could handle the panzer mark 3 and 4's, was easy to repair and prouduce and both formed the backbone of eachother's armoured forces.

As for the factories, you would have to set them up on level ground, so probably on flat ground as close to the mountain as possible. They were probably set behind each front; central,leningrad , then moscow, and then the southern volga area.

Since most able bodied men were at the front , the factories were predominetaly female, children, old men, and wounded partisans and soldiers who could no longer fight in battle

I hope some of this can be helpful.

 

This link might be helpful to you...
http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weap ... neral1.htm

It lists most (if not all) American and Commonwealth supplied AFV's to the USSR, as well as which year they were dispatched...

Of all the lend-lease tanks recieved, it seems the Russians really liked the Churchill most of all... They liked the thick armor, and were only dissatisfied with its weak 40mm gun, which they replaced on some models with a 76.2mm gun... But it was still much better protected than the T-34, though much slower...

The least popular lend lease tank among the Russians was probably the M3 General Lee, nicknamed the "Coffin for Seven Brothers"... The Shermans were not very popular either among Russian crews, largely because it was so tall and the early lend lease models were less armored than their T-34's. The Russians tended to prefer tanks with low silhouettes

 

Hmm, maybe a bit of confusion here*...

The Russians certainly liked the Churchill's armour, and certainly thought the gun was too weak, but surely it was the Matilda II (also liked for its thick armour) that had the hated 40mm gun.

I was not aware that any 2pdr-armed Churchills went to Russia (though I'm sure you can correct me!)


Soviet views on the Sherman seem to vary widely. Some reports say "We loved them! Compared to the T-34 they were superior in every way except it was a bit too tall". Some reports say "We hated the Capitalist hunks of crap! too big, too weak, crappy gun"


* Possibly on my part!

 

Most if not all tank factories were moved to the Central Ural city of Chelyabinsk, henceforth known as Tankograd.

Ricky: I think the difference is mostly that the complaining party writes of the early Sherman, which was broadly inferior to the T34, whereas the praising party writes of the late Sherman, which was superior to it. The upgrade makes all the difference in firepower and crew protection.

 

Tanks to Russia.

Hi, this is writer again. My thanks to all for wonderful response. May I try the next question on you? I have now found that at the battle of Kursk in summer '43, arguably Europe's Midway, the Soviets fielded thirteen thousand tanks. This being the case, did the lease lend tanks and the British and Canadian ones sent represent a useful contribution or would they have been better employed in the Western Desert? I will agree at once with anyone who tells me that hindsight is a fine thing, but being one the the diminishing band of folk who as children listened to Hitler's bombs falling on them, I have a powerful belief that wars are better understood in retrospect than fought in prospect!
Happy Christmas to you all!!

 

Really ? I was wrong then.

 

Re: Tanks to Russia.

i do not agree with the comparison kursk-midway, i preffer stalingrad rather than kursk,
and about the total armor by the soviets, 13000, i have my doubts, or are you including AG, AT, light tanks?

 

Tanks at Kursk

Hello,
Writer again. Sorry, my mistake. Looking again at my 13000 source I see that it refers to "Tanks and mobile artillery units" and implies that this is a battlefield total, ie both sides. Another source, the MacMillan Dictionary of the Second World War, gives the German tank force as 2700. Looking at the shipping figures one of you guided me to it would seem that very significant numbers of US, Canadian and British tanks could have been delivered by summer 1943, possibly well over 2000, so is it possible that our input saved the day? I hope so because it nearly cost us North Africa.
Major General, I agree about Stalingrad, you're right. It's just that I always equate that to Borodino!

 

Re: Tanks at Kursk

Only a small number of Lend Lease tanks took part during Operation Citadel so they didn,t save the day but other Lend Lease vehicles did helped.Also if I am not wrong in a way those Lend Lease tanks helped in idirect way becouse they were sent to other places from where aditional sovier armor was puled away.Only Churchill Mk III,Valentine and M3 Lee' tanks took part at Kursk battle.

 

Roel, I broadly disagree. The early Shermans were overall as good as the T34, not broadly inferior. There's really little to choose from between the Shermans at El Alamein (it's first combat) and the T34s at Stalingrad (the same time frame). Certainly at Kharkov the T34 was no more capable of dealing with German armor than the Shermans were at Kasserine Pass (to pick two contemporary defeats).

 

I am not sure about the British but Canada sent most of the Valentine tanks (3-4 thousand) produced during the war to the Soviet Union.

Not to mention the Soviets didn't like the American that much hense they would still probably say it was inferior to the home made T-34.

 

The T-34/76 had much better crew protection than the early Sherman both through armour thickness (sides and rear) and through slope (all sides). I agree though that in most other terms they were on par with each other and equal or inferior to the best versions of the PzKpfw.IV then in service.