In early 1941, in connection with the defeat of the British troops in the battles with Germany, the British Tank Committee was reorganized. He was equated with the War Department and given the authority to control all activities related to the development of tanks and their use in battle. This was vital, because in its current form British armored forces could not ensure the proper performance of the combat missions that modern warfare set before them.

Based on the experience of the fighting of 1941-1942, the British were finally convinced that the light tanks that were in service with the army of the United Kingdom were powerless against almost all enemy vehicles, with the exception of very low-powered ones like the Pz I. Therefore, they were assigned exclusively reconnaissance functions , and even then, little by little, light tanks in reconnaissance units were replaced by armored vehicles more suitable for these purposes.

Infantry tanks have proven themselves in Europe more or less well. An example is the battle at Arras on May 21, 1940. Matilda I and Matilda II tanks of the 4th Royal Tank Regiment attacked two infantry regiments of the 7th Wehrmacht Panzer Division and the SS Totenkopf Regiment. The British literally smashed the infantry and anti-tank guns to smithereens, which is not surprising. The thickness of the Matild's armor varied, depending on the modification, from 60 to 78 mm, and German 37 mm anti-tank shells could only leave dents on them. The SS men generally "retreated with signs of panic", that is, to put it simply, fled. Only when the Germans recovered a little from the shock, 88-mm anti-aircraft guns were brought up to the battlefield, and the British were stopped. So in regards to infantry tanks work should have been carried out only in the direction of improving armor protection and increasing the power of weapons.

The cruiser tanks had the most work to do. On the one hand, those machines that were already in service with the British army had a huge number of design flaws and therefore did not differ in either good combat qualities or an acceptable level of reliability. On the other hand, the troops needed a full-fledged universal tank capable of not only accompanying infantry, but also solving independent combat missions. And here the prospects of cruiser tanks were quite obvious. It was only necessary to figure out how to make sure that the engines did not break down after several hours of operation, the elements of the ventilation system and chassis did not fail. Looking ahead somewhat, we will inform you that the British managed to more or less cope with the above shortcomings only by 1944.

And just like for infantry tanks, the issue of increasing the power of weapons was acute for cruiser tanks. The main gun for British tanks of the time was the 2-pounder (40 mm). It was not effective enough to fight against tanks. And against infantry, it was almost useless at all, since the ammunition load of this gun either did not provide for the presence of high-explosive fragmentation shells at all, or they were of such poor quality that the tankers themselves replaced them with armor-piercing ones.

The need to install 57 mm (6 lb) guns on the tanks was obvious. And the British, in principle, had such guns. In any case, a 6-pounder was installed on the Valentine VIII tank (1943). But still, for a long time, most of the British tanks were armed with a 57-mm gun, which was already better than the 2-pounder, but still had insufficient power. The 75-mm gun became the standard armament of British tanks only from 1944.

I must say that the British, despite their active participation in the war and understanding the importance of armored vehicles, managed to produce not the most successful vehicles over and over again. For example, Covenanter. This cruiser tank with a Christie-type undercarriage was unreliable, armed with a 2-pounder gun, and by the time its shortcomings were eliminated, it was already obsolete. His "heir" Crusader also, although it was initially considered very convenient to drive and comfortable, did not deserve Great love tankers. The reasons were all the same: low reliability of mechanisms, weak gun and thin armor.

The Churchill infantry tank, which will be the subject of a separate article, has replaced the Matilda. For its time, it was a rather strange car. In fact, the tank rather met the requirements of the First World War. It was slow, like all infantry tanks, and also had at first a very dubious layout of weapons. In the tower of the first modification, 2- pounder gun, and in the frontal hull sheet - a 76-mm howitzer. Quickly coming to the conclusion that this was not the best option, the British subsequently carried out a number of Churchill upgrades. The howitzer was removed, the turret gun was first replaced with a 57 mm, and then with a 75 mm. There were also so-called fire support tanks, armed with a 95-mm howitzer. One of the main problems of the Churchill, which prevented its normal rearmament, was a rather narrow hull that did not allow the turret to be expanded. That is, whatever one may say, the volume of the tower was not enough to install larger-caliber guns.

An attempt to solve this problem was made through the development of the infantry tank "Super Churchill", aka Black Prince. In the design of this tank, many components and assemblies from Churchill were used, and the tank itself turned out to be very similar to its predecessor. But he had a wider body. This made it possible to equip the tank with a larger turret and a 17-pounder gun. But for May 1945, when six experimental Black Prince tanks entered the troops for combat trials, the design and specifications the machines were already obsolete. The tank did not have time to take part in the battle, and soon work on it was stopped.

In a sense, the Cromwell tank, developed by the British in 1941-1943, can be considered a breakthrough. It was armed with a 57 or 75 mm caliber gun and, thanks to the installation of the Meteor aircraft engine, became the fastest British tank of that time. The Cromwell was a good tank, but in 1943 the Germans already had Tigers and Panthers. Against them, the 75-mm gun was not enough, and it was difficult to install a more powerful one on the Cromwell due to the small size of the turret ring and turret.

A more powerful gun was installed on the Cromwell's successor, the Comet cruising tank. Thanks to a wider turret with a developed aft niche, it was possible to install a 77-mm cannon with initial speed projectile 787 m / s. Considered to be the most powerful British cruiser tank in World War II. In fact, he was still inferior to the "Panther", but clearly surpassed the most massive German tank Pz IV.

The cruiser tank, which was called the "English Panther", entered service after the end of World War II. It was the Centurion. It had a welded hull with rational armor slopes, was armed with a 17- or 20-pound gun and was in service with the British army until the 70s. Later versions of the machine (from about the mid-50s) were armed with a 105 mm L7 rifled gun. On the basis of the "Centurion" was developed experienced tank FV4202, which, due to the reduction in the linear dimensions of the hull, gained in mass and, as a result, in dynamics, and was also armed with a 105-mm gun. An interesting feature this tank had a "recumbent" location of the driver. The FV4202 did not go into the series, since by that time the concept of single battle tanks was already in full swing. And since 1945, the British themselves have abandoned the division of tanks into cruising and infantry.

The last British heavy tanks were the Caernarvon and the Conqueror. They were designed as heavily armed vehicles and were supposed to specialize in fighting enemy tanks. But it was precisely the narrowness of their specialization and a large number of shortcomings that led to the fact that only about 180 tanks of both modifications were produced in total.

Caernarvon and Conqueror were designed to deal with enemy tanks at long distances. In addition to them, another rather curious heavy-gun vehicle, the FV215b, was being developed on the basis of the Conqueror. Initially, they were going to put an 183-mm gun with a drum-type automatic loader on the chassis of the Conqueror tank. The gun was installed without the possibility of rotation and had no protection - no turret, no conning tower. Of course, this made the tank too vulnerable on the battlefield. A close break was enough high-explosive projectile to disable the gun and kill the crew. At first this problem decided by building a rectangular cabin around the gun. And later they came up with a tower, which had to be installed in the rear of the hull. Work was also carried out to install guns of other calibers - 120 and 130 mm. The tank did not go into the series.

Summing up, let's say that the British, although they were the first to bring tanks to the battlefield, subsequently could not hold on to leading positions. Perhaps the fact that the United Kingdom was an island state for which ground troops were not as important as a powerful fleet and aviation. And when it came to the need to conduct large-scale fighting on land, the British were never able to "catch up" with Germany and the USSR, in whose armies tanks served as the main striking force.

Nevertheless, British tanks were quite interesting vehicles, they took an active part in the Second World War, and their appearance in game world of Tanks naturally.

Also in the "Media" section of our portal you can watch a video dedicated to British tanks.

Tanks of England

The development of British armored vehicles in the prewar years was affected by the struggle of opinions regarding the nature of the future war. Supporters of the creation of mechanized armies, who believed that the Second World War with their participation should end quickly, with a single strategic strike that would decide the outcome of the battles and force the enemy to surrender within a few days and even hours, insisted on the creation of "cruising" tanks - lightly armored, with increased speeds and with guns of 40 mm caliber. To test their views on a future war, they achieved the creation in the British armed forces in 1927 of the first experimental mechanized unit.

There was also a group of influential military men who relied on the headquarters ground forces England, who believed that the main destiny of tanks was the direct support of the advancing infantry. For this, low-speed, heavily armored tanks with 40-75 mm caliber guns - the so-called "infantry" tanks - serve. As a compromise, it was decided to have both cruising and infantry tanks in service. Infantry tanks included tanks like "Matilda", "Valentine" and "Churchill", cruising - "Crusider", "Cromwell", "Comet". Thus, the inseparable combat qualities of the tank - armor protection and mobility were artificially divided between the two types of vehicles. The fallacy of this concept was revealed in the course of hostilities quite quickly, but during the war the British designers failed to create a single tank capable of performing the tasks of direct infantry support and operating as part of armored formations. That's why best tank The American M4 Sherman became the British army.

Created in England before the war, light tanks quickly disappeared from the battlefield, as their armor and weapons were unsatisfactory. Therefore, the American light tanks M3 and M5 were widely used in the British army. In 1943, the production of its own light tank "Tetrarch" was started, but its combat characteristics were below specifications. German tanks. Self-propelled artillery, as in the US Army, was divided into field, anti-tank and anti-aircraft. However, the quantity self-propelled units, issued by the industry of England, was small and amounted to approximately 800 cars.

The characteristic features of British armored vehicles were:

• large overall dimensions and weight, low firepower and mobility of tanks;
• creation of field, anti-tank and anti-aircraft self-propelled installations based on tanks and vehicles;
• widespread use of the chassis of obsolete light tanks to create armored personnel carriers;
• the creation and widespread use of armored vehicles;
• the use of outdated design solutions and technological methods: the vertical arrangement of armor plates, the frame structure of tanks, the connection of armor plates with bolts and rivets, the use of mainly carburetor engines, etc.

In total, during the Second World War, 25116 tanks were produced in England, another 23246 tanks and self-propelled guns came from the USA and Canada. The formation of armored formations in England was rather slow. By the end of the second year of the war, five armored divisions and five independent brigades had been formed.
The armored division consisted of two armored brigades, each of which had three tank regiments, as well as two motorcycle-rifle battalions, an artillery and a mixed anti-aircraft and anti-tank regiment. The division had about 300 tanks, but there was practically no motorized infantry. In addition, the structure of the division turned out to be cumbersome and did not allow for the operational management of units during the battle. Therefore, at the end of 1942, the divisions were reorganized. Of these, one armored brigade was excluded, but a brigade of motorized infantry was introduced, there were two artillery regiments, a regiment was introduced anti-tank artillery. The division of the 1942 model consisted of 18 thousand people. personnel, 344 tanks and over 150 guns.

Separate armored brigades consisting of three regiments were formed for joint operations with infantry divisions. Each brigade had 260 tanks. In total, during the Second World War, 11 armored divisions and 30 armored brigades were formed in Great Britain. Tank corps and armies were not created, however, at different stages of the war, army corps participated, which included 2-3 armored divisions each.

As you know, the British began building tanks during the First World War. By the end of it, they had numerous and institutionalized tank troops - Royal Armored Corps (RAC) - Royal Tank Corps.

In the next 20 years, British tank building was almost at the "freezing point", There were several reasons for this. First of all, there has been a long discussion in the UK about the role and place of tanks in modern warfare. The uncertainty on this issue among the military hampered the development of appropriate tactical and technical requirements and the issuance of orders to industry. The geographical feature of the state also played its role - the British were not going to attack anyone, but they had a real enemy in Europe for a long time did not have.

This situation led to the fact that during this period of time the British industry produced only a few hundred tanks, the design of which can hardly be called innovative. The most interesting ideas of their creators were either embodied in experienced and experimental samples, which remained unclaimed, or simply did not find application in their homeland.

The end of the disputes in the USSR and Germany about the role of tanks and the ensuing mass deployment of tank forces in these countries forced the British military to come out of hibernation. Starting around 1934, the development of armored vehicles in the UK intensified dramatically.

By this time, the views of the military leadership on the tactical use of tanks were also largely determined. In accordance with them in England, tanks were divided into three classes: light, infantry and cruising. Moreover, the concept of cruising tanks was formed later than others. At first, their functions were to be performed by the lungs. combat vehicles- fast and agile. The main task of the infantry tanks was the direct support of the infantry on the battlefield. These vehicles had limited speed and powerful armor. Sometimes it reached the point of absurdity: the gearbox of the Matilda infantry tank, for example, had only one speed - it was believed that this was enough.

In 1936, the British considered it sufficient to arm tanks only with machine guns. Common sense, however, soon prevailed, and first on cruising, and then on infantry vehicles, a 2-pounder gun appeared. Its capabilities, however, were very limited - there were no high-explosive fragmentation shells in the ammunition load.

The symbol of British tank building in the years between the two world wars was the heavy five-turreted tank A1 Independent. This machine became the object of close attention of specialists from many countries and, no doubt, served as a prototype for the creation of the Soviet heavy tank T-35 and the German Nb.Fz

The Dunkirk disaster forced the British to reconsider their views somewhat. Light tanks were now assigned only reconnaissance functions, and even then they were gradually transferred to armored vehicles during the war. The role of infantry tanks, the only ones that proved themselves well in battles on the continent, remained practically unchanged, and efforts to improve them were reduced to increasing the power of weapons and armor protection.

At the same time, the unfolding hostilities in North Africa revealed the huge need of the army for a reliable and full-fledged tank for independent armored formations. HVi, one of the cruiser tanks then in service with the British Army, did not fully meet these requirements. One can only be surprised that a country that built excellent ships, aircraft and cars could not achieve the necessary operational reliability of tank engines and chassis components for several years. The British were able to resolve these issues only by 1944. By this time, the importance of infantry tanks and their share in tank units had significantly decreased. The cruising tank, on the other hand, was increasingly acquiring the features of a universal one. Shortly after the end of World War II, the British abandoned the division of tanks into classes according to their purpose.

Leading developer and manufacturer of armored vehicles in the UK in 1930 - 1940. was Vickers-Armstrong Ltd. With her participation, almost half of all British tanks that participated in the Second World War were created. In the photo - one of the variants of the Mk IV light tank in the factory yard

Assembly of cruiser tanks Mk II in the workshop of the BRCW plant, 1940. In the foreground - stands for the assembly of towers

For the 1940s, the design and assembly technology of British tanks cannot be considered progressive. Hulls and turrets (if the latter were not cast in one piece) were assembled using bolts on frames or using a frameless method ("Valentine"). Welding was used extremely limited. Armor plates, as a rule, were located vertically, without any angles of inclination. British tanks, especially in the second half of the war, could not compete with German tanks either in terms of armor protection or firepower.

Lagged behind the real needs and the pace of tank production on the eve and during the Second World War. For example, by December 1938, the industry was supposed to supply the army with more than 600 cruising and about 370 infantry tanks. However, only 30 of the first were produced, and 60 of the second. A year later, only 314 tanks of all types entered the army. As a result, Britain entered the war with just over 600 tanks, of which more than half were light. In total, during the war years, the British produced 25,116 tanks, about 4,000 self-propelled guns and SPAAGs. Moreover, a significant part of the latter was manufactured using the chassis of obsolete and decommissioned vehicles. Speaking about the production of tanks in the United Kingdom, it should be borne in mind that a significant part of the combat vehicles produced during the war period never made it to the front and was used for training purposes.

Production of the hull of the cruiser tank Mk V "Covenanter" in the workshop of the LMS plant. 1941

A prototype tank A43 Black Prince ("Black Prince"), 1945 This vehicle, developed on the basis of the infantry tank "Churchill" and armed with a 17-pounder gun, is an attempt to create a full-fledged English heavy tank

English tanks during the Second World War they could not boast of serious tactical and technical characteristics. Most British combat vehicles in many ways were inferior to American, German and Soviet models in one way or another. British tanks were divided into infantry and cruising. The functions of the first included, as the name already implies, direct support of the infantry in the offensive, suppression of firing points, jointly with the infantry deterring enemy counterattacks. These tanks were distinguished by serious armor for the start of the war and extremely low speed, which, however, was explained by the fact that they had to conduct an offensive in the ranks of the infantry and simultaneously with it. Cruiser tanks, on the contrary, had good dynamics, speed and mobility, but their armor was rather weak. These tanks could enter the gap and develop an offensive behind enemy lines, threatening his communications, suddenly attack enemy units on the march, surround large enemy groupings with the support of aviation, artillery and infantry. It was cruiser tanks that had much more potential, but the British often used these tanks as well as infantry ones - only to support the attacking units, scattering tanks along the front, while Germany clearly demonstrated what large, assembled into several powerful fists, mobile and mobile tank formations.

Defeats in Europe and the disaster at Dunkirk

Before the start of the German offensive in the West, the British had 12 divisions in France and over 500 tanks, 9 of these 15 divisions were located in Belgium as part of the combined Anglo-French Northeast Front, which was supposed to cover this direction from a possible German attack. The British Expeditionary Force in France was armed with Matilda (Mark II), Сruiser (Mark IIA) and Cruiser (Mark IIIA) tanks, armed with 40mm guns, more than half of which for 1940 had excellent armor and were hardly hit by German tank guns. In addition, do not forget that many German tanks in the French campaign were still armed only with a machine gun (Pz.I and Pz.II).
The French also had an impressive tank fleet (more than 3000 vehicles) - among which were the medium "Somua" and heavy tanks"B1". Their armor and armament were also not inferior to the German. The only thing in which the Anglo-French tanks lost to the German ones was in speed. As for tactics, operational leadership, training of crews and the will to win, the Germans definitely got the better of the allies in this. May 10, 1940 German troops launched a rapid offensive through Belgium. The strike of German mobile formations was directed around the French Maginot Line. The coordinated actions of German tanks, aviation, artillery and infantry led to the defeat and surrender of the Dutch army on May 14th. After that, the Germans rapidly crossed the Meuse River and their tank groups rushed to the west. On May 21, they reached the English Channel and over 50 Anglo-French divisions were surrounded in the Dunkirk area. The defeated Belgian army also surrendered on 28 May. incurring big losses and throwing all the remaining equipment to the enemy, the Anglo-French troops were evacuated to England in early June.

See also:

English tanks in Africa

Initially, in Africa, the British were opposed by parts of the Italian army, the technical equipment of which left much to be desired - all Italian combat vehicles were inferior to English models. When the first offensive of the British troops in Africa against the Italian aggressors began in December 1940, the superiority of the British in technology made itself felt - the Italians retreated until the German command, which decided to help its ally, transferred a corps under the command of General Rommel. The counterattack of this corps, which has initial stage there were only 120 tanks, drove the British back to the Egyptian border and surrounded their base in Tobruk.
In November 1941, the British launched a retaliatory offensive, the purpose of which was nothing less than the defeat of Rommel's entire tank group and a decisive turning point in the African campaign. Having halved more tanks than the enemy, the British failed to carry out their grandiose plan. Rommel maneuvered the tank formations, regrouped scattered units and threw them into battle again, preventing the British from gaining a decisive advantage. Nevertheless, the Italo-German troops had to retreat further and further. In May 1942, Rommel decided to launch a powerful counterattack with all available forces, despite the lack of fuel and ammunition. The British command had about 900 tanks, which meant almost three times the superiority over the advancing troops of Rommel. Nevertheless, Germany was initially successful. Only at El Alamein was the German advance decisively halted. German losses were huge, Rommel had only about 50 tanks left, but despite the critical supply situation, the Germans resisted for a long time. The British force in Africa was constantly growing, while the German reserves were drying up, there were no reinforcements, and the supply was terrible. By the end of the African campaign, which ended with the surrender of the Italo-German troops in May 1943, the number of British tanks had already exceeded one thousand, while Germany, shackled by the war against the USSR, could not help the African Corps in any way.

Tank production in England during the war

The pace of tank production in the prewar years in England was very low. In many sources, this is sometimes explained by the fact that there were many opponents of the development of tank forces in the British War Office. Some officials considered the development of tanks a waste of the budget. In the end, nevertheless, the British came to the conclusion that it was necessary to produce tanks of two different options - infantry and cruising. By 1938, British industry, according to the plan, was to produce over 600 cruising and about 370 infantry tanks. However, it was actually possible to produce thirty cruising
and sixty infantry tanks, which was simply incredibly small, given the approaching war. A year later, the British replenished their tank fleet with just over 300 combat vehicles. different types. And yet it was catastrophically small. Britain met the war without even a thousand tanks. In addition, most of the available tanks were light. For almost the entire war, the British made tanks rather unsuccessful, both in terms of design and reliability. At the final stage of the war, the main enemy of the countries of the Anti-Hitler coalition, Germany, already had such a serious superiority in tanks over Britain that it is not possible to name an English tank that could be compared in combat value with the German "Tigers" or "Panthers". During the war years, British industry produced 24 thousand tanks, about 4 thousand self-propelled guns. In the production of self-propelled guns and self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, the chassis of obsolete tanks were often used. Many British tanks produced in 1939-1945 never made it to the front and only served in the rear as training vehicles for training crews and practicing tank operation skills. The term "tank", a synonym for combat vehicle, strictly speaking, cannot be applied to British car Mark IX, which was actually an armored personnel carrier. Due to its high carrying capacity, the Mark IX became the prototype of modern vehicles for transporting military personnel. The first use of tanks during the First World War revealed the shortcomings of other branches of the armed forces, especially the infantry, which could hardly keep up with the tanks. It wasn't a consequence high speed vehicles moving no faster than a pedestrian. Foot soldiers could not continue to move, because they fell under the concentrated fire of the enemy. As a result, tanks rarely contributed to the actual advance of troops and often found themselves isolated. Thus, there was an urgent need to make the infantry more mobile and protected. The infantry needed to get as close as possible to the enemy, while avoiding a large number of casualties from his artillery shells. In addition, soldiers who did not need to spend strength moving across rough terrain should be more combat-ready in order to beat the enemy with their own weapons. It was from these premises that the idea of ​​an armored personnel carrier was born. During World War II, the Germans developed a large number of variants of armored personnel carriers that performed their task admirably. However, two decades earlier, the British had developed the Mark IX, becoming the fathers of the armored personnel carrier idea.

Initially, the British military wanted to get their hands on armored vehicles to transport soldiers. But very quickly the realization of this idea turned out to be impossible. The tightness of the Mark I tank, and especially the release of carbon dioxide and cordite fumes, threatened the lives of the soldiers on board. Often crew members became victims of intoxication and were carried out of the cars in an unconscious state. Each new soldier who got into the tank only worsened the situation. Although the infantrymen could approach the enemy unharmed, when leaving the tank they were completely incapable of combat for several minutes. The Mark V Star tank, which entered service in 1918, is a Mark V tank stretched to carry personnel. In 1917, Lieutenant G. R. Rackham was appointed as the developer of an armored vehicle for transporting infantrymen. But the British military did not have enough experience to determine technical requirements to a similar machine and, as a result, it was decided to develop a machine equipped with a gun.

Thus, in the event that the Mark VIII tank, which was still under development, would not have fulfilled its task, the Mark IX could be turned into an armored personnel carrier, which became the first "tank" (from the English "tank" - "reservoir"). The military ultimately decided to abandon the "understudy" tank, which was both a tank and a transporter, and the development of the tank began.

Mark IX. The caterpillars were kept on an elongated, reinforced chassis and an elongated body of the Mark V tank, thanks to the use of fans, the ventilation system was improved ... Everything superfluous was removed inside, which made it possible to make room for a maximum of 30 people. The Mark IX was equipped with two machine guns and eight vision slits that gave men the opportunity to fire. The engine was moved forward, the gearbox was left behind, the space reserved for the soldiers was crossed by a long transmission shaft with a scale. The thickness of the armor did not exceed 10 mm, in the stowed position the weight reached 27 tons. The crew consisted of four people: commander, driver and two machine gunners. Due to the shape of the tracks and the external resemblance, the car was nicknamed "The Pig" (The Pig).

The prototype was approved by the General Staff, which handed over an order to representatives of the military industry for the manufacture of 200 copies of the armored personnel carrier. By the time the peace was signed on November 11, 1918, only 35 machines had been assembled. After the war, one of them began to be used by the medical service, and the second turned into an amphibious tank.

TANK VICKERS MARK E

This light tank, also known as the "Vickers-six-ton", is an exceptional case in the history of tanks, since it was the development of a private company. Between 1920 and 1933, the best strategists of the most powerful powers thought carefully about the lessons of the First World War. Appearance on the battlefield armored tanks completely overturned the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe usual battle tactics used before. In addition, countries that did not develop this type of weapon between the wars risked losing very soon. The conclusions from the lessons learned from the First World War were obvious: countries capable of creating worthy armored troops, had to invest in research and development, as well as in the creation of a system for the production of armored vehicles. But in 1920, the production of tanks was very expensive. People survived a four-year bloody war, a period of disarmament began, the state of public finances in different countries was depressing. Military budgets were insignificant, and the need for weapons immediately fell into the zone special attention in case of mass production order. The defense industry was looking for ways to develop inexpensive but reliable weapons and equipment without attracting attention. The British company Vickers-Armstrong took a big risk when, on its own initiative, it decided to design a new tank without any ministerial support and without an advance payment for development costs. The famous engineers and tank designers John Valentine Cardin and Vivian Lloyd took up the development of the "six-ton ​​tank". An experimental model appeared in 1928 and received the name "Mark E". The car seemed impressive: the thickness of the frontal armor was 25 mm, and on the tower, in the rear and on the sides - 19 mm; gasoline engine power 98 l. With.; excellent tracks, on which the tank could travel up to 5000 km. Two versions of the Vickers Mark E tanks were produced: model "A" with two turrets, each of which was equipped with a Vickers machine gun, and model "B" with one double turret equipped with a 47-mm cannon and one machine gun. But after various stages of testing, in the end, the British army abandoned the tank due to the insufficient reliability of the suspension. Although the hopes of the Vickers company did not materialize, she did not leave her project and tried her luck on the international market. This decision paid off. In the late 1920s, the Vickers tank became the main weapon of many tank armies in Europe and around the world. These tanks were in service with the armies of Bolivia, Bulgaria, China, Greece, Finland, Portugal and Thailand. In addition, the light tank was quickly copied by foreign engineers. The characteristics of the tank made such a deep impression on the Soviet military that they bought a license from the Vickers company to produce their own version - the T-26 tank, which was slightly different in armament and armor. In the period from 1931 to 1941, from the conveyors of Soviet factories at least 12 T-26 LLC of all modifications left.