Why do Brits say 40% of Moscow's 1941 tanks were British, despite many breaking down?
One issue is that, aside from the low-value 'tankettes,' around 40% of the tanks defending Moscow in December 1941 were British. This came after the RKKA managed to lose about 30,000 tanks from an initial strength of 25,000 in just a Alexander Hill's 2006 article, “British 'Lend-Lease' Tanks and the Battle for Moscow, November–December 1941,” published in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies , highlights this.
Having hundreds of Matilda IIs and Valentines, which could withstand German tank and anti-tank guns while penetrating the armor of German vehicles, proved invaluable compared to having 'no tanks' at all. Despite challenges with spare parts and training for unfamiliar equipment, British tanks were generally more reliable than their Soviet troops. At the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, less than a third of the Soviet tank fleet was operational—29% needed major repairs, and 44% required complete overhauls, even before the German invasion began.
vague, the Soviets were not fond of the British-supplied tanks. A letter from Stalin to Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov in May 1942 explicitly requested more British fighters and tanks, particularly Valentines. Production of the Valentine continued until 1944, primarily to satisfy Soviet needs , with nearly all of Canada's output going to the USSR alongside approximately 2,400 British-produced Valentines.
I'm curious about which 'serious historian' asserts that British Lend-Lease armor had no impact. Could you provide a name and citation? Steven Zaloga, a respected figure in this field, states:
'The supply of Lend-Lease armored vehicles played a very useful role, particularly in 1941 and 1942 when the Soviet armored force was recovering from the disastrous defeats of the summer of 1941, the evacuation of tank factories, and the decline in Soviet tank production in the autumn and winter of 1941, along with the defeats in the Caucasus in the summer of 1942. During this period, Lend-Lease tanks were vital in preventing a stagnation or decrease in the Red Army's tank strength.'
Perhaps you should delve into some historical literature to understand what 'serious historians' truly assert.
