Author: Leander Jobse

C.P.I.M. Improvised Armored Car

Post author By Leander Jobse
Post date July 2, 2019
1 Comment on C.P.I.M. Improvised Armored Car

Kingdom of the Netherlands/Royal Dutch Shell (1929)
Armored Car – 2 Built

In 1929, Venezuelan revolutionaries performed a successful surprise attack on a Dutch fortress on Curaçao in order to capture the fortress’ arsenal. The goal was to use these weapons to overthrow Caudillo Juan Vicente Gómez in Venezuela. The Dutch governor and the military commander of the island were both taken prisoner. During the chaos, the director of the oil refinery on the island ordered the construction of two armored cars which would be used to defend the refinery against a potential attack by the revolutionaries.

One of two armored cars, note the crude fitting of the metal sheets.

Short history of Curaçao

Curaçao is a 144 km2 island which is part of the Lesser Antilles and located above the coast of Venezuela. In 1499, the island was discovered by a Spanish expedition which enslaved most of the native Caquetio people, who were later sent to the island of Hispaniola. Together with the small neighboring islands of Aruba and Bonaire, Curaçao (the ABC islands) was considered ‘useless’ by the Spanish, as there were not many natural resources, such as gold deposits. Furthermore, the soil was not suited for agricultural exploitation, but cattle thrived on the island. In 1634, only around 30 Spaniards remained on the island, when it was successfully invaded by the Dutch West-Indische Compagnie (West India Company, WIC for short).
The island was quickly fortified to defend it against a potential Spanish attack.

The Spaniards indeed tried on one occasion to recapture the island, but due to the wind heading in the wrong direction, they could not land, and a renewed attempt was never made. As such, the island remained in Dutch possession. In the meantime, the population grew steadily, plantations were built, and the island became an important trading post due to its deep natural harbors and close proximity to the Venezuelan coast. Slave trade began in 1665 and, in 1674, Curaçao became a free-trade zone, increasing its position in the international trade network. However, during the 18th century, French and English colonial possessions in the Caribbean, became more and more powerful, decreasing Curaçao’s role in trade with revenue dropping and, in 1791, the WIC had to file for bankruptcy.

The island became an official Dutch colony and property of the Netherlands. In 1800, due to the French occupation of the Netherlands, Curaçao was invaded by the British. They were expelled from the island by the local inhabitants in 1803, but returned in 1807 and kept control of Curaçao until it was returned to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1816. The economy mostly depended on trade (the slave trade was abolished in 1863), agriculture, and fishing. After 1816, the island was defended by a garrison of nearly 370 men with the primary task of defending against a surprise attack and the secondary task of preventing domestic unrest, but their number dropped over time.

A map of Curaçao, including its surrounding area, roughly 70 km from the main coast of Venezuela. Source: hubpages

Oil Reserves

The economic situation would make a drastic turn after 1914 when oil deposits were discovered. Within a year, the Curaçaose Petroleum Industrie Maatschappij (Curaçao Petroleum Industry Company), CPIM for short, a subsidiary company of Royal Dutch Shell, settled on the island. After a century of standstill, there was a sudden increase in employment opportunities, which attracted many workers from the Caribbean, as well as people from Venezuela. The sudden increase of the working class also meant an increase in unrest, mainly in the capital Willemstad. The civilian police corp could not cope with the problems and two slums on the island were no-go areas for any law enforcement.

To deal with these problems, the Dutch government decided in 1927 to replace this police corp and the garrison, which had been gradually scaled down to around 80 men, with 150 men from the Korps Politietroepen, a military police unit from the Netherlands. So, unlike the previous garrison, this unit had as a priority the maintenance of order, and only secondary to defend the island against an attack. The unit arrived during 1928-1929. Nevertheless, the two slums on the island, Rio Canario and Suffisant, were still no-go areas for the police.

Rafael Simón Urbina (right) and Gustavo Machado Morales (left). Source: Maritiem Digitaal

Venezuelan Revolutionary Rafael Simón Urbina

It was in those two slums that the Venezuelan revolutionaries, Rafael Simón Urbina, Gustavo Machado Morales and Miguel Otero Silva, managed to gather a great following among the Venezuelan workers. Although they united to overthrow Caudillo (a military president-dictator) Juan Vicente Gómez in Venezuela, they had different motives. Some, including Urbina, where part of a group of patriots who wanted to liberate Venezuela from Gómez, the others, including Machado, were communists and wanted to establish a communist regime.
After causing too much unrest on Curaçao, Urbina was expelled from the island in 1928, but he managed to return in 1929 under a different name and with a Mexican nationality, which had been given to him by the Mexican consul in Panama. The group of revolutionaries led by Machado had already made extensive plans for an attack on the fort to capture the fortress’ arsenal when Urbina returned on June 1. For unclear reasons, he was directly appointed the leader of the group.

The Attack

On Saturday night, June 8, between 21:15 and 21:30, two trucks with 45 men drove at full speed into the fort. Because the fort also functioned as a police station, the gates were always opened. One group of revolutionaries, armed with two automatic pistols and machetes took the guards by surprise, killed the officer and wounded two other policemen. Simultaneously, another group entered the messroom, where they fatally wounded a Sergeant. A third group, led by Urbina, went to the dormitory, while a fourth group went to the arsenal. At the moment of the attack, the fort was manned by 26 policemen and 9 soldiers. Three soldiers were killed and six other people were wounded. The alarmed Commander in Chief of the military police, Captain A.F. Borren, was taken prisoner when he arrived at the fort.

The loot consisted of 197 rifles, 4 machine guns, 1 binocular, 38 pistols, 75 klewangs (bladed weapons of Indonesian origin), 7,000 cartridges, some machetes, leather clothing, and a reasonable amount of money. After the fort was secured and sealed off from the city by the revolutionaries, Urbina came in contact with the governor of the island, L.A. Fruytier. Threatened by Urbina that the petrol depot would be set on fire, the governor agreed for a free retreat. Just after midnight, 154 revolutionaries (other sources state up to 250) boarded the American freighter S.S. Maracaibo, taking the governor, commander, and several policemen as hostages with them, as well as their loot.

During the early morning of June 9, the revolutionaries unboarded at La Vela del Coro (the capital of Falcón State and the oldest city in the northwest of Venezuela), using the ships’ lifeboats. The Maracaibo was allowed to return to Willemstad with the former hostages, who were humiliated up to the bone when they arrived during the afternoon. If it was up to Urbina, they would have been killed, but Machado prevented that from happening. In the meantime, Urbina’s followers who had stayed on the island were still in large control of Willemstad. The remaining 90 policemen, assisted by civilian volunteers started to recapture the city. Reinforcements were sent during the following days in the form of 40 KNIL soldiers from Suriname, later followed by more marines and KNIL soldiers. The voluntary civilian support would be formed into the Vrijwilligers Korps Curaçao (VKC), 143 men strong.

One of the barricades made by employees of the CPIM. Source: Royal Tropical Institute

Illustration of the C.P.I.M. Improvised Armored Car by Yuvnashva Sharma, funded by our Patreon Campaign

Defense of the C.P.I.M.

Going back to the night of the attack, when the director of the CPIM heard about the attack on the Waterfort, he realized that the refinery was a potential target as well. He immediately arranged defenses in the form of sandbags, iron plates, and similar kinds of obstacles behind which the employees could take defensive positions. He also ordered the construction of armored cars. They were made by adding steel plates to postal trucks, which were largely available at the company. A small attack did indeed occur on that same night, which was successfully dealt with, but the armored cars were not finished yet. A second attack never came, so when the armored cars were ready the next morning, there was no need for them anymore.

One of two armored vehicles near a CPIM building. Note how the mudguards are visible through the gap and the crude way how the armor is cut. Source: Royal Tropical Institute

The second vehicle, the main differences from the other are the installation of the front armor plate, the protection of the headlights and the removal of the canvas roof. Source: Curacao in Ansichten, derived from Overvalwagen.nl

The Armored Cars

In several newspapers and the like, there are mentions of several postal trucks being converted (specific model unknown). Based on photo evidence, there indeed appears to be at least two vehicles converted. It is clearly visible that the vehicles were very hastily assembled, in fact, they were completed in one night. Firstly, steel plating was added over the engine compartment which then folded over the mudguards down to roughly 10 centimeters above ground, protecting most of the wheels, shod with pneumatic tires. Another trapezoid shaped piece folded down over the front, in which two holes were made for the headlights. Another rectangular plate was added below to protect the lower part of the chassis and the front of the wheels. An opening was left so that the front of the mudguards were still visible.

The front of the driver’s compartment was protected by one large sheet of metal with one large horizontal vision slit. The sides of the vehicle were covered in one large plate on each side which was slightly curved at the front. A total of eight shooting holes, four on each side, were also made. Unfortunately, there are no photos of the back of the vehicle, but it can be safely assumed that the doors were in the back. The roof was not armored, as the canvas roof of the original truck was retained.

The postal trucks of the CPIM, two of which would be temporarily converted into armored cars. Source: Royal Tropical Institute

Aftermath

How long the vehicles remained active is unknown, but given their improvised state, they were probably dismantled soon after the threat of an attack was gone. The vehicles were the first armored vehicles ever built in the Dutch colonies, which is made more impressive by the fact that they were built by a private company and not ordered or used by the Dutch government.

The aftermath of the embarrassing attack on the fort was mainly felt by the governor, Fruytier, who got fired in November, and the commander-in-chief, Borren, who was sentenced to one day of prison. However, it was also acknowledged that it could also have been prevented if there was a larger Dutch military presence, which led to an increase in this regard in the area. Only during World War II would armored vehicles serve on the island again, in the form of the Marmon-Herrington CTLS tank, meant to defend the large oil refinery which was a vital oil supplier in the American war effort.

This was the third attempt by Urbina to overthrow Caudillo Gómez, but like the previous two times, he failed. After the Dutch hostages were freed to return to Curaçao, they immediately sent a message to the Venezuelan government in Caracas with information about the number of revolutionaries and their weapons, which allowed the government troops to respond and sent a force to defeat Urbina and his revolutionaries. Both Urbina and Machado managed to escape. Urbina would again try to overthrow the Venezuelan authorities in 1931 and would be involved in several other plots and coups until his assassination in 1950 after a failed kidnapping.

Sources

In de West de Nederlandse Krijgsmacht in het Caribisch gebied, Anita van Dissel, Petra Groen, Van Wijnen, 2010.
De rijke geschiedenis van Curaçao Indianen, de WIC en invasies, Jack Schellekens, Carib Publishing, 2012.
“De overval op Willemstad.”. Haarlem’s Dagblad. 09-08-1929. Consulted at Delpher.
“De blamage van Curacao. Hoe Willemstad in staat van verdediging werd gebracht.”. Haagsche courant. 11-07-1929. Consulted at Delpher.
“De verdediging van de C.P.I.M.”. Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant. 10-07-1929. Consulted at Delpher
Overvalwagen.nl and Overvalwagen forum

Cold War Belgian Armor

Canon Antitank d’Infanterie 90 mm (CATI 90)

Post author By Leander Jobse
Post date June 27, 2019
2 Comments on Canon Antitank d’Infanterie 90 mm (CATI 90)

Kingdom of Belgium (1953-1962)
Tank Destroyer – Approximately 32 Converted

The Canon Antitank d’Infanterie 90 mm (CATI 90, Infantry Anti-Tank Gun) was a light tank destroyer developed in Belgium in 1953 and based on the British Loyd Carrier vehicle from World War 2. By adding a light but powerful gun to the old carrier, the Belgian Army had created a cheap vehicle which provided direct infantry support, especially to be used against enemy armored vehicles.

The most famous picture of the CATI showing it with the left armor plate hinged down, and a crew of three. The photo is likely to have been taken by the fourth crewmember on a firing range. Source: N/A

Background

After the end of the Second World War, the Belgian army was equipped with an array of surplus British armored vehicles, among them a rather large quantity of Loyd Carrier TTs. During the early 1950s, the army initiated a large re-equipment program which was largely made possible by the USA with their Mutual Defence Assistance Program (MDAP). The army received large quantities of US tanks, half-tracks, and self-propelled guns. However, the army still felt a need for an armored vehicle to directly support the infantry. To keep costs low, it was decided to convert Loyd carriers into tank destroyers as these carriers were largely available.

The light carriers, however, could not carry a large gun with heavy recoil. During the early 1950s, the Belgian joint-stock company MECAR S.A. (Mécanique et Armement – Mechanics and Armament), which was situated in the city of Roeulx-lez-Nivelles, had been developing a low pressure semi-automatic 90 mm gun. Due to its low pressure, the gun had very low recoil and low weight. This gun could be mounted on the carrier without too many issues.

Construction of the new vehicles was initiated in 1953 and the guns were mounted onto the Loyd carriers by Usines Émile Henricot (Émile Henricot Factories), located at Court-Saint-Etienne, central Belgium. In 1954, each infantry battalion was equipped with a platoon of four of these CATI vehicles together with four regular carriers which served as ammunition carriers.

Two CATIs with tactical numbers 016 and 018. The relatively small size of the CATI can be appreciated as one of the crew members in front offers a good size comparison. Source: museumbsd

At the training area Vogelsang in 1961-1962. Source: Albert via bloggen.be

The idea to repurpose an older chassis by mounting a rather large gun did not come out of the blue. In fact, before the Second World War, such an idea was already executed in Belgium, which resulted in the T13 tank destroyer.

The Loyd carrier had been used as a gun carrier before as well, although this conversion was attempted out by the UK during the Second World War, when they tried to mount a 25 pounder gun on the Loyd chassis. This attempt failed.

A faded picture of the CATI, seen from the front left. Source: Royal Army Museum Brussels

Design

The Loyd Carrier was designed just before the war by Captain Vivian G. Loyd. The vehicle was based upon the 4×2 Fordson 7V truck 15cwt and used the same chassis, gearbox, transmission, front axle, and 85 hp Ford V8 Side-valve engine. On this chassis, a bodywork made of mild steel was added, against which 7 mm armor plates were installed. A total of 26,000 of these carriers were built until 1944 when production was ceased. A regular Loyd carrier weighed 4.5 tonnes, had dimensions of 4.24 x 2.06 x 1.42 meters, and could reach a speed of 48 km/h. The CATI was a bit heavier, at 4.8 tonnes, and also longer with 5.7 meters, due to the gun. The top speed was reduced to 35-40 km/h.

To accommodate the gun, a hole was made in the front armor plate. This also meant that the storage box which was located on the front had to be divided into two smaller ones. The gun had a movement to each side of 22°, could be elevated 15°, and depressed 13°. The side armor plates were also changed, on both sides the middle section of the armor was hinged, which eased the accessibility of the vehicle.

The vehicle was operated by a crew of four, a driver who sat on the right side of the gun, a gunner who sat left of the gun, a commander, and a loader, who were both seated behind the gun.

This CATI bears the registration number 59412 and shows its gun in the depressed position. Source: De Carapat no.1 2017

A CATI, registred 59502 and numbered 52, at the repair facility of Steenstraete Barracks in Soest, home to the Grenadiers. Source: Albert via bloggen.be

Gun

The CATI 90 was the first armored vehicle that was equipped with the low-pressure MECAR 90 mm gun. The total weight of the gun was only 274 kg and featured a hydraulic recoil system. The gun had a recoil of 2500 kg and a recoil length of 40 cm, both of which are relatively low. The breech mechanism was semi-automatically cam-operated, the cases were ejected automatically. The rifling of the gun was unconventional as it was thin, shallow, and with a very low inclination.

The CATIs were equipped with two kinds of ammunition, HE and HEAT. The HEAT projectile weighed 2.28 kg and its accuracy and stabilization were achieved by the combination of the projectiles’ initial low rotation and eight stabilizing fins. It had a relatively low velocity of 633 m/s and an effective range of only 1 km, and a maximum range of 3.5 km. Within the effective range, the HEAT projectile could penetrate 350 mm of armor or 1200 mm of concrete. The HE projectile had an effective range of 2.1 km and a maximum range of 4 km. The maximum rate of fire consisted of 10 rounds per minute, with a sustainable rate of fire of 7 rounds per minute. The CATI had an ammunition load-out of 18 shells, the ammunition carrier could carry 54 additional rounds

The MECAR 90/28 mm gun, which was mounted on the CATI. Source: Jane’s Armoured Fighting Vehicle Retrofit Systems 1993-94

CATI 59502 at the Steenstraete Barracks in Soest. Source: Albert via bloggen.be

Production and Service

How many CATIs were eventually made is still unclear. It is known that each infantry battalion was equipped with four CATIs and four Loyd ammunition carriers, forming anti-tank companies, but the actual number of infantry battalions in the Belgian Army during the 1960s is hard to come by. We may find a clue in the history of the Kanonenjagdpanzer 90, of which eighty were used by Belgium, ten for each infantry battalion. These vehicles were put in service in 1973, twenty years later than the CATI, so it is likely that during the 1960s there were eight infantry battalions as well. This would implicate that probably 32 CATIs were made. According to Alexander Lüdeke, a German historian, up to a hundred CATIs were used by the Belgian army, however, this number seems unlikely as Belgium never had 25 infantry battalions in service, although some vehicles could have been kept in reserve.

Known registration numbers, visible on photographs, include 59502, 59603, 59412, and 59568. On three photographs, tactical numbers are visible, which are 016, 018, and 52.

The only CATI that survived resides now at the Royal Museum of Armored Forces and Military History in Brussels. Source: Wikimedia

Fate

After the vehicles were taken out of service in 1962, most were scrapped and only one example is known to have survived. It is on display at the Royal Army Museum in Brussels. Some of the guns were re-used and mounted in the FN-AB (Auto Blindée) armored cars. These armored cars were produced by FN Herstal and based upon their 4RM-62F truck chassis. 61 of these armored cars were produced from 1965-1968 in three variants. 24 of these vehicles were armed with the 90 mm gun. This version was called FN-ABC (Auto-Blindée Canon). The FN-AB armored cars were in use by the Gendarmerie Nationale, the Belgian military police.

The CATIs were replaced in service by ENTAC AT missiles, either mounted on jeeps or AMX-VCI. 2500 of these missiles were ordered from France in 1961 and delivered until 1966. The AMX-VCI was put into service between 1963-1969.

The FN-4RM-62F ABC mounted the same MECAR 90/28 gun. They were taken out of service in 1977 and replaced by the BDX APC. Source: milinfo.org

Illustration of the Canon Antitank d’Infanterie 90 mm (CATI 90), produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.

Specifications
Dimensions	5.7 x 2.06 x 1.42 meters
Total weight, battle ready	4.8 tonnes
Crew	4 (Gunner, Loader, Commander, Driver)
Propulsion No.1	British Ford V8 petrol 85 bhp at 3500 rpm
Propulsion No.2	US Ford V8 petrol 90 bhp at 3500 rpm
Propulsion	Canadian Ford V8 petrol 85 bhp at 3500 rpm
Speed	35-40 km/h
Armor	up 7 mm (0.28in)
Total Production	Aprx. 32

Sources

Les Chars et les Vehicules Terrestres du Musée Royal de l’Armée à Bruxelles, R. Surlemont, Tank Museum A.S.B.L., 1984.
Les véhicules blindés à l’Armée Belge 1914-1974, Jacques P. Champagne, G. Everling s.p.r.l., 1974.
Leichte Panzer und Jagdpanzer: seit 1945, Alexander Lüdeke, Motorbuch Verlag, 2014
Jane’s Armoured Fighting Vehicle Retrofit Systems 1993-94.
De Carapat, Vriendenkring Carabiniers en Carabiniers-Grenadiers, 2017.
CATI 90 walkaround.
ENTAC delivery on SIPRI trade registers.
The FN-4RM 62F AB on milinfo.org.

WW2 Dutch Armored Cars

Morris ‘Koekblikje’ Armored Car

Post author By Leander Jobse
Post date May 21, 2019
1 Comment on Morris ‘Koekblikje’ Armored Car

Kingdom of the Netherlands (1932-1940)
Armored Car – 3 Built

During the early 1930s, the Dutch army had two armored cars in service. The first was an Ehrhardt Plattformwagen, confiscated from retreating German troops in 1918 with an improvised armored superstructure. The other vehicle was based on a GMC chassis and was purely meant for training purposes, as such it did not have real armor and was made of tin and wood. However, the GMC was dismantled in 1931, leaving the army with only one armored vehicle to train with. Although three new armored cars were built, these were to be assigned to the Amsterdam police force, leaving the army with still only one vehicle. That is why the Minister of Defence ordered in January 1932 the construction of three new armored cars. These cars were to be used for police duties or training and army exercises, and were not meant or even suitable for war.

All three armored cars during a parade at the ‘Molenheide’ near the city of Nijmegen. Source: Delpher

These three vehicles were to be built by Artillerie Inrichtingen (Hembrug), a state-owned company producing artillery, small arms, ammunition, and similar army equipment. As a base, the Morris Commercial 6×4 truck was used, five of which were already in service with the Motorartillerie (mechanized Artillery), based in the city of Naarden. The new armored cars were designed by Captain J. Wijnman, a retired artillery officer, and were influenced by the design of the GMC armored cars from 1931.

A Morris Commercial 6×4 truck with registration number G-61137, in service with the motorist in the city of Naarden. Source: Conam.info

Name

On 11th February, the Minister announced to several military authorities that the cars were to be given the names Buffel (Buffalo), Bison, and Wisent and so, the armored cars became known as the ‘Buffel class’. Sometimes they are also referred to as the ‘Wijnman’ armored car, after their designer, but among the soldiers, it quickly gained the nickname ‘Koekblikje’ (small biscuit tin), completely in the Dutch habit of naming their armored cars after ordinary household items.

It is unclear which one of the three this vehicle is. Source: Dieselpunk

Design

The exterior of the vehicle was plain and box-like, hence why it was named ‘biscuit tin’. The armor thickness is unknown. The slightly sloped armor was perfect during riot control, as thrown objects like stones or furniture could not get stuck on the vehicle. Four machine gun ports were placed, one in each side of the crew compartment, providing space for up to four Lewis M.20 machine guns.
The crews received special helmets and tight-fitting clothes to ease operating inside the vehicle. Boilersuits were also provided to be used during maintenance. The driver sat to the front left of the vehicle and had a closable visor in front of him. A machine gunner was located to the right of the driver.

A hatch was installed in the roof which could be slid backward. As a result, one of the crew, probably the commander or searchlight operator had a clear view of the surroundings. A carbide searchlight could manually be raised from within the car and provide light when necessary. A second driver was located in the back. The exact amount of crewmembers is unclear but it ranged probably from four (two drivers, commander, gunner) to six (two extra gunners).
After the vehicles were completed in October 1932, they were added to the Korps Rijdende Artillerie, Corps Mechanised Artillery, KRA in short. They accompanied the five Carden-Loyd tankettes that were delivered to the KRA in 1931. They received the registration numbers M36313 Wisent, M36311 Bison, M36312 Buffel. On the right front of the vehicles, the number 60 was written, while on the left the tactical numbers (331, 332, 333) were written diagonally on a red-white-blue background, referring to the Dutch flag.

The Wisent, being cleaned by its crew during the mobilization in 1939 in the city of Voorthuizen. The registration plate has been removed. Source: Beeldbank WO2

The M36311 Bison during Army maneuvers in the 1930s. Source: Dutch National Archives

More in Rotterdam?

In 1932, the Rotterdam Carbine Brigade was equipped with two armored cars, P1 and P2. These could be two armored cars like the Morris as two photos are known which show one Morris type car, together with police forces in 1934. Although the registration plate is largely unreadable, the number 5 is visible, and a number not present on any of the Army Morris registration plates. It is also lacking any army markings.

A Morris armored car with the Rotterdam police. Source: Rotterdam Archives

The Morris cars in the Jordaan

During the Jordaan Riots in 1934, the Morris cars saw action and replaced the GMC armored cars. The GMC cars belonged to the second company police troops, based in Amsterdam. The head of the 4th Military Department, who was responsible for the military action during these riots, noted in his rapport about the riots that the GMC should be replaced by the three Morris cars, but that did not happen.
The cars performed well in the narrow streets. Thrown stones, furniture, and other kinds of objects didn’t harm the vehicles. The heaviest riots lasted from 4-9 July during which 56 people were wounded and five people were killed. Although the riots are named after one specific city district, the riots happened on a much larger scale, not only in other Amsterdam city districts but also in other cities, like Rotterdam.

The M36313 Wisent together with three soldiers in the Jordaan, Amsterdam. Source: Dutch National Archives

May 1940

After the riots, the armored cars remained in service with the KRA and played a big role during the annual wargames and other exercises until the country would be attacked by German forces. In May 1940, the Wisent, together with the Carden-Loyd tankette Panter, formed a platoon which was assigned to the 1st Regiment Huzaren (Hussars). This regiment was located close to Amersfoort. The platoon was commanded by 1st Lieutenant Reserve E.C. Everts and did not see any action on May 10. On May 11, the platoon was ordered to move to The Hague where it performed reconnaissance duties. The Buffel and Bison also formed a platoon, but were officially pulled back from duty just before war broke out.

Conclusion

None of three vehicles saw serious action, apart from reconnaissance duties, and they were all captured in their worn out state by the Germans. What happened after that is unknown, but it is most likely that all three vehicles were scrapped.

The Wisent at the K.R.A. in Arnhem, together with two out of five Carden-Loyd tankettes, registration numbers M37270 and M37272. The photo was taken between 1935-1940. Source: National Dutch Military Archives.

Illustration of the Morris ‘Koekblikje’ Armored Car by Yuvnashva Sharma, funded by our Patreon campaign.

Specifications
Crew	4 – 6
Armament	up to 4 Lewis M.20 6,5 mm machine guns
Total Production	3

Sources

J. Giesbers, A. Giesbers, R. Tas. Holland paraat! Volume 2, Giesbers Media, 2016.
C.M. Schulten, J. Theil. Nederlandse pantservoertuigen, Van Holkema & Warendorf, 1979.
Waffen Arsenal Band 146, Beutepanzer unterm Balkenkreuz, Werner Regenberg.
Hoefer, Armamentaria 3, Stichting Het Nederlandse Leger- en Wapenmuseum, 1969.
On politiemuseum.nl
On historischecollectiepolitieeenheidrotterdam.nl
On sytzema.nl

Tanks Encyclopedia Magazine, #1 Republished

The first issue of the Tank Encyclopedia Magazine has been remastered and rereleased. It covers vehicles ranging from the French WWI Frot-Turmel-Laffly Armoured Road Roller up to the Salvadoran Cold War Marenco M114 converted vehicles. The star of this issue is a full article on the Improved Protection version of the famous M1 Abrams – the M1IP.

Our Archive section covers the history of the Mephisto A7V tank, the only one of its kind that still survives to this day in Queensland museum in Australia.

It also contains a modeling article on how to create Weathering and Mud Effects. And the last article from our colleagues and friends from Plane Encyclopedia covers the story of the Sikorsky S-70C-2 Black Hawk in Chinese service!

All the articles are well researched by our excellent team of writers and are accompanied by beautiful illustrations and photos. If you love tanks, this is the magazine for you!
Buy this magazine on Payhip!

Cold War Indian Armor Cold War West German Prototypes

Indien Panzer

Federal Republic of Germany/Republic of India (1953-1955)
Medium Tank – Blueprints Only

The Indien Panzer (Indian Tank), also known as B-PS 102, was a tank designed by the German firm Porsche KG in the early 1950’s in which the Indian Army showed interest. The Indian Army was looking for a tank to equip its army with, but also wanted to be able to produce it in India, so an easy to build design was necessary. The first plans were laid out in 1954, seven years after India gained its independence, but the project was soon abandoned in 1955.

Artist impression of two Indien Panzers in action. Source: Motorbuch Verlag

India’s Military

When the British Raj became independent in 1947, it was split into India and Pakistan to create separate states for Muslims and Hindus to prevent tensions between both religious groups. This also meant that the British-Indian army was split up between the dominions of India and Pakistan, and went through a chaotic period with several military actions, with the main conflict being the Indo-Pakistani War in 1947-48.

Two Sherman tanks of the Indian Army, they saw service until the 1970s.

After the war, tensions between Pakistan and India remained high. Fearing a Pakistani invasion, a modern powerful Indian army was desired. However, the army lacked modern armored vehicles as it only possessed some older Second World War tanks, such as the M3 Stuart, M4 Sherman and various British armored vehicles. The Indian government, which wanted to be as independent of other countries as possible, did not want to just buy vehicles abroad. Instead it was desired that new armored vehicles were to be produced in India.

Post-War (West) German Industry

After the German Army was defeated in 1945, Germany was put under Allied control. However, due to growing tensions between the Allies (France, UK, US, USSR), the original plan to govern Germany as a single nation broke down. The main points that caused tension were the amount reparations that had to be paid by Germany, and what kind of new government was to be established. Instead, Germany remained divided in four occupation zones until 1949, when it was divided into the western capitalist Federal Republic of Germany (also called Bundesrepublik or West Germany), and the socialist German Democratic Republic (also known as East Germany). In 1955, they would join NATO and the Warsaw Pact respectively.

Already in 1945, after Germany’s defeat, not only its military was disarmed, but plans were made to disarm the industry as well. Military factories and civilian factories with military potential were closed down or heavily restricted until 1951. However, since 1946, several members of the Allied Commission considered it hurtful that Germany’s industry was so heavily restricted, as it not only worsened the social situation and living conditions in Germany, but it restricted economic recovery and growth of other European nations as well. After the division between East and West, further steps were taken to halt the closing down of the industry. Combined with the resistance of German civilians, the Allied control finally decided that West Germany’s industry was important for the prosperity of Europe, and combined with a growing threat from the USSR, it was concluded that the industry should be built up again. In the end, only a quarter of the 1,800 factories planned to be closed down were actually closed. The industry could recover and was in such a position in 1954/55 that the Indian government had enough confidence in them being able to design a modern tank.

A drawing of the Indien Panzer. Source: Rolf Hilmes / Motorbuch Verlag

Development

Since 1953, Porsche designed several tanks which included:
– B-PS 100, a 36-tonne turreted tank, armed with a 90 mm gun with loading assistance and a crew of 3.
– B-PS 101 Ausf. A, a 36-tonne assault gun, armed with an autoloading 88 mm gun, and a crew of 3.
– B-PS 101 Ausf. B, a 36-tonne turreted tank, armed with a 55 mm quick-firing gun, and a crew of 3.
– B-PS 102, a 39.5-tonne turreted tank, armed with a 90 mm gun, and a crew of 4.

In 1954, the Indian government showed interest in the B-PS 102, which became known as the Indien-Projekt, or Indien Panzer. Porsche could obviously fall back on their experience gained by tank development during the Second World War. There are indeed some similarities between the E 50/75 and the Indien Panzer, especially in regards to the suspension. However, it has to be taken into account that tank technology had advanced in the nearly ten years that Porsche was not allowed to design a tank. Nevertheless, the Indian government opted for a German designed tank. Porsche KG, responsible for the overall design, relied on other German companies for the production of components. Daimler-Benz would deliver the engine, ZF Friedrichshafen the transmission and possibly the suspension, and Ruhrstahl would deliver the gun and turret. It was envisioned that the tank would be assembled in India by TATA, where equipment like optics and sights were to be made as well.

Why the Indian government approached German firms who were still recovering from the war is not completely clear. Maybe they based this decision on the performance of German tanks in World War 2. It is possible they wanted to get access to the more advanced industry in West Germany. Maybe they thought existing tank designs in the UK, France, or the US were just not good enough. Another reason could be that the Indian government did not want to order a tank from a NATO or Warsaw Pact member (India was not a member of NATO or WP) and in 1954 West Germany was also not part of NATO. West Germany would only join NATO until May 1955, around the same time the Indien Panzer project was canceled. It has to be noted that India was already in business with Daimler-Benz. Further research is needed to settle this question.

Design

Although the Indian Army requested a weight of 36-39 tons, Porsche envisioned the tank to be nearly 40 tons. The hull and turret were to be made of cast steel with 90 mm on the front hull, and up to 130 mm on the turret front. The vehicle was to be propelled by a Daimler-Benz MB837A 8-cylinder diesel engine, producing 600-700 horsepower. As a side note, this type of engine was later experimentally installed in an M47 Patton tank by the Bundeswehr.

The main armament was to be a 90 mm gun (type is unknown), and secondary armament consisted of two machine guns. One machine gun was located in the front of the turret, left to the main gun, and was to be operated by the loader, while the other was mounted in the back of the turret and operated by the commander. Ammunition was stowed in a rack on the bottom of the turret basket and on both sides of the hull with a combined ammunition storage of sixty-one shells.

The crew consisted of four men; driver, commander, gunner, and loader. The driver sat in the right front hull, he had one periscope and one hatch. Traffic drives on the left side of the road in India, hence the driver was planned to sit on the right. The other three crew members sat in the turret, with the loader on the left side of the gun, the gunner on the right side of the gun, and the commander behind the gunner. The loader had one hatch above him, while the commander sat in his cupola with hatch. Furthermore, one hatch was located in the back of the turret, besides the machine gun. The gunner aimed through a periscope which was located on the roof of the turret.

The machine gun in the back of the turret is a feature that stands out as it was rather uncommon during the post-war period. During World War 2, many Soviet and Japanese tank designs incorporated a rearward-firing machine gun and German Panther tanks, for example, had a pistol port in the back. Their main job was to prevent enemy soldiers from climbing on the back of the tank, a situation especially common during guerilla or street fighting.

Original blueprints of the Indien Panzer, unfortunately, the text on the side is unreadable. Source: Hilary L. Doyle

No Link to Panzer 58

Considering similarities with the Swiss-developed Panzer 58, it is often assumed that this project must be related to the Indien Panzer, especially since World of Tanks players started to note similarities between both tanks, but that is incorrect. In fact, development of the Swiss tank already commenced before the Indien Panzer was designed and Swiss documents never mention the Indien Panzer. The first Swiss design that would lead to the Panzer 58 was the 30 t Panzer, already drawn up in 1950, three years before the Indien Panzer was drawn for the first time. To conclude, they were two different projects that are not related with each other.

Potential Bundeswehr Tank?

Due to the Soviet threat and with West Germany in the ‘frontline’, the desire arose in Western countries to reinstitute the Germany Army and let it join NATO. Eventually, a new army was formed on May 5th, 1955, named Bundeswehr, and West Germany joined NATO on May 9th during the same year.

The newly formed Bundeswehr would receive its first main battle tanks in 1956, in the form of American M47 Patton II tanks (M41 Walker-Bulldog light tanks were also acquired). Although built in 1951, these M47 tanks were technically already obsolete in 1953, and the Bundeswehr was not fond of them, which led them to look for something better. This would lead to an agreement between West Germany and France to develop a ‘Europanzer’ in 1957 which in turn would be the basis for the Leopard 1 in Germany and the AMX-30 in France. However, the Indien Panzer seems to never have been into consideration to equip the German Army. It is rather likely that Army officials did not even know about the existence of such a design unless it was offered by Porsche KG, but that is never mentioned. However, Porsche KG was involved in the design process for the Europanzer and Leopard 1, so the experience gained with designing the Indien Panzer was used to good effect.

A conceptual design, made by Fa. Porsche in 1957, that would lead to the Kampfpanzer Leopard. Note the similarities in design with the Indien Panzer, such as the track layout and rounded turret, but it also features differences like a lower silhouette. Source: Raimund Knecht / Kampfpanzer Leopard

Conclusion

All in all, little is known about this German designed tank design in which the Indian Army showed a major interest. Some thorough archive research is needed to bring information to light concerning its characteristics, development, and military potential, especially given the design period of the tank which was during a turning point in Germany’s history and the start of a new age of German tank development. After the project was abandoned in 1955, the Indian government continued the search for a tank to produce in India. As that took a long time, foreign tanks were acquired, such as the British Centurion and French AMX-13. Eventually, in 1961, six years after the Indien Panzer project was abandoned, they found their solution in the Vickers Mk. 1 Main Battle Tank (MBT) which was then license-built in India as the Vijayanta (Victorious) and entered service in 1965.

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	Aprx. 10.6 (6.3 w/o gun) x 3.3 x 2.9 meters
Crew	4 (driver, commander, gunner, loader)
Armament	90mm Cannon, 2 x Machine Guns
Armor	90 mm hull, 130mm gun mantlet

Sources

Die Kampfpanzer Leopard und ihre Abarten (Militärfahrzeuge Band 1), Walter J. Spielberger, Motorbuch-Verlag, 1988.
Typenkompass: KPz Leopard 1 1956-2003, Rolf Hilmes, Motorbuch Verlag, 2011.
Kampfpanzer Leopard 1: Entwicklung – Serie – Komponenten, Rolf Hilmes, Motorbuch Verlag, 2019, p.6-7.
Duitsland na 1945, Ruud Slotboom, Uitgeverij Koninginnegracht, 1994.
The Evolution of Modern Indian Tanks, April 8, 2015.
Overlord’s Blog, Transmission Response from Mr. Doyle, June 12, 2012.
Pattonhq.com, The M-47 “Patton” Tank, Colonel Robert Icks, taken from Armor in Profile Series, originally published in 1967.
usembassy.de, Joachim von Elbe, Berlin, Frankfurt, Bonn 1946-1969.

Illustration of the Indien Panzer in a speculative green livery. Produced by Brian Gaydos, funded by our Patreon Campaign.

WW1 Austro-Hungarian Armor

Austro-Daimler Panzerautomobil

Post author By Leander Jobse
Post date January 31, 2019
5 Comments on Austro-Daimler Panzerautomobil

Austro-Hungarian Empire (1905-1907)
Armored Car – 1 Built

The Austro-Daimler Panzerautomobil, along with the French Charron, can be considered to be the first ‘modern’ armored cars. With first development already starting in 1904 by graduate engineer Paul Daimler, the vehicle was built in 1905 and had four-wheel drive -revolutionary for its time. Together with a fully armored body and a fully rotating turret, the vehicle featured many elements which would be used in later armored car designs.

Austro-Daimler

On August 11th, 1899, the German engineer Gottlieb Daimler, already owning a factory in Germany, established a car factory in Wiener-Neustadt, called Österreichische Daimler Motoren Kommanditgesellschaft Bierenz Fischer und Co. The factory was established to manufacture cars that were designed by the parent company Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft from Germany. The son of Gottlieb Daimler, Dipl.-Ing. Paul Daimler, was to become the manager of the company in 1900, but due to the death of his father and his own illness, he took the job two years later, in 1902.

One of the first known photographs of the Austro-Daimler Panzerautomobil. The driver is a Daimler employee. Photo: Biblio Verlag

Early Development

In 1902, Hauptmann Ludwig Tlaskal-Hochwell made the first attempts to design a 4×4 drive (German: 4-Radantrieb) to be used for a tractor. Probably based on this first experience, Paul Daimler started to design a 4×4 drive himself, around March 1903. He received suggestions from Archduke Leopold Salvator, who had attended the Technical Military Academy.

In 1904, the design process of the armored car started. One of the main designers was Hauptmann Robert Wolf, who also played a big role in the motorization process of the Austro-Hungarian Army. In contemporary Austrian newspapers, the vehicle is claimed to be based on requirements set out by the military technical committee, although secondary sources sometimes note that the armored car was designed on private initiative, that was clearly not the case. The New York Daily Tribune of January 4, 1905 noted: “The Austrian War Department has just sanctioned the construction of an armored car, specially designed to carry a quick firing gun, mounted on a pivot (…) heavy haulage work, such as that of stores, munitions, and heavy guns, is already done by motor in the Austrian Army.”

Design

The Austro-Daimler Panzerautomobil featured a fully enclosed armored body, made of 3 mm thick nickel steel with rounded edges. The engine was mounted at the front in an armored housing with a grille in the front and louvers on the sides and top. The crew compartment was located behind the engine, housing two crewmen, the driver and gunner. The driver could enter through a door on the left side of the vehicle with a little step mounted below it to ease entrance. Two vision slits were placed in the front armor plate, but none on the side, therefore leaving little view arc for the driver.

The solution for this problem was that the driver’s seat and the steering device could be lifted. A hatch was made in the roof and when lifted, the driver could poke his head out of the vehicle. On several photos, a second man can be seen seated in the driver’s compartment. This is not a third crew member as is commonly suspected in secondary sources, but the gunner when he does not need to fire the machine gun in the turret.

On the back of the vehicle stood a tower-like hull and a fully traversable, enclosed dome-shaped turret on top of it. The turret armor was 3.5 mm thick and there was room for one water-cooled 7.7 mm Maxim machine gun. A door was located in the back of the hull through which the gunner could enter.

First testing near the factory. Photo: Allgemeine Automobil Zeitung

Engine and Suspension

The vehicle was powered by a Daimler 4-cylinder piston carburetor engine with a capacity of 4.4 liters, producing 30 hp at 1050 rpm (from Spielberger, other sources mention 32 or 35 hp). Fuel was pumped to the engine using negative pressure and the fuel tanks had enough capacity to drive for ten hours on road. The power delivered by the engine was transmitted through a drive shaft with lockable differentials to the wheels, contrary to the then usual chain-driven back wheels. The vehicle featured a 4-speed cone clutch, covered in leather.

The leaf spring suspended front wheels were covered in nickel-steel and had a diameter of 83 centimeters. The spoked back wheels were made of wood, had a diameter of 92 centimeters, and were partially covered by an armored plating. The wheels were shod with solid rubber tires.

The vehicle being inspected by Archduke Franz Ferdinand (standing in the middle) on March 18, 1906. Photo: Sport und Salon

Exhibition in Vienna

The vehicle was completed in early November, 1905. The first trials took place in front of the factory and the attendants were impressed by the performance of the 4-wheel drive and its ability to take slopes of 60 per cent with a short run-up. The vehicle was offered both to the German and Austro-Hungarian Empire, but the German War Ministry turned down the offer. The vehicle presumably remained at the factory until it was showcased at the 6th Wiener Nationaler Automobilausstellung (Eng: Vienna’s National Automotive Exhibition) in March 1906.

The 6th National automotive exhibition in Vienna was held in the building of the Gartenbau Gesellschaft (Eng: Horticultural Society) and the Panzerautomobil was to be the main attraction of the Daimler Motorengesellschaft booth. However, due to difficulties, the vehicle could initially not be placed inside the hall, and when Archduke Franz Ferdinand visited the exhibition on March 18, the Panzerautomobil was still on display in the garden. The vehicle’s technical details were explained to him by Hauptmann Robert Wolf, and the Archduke seemed satisfied. The following day, the Panzerautomobil was placed inside the hall.

On March 20, the exhibition was visited by the Emperor himself, and when he visited the Daimler booth, he was first introduced to director Bernhard, after which the technical details of the vehicle were explained to him by the president of the Militär-Technischen Comité (Eng: Military Technical Committee), F.M.L. Ritter von Wuich, who explained that the vehicle was made after their wishes. The Emperor closely examined the vehicle from all angles, and Hauptmann Wolf noted that the next armored car would be armed with two machine guns. This is an interesting statement as it raises the question whether the vehicle was modified after the exhibition or if a completely new armored car was being built.

Other mentionable noble visitors were Archduke Franz Salvator who visited on the 21st, and Archduke Friedrich who visited on the 27th. Both were very interested in the Panzerautomobil and how it worked, so they were both accompanied by Hauptmann Wolf, who mentioned that the vehicle could carry 14,000 ammunition rounds, could go 45 km/h with a 32 hp engine, and that the vehicle weighed 1,900 to 2,000 kg, although he told Friedrich that the other armored car had better armor and as a consequence would be around 700 kg heavier. This again raises the question of a possible second vehicle.

Another officer who visited the exhibition was Günther Burstyn. When he saw the armored car, he realised the big potential of armored vehicles but also the limited off-road potential of wheeled vehicles. He started to look for an alternative and decided upon metal plates, connected to each other, which looped around the wheels. He made a design which he named Motorgeschütz. This design can be considered as one of the precursors of the tank which appeared in 1916, but it was never built.

Changes

Between the exhibition in Vienna in March and the Kaisermanöver (Eng: Emperor Maneuvers, annual wargames) in August/September of 1906, the vehicle received some heavy modifications. The most obvious change was the new designed turret which was now opened in the back and a second machine gun could be fitted in a newly added gun port. The armor was thickened to 4 mm instead of 3, and the 30 hp engine was replaced by a more powerful 40 hp engine. These changes raised the combined weight to 3,200 kg. These modifications had a severe impact on the specifications of the vehicle and as such has caused much confusion between researchers.

The vehicle after changes were made in 1906. The most notable difference is the new turret design. The other two vehicles were built by Daimler as well. Photo: Motorbuch Verlag

A Postcard showing the Panzerautomobil in color. This picture is probably taken during the maneuvers in 1906. Photo: Landships Forum.

Illustration of the Austro-Daimler Panzerautomobil by David Bocquelet.

Kaisermanöver in Schlesien, 1906

On April 11, Archdukes Friedrich and Franz Salvator, Fürst Schwarzenberg, and several officers and generals visited the Daimler factory in Wiener Neustadt. They came to inspect the new Trainwagen and Panzerautomobil and drove around in them. They possibly tested the vehicles to see whether to use them during the upcoming Kaisermanöver or not. Eventually, they decided to do. In August 1906, the armored car grouped up with several other vehicles in Vienna and from there moved to Schlesien, the area where the Emperor maneuvers were to take place. This was the first public appearance of the armored car with changes.

During the maneuvers, the car was under the command of Oberstleutnant Heinrich Graf Schönfeld and assigned to the 2nd. Corp. He talks about his experience in an interview published in the Neues Wiener Tagblatt of December 25, 1906. On the day before the maneuvers started, he made a reconnaissance move and drove 160 km. According to him, the 4-wheeled drive performed really well. The vehicle also was admired by the troops and the press reporting about the maneuvers were enthusiastic as well, especially when the vehicle drove back From Teschen (Cieszyn) to Vienna (roughly 250 km), after the maneuvers ended, in just two days. On the last day of the maneuvers, on August 4, the vehicle was demonstrated to the Emperor who was accompanied by the archdukes Franz Ferdinand and Friedrich and the maneuver command. No special events were reported by the contemporary press, so the following anecdote either never happened or was covered up:

A popular anecdote claims that, when the vehicle was shown to Emperor Franz Joseph and his generals, all sitting on horses, one of the horses was scared of the noise produced by the engine. The horse tried to flee and in doing so, threw a general from his back. The Emperor, then declared that he was not interested in ordering the vehicle. Besides this incident, another reason for not accepting the vehicle was caused by conservatism. The old strategy worked, the new technology had not proven itself yet, so change was not seen as needed. It must also be considered that introducing such a vehicle into the army would have necessitated new supply chains for gasoline, lubricating oil and spare parts, especially to the front lines, sometimes over difficult terrain, and the hiring of new trained mechanics and crewmen. However, taking into consideration that regular trucks were also slowly being adopted, none of these issues seem to have been insurmountable.

The Panzerautomobil at the exhibition in the Grand Palais, Paris which lasted from 7-23 December 1906. Source: Jules Beau Collection (gallicia.bnf.fr)

Presentation to France

After it became clear that the Austro-Hungarian Army was not interested in ordering the vehicle, Austro-Daimler asked permission from the War Ministry to offer the vehicle to France, as well as being allowed to exhibit the vehicle in Berlin. This request was accepted. Why Berlin is mentioned in sources is rather curious, it may be an error, as it should state Paris, where the armored car was indeed exhibited in the Grand Palais in December 1906. The Consul General of the Dual Monarchy in France, Ernst Jillenek, as a representative of Daimler, brought it under attention in France under the name Mercedes, after his daughter’s name, and so the vehicle became known in France as the Austro Daimler Mercedes de 45 cv.

France was rather interested in the vehicle, not in order to acquire it, but to compare it to the domestically built CGV armored car. As such, in January 1907, the armored car was handed over to the French Army and first demonstrated in front of the French Minister of War, General Picquart at the Mercedes plant in Puteaux. Several experts were present as well, and seemed to be impressed by the performance of the vehicle on rough terrain. The vehicle was also tested at Fort Mont-Valérien, west of Paris, specifically chosen for its rough terrain. During the tests, the vehicle performed above expectations.

On May 4th, 1909, the Commision d’étude des armes portatives et de petit calibre, (Eng: Commission for the study of portable and small firearms), released a report that included information about the Austro-Daimler Panzerautomobil, as well as the Charron and experience from Generals. It concluded that contemporary armored cars were not yet fit for military service, due to their relatively bad off-road capabilities and high production price.

The Panzerautomobil during trials in France. Source: Biblio Verlag

Fate

After the French trials, the vehicle returned to Austria, and was most likely taken apart several years later. It is sometimes suggested that it may have been used in Galicia during the First World War, but this is only speculation.

When the vehicle was first shown to the Austro-Hungarian press, they were very optimistic and enthusiastic about the concept of an armored car, and in military circles, the car was also received with great interest. The same happened in France. Although impressed by the vehicle, the time for the armored car had not yet come.

World War I saw a massive increase of armored car designs, and apart from its novel features, none seem to be really inspired by the looks of the Austro-Daimler Panzerautomobil, except maybe for the Belgian SAVA armored car which also featured a curved crew compartment and a dome-shaped turret.

A Fistful of Dynamite

A prop armored car, closely modeled after the Austro-Daimler Panzerautomobil, appeared in the 1971 Spaghetti Western movie ‘A Fistful Of Dynamite’, also known as ‘Duck, You Sucker!’. The movie was directed by Sergio Leone, who is best known for ‘The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly’. The film is set during the Mexican Revolution which lasted from 1910-1920. As such, the film features many vintage weapons from the early 20th century, including the armored prop car.

The prop armored car as it appeared in Sergio Leone’s movie ‘A Fistful Of Dynamite’. Photo: Still from the movie

Although the vehicle’s appearance is not completely accurate, like the two machine gun ports in an enclosed turret and the edges of the cab being too sharp, it still closely resembles the real vehicle. As with most props, it was dismantled after the filming, but can still be admired in the movie.

Austro-Daimler Panzerautomobil specifications
Dimensions	4.1 x 2.1 x 2.7 m (13’5” x 6’11” x 8’10”)
Total weight, battle ready	2-2.9 metric tons
Crew	2 (driver, machine-gunner)
Propulsion	Daimler gasoline, 4-cylinder. water-cooled, 4.41 liter, 35 hp at 1050 rpm
Speed	45 km/h (28 mph)
Armament	1 or 2 water-cooled Maxim machine guns (7.62 mm/0.3 in)
Armor	3-4 mm (0.12-0.16 in)
Production	1

Sources

Kraftfahrzeuge und panzer des österreichischen heeres 1896 bis heute [Motor Vehicles and armored vehicles of the Austrian army from 1896 until today], Walter J. Spielberger, Motorbuch Verlag, 1976.
Die gepanzerte Radfahrzeuge des deutschen Heeres 1905-1945 [The Armored Wheeled Vehicles of the German Army 1905-1945], Walter J. Spielberger, Hilary L. Doyle, Motorbuch Verlag, 2002.
L’Aube de la gloire : les autos mitrailleuses et les chars français pendant la grande guerre [The Dawn of Glory: the french armored cars and tanks during the great war], Alain Gougaud, 1987.
Encyclopedia of Armoured Cars, Duncan Crow and Robert J. Icks, Barrie and Jenkins, 1976.
The Encyclopedia of French Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles 1914-1940, Francois Vauvillier, Histoire & Amps Collection, 2014.
Age of Tanks: Iron, iron, everywhere S1A1, documentary, 2017.
Company’s history on austrodaimler.at
Newspapers and Magazines accessed on anno.onb.ac.at/
Neues Wiener Tagblatt, November 5, 1905.
Neues Wiener Tagblatt, November 20, 1905.
Neues Wiener Tagblatt, March 10, 1906.
Neues Wiener Tagblatt, March 18, 1906.
Neues Wiener Tagblatt, March 19, 1906.
Neues Wiener Tagblatt, March 20, 1906.
Neues Wiener Tagblatt, March 21, 1906.
Neues Wiener Tagblatt, March 22, 1906.
Neues Wiener Journal, March 25, 1906.
Neues Wiener Tagblatt, March 28, 1906.
Neues Wiener Tagblatt, September 11, 1906.
Neues Wiener Tagblatt, December 25, 1906.
Eisenbahn und Industrie nr. 17, September 5, 1906.
Eisenbahn und Industrie nr. 22, November 20, 1906.
Illustrierte Kronen Zeitung, September 4, 1906
Illustrierte Kronen Zeitung, September 5, 1906
(Neuigkeits) Welt Blatt, September 8, 1906.
Neue Freie Presse, January 29, 1907.
Sport und Salon, April 14, 1906.
New York Daily Tribune, January 4, 1905.

WW2 Dutch Tanks WW2 French Vehicles in Foreign Service

Renault FT in Dutch Service

Post author By Leander Jobse
Post date January 1, 2019
3 Comments on Renault FT in Dutch Service

Kingdom of the Netherlands (1927-1940)
Light Tank – 1 Purchased

One thing that emerged from the battlefields of the First World War was the tank. Although the Netherlands remained neutral during the war, its consequences were felt nonetheless, and all events and technological advancements were followed with great interest. As such, the invention of the tank did not go unnoticed. Although the war ended in 1918, it was not until 1927 that the Dutch Army could proudly announce that they had acquired a French Renault FT light tank. It would remain their only tank before the Second World War.

The Dutch Renault FT during one of the many public tests that took place throughout the country from 1927 onwards. Source: Nationaal Militair Museum

Background

After the Great War, the Dutch government faced several problems. There were diplomatic problems, such as the question of whether to join the League of Nations or not, territorial problems, such as the Belgian claim on Dutch land, and financial problems. The war had crippled the economy as trade was reduced significantly and mobilization during the war had consumed a lot of money. As a result, the military had lost most of its political and social support, with defense spending being especially despised. General mobilization during the First World War had ‘wasted’ a lot of financial resources and the trade with Germany, which was very important for the Dutch industry, had nearly disappeared. Obligatory military service was seen as a burden on both the people and economy, and the terrifying images of the Great War lead to a strive for disarmament.

Combined with the thought that the Dutch polder landscape was too swampy for tanks to operate properly in, and the fact that the tank had not yet completely proven its indispensable value in battle, the General Staff decided that no tanks were to be bought, neither to trial, to familiarise the army with tanks, or to operate with the army’s operational structure.

Turning Tide

Several years passed after the war without a real desire to acquire tanks, and even armored vehicles in general, until 1925, when plans were made to buy one tank, only for testing purposes. On October 6th, 1925, the Minister of War, Mr. J.M.J.H. Lambooy, ordered the technical trade association Greve & Co. to buy one Renault FT from France. Greve & Co. imported European cars and was located in The Hague.
There was a problem, however, as the Ministry did not want to pay more than 25.000 guilders (US$125.377 in 2015 absolute worth). As such, negotiations would take two years until the tank, without armament installed, finally arrived in the Netherlands. A special Vechtwagen Commissie (Eng: Tank Committee) was established which had to test and evaluate the vehicle in different circumstances and conditions. The Infantry Inspector was in charge of the committee which consisted out of four officers: Captain B.C. van Erckelens, Captain K.A. Rövekamp, First Lieutenant F.G. Dürst Britt, and First Lieutenant N.J. Jelgersma. One of their first notes was the heavy damage that the tank caused on the roads, so a special trailer was built which had to be towed by a tractor. Both the tank and the tractor with its trailer suffered many breakdowns and were often in repair.

The tank while being loaded on the special built trailer. Source: Nationaal Militair Museum

Dutch Modifications

The tank acquired by the Dutch Army was the standard FT from 1917, but without fitted armament. Instead, a 7.92 mm M.08 Schwarzlose machine gun was rather crudely fitted by the Artillerie Inrichtingen Hembrug (Eng: Artillery Establishments Hembrug, a state-owned manufacturer of artillery, small arms, and ammunition) after the vehicle arrived in 1927.

Other changes included a handle which was mounted on both sides of the vehicle, spanning over the engine bay just behind the turret. A wrench was uniquely put on the left front lower side of the suspension-covering armor plate. After the modifications were executed, the vehicle was sent to the Ripperda Barracks in the city of Haarlem, its home base.

This picture was taken on March 3, 1928, during a trial in the dunes near Katwijk which was also attended by members of the royal family, including Queen Wilhelmina. The Dutch modifications are visible in this images, including a handle on the engine deck behind the turret, two attachment bits on the front hull side, a Schwarzlose machine gun, and the wrench placement. Source: BeeldbankWO2

Testing

Basic field testing started during the course of 1927, but the first major test to be carried out before the eyes of the press, government, and army officials was on April 12th, 1928. The area chosen was a peat polder behind Huis Ten Bosch Palace in The Hague. The tank’s main challenge would be to cross a ditch with a width of approximately 1.4 meters.

The tank completely failed the test and ditched itself into the mud. Unable to reverse, it had to be dug out. The story was widely covered in the Dutch press and positively approached, because, as it seemed, hostile tanks would never be able to maneuver in the Dutch landscape and even the Army Command was convinced.

The FT which got stuck during the test on April 12, 1928. The photo indicates that attempts have already been made to recover the vehicle. Source: Contemporary newspaper

But a different story appeared in the magazine Militaire Spectator (Eng: Military Spectator), written by two military engineer officers a few months later. As they rightfully claimed, this ditching problem was already present during the First World War, with many attempts made to solve this problem, and with success. Examples of these solutions were unditching beams and fascines. They also mention that tanks have been improved over time and that ground pressure had been reduced with many designs, which reduced the chance of ditching. To conclude, they claimed that this test did not prove anything at all.

The Tank Committee came to a similar conclusion. Their final report was based on many tests which had taken place throughout the country on all different types of terrain, including polders, swamps, claygrounds, dunes, and forests. During these tests, local garrisons were often tasked to build anti-tank obstacles which the tank then had to overcome. The tank often won. The report stated that the tank was superior in many areas of the country, except in polder areas. Tests were also carried out using a fascine near the city of Houten. The fascine could be released from within the vehicle and proved to be rather successful, so the argument that the tank could not be used in polder area was now proven invalid too. Based on these factors, the committee advised the Army Command and Ministry to continue testing with a modern tank. This was ignored. A tank was too expensive according to the Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant-General H.A. Seyffardt.

However, a vehicle discussed by the two engineering officers was a tankette from Carden-Loyd, which had superior ground pressure over the FT. Interestingly, the Army ordered that several examples of this vehicle would be acquired in 1928, however, if this decision was influenced by these two officers is hard to say. In 1931, five of these tankettes were delivered and served until they were captured by the German Army in May 1940.

Around 1930, a dummy tank was built out of plywood and its design resembled loosely a Renault FT. It was located at Camp Waalsdorp and used by the 1e Stormschool. Source: Nationaal Instituut Militaire Historie

The Following Years

After the last public tests with the tank in 1930, the tank was put in storage and no official plans were made to acquire more tanks. Meanwhile, armored vehicle development continued around the world and more advanced vehicles were designed every year.

Although it was announced in 1930 that no tanks were to be acquired, the first demands of Dutch officers arose for modern armored cars. The German rearmament programme, greatly intensified in 1933 by the Nazi regime, did not go unnoticed either, and officers started to express their concerns about this. However, the government initially believed that neutrality could not be retained by showing off with an aggressive army, so in the end, retaining neutrality was the main goal. However, the “si vis pacem para bellum” (If you want peace, prepare for war) notion became more apparent to the Ministry of Defence (the Ministry of War and Ministry of Navy were combined into Ministry of Defence in 1928), and so, 1934 saw the first signs of modernisation and motorisation of the army, which included a contract with the Swedish Landsverk to deliver twelve armored cars.

In February 1937, the army released an urgent program with all the needed measurements that had to be taken to make the army a serious force again. The then Chief of General Staff, Lieutenant-General I.H. Reynders, wrote that around 60 tanks, an additional squadron of armored cars, and two command armored cars were needed. Only the demand for armored cars was granted. Two years later, Reynders scaled the demand up to 110 light tanks, 36 medium tanks, and 100 armored cars.

One of the main reasons that no tanks were acquired had to do with the opinion of then Minister of Defence, Mr. Dijxhoorn. He believed that the concept of tanks had already become obsolete and saw this proven in the limited success of tanks during the Spanish Civil War. As such, he was strongly opposed to acquiring tanks, instead, he wanted to invest as much as possible in anti-tank measurements.

In November 1929, a ‘device’ was tested near the city of Houten, designed by Captain De Man. It fulfilled the same role as a fascine but was basically a wooden structure. It let the tank successfully cross ditches with a width of two meters. Source: Nationaal Militair Museum

1939-1940

After the German invasion of Poland in 1939, the army quickly tried to improve the defensive lines and were able to resolve multiple issues. The Renault FT tank was also brought back to life. It had to prove that the defensive lines were still impenetrable by tanks. At the end of October 1939, the tank was tested in the ‘Peel’ area. The test was attended by the commander of the field army, Lieutenant-General J.J.G. Baron van Voorst tot Voorst and his staff. The baron even changed the course set out for the tank. Against all expectations, the tank took the course successfully. This peat area proved in the 1920’s to be impassable, but after that, many peats had been removed to be used and now the area was suddenly passable by the tank, causing panic at the High Command. With great haste, an anti-tank channel, bunkers, and minefields were created in this area.

The infamous failed test with the FT in November 1939, an event extensively covered by the press. Source: NIMH

After this test, the FT was loaded on its trailer and moved to the Vlasakkers, a swampy area near the city of Amersfoort and very close to the home base of the Landsverk armored cars. The worst terrain had to be chosen and eventually, a former potato field was chosen with water standing 50 cm high.

The tests commenced, and the 21 years old FT started to plow itself through the mud. Everything went well initially until the first invisible ditches were encountered. The vehicle dived nose first into the mud, which did not cause any problems, however, when it climbed out of the ditch, the back of the vehicle became completely submerged. The dirty water streamed into the engine compartment and when it reached the magneto ignition, the engine broke down.

The General Staff, satisfied with what it had seen, came up with a cunning plan. A public demonstration was to be held, especially intended for the press, both foreign and domestic. During the demonstration, the vehicle had to fail its task ingloriously. This should, as thought out by the Staff, comfort the Dutch citizens and ultimately even cause a change of plans of a German attack.

The demonstration became a great negative success. Although the field itself did not cause great problems, the ditch beside the road did. The driver was instructed to try everything to let the tank fail, if the Renault would not fail the test itself. After the war, the driver recalled that the General instructed him to get the tank literally upside down. With a speed of 3 km/h, the tank, while slanted plowed itself into the ditch. As such, the driver had enough time to get out of the vehicle before it sunk away completely. Although portraying the opposite, the army command did realize that the tank was a more powerful machine than they wished. After the demonstration, the tank was pulled out of the mud and the necessary repairs were made.

When more demonstrations were executed, the Army Command got more and more frustrated, as the FT could actually overcome many obstacles and changed the defensive lines from a safety guarantee to a safety warning. During the winter of 1940, this frustration was expressed by an officer. The water was frozen and barricades with blocks of ice were made. Against all expectations, the tank broke through, albeit with some difficulties. One of the officers became so infuriated at this achievement that he pulled his gun out and fired multiple times at the tank. Although an interesting anecdote, it is doubtful if this actually happened, however, it portrays the hopelessness of the Dutch situation prior to WWII. It seemed that the Dutch Army not only had to make more anti-tank defenses but also had to acquire tanks themselves. This, however, was too late.

The FT during a demonstration early 1940. It took much effort for the troops to make these obstacles, made of ice blocks. In the end, they could still be overcome. Source: Nationaal Archief

When the country was attacked by Germany in May 1940, the Netherlands did not operate any tanks. The outdated FT stayed in Haarlem. The country was overrun and the bombing of Rotterdam caused the Dutch to capitulate within five days to prevent any other city being bombed. Only in the province of Zeeland fighting continued, and only because French troops were present.

Fact or fiction?

In the Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad (Eng: Batavian Newspaper) dated November 25th, 1940, an interview was held with officer-pilot Dr. Harloff. He was a geologist at the Department of Mining and was on leave in Holland when war broke out. There he was quickly promoted to Reservist Captain and assigned to an Airforce depot in the city of Rotterdam. He managed to escape successfully to England and travel back to the Dutch Indies. During the interview he told a remarkable story about a tank at Ypenburg airfield, close to The Hague:

“After the initial German attack on the airfield, the defending forces were eliminated, except for one tank, manned by a corporal and a soldier. When German Junkers 52 planes tried to land, it would break out of its concealment, low foliage at the side of the airstrip, and shoot at the incoming planes. Apparently, it shot down a total of 23 planes, a bizarre amount. After this action, it was destroyed by a 50kg bomb”

This story is contradictory to the official story, supported by official documents and other evidence. It is true that Landsverk armored cars were stationed at Ypenburg, and he probably referred to one of these vehicles, but even with the quick firing Bofors 37mm gun, this story is very unlikely to be true.

Fate

In reality, the tank ended its life as a gate guard at the Ripperda Barracks with its machine gun and engine removed. During the war, the tank was taken away by the Germans. Its fate is unknown, but it is very likely that it was scrapped. Two FT’s survive in the Netherlands, one in the National Military Museum Soesterberg and one in Museum Overloon, however, both are German beutepanzer of which 25 were active in the Netherlands during the Second World War to defend the airfields as part of the Luftgaukommando Holland (Eng: Air Command Holland). Nevertheless, the tank at the National Military Museum has been repainted in the same color as the original Dutch FT.

The Renault FT in the Dutch National Military Museum. Although not being the original Dutch FT, it has been repainted in its original color. Source: Author

Conclusion

The Dutch military command did not see enough tactical value in tanks to justify the expensive acquisition of them. Too much faith was put into the Dutch natural anti-tank landscape, which maybe could stop tanks from the WWI era, but definitely not newer tanks. The FT had proven itself to be better than expected, but was not a representative of interwar tank development; newer tanks performed even better. A fact already partially realised before the war, but experienced during the war.

In 1927, a detachment of the Royal Dutch Indies Army (KNIL) attended a test with the Renault at the Artillerie Inrichtingen. Source: Nationaal Archief

The tank bogged down at De Vlasakkers with its driver Sergeant G.F.J. Haaze. Colorized by Jaycee “Amazing Ace” Davis. Source: Nationaal Archief

Illustration of the Renault FT in Dutch Service produced by Bernard ‘Escodrion’ Baker, funded by our Patreon Campaign

Renault FT specifications
Dimensions	4.95(with tail)/4.20 x 1.74 x 2.14 m (16.24/13.77×5.7×7.02 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	6.7 tons
Crew	2 (commander/gunner, driver)
Propulsion	Renault 4 cyl petrol, 39 hp (24 kW)
Speed	7.5 km/h (4.66 mph)
Range/consumption	65 km (40.38 miles)
Armament	1x 7.92 mm Schwarzlose M.08 machine gun
Armor	22 mm (0.87 in)
Total production	3700 (France), 4 supplied to Italy.

Sources

Armamentaria 3, Hoefer, Stichting Het Nederlandse Leger- en Wapenmuseum, 1969.
Holland Paraat! Volume 2, J. Giesbers & A. Giesbers & R. Tas, Giesbers Media, 2016.
Militaire Spectator, Tijdschrift voor het Nederlands Leger 97, 1928.
Nederlandse Pantservoertuigen, C.M. Schulten & J. Theil, Van Holkema & Warendorf, 1979.
Tussen Paard en Pantser, Jan Hof, La Riviere & Voorhoeve, 1990.
Wereld In Oorlog 23, Norbert-Jan Nuij, Wereld In Oorlog, 2012.
Nationaal Militair Museum publications.
Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad, November 25, 1940.
De Maasbode, April 14, 1928.
Historicalstatistics.org used for converting currency

Renault FT World Tour Shirt

What a tour! Relive the glory days of the mighty little Renault FT! A portion of the proceeds from this purchase will support Tank Encyclopedia, a military history research project. Buy this T-Shirt on Gunji Graphics!

WW1 German Armor

Büssing A5P

German Empire (1915-1919)
Armored Car – 1 Built

The Büssing A5P is one of few armored vehicles built by the German Empire during the First World War. Its symmetrical design and great dimensions make it stand out from other designs of the time. With the order given to the company Büssing to design an armored car at the end of 1914, work progressed the following year and production of one vehicle started. Two other companies; Ehrhardt and Daimler, were also tasked to develop an armored car and all three companies finished their vehicle at the end of 1915.

The A5P after its completion, viewed from the front left, being presented to German and Austro-Hungarian army officials. Source: Tankograd Publications

Background

Although several armored cars were built in Germany before the First World War, like the Ehrhardt BAK and Opel Kriegswagen, both from 1906, the German army had no armored cars for tactical roles in their inventory when they went to war on August 1, 1914. This was due to the assumption of the Militär-Verkehrstruppen (Eng: military transport troops) that armored cars had not enough tactical or strategic impact in a war scenario, a view shared by many other European armies before the First World War. However, when the German troops encountered improvised armored cars at the front, such as Belgian Minervas, they quickly realised that the armored car actually had a great value.

The Oberste Heeresleitung (Eng: Supreme Army Command) was also convinced that armored cars had to be built, and on October 22, 1914, it requested the Kriegsministerium (Eng: War Ministry) to take the needed steps to start building armored cars as quickly as possible. The Minister of War approved this request five days later and ordered the Verkehrstechnische Prüfungskommission (VPK, Eng: transport technical testing commission) to make a list of requirements. Together with the Gewehr Prüfungskommission (GPK, Eng: Gun Testing Commission) and Abteilung A2 Infanterie (Eng: Department A2 Infantry) of the War Ministry, they presented a list on November 3, 1914.

Technical Requirements

The armored cars to be designed had to fulfill the following sixteen requirements:

An armament of three machine guns, one of them being a spare. Both guns should be able to fire simultaneously in any direction.
Ammunition load-out of at least 16,500 rounds.
A crew of eight: Commander, driver, and six machine gun operators (later changed to a crew of ten with two extra drivers).
Completely armored, with a minimum thickness of 5.5 mm (excluding roof armor).
A maximum weight of crew, armor, armament, and ammo combined of 2,500 kg (2 MG: 75 kg, ammo: 660 kg, crew: 600 kg, armor: 1000 kg).
The possibility of driving forward and backward at the same speed, without turning the vehicle.
A turnable driver seat in the middle of the vehicle (not required with a driver in the front and rear), closable observation slits for the driver, machine-gun operators should not be hindered by the driver.
Four-wheel drive.
As good off-road capabilities as possible, therefore one gear with short gearing and carry wheel belts and ramps.
A maximum speed of 40-60 km/h (forwards and backward).
An engine of at least 40 hp.
Sufficient engine cooling, despite covering armor plating.
Steel wheels (when possible disc wheels, not steel spoked wheels).
Solid rubber tires with armored protection.
On both front and rear, two Acetylene headlamps, one movable electric searchlight, and electric lighting in drivers cabin.

The armored car unit in Buchsweiler (Bouxwiller). From left to right: the Daimler/15, Ehrhardt/15, and Büssing/15. Source: Biblio Verlag

Development

Armed with this list, the VPK approached the firms Büssing, Ehrhardt, and Daimler-Motoren-Gesellschaft, which all agreed to build one vehicle. When completed, the vehicles were to run factory tests, after which they had to be handed over to the army battle-ready. Due to time restrictions, the vehicles were not to be initially tested by the crews. After completion, the vehicles were instead to be assigned to one unit and sent to the front. The vehicle that performed best was likely to be taken into serial production.

However, when development was carried out, the Western Front turned into a static war, eliminating the battle worthiness of armored cars, meaning that priority was given to development and production of trucks, artillery towing equipment, infantry weapons, and ammunition. As a consequence, the production of the three armored cars slowed down. Finally, on December 10, the VPK could report to the Ministry of War that the Daimler/15, Ehrhardt/15, and Büssing/15 were completed and ready for testing by the factory, meaning that development and production lasted for a bit longer than one year.

The Büssing Company

Why was Büssing tasked with producing an armored vehicle? The firm Büssing was founded in 1903 by Heinrich Büssing, in the city of Braunschweig (Lower Saxony, Germany). It produced trucks, as well as omnibuses, of which 400 were delivered to be used in London before the War broke out in 1914. In 1908, the first steps were taken to build trucks to be used in the German army. From 1914, Büssing delivered three types: the Type III (3500 kg payload), Type IV (4000 kg payload), and Type V (5000 kg payload). Due to a subsidization program launched by the Prussian government which improved sales of trucks, together with military orders coming in, Büssing had a solid financial basis.

So around 1910, it was possible for Büssing to dedicate itself more to the development of new technologies in the area of commercial vehicles as they had the financial resources. In this way, Büssing could take a technological lead in Germany, which meant that during the First World War, Büssing could build quite a lot of special purpose vehicles for the German army. Some of these pioneering breakthroughs, just made before the War, were 4-wheel drive chassis with steering both forward and backward, and 4-wheel steering. So Büssing had the possibility to fall back on an advanced chassis, which was a reason for the company to accept the order to build an armored car.

The chassis of the A5P. Keep in mind that the steering wheels are at an approximate height of 2 meters. Source: Panzernet

Design

The design Büssing came up with had huge dimensions. With a length of 9.5 m, the A5P is still the biggest armored car that has ever been built and put in active service. Due to the size, the vehicle had a weight of 10,250 kg, which all had to be powered by a four-stroke, Otto type, six-cylinder, water-cooled engine, producing 90 hp at 850 rpm. Power was transmitted to all four wheels, which were shod with solid rubber tires. Furthermore, the vehicle could be steered from both sides with a driver in the front and one in the rear. All factors combined resulted in a maximum speed of 35 km/h, both forwards or backward.

The fully symmetrical armored hull, made of chromed nickel plates, had a thickness of 7.5 mm at the front and rear, and 5.5 mm on the sides, while the roof had a thickness of 3.5 mm. The 7.5 mm plates provided enough protection against S-bullets (Spitgeschoß, meaning pointed bullet) from over 100 meters.

On top of the vehicle, a fixed turret was located with four machine gun hatches, facing to the front, rear and sides of the vehicle. The box-like crew compartment had two driver positions, with each driver having one viewing hatch to his disposal. Beside each driver’s viewport, one machine gun hatch was located. Furthermore, two machine gun hatches were installed on both sides of the crew compartment. The crew could enter through two doors, one on each side.

During the design stage, it is likely that Büssing, Daimler, and Ehrhardt worked together as all three vehicles share common features, like the way the machine gun ports are arranged and the shape of the crew compartment with a slightly sloped roof at the front and rear, as well as a round fixed turret in the middle.

Armament

The vehicle carried three MG 08 water cooled 7.9 mm machine guns, of which one was a spare. They were in use with the German Army from 1908 onwards. A munition loadout carried consisted of 11.500 S bullets and 5200 SmK bullets, carried in drums of 100 bullets or boxes of 250 bullets.

Experimentally, the Büssing was equipped with a 20 mm Becker M II TAK cannon for a short period. The cannon was initially designed as a gun to be mounted on airplanes and was for the first time experimentally fitted to a Gotha bomber in 1915, however, after the first British tanks were encountered on the Western Front in September 1916, it was further developed as an AT gun. It could fire both single or multiple shots.

After it was tested, the weapon was withdrawn by the OHL, based on the belief that MG 08 machine guns firing SmK ammunition were superior in battle over the 20 mm gun.

20 mm Becker anti-tank cannon, which was experimentally used for a few months. Source: Landships.info

Radio

In January and February of 1917, the armored cars were equipped with a Funkentechnischen FT-Gerät (Eng: radio technical device), when they were in repair after their service in Romania. The conversion was completed at the end of February 1917. When installed in the A5P, the radio had a 30 km range, but only 15-20 km in the Ehrhardt and Daimler.

Photo guide

Being symmetrical, it appears to be difficult to tell whether one is looking at the front or rear, but in fact it is not very hard to tell the difference. The main differences are that the front armor plate is flat, while the rear plate has a hatch in it with two handles. Furthermore, a crank shaft was located at the front, and the engine in the front could be accessed by hatches from the side. These side hatches and the crank shaft are absent at the rear.

Throughout its service, the Büssing received several different markings which can help to determine the time frame a picture was taken in. Initially, the vehicle was painted in a field grey color (probably grüngrau, RAL 7009). After being handed over to the army in May 1916, the abbreviation P.Kr.MG Z.1 was painted on the front and rear. It also bore the registration plate G 1595. When the vehicle was sent to Romania at the end of 1916, big black iron crosses on a white background were painted on the sides and front. It also received a different registration number and the abbreviation was changed to P.Kr.MG A.1

When the vehicle was sent to Ukraine in 1918, it received a camouflage scheme after a proposal made by the OHL in September 1918 in the colors green, ocher yellow, and russet. Furthermore, iron crosses were painted on the front and right side.

Production

Only one vehicle was built, although it is sometimes mentioned that three vehicles were made, this probably comes from an error made by the editorial of Waffen Revue, because they describe an image that shows three Büssing armored cars. However, the other two cars on the picture are the vehicles built by Daimler and Ehrhardt.

There were several reasons why no more A5Ps were built. First of all, the vehicle did not always perform as hoped, mainly caused by the heavy weight, limiting its operational use. The 4-wheel steering caused also more problems than advantages. Secondly, the firm Büssing was not capable to produce more armored cars as they were already busy with the production of artillery tractors and lorries and also got involved in the A7V tank programme.

The most important reason, however, was that the OHL had ordered vehicles from three different manufacturers as a sort of competition to eventually end up with the best option. When it was decided in December that an additional twelve armored cars were to be built, an improved list of requirements was made. After reviewing these new requirements, it became apparent that both the Büssing and Daimler vehicles could not be improved in such a way, and as a result, Ehrhardt received the order to build these vehicles, which would become the Ehrhardt E-V/4.

The crew enters the A5P. A staged photo, taken during the summer of 1916 in the surroundings of the city of Bouxwiller, Alsace, France. Source: Landships.info

Operational Use

The sole vehicle was completed at the end of 1915. After running factory tests, the vehicle was handed over to the army on May 22, 1916. It was assigned to the Panzerkraftwagen-MG-Zug 1 which was at that moment already active at the Western Front in the area north of Verdun. On June 19, the A5P reached its unit. The armored cars could not be used effectively and were instead sent to Buchsweiler (Bouxwiller) at the end of June. During the following months, the unit saw only combat seven times while stationed in the Alsace.

It would be the introduction of British tanks to the battlefield that caused the vehicles to be redirected to the Eastern Front. The OHL, encountering something they never had seen before, wanted to hear the opinion on these tanks from the commander of the armored car battalion. During this circumstance, the staff chief of the 9. Armee, Oberst Hesse, became aware that this unit was basically doing nothing.
However, on August 27 1916, the until then neutral country of Romania declared war on Austria-Hungary. The Transylvanian Carpathian mountains were crossed, and several cities were occupied by the new belligerents. On September 9, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Bulgarian troops went to counterattack. The German troops that took part in the counteroffensive were part of the 9. Armee, so Oberst Hesse lobbied that the cars should be moved to the new Romanian Front, which was approved by the OHL, and on October 12, the unit was on its way to Romania.

Situation in Romania

On October 18, 1916, the unit arrived in Transylvania. The unit was unloaded in Hermannstadt (Sibiu). The Büssing was put under command of the I. Res.-Korps from 23 to 26 October. The Ehrhardt and Büssing drove on the 24th from Kronnstadt (Brașov) to Oituz and performed several reconnaissance maneuvers, but the conditions were not positive for armored cars to be used so, on the 26th, they were sent back to Kronnstadt and reunited with the other armored cars.

On October 27, the vehicles moved from Sibiu to Hațeg, where it became apparent that there was a fracture in the rear axle of the Büssing, meaning that the vehicle had to be sent back to the factory in Braunschweig to be repaired; as a consequence, the Büssing was barely used in Romania. The other four armored vehicles (Daimler/15, Ehrhardt E-V/4, and two captured Belgian Minerva’s) were plagued by technical breakdowns as well. One after another suffered from severe breakdowns until only the Daimler/15 was left, however, on December 1, 1916, its engine broke too, meaning that all fighting vehicles were now out of service.

Reparations

As long as these vehicles were in repair, the remainder of the Abteilung was stationed in Berlin. On March 18, 1917, the unit was put under command of the military in Antwerp, Belgium. On March 25, the Büssing arrived in Kapellen, North of Antwerp. The Daimler and Ehrhardt would arrive later.

The A5P, seen from the rear, in markings it had while operational in Romania. Source: warwheels.net

The vehicles did not see any action, but a lot of training took place. In this period, the 20 mm Becker was tested, as well as training with the new radios which were mounted in the vehicles during the executed repairs. On July 11, the unit was sent back to Berlin where it arrived on July 13. In the same month, preparations were made to send some armored vehicles to the Middle East, excluding the Büssing as it was too heavy, however, it was realized that the roads in Syria were too bad for armored cars and the initial plans were abandoned.

Ukraine

Instead, while other armored car units were also formed with Ehrhardt E-V/4 model 1917 armored cars, it was decided that the 1st armored car unit was to be sent to Ukraine. The Büssing saw limited operation, caused by its heavy weight and big size. Eventually, it was assigned to another unit, Zug 2, which was located in Kiev. The decision was made as it was felt that the Büssing would perform better in a city which had good roads. The vehicle was stationed there until the end of the war. During this time, the vehicle received a camouflage pattern, and a nickname: ‘Grobetier’, meaning ‘Rough Animal’.

Fate

After the truce was signed on November 11 1918, which basically ended the war, German troops started to retreat to Germany, and the Büssing A5P was moved to the region Wünsdorf/Zossen. In 1919 it was still standing near the Kokampf Barracks at the city of Lankwitz and apparently saw no action, however, a user of the Landships forum mentions that he has a postcard from 1919, showing the Büssing A5P being used by the German Freikorps. It is still bearing the camouflage and nickname received in 1918. The vehicle was very likely scrapped in 1919/20.

The Büssing A5P in Ukraine at the end of 1918. This camouflage and adaptation of iron crosses were the last changes made to the vehicle before the war ended. Note the new nickname for the vehicle: ‘Grobetier’, meaning ‘Rough Animal’. Source: eBay

Conclusion

Being the only armored vehicle built by Büssing during the war, it was a remarkable achievement to build such a behemoth, which survived throughout the war. However, having served at both the Eastern and Western Front, the vehicle did not live up to expectations.

Büssing A5P specifications
Dimensions	9.5 x 2.1 x 3.5 m (31.17×6.89×11.48 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	10.3 tons
Crew	10
Propulsion	6-cylinder Büssing “Otto” petrol, 90 hp (67.14 kW)
Speed	35 km/h (21.7 mph)
Range (road)	240 km (150 mi)
Armament	3 x Mg08/Mg15na 7.92 mm (0.31 in) machine guns
Armor	3.5-7.5 mm (0.14-0.3 in)
Total production	1

Sources

Die deutschen Radpanzer im Ersten Weltkrieg Technische Entwicklung und Einsätze, Heinrich Kaufhold-Roll, Biblio Verlag, 1996.
Panzer-Kraftwagen Armoured Cars of the German Army and Freikorps, Tankograd No 1007, Rainer Strasheim, Jochen Vollert Verlag, 2013.
Die gepanzerte Radfahrzeuge des deutschen Heeres 1905-1945, Walter J. Spielberger, Hilary L. Doyle, Motorbuch Verlag, 2002.
Typenkompass Panzerkampfwagen im Ersten Weltkrieg, Wolfgang Fleischer, Motorbuch Verlag, 2017.
Waffen Revue 123, Karl R. Pawlas, Journal-Verlag Schwend, 2001.
Private Conversation with Chris (Landships Forum username ‘elbavaro’) concerning post-war images of the A5P.
Short film fragment, taken in Kiev, showing the Büssing A5P and an Ehrhardt E-V/4 1917. Note the crude way how the camouflage is applied: (WATCH HERE)

The Collosal Büssing A5P Armored Car. Note that the crank shaft is not attached to the socket. Illustration by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet, with corrections by Leander Jobse

WW2 Soviet Other Vehicles

IT-28

Soviet Union (1936-1941)
Armored Bridge Layer – 1 Built

The origins of armored bridge laying vehicles can be traced back to the First World War, when fascines (bundles of wood) were used by Allied tanks to be able to cross trenches and German anti-tank ditches. After the war, the idea of trench crossing systems based on tank chassis settled and the Soviets started to develop such vehicles which led, for example, to the CT-26 (ST-26), a bridge-laying tank based upon the T-26 light tank. When the T-28 medium tank was taken into production in 1933, it also proved to be a valuable base to test new designs and technologies, like mine crawlers, but also bridge tanks, one of them being the ИТ-28 (Инженерный Танк: Engineering Tank IT-28).

A clear view of the IT-28. Source: panzer-ostfront.blogspot.com

Development

The development of the IT-28 was started in 1936 by the Научном авто-тракторном институте (abbreviated НАТИ, NATI: Scientific Auto-Tractor Institute). Work went slowly and it was 4 years later, in March 1940, that the tank could be equipped with the prototype bridging system. Only one T-28, carrying serial number 1638, was assigned to be converted. The conversion took place at the Kirov factory No. 100 located in Leningrad. The main and the two secondary turrets were replaced by an armored superstructure. After completion, it was sent to the testing range and designated IT-1.

The IT-28 beside the factory. These pictures provide a good comparison between the size of the tank and the bridge. Source: aviarmor.net

Design

The space freed by the removal of the two secondary turrets was used to enlarge the crew compartment. However, two machine guns were fitted in ball mounts in the hull, roughly on the same place as the original turrets. On top of the enlarged hull, two extensions were placed to which two arms were attached. The bridge was carried, raised, and lowered by these two arms. These arms could be turned backward in case the bridge was not attached. To do so, a power transmitter was placed between the engine and the arms. The two-track bridge had a length of 13.3 meters. Both tracks were attached together by steel beams and had a total width of 3.5 meters. The weight of both chassis and bridge combined was 29 metric tonnes which was one tonne heavier than a serial production T-28.

Note the spikes at the end of each track so it would have a better grip. Source: Eksmo Publishing

The main turret was replaced by an armored eight-sided superstructure and two winches were placed on top. The winches were attached to the back of the bridge via a pulley located near the arms. With these winches, the bridge could be pulled forward. After that, the arms could be pointed to the ground and, by loosening the winches, gravity pulled the bridge to the ground until the last bar rested on the slight slopes on the arms. At this point, the winches had to be detached by the crew. Then, the arms could be lowered more, the bridge would lay on the ground and the vehicle could drive backward removing the hooks from under the bridge. After that, the arms were turned backward to ease travel.
Picking up the bridge was a bit more difficult to perform. Although it was basically the reverse system, the winches could not pull the bridge further than the position of the pulleys. When the bridge reached that point, the arms were slightly raised, so the bridge could slide down by the force of gravity, while the winches would be slowly loosened again.

The front and the back of the vehicle. Source: en.valka.cz

Trials and Fate

The first trials took place during June 1940, on the NIBT proving grounds in Kubinka. These trials showed that it took between three to five minutes to lay the bridge. The bridge itself could sustain loads up to fifty tonnes. However, several major flaws were encountered, like how the bridge had to be picked up as mentioned earlier, but also the fact that some of the crew had to get out of the vehicle to attach and detach the winches, becoming very vulnerable to enemy fire.
Despite these flaws, the general results were relatively good, but the T-28 medium tank was planned to be taken out of production, so the project was canceled. However, the system and idea of the bridge laying tank lived on. It was planned at one point to mount the system upon a KV chassis, but this idea was never realised. The only IT-28 prototype was not scrapped and kept at the testing range.
During early October 1941, several vehicles from the testing range including the IT-28 were assigned to two armored companies, Semenov and Maksimenko, which were named after their commanders. Additional vehicles were urgently needed and the IT-28 was assigned to the company Maksimenko on the 8th of October. Some paperwork stated that the vehicle was armed with two DT machineguns. In red ink, ‘Kazan’ was written on the form too, which might mean that the IT-28 had to be sent to the city of Kazan, but in reality all traces of the vehicle were lost after it was assigned to the company. It is very likely that the vehicle was either captured and possibly used by the Germans or reclaimed by either side. Its fate is unknown.

The IT-28, driving over the bridge during trials at the NIBT testing site in June 1940. Photo: Eksmo Publishing

Other T-28 Based Bridging Vehicles

Beside the IT-28, several other vehicles were produced and tested. In 1936, the ДМТ-28 (DMT-28, with DM probably meaning деревянный мост, wooden bridge) was created. As the name suggests, it was basically a wooden bridge mounted on the T-28 chassis. The bridge could overcome ditches with a width of six meters and 2.3 meters wide eskers, ridges of stratified sand or gravel. Trials proved to be unsatisfying and further development was discontinued.
In the early months of 1940, another attempt was made to design a system to overcome ditches. It consisted of a metal bridge rigidly attached to a T-28 chassis with a removed main turret. This was done at the Kirov plant and specifically designed to overcome the anti-tank ditches of the Finnish Mannerheim Line. The philosophy was simple, just drive the tank into the ditch so other vehicles can cross over it. The idea is similar to that of the British Churchill ARK. One vehicle was converted, but the trials showed that the design was highly inefficient and the project was canceled. This may be to do with the end of the Winter War on the 13th of March 1940.

A schematic drawing of a T-28 with an attached metal bridge, designed at the Kirov plant in 1940.

DFT-28

During 1939, another T-28 tank was equipped with wooden fascines. Trials showed that, with help of these fascines, trenches with a width up to six meters and a depth up to 2 meters could be crossed. The vehicle was called ДФТ-28 (DFT-28 with DF probably meaning деревянная фасция, wooden fascines). This project was discontinued as well. No photographs of this tank or its trials are known.

Conclusion

Although the IT-28 was original and worked relatively well, some major issues still had to be resolved, beside, the chassis was already obsolete in 1940-41. Maybe the most successful part of this project was the sustainability of the bridge itself, which could sustain every Soviet tank that was taken into serial production, not only at the time of construction, but also later tanks like the majority of the IS tanks. The IT-28 never went into production, but its legacy lived forth after World War II, with the MTU-12 ABVL based upon the T-54 tank chassis and resembling the IT-28 system.

T-28 specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	7.35 m x 2.77 m x 2.78 m (24ft 1in x 9ft 1in x 9ft 1in)
Propulsion	12 cyl 45L Mikulin M17, 500 bhp
Speed (road/off-road)	37/20 km/h (23/13 mph)
Range	220 km (140 mi)
Armor	20 to 30 mm (0.79-1.18 in)
Track width	41 cm (1ft 1 inch)
Track length	17 cm (6.7 inches)
Total production	1

Links, Resources & Further Reading

1941 Tanks in the Battle Of Moscow, Maksim Kolomiets.
Medium tank Т-28, Stalin’s three-headed monster, Maksim Kolomiets
“Frontovaya Illyustratsiya” issue No. 4-2000, RKK T-28 and T-28 Multi-turreted Tanks, Maksim Kolomiets.

Illustration of the ИТ-28 (Инженерный Танк: Engineering Tank IT-28) by Ardhya ‘Vesp’ Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign

Red Army Auxiliary Armoured Vehicles, 1930–1945 (Images of War), by Alex Tarasov

If you ever wanted to learn about probably the most obscure parts of the Soviet tank forces during the Interwar and WW2 – this book is for you.

The book tells the story of the Soviet auxiliary armor, from the conceptual and doctrinal developments of the 1930s to the fierce battles of the Great Patriotic War.

The author not only pays attention to the technical side, but also examines organizational and doctrinal questions, as well as the role and place of the auxiliary armor, as it was seen by the Soviet pioneers of armored warfare Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Vladimir Triandafillov and Konstantin Kalinovsky.

A significant part of the book is dedicated to real battlefield experiences taken from Soviet combat reports. The author analyses the question of how the lack of auxiliary armor affected the combat efficacy of the Soviet tank troops during the most significant operations of the Great Patriotic War, including:

– the South-Western Front, January 1942
– the 3rd Guards Tank Army in the battles for Kharkov in December 1942–March 1943
– the 2nd Tank Army in January–February 1944, during the battles of the Zhitomir–Berdichev offensive
– the 6th Guards Tank Army in the Manchurian operation in August–September 1945

The book also explores the question of engineering support from 1930 to the Battle of Berlin. The research is based mainly on archival documents never published before and it will be very useful for scholars and researchers.
Buy this book on Amazon!

WW2 British Vehicles in Foreign Service WW2 Dutch Tanks

Carden-Loyd Mk.VI in Dutch Service

Post author By Leander Jobse
Post date September 20, 2018
1 Comment on Carden-Loyd Mk.VI in Dutch Service

Kingdom of the Netherlands (1931-1940)
Tankette – 5 Purchased

The Dutch army received its first tracked armored vehicle in 1927, a Renault FT tank for testing purposes. After it was trialled, the Vechtwagen Commissie (Eng: Tank Commission) suggested that more modern tanks should be acquired for testing. The Ministry of Defence did not agree, but negotiations were started with the British firm Carden-Loyd to purchase some vehicles which were meant to be mainly used during domestic troubles. A total of five Carden-Loyd Mk.VI Tankettes were delivered and would remain the only tracked armored vehicles in active service with the Dutch Royal Army until war broke out in May 1940.

Two tankettes, among which the Luipaard. Source: waroverholland.nl

The Purchase

In 1928, the Artillerie Inrichtingen, together with the Nederlandsche Engelsche Technische Handelsmaatschappij (Eng: Dutch English Technical Trading Company), negotiated with Carden-Loyd about the purchase of six Mark VI tracked vehicles. Negotiations lasted for three years until the Dutch Minister of Defence approved the agreement.
The Dutch Army paid 10,000 guilders each for these vehicles (approximately US$58,000 in 2015 values). However, for unknown reasons, the factory could only deliver five out of six vehicles ordered. These vehicles were assigned to the Korps Rijdende Artillerie (Eng: Corps Mobile Artillery). The vehicles were transported by a trailer, bought specifically for this task, for an amount of 400 guilders (approximately US$2,300 in 2015 values). Over long distances, it was planned that the vehicles would be transported on the back of a truck.

The Minister of Defence wrote in a letter to the General Staff that the vehicles were mainly meant to be used during domestic crises. As such, he did not want to definitely assign them to the field army so they were withheld from the combined army exercises and were instead only used in small scale exercises. The vehicles received registration numbers, but the Minister did not want to give each a tactical number and instead he gave each vehicle a name: Poema (Puma, M37270), Luipaard (Leopard, M37271), Lynx (M37272), Jaguar (M37273), and Panter (Panther, M37274).

Two Mark VI vehicles in Arnhem, one of them is loaded on a GMC truck. They bear the registration numbers M37270 and M37272. Their small size stands out, especially compared to the Morris armored car in front of them. Source: NIMH

Design

The main production model of the Mark VI was acquired by the Dutch army. Its most distinctive features were the two armored extensions on top of the vehicle, protecting the heads of both the driver on the left and the gunner on the right. The sole machine gun could be removed from its mount on the right side. The vehicle was powered by a Ford model T engine, located in the middle of the vehicle and produced 40 bhp, which resulted in a maximum speed of 40 km/h (25 mph), as the vehicle only weighed 1,800 kg (3,968 lbs).

The armament consisted of one Vickers .303 (7.7mm) machine gun, designated Vickers M.18 in Dutch service. Approximately 1000 of these guns were acquired from Britain in 1918. In 1935, the remainder of these guns were modified to caliber 7.92 mm bullets for logistical purposes. At this time, the Vickers machine gun was mainly in use with reserve units, mounted on older planes and on the Carden-Loyd vehicles. On at least one vehicle, the Vickers machine gun was replaced by a 6.5mm Lewis machine gun, also in use by the Dutch Army and known as M.20. What made the Dutch vehicles unique, compared to the same tankettes used by other countries, is that a gun shield was installed to improve the gunner’s protection, although it limited his view.

Poema during mobilisation. On this picture, the black lined orange triangles are clearly visible. Source: Dutch National Archives

The Lynx during water testing near Amersfoort. It seems to be towing some kind of trailer, potentially a gun. Source: Dutch National Archives

Jordaan Riots

Some of the five vehicles were used operationally for the first time in July, 1934 during the Jordaan Riots. Due to the economic crisis which was started by the Wall Street Crash in 1929, there was a high rate of unemployment in the district. Many unemployed people lived in the city of Amsterdam and when news came that the social benefits would be lowered by ten percent, riots broke out in the Jordaan district. The police responded by asking the military for help and also deployed their own armored cars.

Among the military troops deployed for this were at least two tankettes, namely the M37270 and M37272. Not much is known about their action, but a report of the responsible commander showed that the tracks were heavily worn down by the roads and running over barricades, so they had to be replaced very soon. Another problem that arose during the deployment was the transport of the vehicles. When two tankettes had to be transported back from Amsterdam to The Hague, the only trailer was located in The Hague which caused some logistical problems.

Service During WWII

All five vehicles, although they started to show their age, were still in active use when, despite the neutrality of the Netherlands, the country was attacked by Germany on May 10, 1940. At this time, two were located in Deventer, two at Waalhaven airfield (close to Rotterdam), and one was stationed in Amersfoort together with a Morris armored car. During the mobilisation, their registration numbers were replaced by a distinctive blacklined orange triangle, also used by the airforce.

A captured vehicle at Waalhaven airfield, being examined by Hermann Göring. The machine gun has been removed. The abbreviation K.R.A. stands for Korps Rijdende Artillerie (Eng: Corps Mobile Artillery). Source: NAC online

Unfortunately, not much is known about the vehicles stationed in Amersfoort and Deventer, however, information about the two vehicles at Waalhaven airfield is available. When the Netherlands was attacked on May 10th, 1940, German paratroopers were deployed above the western provinces, called Holland. The main goals these paratroopers had to achieve were capturing the government and the Queen, and controlling the airfields. As such, the Waalhaven airfield was also attacked. The Dutch Army was already prepared for the German attempt to take the airfields, hence why they stationed nearly all their armored vehicles at airfields.

The airfield was first bombed at 3:55 a.m. This bombing put both vehicles out of action. On one of the tankettes, the steering gear was severely damaged due to the explosions and the crew was forced to abandon the vehicle. Some dirt ended up in the machine gun barrel of the other tankette, commanded by Second Lieutenant ir. F. des Tombe. He immediately backed off and the crew tried to clean the gun. Just when they were done cleaning, the second attack started at 4:45 a.m., which also involved paratroopers. Some of them landed very close to the vehicle, so the crew tried to get away, but in doing so, the engine broke down. They eventually evacuated the vehicle and took the machine gun with them. Both tankettes fell in German hands.

Fate

After the Netherlands surrendered to Germany, all five vehicles fell into German hands. What happened to them afterward is unknown. They could have been used as beutepanzer, but given that they were already nine years in service, they were probably scrapped during the war.

Dutch Carden-Loyd Mk.VI Tankette. Illustrated by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet, modified by Leander Jobse.

Specifications
Dimensions	2.46 x 1.75 x 1.22 m (8.07 x 5.74 x 4 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	1.5 tons
Crew	2 (driver, machine-gunner)
Propulsion	Ford T 4-cyl petrol, 40 bhp
Speed (road)	25 mph (40 km/h)
Range	89 mi (144 km)
Armament	0.303 in (7.62 mm) Vickers machine-gun
Armor	6 to 9 mm (0.24-0.35 in)
Total Purchased	5

Links & Resources

C.M. Schulten, J. Theil. Nederlandse Pantservoertuigen, Van Holkema & Warendorf, 1979.
J. Giesbers, A. Giesbers, R. Tas. Holland paraat! Volume 2, Giesbers Media, 2016.
Dr. L. de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog Deel 3 Mei 1940, staatsuitgeverij, 1970.
Hoefer, Armamentaria 3, Stichting Het Nederlandse Leger- en Wapenmuseum, 1969.
Beeldbankwo2.nl ‘Pantser rupswiel tanks waarin mitrailleurs trekken door de straten.’
waroverholland.nl
Historicalstatistics.org was used to convert currency
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IULgzrkmY7s]

WW2 Dutch Tanks WW2 US Medium Tanks

Marmon-Herrington MTLS-1GI4

Post author By Leander Jobse
Post date July 3, 2018
11 Comments on Marmon-Herrington MTLS-1GI4

United States of America/Kingdom of the Netherlands (1941-1957)
Medium Tank – 125 Built

The Marmon-Herrington MTLS-1GI4 is probably the most unusual tank produced by the Marmon-Herrington company before and during the Second World War. During the spring of 1941, 200 pieces were ordered by the Netherlands Purchase Commision for the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army (Dutch: Koninklijk Nederlandsch-Indisch Leger, abbreviated to ‘KNIL’), in a desperate move to equip itself with tanks. Armed with twin 37mm guns and up to 7 machine guns, the tank was a one of a kind.

The MTLS at Aberdeen. The unusual machine-gun mount in the side of the turret stands out. Photo: Nicholas ‘The Chieftain’ Moran

Dutch order

Starting in 1936, the KNIL tried to re-equip itself, as it had been neglected for nearly twenty years. Four Vickers tanks, including two amphibious models, were obtained and, satisfied with the results of testing, the KNIL placed an order for 73 light tanks and 45 gun-armed command tanks, but due to the outbreak of the war, only 20 light tanks were delivered before the UK blocked all exports. So, the KNIL turned to the United States and bought a total of 628 Marmon-Herrington tanks instead. Two hundred of these were the MTLS-1GI4 model. It was agreed that the complete order of CTMS and CTLS and 100 MTLS tanks should be delivered before 1st July 1942. Due to the company having no experience handling an order this big, they suffered from huge production delays and only a small number of the CTLS made it to the East Indies before Java was occupied by the Japanese and all transports were canceled. The production order was taken over by the US Army and production of the 200 MTLS was halted by the US after just 125 pieces had been built.

Both pictures taken at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Photo: Nicholas ‘The Chieftain’ Moran

Design

The MTLS tank was an enlarged version of the CTMS tank which, in turn, was based on the Combat Tank Light series (CTL), designed by Marmon-Herrington in the mid-1930’s. Although the vertical volute spring suspension was reinforced compared to the CTL tanks, it was not really fit to support a weight of 22 US tons (20,000kg). The armor thickness varied between 1½ inches (38mm) at the front and ½ inch (13mm) on top. The tracks were 18 inches (46cm) wide. The Hercules gasoline engine produced 240 horsepower and resulted in a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour (40 kph).

The twin mounted semi-automatic 37mm L.44 guns were designed by the American Armament Corporation. Both could be loaded with a clip of five shells. Although a high firing rate was promised, tests at Aberdeen concluded they often could not even fire a single shell. A .30 cal machine-gun was mounted coaxially. Another one was ball-mounted in the right front sidewall of the turret and faced forwards. Two machine-guns could be mounted on the back of the turret and serve as anti-air guns. Two more machine-guns could be mounted fixed in the hull, although most of the times only one was installed, while a seventh was located in a ball-mount.

A Dutch MTLS is overtaking a ditch. Note that six machine guns are fitted. Source: NIMH

An MTLS, in used by Dutch Forces in Suriname during the 1950s. Note the presence of Dutch flags painted on top of the guns housing and on the side of the hull. Source: NIMH

The MTLS had some severe design flaws, as the vehicle was essentially an enlarged version of a vehicle weighing less than 10 US tons, now coming in at 22 US tons. The increased weight had a severe impact on the suspension and overall structure of the vehicle, making it very unreliable. Furthermore, the increase of the number of crewmen from two to four was not well taken into account and, as a result, the complete crew had to enter through the hatch on top of the turret, which would be rather inconvenient in a combat situation.

Fit for US service?

One MTLS was tested at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds by the US starting in April 1943 and continuing until November. The test results were clearly stated in the report: “The vehicle is thoroughly unreliable, mechanically and structurally unsound, underpowered and equipped with unsatisfactory armament. The 4-Man Dutch Tank Model MTLS-1GI4 is not a satisfactory combat vehicle for any branch of the Armed Forces”. However, in 1946, the vehicle was still present at Aberdeen, together with the CTMS tank, which was also tested, but what happened to them afterward is unknown.

An MTLS, next to an M22 Locust airborne tank, also produced by Marmon-Herrington. Photo: Aviarmor.net

Sent to Suriname

Although the Netherlands was occupied by the Germans and the Dutch Indies were occupied by the Japanese, the Kingdom of the Netherlands still possessed colonies in Latin America. These were very important for the US as they provided oil and most of the bauxite that was needed for the production of aluminum. For defense, first American troops, but later troops from Puerto Rico were stationed at these Dutch colonies. Furthermore, a Tank Battalion (Bataljon Vechtwagens) was founded in May 1942, based in Suriname.

Together with 28 CTLS and 26 CTMS tanks, 19 MTLS tanks were sent to Suriname. They were operated by the battalion which consisted out of a marines detachment, about eighty men and a detachment from the Prinses Irene Brigade, with 225 men and soldiers that were already stationed in Suriname. However, the Dutch Army could not directly provide enough resources to maintain a full battalion, which lacked personnel and accommodation, but a ‘half-battalion’ was formed during the summer of 1943. Unfortunately, the marines detachment moved to the USA in September 1943 for training and the group from the Prinses Irene Brigade also returned to England in 1943, in preparation for the planned invasion in France. To make matters worse, volunteers left to Australia to join the Dutch troops stationed there. This huge lack of personnel led to that the battalion only operated a small portion of their tanks. Plans to ship all MTLS tanks to Indonesia after the Second World War were quickly abandoned, because it was considered to be too expensive.

Camouflaged MTLS during exercises in Suriname, 1950’s. Photo: Dutch military archives

Anothter picture of an MTLS in action in the 1950s, possibly around the same time as the image above. Note that apparantly, one gun barrel has been removed.: Source: NIMH

Two MTLS and three CTMS during a training session. the MTLS in front is called Draak, meaning Dragon in English. Source: NIMH

Eventually, the tank unit was disbanded in 1946 and all tanks were put into storage. When it was decided that the tank unit should be operational again in 1947, most of the tanks were in a bad state. Rusting and lacking equipment, only a part of the 73 original tanks could be made operational. How many MTLS tanks were operational at this point is not specified. Seven years later, in 1954, only ten tanks were still operational, among them at least two MTLS. In 1956, this number was reduced to two, until the tank unit was discontinued in 1957. The tanks were not immediately scrapped as there is some documentation of wrecked tanks after 1957.

Picture from 1967, showing a rusted and stripped MTLS hull. Location is unknown, somewhere in Suriname.

A rather blurry picture of two non-operational MTLS tanks in 1964. De “Stooters” means something like ‘the Breachers’, but it is unclear whether this was a nickname for the MTLS or just a general nickname to refer to any tank. Source: Magazine ‘De Fotoclub’, 28 October, 1964

Illustration of the Marmon-Herrington MTLS-1GI4 light tank. The vehicle is missing its hull machine-gun. Illustrated by Jaroslaw “Jarja” Janas and sponsored by Deadly Dilemma through our Patreon page

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	4.9 x 2.64 x 2.81 m
Total weight, battle ready	20.000kg (22 US tons)
Crew	4
Propulsion	Hercules water-cooled engine, 240hp
Speed	40 km/h (25mph)
Armament	Dual 37mm L.44 AAC guns Up to seven .30 cal (7.62mm) Colt or Browning machine guns
Armor	13-38mm (½”-1½” inch)

Sources

Nicholas ‘The Chieftain’ Moran
Jane’s World War II Tanks and Fighting Vehicles, The Complete Guide, Leland Ness.
World War 2 In Review: American Fighting Vehicles, Issue 2, Merriam Press.
De Surinamer: Nieuws en advertentieblad, 1 February 1949.
Presidio Press, Stuart: A History of the American Light Tank, R.P. Hunnicutt.
On mapleleafup.nl/marmonherrington, Hanno L. Spoelstra.

WW2 Dutch Tanks WW2 US Light Tanks

Marmon-Herrington CTMS-ITB1

Post author By Leander Jobse
Post date June 9, 2018
8 Comments on Marmon-Herrington CTMS-ITB1

United States of America/Kingdom of the Netherlands (1941)
Light Tank – 194 Built

After years of neglect, the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army (Koninklijk Nederlandsch-Indisch Leger, abbreviated to ‘KNIL’) tried to re-equip itself with new material starting in 1936. Four Vickers tanks, two light and two amphibious, were acquired and the KNIL was satisfied with the results of testing them, so 73 light tanks were ordered. Furthermore, 45 gun-armed Vickers command tanks were ordered in 1939 but, due to the outbreak of the war, Britain needed all its resources and production facilities to reinforce its own army and no more than twenty light tanks and no command tanks arrived in the Indies.
In desperate need of armor, the KNIL turned to the company Marmon-Herrington, the only non-European commercial tank building company at the beginning of World War 2. In total, 628 tanks were ordered: 234 CTLS-4TA, 194 CTMS-ITB1, and 200 MTLS-1G14 tanks. These tanks were all based on the same principle design, but features were added on Dutch request. The complete order of 194 CTMS was completed, but only 31 ended up with Dutch troops in its Caribbean colonies, among which were Suriname, Aruba, Curaçao and a few smaller islands, also referred to as the ‘West Indies’. Thirty others were sent to Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Mexico respectively as part of the Lend-Lease program and were commonly known under the nickname ‘Dutch three men tank’.

The Design

The CTMS (Combat Tank Medium Series) was essentially just a bigger CTLS tank. The tracks were redesigned and wider, measuring 15 inches (38 cm). Some spare tracks were put at the front of the lower hull. Two small lights were placed on the front. The tank was propelled by a Hercules RLXDI inline-six petrol/gasoline engine. It produced 174 hp at 2600 rpm which resulted in a maximum speed of 25 mph (40 kph). The exhaust was located on the left side and covered by a grid. Three vents were located on the engine deck. The suspension was composed of vertical volute springs and four small wheels. Two return rollers guided the tracks and the sprocket was located at the front. The sliding gear transmission was manually operated with five-speed forwards and one in reverse.
The main armament was a 37mm 44 caliber automatic gun. The gun was designed by the American Armament Corporation. The standard US 37mm M5 or M6 gun did not fit in the turret. Coaxially, a .30 Cal (7.62mm) Colt machine gun was mounted. Up to three Colt machine guns could be fitted in the hull, but it appears that a maximum of two was used in any case. The gunner was provided with a telescope through which he could aim both the gun and the coaxial machine-gun. No radio was installed, although it is possible that some were mounted during local adjustments.
The vehicle weighed 13 US tons (11.340 kg), which resulted in a ground pressure of 9 psi (0,633 kg/cm2). The tank could take slopes of 50 percent. The armor consisted of bolted plates. Three vision slits were located in the front hull and one on each side. Some vision slits were located in the turret as well and were all protected by glass blocks.

In Dutch Service

As already mentioned, the KNIL ordered a total of 628 tanks. The Marmon-Herrington company, having no experience handling an order this big, suffered from huge production delays and the first planned delivery date of 165 CTLS and 140 CTMS tanks on January 1st 1942 could not be met. In fact, only a small number of the CTLS made it to the East Indies before Java was occupied by the Japanese and all transports were canceled. In the meantime, the contract was still being completed, but at this stage taken over by the US government.

A CTMS-ITB1 being inspected by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, 1943. Source: Overvalwagen forum.

Now that the Indies had fallen, the only remaining free part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands was the Antilles and Dutch Guiana (Suriname). In May 1942, the Bataljon Vechtwagens (Tanks Battalion) was formed of which some personnel was already trained in the USA. The battalion was part of the Mixed Motorized Brigade and its personnel consisted of a marines detachment, about eighty men, and a detachment from the Princess Irene Brigade, of 225 men.
Within a short time, among other equipment, 73-74 tanks were sent to Suriname, 28 CTLS, 26 CTMS and 19-20 MTLS tanks. However, the Dutch Army could not directly provide enough resources to maintain a full battalion, as it lacked personnel and accommodation, but a ‘half-battalion’ was formed during the summer of 1943. Unfortunately, the marines detachment moved to the USA in September 1943 for training and the group from the Princess Irene Brigade also returned to England in 1943, in preparation for the planned invasion of France. To make matters worse, volunteers left for Australia to join the Dutch troops stationed there. This huge lack of personnel meant that the battalion could only operate a small part of their tanks.

CTMS tanks on parade in Paramaribo during the war. Source: Dutch National Archives

When even more men were allowed to go home after the war in 1946, the tank unit had to be disbanded and all tanks were put in storage, some even left out in the open. Some sources suggest that a few tanks were sent to the Indies in 1946 to fight in the Independence war, but this has never been strongly confirmed and is quite unlikely. What happened to the single CTMS sent to Aruba and the two sent to Curacao is unknown.
In 1947, it was decided that an active cavalry unit was desired to be deployed in Suriname but many tanks were in a bad state. Turrets were rusted to the hull and many lacked armament. In 1954, not more than 10 out of the original 74 tanks were still operational. One of these lacked a turret and was used as a recovery vehicle, although it is sometimes identified as a command tank as well. In 1956, only two were still in running order and a year later, in 1957, the tank unit was discontinued. All vehicles were scrapped.

Ecuador’s First Tank

The Ecuadorian Army also got their hands on the CTMS when they tried to buy weapons after the war with Peru in 1941. Twelve vehicles were purchased from the United States and landed in the city of Guayaquil between February and March 1942 or 1943. By rail, they were transferred to the city of Quito and transferred to the newly formed Tank School Squadron no.1 (Escuadrón Escuela de Tanques no. 1). This squadron was based in the camp of the ‘Yaguachi’ Cavalry Group (Grupo de Caballería), located in the city district of La Magdalena.
The Peruvian invasion of Ecuador in 1941 and the US involvement in the Second World War hindered US Army officials from instructing or advising the Ecuadorian Army and instructors would not arrive until 1946. However, justified by the need of training in American tanks, Ecuadorian personnel was sent to the US to become tank instructors for the Ecuadorian Army. Among them were Lieutenants Reinaldo Varea Donoso, Andres Arrata Macias, and Carlos Arregui Armas.
Unlike other armies, the Ecuadorian Army was quite pleased with the performance of the tanks and were kept in service until 1959. Five vehicles were preserved and put as monuments. One is located at the National Military Academy in Quito. In southern Quito, two pairs of CTMS tanks are located at the Epiclachima Mechanized and Motorized Equipment School. Each tank bears a different nickname, the first pair was named after Indian chiefs: Atahualpa and Epiclachima. The other two are named after war heroes from the Ecuadorian-Peruvian war: Captains Juan I Pareja and Hugo Coronel. All five vehicles appear to have either new or fake guns, as the barrels seem too long.

This picture shows eight of the twelve vehicles acquired by Ecuador. Source

Accompany for the CTVL

Mexico acquired four tanks in 1942 via the Lend-Lease program. They accompanied the nine Marmon-Herrington CTVL tanks already in service in 1938 in the Compañía Reducida de Tanques Ligeros (Reduced Light Tanks Company), based in Mexico City. Later, they were added to the tank group of the Brigada Motomecanizada (Mechanized Brigade). In 1955, they were taken out of service and put in storage after which all four were scrapped.

Three Mexican CTMS tanks can be seen together with three Marmon-Herrington CTVL tanks. Nine of these were already in service with the Mexican army before the war. Source: Sentinel Mexico Marmon Dossier 2

Marmon Herrington CTMS ITB1 — Illustration of the Marmon-Herrington CTMS-ITB1 by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet

The CTMS-ITB1 in Cuba

Cuba was one of the first Latin American countries that declared war on the Axis powers after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. As Cuba was an important ally in the Caribbean, it received a reasonable amount of military aid through the Lend-Lease program. Part of this aid was the delivery of eight Marmon-Herrington tanks by the U.S. Ordnance Department, which became known in the Cuban army as the ‘3 Man Dutch’. They participated in the war against the guerrillas of Fidel Castro in 1958 and so are probably the only CTMS tanks that saw real fighting. In January 1959, five were still in service and in 1960, these were modified and fitted with short-range radios. The original 37mm cannon was also replaced by a Bofors QF 20mm gun. This was probably done due to a shortage of 37mm shells, whereas for the 20mm plenty were available. In 1962, the vehicles were finally taken out of service as no spares were delivered by the US and vital components, including the engine, started to show their age.

A photo of a Cubann CTMS-ITB1 from the 1950s. Among the people standing on the tank are President Fulgencio Batista in civilian clothes and the Army Chief of Staff, General Eleuterio Pedraza, seen to the right. Batista, formerly president between 1940 and 1944, had regained power in 1952 after a military coup with support from Pedraza, and his rule lasted until the Cuban Revolution in 1959. Source: wwiiafterwwii

Guatemalan Service

The last country to receive CTMS tanks was Guatemala. Little is known about the six acquired vehicles but they were unpopular among Guatemalan troops. The vehicles ended their service as gate guards. One vehicle still survives as a monument, located beside the road Avenida De La Barranquilla in Guatemala City. The Marmon-Herrington tank in possession of the Militia Museum of New Jersey is an ex-Guatemalan vehicle. Its one of the at least three vehicles that returned to the US and were for sale in 1994.

This picture was taken during the October Revolution in 1944. In the early morning of October 20th, rebels took the Matamoros Barracks in Guatemala City, which marked the beginning of sixteen hours of combat that resulted in the overthrow of the government in office. Source: IPMS/Guatemala

The Guatemalan tanks received a three-colored camouflage scheme. Its exact colors are unknown. Source: aviarmor.net

Three Guatemalan CTMS tanks that were sent to the US to be sold in 1994, along with a Stuart and four M8 Greyhounds. Source: Wheels & Tracks 50.

The CTMS in the US

Of the 194 produced tanks, only 61 tanks were sent abroad, leaving the US Army with 133 tanks. One was sent to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds where it was thoroughly tested from February 25th until May 3rd, 1943. It drove 454 miles during these tests, after which it was concluded that the CTMS would not serve any purpose in the US Army and the entire batch of 133 was scrapped. The CTMS, together with an MTLS tank, was still present at Aberdeen in 1946, but what happened to them after that is unknown.
Apart from the CTMS at the Militia Museum, three more tanks are known to be in the US. Two vehicles, originally part of the Littlefield collection, were transferred to the Collings Foundation. These are probably ex-Guatemalan vehicles. The other vehicle’s location is unknown, and on photographs it appears to be in a rusty but still presentable state.

The Marmon-Herrington tank at the New Jersey Militia Museum. Photo: forum.valka.cz

CTM-3TBD

The only other produced tank from the CTMS line was the CTM-3TBD. Its hull was completely identical to the ITB1. It was designed after requirements set by the US Marine Corps, which required a turret and a diesel engine. As such, this was the first and only Marmon-Herrington tank that was powered by a diesel engine, a 123hp Hercules DXRB. Three .30 cal machine-guns were mounted in the hull. Two 12.7mm (.50 cal) machine-guns were mounted in the turret. The armor was between ¼ and ½ inch (6-13mm) thick and it weighed 20,800lbs, although it was designed to be 18,500lbs. The vehicle had a top speed of 30mph (48 kph) and a range of 125 miles (200 km). The crew consisted out of three men, commander, driver, and gunner.
Five vehicles were built for a price of US$29,780 a piece. After trials had taken place, it was concluded that the vehicles did not have an outstanding performance and it was decided by the US Marine Corps to keep buying Army tanks. The five vehicles which had been built were sent to the 2nd Seperate Tank Company, based on Uvea Island to the west of Samoa where other Marmon-Herrington tanks were already stationed. In 1943, all five were taken out of service and scrapped.

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	4.2 x 2.34 x 2.45 m
Total weight, battle ready	11 long tons
Crew	2
Propulsion	Hercules RLXDI inline-six gasoline engine, 174 hp at 2600 rpm
Speed	40 km/h (25mph)
Range	130km (80 miles)
Armament	American Armament Cooperation automatic 37mm L.44 cannon Up to four .30 cal Colt or Browning machine guns
Armor	13mm (½ inch) all around

Resources & Links

Presidio Press, Stuart: A History of the American Light Tank, R.P. Hunnicutt.
World War 2 In Review: American Fighting Vehicles, Issue 2, Merriam Press.
Sentinel Dossier 2, Tanque Ligero Marmon-Herrington CTMS-1TB1 Del Ejército Mexicano.
Kenneth W. Estes, Robert M. Neiman, Tanks on the Beaches: A Marine Tanker in the Great Pacific War.
AVF News, Volume 24, no.3.
Wheels & Tracks, no.23 & no.50
El Ejército Ecuatoriano en la campaña internacional de 1941 y en la post guerra.
Jane’s World War II Tanks and Fighting Vehicles, The Complete Guide, Leland Ness.
wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com
mapleleafup.nl/marmonherrington
www.ejercitoecuatoriano.mil.ec
the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Panzers
www.urrib2000.narod.ru

WW2 Dutch Armored Cars

Wilton-Fijenoord Armored Car

Post author By Leander Jobse
Post date December 30, 2017
5 Comments on Wilton-Fijenoord Armored Car

Kingdom of the Netherlands (1933-1945)
Armored Car – 3 Built

At the end of the 1920s, the Dutch military slowly began to realise the importance of armored vehicles and their off-road capabilities. A tactic was developed that lighter armed armored cars should be used together with infantry to give close support, but the Royal Army (Koninklijke Landmacht) didn’t take any big steps in acquiring new vehicles. Meanwhile, the K.N.I.L. (Royal Netherlands East Indies Army) was slightly less conservative in buying new vehicles. In August 1933, the Dock and shipyard company Wilton-Fijenoord Limited, based in Schiedam, signed a contract with the Ministry of Colonies (Ministerie van Koloniën) to deliver three armored cars to the K.N.I.L.. These cars were designed upon a Krupp chassis. Plans were made to deliver three more cars a year later. On 26th April 1934, the first example was shipped to the Dutch Indies by the steamship Kota Tjandi.

The car at the ‘Korps Rijdende Artillerie’. Note the big unfolded headlight. Source: Holkema & Warendorf Publishing

Design

The car was armed with three machine guns, probably the Lewis M.20 6.5 mm, of which two were mounted in the hull and one in a fully rotating turret. This turret could be turned by pedaling so the gunner could use both hands to handle the gun. Additionally, an anti-aircraft machine gun could be mounted on top of the turret. The machine guns in the hull had a traverse angle of 25 degrees to each side. The crew consisted of at least three people, two drivers/gunners, and one commander/gunner. If needed, the crew could be scaled up to five people, so the two hull-mounted guns could be manned by other men. As a novel feature, the exterior of the car could be electrified so enemies or rioters could not make contact with the car. A small hatch was installed in the bottom plate, through which lachrymatory gas grenades could be thrown.

The armor was resistant to 7.9 mm S.M.K. (Stahlmantelkern) bullets from 30 meters distance. The designers tried to avoid vertical placed armor plates and the use of high-quality steel led to a good trade-off between weight and protection. The total weight of the car was around 4.5 tons. Horizontal armor plates were also avoided to reduce the chance that thrown grenades could land and stay on top of the car. The crew could enter through three hatches and the drivers had closeable openings to see, but when they were closed, the drivers could see through small slits, covered by bulletproof glass. The commander also had a periscope to have a view of the complete surroundings.

The Wilton-Fijenoord, together with the improvised Ehrhardt armored car in Arnhem, captured by the German Army, May 1940. Source: eBay

The engine was a Krupp four-cylinder, air-cooled engine producing 60hp (44.7 kW) at 2500 rpm. The engine was horizontally opposed and equipped with special cooling rings along which air was blown by a compressor which could blow around 1000 liters of air per second. The fuel tank had a capacity of 60 liters so the car could drive a distance between 250 and 300 km.

Power was transmitted by a single disc clutch and an Aphon gear change with four forward gears and one reverse gear. The car was equipped with an extra gear change for better off-road capabilities. As a base, the Krupp L2H43 chassis was chosen. It had three axes and six-wheel-drive and had theoretically good off-road capabilities. Maximum speed was around 70 km/h (43.5 mph) on road and around 30 km/h (18.6 mph) off-road.

The car had one driver in the front and another in the back. The smallest turning circle was 4.4 meters. The four back wheels were equipped with hydraulic brakes. Both on the front and the back, spotlights were installed, which could be folded into the superstructure. Eight lamps were installed on the inside. The tires were made of solid rubber and bulletproof. In the two boxes above the back wheels on both sides of the car, tracks were stored, which could be applied on the two back wheels, resulting in better off-road performance, and essentially making it a half-track.

The car at the ‘Korps Rijdende Artillerie’. Note the storage areas above the back wheels. Source: Holkema & Warendorf Publishing

Testing

On 16th August 1933, the Ministry of Colonies signed a contract with Wilton-Fijenoord for the production of three armored cars. Wilton-Fijenoord would not develop the vehicle on their own as the design was made by the German firm Krupp from Essen. Unfortunately, the exact circumstances around this cooperation are not yet fully known. Two months after signing, on 18th November, three Krupp chassis, type L2H43, arrived at Wilton-Fijenoord in Schiedam. Production commenced and the first vehicle, without armament, was ready in April 1934 to be tested in the Dutch provinces of Limburg and Noord-Brabant. On 12th April 1934, the vehicle appeared in the city of Roosendaal, near the train station, where the crew and a military detachment, including two KNIL Captains, waited for several instructors from Krupp who would arrive in Roosendaal.

The first acceptance tests in the Netherlands. Source: Nationaal Instituut Militaire Historie

No major problems occured and the vehicle passed the trials successfully. Therefore, the first vehicle was prepared for shipment and left the Netherlands on 26th April aboard the Kota Tjandi. It arrived in the Dutch East Indies near the end of May, in the port of Tanjung Priok. It was carefully crated, so it could be transported by train to Bandung without too much attention, but the crate turned out to be too big to fit on the railway. It was therefore decided to move the vehicle by road, although it is a unclear wether it was towed or moved on its own power. A second vehicle arrived in the Indies on 21st June.

One of the two vehicles that were sent to the Dutch East Indies, here seen in a garage in Bandung. Source: Indisch Wetenschappelijk Instituut

Rejected

The vehicles were trialed by a special commission, consisting of; Lieutenant-Colonel of the Engineers H.A.E. Vennik; Head Engineer of the State Railway Ir. F.Q. Den Hollander; Mechanic Engineer of the Air Department D.S. Gaastra; and Lieutenant of the Engineers with the car company E. van Ijseldijk. They came to their final conclusion in October 1934 that an armored car in itself would prove to be very useful, but there were some major technical difficulties with the Wilton-Fijenoord armored car: The engine could not use common gasoline, only special airplane gasoline could be used. This was far from desired as it would not only be more expensive, but lso cause all kinds of logistical troubles. This specific flaw was already discovered at the very beginning of the trials so while a solution was sought, the delivery of the third armored car was postponed and eventually cancelled as a solution was not found. Fortunately for the KNIL, they had stipulated in the contract that if the vehicles did not perform as they should, they could be returned to Wilton-Fijenoord and replaced by improved vehicles.

However, this fuel problem was not the only reason why the KNIL did not accept the vehicles. During one of the many test drives, a spring broke between the chassis and the wheels which was considered as a structural weakness and not an isolated accident. They describe this to the fact that the vehicle was built on a truck chassis and that the proportions between engine power, dimensions, and weight were overlooked during the design stage. The vehicle was initially thought to be smaller, the weight was meant to be less, but the engine was the same, which meant a loss in power to weight ratio and an overloaded chassis and that showed itself in acceleration and climbing capabilities. That the vehicle did not perform as it did during the first tests back in the Netherlands were due to the different terrain, climate, and gasoline.

One of the vehicles during testing in the Dutch East Indies. Source: armedconflicts.com

The fact that the vehicles did not perform well was a major setback for the KNIL. Earlier budget cuts were partially justified by the premise that armored cars were to be bought. The planned acquisition of three more cars in 1935 and potentially more in 1936 could not be continued. After the failed tests, the idea was coined that it maybe would be a good idea to start looking over the borders, consider solutions made by other countries, like the two-man tanks operated by Japan or even the British Vickers Amphibian tanks. These light tanks would even be cheaper than the Wilton Armored car which had a price of 25.500 guilders. Krupp started work on a replacement vehicle around 1935, namely the Gepanzerte Radfahrzeug, based on the improved L2H143 chassis, however, the vehicle was never bought by the KNIL and it remained a prototype.

Although the first adventure with armored vehicles turned into a failure, it did not stop the KNIL from trying to get new armored vehicles as the concept of armored vehicles was well-received. In 1935, with the gained experience, vehicles from several European manufactures were considered. This led to the order placed at Alvis-Straussler for twelve AC3D armored cars Around August 1936.

Better Luck Abroad

In February 1935, Wilton-Feijenoord found a potential buyer and desired the two vehicles to be returned as soon as possible. The first car left on 20th February with the ship Johan van Oldenbarneveldt. The other left on 2nd March with the Poeloeh roebiah. They were indeed sold to Brazil, together with a few Ford/Wilton-Fijenoord APCs. In Brazil, they were assigned to the Special Police Force of São Paulo. The three machine guns were removed and replaced by a device which shot lachrymatory gas or apparently flames. They received a grey color.

The two vehicles in Brazil during a police parade, April 1936.

The third vehicle, with registration number H66436, was kept in the factory in running order. On the 20th and 21st March 1936, the ‘Amsterdamse Vrijwillige Burgerwacht’ (Voluntary Civil Guard of Amsterdam) organized an exercise and Wilton-Fijenoord decided to take part. With only two crewmembers, the car was not fully manned and when the car started its exercise, it was immediately stormed by civilians. This had to do with the ‘Jordaan riots’ of 1934 when also armored cars were used. Luckily for the crew, they could electrify the vehicle after which the civilians immediately backed off. When it drove back to Rotterdam after the successful exercise it was stormed again, so the car had to defend itself again. Back in Rotterdam, they had a collision with a civilian motor car, causing more commotion.

Destroyed Wilton-Fijenoord armored car in the internal patio of the Reichs Chancellery in Berlin. Note the destroyed Schupo-sonderwagen Daimler/21 DZVR armored police car behind it.

Although the Royal Army already showed interest in 1934, the decision was made not to buy it. Four years later though on 1st June 1938, it was sold to the Army as part of a tax deal, and assigned to the ‘Korps Rijdende Artillerie’ (‘Corps Mobile Artillery) but was unarmed. Negotiations with the company DAF about arming the vehicle stalled and the vehicle was not used in combat during the German attack in May 1940. It was captured by the German troops and assigned to the Ordnungspolizei. The Germans used it eventually in the defense of the Reichs Chancellery internal patio during the Battle of Berlin in 1945, where it got destroyed by Soviet forces.

Because the chassis was a design of the German Krupp company, they heavily got involved in the design process and after the Wilton-Fijenoord armored car was rejected by the KNIL, Krupp started to build an armored car on their own, called Gepanzerte Radfahrzeug as a replacement. Only one prototype of this vehicle was built and was eventually never sent to the Dutch Indies. Despite the rejection by the KNIL, all three armored cars saw remarkable service, both in Berlin and in Brazil.

Illustration of the Wilton-Fijenoord by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	5.065 m x 2.2 m x 2.3 m ( 16.6 x x 7.2 x 9.8 ft)
Total weight	4500 kg / 9920.8 lbs
Crew	3 – 5
Propulsion	Krupp 4-stroke, 4-cylinder, air-cooled engine with 60 hp (44.7 kW) at 2500 rpm
Top speed	70 km/h (43.5 mph) road / 30 km/h (18.6 mph) off-road
Operational range	250 km / 155.3 mi
Armament	3x 7.92 mm machine guns
Armor	3-10 mm (0.11-0.39 in)

Sources:

Dr. C.M. Schulten & J. Theil, Nederlandse pantservoertuigen.
Magazine ‘Het Motorverkeer’, June 13 1934
‘Mars et historia’, number 25, 1991, C. Blijleven, page 77-81
www.kfzderwehrmacht.de
www.ecsbdefesa.com.br
KNIL Cavalerie 1814-1950: Geschiedenis van de cavalerie en pantsertroepen van het Koninklijk Nederlands-Indische Leger, C.A. Heshusius, Sectie Krijgsgeschiedenis K.L., The Hague, 1978.
Indisch Militair Tijdschricht, 1st June 1934, p.581-584.
“Wilton werkt voor Duitsche oorlogsindustrie Opdrachten voor het leveren van pantser auto’s.”. “De tribune: soc. dem. weekblad”. Amsterdam, 17-11-1933. Consulted on Delpher, 17-01-2019.
Wilton-Fijenoord Nieuws, jrg.26 November, 1963, A. van Dijk, p.4.
“Pantserauto’s voor het Indische leger”. “De grondwet”. 13-04-1934. Consulted on Delpher,17-01-2019.
De eerste pantser-auto. Zeswielig monster op rupskettingen.”. “De Indische courant”. Soerabaia, 02-06-1934. Delpher.
“Geheime pantserauto. Ongemerkt vervoeren is niet makkelijk.”. “Bataviaasch nieuwsblad”. Batavia, 31-05-1934. Delpher.
“De tweede Pantserauto.”. “Bataviaasch nieuwsblad”. Batavia, 22-06-1934. Delpher.
“De Leger-Pantserauto’s. Officieel ongunstig beoordeeld.”. Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië”. Batavia, 18-10-1934, p. 1. Delpher.
Onze pantserauto’s Hun bruikbaarheid.”. “Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië”. Batavia, 13-07-1934, p. 1. Delpher.
“Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië”, 18-10-1934.
“Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië”, 13-07-1934
“De Pantser-Auto’s van het Leger.”. “Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië”. Batavia, 05-01-1935. Delpher.
“De Pantserauto’s.”. “Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië”. Batavia, 14-02-1935. Delpher.
“De tweede Pantser-auto.”. “Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië”. Batavia, 02-03-1935. Delpher.
“Pantser-Auto’s voor Leger. Betere binnen Afzienbaren Tijd Verwacht.”. “Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië”. Batavia, 20-08-1935. Delpher.
Die gepanzerte Radfahzeuge des deutschen Heeres 1905-1945, Walter J. Spielberger, Hilary L.Doyle, Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart, 2002, p.121.

WW2 Czechoslovak Prototypes

ČKD F-IV-H

Czechoslovakia (1936-1943)
Amphibious Light Tank – 2 Prototypes Built

In 1933, ČKD (Českomoravská Kolben-Daněk) built the Tančik vz. 33 (P-I), however they were not pleased with the design and started a project on their own which would become the LT vz.34 (P-II) light tank of which fifty were made. These P numbers of the vehicles designated the type of tank. I stood for tankette where II stood for Light tank, however this second category got split up into IIa and IIb in 1934, respectively standing for cavalry tank and infantry tank, so ČKD started designing and came up with the P-IIa and P-IIb in 1936.

First prototype outside factory. Source: rotanazdar.cz

Development

In October 1936, both Škoda and ČKD received orders from the Czechoslovakian Army and the VTLÚ (Vojenský technický a letecký útvar or Military Technical and Aerospace Institute) to develop the first Czechoslovakian amphibious tank. During the same year, ČKD started development and on January 29th, 1937, they delivered two alternative designs to the MNO (Ministry of Defence) which were based upon the already developed P-IIa and b tanks. With no previous amphibious tank design experience and a lack of available foreign assistance, the design process proved difficult. Engineers in Great Britain and the Soviet Union had experience with amphibious designs, but due to a deteriorated relationship with the Soviet Union, caused by the armed conflict between the Bolsheviks and Czechoslovak Legions, and a negative view of British amphibious tank designs, neither were asked to assist.

On April 28, 1937, the commander of the VTLÚ, Ing. Dr. František Kolařík wrote in a report to the MNO: “The amphibious tanks designed by the two companies are based on experience gained in manufacturing and testing light tanks, tracked tractors as well as various river vessels. Regarding the overall concept of the amphibious tanks designed by ČKD, they are both respectively based on the P-IIa and P-IIb prototype tanks, with the exception of the engine and the way the drive and gear assembly are designed. (…) The disadvantage of all projects is the need to have very tightly strung tracks when driving on ground, resulting in a considerable loss of engine power during movements and little ability to adapt to unevenness. The hull is designed with sufficient buoyancy for swimming. Each project has two propellers, which are driven by the drive axle by the ČKD projects, but the Škoda project uses a special transfer directly from the engine. Changes in direction should be performed by disengaging the drive or reducing the speed of one or the other propeller, according to ČKD, or, according to Škoda, by disengaging the propulsion of one or the other bolt or the counter-flow of one of the propellers. The ČKD project is assessed to be better suited because its whole unit is mounted at the rear of the vehicle and completely separate from the combat compartment.”
After considering both proposals, the VTLÚ recommended that prototypes should be ordered from both companies, because of the difficult production of amphibious tanks and lack of experience building them. Because ČKD handed in two proposals, a choice had to be made. After comparisons, the second proposal was chosen as it had more favorable characteristics. On November 12, 1937, the MNO ordered the construction of a prototype for the price of 718.000 CZK (nowadays around $350,000). In the order, it was also stated that the prototype had to be delivered before August 12, 1938.

Work on the prototype ran until the spring of 1938. The first reports appeared on April 26 when 16 technical drawings of the vehicle were realized. The number of schematics became bigger and bigger with 47 drawings on June 30 and already a total of 262 drawings on August 6. On August 20, work on the details began and by September 13, a total of 401 schematics had been produced. The deadline was extended by the MNO to 12 October, giving two months extra time.

On October 19, the deadline was again extended to the end of the year. Two liquidation orders were proposed if the tank eventually could not be delivered. Firstly, at least a part of the tests had to be paid either by the company or the military administration. Secondly, if any tanks would be sold abroad, a percentage fee of the price would be requested for intellectual property by the government. At the start of the next month, a report came in from Libeňská Engineering that a total of 415 drawings had been made and work on all the details in the mechanical workshops progressed quickly.

By November 17, the deadline was extended again until January 12, 1939. Four days later, a conference was held at the Ministry of National Defence about the amphibious tanks. The attendants came to the conclusion that the programme shouldn’t be stopped and negotiations had to continue. The percentage fee of intellectual property had to be determined after receiving and testing the vehicles from both Škoda and ČKD, due to delivery delays.

One month later, on the 7th of December, the first engine tests were launched with both alcohol-petrol mixtures and ‘dynalkolem’, a mixture of 50% fermented alcohol, 30% benzene, and 20% gasoline. After about 4 hours, a problem occurred with the electric brake, but six days later everything worked as it was supposed to and the tests were successfully completed.

Next year, on January 25, Libeňská Engineering reported that the vehicle was working. Some months later, in April, it was announced that the vehicle was in running condition and had been tested by the factory in the river Moldau in Prague, but wasn’t officially been tested by the military. Meanwhile, work was still being done on an observation device. After the German annexation of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, work continued on the project and the German military also showed interest in the project.

From 2 to 6 May 1939, representatives of the company, which was renamed Böhmisch-Mährische Maschinenfabrik AG (BMM AG), had negotiations with the German Heereswaffenamt or German Weapons Agency. The German committee consisted of Oberstleutnant Fichtner, Dr. Olbricht, Major Tomala, Oberst Reg. Baurat Beier en Oberst Reg. Baurat Mosel. During these negotiations, it became clear that the F-IV-H wasn’t ripe for serial production and further internal testing at the factory had to take place. This request was approved, but the test results had to be sent to the German WaPrüf 6. WaPrüf is the abbreviation from ‘Waffenprüfamt’or ‘Weapons testing office’. Several of these offices formed the Heereswaffenamt. BMM AG tried to offer the F-IV-H abroad, but the German military administration blocked this and marked the project as secret.

On May 23, the Czech “Ministry of National Defense in Liquidation” extended the delivery time to 31 July. Within delivery time, on June 22, the National Engineering Research and Testing Institute, the former VTLÚ, was informed that the prototype was ready for testing. The formal reply suggested that the company should notify the German army. They indeed showed further interest and on November 2, a second prototype was ordered, which bore the name F-IV-H/II. The factory was visited by Mr. Keiling on behalf of WaPrüf 6 a month later. He promised that the prototype could remain for demonstration purposes. During the same month, the company received permission to offer the F-IV-H abroad, however, the vehicle wasn’t ordered either by the Germans or foreign countries and further development was canceled.

Meanwhile, the Škoda ŠOT had also been built and tested, but it was reportedly too heavy and could barely maneuver in the water. It is not known when the first ČKD prototype was scrapped. The second prototype was sent to Kummersdorf, where it was tested. The last trace of this vehicle was found in early 1943 when new tracks and pins were ordered, but by this time, further development had already been canceled.

First prototype without floatation skirts. Source: rotanazdar.cz

Design

Initially, ČKD came up with two alternative designs. The first design was propelled by a conventional six-cylinder water-cooled engine, with an output of 95 hp at 2000 rpm. The second design was propelled by a four-cylinder water-cooled engine with an output of 100 hp at 2000 rpm. Both alternatives had an vertical exhaust pipe, which would limit the turret traverse. The second alternative was chosen.
The crew consisted of three people; The commander/gunner, driver and a radio-operator. The driver was located in the right front of the tank and had a sight with bulletproof glass. The radio-operator sat to his left and the commander was located in the turret.

F-IV-H front interior. The driver sat to the right and the radio-operator to the left. Source: rotanazdar.cz

The chassis was a heavily modified version of one used by the famous LT vz. 35 tank. Power was distributed through a Praga-Wilson gearbox with four road wheels and two return rollers on each side. The engine was a Praga F4 water-cooled 4-cylinder producing 120 hp at 2200 rpm. Two propellers were mounted at the rear of the vehicle and connected to the drive axle. The armament consisted of only a 7.92 mm ZB-37 machine gun, located in the turret. Frontal armour was 14 mm thick and the top and bottom armor plates were 7 mm thick.
The differences between F-IV-H prototype I and II were minor, with the II having a slightly modified turret, a lifted cupola, a better cooling system, a redesigned floating system and a new exhaust system.

Export

At the end of 1939, offers were sent to Sweden, Persia and the Netherlands. The export model received the designation F-IV-HE and was described as a fast and easily manageable combat vehicle. The armor could withstand bullet fire, even at a distance of 100-150 meters. It was suitable for both terrain or water maneuvers. The factory also stated in the offers that 20 to 25 units could be delivered per month within a maximum time span of five months.

Of the three contacted countries, only the Persian War Ministry and General Staff showed interest. In April 1940, a technical description with additional photographs was sent and further communication took place via Berlin. It was assumed that Persia would buy around 200 vehicles, including a few F-IV-H vehicles. In the end, Persia ordered only twenty vehicles and this order didn’t contain the F-IV-H. It is possible that this is due to a lack of interest of the Persian War Department, but it’s more likely a result of a restriction from the German department. Later on, a new offer was sent to Argentina, but they showed no interest either.

The F-IV-H second prototype. Source: rotanazdar.cz

Conclusion

Despite the efforts of the engineers, the F-IV-H was not a successful project. The Czech army was skeptical about it because of the long delivery period and when it was tested, it did not perform as planned. Although the German continuation of the project the vehicle was still not suitable for combat and in the early stage of the war already outdated. Both prototypes were scrapped during the war.

A Framburg identification model of the F-IV-H, made in the USA during the Second World War. On the back, it reads “German Light Amphibian Tank CKD F4H B”. Source: Mestizotrading on eBay

Illustration of the ČKD F-IV-H by Tank Encyclopedia’s own Jarosław Janas

ČKD F-IV-H specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	4.85 x 2.5 x 2.08 m (15.9 x 8.2 x 6.8 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	6.5 t (14,330 lbs)
Crew	3 (commander, driver, radio operator)
Propulsion	Praga F-IV, 4-cylinder, 120 hp
Speed	45 kph / 28 mph – road, 6 kph / 3,7 mph – water
Range	200 km / 125 mi
Armament	ZB vz. 37 7.92mm machinegun.
Armor	7-14 mm / 0.28 – 0.55 inches
Total production	2 Prototypes

Links, Resources & Further Reading

Czechoslovak armoured fighting vehicles 1918-1945, H.C. Doyle, C.K. Kliment.
On tanksinworldwar2.com
On utocnavozba.wz.cz
On rotanazdar.cz
Google maps view of where the water testing took place, libeňský zámeček (libeňský mansion) HERE

C.P.I.M. Improvised Armored Car

Canon Antitank d’Infanterie 90 mm (CATI 90)

Morris ‘Koekblikje’ Armored Car

Indien Panzer

Austro-Daimler Panzerautomobil

Renault FT in Dutch Service

Büssing A5P

IT-28

Carden-Loyd Mk.VI in Dutch Service

Marmon-Herrington MTLS-1GI4

Marmon-Herrington CTMS-ITB1

Wilton-Fijenoord Armored Car

ČKD F-IV-H

Kingdom of the Netherlands/Royal Dutch Shell (1929) Armored Car – 2 Built

Short history of Curaçao

Oil Reserves

Venezuelan Revolutionary Rafael Simón Urbina

The Attack

Defense of the C.P.I.M.

The Armored Cars

Aftermath

Sources

Kingdom of Belgium (1953-1962) Tank Destroyer – Approximately 32 Converted

Background

Design

Gun

Production and Service

Fate

Specifications

Sources

Kingdom of the Netherlands (1932-1940) Armored Car – 3 Built

Name

Design

More in Rotterdam?

The Morris cars in the Jordaan

May 1940

Conclusion

Specifications

Sources

Tanks Encyclopedia Magazine, #1 Republished

Federal Republic of Germany/Republic of India (1953-1955) Medium Tank – Blueprints Only

India’s Military

Post-War (West) German Industry

Development

Design

No Link to Panzer 58

Potential Bundeswehr Tank?

Conclusion

Specifications

Sources

Austro-Hungarian Empire (1905-1907) Armored Car – 1 Built

Austro-Daimler

Early Development

Design

Engine and Suspension

Exhibition in Vienna

Changes

Kaisermanöver in Schlesien, 1906

Presentation to France

Fate

A Fistful of Dynamite

Austro-Daimler Panzerautomobil specifications

Sources

Kingdom of the Netherlands (1927-1940) Light Tank – 1 Purchased

Background

Turning Tide

Dutch Modifications

Testing

The Following Years

1939-1940

Fact or fiction?

Fate

Conclusion

Renault FT specifications

Sources

Renault FT World Tour Shirt

German Empire (1915-1919) Armored Car – 1 Built

Background

Technical Requirements

Development

Kingdom of the Netherlands/Royal Dutch Shell (1929)
Armored Car – 2 Built

Kingdom of Belgium (1953-1962)
Tank Destroyer – Approximately 32 Converted

Kingdom of the Netherlands (1932-1940)
Armored Car – 3 Built

Federal Republic of Germany/Republic of India (1953-1955)
Medium Tank – Blueprints Only

Austro-Hungarian Empire (1905-1907)
Armored Car – 1 Built

Kingdom of the Netherlands (1927-1940)
Light Tank – 1 Purchased

German Empire (1915-1919)
Armored Car – 1 Built

Soviet Union (1936-1941)
Armored Bridge Layer – 1 Built

Kingdom of the Netherlands (1931-1940)
Tankette – 5 Purchased

United States of America/Kingdom of the Netherlands (1941-1957)
Medium Tank – 125 Built

United States of America/Kingdom of the Netherlands (1941)
Light Tank – 194 Built

Kingdom of the Netherlands (1933-1945)
Armored Car – 3 Built