Panzerspahwagen 204(f) with 45mm 20-K gun. Illustration by Godzilla
German Reich (1941~1943)
Armored Car – Very Likely Unique
Germany’s victories during the early phases of the Second World War gifted the Wehrmacht with a large fleet of captured armored fighting vehicles. The fall of France, in particular, saw Germany get its hands on most of the former vehicle fleet of the French Army, as well as infrastructure to reasonably maintain them. These vehicles would see continued use by German forces all across Europe, mostly in security roles, but also occasionally on the frontlines, all the way to the fall of Germany in 1945. During these years of service, many were modified or converted by their users. An obscure conversion is the Panzerspähwagen (Eng: reconnaissance tank) 204(f), a captured Panhard 178 that was refitted with a Soviet 45 mm 20-K gun.
The Panhard 178
In December 1931, the French Cavalry formulated a request for an AMD (Automitrailleuse de Découverte / ‘Discovery’ armored car), an armored vehicle meant to perform reconnaissance while having enough combat capacities to be able to engage enemy units. This was in contrast to the AMR (Automitrailleuse de Reconnaissance / Reconnaissance Armored Car), which were smaller vehicles with more limited combat capacities meant purely for reconnaissance. Panhard, the leading French armored car producer at the time, designed the Voiture Spéciale 178, more often simply known as Panhard 178, to meet this request. The vehicle was adopted by the French Cavalry as the AMD 35 in 1934. Formal orders were placed in January of 1935, production begian in 1936, and the first operational vehicles were delivered in February 1937.
A crewmember of the 6th Cuirassiers Regiment stands in front of his Panhard 178. With a crew of four, the Panhard 178, though not perfect, still had a much more effective division of tasks than most French AFVs.Source: char-français
The Panhard 178 was an 8 tonnes armored car powered by a 4-cylinder 105 hp engine and was able to reach a maximum speed of 72 km/h. One of its most interesting features, which separated it from the vast majority of other French armored vehicles, was its two-crew APX3 (Atelier de Construction de Puteaux – Eng: Puteaux Construction Workshop) turret, which allowed the commander to concentrate on tactical, spotting, and overall command tasks, leaving the operation of the gun to the gunner/loader. This was a major improvement in comparison to the one-crew turrets which featured on the vast majority of French tanks, where the commander also had to reload and operate the vehicle’s armament. This APX 3 turret featured a 25 mm SA 35 anti-tank gun as well as a coaxial MAC 31 7.5 mm machine gun, with 150 25 mm and 3,750 7.5 mm rounds. This armament was fairly capable for an armored car, being, for example, generally sufficient to deal with early Panzer III and IV models fielded in the campaign for France, as well as the earlier Panzer I and II.
Into the Wehrmacht
With the German invasion of France in May-June 1940, the French saw many of their vehicles abandoned by the side of roads because of lack of fuel or spare parts, or even of time to repair or refuel their vehicles before they would be overrun. These intact vehicles would be ripe for the taking for German forces, and there are indeed occasional reports of captured Panhard 178s, as well as other vehicles, such as the Renault UE, being fielded by German forces during the Campaign of France itself.
More significantly, at the end of the campaign, the French Army surrendered some of its vehicles. Actually, the Panhard 178 was the only vehicle Vichy France was allowed to keep in service in mainland France by the terms of the armistice. A total of 64 vehicles, with the 25 mm gun replaced by another 7.5 mm machine gun, were approved under these conditions. In addition, there were at least 45 uncompleted hulls which were hidden away from the Germans and were later used for the Panhard 178 CDM conversions.
German forces were also able to seize the Panhard facilities with a number of completed or near-completed vehicles. It is thought that about 190 Panhard 178s were pressed into service with German forces. Overall, the vehicle could be said to have been one of the more potent French vehicles, with a two-crew turret, a decent anti-tank gun for the time, and overall good mobility. It is therefore not surprising to see the vehicle was actively pressed into service by German troops. The Panhard 178 was designated Panzerspähwagen 204(f) (“f” standing for French) in the German captured vehicles designation system, and was one of the narrow selection of French vehicles which would not only be used for security roles, but also on the frontlines of Operation Barbarossa, alongside the Somua S35 cavalry tank and B1/B1 Bis converted into flamethrower vehicles.
A P 204(f) operated by SS Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung 2 (Eng: SS tank reconnaissance battalion 2) of the 2. SS Panzer Division “Das Reich” (Eng: The Reich). Notice the SS registration, which significantly differs from the known converted vehicle, indicating it was a Wehrmacht vehicle instead of an SS one. Also, the tactical markings indicate that the vehicle was part of a motorized cavalry reconnaissance battalion equipped with captured French vehicles.Source: Trackstory n°2
The two most significant units operating the P 204(f) were Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung 37, the reconnaissance group of the 7th Panzer-Division which operated 64 vehicles, including 18 of the unarmed, casemate radio version, and Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung 92, the reconnaissance group of the 20th Panzer-Division that operated 54. Smaller number of vehicles were also included in other units which took part in the invasion of the Soviet Union, including the Waffen-SS Totenkopf and Germania (future Das Reich) divisions as well as some lower-echelon security units.
The 45 mm Conversion
Considering the vehicle was very actively employed, the Germans routinely modified some of their Panhard vehicles. For example, in French service, radios were only issued to squadron and platoon leaders, with the squadron leader receiving an ER 26ter radio dedicated to communications with other squadrons and an ER 29 dedicated to internal communications of the unit, while the platoon leaders only received the ER 29. In German service, it was very common for all vehicles to receive FuG 10 or FuG 11 radios, with the importance of radios, particularly for reconnaissance vehicles, being more highly considered by the Germans.
There were also some more in-depth Panhard 178s conversions though. The more well-known ones were found in France, where German forces had significant infrastructure to modify and convert French vehicles. These included at least one P 204(f) armed with a 5 cm KwW L/42 gun, likely made available by re-arming a Panzer III with a 5 cm L/60 gun, and another which received a 5 cm L/60 gun with a muzzle brake, all in vastly modified or perhaps all new turrets. At least one P 204(f) received an aviation turret from a German bomber, armed with a 7.92 mm MG 81 machine gun, believed to be used for security purposes by the Luftwaffe. However, in the early 2020s, a new photo emerged confirming the existence of at least one P 204(f) conversion which was very likely done on the Eastern Front.
The converted, 45 mm-armed P 204(f).Source: Ebay
The photo shows a vehicle, appearing to be painted in the Panzergrau (Eng: Panzer Gray) color, which features what appears to be a new gun and mantlet. Upon closer inspection, it appears this P 204(f) was fitted with a part of the mantlet and the gun from a Soviet T-26 or BT-5/BT-7 tank. Interestingly enough, the turret appears to be almost unmodified outside of this all new mantlet. The addition of this Soviet armament also came with the spotlight that was commonly fitted to these Soviet tanks.
The Practicality of Such a Conversion
One may wonder at first if such a conversion sounds plausible. The Panhard 178’s original 25 mm SA 34 was a smaller caliber L/47.2 gun with a 1,180 mm-long barrel, in comparison to the 45 mm L/46 of the 20-K gun with a 2,070 mm-long barrel. The Soviet 45 mm shells were both larger and longer than the French 25 mm (45 x 310 compared to 25 x 193.5 mm) and could be expected to have significantly more recoil.
However, the APX3 turret of the Panhard 178 turret being able to support a larger gun is not necessarily surprising. In fact, the Panhard 178 and 25 mm anti-tank gun was a late development on the vehicle, as a 20 mm fully automatic armament had been originally envisioned for the Panhard. Delays in the development of such an armament meant it was never mounted on a Panhard, but before France fell, the French Army was already considering re-arming the Panhard 178 with the larger 47 mm SA 35 gun, which could be said to be quite similar to the 45 mm 20-K in size and power.
The APX3 turret was considered to be able to take the larger gun with some modifications, and indeed, another relatively similar riveted turret manufactured by APX, the APX2, used in the AMC 34 and AMC 35, did make the ‘jump’ from 25 mm to 47 mm. This would never happen for the Panhard 178 in French service though, even if the Panhard would be ‘mated’ with the 47 mm SA 35 on three separate instances all with new turrets: the Panhard 178 with Renault turret prototype, the Panhard 178 CDM conversion program, and the post-war Panhard 178B variants
All things considered, it is not so far-fetched to see the APX3 turret of the P 204(f) being able to withstand the recoil of the gun, as well as still offer sufficient space for the two crew members inside to operate it.
An AMC 34 (left) and an AMC 35 (right). Both vehicles used the APX 2 turret, which has some similarities to the APX 3, but the later AMC 35 used the 47 mm SA 35. In fact, the first prototype of the AMC 35 did feature a 25 mm gun, showing switching from one to another was not necessarily as complicated as one may think at first.Source: char-français The 45 mm 20-K on the 1932/1934 mount.Source: valka.cz
There would still be some impact on several aspects of the vehicle. The larger size of the 45 mm rounds would reduce the ammunition stowage of the vehicle (150 rounds of 25 mm originally), and it is not known if the new mantlet interfered or may even have forced the removal of the 7.5 mm MAC 31 machine gun. Unfortunately, these questions cannot easily be solved with a single photo.
As for the reasoning, it could be more complicated than expected at first. Despite its small caliber, the 25 mm gun was still a fairly potent anti-tank gun. The 45 mm 20-K did offer slightly higher performance, but in practice, one would be hard-pressed to find vehicles which one would penetrate whereas the other would fail. Both guns would fairly easily dispose of lightly armored 1930s Soviet tanks, like the T-26 or BTs, and both would struggle or be almost completely useless against a T-34 or a KV. On the logistical side, it is questionable whether the 25 mm would prove enough issue to warrant replacement. Large quantities of ammunition were captured by the Germans during the Fall of France and it appears more were still being produced. Though it is possible that, with lengthening supply lines, obtaining these shells may have ended up harder than captured Soviet 45 mm ammunition, other Panhards remained operating with 25 mm shells all the way to the outskirts of Moscow with seemingly little issue in procuring shells.
One aspect where the 45 mm would unquestionably prove superior to the 25 would be infantry support. Though both guns were originally designed for anti-tank work, the 45 mm was a much more polyvalent gun, benefiting from widely-issued high-explosive shells, whereas none were produced for the anti-tank Hotchkiss 25 mm caliber. The conversion may also have been a consequence of the 25 mm on the vehicle being damaged, either by enemy fire or some form of malfunction.
As for the location and dating of the photo, these are no known details attached to the photo, but some aspects can still suggest a likely time frame. The peak of German activity with P 204(f) vehicles on the Eastern Front was from June to December 1941, where the vehicles were very actively employed, suffering heavy losses. On July 14th 1941, less than a month into the invasion, 34 P 204(f) had already been destroyed and 17 more needed repairs. By the end of 1941, 109 vehicles, more than half of the German P 204(f) fleet, had been reported as lost. The Panhard 178 was mostly retired from frontline units by mid-1942, though some would continue in security units on the Eastern Front all the way into 1943. On the Western Front, the P204(f), with additional vehicles captured during the occupation of Vichy France in November 1942, would remain in service all the way to 1945. The use of the Panzergrau paint, which began to be replaced by early 1943, also suggest the vehicle was used prior to this date.
As for the 45 mm itself, one may theorize on its vehicle of origin. During the push into the Soviet Union, very large quantities of 45 mm-armed tanks ended up abandoned by Soviet forces. A significant number would be pressed back into German service, but this actually was far from the totality of vehicles that were abandoned by Soviet forces.
With the breakneck pace of the German advance, particularly in the early weeks of the campaign, Panzer-Divisions were rarely in a place long enough to repair a significant amount of vehicles, When they could, they would often focus on repairing more advanced T-34 and KV tanks which brought more advantages on the frontline than T-26s or BTs. Other German units were still, for many of them, lacking in terms of motorization, let alone mechanization, and as such, also lacked the means to recover, tow, and repair captured vehicles. Because of this, hundreds to perhaps even a couple thousand of abandoned Soviet tanks were simply left in the field, unattended to, and sometimes with their hatches still open. Others were used as targets for German gunners to maintain their skills, even if they could have been recoverable. It is quite possible that the gun used in this converted P 204(f) was taken from one of these vehicles which German troops did not have the time or means to restore to running condition.
A T-26 and two BT-7s abandoned at a river crossing, with Wehrmacht horse-drawn carts moving on a bridge in the background. While hundreds of these types of tanks would be pressed into service in German security units during the course of the war, even more would remain abandoned, as many German units, massively relying on horses for mobility, as the unit in this photo, did not have the means to repair these vehicles.Source: WW2 photo archive
One may argue that a small number of T-26s and BTs did make their way to German-occupied France, and as such, the vehicle could very well not be an Eastern Front conversion, but this possibility, already made fairly unlikely by the fact these captured vehicles sent to France were rare, is further made implausible by the architecture of the houses behind the P 204(f) on the known photograph, typical of the Soviet Union at the time, while at the same time vastly different from typical French architecture.
The registration plate is hard to read, but it clearly appears to be a Wehrmacht plate, which excludes the possibility of the vehicle being a part of the two Waffen-SS divisions which used the P 204(f) in Operation Barbarossa. The vehicle therefore likely belongs to either one of the two Panzer-Division reconnaissance groups which operated the P 204(f), or a security unit.
Conclusion – One of the Most Obscure Panhards
Oddly enough, the Panhard 178 having obscure variants which feature larger guns than the original 25 mm gun seems to be somewhat of a recurring theme in the vehicle’s history. Two of these vehicles, the Panhard 178 with Renault turret and Panhard 178 CDM, featured new turret designs designed by one engineer, Joseph Restany, and are largely unknown to the general public, despite 45 of the later type having been converted, and even seeing service for the Wehrmacht alongside more regular Panhard 178s. Even the post-war Panhard 178B can prove to be surprisingly poorly documented for a mass-produced vehicle. On the German side of thing, the two existing 50 mm-armed “tank destroyer” versions are both also fairly little known, though there is a fairly extensive collection of photos, as well as pretty extensive details on the service of the L/60-armed vehicle in the hands of French Resistance FFI troops during and after the Liberation of France.
Of all known conversions, though, this particular one, armed with a Soviet 45 mm 20-K, has to be the most obscure yet. It does not appear to be documented in any known literature on German captured vehicles, being known from a singular photo. As of now, no more details are known, and while such a conversion is likely easier than could be imagined at first, many details remain unknown about the vehicle as of now.
Panzerspahwagen 204(f) with 45mm 20-K gun.Illustration by Godzilla
Panzerspahwagen 204(f) with 45mm 20-K gun specifications
Dimensions
4.79 x 2.01 x 2.31 m (15ft 7in x 6ft 6in x 7 ft 5in)
The Songun-Ho in the 2010 configuration, without turret ERA, armed with a KPV and an Igla on the turret
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (2009-Present)
Main Battle Tank – Unknown Number Built
North Korea, or officially the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), stands as one, if not the most isolated major tank manufacturer in the world. Sometimes thought of as a relic of the Cold War desperately clinging onto existence, the country, sometimes known as the Hermit Kingdom, has long wanted to assert its independence from the Soviet Union and China when it comes to its military equipment, long before the Soviet Union even collapsed.
The country’s military industry started becoming increasingly independent in the late 1960s. Since then, it has put out vehicles differing more and more significantly from their Soviet or Chinese ancestors. Despite the harsh interruption of the 1990s crisis and famine, the 2000s have seen a significant renewal for North Korea’s tank industry, with a large variety of new vehicles introduced since the start of the 21st century.
One of the most significant and iconic of these developments is the Songun-Ho main battle tank, unveiled during the 65th anniversary of the Worker’s Party of Korea military parade. When unveiled, it was one of, if not the North Korean MBT that appeared to differ the most from the T-62 on which the Hermit Kingdom based its Chonma-Ho series of main battle tanks.
Roots of a new tank: The quest for a T-72 and upgrades to the Chonma
North Korea started local production of Soviet tanks, first in the form of the PT-76 and T-55, in the second half of the 1960s. These first production runs were not entirely accomplished by North Korea in isolation. A high degree of Soviet involvement was noted, but exactly how deep this was is unclear. It could range anywhere from the North Koreans just assembling vehicles from Soviet-made parts all the way to the Soviet Union delivering just the plans and critical elements. This first North Korean experience in armored vehicles manufacturing proved crucial for the nation, allowing it to be in possession of facilities able to manufacture armored vehicles, in the form of the Sinhung and Kusong tank plants. The Sinhung plant was mainly involved in manufacturing light and amphibious vehicles, whilst the Kusong plant is the producer of North Korea’s MBTs.
In the late 1970s, North Korea started the production of its Chonma-Ho series of main battle tanks, at first a mere slightly modified model of the Soviet T-62. These vehicles would become the mainstay of North Korea’s armored force, despite no large quantities of T-62s ever having been acquired from the Soviet Union. As early as the 1980s, the North Koreans started to upgrade the vehicles, giving them at first laser rangefinders (first observed in 1985) and later explosive reactive armor, welded turrets, and smoke grenades dischargers (M1992 & Chonma-92, first observed in 1992)
North Korean Chonma-Hos equipped with a laser rangefinder and infrared searchlight; the vehicles having received these upgrades are often referred to as ‘Chonma-Ho II’ by Western enthusiasts. However, that designation, as well as the ‘I/II/III/IV/V/VI’, do not actually exist in North Korean nomenclature, and significantly oversimplify the complex series of evolutions of the Chonma series. Source: http://www.massimotessitori.altervista.org/armoursite/nkindigenoustanks/chonma-songun/chonma-ho123.html
However, at the same time as upgrading the existing T-62s, it quickly became evident the technology of the T-62 would not be sufficient forever. The tank was actually superior to the M48 fielded by the South Korean Army (Republic of Korea Army, ROKA) for several years after its introduction in 1978. However, developments in the USA and South Korea, which would result in the M1 and K1, would quickly make the Chonma obsolete. The result was that North Korea was in dire need of more advanced components. With relations having considerably worsened with the Soviet Union ever since the Sino-Soviet split, acquiring highly modern and critical technology from them was not a possibility. North Korea therefore needed to find a way to acquire a tank more modern than its T-62-based Chonma-Ho if it wanted to not be completely superseded technologically.
A solution would appear in the form of the geographically distant but diplomatically close Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran and the DPRK had quite close diplomatic bonds, with the North Koreans having supplied about 150 Chonma-Ho tanks to Iran during the early phases of the Iran-Iraq War beginning in 1980. As a result, when the Iranians managed to capture some T-72s Ural tanks from the Iraqi Army, it is no surprise that a battle-damaged vehicle ended up being shipped to North Korea in the early-to-mid 1980s. The existence of this tank is confirmed by some partial footage from the era.
Whilst the T-72 Ural was far from the most advanced model of T-72, it at least provided North Korea with a 125 mm gun and, to a moderate extent, a more advanced engine, suspension, and armor arrangement to study. Despite rumors of North Korea acquiring T-72Ms from the Soviet Union or even T-90MS from Russia in the 1990s, this T-72 Ural acquired from Iran appears to actually be the only T-72 North Korea ever got its hands on.
A very rare view of Kim-Jong Il, at that point only the son of Supreme Leader Kim-Il Sung, in front of North Korea’s T-72 Ural, very likely the only T-72 North Korea ever got. Source: The Armed Forces of North Korea – On the Path to Songun.
Droplets of T-72 dropped onto T-62s: The later Chonma-Hos
The acquisition of a T-72, even if it was a fairly primitive model, was a major step in the evolution of North Korea’s main battle tanks. It significantly helped North Korean engineers in developing components more advanced than those found on the original T-62 to use in the Chonma-Ho series.
While North Korea appeared on its way to considerably upgrade the Chonma-Ho in the early 1990s, in the form of the M1992 & Chonma-92 notably, the collapse of the Soviet Union and its consequences for North Korea (with a famine) put a tragic halt to these developments. In 1994, as Supreme Leader Kim Il-Sung passed away, a tragic famine that would last until 1998 touched North Korea, resulting in 500,000 to 600,000 excess deaths and stopping new military developments pretty much completely. Only a fairly modest new model of the Chonma made its appearance in the later half of the decade and was known as the Chonma-98. In comparison to the Chonma-92, the Chonma-98 featured little more than a lower ERA coverage and slight modifications to the turret and side-skirts.
The first signs of influence taken from the T-72 and other modern Soviet MBTs would appear in the Chonma-214, first seen in 2001. This tank replaced the ERA with applique armor on the turret and additional bolted-on armor on the upper front plate and steel plates on the hull sides. It also included front rubber flaps covering the lower front plate, in a fashion similar to the much more advanced T-80U. A new front drive wheel inspired by the T-72’s design was also featured. Finally, while the exact nature of these additions is pretty much impossible to assess, seeing as it would require much more direct access to the North Korean vehicles, the Chonma-214 likely features a more advanced fire control system and its predecessors – the influence of the T-72 likely being significant in its design.
The T-72-influenced features of the Chonma-214 would be conserved and expanded upon by two subsequent models of the Chonma; the Chonma-215, of which production started in 2003, and the Chonma-216, of which the production started in 2004. The Chonma-215’s most significant modification was switching the original chassis from five to six road wheels, as on the T-72. The length of the tank had, however, not been significantly lengthened in adding this new wheel. Whilst the wheels retained a ‘starfish’ style similar to the T-62 and earlier Soviet tanks, they had been reduced in size by about 10%, making them somewhat more reminiscent of T-72 wheels in comparison to the original configuration. The vehicle also featured considerable additional applique armor and elements suggest its fire control system was considerably improved – a wind sensor notably appearing to have been added.
The Chonma-215 would be fairly elusive and short-lived though, being very quickly followed up by the Chonma-216. For this vehicle, the North Korean engineers took the six-road wheel base of the 215 and used it to extensively modify the chassis, which was somewhat lengthened; the engine compartment, notably, was considerably redesigned and appeared much more similar to the T-72’s, suggesting a similar engine may have been adopted for the vehicle. The suspension was also redesigned to resemble the one featured on the more modern Soviet tank; the arrangement of the smoke grenade dischargers was altered to resemble the one of more modern Soviet tanks more closely. Lastly, it has occasionally been theorized the vehicle may feature a 125 mm-gun based on the T-72’s 2A46, but it appears more likely the Chonma-216 retained the original 115 mm U-5TS. It would, however, be the last North Korean main battle tank to retain this armament.
A Chonma-216 during the 2010 parade. The side view provides a clear view of the vehicle’s new six-wheel configuration and its shape, now differing significantly from the T-62. The Chonma-215 and 216, and sometimes even the Songun-Ho, are often referred to as ‘Pokpung-ho’ by enthusiasts, although this designation has no basis in reality. Source: http://www.massimotessitori.altervista.org/armoursite/nkindigenoustanks/chonma-songun/pokpung-ho.html
On the path of Songun…-Ho
The various evolutions of the Chonma-Ho in the 2000s show increasing influence from Soviet designs of the late Cold War on North Korean tank designs. This is likely out of an effort to try and at least somewhat compensate for the technological advantage South Korea had acquired in the late 1980s and 1990s thanks to its K1 main battle tank and its subsequent models. Although it appears beyond doubt that vehicles such as the Chonma-214 or Chonma-216 improved the combat values of the Chonma-Ho and were quite significantly superior to the original T-62, they still had no chance of realistically competing with South Korea’s K1. In order to at least try and compensate for the technological gap, a considerable jump would have to be performed from the base of the T-62. This jump would be unveiled to the eyes of the world in 2010, during the 65th anniversary of the Workers’ Party of Korea military parade, in the form of the new Songun-Ho or Songun-915 main battle tank, a type of tank which appears to have entered production in 2009.
As always with North Korean vehicles, the development of the Songun-Ho is more than nebulous and its history is best derived from an analysis of the observable elements of the tank, and attempts to try and find or at least theorize on their origin. The tank was likely designed after the Chonma-216, and serves as a logical conclusion to North Korea’s experience taking inspiration from the T-72 and other late Soviet tank designs: designing a new, or at least mostly new tank on the basis of experience gained by studying those designs.
The new Songun-Ho features a vastly modified hull in comparison to the previous Chonma-216. Though it is still based on the Chonma, to an extent, it incorporates more changes than any individual model of the previous series ever has.
The change that is perhaps the most indicative of the considerable structural evolutions the Songun-Ho has undertaken is the driver’s position. On all models of the Chonma-Ho, the driver sat to the front left of the hull, as on the T-62. The Songun-Ho instead uses a central driver’s position, a layout similar to the one of the T-72.
The hull of the Songun-Ho appears to have been widened in comparison to its predecessors, sitting at about 3.50 m in width, in comparison to 3.30 m on the T-62 and likely all Chonma-Ho models. The vehicle, however, appears to retain the same 58 cm-wide OMSh metallic hinge track as found on Chonma-Ho and T-62s. Although those tracks are fairly outdated and somewhat primitive by modern standards, they allow for commonality with older models and allow North Korea’s industry not to have to do a fairly hard and expensive switch to a new set of components. Those tracks can also be fitted with rubber pads in order not to cause damage in urban areas during parades.
In terms of length, the distance between the first and last axles of the road wheels present on the Songun-Ho appears to be of about 4.06 m, a value similar to the T-62, and those road wheels are separated by 30 track links, as on the old Soviet tank. This makes it obvious that the size of the Songun-Ho’s wheels has been reduced, seeing as it maintains the 6 road wheels configuration of the Chonma-216. The vehicle still uses ‘starfish’-type road wheels, as on previous tanks and, just as with track links, this part commonality likely is a significant factor in the decision to maintain old components. The tank uses torsion bar suspension, and photos of the vehicle without side skirts during military exercises have revealed it has 3 return rollers. The vehicle features thick rubber side skirts covering the upper suspension, like previous North Korean tanks; its fenders slope downward, as on the T-62, but feature a rubber covering, as on the T-72.
A Songun-Ho seen without its side skirts during a military exercise, showing the presence of return rollers; this photo also gives a decent view of the turret basket, and also shows that the Igla missile, always present in military parades, does not actually appear to be in use in the field. Source: http://www.massimotessitori.altervista.org/armoursite/nkindigenoustanks/chonma-songun/songun-ho.html
The overall length of the Songun-Ho’s hull is about 6.75 m, with the engine compartment overhanging further than the rear idler wheel by several decimetres. This is only slightly longer than on the old T-62, which was about 6.63 m long. Nonetheless, the engine compartment of the Songun-Ho appears quite different from previous vehicles. Interestingly, it includes grills not only on top of the engine, but also on the rear of the right mudguard. North Korean sources claim the Songun-Ho uses a 1,200 hp engine that propels it at 70 km/h. This claim of the vehicle featuring such a powerful engine is likely an overestimation done for propaganda purposes, but the Songun-Ho does quite likely feature an engine developed from the T-72’s, likely quite more powerful than those used on previous Chonma-Hos. Considering the vehicle has a fairly moderate estimated weight of about 44 tonnes, it may still have a very decent mobility.
The Songun-Ho’s upper front plate has always been seen under a cover of explosive reactive armor plates. Two headlamps are present on the front-sides of this ERA covering. The lower front plate is hidden by a thick rubber sheet, as on the T-80U and later models of the Chonma-Ho. Behind the ERA covering, the Songun-Ho is thought to have some form of basic composite armor, though likely simplistic and dated in its composition. Again, the assumption would be that this composite would be derived from the T-72 Ural.
An Odd Return to Cast Turrets
Though it has some new features, the hull of the Songun-Ho differs much less significantly from previous North Korean tanks when it is compared with the tank’s very peculiar turret.
While new North Korean tanks had been using welded turrets ever since the early 1990s, the Songun-Ho saw a return to a cast turret. It is a design somewhat similar to the T-62 in general appearance, but much taller and more bulbous. A number of reasons can be found to justify this increase in size.
Firstly, the Songun-Ho is the first North Korean tank that is certified to feature a 125 mm gun. The most likely inspiration for this gun came from the 2A26M2 or 2A46 present in the T-72 Ural, however, the external appearance of the gun shows it is not an identical copy. The gun is very likely compatible with most, though not all Soviet and Chinese ammunition, and North Korea very likely produces local shells as well, although how advanced they are is a question to which an answer is unlikely to be forthcoming. It is, however, fairly certain that the North Korean 125 mm gun is not able to fire gun-launched anti-tank missiles. The larger size of this gun is a reason to accomodate a larger turret and the higher roof of the Songun-Ho’s turret may be to allow for more depression as well. Unlike the vast majority of Soviet and Chinese 125 mm-armed tanks, the Songun-Ho has not opted for an autoloader, which may have been too complex to manufacture and fit into a hull still based on the Chonma-Ho. Instead, the tank has a human loader, meaning the turret houses three men, an oddity in modern designs that take their roots in Soviet principles. With the gun included, the vehicle appears to be around 10.40 m long.
The Songun-Ho’s turret features a laser rangefinder (LRF) on top of the gun. It is smaller and likely more modern than previous North Korean LRFs, but remains external, an archaic feature in modern tank design. An infrared spotlight is mounted on the right of the gun, linked to it via braces in order to accomodate elevation. This is a very common feature in North Korean tanks. The loader sits to the right, the gunner to the front left, and the commander to the rear left.
The vehicle has another commonly-found feature in the form of the 14.5 mm KPV machine gun mounted on top of the turret. Its presence on the right side suggests it is operated by the loader. This machine gun very likely is not remotely operated, meaning the loader has to open the hatch and make himself vulnerable to small arms fire in order to operate it. Another secondary weapon that has been present since the first parade of the Songun-Ho is an Igla man-portable anti-aircraft missile, installed to the left of the turret and likely operated by the commander; this is once again a common feature in North Korean vehicles. However, footage of the Songun-Ho during exercises seems to suggest this missile is rarely if ever used in the field. A coaxial 7.62 m machine-gun of unknown model (perhaps a PKT) is very likely present as well.
A view of the Songun-Ho’s turret during an early 2010s parade; this photo shows the turret’s bulbous shape, laser rangefinder, infrared searchlight, smoke dischargers, Igla missile, and 14.5 mm KPV machine-gun in good detail. The hatches appear similar to older North Korean tanks in design. Source: http://www.massimotessitori.altervista.org/armoursite/nkindigenoustanks/chonma-songun/songun-ho.html
Though cast, the Songun-Ho’s turret features a fairly large rectangular turret basket, with two storage rails encompassing its surface. The nature of this basket is not exactly known – it may serve to house ammunition or provide more internal space. The most likely theory is that it actually contains storage boxes that can be accessed from outside the vehicle. The tank’s smoke dischargers are installed on the turret sides, in front of the basket, with a bank of four dischargers on each side. A cross-wind sensor is also installed seemingly on top of the turret basket.
A drawback of cast turrets is that they typically are a lot harder to fit with composite armor. This does not deter North Korean sources from claiming the Songun-Ho’s turret offers “900 mm of protection”, though they do not specify whether this is against APFSDS of HEAT projectiles. In any case, it is very unlikely the turret actually provides this amount of protection. While it is reasonable to expect the Songun-Ho to have some form of composite armor array in the turret, the combination of cast turret and, in general, likely fairly primitive composite armor technology in use by North Korea does not bode well for the turret’s capacity to withstand modern anti-tank ammunition.
Modifications to the Songun-Ho
After it was first unveiled in 2010, the Songun-Ho has been shown in a couple of other configurations which differ from the one first seen in 2010 by the presence of turret ERA as well as secondary armaments.
The first modified version, which may have been seen as early as 2010, differed from the original by the presence of ERA blocks on the turret. These ERA blocks are placed on the turret front and front-top, providing additional protection on the frontal arc of the turret. Curiously, the blocks present on both sides of the mantlet appear to be double-stacked. The ability for ERA to work while double-stacked is one which is far from present in all ERA blocks, typically present only in some more modern blocks, and it is quite surprising North Korea has already developed such a type of ERA blocks (though some sometimes claim the only reason while North Korea uses double-stack ERA is for deception purposes). Vehicles using this double-stack ERA have been seen in both the single-color camouflage used in the 2010 parade as well as a more colorful yellow and green camouflage seen in later parades, particularly in 2017. North Korean sources claim their turret ERA provides an additional protection that would be valued at 500 mm, in addition to the 900 mm that would already be provided to the turret, giving it a protection value of around 1,400 mm. Once again, this is very likely an exaggeration, and the type of ammunition that would be used is not even mentioned.
Another early configuration of the Songun-Ho, seen in a military exhibition, featured the above mentioned ERA package, as well as two Konkurs Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM) present on the right front of the turret. The use of external ATGMs on the Songun-Ho, which re-occurred at a later date, is thought of as a proof the North Korean 125 mm is not able to fire any gun-launched missile, and likely indicate the penetration capacities of the gun are limited to an extent, seeing the need for missiles that likely improve the penetration of enemy armor quite significantly. The same configuration also sports two other missiles, which appear to be an unidentified type of man-portable air-defence systems (MANPADS).
The Konkurs-armed Songun-Ho in a military exhibit in the 2010s. The 915 number on its turret side has been the reason why the vehicle is also designated Songun-915 in western sources. This configuration has never been seen outside of this particular example, which may suggest it is not commonly employed. Interestingly enough, this vehicle lacks the Igla missile.
Another form of early configuration the Songun-Ho has been shown in is an amphibious crossing configuration, in which the vehicle is fitted with a snorkel for river crossing operations; the turret-mounted machine-gun is also covered by a protective cover in this form.
A Songun-Ho during river crossing exercises in a frozen river. A national flag is mounted on the snorkel. Source: THE ARMED FORCES OF NORTH KOREA, On The Path Of Songun, Stijn Mitzer, Joost Oliemans
The most visually impressive configuration that the Songun-Ho has been shown in, and which brings far more additional armaments than the previous, is the new weapons package that has been seen on some tanks in 2018.
This was first seen during the parade for the 70th anniversary of the foundation of the DPRK. On the right of the turret, the 14.5 mm KPV machine-gun has been replaced by a dual 30 mm automatic grenade-launcher, a weapon of North Korean design. Instead of a single Igla missile, two were mounted on a tall, mast-like superstructure at the center rear of the turret. Lastly, a new anti-tank missile launcher can be seen on the right hand side. Cleaner than previous launchers in designs, it appears the missiles it launches are North Korea’s Bulsae 3. Claimed to be similar to the powerful Russian 9M133 Kornet in capacities, some other sources indicate than the Bulsae 3 likely is an improved model of the old Fagot ATGM, which North Korea has copied as the Bulsae-2.
The main modification of the Bulsae-3 would be the replacement of wire guidance by laser guidance, based on technology indeed taken from Kornet missiles that North Korea would have received not from Russia but from Syria, with which the Hermit Kingdom maintains some significant military ties. However, recent evidence has mostly ruled out the roots between the Bulsae-3 and the Fagot, and the missile indeed appears some form of local Kornet copy. Their addition to this armament package likely indicates they are thought of as superior to the Konkurs missiles in any case.
A close view of Songun-Hos in parade with the new armament package in 2018. The plethora of secondary armaments make the tank’s turret roof much more crowded. Similar armament packages were also showcased on the Chonma-216. Source: Reddit
The operation of the weapons present in this package is somewhat questionable. The weapons do not appear to be remotely operated, which means their operation in active combat would likely be a considerable risk for the crew. It has been suggested the package may be present purely for show – and would not actually be used in exercises or active operations. It is indeed not that uncommon to see North Korean tanks in exercise footage field none of the missile armament they may have been seen with in parades, although this could be for the far simpler reason of avoiding damage to things not essential during training.
At the same time, it appears that this armament package was only fitted to newly produced vehicles, showing that Songun-Ho production has continued through the 2010s. It is known the Kusong tank factory has known some considerable slow-downs in Chonma-216 and Songun-Ho production at times though, due to the factory also being involved in production of hulls for ballistic missile launchers or self-propelled artillery. How many Songun-Ho have been manufactured is therefore very much unknown, but likely either in the high tens or low hundreds. The vehicles are very likely operated by some of the best equipped and trained North Korean armor regiments operating near the DMZ, the so-called “demilitarized zone”. This is, in practice, the very-much militarized border between the two Koreas, where the most well-trained and equipped troops of both armies tend to be located.
Songun-Hos on parade with the new armor package, with Chonma-216s in the background. This configuration has sometimes been referred to as ‘Songun-Ho II’, but, as always with Roman numeral designation of North Korean vehicles, this does not actually match North Korean nomenclature. Source: pinterest
Meaning of the Name
The “Songun” name of the tank is a reference to the policy of Songun, which roughly translates to “military first”. Though North Korea has been a particularly militarized state ever since the 1960s, this policy has been an official component of the ruling Juche ideology only since the 1990s. It has become a major aspect of it, as North Korea continues to upscale and invest as much as it can into its military – seemingly its only way to obtain some find of leverage and assurance of its survival. The name of what was, in 2010, North Korea’s newest tank and first member of a line of new models ever since the Chonma-Ho introduced in 1978, is therefore “Songun”. As for the -Ho suffix, it is the standard North Korean designation for a tank model.
Conclusion – The future of the Songun-Ho
Overall, the Songun-Ho is a particularly interesting vehicle. A significant jump forward from the previous Chonma-216, it is still likely highly inferior to the newest South Korean tanks, the K1A1, K1A2, and K2 Black Panther. Still, the improvements it brings to North Korean armor are not to be ignored and it should be remembered that the ROKA still operates a considerable number of M48A3K and M48A5K/K1/K2. Against these tanks, the Songun-Ho likely has both a firepower and protection advantage. Against perhaps even the first K1 model, which notably retained a 105 mm gun, the Songun-Ho may very well have a chance, although its fire control system likely is not as advanced. While the tank is certainly not as advanced as contemporary MBTs, the step forward formed by the Songun-Ho should not be underestimated. After all, just 10 years prior to the type being introduced, North Korea fielded nothing better than the Chonma-92 or 98, which were little more than T-62s with laser rangefinders, smoke dischargers, and ERA. As such, the Songun-Ho marks a substantial increase in military capability for North Korea.
Recent developments have shown that North Korea likely is very much aware of the Songun-Ho’s inferiority. On October 10th 2020, a new model of main battle tank appeared during the 75th Workers’ Party of Korea anniversary parade. While how many of this tank’s features are real and how many are fake is very much still in debate, the vehicle appears to take the base of the Songun-Ho tank and to considerably expand on it – a manifestation of North Korea’s wishes to try and close the technological gap in particular with South Korean and American tanks. While this new type now enters service, it is very likely the Songun-Ho may still be in production for a while, remaining one of the most modern tanks in the Korean People’s Army’s arsenal.
Lines of ‘M2020’ MBTs parading at Kim-Il Sung square in October 2020. The styling very obviously resembles the contemporary American M1 Abrams. Source: armyrecognition.comThe Songun-Ho in the 2010 configuration, without turret ERA, armed with a KPV and an Igla on the turretA Songun-Ho in fording configurationSongun-Ho with double-stacked ERASongun-Ho in a recent configuration, camouflaged, fitted with a KPV and Iglas Illustrations by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe based on work by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet
Songun-Ho specifications (estimations)
Dimensions (L-W-H)
~6.75 m (hull only) or 10.40m (hull and gun)/3.50 m/unknown (estimations)
Total Weight, Battle Ready
~44 tonnes
Engine
1,200 hp engine (North Korean claim); likely a derivative of the T-72’s V-12 diesel engine
Suspension
Torsion bars
Maximum speed (road)
70 km/h (claimed)
Crew
4 (driver, commander, gunner, loader)
Main gun
Local 125 mm gun derived from the 2A46M, with laser rangefinder, IR searchlight, crosswind sensor
Secondary armament
Likely a 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun (all configurations), 14.5 mm KPV & Igla missile (original configuration), AT-5 Sprandel/Konkurs & unknown MANPADS (first known other configuration), Dual 30 mm AGS, Dual Igla missiles, dual Bulsae-3 launcher (2018 configuration), a single 14.5 mm KPV machine gun (exercise configuration)
Armor
Composite array & ERA claimed to be equivalent to 1,400 mm (turret); hull armor unknown
Object 911B, illustrated by Pavel "Carpaticus" Alexe
Soviet Union (1963-1964)
Light Tank – 1 Prototype Built
The evolution of warfare and technologies in the years following the conclusion of the Second World War had a major impact on the way warfare would be conducted in the future. With the proliferation of nuclear armament, radiation protection became a major feature for new vehicles. Operations in the Second World War also showed that river crossing could sometimes prove difficult, as these could form major natural blocking points that most armored vehicles would find impossible to cross outside of a few heavy and sturdy bridges. Amphibious vehicles would prove to be a major asset to cross rivers even outside of these bridges, or in the event that they were destroyed or heavily defended. Many amphibious light tank designs were created in the late 1940s to early 1960s. The Soviet design bureau of the Stalingrad/Volgograd tractor plant was behind several of them. The most famous is without a doubt Object 740, which became the PT-76, the most produced light tank of the Cold War. In the early 1960s, Volgograd would design a prototype infantry fighting vehicle for the program which would lead to the BMP-1. A light tank prototype would also soon follow using the chassis and suspension of this infantry fighting vehicle. The infantry fighting vehicle prototype was designated Object 911, and, as such, the light tank would be Object 911B. Both included some innovative or original features, but none would be adopted by the Soviet military.
A photo of Object 911B during its trials, with the suspension set for higher ground clearance. Source: Solyankin, Pavlov, Pavlov, Zheltov. Otechestvennye boevye mashiny vol. 3
Volgograd’s Object 911 and 906
The idea of a combat vehicle that would combine amphibious capacities, a dismounted infantry complement, and an armament that could provide fire-support to these infantry dismounts and accompanying tanks was developed in the late 1950s Soviet Army. A formal call for prototypes fulfilling this role to be designed was issued by the GBTU (The General Armored Directorate, the service in charge of armored vehicles procurement) on October 22nd 1960. The requirements were sent to a large number of design bureaus, and, at that time, called for an 11-12 tonnes vehicle that would feature a crew of 2 and transport 8 to 10 infantry dismounts.
One of the manufacturers which began work on a design was the Volgograd tractor plant (VgTZ). Volgograd had extensive experience in amphibious vehicles design from the PT-76, which it had been producing since the early 1950s, and of which a number of derivative designs had already been designed.
Soviet naval infantry PT-76B moving through water in front of a Whiskey-class submarine. The PT-76 was without a doubt one of Volgograd’s greatest successes. Source: twitter
Volgograd’s proposals, by 1963, took the shape of two distincts prototypes, the Object 911 and the Object 914. The Object 914 took the clear basis of the PT-76 chassis. The Object 911, however, was more distinct. Though there was still PT-76 inspiration and a number of common parts, such as the hydrojets and road wheels, the vehicle differed massively in other aspects. Likely the most noticeable were the four large, retractable aviation wheels which could give the Object 911 a wheeled drive, intended for use on roads during transfers to increase maximum speed and reduce fuel consumption. Object 911 also used an adjustable suspension which could be used to change the ground clearance of the vehicle.
The Object 906, a vastly improved amphibious light tank design Volgograd was working on from 1960 to 1963. The general layout of its autoloader would be picked up by Object 911B. Source: pinterest
In the same timeframe as it worked on infantry fighting vehicle prototypes, Volgograd had also designed and produced three prototypes of the Object 906. This was a vastly modernized and improved design based on the PT-76. It included a new, more powerful diesel engine, as well as an autoloaded 85 mm gun which significantly improved firepower in comparison to the PT-76’s 76 mm gun, particularly against armored targets and at range.
The Object 911B
By 1963, the Object 906 was at the testing stage with three prototypes, and would eventually be rejected within the year. At the same time, work had concretized on the Object 911, and manufacturing of the prototype took place within this year.
A ¾ view of the Object 911 prototype on its tracks. Source: Solyankin, Pavlov, Pavlov, Zheltov. Otechestvennye boevye mashiny vol. 3
If the Object 911 was to be adopted, it had been made clear by the GBTU’s requirements that the vehicle’s chassis was to be used for a whole family of various derivatives. This could, for example, include a light amphibious tank, something Volgograd had extensive experience with. The other Volgograd prototype from the program, the Object 914, used a more conventional drivetrain which could perhaps be easier to modify into derivatives. But, being very similar to the PT-76, there would be little reason to design a light tank version of the Object 914, seeing as the Object 914 could already be described as an infantry fighting version of a light tank. In comparison, the Object 911 could provide a more interesting base, particularly as the vehicle had an overall low profile enhanced by an adjustable height suspension.
Volgograd had already worked on a very low-profile amphibious light tank in the form of a derivative of the Object 906. This was the Object 906B, which was armed with a 125 mm tube missile launcher and featured two crewmembers in the turret. While work on the Object 906 and the Object 906B was discontinued during 1963, re-using components from them, notably the autoloader from the Object 906 and the general layout of the Object 906B, could prove valuable.
A profile schematic view of the Object 906B. The vehicle was never built, but the Object 911B would take direct inspiration from its layout and profile. Source: Solyankin, Pavlov, Pavlov, Zheltov. Otechestvennye boevye mashiny vol. 3
As such, in 1963, the designing of a light tank version of the Object 911 would be carried out. The resulting vehicle would be named Object 911B. While using the chassis of the Object 911, it introduced a large variety of changes, not all directly linked to its function as a light tank. While keeping the same 73 mm Grom armament, it took inspiration from the Object 906B’s layout and the Object 906’s autoloader. A prototype of the Object 911B would be manufactured and tested in 1964.
The Object 911B’s Hull and Armor Layout
Schematics showing a general view of the Object 911B, as well as comparing its profile to the PT-76. Source: Imgur
The Object 911B was a particularly low vehicle. Its height would vary between 1,265 mm and 1,615 mm depending on the set height of the suspension. This was particularly small. At its lowest, the height of a child, and even at its highest, the height of an average to small man. This would result in increased survivability, as the vehicle would be a hard target to hit at range, though at the same time creating proper crew conditions with such a low profile could be difficult. Length was 7.1 m, and width was 2.8 m. The weight of the Object 911B when loaded with crew, fuel, and ammunition would have been 12.5 tonnes. Thanks to its fairly small dimensions and reduced weight, the Object 911B was air-transportable by the Antonov AN-12.
The Object 911B used a peculiar hull and armor layout in order to increase the survivability of the vehicle and crew. This is typically not an easy task on a light amphibious tank, which has to use light armor protection and cannot afford to have large, thick metal plates in order not to compromise buoyancy and to retain a light weight.
A side cutaway view showing the very peculiar armor layout and arrangement of the Object 911B. Source: ImgurA front cutaway view showing the side armor protection of the crew compartment. Source: Imgur
To the front of the vehicle was what is typically described as a “cargo compartment”. This section was quite long, and did not contain any vital parts necessary for the vehicle to function. This storage space was reportedly capable of containing two men lying down, which could allow Object 911B to evacuate wounded servicemen. One can also imagine this feature may have been used to evacuate the crew of another knocked out or broken down Object 911B, seeing as the vehicle had a crew of two. The cargo compartment’s possible use to transport personnel in emergencies is further supported by the presence of two access hatches on the roof sides. When empty, the large size but low weight brought by this compartment would likely also help with the Object 911B’s buoyancy. The armor protection of this part of the vehicle can only be described as minimal. The front plate was only 10 mm thick, angled at 45° towards the back, while the roof was 6 mm thick and the floor a mere 4 mm. The sides likely had the same 10 mm thickness as the front, but without the considerable angling of the front plates
Behind this cargo compartment would be the crew compartment. The two were separated by an armored bulkhead. Being 35 mm thick, though mostly vertical with no or minimal angling, this bulkhead was actually intended to be the main frontal armor of the vehicle’s hull. An advantage of its position inside the vehicle was that it covered significantly less space, and as such, was much lighter than a similar armor layout applied to the front of the vehicle. When added to the 10 mm of the front armor and the considerable empty space of air separating it from the 35 mm bulkhead, this armor layout was actually quite considerable for a light infantry tank, and would typically protect the crew from heavy machine-gun fire, and often even autocannons. The front armor of the turret, which would not benefit from the 10 mm of armor of the cargo compartment and spacing separating it from the bulkhead received 40 mm of armor angled backward at 48° frontally, and 40 mm angled backward at 30° on the sides, with the same thickness to the rear. The hull sides were also quite thickly armored, with 45 mm on the upper sides and 20mm on the lower sides. The roof and floor of the crew compartment were also thicker, at 10 mm each. The crew compartment, within the vehicle’s turret, contained the two crewmembers, a driver to the right and a commander/gunner to the left.
The crew compartment was then separated from the rear compartment by another 35 mm bulkhead. The vehicle’s powerplant and transmission were to the rear. This part of the vehicle had the same light armor layout found on the front cargo compartment. The floor was 4 mm thick, while the roof and rear were 6 mm, and the sides likely 10 mm. The lower rear plate was angled at 48°, while angling on other plates was inexistant or minimal. This light armor protection was a necessity to keep weight down, but penetrating hits in this section of the vehicle would obviously be much more damaging than in the cargo compartment, easily leading to the vehicle’s engine being damaged or destroyed.
Engine and Transmission
The Object 911B used the same UTD-20 diesel engine as had been used on the Object 911. This engine had previously been set as part of requirements sent to different manufacturers to produce an infantry fighting vehicle prototype and all competitors to the Object 911 also featured it. It produced 300 hp at 2,600 rpm, and reached its maximum torque output of 981 N.m at 1,500 to 1,600 rpm. Without any fuel or oil, the engine weighed 665 kg, and had a consumption of 175 to 178 grams of fuel per hp and hour. A total of 500 liters of fuel were stowed within the Object 911B.
An UTD-20 engine, which was widely used in Soviet infantry fighting vehicles and light tank prototypes from the 1960s onward. Source: https://geek-tips.imtqy.com/
An advantage of the UTD-20 was its limited size compared to its output, which was a very favorable feature for mounting it in light armored fighting vehicles such as the Object 911 or the Object 911B, allowing for the very low silhouette adopted by the vehicles. The engine was used to drive a rear transmission. The Object 911B’s transmission used a two-disc main friction clutch, composed of dry steel and asbestos, a two-flow non-differential gear and rotation mechanism, and two single-row planetary on-board gearboxes. The Object 911B used a two-shaft, 5-speeds gearbox. It was reversible, meaning the vehicle could drive with the same maximum speed and gear ratios backward. The vehicle was also capable of neutral steering.
In addition to this engine and transmission, the Object 911B also featured two hydrojets. These were found in the rear sides of the vehicle. They were taken straight from the PT-76. These hydrojets were powered via a driveshaft with a reducer, linked to the gearbox, and would allow for far quicker movement on water than vehicles using merely tracks or wheels for amphibious crossings. A trim vane could also be deployed to prevent waves from washing over the vehicle.
The Object 911B on water during its trials. This photo gives a good view of the trim vane deployed, but also of the vehicle’s radio antenna. Source: Solyankin, Pavlov, Pavlov, Zheltov. Otechestvennye boevye mashiny vol. 3
Suspension and Drivetrain
The suspension of the Object 911B was directly based on the one found on the Object 911, but incorporated a number of changes. A standout feature of the Object 911 had been its four retractable aviation wheels, which allowed for wheeled drive. The advantages of such a design were higher maximum speed and reduced fuel consumption when driving on roads, which would prove useful out of combat. However, it led to increased complexity in production, maintenance, crew training, and cross-country mobility. As such, these retractable wheels were removed from the Object 911B’s design.
The Object 911 also included another innovative feature, an adjustable suspension. This was found to be less of a hassle, while at the same time having more uses, including in combat, and as such was retained on the Object 911B.
A front view of Object 911B, with its suspension likely at or close to its highest point. This photo also gives a good view of the headlights, mounted on the turret, as well as the cupola, which is not in fact crewed by the commander but the driver. Source: Solyankin, Pavlov, Pavlov, Zheltov. Otechestvennye boevye mashiny vol. 3Front schematics of Object 911B at the highest and lowest suspension setting. Source: Solyankin, Pavlov, Pavlov, Zheltov. Otechestvennye boevye mashiny vol. 3
The suspension of the vehicles was not exactly identical. The Object 911B was longer and had a longer track run, and as such used an additional road wheel, bringing the number to six per side. These were stamped steel hollow road wheels, the same type as used on PT-76, or at least a very similar type. Their main advantage was that their hollow construction both saved weight and improved buoyancy. Each road wheel was mounted on a suspension arm of which the movement was assured by a pneumatic suspension. The suspension’s height could be adjusted and considerably lowered. The highest ground clearance the Object 911B could raise itself to was 450 mm, which was more than any other Volgograd amphibious tank design from the era, including the PT-76 and the Object 906. When fully lowered, the ground clearance would be reduced to 100 mm. These changes in ground clearance would result in the Object 911B’s height varying from 1,625 mm to 1,265 mm. The higher ground clearance would be useful when the vehicle was driving over rough or irregular terrain, preventing risks of the lower hull being stuck on an obstacle, which would damage it or result in the vehicle losing track tension and getting bogged down and stuck. The lower ground clearance, on the other hand, would have the obvious advantage of significantly reducing the already tiny silhouette of the Object 911B. The vehicle’s drive sprocket was mounted to the rear, with a front idler. As on the Object 911, three return rollers, made of aluminum, were also present.
The tracks used on the Object 911B reportedly varied from the RMSH type used on the Object 911.
Crew compartment and turret
The crew compartment of the Object 911B was mostly in the vehicle’s turret. Both crewmembers were seated in this turret, with the driver to the right of the gun and the commander/gunner to the left. The turret had a frustoconical shape. It was of a fairly wide but very low design, differing significantly from the standardized turret featured in the Object 911.The turret rotation speed seems to have been of 30 degrees/second.
The low height of the vehicle likely resulted in the turret being quite cramped. Taking the minimum height and ground clearance of the vehicle into account, the vehicle must have been at most 1.15 m from hull floor to turret roof, not even accounting from the spacing which would exist between the floor and the seat’s bottom. This particularly low profile, though it could be commended in a way, necessitated for men of below-average height to operate the vehicle reasonably.
Comprehensive work was invested in making the crew compartment safe against nuclear threats. It was given good insulation, using special materials in addition to the steel. The Object 911B also included a radiation and chemical reconnaissance device, which would be able to measure level of radiation in an area and would be able to automatically shut the hatches if the nuclear elements that precede the shockwave of a nuclear detonation were detected.
Other equipment fitted inside Object 911B included four thermal detectors present in the cargo compartment and a further two in the engine compartment. If excessive heat was detected, these would trigger a fire extinguisher that spat out an extinguishing chemical mixture. A 2 l cylindrical container for this mixture was present in both the cargo and engine compartment.
The crew compartment featured the R-123 high/very high-frequency radio transceiver, by this point a new introduction in Soviet vehicles, which could assure communications at ranges up to 20 km on two bands. The radio antenna was on the left side of the turret. It was coupled with an internal R-124 intercom system for communications between the gunner/commander and driver. It also featured a TNA-2 navigation device and a “Brusok” encryption device for the vehicle’s outside communications. Power for this electrical equipment was provided by a 5 kW VG-7500 generator that powered two 12ST-70 batteries. 10 F1 fragmentation hand grenades, as well as a signal pistol with ten cartridges, were also stored within the crew compartment.
The R-123 radio station. Source: pinterestAn R-124 intercom system dismounted from a vehicle. Source: http://pribor.zp.ua/
Crew Positions
The gunner on the Object 911B was located to the left of the gun. Right on top of his head was a fairly large rectangular hatch he could enter or exit from.
A view of the Object 911B’s turret from the right, with the two crewmembers present inside the turret. Source: Solyankin, Pavlov, Pavlov, Zheltov. Otechestvennye boevye mashiny vol. 3
Vision devices at the gunner’s disposal included a large periscope to the front and three TNPO-170 prismatic periscopes to the side. The gun was automatically loaded, but could also be loaded manually, a task he would handle if the autoloader was no longer working. Sources refer to the vehicle’s main sight as the PKB-62, with a field of view of 15° at day and 6° at night. This appears identical to the 1PN22 combined day-night sight used on the Object 911, and this may simply be two different ways of referring to the same sight. If the 1PN22 was indeed used, this sight had two channels, one for day and one for night, which would be toggled by rotating an internal mirror. The gunner would look through the same eyepiece in any case. Using the day channel, the sight had a magnification of 6x and a field of view of 15°. The night channel had a magnification of 6.7x and a field of view of 6°. It had a three-stage light intensifier system that would amplify light by 50,000 to 75,000 times. It also featured vastly simplified lead and range corrections scales in order to ease night firing.
A close-up of the seat and commands of the driver’s post. This rotating position was one of the more peculiar features of the Object 911B. Source: Solyankin, Pavlov, Pavlov, Zheltov. Otechestvennye boevye mashiny vol. 3
The driver had by far the most peculiar position on Object 911B. His seat, as well as the controls, were placed in a sort of ‘bathtub’. This ‘bathtub’ itself rotated within the turret. It would systematically remain aligned with the front of the tank. This was meant to allow the driver to always look straight in the position he was driving towards, but on vehicles with similar devices, such as the MBT-70, this is known to have made drivers disorientated and sick, and this may have been an issue here as well. Advantages included much better visibility for the driver, as well as, in most vehicles, resulting in less chances of crew casualties from anti-tank mines (mines would usually explode under the first road wheel, which the driver would be further away from thanks to his placement in the turret – the presence of the armored bulkhead would also grant protection against fragments). In the matter of crew survivability, the driver being in the turret could also usually escape the vehicle faster, and there would be no risk of the opening of his hatch being compromised by the gun barrel at an unfortunate time.
When reversing, this crew position was even more peculiar. A mechanism was built within the transmission gear mechanism to allow the vehicle to be driven in reverse. When wanting to reverse, the driver would be able to disconnect the clutch and pedals of his position, which t would then rotate 180°, and the controls would then be reconnected to the gearbox. In this fashion, when reversing, the driver would face towards the rear and could look straight towards where he was driving, making this essentially quite similar to driving towards the front.
A view of the Object 911B’s turret from the left, with the driver’s position shifted slightly towards the right. Source: Solyankin, Pavlov, Pavlov, Zheltov. Otechestvennye boevye mashiny vol. 3A front view of the Object 911B’s turret, with the reverse driving triggered and the driver facing to the rear. This angle also shows a good view of the vehicle’s mantlet and main gunner periscope. Source: Solyankin, Pavlov, Pavlov, Zheltov. Otechestvennye boevye mashiny vol. 3
When it came to vision, the driver had three TNPO-170 prismatic periscopes as well as a TVN-2B night vision device to enable safer and easier night driving. The position’s periscopes were placed on a cupola which was slaved to the movement of the driver’s position inside the vehicle, so as with the driver’s position, they would always face in the direction the tank was driving, regardless of the turret’s position.
Armament
General schematics of the 2A28 Grom. Source: Tankograd
The main armament of the turret was a 73 mm 2A28 Grom low-pressure smoothbore gun. This was a fairly short gun, with a 2,117 mm tube and 2,180 mm total length. The design was overall made to be very simple and light. For example, it lacked any bore evacuator, and the gun fumes were instead to be evacuated from the turret, which featured a ventilator for this purpose. The gun overall weighed only 115 kg and had an average barrel life of 1,250 rounds. The recoil mechanism of the Grom was contained in an armored sleeve, wrapped around the base of the barrel. Gun elevation angles in the Object 911B extended from +30° to -3°, which was limited even by Soviet standards. The gun could elevate electrically and manually.
A number of PG-15V rounds, here captured by Azerbaijan from Armenia during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. The round was produced in massive quantities, and despite more modern ammunition to fulfill both anti-armor and anti-personnel roles, having been available since the 1970s, it is still widely used. Source: reddit
There was only a single shell type available to the 2A28 Grom in the 1960s, the PG-15V. It used the PG-9 HEAT anti-tank grenade already used by the SPG-9 73 mm recoilless gun, but swapped the original propellant charge with a more powerful PG-15P, which was meant to ensure a longer effective range. The projectile was fin-stabilized and featured a rocket engine towards the rear, with propellant present towards the middle of the grenade. This allowed it to reach a higher speed than would typically be expected from a gun as short as the Grom, with a maximum velocity of 655 m/s.
The explosive charge of the PG-9 grenade was a 322 g explosive mixture which would be equivalent to 515 g of TNT. An advantage of the PG-9 was that it featured a high standoff distance (i.e distance between the shaped charge and tip of the fuze) of 258 mm. In practice, this meant that, upon hitting a target, the jet of molten metal would have a significant length to take shape into a thin, dense jet. The results were a great armor penetration for the time and small size of the gun. The projectile’s armor penetration was officially rated at 300 mm at all ranges. In practice, this was slightly higher, as the official figure was based on the quantity of armor which would be pierced with the shell then having significant post-penetration effects inside. The maximum penetration achieved could vary between 302 and 346 mm, with an average value of 326 mm. In practice, this meant the Grom could quite reliably penetrate any tank operated by NATO in the 1960s.
The shell was not without issues, however. The downside of HEAT projectiles and a very short barrel were an overall low accuracy and high dispersion. The Grom’s PG-15V projectiles were notably very vulnerable to wind. The nominal maximum range of the Grom was of 800 m, but even at this range, only a 34% hit rate was achieved against a T-55 during trials. Even if this tank was quite smaller than most NATO tanks, in practice it can still be said a vehicle wielding a Grom would have to get to close ranges to use this gun effectively against armored targets. Additionally, during the 1960s, the PG-15V was the only available shell for the 2A28 Grom. HEAT shells are not purely anti-tank projectiles, and by nature also have some capacities against other targets. They can notably be effective when used against field fortifications and bunkers. However, due to their design focusing on producing a jet of molten metal in one direction, they offer very limited capacities when attempting to fire at infantry in the open. For the vast majority of vehicles, this would fairly easily be dealt with by simply shifting to a high-explosive fragmentation shell, but no projectile of the type would be available for the Grom until 1973.
The 2A28 Grom was fed by an autoloading mechanism. This was not the same as the crescent-shape conveyor present on the Object 911’s standardized turret design, which would contain all 40 73 mm Grom projectiles carried inside the vehicle.
While the Object 911B also had a 40 rounds ammunition stowage, its autoloader only held 27 at a time. The commander/gunner could feed more rounds into it once some were expended, or in the unlikely scenario all rounds within the autoloader were expended and no new shells had been placed into it, he could manually reload the gun as well. The autoloader mechanism was a horizontal electrically-driven conveyor belt. It would ensure a rate of fire of 9 rounds per minute. The autoloader could be installed or removed from the vehicle for repair or replacement via a special hatch.
Photos of the 7.62 mm PKT machine gun. Source: weaponsystems.net
The 2A28 Grom was supplemented by a 7.62 mm PKT coaxial machine gun. Mounted to the right of the gun, it would effectively be the only reliable means of dealing with infantry in the open. It fed to the right and ejected to the left. The PKT was fed from 250 rounds ammunition boxes and would fire at a cyclic rate of fire of 700 to 800 rounds per minute, at a muzzle velocity of 855 m/s. It would be able to expend two ammunition boxes in quick succession before the barrel would need to be replaced, or at least the firing interrupted for a bit to prevent overheating. A total of 2,000 7.62 mm rounds were stowed within the Object 911B.
Crucially, the Object 911B did not feature the 9M14 Malyutka missile or control system featured on the Object 911. This technically meant that the light tank was less armed than the infantry fighting vehicle, a considerable disadvantage. The Grom had a limited effective range, and while the Malyutka was not the most accurate or reliable missile, it was still a much better weapon to take out armored targets at longer ranges. Without the Malyutka, the Object 911B could only engage enemy armor within the reduced effective range of the Grom.
Trials and Performances
The Object 911B prototype was completed and trialed in 1964.
The vehicle was able to reach a maximum speed of 72.5 km/h on road. This was a considerable improvement from the Object 911 which would only manage 57 km/h on tracks. The main reason likely was the removal of the extendable wheels and changes to the suspension. On water, the vehicle could reach a similar maximum speed of 10 km/h, which was generally the norm for vehicles equipped with the PT-76’s hydrojet design. The maximum range on road was 500 km, similar to the Object 906 and exceeding the PT-76. Ground pressure was 0.42 kg/cm².
Object 911B at its lowest suspension height next to a PT-76B during its trials. The low profile of the vehicle at the lowest suspension setting was exceptional. Source: Solyankin, Pavlov, Pavlov, Zheltov. Otechestvennye boevye mashiny vol. 3
The vehicle’s armor protection was tested against two different threats. The first was against 76.2 mm projectiles fired at ranges of 2,000 m with a muzzle velocity of 665 m/s. These were likely kinetic projectiles fired from the PT-76’s D-56T (this velocity matches with the BR-350B and BR-354 APBC-HE shells, the latter of which was more common by this point in time). The frontal crew compartment armored bulkhead and turret armor were both found to resist penetration at this range. These were satisfactory performances. While the D-56T was not a very powerful gun and the projectiles were fired at a long range, a light amphibious tank is not a vehicle that is expected to resist armor-piercing weapons at pretty much any range, and indeed many vehicles fulfilling a similar role, such as the PT-76 or M551 Sheridan, would still be fairly easily penetrated even at this range.
More representative of the armament a light tank with good armor protection for the type may be expected to resist, the Object 911’s crew compartment was also tested against the 14.5 mm KPV. The weapon failed to penetrate both the front bulkhead and the hull sides. This was once again quite a considerable feat. The 14.5 mm KPV was one of the most powerful mass-produced heavy machine guns around, and if the Object 911B’s crew compartment was impervious to it, it would certainly resist NATO’s .50 cal Browning M2HB. In certain conditions, such as with some range and with imperfect firing angles, which are to be expected in combat, the crew compartment of the Object 911B may have stood decent chances to resist fire from many NATO autocannons of calibers around 20 mm, which would be an impressive performance for a light amphibious tank.
Conclusion – Interesting Performances with no Niche to Fulfill
Ultimately, the Soviet Army did not adopt the Object 911B, and work on the vehicle was discontinued after the trials ended in 1964.
A number of reasons can be found for the rejection of the vehicle. The most obvious was that the original Object 911 was not picked to become the BMP-1, being ruled out of the candidates due to complications with its drivetrain fairly early on. The other Volgograd prototype, the Object 914, was a more serious candidate but was eventually rejected in favor of the Object 765, which would become the famed BMP-1 that remains widely in use across the world today. There would have been little motivation in adopting a light tank derived from an infantry fighting vehicle which was rejected. Even though the Object 911B had significant parts commonality with vehicles already in service, such as the engine, road wheels, or armament, it would still lead to increased logistical complexity.
However, outside of these external considerations, the Object 911B had faults of its own. Some aspects of the vehicle were genuinely quite impressive, with the exceptionally low profile at the foremost. The armor protection given to the crew was also significant for a vehicle of the type. The crew of an Object 911B would have much more chances to survive enemy fire than the one of another amphibious light tank, such as the previous Soviet PT-76, the American M551 Sheridan, or the British FV 101 Scorpion fitted with a floatation device. Being able to resist heavy machine-gun fire or even light autocannons is significantly better than most vehicles of the type and would protect the Object 911B’s crew from some widely-encountered threats. This level of protection only extended to the crew, with the cargo and crucially engine compartment only being protected against rifle-caliber projectiles, but it was still significant.
The Object 765 prototype, which would be adopted and become the BMP-1 in 1964. With this vehicle already scheduled for production, there was little need for the Object 911B. While one may point to several advantages of the Object 911B in terms of survivability, this was not as strong as an argument in comparison to the eight dismounts and 9M14 Malyutka missile sported by the BMP. Source: Solyankin, Pavlov, Pavlov, Zheltov. Otechestvennye boevye mashiny vol. 3
However, the vehicle’s firepower was far too low to justify its existence. The Object 911B was only armed with the same 73 mm 2A28 Grom as the BMP-1 and a coaxial machine gun, and its lower profile and better armor protection could hardly create the need for it. In comparison, the BMP-1 would not only transport eight dismounts, but also feature a 9M14 Malyutka missile, which means it would be far better equipped to deal with enemy armor at range. Indeed, for all of the Object 911B’s advantages in survivability granted by its low profile and armor protection, these would be in large part negated by the need to be at small ranges for the Grom to have a good chance to hit enemy targets. At those ranges, enemy guns would have far lower difficulty to target the smaller profile of the Object 911B, and the vehicle would likely fall prey to most tanks before it could be at short enough range to target them unless it could be undetected until the moment it fired. While this would be easier for the Object 911B than pretty much any other tank, it is still not something to be relied upon, particularly if the vehicle was to be used offensively. The issues of disorientation that could arise from the driver’s placement in the turret were also not resolved.
In short, while very interesting in several aspects, the Object 911B did not fulfill any niche where a vehicle of its kind was necessary, and as such it is not surprising it was not adopted by the Soviet Army. Unlike the Object 911, the Object 911B does not appear to be preserved at the Kubinka Tank Museum, or at least not in its visitable parts, as no modern photos of the vehicle have emerged. It may have been scrapped, or still be preserved outside of public view.
Object 911B, illustrated by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe
Object 911B specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
7.100 x 2.800 x 1.625 to 1.265 m
Ground clearance
100 to 450 mm (adjustable)
Combat weight
12.5 tonnes
Engine
UTD-20 6-cylinders 300 hp diesel engine
Suspension
Adjustable pneumatic springs
Transmission mount
rear
Forward gears
5 (reversible)
Road wheels
6
Maximum speed (road)
72.5 km/h
Maximum speed (water)
10 km/h
Range
500 km (road)
Crew
2 (driver, commander/gunner)
Gunner’s vision devices
Main periscope
3 x TNPO-170 prismatic periscopes
PKB-62 (1PN22 ?) sight
Driver’s vision devices
3x TNPO-170 prismatic periscopes in a rotating cupola facing towards the direction the vehicle is driving in
TVN-2B night vision device
Main gun
73 mm 2A28 ‘Grom’ with 40 rounds (27 stowed in autoloader)
Autoloader
Electrically-driven horizontal conveyor belt
Secondary armament
Coaxial 7.62 mm PKT with 2,000 rounds
Hull armor
Cargo compartment:
10 mm/45° (front)
4 mm (floor)
6 mm (roof)
Likely 10 mm (sides)Crew compartment:
35 mm (front bulkhead)
45 mm (upper sides)
20 mm (lower sides)
35 mm (rear bulkhead)
10 mm (roof and floor)
Turret:
40 mm /40° (front)
40 mm /30° (sides)
Likely 40 mm (rear)
10 mm (roof)
Engine compartment:
4 mm (floor)
6 mm (roof and rear)
Likely 10 mm (sides)
Effective protection of crew compartment
76.2 mm projectile fired at 665 m/s and a range of 2,000m (front bulkhead and turret)
14.5 mm KPV fire from all angles
Numbers produced
1
Sources
Solyankin, Pavlov, Pavlov, Zheltov. Otechestvennye boevye mashiny vol. 3
73-мм ГЛАДКОСТВОЛЬНОЕ ОРУДИЕ 2A28Техническое описание и инструкция по эксплуатации (73-mm SMOOTHBORE WEAPON 2A28 Technical description and operating instructions)
БОЕВАЯ МАШИНА ПЕХОТЫ БМП-1 ТЕхничЕскоЕ ОПИсаниЕ И ИНСТРУКЦИЯ ПО ЭКСПЛУАТАЦИИ (COMBAT VEHICLE INFANTRY BMP-1 Technical Description AND THE OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS) BMP-1 field disassembly, Tankograd
skylancer7441’s archive
The Marseille was the single vehicle that received a special welded turret made by FCM. Illustration by David Bocquelet, modified by Pavel 'Carpaticus' Alexe
France (1938-1940)
Heavy Infantry Tank – 1 Converted
During the 1930s, the French shipyard of FCM (Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerranée) was a fairly important player in the field of tank development and construction. In a field dominated by manufacturers using casting techniques and a few using riveting and bolting (mainly Renault and its cavalry vehicles), FCM was notable in its use of welding. Though this is mainly known via FCM’s only mass-produced design from the late 1930s, the FCM 36, FCM also studied a variety of heavier designs which used welding, such as the FCM F4 or FCM F1. FCM also took part in the studies to provide an improved version of the B1 Bis tank, of which FCM was one of several manufacturers, the B1 Ter. It is in this context that an experimental welded turret was given to a B1 Bis produced by FCM.
The B1 Bis “Marseille” and its Turret
The tank which received this new turret was the B1 Bis №234. It was assembled by FCM in early 1938 and would be delivered to the 510ème RCC (Régiment de Char de Combat – Combat Tank Regiment) in Nancy, Lorraine. There, it was nicknamed “Marseille”, after France’s second-largest city and a large Mediterranean harbor.
This B1 Bis was given a welded turret that had been designed by FCM. This welded turret appears to not have been an entirely new design, but was instead based on a design studied to provide a second, rear turret for FCM’s F4 tank.
The 47 mm-armed turret design for a variant of the FCM F4. It would have featured in the “variante D”. In all known variants, the FCM F4 had a 75 mm main gun in a rotating front turret. Armed with the 47 mm SA 35, this turret would have given some amount of anti-tank coverage to the rear and sides of the vehicle. Source: GBM 109The only known photo of B1 Bis №234 “Marseille” with its welded turret, likely taken in Nancy. Source: char-français
In comparison to the FCM F4’s turret, the Marseille’s appears to have been merely a slightly simplified version. It remained a welded turret with 7 sides, including the front. The turret was designed to be similar to the APX 4 found on classic B1 Bis tanks in terms of general architecture. It therefore also retained the crew of one, the commander. The turret featured a commander cupola to the rear left, with three vision ports. If this cupola was given the observation devices of the standard B1 Bis, it would have had a PPL RX 160 episcope. However, the turret the Marseille received is known to have been more of a prototype/proof-of-concept, and may have lacked all the advanced features of a standard APX 4.
Vision ports were also found on the sides of the turret. They were more distinctive than on the standard B1 Bis’ APX 4, being more reminiscent of the APX 1 found on the older B1 in this fashion.
The armament of the FCM welded turret was the same as on a standard APX 4, a 47 mm SA 35 main gun to the right, and a coaxial MAC 31 7.5 mm machine gun to the left. The FCM turret featured different mantlets than the APX 4, owing to their use of welding instead of casting. This is particularly distinguishable on the machine gun, which appears to feature some kind of shield protecting it from enemy fire. As for the turret’s armor protection, it was very likely identical in thickness to the APX 4. The welding would have led to less angles and fewer rounded surfaces, but the stronger structural resistance of welded steel in comparison to cast steel would have likely made up for it.
The Point of the FCM Turret
Placing this new welded turret on a production Char B1 Bis which was then issued operationally was obviously a way for FCM to experiment with heavier welded turrets. Several motives can be found behind this.
An obvious one can be found in the form of FCM’s ongoing heavy tanks project. The company was, by 1938, involved in the B1 Ter program, which would later see FCM tasked with manufacturing a serial/pre-production vehicle, which FCM wanted to feature one of their own turrets instead of the APX 4 or even another welded design, the ARL 2. The FCM F4 program was also recent, and in early 1938, had evolved into the FCM F1 – which was also planned to feature a 47 mm-armed turret in addition to a much larger, 90 mm-armed one.
A more discrete but perhaps more realistic or at least short-term motive may also be found in the will to provide some competition to the APX 4 turret which outfitted all B1 Bis produced, including those by FCM. A common issue with French cast turrets (and even the non-cast ones, seeing as this was also an issue with the Panhard 178’s riveted APX 3) was that their production was typically slower than the hull they were to be mounted on, resulting in a backlog of completed hulls with no turret to be outfitted with – not too much of an issue in peacetime, but a much more considerable one in wartime. By proving it could produce its own turret – and likely have it be quicker to produce than the APX 4 for about equal performances – FCM may have hoped to see the army order FCM’s B1 Bis to use an FCM turret instead of those provided by the state manufacturer APX. This would not, however, materialize in any way.
The Fate of B1 Bis “Marseille” and of FCM’s Cast Turret
At the outbreak of the war, in September 1939, the B1 Bis “Marseille” became the tank of the commander of the French 15ème BCC (Bataillon de Char de Combat – Combat Tank Battalion). It was, at this point, retrofitted with the standard APX 4 turret. During the 1940 Campaign, it was passed between the 15th and the 8th battalions, where it again became the battalion commander’s tank in late May 1940. The tank notably took part in the Battle of Abbeville. It broke down on a road on the night of 5th to 6th June 1940. By mid-day on the 7th, it had still not been able to be recovered when it was attacked and captured by German infantry – putting an end to this peculiar B1 Bis’s service within the French Army.
German soldiers in front of the abandoned “Marseille”, north of Beauvais, in Picardy, June 1940. Source: char-français
As for FCM’s welded turret, the B1 Ter, which was to be produced by FCM, very likely had a turret very similar, if not directly based on the design which was found on Marseille. Sadly, no iconographic documents of FCM’s B1 Ter, may it be photos of the assembly process (the tank was being assembled by the time FCM’s facilities fell under Italian occupation) or plans, have survived. Out of the three B1 Ter prototypes, the FL one shares a similar fate, and only a very few photos of the ARL prototype’s hull during the assembly process have survived. The fate of the FCM B1 Ter is also unclear. While the ARL and FL prototypes were sunk during evacuation to North Africa in June of 1940, the FCM was still listed as in existence by an Italian report dated from July 1943. It vanished without a trace after this date, leaving its fate to be a mystery (though the exact nature of its resolution likely lays simply in identifying whether the hands that scrapped it were German during the occupation of Italy and Italy’s French occupation zone, or French, after the liberation of the country in 1944).
The Marseille was the single vehicle that received a special welded turret made by FCM. Illustration by David Bocquelet, modified by Pavel ‘Carpaticus’ Alexe
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (2000s)
Improvised Light Tank – 1 Built (Converted From Pre-Existing Vehicles)
Makeshift or improvised vehicles are a very common occurrence in modern, asymmetrical conflicts. The origins behind the creation of these vehicles can be very diverse. In some cases, it can be to try and make something which originally was not a fighting vehicle into one, or to bring mobility to a weapon system. One may, for example, mention the numerous Toyota Land Cruiser 70 series-based technicals which have been created by dozens of international and state actors in many different conflicts. In other cases, improvised vehicles take the form of modifying already existing vehicles, often captured or seized from a pre-existing force, to repurpose them, or perhaps reuse components of operational vehicles to create a functional one (for example mating a functioning turret from the hull of a broken down vehicle onto another hull, or creating a new turret for a functional hull which lacks one). In some cases, an improvised vehicle may even best be described as a combination of two already pre-existing types – such is the case of a light tank that was created by the rebel/terrorist group known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), often known simply as the Tamil Tigers, of Sri Lanka. This vehicle combined the turret of a British FV601 Saladin armored car with the modified hull of a Chinese YW531 to create what was now a tracked light tank.
Conflict in Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka, formerly known as Ceylon, is a large island located to the south of the Indian subcontinent, with which it has had cultural, trade and diplomatic relationship for a particularly long time. The island was ruled by a number of local kingdoms in its history, the last being the kingdom of Kandy, while Portuguese and later Dutch colonization of coastal areas started in the 16th century. The Kingdom of Great Britain seized control of the island off the Batavian Republic during the Napoleonic Wars, with the last local king expelled in 1815 and the entire island falling into the control of the British East India company and the British crown.
A rough map of Sri Lanka’s linguistic divisions showing the large Sinhala-dominated parts of the country, and the areas with Tamil plurality or majority. Source: medium.com
Sri Lanka’s ethnic situation is fairly particular. The biggest ethnic group is the indigenous Singhalese people, 70% of the island’s total population. They have their own language, Sinhala, and in majority tend to follow the Buddhist faith. However, the country has large minorities of Tamils and Sri Lankan Moors, which differ significantly from the Singhalese majority. Their most common faiths tend to be Hinduism for the Tamils and Islam for the Moors, while both mostly use the Tamil language. These populations are mostly concentrated around the north of the island as well as its eastern coast. They mostly descend from previous peoples, traders for example, which settled in Sri Lanka in past centuries.
From the early 20th century onward, there was a movement for the independence of Sri Lanka, which, uniquely, united both the majority Singhalese population and the large Tamil minority.
Sri Lanka achieved independence in 1948. During the first eight years of its independence, there were several prominent Tamil members in the ruling cabinet. The newly proclaimed Dominion of Ceylon appeared to be somewhat pluralistic at this point. This changed significantly in the 1950s though, with the rise in power of a new Prime Minister in 1956, leading to Sinhala being recognized as the sole official language of Sri Lanka, and pro-Singhalese policies being generally put in place. From the 1960s onward, Sri Lanka also implemented socialist policies and approached China and the Soviet Union to an extent, though relationships with the United Kingdom were not relinquished despite Sri Lanka declaring itself a Republic in 1972.
The early 1970s were generally a time of turmoil. A large Singhalese Marxist uprising led by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (People’s Liberation Front) failed in early 1971. Around the same time, the Sri Lankan government also instaurated policies restricting access to Sri Lanka’s universities to the Tamil population by creating a quota by language.
It is during the 1970s that the first Tamil insurgent movements appeared, opposing the governmental pro-Singhalese policies. One of these, the Tamil New Tigers, was founded in 1972, and would eventually become the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 1976. The group’s goal was the creation of Tamil Eelam – A Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka. Though the first actions against Sri Lankan officials had been undertaken previously, the start of the Sri Lankan Civil War is generally considered to be an LTTE attack on a Sri Lankan Army patrol in July 1983, which would lead to a large pogrom against Tamils on the island, when several hundreds to thousands were killed. At this point, the Tamil insurgency grew in size considerably, and notably, during the first phase of the conflict, would receive Indian support.
The conflict would know four different phases separated by ceasefires – the first, from 1987 to 1990, after which a truce would be upheld by an Indian peacekeeping contingent. 1995 would see a 100-days truce separating the second and third parts of the conflict, with the third phase ending in 2002. By the end of this third phase, the Tamil Tigers had effectively managed to seize large portions of northeast Sri Lanka, where they were effectively able to operate as a de facto state. A ceasefire was brokered in February of 2002 and would last until July of 2006, when the Tamil Tigers closed access to a water reservoir to government-controlled areas, cutting water supplies for thousands of villages, which led to a renewal of large-scale fighting. It is in this last phase of the conflict after the LTTE had held significant ground for years and would reasonably operate in ways more as a standing army than a pure guerilla organization, that armored fighting vehicles would be the most widely used by the rebel group.
LTTE militants stand by the rear of a knocked-out YW531A armored personnel carrier of the Sri Lankan Army in the 1990s. Considering a low number of these vehicles are known to have been delivered to Sri Lanka (though this may be an inaccuracy on the part of the SIPRI logs), this vehicle, if it was not in an advanced state of disrepair, may perhaps have been used for the light tank conversion. Source: yarl.com
Armed Forces of the LTTE & Armored Fighting Vehicles
The Tamil Tigers comprised a number of conventional and unconventional fighting forces. Before going deeper into their operations with armored fighting vehicles, it ought to be noted that these unconventional forces, including a wing which often engaged in suicide operations, the Black Tigers, would often resort to methods typically used by terrorist groups, which would eventually land the LTTE a classification as a terrorist group by the United States, European Union, Canada, India, and others over the years. It also ought to be noted that the ethnic and religious aspects of the conflict naturally resulted in large quantities of war crimes and executions of prisoners or forced relocation being committed both by the LTTE and other rebel groups on one hand and the Sri Lankan military on the other.
The Sri Lankan Army (SLA) sourced its vehicles from several different providers. The island’s former colonial overlord, the United Kingdom, provided a number of wheeled armored fighting vehicles – notably 18 to 27 Saladin armored cars in 1971 and two batches of Saracen armored personnel carriers, one of 32 vehicles in 1971 and one of 35 in 1990. A number of purchases were made from China, including 10 YW 531/Type 63 armored personnel carriers in 1988, 25 Type 59 tanks in 1990, and 40 Type 85 armored fighting vehicles, 20 of the armored personnel carrier and 20 of the infantry fighting vehicle model, in 1991. More recently, in the 2000s, large numbers of WZ-551 wheeled APCs and IFVs were purchased. With the conclusion of the Cold War, the SLA would also acquire large numbers of surplus T-55s from Czechoslovakia and later the Czech Republic. 27 T-55s in 1991, 18 T-55AM-2 in the 1990s and 36 T-55AM-2 in 2000-2001, as well as a small number of BMP-1 and BMP-2s from Ukraine in 1994. This fleet of vehicles would be widely engaged in operations against the LTTE during the course of the Sri Lankan Civil War, particularly as the group appeared to be holding an ever-increasing amount of ground in the 1990s. 47 Buffel mine-resistantant vehicles had also been acquired from South Africa in 1985-1987, as well as perhaps some other mine-protected vehicles from South Africa.
An LTTE T-55, with the flag of the movement draped over its gun, and slat armor added to the side of the turret. Source: yarl.com
With the rising size of the Tamil insurgency, some of these armored fighting vehicles used by the SLA would start falling into the hands of the LTTE, which was able to maintain them in service thanks to its ability to hold territory. The first known armored vehicles to fall into LTTE hands were two T-55s captured during a battle at the military base of Pooneryn in Northern Sri Lanka, in November 1993. Although one of the vehicles would be swiftly knocked out of action by the Sri Lankan Air Force, the other would be in service for good. This would be the first of several T-55 tanks, including some T-55AM-2s, which would fall into the hands of the LTTE and be re-employed by them.
One of the two known LTTE Saladins. A Saracen can be observed in the background. Photo most likely from the late 1990s. Source: yarl.com
Other armored fighting vehicles used by the Sri Lankan military eventually fell into the hands of the LTTE. Notably, two FV601 Saladin armored cars and four FV603 Saracen armored personnel carriers are known to have been captured at the Kanakarayankulam base, likely during the SLA disaster that happened there in December 1997. A BMP-1 was captured during riots in August 1997. A number of Buffel mine-protected vehicles and other MPVs, and at least one YW531, were also captured.
A close-up on the armament of a modified Buffel, seemingly a Bofors L/60 40mm autocannon. Source: yarl.com
Some of these captured vehicles – notably the Buffels – would be subjected to local modifications, with a variety of armaments, including on one example a 40 mm autocannon, likely a Bofors, being installed. At the same time, LTTE workshops would begin creating their own armed and/or armored vehicles by converting existing, mostly civilian chassis, equipping them with armament and armor plates. This included trucks and buses where the cargo or passengers compartment was converted into an armored cabin, some limited number of improvised mine-resistant vehicles, and some more classic technicals mounting armament on the back of pick-up trucks. These field conversions would, for some of them, get more and more complex and advanced over time. Likely one of the very last performed would be a light tank created by combining elements of the FV601 Saladin and YW531 armored personnel carrier.
A Frankenstein of British and Chinese AFVs
The light tank which was created by the LTTE was a combination of the turret of the FV601 Saladin armored car with the hull of the YW531 armored personnel carrier. The use of this type of turret very likely dates the vehicle’s conversion to after 1997, though it may realistically be a lot later than that. Indeed, no footage of the vehicle in Tamil Tigers service has appeared, only of it after it was captured by the SLA. The Sri Lanka Army appears to call the vehicle “BMT armored tank”, the origin of this name being unknown. While there is at least some imagery of the vast majority of armored vehicles known to have been used by the SLA in active LTTE service – including some vehicles being spotted on several occasions in different places over the years, such as the LTTE’s sole known BMP-1.
What information is available on the vehicle merely comes from a few known photos of it, which lend some interesting indications on its design. Nonetheless, no internal views of the vehicle are known, nor any detail on its creation process. A likely possibility is that the LTTE possessed a non-operational FV601 Saladin armored car with a usable turret, which was mounted on the hull of an available YW531 as a light tank armed with a 76 mm gun was viewed as more valuable than an armored personnel carrier. This was not however a rushed job, with both the hull and turret receiving some considerable modifications.
The YW 531 Hull
The hull of the LTTE light tank was taken from a YW531 armored personnel carrier. This original vehicle is a welded steel amphibious armored personnel carrier, armed with China’s Type 54 12.7 mm machine gun on a pintle mount. It has four road wheels with a torsion bar suspension, and moves through water with the movement of its tracks. The vehicle has a crew of two, and an infantry complement of 10, located to the rear of the hull. The engine was located to the right of the vehicle, between the driver and the infantry compartment. Armored protection was 14 mm of armor at its thickest point. It has a length of 5.48 m, a width of 2.98 m, and a height of 2.58 m.
The LTTE light tank after its capture. The hull of the vehicle is obviously significantly lowered in comparison to the YW 531A’s. The slat armor blocking the smoke dischargers can also clearly be seen here. Source: war thunder forums
The length and width of the original YW 531A were likely the same on the hull of the LTTE light tank. The same can not, however, be said for the height. The hull of the light tank was considerably lowered, though by exactly which amount is unknown. This appears to have been performed by cutting off a vertical “slice” of the hull – the need for internal hull space likely being considerably diminished by the infantry carrying function of the vehicle being ditched.
The engine on the converted vehicle appears to have been moved from the front-right to the rear of the vehicle. This is indicated by a view of the rear of the LTTE light tank, where one can observe radiator grills that were installed on what was formerly the infantry’s main door on the rear of the vehicle. This transformation was likely very much necessary, as the turret would otherwise likely have sat partially on top of the engine, an impossible configuration. The vehicle may retain the original engine of the YW531, a Deutz BF8L413F diesel engine of German origin producing 320 hp. However, this cannot be confirmed.
The LTTE light tank in a state of disrepair; it is unclear whether this predates or follows the vehicle being exhibited in the previous photo. This one gives a good view into the rear door which now appears to feature a grill for the engine’s radiator. Source: yarl.comA side view of the vehicle in the same state of disrepair. Source: www.army.lkThe vehicle in the same dump; despite the considerable hull changes, the suspension remains identical. Source: Al Jazeera
The suspension does not appear to have received any change. It has sometimes been claimed that the LTTE light tank was not based on the YW531/Type 63, but rather on the later Type 85, procured in both APC and IFV models (the IFV model using the same turret as the ZBD-86, itself a copy of the BMP-1). The suspension disproves this claim entirely, as the later Type 85 ran on five road wheels.
The crew configuration of the hull part of the LTTE light tank is not known. Logically, the vehicle would likely retain the ability to mount two crew members in front of the hull. On the YW531, this was the driver to the front left and commander to the front right. In turreted vehicles, as the LTTE light tank is, the commander is traditionally placed in the turret, and an aid-driver may or may not be viewed as unnecessary and disposed of. However, seeing as the vehicle uses a two-man turret, and as the LTTE is an unconventional force, it may be imaginable that the commander may actually sit in the hull on the vehicle, with a gunner and loader in the turret.
Some other changes can be observed on the hull. The original headlights of the YW531 were removed and replaced by some taken from a Saladin. The vehicle otherwise appears to have two spare track links mounted at the rear of the hull, likely on each side.
The FV601 Saladin Turret
The turret installed on the LTTE light tank was taken from a captured FV601 Saladin armored car. This British armored car developed in the post-war era featured a two-man turret of welded construction, armored at 32 mm at its thickest point. The main armament of the turret is a Royal Ordnance L5A1 76 mm gun. This is a fairly low-velocity gun centered around High-Explosive (HE) and High-Explosive Squashed Head (HESH) shells. It can also fire smoke and canister ammunition. Coaxially, the turret features an M1919A4 7.62 mm machine gun. Smoke dischargers are present on both sides of the turret.
A front view of the LTTE light tank, after it was captured by the government forces. This gives a good view of the 12.7 mm DshKM machine gun as well as the headlights taken from a Saladin. Source: flickrThe vehicle’s gun emerges from its canvas cover in the dump it was left in. Source: WarOnline.org
Like the hull, the turret used in the LTTE light tank did receive some considerable modifications. Most notably, the addition of a heavy machine gun on top of the turret in the shape of a 12.7×108 mm DShKM of Soviet origin, seemingly located on the axis of the turret. It would likely be operated by the loader, which may or may not also assume the role of commander of the tank.
Additionally, some form of slat armor appears to have been applied on the turret sides from the mantlet all the way to the rear bustle. Curiously, this slat armor would impede the operation of the smoke grenade dischargers, which have not, however, been removed from the vehicle.
Close-ups of the turret on the LTTE light tank; these photos show a good view of the obstructed smoke launchers on the vehicle. Source: youtube
A Tank of Unknown Capabilities
Sadly, the LTTE light tank only being known through a series of photos means that many aspects of its performances remain uncertain.
First among these is the vehicle’s weight. A large number of factors to take into account make this hard to estimate starting from the original weight of the YW531 (12.6 t). The vehicle being lowered and infantry carrying capacities being removed would likely reduce the weight, but the addition of the turret as well as ammunition stowage would make it rise back up. The number of rounds available for the vehicle’s three weapons is also unknown.
A front view of the vehicle. While the hull retains a bow-shaped front, it is unclear whether or not this is sufficient to retain amphibious capacities. Source: WarOnline.org
Linked to the weight, the amphibious capacities of the vehicle are a mystery as well. The YW531 was fully amphibious and moved through water thanks to the movement of its tracks, not any device such as hydrojets. Cutting down part of the hull and adding a turret would have some impact on the buoyancy. However, it is unknown whether or not it may be enough to make the vehicle incapable of floating or not.
The maximum speed, power-to-weight ratio, etcetera are likewise unknown. Even the crew composition is. The LTTE light tank likely has a crew of either three or four, which cannot be confirmed. If the crew is of four, whether the commander acts as the loader or remains in the hull is also in question.
Conclusion – The Tamil Tigers’ oddity
Whether the LTTE light tank saw any service within the forces of the Tamil Tigers is uncertain. In 2009, the SLA launched a decisive offensive against LTTE holdouts, using its manpower and firepower advantage to its full extent and conducting essentially a large-scale military campaign that was able to decisively defeat the group. It is likely during this offensive that the LTTE light tank was captured by SLA troops, with all known photos of the vehicle dating from after its capture. With the death of the LTTE’s leader and the surrender of most of the group, this offensive also marked the end of the 25-years long Sri Lankan Civil War.
The LTTE light tank was part of a military exhibition in Colombo: this was the celebration of the 60th Anniversary of Sri Lanka Army, held from October 3rd to October 7th 2009. What fate it has been given as of now is unknown. While a very obscure vehicle, it is also an incredibly interesting piece of equipment that has been given little to no attention. The Sri Lankan conflict is often ignored by Western viewers more aware of the Middle East instead – the same which could be said of the Tamil Tiger’s conversions and armored vehicles in comparison to those of militant groups in Syria or Iraq, for example.
The Tamil Tiger light tank, seen first in a green camouflage and then covered in graffiti. Illustration by Andrei ‘Octo10’ Kirushkin
An A10 Cruiser Mark II as was seen in French service, retaining British camouflage and numbering. Illustration created by Pavel "Carpaticus" Alexe, based on work by David Bocquelet and funded by our Patreon campaign.
France (1940)
Cruiser Tank – 10 Operated
The Campaign of France, particularly in its later stages, saw the vehicle arsenal of the French Army include some particularly uncommon or unexpected vehicles. These were introduced with a heightened sense of urgency in order to offer a desperate defense against the German advance into France. This included, for example, a number of French armored vehicles which were pressed into service while not entirely completed, such as turretless B1 Bis heavy tanks or Panhard 178 armored cars. Another example of vehicles used in a completely different role as intended were AMR 35 ZT-4 light tanks meant for colonial use, which were sent, often uncompleted as well, in desperate attempts to try and quell the German tide – to no avail, obviously.
One of the even less known vehicle types which ended up in the French Army’s hands when they normally should not have were a number of British Cruiser tanks that were being abandoned by retreating British forces. Combined with French crews which no longer had available vehicles, a number of these tanks, seemingly ten, would be fielded by a French tank company during the last days of the campaign.
Woes of the First and Second BEF
Going into the Second World War, the British Empire sent the famous BEF (British Expeditionary Force) into France to provide troops to support its French ally. This included the 1st Armoured Division, which fielded a number of tanks – notably A9, A.10 and A.13 (or Cruiser Mark I, II, III and IV) tanks.
The Cruiser tanks were the result of the perceived need for an exploitation vehicle, which could capitalize on the breakthrough provoked by sturdier infantry tanks to move swiftly in the enemy rear. The earliest model of Cruiser tank which is known to have fallen into French hands, the A.10, used a coil spring suspension. This resulted in a fairly moderate maximum speed of around 26 km/h, which one may argue was not really suited for an exploitation role.
The later A.13, both Mark I and II (also confusingly known as Cruiser Mark III and Mark IV), would introduce the Christie suspension and were, in comparison, much more mobile vehicles, with the A.13 Mark II reaching a maximum speed of 48 km/h. This was faster than the closest French equivalent, the S35, albeit, this was quite a different vehicle. Both the A.10 and A.13 Mark II featured 30 mm thick armor at its thickest point and flat, which was considerably weaker than the 40 mm of the S35 reinforced by the curved and angled shape of the casting. However, both A.10 and A.13 Mark II crucially featured a turret comprising a three-man crew, a much more viable solution than the one-man turret crew of most other French tanks, while the 40 mm QF-2 Pounder gun proved to be, at this point, a potent anti-tank gun.
All in all, the British Cruisers were very different in design from French cavalry tanks. In their latest form by 1940, the A.13 Mark II, they were faster, with an armament fairly similar in anti-tank capacity but operated in far better conditions, but on the other hand, a much weaker armor, even more so on the sides than on the front.
The BEF, as well as much of the mobile elements of the French Army, saw their rear cut off by the German breakthrough at Sedan and the following rush to the sea. The BEF was heavily engaged, for example at Arras, and was eventually pushed to Dunkerque (Eng. Dunkirk) and forced to evacuate – giving up much of its equipment – in a famous episode of the Campaign of France.
What is often forgotten is that some British troops were sent back to France in early June to try and continue supporting their ally, at least politically. This included elements of the 1st Armored Division. However, these troops, landing in Le Havre, Normandy, were very quickly forced to retreat, as the German advance was very swift against an outnumbered and under-equipped French Army. From around the 10th of June onward, British troops started rushing towards French harbors of first Normandy, but soon Brittany and the western coast, in order to escape continental Europe before they were overrun.
British Tanks in French Hands
French servicemen of 342ème CACC along with three of their newly received Cruiser tanks. The card game markings are similar to the ones used by the French, but are actually British. The presence of the diamond indicates a vehicle of an HQ squadron. The Rhino indicates this was a vehicle of the 1st Armoured Division. Source: char-français
At the same time, troops fighting in the Norwegian Campaign had been recalled. For France, this meant that, among others, the 342ème Compagnie Autonome de Chars de Combat (Eng. 342nd Autonomous Tank Company) landed in Brest, Brittany, on 13th June 1940. Their Hotchkiss H39 tanks, however, were actually landed in Britain, and so the company found itself with men, but no tanks. At the same time, elements of the British 1st Armoured Division were re-embarking in the same harbor – with neither time nor equipment to evacuate their tanks. One thing quickly led to another and the French company was handed over a number of Cruiser tanks – ten have sometimes been claimed. Visual evidence has shown French servicemen operating Cruisers A.10 (Mk II) and A.13 Mk II (Mk IV), though whether A9 (Mk I) and A.13 Mk I (Mk III) were or were not operated cannot be confirmed, as the most Cruiser tanks in French service ever spotted together at the same time only amounts to three tanks.
A conflicting source claims the Cruiser tanks were used by the French in the defense of Calais – a coastal city a few dozens of kilometers away from Dunkerque, which was inside the pocket and fell along with it. This, however, appears fairly unlikely, notably as the 342ème CACC, which appears to have been the one operating the tanks, was still in Norway by the time of the fall of Calais.
Conclusion – Unknown French use
An abandoned Cruiser Mark II numbered T5914 (British numbering) at the side of the road, June 1940. The vehicle’s hatches are all open and part of the track guard appears to be missing, but otherwise, the tank seems intact. Source: warspot.net
No details on the use of the Cruisers by the French Army has surfaced beyond the unit operating them. The service of the tanks was, in any case, very short. By 13th June, France was in complete disarray, Paris had already been declared an open city and would fall into German hands the next day. Brest, the city where the tanks were received, would soon follow, falling on 19th June 1940. By this point, French resistance could not amount to much as the French Army was, simply put, getting overrun fighting a desperate fighting retreat.
The vehicles do not appear to have received any form of re-painting. Though the card game markings (the diamonds) may be confused with French markings, these were equally employed by British formations, as were two-tone camouflages. This complete lack of repainting shows the operation of the vehicle was a short affair, done very much in urgency and due to the lack of other options to outfit the French tankers which received them with armored vehicles.
German soldiers stand beside the same T5914 tank. The service of these early Cruisers in France was very short, lasting at most six days. Source: The Modelling News
In any case, the fate of these French Cruisers was very likely the same as the British ones: captured more or less intact by the Germans. This first French use of Cruisers is very anecdotal, but would not be the last. Later in the war, Free French troops would receive some A.15 Crusaders, used in 1942-1943 by the Free French Flying Column. However, by their involvement in Europe, French forces had been equipped with American Shermans. As such, while France would operate at least four different Cruiser types (Mk II, Mk IV, Mk VI Crusaders and even a very small number of Mark VII Cavaliers), they would never really be used in large numbers or for a durable period. As for France’s own take on a Cruiser tank, the AMX-40, it would never leave the drawing board.
An A.10 Cruiser Mark II as was seen in French service, retaining British camouflage and numbering. Illustration created by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe, based on work by David Bocquelet and funded by our Patreon campaign.
Republic of Mali (1975-Present)
Amphibious Light Tank – 20 Received
The Republic of Mali, which gained independence from France in 1960, very quickly became a dictatorship closely aligned to the Soviet Union. Its first ruler, Modibo Keïta, aligned with a Socialist ideology, which led to the very first armored vehicles of the Malian Army, T-34-85s and BTR-40s, being received merely months after the country became independent. In the following years, and despite Keïta being overthrown in 1968, and Mali joining the Non-Aligned Movement, the country would retain close ties with the Soviet Union. This would lead to continued Soviet deliveries of arms to Mali, including a contingent of PT-76 light tanks in 1975.
Two Malian PT-76s during exercises. Source: Oryx Blog
The PT-76 Arrives in Mali
By 1975, Mali was under the rule of General Moussa Traoré. Though less ideological than his predecessor Keïta, whom he had overthrown, Traoré remained aligned with the Soviet Union, and in 1975, his country received a shipment of varied Soviet vehicles. These included 10 BRDM-2s, 10 BTR-152s, and 20 PT-76s. It is unknown when Mali received its fleet of T-54s, but these may also have been part of this same shipment.
Mali was, and still is, one of the poorest countries in the world, and indeed this 1975 shipment of Soviet armor is widely believed to have been sent as aid with little to no payment from Mali. All the vehicles appear to have been second-hand, seeing as overall, all were of models already in service in the Soviet Army for years.
The Malian PT-76s are somewhat curious in that they are far from the most common PT-76 variant. The Malian Army vehicles are PT-76 Model 1952. These are the second production model of the vehicle. They are quite easy to differentiate from the more common posterior PT-76s thanks to their elongated muzzle brakes with a large number of vertical slot openings. In comparison, the most commonly exported PT-76 models, the Model 1957 and onward (also known as PT-76B), use a ‘German-Style’ muzzle break.
Operational Service
Little is known of the operational use of the PT-76s in the Traoré years. In December 1985, Mali waged a short 5-day war against its neighbor, Burkina Faso, over the Agacher Strip, but this was a small-scale conflict and it is not known if the PT-76s were engaged.
A Malian Army PT-76 in a unicolor green camouflage, alongside a ZPU-1 14.5 mm AA gun in the streets of Bamako during the 2012 coup. Source: Esoteric Armor BlogA wider shot of what is very likely the same vehicle, alongside a BTR-60 APC. Source: Esoteric Armor Blog
Since the collapse of the Traoré regime in 1991, further openness from Mali has allowed more views of the PT-76 to emerge. During the March 2012 coup, during which Malian president Amadou Toumani Touré was overthrown, PT-76s were seen in the streets of Bamako, sometimes alongside BTR-60PBs, which may suggest the vehicles were in use in the neighboring Malian Army base of Kati.
Camouflage and Markings
One of the more interesting aspects of the Malian PT-76s is the variety of camouflages the vehicles have been seen in over the years.
During the 2012 coup, the PT-76s seen appeared in a classic plain green camouflage scheme. A similar scheme was also seen in what are likely earlier photos. Though the vehicle seen during the coup does not appear to have had any markings, PT-76s have also been seen with the same plain green camouflage scheme but bearing commemorative names. Interestingly enough, all names seen on Malian PT-76 are historical references to Mali’s medieval era. While historical names have also been seen on other types of Malian vehicles, commemorative names coming from modern Malian officers or geographical areas are also commonly seen on other Malian armored fighting vehicles but have never been seen on the PT-76s.
PT-76 “Askia Mohamed” during a military parade. Askia Mohamed was a ruler of the Songhai Empire in the 15th and 16th centuries. Source: Oryx BlogPT-76 “Kirina 1235”. This name is a reference to the 1235 Battle of Kirina, fought by the Mandinka people against the Sosso people. The victory of the Mandinka led to them founding the Empire of Mali, which would be a dominant power in West Africa during the following centuries. Source: Oryx BlogPT-76 “Touramakan Traore” was named after a general of the Mali Empire in the 13th century, and a major figure of the empire’s expansion leading to it becoming the dominant power in West Africa. Source: Oryx BlogPT-76 “Biton Coulibaly”, named after the founder of one of the later empires which blossomed on territories currently owned by Mali, the Bambara Empire, in the 18th century. Source: Oryx BlogA PT-76 with a bicolor yellow and green camouflage at a Malian Army base. The turret side of a ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” can be seen to the right. Source: Hammer of War
Another PT-76, most likely the one just in front of the first vehicle, with a more complicated quadricolor camouflage. Source: Hammer of War
More recently, photos of PT-76s in Malian Army bases have shown them with a much wider variety of colors. The vehicle have both been seen in a green and yellow camouflage scheme, or a more multicolor scheme including dark green, brown, beige, and black, itself varying in the way it is applied, sometimes being fairly neatly separated, but sometimes featuring lines of various colors in large spots of others. Most of these vehicles have little to no markings.
Vehicles of Questionable Operability
Though their service is fairly obscure, the Malian PT-76s are dated vehicles, and while they have not been removed from the Malian Armed Forces’ inventory, their present operability is questionable.
The Malian Army’s main adversaries, ever since the last conflict with Burkina Faso, have largely been Tuareg rebels, which typically engage in guerilla operations, including ambushes and harassment over the vast Sahara desert. Tracked armored fighting vehicles generally do poorly in these conditions, having lackluster range to cover the massive expanses of the Sahara Desert. In this environment, the Malian Army has preferred the use of wheeled vehicles over them. This has comprised, to an extent, the BRDM-2 and BTR-60PB, but mostly the use of technicals, which have formed the backbone of the Malian army in the north of the country. As such, it is unlikely any Malian PT-76 has ever been lost in combat.
What appear to be US servicemen, which have been involved as instructors in Mali, on a PT-76. The type appears to be the most operational model of “tank” used by the Malian Army, but this is not saying much. Source: Hammer of War
However, because of the nature of the military operations Mali has recently undertaken its tanks fleet, comprising PT-76s, T-54s, Type 62s, and even T-34-85s, has found itself generally being almost completely out of operational use. What the Malian Army has opted to do broadly is to maintain the vehicles, perhaps in case of tensions with another state in the region, and to keep them stored in military bases, seemingly mostly around Sikasso, in Mali’s southernmost province, but rarely, if ever, use them operationally. In this regard, the PT-76s are actually the most actively used Malian tanks, seeing as the type was seen in the 2012 coup, which may suggest some could be stored in other places aside from Sikasso, which is fairly distant from the capital, Bamako.
A report from 2011-2012 states that Mali still had 18 PT-76s, but suffered from its stocks of 76 mm ammunition mostly being faulty, which would considerably hamper the vehicle’s combat capacities. It has been claimed that some sort of small-scale refurbishment program has been put in place in order to keep some of the fleet operational, which the use of the vehicle in 2012 may corroborate. Nonetheless, some other recent photos show PT-76s abandoned, or at least very lacking maintenance, with graffiti drawn on the sides of the vehicle, and it is likely that considerable work would have to be done in order to bring Mali’s PT-76s to a truly operable state.
PT-76s in what appear to be a poorly-maintained state at a Malian Army base. Source: Hammer of War
Conclusion – Mali’s Ageing Light Tanks
In the second half of 2021, Mali has made steps to shift from France and its Western allies diplomatically, and rather attempt to reinforce its relationships with Russia, which may result in the Wagner Private Military Corporation contractors being deployed in Mali. Though it is a long shot, this mounting relation with Russia may perhaps, if Mali desires so, ease obtaining spare parts and technicians which may help refurbish and maintain operational Mali’s old Soviet armor. Nonetheless, the type remains out of place in the counter-insurgency warfare operations in the vast desert the Malian Army is to undertake in the Sahara. As such, it is just as likely that the vehicles will continue to remain in a state of disrepair.
A Malian Army PT-76 in bicolor camouflage. Whether such vehicles may be better-maintained and see more use in the future or remain in the fringes of Mali’s military equipment, remains unknown. Source: Hammer of WarA Malian PT-76 in a bicolour, tropical camouflageA Malian PT-76 in a varied multicolour camouflage. Both illustrations created by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe based on work by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.
The Automitrailleuse Renault UE. Illustrated by Pavel "Carpaticus" Alexe, based on work by Tank Encyclopedia's own David Bocquelet and funded by our Patreon campaign
France (1931-1932)
Tankette / Reconnaissance Vehicle – 1 Converted
During the interwar years, the French Army’s Cavalry service was a force actively seeking new types of vehicle to introduce to its forces, generally more than the better-funded infantry. There were active doctrinal developments within the Cavalry which led to new roles being created, for which various manufacturers would offer different designs.
In the early 1930s, the concept of a very light vehicle tasked with reconnaissance duties and armed with a machine gun was gaining popularity within the Cavalry. A first vehicle would be adopted in 1931 in the form of the Citroën P28.
Renault, the largest vehicle manufacturer in France, did not want to allow its competitor Citroën to gain the lead and be able to sell vehicles unchallenged to the French Army. Before more complex and specific vehicles would be developed and offered, Renault’s first light reconnaissance vehicle was a Renault UE modified to feature a small machine gun casemate. This basic vehicle served as a step in the developmental process which would lead to the Renault VM, a vehicle which would be adopted by the French Army as the AMR 33.
The armed Renault UE prototype. Source: Renault documentation via Les Automitrailleuses de Reconnaissance, Tome 1: L’AMR 33 Renault, François Vauvillier, colorized by Smargd123
Reconnaissance Vehicles and Citroën’s Successes
The French Cavalry ended the First World War with a varied fleet of armored cars of various weights, sizes, and armaments. In the interwar years, the need for new, more modern vehicles was apparent, including vehicles which could fulfil a reconnaissance role.
In July 1930, the French Army approved an ambitious program which was to lead to the creation of vehicles to fulfil a large variety of roles. This was the general motorisation program. It called for two types of vehicles which would fulfil a reconnaissance role: a voiture de reconnaissance tout terrain blindée (Eng: all-terrain reconnaissance armored car) and a automitrailleuse légère tout terrain (Eng: all-terrain light armored car). “Automitrailleuse” is a term that, although often translated as armored car, when used in the context of interwar French Cavalry, is used to designate all armored combat vehicles, regardless of means of motion. In other words, a program that, in English, would be translated as an armored car program, could in fact refer to a half-track or fully tracked vehicle.
The first requirement would eventually evolve into the Type L armored car specification, for which Renault would produce the ill-fated Renault URL armored car.
In comparison, the second set of requirements would quickly fall under the influence of a specification for a vehicle which would be ordered in much higher numbers – the Type N. The Type N was envisioned as a lightweight all-terrain, lightly armored infantry tractor and cargo vehicle. Three companies produced vehicles for this program: Latil offered a licence-built Carden-Loyd Mk.VI; Citroën offered the Citroën P28 chenillette, a half-tracked vehicle; and Renault offered a tankette, inspired by the general design features of the influential Carden-Loyd but by all means its own design, named Renault UE.
Of the three options, the Renault UE was the French Army’s favourite option and would be adopted into service. The vehicle was a light (2.64 tonnes) and tiny (2.8 m long, 1.74 m wide, 1.25 m high) tankette, with a crew of two and protected by thin, bulletproof armor. It could carry large quantities of rifle, machine gun, mortar, or anti-tank gun ammunition in a storage box mounted to the rear of the vehicle. Furthermore, the vehicle was also used to tow either a tracked trailer (designated Renault UK) containing more supplies, or in the future, the 25 mm SA 34 anti-tank gun. It was even possible to tow both, with the gun following the trailer.
Schematics of the Renault UE, showing the general design of the vehicle and the placement of its powertrain. Source: Renault documentation via Les Automitrailleuses de Reconnaissance, Tome 1: L’AMR 33 Renault, François Vauvillier
While the Renault vehicle was preferred in the infantry cargo and prime mover role, the Citroën P28 gathered significant interest from the Cavalry. It was considered as a good candidate for conversion into a light armored car, and, in October 1931, likely even before Citroën could provide a prototype of a vehicle modified for such a role, an order for 50 was notified. These would be the vastly modified Citroën P28 armored cars.
A Renault UE with a Machine Gun
Though the Citroën P28 gathered the most interest from the Cavalry early on, it did not completely forget about Renault, which was itself eager to provide a vehicle and offer a competitor to Citroën’s sudden success.
On November 21st 1931, the STC (Service Technique de la Cavalerie – Cavalry Technical Service) required Renault to provide two Renault UEs for a presentation to a Dragons Portés (Eng: mechanized dragoons) unit. Crucially, the STC requested one of the two vehicles to be armed. This request was made for a presentation which was to take place only nine days later, and this timeframe was considered too short to reasonably modify a UE to feature an armament.
However, while Renault could not produce a conversion for this specific presentation, the request from the STC made it very clear to Renault that there would be official interest in an armed version of the UE from the French Cavalry. Work quickly began on realizing such a conversion. By late 1931, Renault UE prototypes (six had been manufactured) were still undergoing trials for the French military, and the first production vehicles would only be delivered in 1932. As such, creating such a vehicle on such a short notice would be accomplished by modifying an existing prototype.
It ought to be noted that Renault was already working on a more complex and dedicated design by that time. A first proposal for a turreted, Renault UE-based vehicle had already been passed onto the French Cavalry and rejected on November 12th 1931. However, while work on more advanced vehicles was still at the design phase, a simple conversion on an existing Renault UE would allow to have a vehicle “in steel”, easier to experiment on, much quicker.
A front view of the modified Renault UE. The simplistic nature of the conversion can be seen. Source: char-français
Schematic views of the conversion. A gunner would be sat on the floor, with their eyes on the same level as the machine gun’s sight. Source: Renault documentation via Les Automitrailleuses de Reconnaissance, Tome 1: L’AMR 33 Renault, François Vauvillier
The modified vehicle would be the prototype registered as “n°77 982”. The modifications made to the vehicle were very simple. The roof of the co-driver’s compartment was raised by a small extent, using the same riveted construction as the rest of the vehicle. The dome-shaped cupola was retained. This raised compartment allowed for enough internal space for a machine gun to be added. This was the new machine gun available for fortifications and armored vehicle designs, the 7.5 mm MAC 31. The MAC 31 Type E had a weight of 11.18 kg empty and 18.48 kg with a fully loaded 150-round drum magazine. The machine gun was gas-fed, and had a maximum cyclic rate of fire of 750 rounds per minute. It had a muzzle velocity of 775 m/s. The ammunition stowage present on this vehicle would have been unknown, but likely quite limited.
This vehicle would be one of the first to use the new machine gun. It would, in the following decade, be present on almost every single French armored fighting vehicle. The exact weight added by the conversion is unknown. It would likely have been quite limited, and the weight of the modified Renault UE likely stayed under the 3 tonnes mark. Following the modification, the co-driver had to operate as the commander of the vehicle and gunner, with an optical sight present on the top-right of the gun in order to aim.
A Tiny Step Forward
The modified prototype was presented to the French Cavalry at an unspecified date in early 1932.
The 1st BDP (Bataillon de Dragons Portés) carried out operational testing. These trials generally underlined shortcomings of the vehicle when it came to fulfilling the light armored car role which was desired from the conversion.
Besides the machine gun, the modified Renault UE had been kept almost completely untouched. The vehicle retained the Renault 75 four-cylinders gasoline engine, mounted in the center of the vehicle, and producing a mere 30 hp. The leaf spring suspension with three bogies containing two road wheels each, using a front sprocket and rear idler and supported by two return rollers, remained the same. This suspension type was optimized for cross-country mobility rather than top speed. A standard UE would only reach a maximum speed of 30 km/h on road, and it is likely the machine gun armed version would achieve the same. The operational range of 100 km, though not awful, was also not perfect for a reconnaissance vehicle which could be placed into situations where it had to operate on its own for fairly extended periods of time.
The vehicle is seen during its trials, towing the Renault UK trailer. Source: loutan.net
The vehicle also retained all the elements which would have been found on the regular UE dedicated to an infantry logistical role. As such, it featured the rear stowage area, and even the towing hook. The armed prototype was seen towing a UK trailer in trials. This does mean it would retain the non-negligible carrying capacities of the UE. The storage area at the rear of the vehicle had a standard load of 8,100 7.5 mm ammunition in the form of FM 24/29 machine rifle magazines, 2,688 8 mm Lebel rifle cartridges, 150 hand grenades and 114 rifle grenades. The ammunition load transported by the vehicle could obviously be adjusted regarding which need it was to fulfil, with a full load of 7.5 mm cartridge being of a maximum of 18,000 in the UE’s own storage area alone. The standard load on the UK trailer was of 162 81 mm mortar rounds and 8,500 8 mm Lebel rifle cartridges, or alternatively 15,000 8 mm Lebel rifle cartridges. Generally, an UE and its trailer were considered to be enough to supply a mortar group or machine gun section.
While these logistical capacities could perhaps provide somewhat of an appreciated versatility, they did nothing to compensate for the fact the vehicle was woefully unadapted for combat. The casemate-mounted machine gun configuration was far inferior to the turreted Citroën P28, and unlike the French Infantry, the Cavalry tended not to entertain the concept of non-turreted vehicles and instead preferred only turreted ones. While the armor of a light reconnaissance vehicle would by definition be light, the Renault UE’s protection, with the vertical plates being 9 mm thick and all others being 6 mm thick, was likewise still quite light for a vehicle of the type.
Conclusion – The Unknown Fate of an Experiment
It should serve as no surprise that the armed Renault UE was not adopted by the French Army (though other forms of armed UEs would appear in the following years due to the eventual large-scale production of the vehicle, with some even armed with 25 mm anti-tank guns in the campaign of France, or surprisingly, similar machine gun-armed conversions being produced and sold to China, or created in the field in French Indochina). The vehicle was not adapted to provide a reasonable, mobile reconnaissance vehicle with a turreted armament. Renault was keenly aware of this, and their offer of an armed UE should likely only be taken as a way to prepare work on a more advanced vehicle dedicated for the role, as well a way not to leave the field of a light armored car entirely in the hands of Citroën while Renault was working on its own future vehicle.
Taking the UE as a base, Renault would eventually produce a much more mature, turreted design, with a different, frontally-mounted engine. This would be the Renault VM, which would be adopted by the French Army as the AMR 33. Including prototypes, 123 were produced, marking the start of an era of the 1930s where Renault would see several of its designs adopted by the French Cavalry, including later down the line the AMR 35 in a reconnaissance role, but also the AMC 34 and AMC 35 as cavalry combat vehicles.
As for the modified Renault UE, its fate is unknown. The vehicle could have been scrapped, or even have its modifications reversed to continue serving in an experimental role. Considering it was always a prototype though, being scrapped at some point in the following years appears to be the most probable hypothesis.
The Automitrailleuse Renault UE. Illustrated by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe, based on work by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet and funded by our Patreon campaign
Automitrailleuse Renault UE Specifications
Dimensions (L x w)
2.8 x 1.78 m
Weight
Likely between 2.64 and 3 tonnes
Suspension
Leaf springs
Road wheels
6
Suspension
Torsion Bars
Engine
Renault 75 4-cylinders gasoline engine producing 30 hp
The Renault 4L Sinpar, Illustrated by Godzilla and funded by our Patreon campaign
France (1962-~1966)
Air-Transportable 4×4 Car – 10 Purchased
During the late 1950s and the 1960s, the French Navy’s airborne services generally found themselves lacking in terms of easily air-transportable vehicles. These were needed to provide a means of quick transportation for airborne navy infantrymen and had to be able to be deployed by helicopters.
This issue was first encountered in Algeria and led to the creation of a particularly interesting improvisation on the basis of the popular and very light Citroën 2CV car, the 2CV GHAN1. This was a surprisingly heavily armed vehicle, equipped with either a 20 mm MG151 autocannon or a 75 mm M20 recoilless rifle, depending on the configuration picked. However, it remained a one-off conversion, not a vehicle formally offered by a manufacturer. Something along those lines, a vehicle based on the Renault 4L, perhaps the only light and affordable French car of the time to outdo the 2CV in production numbers, would be offered to French services a few years later. Though formally rejected by the French military, 10 would be acquired by the French Navy’s elite Commando Marines.
The Renault 4: The Other French Economy Car of the Post-War Years
In the collective mind, when one thinks of a quirky French economy car from the post-war years, the Citroën 2CV immediately comes to mind. This distinctive-looking vehicle, introduced in 1948, though prototypes dated back as far as 1939, was indeed a resounding success, and it may well be the most famous French car in history.
However, somewhat less famous (more so in the English-speaking world than in France) is another model of economy car that would follow more than a decade after the 2CV and meet an even greater success. This would be the Renault 4, generally known as the 4L, after its ‘limousine’ version that would quickly become the most popular model. Introduced in 1961, this front-wheel-drive vehicle was the world’s first mass-produced hatchback car. It was offered along with an even cheaper version, the R3, which managed the significant feat of being cheaper than even the cheapest 2CV offering, but unlike the R4, never met a great success. As with the 2CV, the 4L was offered alongside utility versions which also proved majorly successful. The utility vehicles were two-doors, while the civilian versions were ‘5-doors’ (including the hatchback).
A classic commercial view of a 4L. The vehicle was the typical affordable French family car of the era. Source: autonews
The Renault 4 was offered with a 747 cc (from 1963, an 845 cc engine was offered as well) 4-cylinder water-cooled engine with a variety of carburetors, which would vary the horsepower output between 27.6 to 30 hp from the cheapest to the most expensive version. The vehicle had been designed to offer an economy car that would be more of a ‘proper car’, with superior performances in comparison to the 2CV, and this it achieved stellarly. Whereas the puny 2CV would only reach about 70 km/h on a good road, the R4 could reach over 100 km/h. Its torsion bars suspension necessitated no regular maintenance, the car had a simple design, but was larger, with a hatchback body that granted more and more practical cargo space as well as more comfortable seating for passengers. The only aspect of the car which was typically judged as obsolete in comparison to the 2CV was the three-speed transmission. The move to a four-speed transmission would be done in 1968.
Despite the three-speed transmission it was originally offered with, the 4L proved to be a massive hit. The car was the most sold vehicle in France from 1962 to 1965 and again in 1967 and 1968, establishing its hegemony over the economy car market, and it would remain a sight on French roads for many years. Regularly updated, its production would only end in 1992. With more than 8 million units produced, the 4L is the second most-produced French car in history, behind the more recent Peugeot 206, and the most produced one of the 20th Century. Even to this day, the vehicle is still a somewhat common sight on French roads, arguably more than the 2CV, with the later models of 4L being a more practical car in modern days.
A Four-Wheel Drive Renault 4: The Rally Craze and the 4L Sinpar
Automotive rally events were particularly popular in France from the 1950s to the 1970s and saw vehicles from all kinds of categories compete.
Vehicles competing in rallies generally were modified versions of civilian cars. The Citroën DS, for example, is quite known for its successes in rallies during its career. As a popular car of the era, the 4L was not exempt from such modifications, being a potential competitor in lightweight categories.
At this point in time, rally vehicles would generally be modified by private, small manufacturers basing themselves on a production vehicle, generally with approval or even in cooperation with the main manufacturer. For the 4L, the rally vehicle would be created by Sinpar.
Founded in 1946, Sinpar (Société Industrielle de Production et d’Adaptation Rhodanienne – Rhodanien Production and Adaptation Industrial Society) had been specialized in modifying truck chassis to make them 4×4, 6×6 and 8×8, as well as performing similar modifications in cars, for which they were well-known with the greater public. Sinpar extensively worked on Renault vehicles, with some Sinpar modifications of Renault designs even being sold for the French Army, such as a 4×4 version of the Renault Goëlette lorry.
As soon as the Renault 4 became available, Sinpar started working on a 4×4 version, which was first unveiled in October 1962 in Paris’ Automobile Salon. The modified Sinpar vehicles were distributed by Renault. Sinpar is not known to have converted any 747 cc Renault 4, and instead appears to have started with 845 cc vehicles as well as more powerful models later. The kit could be applied indifferently to car and utility models. The vehicle which would eventually be offered to the French Army, while it may have the appearance of a car, was actually based on the utility model.
The Sinpar variant modified a considerable number of parts on the Renault 4. The vehicle used a lengthened output shaft and a specific conical torque output. The vehicles received three drive shafts, and used modified rear suspension arms in order to accommodate the drive shafts. The fuel tank was moved rearward, taking the space of the spare wheel, which was itself moved inside the body of the vehicle. The 4L Sinpar vehicle would still be able to use the classic 2-wheel drive, and would be able to shift to 4-wheel drive by a button on the dashboard. Considering the vehicles were conversions, and not purpose-built 4x4s, this 4-wheel drive was to be used very carefully. The main purpose of the 4-wheel drive was to drive at moderate speed on hazardous or slippery terrain, or to cross terrain which would be uncrossable in 2-wheel drive at a very slow speed. It was heavily recommended not to use the 4-wheels drive on the third speed and, generally, in all terrains where 2-wheels drive was acceptable, as this could lead to significant wear and tear. However, when 2-wheel drive could not cut it, the 4-wheel drive could grant quite surprising agility and crossing capacities to Renault’s economy car.
A French Gendarmerie 4L Sinpar. Because of the significant up in cost in comparison to a standard 4L, individual customers were fairly uncommon for Sinpar vehicles. Source: R4L.com
The Sinpar transformation kit was a significant increase in price for a Renault 4L. A base 4L cost 6,350 Francs, and adding the Sinpar kit would bring that up by 3,988 Francs. Most private customers had no interest in this modification at such a cost, and as such, the main customers of the 4L were companies and official agencies.
Sinpar Torpédo
The Citroën 2CV GHAN1, here armed with a 75mm M20. Source: paras.forumactif.net
Likely aware of the existence of the 2CV GHAN1 a couple of years prior, and of the general lack of air-transportable vehicles for the French Navy, Renault and Sinpar saw an opportunity their vehicle could perhaps fill. Like the 2CV, the 4L was a particularly light car, with a weight varying from 600 to 750 kg depending on the configuration. With some changes, perhaps the weight could be brought even lower.
The civilian model of the 4L Sinpar Torpédo, also offered from 1964 onward, though it would not meet great success. Source: https://www.leprogres.fr/A top view of a 4L Sinpar Torpédo. The benches suggest a military vehicle, but the vehicle lacks the swinging arms for air-transportation mounting points. This may be the prototype that was offered to the French military, before modifications were made specifically for the Commando Marines. Source: lautomobileancienne.com
To fulfil the very low weight which would be desired for an airborne military vehicle, Renault modified a utility 4L vehicle. All of the rear body of the car higher than the front engine hood was pretty much stripped off the vehicle to save weight. However, the need for cover from the elements was not entirely disregarded. The Torpédo version adopted a lowerable windshield which could be put up or rest a few centimeters above the engine hood. A tarpaulin could be placed on top of this windshield, with mounting points on the rear of the vehicle’s body, in order to protect its passenger and cargo from the elements. The Torpédo version of the 4L retained just the two seats of the utility version, and to the rear was a storage area, which would either be used to carry troopers or cargo. It featured small benches on the side for personnel.
The 4L Sinpar Torpédo which took part in the 1964 Rallye des Cimes, with its pilot Marcel Ricarte. Source: http://www.ecuriedescimes.com/The same vehicle snapped during the race. The windshield appears to have been entirely removed. Source: http://www.ecuriedescimes.com/The same vehicle during the rally. Source: lautomobileancienne.com
In 1964, two 4L Sinpars were presented in the fairly popular Rallye des Cimes, competing in the less than 1,000 cc discipline. One of these was a 4L with a standard car body, while another one had a torpedo body referred to as a ‘French Army’ type. This appears to be the first known appearance of the militarized 4L Sinpar. Competing against several other vehicles, including a Willys MB and a Land Rover, the Sinpar vehicles managed to finish the course in first place and made a lasting impression on the public in attendance.
Likely around a similar timeframe, the 4L Sinpar Torpédo was offered to the French military. However, for unclear reasons, the French military did not formally acquire the vehicle. Considering the vehicle was a converted civilian car, it likely lacked the ruggedness of vehicles like a jeep, which would be quite necessary for an airborne mobile vehicle.
Sinpars for the Commando Marines
The rejection of the 4L Sinpar by the French military authorities did not, however, lead to absolutely no vehicle being sold to French army services. Indeed, the French Navy’s Commando Marines did take some limited interest in the vehicle, with four being purchased in 1965 and a further six in 1966.
A front view of a Commando Marine 4L Sinpar with the airborne mounting point arms raised. Source: O GloboA colored photo of a Commando Marine 4L Sinpar. Source: lautomobileancienne.comA Commando Marines 4L Sinpar in its factory. Source: Milinfo
The Commando Marines are an elite service of the French Navy. Generally considered as the direct successors of the Free French Commando Kieffer which took part in D-Day, in the 1960s, the service comprised five combat groups, four generally specialized in airborne assault and hostage rescue operation based in Lorient, and a fifth unit specialized in underwater operations based on the Mediterranean coast. The service is overall quite small, with around a maximum of 600 members. The 4L Sinpars were purchased for use in Lorient, perhaps due to interest by a local commander or for experimentation.
The 4L Sinpar used by the French Commando Marines featured some further modifications in comparison to the Torpédo used in the 1964 Rallye des Cimes. The most noticeable modification is the two swinging ‘arms’ on the sides of the vehicle, at the level of the seats. These were hardpoints for cables that would allow the vehicle to be slung under a helicopter, with more hardpoints likely being present on the rear of the car’s body and perhaps the front of the engine hood. Sadly, no known photo of a 4L Sinpar being carried in the air exists, and it is not known if this experiment was ever carried out.
The vehicles are also known to have had a mount that could equip a machine gun. Considering the time frame, this would likely have been 7.5 mm AA52. No photo appears to show the vehicles armed, however, and it is likely these would only have been mounted in operations.
One of the vehicles during its service with the Commando Marines in Lorient. Source: lautomobileancienne.comA side view of a Commando Marine 4L Sinpar. Source: Milinfo
The vehicles were painted in an overall French Army Green color. Markings appear to have been limited to a French Army registration plate, featuring a French flag to the right, a registration plate in the middle, and an anchor to the left. So far, the identification plates of two vehicles have been seen, 4610274 and 4610275. In addition to the registration plate, “Commando Marine” was inscribed in white letters on the lower bar of the windshield.
Conclusion – A Unique Vehicle with an Unknown Service
The few 4L Sinpar which were purchased by the French Commando Marines had a fairly mysterious service life. Little is known of what was done and experimented on them, but they likely were never used operationally. Similarly, how long their service lasted is unknown. Considering the small size of the purchase, this may have been short, but then again, considering the very peculiar nature of the Commando Marines, general rules may not necessarily apply, and considering the parts commonality of the vehicle with the more than ubiquitous civilian 4Ls, maintenance would likely not have been much of an issue.
No vehicle appears to have survived to this day. At least one replica appears to exist and have been featured in some classic car shows in France though.
A replica of a 4L Sinpar Commando Marine in a former military vehicles parade in Cholet, France. Source: flickrThe Renault 4L Sinpar, Illustrated by Godzilla and funded by our Patreon campaign
Renault 4L Sinpar Commando Marine Specifications
Length
~3.6 m
Width
~1.485 m
Engine
845 cc Billancourt 4-cylinders gasoline engine producing 30 hp
Maximum Speed
Around 100 km/h
Suspension
Torsion Bars
Transmission
2×4 with toggleable 4×4
Gearbox
3 forward + 1 reverse
Weight
Likely around 600 kg or less
Crew
One driver
Passengers
One seated at the front
Likely four in the rear stowage area
The Egyptian ATS-59G MLRS. Illustration by Pavel "Carpaticus" Alexe, funded by our Patreon campaign.
Arab Republic of Egypt (2016 At The Latest-Present)
Multiple Rocket Launch System – At Least 24 Converted
The Egyptian Ground Forces are one of the largest armies both in the Middle Eastern region and on the African continent. During the first three decades following the end of the Second World War, Egypt was implicated in several conflicts against pro-Western Israel. As such, it is not surprising that the Egyptian Army relied mainly on Soviet equipment during this era. However, changes in diplomatic relations led to Egypt pushing towards closer ties to the West in the 1980s. While Egypt has still bought military equipment from countries like the USSR, a large amount of its state-of-the-art weaponry comes from NATO countries.
Nonetheless, Egypt has far from entirely re-equipped its Army with Western equipment. The Soviet technology acquired in the 1950s to the 1970s has largely been retained in service, and over the years attempts have been made to upgrade or repurpose it. Some of the more famous attempts include the Ramses II main battle tank, a substantially upgraded T-55 from the 2000s. A likely more recent, and lesser-known example is a multiple rocket launcher system which has been created by combining locally-manufactured rocket launchers from BM-21 Grads and ATS-59G tracked artillery tractors and prime movers.
The Grad and the ATS-59G in Egypt
The Egyptian Army bought large quantities of Soviet equipment as early as the 1950s to outfit itself for a potential conflict against Israel after the USA refused to sell them equipment. The BM-21 Grad and ATS-59G artillery tractor were two systems that were introduced in the 1960s in the USSR. Egypt, at the time, was able to access modern Soviet weaponry fairly quickly after its introduction.
Egypt placed an order for 100 of the new BM-21 Grad 122 mm truck-mounted rocket launchers in 1967 and received the systems in the following years, the last being delivered to the Egyptian Army in 1972, just before the Yom Kippur War. In the early 1980s, a number of BM-11s were also acquired. While it may appear similar to Soviet systems, the BM-11 is North Korean. It fires the same rockets as the BM-21 with similar performances, but uses two 3×5 blocks of rocket launchers featuring a total of 30 rockets per salvo in comparison to the Grad’s 40. The North Korean have widely exported it in the Middle East, with BM-11s also being purchased by Syria and Iran in the 1980s. As for the ATS-59G, the date of its introduction in the Egyptian Army is not known but was likely around the same timeline.
A BM-11, which uses similar tubes as the BM-21 but with 10 fewer, seen in Egyptian service during the Cold War. Source: Eugen system forums
The Grad and even BM-11 were, at the time, a fairly new rocket artillery system, with the first mounting a 40-barrel multiple rocket launcher on the Zil-131 truck. It weighed around 13 tonnes, had a crew of three, and a maximum speed of around 75 km/h on a good road. The most widely used rocket in the early years of the BM-21 Grad’s service was the M-21OF or 9M22U, a 66.6 kg rocket that could deliver an 18.4 kg warhead at a range of approximately 20 kilometers. The system had several distinct advantages: being able to fire all of its 40 rockets in 20 seconds, the BM-21 Grad could be a formidable weapon of saturation, with a battery of a dozen vehicles or more being able to deliver hundreds of rockets over a designated area. Though not the most accurate, the firepower of a Grad battery was very impressive. The system could also reposition fairly quickly and, at last, it was generally cheap and affordable. This granted the BM-21 Grad exceptional popularity and longevity, in Egypt and around the world. In Egypt’s case, the Grad would spur a series of locally-developed 122 mm rocket launchers and rockets which have improved upon the original vehicle and are still widely used and produced to this day by the Egyptian ground forces. The designation of the local BM-21 copy is RC-21. A copy of the 122 mm BM-11, exists and is designated RL-21.
In comparison, the ATS-59G is a generally less common artillery tractor. A derivative from the previous ATS-59, it differs from the original model by replacing the original 300 hp engine with a new one called A650, a V12 diesel. It was a close derivative of the V-55 used by tanks such as the T-55 and T-62, but used a limiter so the horsepower output would only reach 300 hp. The vehicle had a good power-to-weight ratio, which was likely well-appreciated in the role of towing artillery pieces. For a weight of 13,750 kg, the ATS-59G sported about 22 hp/tonne. The ATS-59G also used a larger, more spacious cabin seating up to seven people and was NBC-protected, while the ATS-59 would only house two with no such protection. The running gear of the ATS-59 series had generally been based on the T-54, using a similar suspension but reversed, with a front sprocket and a rear idler. It used road wheels with a generally similar architecture, though they are not identical.
The vehicle would typically be used in conjunction with more classic tube artillery, such as the 122 mm D-30. The vehicle has also become somewhat of a popular platform to create self-propelled artillery conversions around the world. The North Korean Tokchon series of self-propelled guns finds its origins in ATS-59 tractors modified as self-propelled artillery pieces. Closer to Egypt, Yemen has mounted the 122 mm on ATS-59Gs, while Ethiopia has used ATS-59 self-propelled guns armed with 130 mm M-46 artillery pieces during the Ethiopian-Eritrean War. The Soviet Union itself had made use of artillery tractors converted as MLRS, using the earlier AT-S tractor with the BM-24 240 mm MLRS. The resulting system was designated BM-24T.
The Conversion
The Egyptian ATS-59G 122 mm multiple rocket launcher system conversion was first spotted at the Raad-31 Exercise. This was a large military maneuver, including an armored component with M1 Abrams tanks as well as a wide variety of artillery pieces, which was held in southern Egypt in 2016.
A line of parked ATS-59G 122mm MLRS. A cover has been applied in front of the barrels. Source: QuoraWhat is likely one of the earliest photos of the conversion. Source: Reddit
Exactly when the conversion was made is unclear. Some photos (of which the context is unknown) that appear distinctly older than 2016 exist, and indicate the conversions may very well have been older. Overall, all the components were likely present in Egypt as early as the early 1980s. What is known, however, is that it has been done on a relatively large scale, and is not a one-off conversion or prototype. On the largest shot available of the artillery component of the exercise, 24 of such vehicles can be seen, arranged in two groups of three rows containing four vehicles each.
The conversion removed much of the rear superstructure of the ATS-59G to make space for the launchers, on what appears to be a fully rotatable mount similar to the one found on Soviet systems. The vehicle uses two blocks of 15 launchers, with a total of 30. This indicates it likely uses the RL-21 launching bloc, a license-built BM-11, rather than the RC-21, a license-built BM-21. The tubes themselves and the rockets they fire remain identical. The only difference is how many are present and how they are arranged.
Seeing the launcher, it likely has the ability to elevate and depress to an extent. It has been shown to have some considerable lateral rotation and is likely able to rotate fully. It is likely similar firing mechanisms were installed as in the BM-21. This means the rockets would be remotely triggered from the cabin or using an extension cord (the length of which is 64 m on the original BM-21 vehicle).
ATS-59G vehicles during exercises. The vehicle appears to be operated by a crew of four, and the launcher displays its rotation. Source: TwitterA vehicle on the move, with a crewmember standing out from one of the cab’s hatches. What appears to be an elevation wheel for the launcher can also be observed. Source: Facebook
The large cabin of the ATS-59G would theoretically allow for a crew as large as seven. It is unlikely such a large complement would be necessary to operate the MLRS, with a crew of three to four likely being sufficient to operate it efficiently. However, a more numerous crew would quicken the reloading process, as the rockets are reloaded into the tubes manually. In some exercises, the vehicles appear to be operated by a crew of four. With the rocket launchers pushed all the way to the rear, there remains some considerable space between the cabin and mount. Much of this is occupied by the engine block, which extends behind the cabin. However, there is likely some space available for tools, spare parts or perhaps even spare rockets.
The launcher itself is not a particularly heavy weapon system, likely weighing around 500 kg empty (each 122 mm rocket barrel weighs around 23 kg). However, fully loaded, it can take on some significant weight, as each 122 mm rocket can weigh as much as 66 kg – so 1,980 kg when accounting for all thirty. Still, an added weight of about 2.5 tonnes remains very manageable for a vehicle such as the ATS-59G, which, in its original form, has both a very high power-to-weight ratio and sturdy suspension for its weight. The vehicle had been designed to, within other tasks, tow a 14 tonnes trailer. Even when accounting for the fully loaded rocket battery, the strongpoints of the vehicle’s mobility are not likely to be deeply impacted or compromised.
ATS-59- Based Auxiliary Vehicles
In operations, the MLRS vehicles have been seen alongside another ATS-59-based vehicle which appears to be used in conjunction with them. This vehicle appears to be based on the ATS-59, rather than the ATS-59G, and as such features a different, smaller cabin. On this model, the rear of the vehicle saw a large box-shaped superstructure added. Some sources appear to refer to it as a personnel carrier, which would carry additional crew members to help with the operation of the vehicle. Considering the large cabin space of the ATS-59G, this does appear somewhat dubious though. It is also possible the vehicle may serve as an ammunition carrier, or as a command vehicle that would direct the fire of a battery of MLRS vehicles. In whatever footage we have where both vehicles are present, it appears there is one of these ATS-59-based auxiliary vehicles for three MLRS vehicles, which would support the theory of a command vehicle directing a battery’s fire.
A battery of three ATS-59G 122 mm MRLS alongside an ATS-59-based auxiliary vehicle. Source: TwitterEgyptian Army Ground Forces artillery forces during the Raad-31 exercises. A considerable number of ATS-59G MLRS can be observed in this photo. Two rows behind the last row of ATS-59G MLRS, a row of ATS-59-based auxiliary vehicles can be observed. This photo also includes large number of M109s. Source: Rotter.net
Egyptian Rockets
Over the years, Egypt has not only manufactured its own BM-11 and BM-21 launchers locally, but has also developed a variety of indigenous rockets which improve on the early Soviet types which were delivered along with the BM-21s in the late 1960s. These Egyptian rockets are developed and manufactured by the Sakr Factory for Development Industries, itself a subsidiary of the larger Egyptian Arab Organization for Industrialization.
An Egyptian submunitions-carrying Sakr rocket. Source: CAT-UXO
Four different general types of 122 mm rockets are manufactured by Sakr. They differ by their length and effective range, the latter approximately stated in their name. They are the Sakr-10, Sakr-18, Sakr-36, and Sakr-45 (the three latter type’s effective range is actually around 17, 31, and 42 kilometers, respectively). The Sakr 10 weighs 26.5 kg, the Sakr-18 47.20 kg, the ‘Sakr-30’ (this may just be confusion with Sakr-36) is reported to weigh 39.25 kg, while the Sakr-45 weighs 63.5 kg. The Sakr-10 and Sakr-18 feature ‘S’-shaped fins, which are folding fins, while the 36 and 45 use more classic straight fins.
A variety of different payloads for this rocket exist. There are obviously simple explosive payloads. The high-explosive version of the Sakr-45 is believed to carry a 20.5 kg explosive warhead, and the same are likely found on other rockets of the Sakr family. The rockets can also be loaded with leaflets, and it appears probable some more specialized variants, such as mine-dispensing or illuminating payloads have also been produced.
A photo taken right as a vehicle fires a rocket from a prepared position, with the crew sitting in front of the cab. Source: facebook
By far the most controversial payload, as well as one Egypt is known to produce widely, consists of cluster munitions. The Sakr-18, 36, and 45 can all be fitted with submunitions payloads. The submunitions used appear to be local copies of the American M77 submunition, though Chinese and Soviet types are believed to have been used early in the production of the rockets. The cluster versions of the Sakr-18 and Sakr-45 contain 72 of these ammunition types, while the Sakr-36 one carries 98. These rockets function using a time fuze, which ejects the submunition into the air after a certain time has passed. The standard ejection height is 700 m. This guarantees a wide spread of the submunitions over a fairly large area. This is the main criticism behind the use of cluster ammunition. Even more than with a classic high-explosive barrage, it is a widely inaccurate and destructive type of ordnance that will cause massive damage to light vehicles and individuals, not differentiating between civilians and soldiers or rebels. Despite these concerns, the Egyptian Army is known to use vast amounts of these cluster rockets.
The Sakr 122 mm family of rockets has also been exported, and the type has been widely used by the Syrian Arab Army during the Syrian Civil War, including with cluster payloads.
Egyptian Army Camouflage and Operations
On what is believed to be the oldest known photo of the type, the MLRS vehicle has appeared with a pretty orange-sand camouflage color, with a large amount of darker spots, and no form of national or unit markings visible from the angle the photo was taken. At times, some other forms of camouflage have appeared, such as a combination of sand color and green.
A vehicle with a tricolor green, brown and sand yellow pattern fires during military exercises, very likely prior to 2013 Source: FacebookEgyptian Army Artillery Exercises from pre-2013; the ATS-59G artillery vehicles can be seen in the background, with coloured flags likely indicating the vehicle’s platoon, battery, or another small-scale unit sub-division. Source: http://migjimenez.blogspot.com/2013/06/egyptian-m109-a2-afv-club.html
During the 2016 exercises, the vehicles had been given a much more standard camouflage, being entirely painted in sand color, with the exception of the start and end of the 122 mm barrels being painted in gray. The vehicles received the flag of the Egyptian Arab Republic, painted at the center of the cab’s front end.
Since the Raad-31 exercise, the Egyptian ATS-59G MLRS has continued to appear in other maneuvers. The vehicle was seen operating in Egyptian-Russian exercises held in 2018. During these, the MLRS has been seen using what appears to be a number of signal flags. The gray-painted parts of the barrels also appear to have generally disappeared after 2016.
An ATS-59G MLRS operating alongside Russian forces in a drill, 2018. Source: Reddit
The Egyptian Army has been engaged in operations against Islamic militants in the Sinai Desert since 2011. In recent years, Islamist groups operating in the area have become closely associated to ISIS. The vehicles may have been used operationally in this low-intensity but still not concluded conflict Egypt is engaged in.
The Advantages of Such a Conversion
From a quick glance, one may wonder why the Egyptian Army has converted these former artillery tractors into MLRS vehicles. Indeed, the trucks on which BM-11 and BM-21 type rockets are traditionally mounted would typically give a higher maximum speed, as well as a lower fuel consumption.
Egypt widely operates this type of vehicle, and it is undeniable it has some distinct advantages. However, the ATS-59G platform, while fairly dated and rustic, is not without its advantages. It is certainly not as fast as a truck, but with a very high power-to-weight ratio and a suspension very similar to that of a medium tank, it offers much better mobility off-road and cross-country, notably in sandy areas without good roads. It offers vastly reduced risks of becoming silted up and requiring assistance from other vehicles to be recovered. Also, the same solid, tracked suspension is likely to be more stable and suffer less from wear caused by the recoil of the rocket launchers. The larger cab in comparison to the Zil-131 truck also allows for a larger crew. On Zil-131 based Grads, two crewmen often have to tag along in the ammunition supply vehicle due to space only being provided for three. With the seven potential crew and passengers of the ATS-59G, this is largely avoidable.
At last, this conversion may simply be a way of using ATS-59G chassis that would otherwise not find much use. Though still used, field artillery pieces have typically gone out of fashion in comparison to self-propelled ones. The Egyptian Army, for example, operates a large number of M109 155 mm self-propelled artillery pieces. However, the ATS-59G ultimately still offers a sturdy chassis. While old, its engine and suspension both have high parts commonality with other Soviet vehicles the Egyptian Army maintains into service in large numbers, and the advantages of its high power-to-weight ratio and cross-country mobility have generally not been made outdated or without use. Turning such a hull into a self-propelled rocket launcher is as such a very justifiable and quite reasonable conversion.
Conclusion – A Solid Way of Maintaining Old but Still Useful Equipment in Service
The Egyptian ATS-59G 122 mm MLRS is one of many self-propelled artillery conversions which have emerged from old Soviet chassis in very varied parts of the world. From Cuban 122 mm guns placed on T-34 or BMP-1 hulls, to Yemeni or Ethiopian artillery pieces on the same ATS-59 and ATS-59G chassis, or various conversions that have been created in the chaos of the Levant, such as the Syrian BMP-1 Shams, there are many potential systems one may be tempted to compare it with.
Out of all these various conversions, the Egyptian one does stand out to an extent. All seems to indicate this is a fairly professional conversion, done in a standardized manner on a potentially fairly large number of vehicles. Instead of a weapon of desperation that sports dubious capacities, it actually appears to be a very workable combination of two systems that go well together: a proven, highly mobile hull with a very popular, reliable if inaccurate rocket-launching system. The end result appears to be a system that is highly mobile cross-country and can likely deliver considerable amounts of firepower where similarly-armed wheeled systems may struggle to get. Considering these qualities, and the widespread amount of spares likely available for both the launchers and the vehicle, there is reason to believe this conversion may remain in service for years to come.
The Egyptian ATS-59G MLRS. Illustration by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe, funded by our Patreon campaign.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
German Reich (1941~1943)
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (2000s)
Arab Republic of Egypt (2016 At The Latest-Present)
