The M1992 armored personnel carrier. Illustration by Yuvnashva Sharma and funded by our Patreon campaign
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Late 1980s-Unknown)
Armored Personnel Carrier & Weapons Platform – Unknown Number Built
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), more often simply known as North Korea, maintains a defence industry which produces all kinds of military vehicles for its armed forces. Ever since the 1970s, and increasingly so over the years, North Korea has been manufacturing its own armored personnel carriers, light tanks, main battle tanks, self-propelled artillery pieces of all purposes (fire support, but also anti-tank, and even anti-ship missile launchers on armored personnel carrier hulls) and self-propelled anti-aircraft guns. The majority of these products can be fairly clearly linked to a Soviet or Chinese ancestor though, even if they have varied considerably from this original inspiration. The Chonma-Ho and even Songun-Ho series of MBT can be linked back to the T-62. The 323 APC, as well as the M1981 light tank and the derivative M2009 Chunma-D APC can be linked back to the Chinese YW531A, the M2010 wheeled APC to the BTR-80, the M1989 SPAAG to the ZSU-23-4 Shilka, etcetera.
Once in a while though, in parades in Kim-Il Sung square, one may observe some vehicles with vastly less clear links to Chinese or Soviet vehicles. In this case, while some inspiration can be found, the vehicle still mostly appears to be a North Korean development starting from scratch or almost scratch. At the very least, it starts from a base different from whatever China or the USSR delivered to the DPRK decades ago. An example of such a vehicle is the elusive and rare M1992 APC.
The three leading M1992 APCs during the 1992 parade for the 60th anniversary of the Korean People’s Army. The two vehicles on the side bear the national flag, while the vehicle at the center features the Korean Worker’s Party flag. Source: m.blog.naver
An unknown development, first seen in 1992
As its name given by the American Department of Defence suggests, the M1992 armored personnel carrier was first seen in 1992, during a parade commemorating what the DPRK considers to be the 60th anniversary of the Korean People’s Army, allegedly founded in 1932 as an anti-Japanese occupation organization.
North Korean vehicles first appearing during parades is extremely common and is the main source of information for outside audiences. The lack of ties of the M1992 to well-known vehicles in comparison to other North Korean vehicle types means theorizing on its development process is even more difficult. The vehicle was likely designed and produced in the late 1980s though. The vehicle has been seen in three different configurations. One appears to be an armored personnel carrier. Two appear to take the base of this armored carrier, but modify it to operate as a weapon platform instead, one for Chinese Type 63 107 mm rocket launchers, and the other for the 9K38 Igla man-portable air defense system (MANPADS).
The base design of the M1992 armored personnel carrier
The M1992 takes the form of a fairly crude-looking 4×4 vehicle. The armored body found on the vehicle somewhat resembles the BRDM-1 armored car, though this type is not known to ever have been in the DPRK’s service. As the BRDM-1, it uses a welded construction, with a “boat-like” front hull and a shape generally suggesting the vehicle was intended for amphibious operations. As the BRDM-1, the M1992 features two windows with shutters for the two crew-member, the driver and commander, to look out of. The vehicle appears to be provided with three headlights, two to the right and one to the left.
The engine of the vehicle is very likely installed at the front. While the armored body of the M1992 resembles the BRDM-1, the vehicle is thought to be built using a large variety of commercially-available parts, and that body may have just been placed onto the chassis of a commercially-available truck. The model of the engine is obviously unknown, but it appears to be a diesel.
The 13th to 15th M1992s during the 1992 parade. This photo gives a good view of the angular body of the vehicle. Source: m.blog.naver
At the rear of the crew compartment, one may find the infantry-carrying section of the M1992. The vehicle features a rather boxy rear and is generally not too different from a vehicle like the BTR-40 or BTR-152 in terms of silhouette, though it has a roof. The infantry compartment appears large enough for around six soldiers. It features a number of hatches that can be used to exit the vehicle, but likely also operate its weaponry. Two weapons are mounted on the M1992 roof. Towards the front, the vehicle disposes of a 30 mm AGS-17 automatic grenade launcher. Commonly used on North Korean vehicles, this weapon fires 30×29 mm grenades with a high-explosive fragmentation warhead. Those grenades are fired at a rate of 400 rpm from a 29-rounds belt and may be used in indirect fire roles at up to about a kilometer and a half. This grenade launcher provides the M1992 with its anti-infantry firepower, along with perhaps the passengers’ own individual armament.
The 4th, 5th, and 6th vehicles during the 1992 parade. This photo gives a good perspective of the silhouette of the 9K111 missiles. Source: quizlet
To the rear of the infantry compartment, the vehicle’s anti-armor armament is mounted. It consists of a 9K111 “Fagot” wire-guided anti-tank missile. The type was introduced and likely pushed into local production in the Korean People’s Army during the 1980s, supplementing the 9M14 Malyutka (locally produced as the “Bulsae-1”). The North Korean-manufactured variant of the 9K111 is known as the “Bulsae-2”, though it is unknown whether the M1992 mounted original Soviet-delivered missiles or North Korean copies. The missiles which were delivered to North Korea were the slightly improved 9K111-2, which is believed to have an armor penetration of 460 mm when striking a flat plate.
There are no known views of the rear of the vehicle and, as such, whether or not some form of door for the infantry to exit is present is unknown. The vehicle is, however, known not to have any waterjets. On water, its movement is thus brought by the wheels and tires, which typically means the vehicle is slower and less maneuverable in water.
The vehicle’s armored protection is unknown, but seeing its size and construction, it likely is only protected against rifle-caliber bullets and small artillery fragments, likely being vulnerable to most ammunition from 12.7 mm onward. The vehicle’s dimensions and weight are not known, but definitely appear fairly moderate. While the mobility of the vehicle is not possible to estimate given the engine is unknown, the M1992 is likely somewhat mobile and agile, and it may have served as a scout vehicle in addition to an armored personnel carrier.
Multiple Rocket Launch System (MRLS) variant
MRLS M1992s during the 1992 parade. The vehicles being given numbers in the 150 onward may suggest at least 50 M1992 armored personnel carriers were manufactured, seeing as the first M1992 APC of the parade had the number 101. Source: m.blog.naver
During the same 1992 parade, a derivative of the M1992 vehicle was also showcased. In comparison to the APC variant, this model had the superstructure lowered to the rear of the driver and commander’s post. To the rear of this lowered part, the vehicle-mounted a battery of Chinese Type 63 107 mm rockets, very widely used by the Korean People’s Army. These are arranged in three rows of eight rockets, giving a total of 24 per salvo. The infantry compartment was likely re-arranged to stock more ammunition for the rocket launchers, but seeing as the vehicle remains small, it is likely only enough ammunition for a couple of additional salvos may be stored in the vehicle. It also is unknown whether or not this launcher may be rotated, or entirely depends on the vehicle’s movements to be aimed.
The Type 63 is a very common multiple rocket launcher in the Korean People’s Army, produced locally and used in massive numbers. It is notably found on the “Sonyon” variant of the 323 armored personnel carrier, a version that replaces the turret for a battery of rockets, while otherwise keeping the infantry-carrying capacities. The Type 63’s 107 mm rockets have a limited range of around 8 km and fire 18.8 kg rockets with a fairly limited explosive charge of 1.3 kg. The system is however very cheap, and easy to assemble in batteries of multiple launchers. This gives it a good potential to saturate a designated zone, which is likely how it is used in the Korean People’s Army, alongside some much larger and longer-range rockets also operated by the DPRK.
Air Defence Variant
A view of the anti-aircraft variant, with its battery of four 9K38 Igla missiles mounted in the place of the Type 63 rocket launchers. Source: Oryx Blog
In an exhibition somewhat more recent than 1992, a third variant of the M1992 was observed. This variant retains the hull of the MRLS variant, with a lowered superstructure rear of the crew’s post. Instead of a battery of Type 63 rockets, it instead mounts a rotatable battery of four man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS). In this case, the vehicle features four 9K38 Igla missiles or a locally-manufactured variant.
When this variant was developed is unknown, however, the rarity of the M1992 means it likely dates from around the same era as the two other models. It was not shown during the 1992 parade for unknown reasons. The 9K38 is very commonly mounted on all kinds of military vehicles in recent North Korean parades, suggesting the proliferation of the missile as an attempt to counter the overwhelming close-air support advantage the forces of the Republic of Korea & United States would have in a conflict. The M1992 variant could have provided light anti-aircraft vehicles for motorized convoys, typically using M1992-type vehicles. This is not the case probably, as the family has not been widely adopted in the KPA’s service.
Conclusion – A “one-off” that was seemingly never adopted in massive numbers
A quick look at the M1992 may give it a somewhat ambitious look. With three different versions assuming vastly different roles – armored personnel carrier/potentially scout vehicle, self-propelled multiple rocket artillery, and self-propelled air-defense system – the type may have seemed like a wheeled APC the Korean People’s Army may have attempted to standardize on. However, this was in no way the case.
A poor-quality photo of rows of M1992s during the 1992 parade. A fairly considerable number of vehicles were showcased during this first, and last parade of the type. They may very well have been all the M1992s ever manufactured, or close to. Source: artzmari.egloos
The M1992 was never seen in service outside of the 1992 parade, and the only other time it was seen at all was in a military exhibition in which a number of prototypes were also shown. Ever since 1992, no footage of the Korean People’s Army using the vehicle has been found, despite a large number of parades showcasing most of the KPA’s armored vehicles inventory. In all likelihood, it would appear the M1992 was never adopted in massive numbers by the Korean People’s Army. Though the 1992 parade suggests several dozen were built, production likely ended at that, or not a whole lot more. Why the North Koreans choose not to adopt the vehicle in massive numbers is unknown. Perhaps the vehicle suffered from a number of issues, or perhaps the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the following disaster that the 1990s were for North Korea meant foreign, commercially-available parts could no longer be procured easily.
The Korean People’s Army policy of pretty much never retiring military vehicles which are still working means the M1992 likely still sees some service somewhere in North Korea. However, since it was first seen, a new North Korean-produced wheeled armored personnel carrier, with a scout variant, has been introduced: the BTR-80-inspired M2010. With this type, the KPA finally appears to have found a North Korean-produced wheeled APC to settle on. This means a preferred successor has been found to fulfill the role of the old M1992.
The M1992 armored personnel carrier. Illustration by Yuvnashva Sharma and funded by our Patreon campaign
The 2CV GHAN1 with the 20 mm MG 151. Illustration by Godzilla
France (1959-1961)
Armed Air-Transportable Car – 1 Converted
The Citroën 2CV is arguably the most famous French car in history. Designed by Citroën’s vice president in the late 1930s and produced from 1948 onward, the small car was originally conceived to offer a very cheap and simple design for French farmers and rural communities, but it would find success far beyond rural communities and all the way to the French Navy’s airborne services.
The GHAN1’s 2CV, armed with the 20 mm MG 151, is seen driving. Source: paras.forumactif.net
The Algerian War, the French Navy, and its Helicopters
French colonization of the territory which would become the country of Algeria began in 1830. One of the colonies closest to mainland France, just across the Mediterranean, Algeria would soon become one of the jewels in the crown of France’s colonial empire. Progressively, Algeria’s European population grew, far more than other French African colonies. Nonetheless, as the tide of anti-colonial pro-independence movements swept all across the vast French colonial empire, tensions soon grew in Algeria. While the neighboring protectorates of Morocco and Tunisia were granted independence in 1956 in a mostly peaceful process, this was not the case for Algeria. Independence groups in Algeria were faced with ruthless crackdowns, leading to the situation in Algeria developing into war between the French armed forces and the independence movement (the FLN, Front de Libération National, Eng: National Liberation Front, and its armed wing, the ALN, Armée de Libération Nationale, Eng: National Liberation Army)
Though the Algerian conflict was never described as a war in France during its duration, it resulted in the mass mobilization of the French Army against the FLN, with over 450,000 soldiers in Algeria at any time between 1956 and 1962 (including a large number of conscripts), and about 1,5 million Frenchmen having being mobilized by the Army in Algeria during the duration of the war, which only concluded in 1962.
This Algerian conflict saw the French make heavy use of helicopters, most commonly the American-built Sikorsky H-34 and its variants, and, from 1957 onward, the French-built Alouette II. Within the services of the French military which operated helicopters were ‘flotillas’ of the French Navy: the 31F, which was created in June 1955; 32F, created in June 1957; and the 33F, created in January 1958. Though the 31F first operated Piasecki H-21 and the 33F the Sikorsky H-19s, all three flotillas were eventually equipped with the Sikorsky HSS-1, the naval variant of the H-34.
Piasecki H-21Cs of Flottille 31F in flight over Algeria. The H-21 was operated by the flotilla from 1955 all the way to April 1960, when it was replaced by the more modern Sikorski HSS-1. The aircraft was nicknamed the ‘Flying Banana’. Source: avion légendaires
The three helicopter flotillas were put under a unified command on 1st November 1957, forming the Groupement des hélicoptères de l’Aéronautique Navale n°1, or GHAN 1 (Eng: Naval Aviation Helicopter Group). It most commonly operated alongside the DBFM, Demi-brigade de Fusiliers Marin (Eng: Navy Riflemen Half-Brigade), a unit created in 1956 and comprised three naval infantry battalions and five additional companies. The DBFM mostly operated in the northwest of Algeria, around the large city of Oran, and near the Moroccan border. The helicopters of the GHAN 1 were often used to support it. The HSS-1 could be used for troop transport or medical evacuation but was also used for fire-support duties. One helicopter in each of the three helicopter flotillas was fitted with an MG 151/20 20 mm autocannon of German origin. Those helicopters were named Couleuvrine-Canon (31F), Rameur-Canon (32F) and Barlut-Canon (33F).
Two crewmen operating the MG 151/20 autocannon abordard the Barlut-Canon, flottille 33F. The German gun was widely used in post-war France, not only on the Navy’s helicopters, but also on a number of vehicle designs, such as the Foch casemate tank destroyer, or the SNCASO SO.8000 “Narval” naval fighter prototype. Source: anciens col bleusA Sikorski HSS-1 helicopter of flotilla 33F lands in front of French troops, Algeria. Source: chemin de mémoire parachutistes
Lieutenant Commander Babot and the Armed 2CV
On 26th September 1959, command of the GHAN 1 was granted to a Capitaine de Corvette (Eng: corvette captain, the equivalent rank generally being lieutenant commander) Eugène Babot, a Free French Navy and Indochina veteran. Babot appears to have been the one to decide to arm three helicopters of the GHAN 1 with MG 151/20 20 mm autocannons. He also initiated the search for a light-armed vehicle that could be air-transported by the HSS-1 helicopters of the GHAN.
Babot was quick to consider the ubiquitous French car of the era, the Citroën 2CV, a small, rustic car in production since 1948 which had been designed for rural use. He imagined that, stripped of most of its body, the 2CV would provide a very light platform that could potentially be fitted with some form of weaponry. The particular type of 2CV which was used appears to be a 2CV AZU, a utility vehicle that replaced the rear seats for storage space. This vehicle type was very widely used by French shopkeepers. The engine used on the vehicle in the late 1950s and early 1960s production was a boxer-two cylinder 425 cm3 gasoline engine producing 12 hp. At 530 kg, a 2CV AZU was a particularly light vehicle. It was 3.6 m long, 1.48 m wide, and 1.7 m tall.
A promotional photo of a Citroën 2CV AZU. Source: 2cv-legende.com
Modifying the 2CV
In order to reduce the weight of the vehicle as much as possible, as well as make it a more suitable platform for armament, the personnel of GHAN1 would cut away most of the upper body of the vehicle. Pretty much everything above the driving wheel was removed, as was almost all the roof and rear superstructure and the passenger seat mounted at the front.
The original windshield was entirely removed, alongside the upper body of the vehicle, but instead of simply having the front being entirely open, a small, centrally-mounted glass windshield was added, reinforced by two support bars that connected with it on the upper sides.
A front view of the vehicle. The lower front was the least modified part, with the 2CV retaining its two signature headlights and its radiator grille. A new windshield was installed. Source: paras.forumactif.net
The rear of the vehicle was modified to create an open space, pretty much a pickup configuration. This was made much simpler by the use of an AZU utility vehicle. Creating an empty space at the rear was pretty much as simple as removing the roof. The lower sides of the body, made of sheet metal, were retained to form a barrier for the armament section of the vehicle.
This open rear space was used to install an armament mount. This was a cut-cone shape mount, quite similar in general appearance to the one that could be found on many warships from the early 20th century. On top of this mount, a rotating support was mounted, on which the weapon which was chosen to be employed would be placed. A seat was mounted to the rear of this pedestal mount, but was not rotatable. When firing towards the sides, the gunner would instead lay on the vehicle’s sides. The combat crew for the vehicle would have been of two, a driver and a gunner.
The 75 mm M20 recoilless rifle being installed onto the pedestal mount of the vehicle. Source: parasforumactif.net
The modified 2CV was nicknamed ‘Jules’, Captain Babot’s radio code. The vehicle was given a registration number of “442 433”, painted on the rear left of the vehicle’s side and present on the frontal registration plate. On top of this registration number, a French flag and an anchor, a commonly used symbol of the DBFM, were drawn. The vehicle was painted in a sea blue color. On the rear sides, “GHAN 1” was inscribed in white, as well as an inscription that appears to read “Vle GHAN1 type G1A.”. The Vle likely was an abbreviation for véhicule (Eng: vehicle), with the inscription being a designation given to the vehicle, despite its ad hoc nature.
The weight of the vehicle is unknown, but it was said to be considerably lighter than a Jeep (most likely either a Willys MB or the Hotchkiss license-built variant, the M201), which weighed around 1.1 tonnes. A base AZU was 530 kg, and while the armament would make the vehicle heavier, this was offset by the removal of much of the body as well as one of the vehicle’s seats. The weight at around half a tonne could have been a realistic prospect for the vehicle.
Armament Options
The 2CV fire-support vehicle was tested with a variety of different armaments.
The vehicle is seen with the two existing armament options dismounted, as well as ammunition stowage for the 20 mm MG 151, likely a 60 or 80-rounds belt. This photo also gives a good view of the absent front passenger seat, and seat created for the gunner, mounted on a transversal bar. Source: parasforumactif.netCorvette Captain Babot examines the 75 mm recoilless gun mounted on the vehicle, surrounded by French Navy servicemen. Source: parasforumactif.net
The first option available to the vehicle consisted of recoilless rifles. It is mentioned that the vehicle was tested with two different recoilless rifles, a 57 mm one (the American M18) and a 75 mm one (the American M20). All known photos of the vehicle armed with a recoilless rifle appear to show it with the larger M20.
The main advantage of the M20 was the low weight (47 kg) of the weapon in relation to the large size of the projectiles it could fire. The gun fired 75×408 mmR shells. A variety of shells existed for the gun, including High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT), High-Explosive Plastic (HEP, often better known under the British designation of HESH), and smoke shells. Considering the French Army’s operations in Algeria, with no ALN armor and little fortifications to speak of, the most commonly used shell was without a doubt the High-Explosive (HE) projectile. This was designated as T38 or M48. The round had a complete weight of 9.91 kg, with the shell and fuze weighing 6.53 kg. The explosive charge had 676 g of TNT. The maximum effective direct-fire range was considered to be about 1 km, though the gun could also be used in an indirect fire role at ranges up to 3 km. Though the gun had a quite short range, the firepower it offered in comparison to its lightweight was considerable.
A 75 mm high-explosive shell is loaded onto the 75 mm M20 mounted on the vehicle. Source: parasforumactif.netA photo of the vehicle during firing trials. The same type of high-explosive shell is placed on the vehicle’s sides. Source: parasforumactif.netWith the rest of servicemen having vacated the area and joining the man further back to avoid the backblast, the gunner now aims, preparing to fire. Source: parasforumactif.netA photo, likely taken during the same trials but from a different angle, showing the gunner aiming. Source: parasforumactif.netThe immediate aftermath of the gun being fired during the same trials. Source: parasforumactif.net
The 75 mm M20 appears to have been mounted on the 2CV for a while, and a variety of photographic views of the vehicle have surfaced with such armament. However, it appears there were some issues with this configuration. Despite being recoilless, the M20 still caused vibrations that would have over time likely have proved damaging to the car’s frail suspension.
As such, it appears the preferred option for the vehicle’s armament was instead automatic armament. The automatic weapon armed 2CV should not be considered as merely a successor of the M20 armed 2CV, as it appears both armaments were considered for a time and could be swapped depending on which would have been preferable in any given situation.
The automatic weapon on the 2CV was the German MG151/20 20 mm autocannon. This German aviation gun was widely used in a variety of roles in post-war France. Inside helicopters, like those used by GHAN1, the autocannon was first used with a 60-80 round belt, and later, because of more advanced mounts, a much larger 500-rounds belt. Inside the 2CV GHAN1 vehicle, the shorter belts appear to have been more likely to be used due to the more limited space.
The MG151 fired at a rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute, with muzzle velocities of 700 to 785 m/s. The gun weighed 42 kg. There was a variety of high-explosive ammunition available for the type, with the shells generally having either 20 g or 25 g of high-explosive filler. The French considered the gun to be surprisingly sturdy and reliable even in the dust and sand-filled environments of rural Algeria. It was noted as being easy to operate by a single crew member, even when in flight, so in a support vehicle like a 2CV, that would likely not have been an issue either.
The 20 mm MG 151 is aimed to the side during trials. Source: parasforumactif.netIn this photo, likely taken seconds after the previous one, the gun fires and the vehicle’s side visibly lifts. Source: parasforumactif.netThe 20 mm MG 151 is lifted as it is inspected. Below it, the container for the gun’s ammunition belt can be seen. Source: parasforumactif.netAmmunition is set up to be fed into the gun. This appears to be a much larger, perhaps 500-rounds belt. Source: parasforumactif.net
Unlike the M20, however, the MG151 was not at all a recoilless weapon. From the existing photographs, it appears that firing over the sides would make the vehicle quite unstable and even lifted the rear wheel of the direction the gun was firing towards in the air by some extent. Still, the firepower provided by such a gun being mounted on a vehicle as light as the 2CV was once again very considerable.
La Terreur du Djebel?
The Jules conversion appears to have taken place sometime in or around 1960.
The 20 mm gun on the vehicle is aimed by Captain Bastard, who commanded the intervention battalions of the DBFM. Captain Babot is present within the servicemen seen behind. The armed 2CV could be described as his pet project. Source: parasforumactif.net
The vehicle was employed between 1960 and 1961. Plenty of firing trials were carried out, in which Captain Babot was directly involved, sometimes serving as the gunner of the vehicle. Interestingly enough, the unit also carried out air-transportability experiments. For this purpose, the vehicle was lifted under a Sirkorski helicopter by several cables, with seemingly a mounting point on each of the vehicle’s wheels, one on the rear, one on the gun, and possibly more.
In what is perhaps the most famous photo of the vehicle, the 2CV GHAN1 is lifted into the air by a Sikorski HSS-1 helicopter. Colorized by Smargd123. Source: chemin-de-memoire-parachutistes.org
At the time, the vehicle already appeared to have been considered as somewhat of a curiosity in the hands of GHAN1. It does not appear the conversion was actively used in combat. Nonetheless, when recounting it, veterans of GHAN1 appear to affectionately give it the nickname of “Terreur du Djebel” (Eng: Terror of the Djebel, Djebel being a word taken by the French from Arab which designates mountains in the Middle East and North Africa).
A 2CV Disappearing into the Sands
Captain Babot was relieved from command of the GHAN1 on 17th July 1961. Seemingly, around the same time, the trail of the armed 2CV goes cold.
What eventually happened to the vehicle is entirely unknown. It may have had its armament removed and used as a pickup truck, lost due to an accident or breakdown, or abandoned in Algeria. Though one cannot exclude the possibility it was shipped back to France during the French Army’s retreat from Algeria in 1962, this would likely have been known and captured on camera. There is no evidence of that ever happening.
The vehicle, as such, forever remains a curiosity, of the time the 2CV, one of the most famous and popular French cars of the 20th century, got turned into an armed vehicle for warfare in Algeria. This is, surprisingly enough, not the only time the 2CV was used by a military. Some vehicles were used as air-transportable pickups by no other than Royal Navy Commandos, with these unarmed vehicles seemingly seeing service during the quelling of the Malayan Insurgency, in a fairly similar timeframe to the Algerian War. In modern times, a replica of the vehicle appears to have shown up in a number of French classic cars meetups.
A Royal Marines helicopter lifts one of the service’s 2CV pickups. The use of the 2CV by the Royal Navy serves as an interesting parallel to the one of 2CV ‘Jules’ and the GHAN1. Source: citroenet.ukThe Citroën 2CV GHAN1 with the 75mm M20.The 2CV GHAN1 with the 20 mm MG 151. Illustrations by Godzilla, funded by our Patreon campaign
2CV GHAN1 Specifications
Length
~3.6 m
Width
~ 1.48 m
Engine
425 cm3, 2-cylinders Boxer gasoline engine producing 12 hp
Weight
Less than a tonne, perhaps as light as around 500 kg
Crew
Likely 2 (driver, gunner)
Armament
Alternatively:
M18 57 mm recoilless rifle (reported, never seen)
M20 75 mm recoilless rifle
Mauser MG151/20 autocannon
Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (2018 At The Latest-Present)
Armored Personnel Carrier – At Least 8 Converted
The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR), better known as Transnistria, is a breakaway state located in the internationally-recognized borders of the Republic of Moldova, on the Eastern side of the Dniester River and along the border with Ukraine. It seceded from Moldova during the dissolution of the Soviet Union in large part due to its ethnic makeup including large numbers of Ukrainians and Russians, which did not want to be integrated in a Moldovan state. The unrecognized state’s army has relied on leftover Soviet equipment from the dissolved 14th Guards Army, which was based at Transnistria’s capital, Tiraspol, to equip its formations. Because of this Army’s location near an important river, it had a large quantity of various engineering vehicles, which Transnistria has had to find use for and re-purpose for the defence of its territories. An example is the GMZ-3 minelayer vehicle, which has been converted to serve as an armored personnel carrier designated as the “BTRG-127 ‘Bumblebee’” in the PMR.
The GMZ-3 Minelayer
The GMZ-3 is a fairly large tracked minelaying vehicle based on the chassis of the SU-100P self-propelled gun, which has been used for a large variety of different vehicles since the 1950s. Introduced in 1984, the GMZ-3 is a fairly large vehicle, with a length of 9.3 m, a width of 3.25 m and a height of 2.7 m. The vehicle is entirely protected from small arms fire.
A GMZ-3 minelaying vehicle. Source: topwar.ru
The vehicle weighs 28.5 tonnes and is powered by a B-59U 382 hp V12 liquid-cooled diesel engine located to the front of the vehicle. The GMZ-3 is able to reach a maximum speed of 60 km/h on roads. It uses 7 ‘starfish-style’ road wheels, with a front drive sprocket and a rear idler. The vehicle has a crew of three, with a driver, commander, and engineer/mine specialist.
The vehicle has considerable internal space which allows enough space for the three crew members to operate and to carry 208 anti-tank mines. The vehicle is meant to lay anti-tank minefields in a swift and mechanized fashion.
The GMZ-3 in Transnistria
The GMZ-3 was one of a number of highly specialized vehicles which were operated by the 14th Guards Army in Transnistria at the end of the Soviet era. The breakdown of order with the dissolution of the USSR saw large quantities of 14th Guards Army equipment and even personnel join the armed forces of the breakaway state of Transnistria, located in a part of Moldova which had most of the Republic’s Russian and Ukrainian populations and heavy industry.
A knocked out GMZ-3 used as a makeshift armored personnel carrier during the Transnistrian War. Source: topwar.ru
The GMZ-3 was used as an improvised armored personnel carrier during the 1990-1992 conflict in Transnistria, with at least one vehicle used in this fashion by the Transnistrian armed forces destroyed by Moldovan troops. However, considerable numbers of GMZ-3s remained in Transnistria after the war.
The BTRG-127 Conversion
For some other engineering vehicles, the Transnistrian Army, which had no need for such specialized vehicles, could easily find other uses without deeply transforming the vehicle. The small and multi-purpose GT-MU could lend itself to being a decent prime mover without any modifications, for example.
The same could not be said of the much bigger GMZ-3, which had been designed with the sole task of mine-laying. With at least 8 of these vehicles, but possibly more, in Transnistrian service, finding use for them was a priority for the Transnistrian Ministry of Defence. Considering Transnistria’s unrecognized status, it is unable to import armored vehicles from abroad, and as such, cannot afford to waste any of the vehicles it has. In the case of the GMZ-3, it was found that, due to the large mine compartment, the vehicle could likely be repurposed as a large armored personnel carrier. This could be done by modifying the mine compartment to instead carry infantry, while fitting a larger machine gun instead of the simple 7.62 mm PKT in order to improve defensive capacities.
Eight BTRG-127s during their first showcase in 2015. Source: Oryx Blog
The vehicles being presented on Transnistrian television. Source: You Tube
The vehicles were modified by teams of Transnistria’s Ministry of Defence, and received the designation of BTRG-127 ‘Bumblebee’. They were unveiled in 2015, in presence of Transnistria’s President at the time, Yevgeny Shevchuk, and his Minister of Defence.
Infantry Compartment
A BTRG-127 advances during exercises. Source: Oryx Blog
In the BTRG-127, the mine-containing bay, comprising much of the rear of the vehicle, was entirely emptied of all mine-laying equipment and cleaned. It then appears to have been widened to an extent. On the GMZ-3, it did not extend to the same width as the tracks, while it does in the BTRG-127. On the sides of this hull, three large firing ports for the weapons of the infantry dismounts were fitted.
The large mine-laying arm at the rear and other mine-laying equipment present on the vehicle were removed. A rear door that opens to the right was installed on the vehicle. Whilst the door appears fairly decently sized for an armored personnel carrier door, it only allows for one soldier to exit at a time, and its opening position, which rests against the rear hull of the vehicle, does not grant any protection to the infantry dismounts when exiting the vehicle.
Transnistrian infantry dismounts exit through a BTRG-127’s rear door. Source: Oryx Blog.
There are no known photographs or videos of the interior of a BTRG-127, but the fairly large size of the vehicle means there likely is some considerable internal space available for benches, stowage, and equipment for an infantry squad. The number of infantry dismounts is likely between 8 and 10.
Weapon Station
There is a weapon station on the roof of the central frontal section of the infantry compartment. It consists of a semi-circular top opening, with a machine gun protected by a gun shield to the front. The weapon station is open-top, but rails, perhaps used for some form of canvas cover, have been seen in some photos.
A view of the weapon station from the rear. A rail ‘cage’ has been added on top of the vehicle, likely to mount camouflage foliage or a canvas cover. The gun shield and opening in front of it can be seen. Source: https://www.armedconflicts.com/Transnistrian President Yevgeny Shevchuk is shown the weapon station on the BTRG-127. Source Oryx Blog
The armament of this weapon station is an Afanasev A-12.7 12.7 mm aircraft machine gun. It is a single-barrelled heavy machine gun firing the standard Soviet 12.7×108 mm cartridge. Meant for aircraft use, the machine gun was produced between 1953 and 1983, and was used on a variety of Soviet trainer aircraft and helicopters, though it was rarely if ever mounted on frontline combat aircraft. It is fairly light for its caliber, at 25.5 kg, and also has a fairly high cyclic rate of fire of 1,400 rpm (though the practical rate of fire is closer to between 800 and 1,100 rpm) and a muzzle velocity of 818 m/s. The weapon is belt-fed.
The weapon had to be considerably modified in order to be operated in an armored vehicle. The original weapon, meant for aircraft use, did not feature a classic hand-operated trigger, and a mount that featured one had to be created to fit the machine gun in the BTRG-127.
A frontal view of the BTRG-127’s weapon station with significant foliage covering added to provide camouflage. Source: Oryx Blog.
The choice of this machine gun instead of more common Soviet machine guns, such as the 12.7 mm DshK/DshKM or NSVT, or the 14.5 mm KPV, may appear curious. The likely explanation may be the availability of large amounts of these machine guns being stored in a former depot used by the Soviet Air Force in Transnistrian territory, and little use being able to be found for these aircraft machine guns in the past.
The Resulting Vehicle
The resulting BTRG-127 is a fairly large armored personnel carrier, and while it is hard to estimate its weight, considering the GMZ-3 was 28.5 tonnes, it is unlikely the BTRG-127 is any lighter than around 25 tonnes at best. The crew perhaps remained at three, with a driver, a commander and a gunner, though the gunner’s role may be fulfilled by one of the infantry dismounts, of which there are likely 8 to 10. The driver retains the same forward position located below the weapon station on the BTRG-127.
Armor protection is unlikely to protect against anything more powerful than small arms fire, with the vehicle likely being vulnerable to even heavy machine guns, and any weapon with armor-piercing capacities. As such, considering the large size of the vehicle, it would likely be highly vulnerable in any battlefield or conflict. There have been efforts to camouflage the BTRG-127 during some training exercises, including using the rails around the weapon station to mount foliage, but whether such a large vehicle could be camouflaged with any effectiveness in operations is quite uncertain.
Transnistrian infantry advance along with a BTRG-127 armored personnel carrier during exercises. The soldier’s AK rifles do not have a magazine-fed in. Source: Oryx BlogA Transnistrian BTG-127 in front of a T-64BV during firing exercises. Source: Oryx Blog
Nonetheless, the conversion likely still makes sense for the needs of the Transnistrian armed forces. Transnistria is only able to field a fairly small military force, and as such, the need for the highly specialized vehicles which served in the Soviet Army is lost on Transnistria. Even with their faults, the BTRG-127 grants the Transnistrian Army more tracked vehicles with limited amounts of firepower to carry infantry with, complementing the fleet of BMP and BTRs also in service of the Republic, whereas little to no use would likely have been found for GMZ-3s otherwise.
Conclusion – One of Transnistria’s Most Extreme Transformations
The BTRG-127, while it may seem – and likely is – a vehicle with limited capacities and many weaknesses, remains an interesting piece of hardware. Out of all the various modifications and upgrades which have been carried out in Transnistria, it is likely one of the most extreme, including much more complex and extensive modifications on the base vehicle than what have been observed on the Pribor-2 MLRS or GT-MU fire support vehicle, for example.
The vehicles are likely to continue existing as long as Transnistria does. The small unrecognized state has long called for annexation by Russia, and has known to have a severe economic and demographic decline, which raises the question of its viability as an independent entity in the future. But, as long as Transnistria remains independent and needs an armed force to defend itself, it is unlikely to phase out any of the relatively few armored vehicles it has been able to get its hands on.
The BTRG-127 APC. Illustration by Godzilla.
BTRG-127 Specifications
Length
9.3 m
Width
3.25 m
Height
Likely around ~ 2.7 m
Engine
B-59U 382hp V12 liquid-cooled diesel engine
Weight
Likely in the 25-30 tonnes range
Crew
Likely 3 (Commander, gunner, driver)
Dismounts
Likely 8 to 10
Armament
Afanasev A-12.7 12.7 mm machine gun
Dismounts armament fired from firing ports
The Batignolles-Châtillon DP3. Illustration by Andrei ‘Octo10’ Kirushkin
France (1939-1940)
Amphibious Light Tank / Tracked Armored Car – 1 Prototype Built
Amphibious tanks were one of various concepts which saw considerable attention and evolution during the interwar era. Much of this attention was initiated by the British Vickers and Carden-Loyd companies, but experimentations on this type of vehicle quickly spread around the world – eventually reaching France.
A first prototype was worked on by the Batignolles-Châtillon company starting in 1935. Designated as DP2, this design did not prove successful, mostly due to issues with exiting the water, weight, and water-proofing. Nonetheless, Batignolles-Châtillon did not give up on designing an amphibious vehicle, resulting in the very mysterious DP3 prototype by 1940.
The Successor of the DP2
The DP2, produced in 1935 and refined on two different occasions in 1936 after disappointing trials (notably a sinking incident during the first floatation trials in March 1936, when the vehicle attempted to leave water), was not a successful vehicle which could be adopted by the French Army. The vehicle’s trace disappeared after poor results in the March-April 1937 trials it was subject to and the vehicle being given to APX’s facilities in Rueil (likely ARL).
However, this would not mark the end of all work on an amphibious tank by Batignolles-Châtillon. It appears that, at some point, likely in 1939, work began on a new amphibious design. It appears to have retained little to nothing from the DP2, having an almost entirely different architecture and suspension design, while also being a larger and heavier vehicle. Designated as the DP3, it appears to have begun its trials at the unfortunately late date of May 1940.
A Highly Mysterious Vehicle
Very little information is known on the DP3. Pretty much the only hard statistics known on the vehicle are that it weighed approximately 15 tonnes. Nonetheless, observation of the vehicle reveals an amphibious tank very different from the DP2 in design.
Though the DP2 was already fairly large for a light amphibious tank with light reconnaissance and cavalry duties in mind, the DP3 appears to have been even larger, with photos of the prototype next to German soldiers showing a fairly sizeable vehicle, higher than a man despite being turretless, as well as being fairly wide and long.
The hull was very different from the one of the DP2. Though the DP3 was also designed with buoyancy in mind, it did away with the bow extending far from the front of the hull, instead stopping not too far in front of the tracks. The vehicle also appears to have had a higher ground clearance which would have given far better performances when crossing obstacles other than water.
One of the two known photos of the DP3. The vehicle’s higher tracks, encompassing much more of the hull than on the DP2, can clearly be seen, as well as the circular combat chamber present on the side of the vehicle. Source: char-français
These improved crossing capacities are further suggested by the vehicle adopting a new, likely far better suspension design. Instead of the very low suspension of the DP2, the DP3 went with a fairly high track run that encompassed much of the hull. The design of the road wheels suggests Batignolles-Châtillon went with a suspension design fairly similar to the AMX suspension featured on the R40, or the suspension found on the B1 and B1 Bis, featuring a large number (15) of small road wheels per side. Three (one at the rear and two at the front) were independent; these were likely tender wheels. The others were linked together in bogies of two. The rest of the suspension was protected by an armor plate, though it appears the design used a rear-drive sprocket and a front idler wheel. The tracks also appear to have been vastly different and used large track links similar to those found on the B1 and B1 Bis.
Perhaps the most unique aspect of the vehicle would be the location of its armament though. The DP3 appears to have ditched a centrally-mounted turret entirely. Instead, the vehicle features what appear to be round combat chambers to both sides of the hull. What type of armament would be featured in these ‘barbettes’ is unknown, though it likely would have been machine guns. The crew configuration of the DP3 is unknown as well. One may assume it would have a crew of at least four, with a driver, a gunner for each of the combat chambers, and a commander, but this remains pure speculation. The nature of the engine remains unknown as well.
To the Bottom, but not by Accident this Time
The DP3 prototype began undertaking trials in May 1940 – at the same time as the German invasion of France and the Low Countries began. Very little has emerged from these trials – which were likely hastened and interrupted by the invasion – but the vehicle appears to have been more successful than the DP2.
As German forces closed in towards the Nantes region where the DP3 was being tested in early June 1940, the vehicle was purposefully sunk in the Erdre River to prevent the Germans from seizing and potentially using it. A few months later, the vehicle was recovered by the Germans. All known photos of the DP3 date from this time, as can be clearly identified by the presence of water corrosion on it. The further fate of the vehicle is unknown, but it is not known to have survived to this day, and was very likely scrapped.
German soldiers standing in front and on top of the recovered DP3, showing the large dimensions of the amphibious tank prototype, particularly for its fairly lightweight of approximately 15 tonnes. Source: char-français
Conclusion – the Last Pre-War French Amphibious Tank
The DP3 remains one of the most mysterious prototypes present in 1940 France. Very little information has filtered on the vehicle as a whole. Its armament, powerplant, crew configuration, pretty much everything about the vehicle remains unknown, and one may only theorize based on whatever little information and photos of the vehicle remain.
It appears the testers were at least to an extent more satisfied with the vehicle than with the DP2 – and the suspension design indeed appears more mature and allowed for far better crossing capacities. Whether the DP3 had any potential to become a potent combat vehicle remains impossible to judge though.
The Batignolles-Châtillon DP3. Illustration by Andrei ‘Octo10’ Kirushkin
Batignôlles-Châtillon DP3 Specifications
Weight
~15 tonnes
Suspension
AMX/B1 type
Road wheels
15 per side (three independent, likely tension wheels, 12 in boggies of two)
Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (2018 At The Latest-Present)
Fire Support Vehicle – At Least 3 Converted
The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, better known as Transnistria, is a breakaway state located in the internationally-recognized territories of the Republic of Moldova, on the Eastern side of the Dniester River, along the border with Ukraine. It seceded from Moldova during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, due to its ethnic makeup including a large number of Ukrainians and Russians who did not want to be part of the Moldovan state. The unrecognized state’s army has relied on leftover Soviet equipment from the former 14th Guards Army, which was based at Transnistria’s capital of Tiraspol, to equip its formations. This army’s location near an important river led to it having a large quantity of various engineering vehicles, which Transnistria has had to find use for and re-purpose for the defence of its territories. An example of these is the GT-MU, of which some examples have been converted to serve as fire-support vehicles.
The GT-MU Multi-Purpose Vehicle
The GT-MU (GT-MU being the Soviet Army designation; it is referred to as GAZ-73 by the manufacturer, Gorky Automobile Plant) is a small tracked vehicle which entered production in the Soviet Union in 1971. The vehicle is based on the previous GT-SM or GAZ-71, a fully tracked but unarmored tractor/prime mover with six road wheels. The GT-SM itself was based on the previous GT-S or GAZ-47, a vehicle of similar purpose from the mid-1950s.
A GT-MU, in the forefront, and a GT-SM to its rear, negotiate a muddy path in the USSR. Source: drive2.ru
In comparison to the GT-SM, the GT-MU was shortened to have six road wheels, but adopted a fully armored body with an all-round thickness of 6 mm. The vehicle is best described as a small and light multi-purpose ‘mule’, with a loaded weight of 5.8 tonnes on average, a length of 5.15 m, a width of 2.47 m and a height of 1.70 m. The movement of its tracks provides amphibious capabilities, and is powered by a V8 115 hp liquid-cooled engine, giving it a fairly high power-to-weight ratio of 26.24 hp/ton. The vehicle uses a torsion bar suspension with a front sprocket. There is no rear idler wheel, with the road wheel furthest to the back playing the role of keeping the track tensioned. The vehicle is able to reach about 55 km/h on roads and 5.5 km/h in the water.
In the Soviet Army, the GT-MU could be used as an armored personnel carrier. In addition to a crew of two, a driver and a commander, it could carry eight infantry dismounts in a rear compartment. However, with no armament to speak of (firing ports were present in the infantry dismount compartment though) and little armor protection, the vehicle was far less optimal than the various BTRs for this role, and this was not its main intended usage. The GT-MU was to serve as a prime mover which could, for example, tow 85 mm D-44 or 100 mm MT-12 anti-tank guns, or mortars. The vehicle could also be employed for a large variety of specialist uses, including by border guard units, and as an electronic warfare vehicle with radar jamming devices or a surveying vehicle, with the large rear compartment being used to house specialist equipment. Overall, the vehicle served as a formidable multi-purpose ‘mule’, not too different from the pre-war T-20 Komsolets or the post-war AT-P in a general role, though adapted for a much more technological and communications-based conflict.
The GT-MU in the Transnistrian Army
The GT-MU was in service in considerable numbers with the 14th Guards Army, with its headquarters in Tiraspol, Transnistria. Considering its location around the Dniester, the use of various engineering and multi-purpose vehicles was not lost on this particular Army.
During the breakdown of the Soviet Union, Transnistria affirmed its independence from Moldova due to conflicts over the prevalence of the Moldovan language and ethnicity. Though officially not involved, the 14th Guards Army often opened its warehouses to Transnistrian forces, gifted them equipment, or trained them. From this source, Transnistria is thought to have obtained a fleet of one or two dozen GT-MUs, though exact numbers are unknown. The vehicles are not known to have been used during the 1990-1992 war with Moldova.
A Transnistrian GT-MU leads a column of Pribor-1 Multiple Rocket Launcher Systems based on ZiL-131 trucks. Source: Oryx blog on twitter
The GT-MU was pressed into service with the Transnistrian Army to fulfil many tasks which were fairly similar to what was expected of them in the Soviet Army. The vehicle has still been regularly used as a prime mover for artillery pieces and mortars. However, the use of advanced jamming or surveying vehicles is rather lost on a Transnistrian military which struggles to obtain enough basic combat vehicles to outfit its formations. For these reasons, GT-MUs were quickly repurposed for other roles for which their small size, decent internal space, and good mobility could prove favorable. The vehicles have, for example, been used as artillery observation vehicles to guide the fire of Transnistrian multiple rocket launchers, or as command vehicles.
The Fire-Support GT-MU
The most recently known Transnistrian GT-MU conversion takes a much more direct approach to using the GT-MU in an active fighting role. In November 2018, three GT-MUs converted to operate as fire-support vehicles appeared during firing exercises, alongside T-64BVs and artillery pieces of the PMR.
The three observed GT-MU fire support vehicles of the Transnistrian military in November 2018. Source: Oryx Blog
Footage of Transnistrian firing exercises in November 2018. The GT-MUs can be observed around 1:34. Source: youtube
The vehicles received a 73 mm SPG-9 to the center-right of the vehicle. This is a recoilless rifle that has been in service of the Soviet Army from the early 1960s and uses the same 73 mm projectiles as the ‘Grom’ main armament on the BMP-1 and BMD-1. The gun mounted on the GT-MU has seemingly kept the tripod used in field configurations. It is used alongside a PGQ-9 optical sight with 4x magnification, and can be used with a PGN-9 passive night sight.
A number of different armor-piercing projectiles exist for the gun, all HEAT-FS and 920 mm long. The earliest, the PG-9 or PG-9V, is fired at 435 m/s and contains 322 grams of hexogen, ensuring an armor penetration of 300 mm at all ranges. A further development, the PG-9N, traded the hexogen for 340 g of the OKFOL-3.5 explosive mixture, achieving an armor-piercing performance of around 400 mm. The most effective shell, the PG-9VNT, has a tandem warhead and is thought to be able to penetrate up to 550 mm or to retain armor-penetrating capabilities of 400 mm after going through Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) plating which would have stopped older projectiles, though it is slower, at just 400 m/s. It is unknown whether Transnistrian forces have any of these more advanced shells in stock though. The crucial issue of all these armor-piercing projectiles is their low velocity and effective range, connecting hits becoming particularly difficult after about 700-800 m and mostly based on luck over a kilometer – ranges at which vehicles armed with higher velocity guns, including autocannons, can be expected to be using them if the terrain allows to. The rate of fire is also fairly limited, at 5 to 6 rounds per minute with a well-trained loader. The armor-piercing capacities of 73 mm projectiles can be lacking against modern main battle tanks, but the Moldovan Army, Transnistria’s most likely opponent, does not field anything with stronger armor than a BMP-2, which would be easily penetrated by any armor-piercing SPG-9 projectile.
Two of the GT-MUs during the firing exercises, the one to the right having just fired its gun. Source: youtube
Explosive shells also exist, with the standard OG-9V containing 735 g of TNT fired at 316 m/s.
On the Transnistrian vehicles, from what has been observed, because of the location of the gun, two crew members have to operate it in quite a precarious position. The loader operates behind the rifle, in an uncomfortable position, with a foot on a metallic bar located behind the rear of the vehicle’s hull, which presumably can only be used when the vehicle is stationary. The gunner reaches from a hatch on the left side of the vehicle to fire the weapon.
A side view of one of the vehicles, showing the very precarious positions for the crew operating the gun. Source: Oryx BlogThe gunner reaches out of his hatch, a second before firing. Source: youtube
The vehicle likely comprises a crew of either three or four: driver, loader, and gunner, with the presence of a commander up to debate. The infantry compartment at the rear of the vehicle has likely been recycled to hold a potentially considerable quantity of 73 mm projectiles, which would allow for the vehicle to continue fighting for extended periods of time, though the precarious crew positions and very low survivability due to the mere 6 mm of armor protection of the vehicle would be the biggest obstacle to overcome in this regard. The vehicle shown during the November 2018 exercises did feature some camouflage nets, which do suggest awareness of the weakness of the vehicle’s armor protection, and intended use of the vehicle in ambush or defensive positions. On the positive side of things, the amphibious capacities of the vehicles are likely to be appreciated by the Transnistrian Army, seeing as the border with Moldova is mostly placed on the Dniester, which the GT-MU-based vehicle could cross without having to depend on bridges.
One of the three vehicles observed in 2018, with ample camo netting hiding much of the silhouette of the GT-MU, including the gun. Source: Oryx Blog
Conclusion – A Weapon of Circumstance
The GT-MU fire support vehicle is one of several Transnistrian conversions and creations which have popped up in the 2010s, testimonies of the struggle of the unrecognized state to modernize its armored forces. Imports of foreign armored vehicles are almost impossible for Transnistria, which is not formally recognized by any state, despite deep ties to Russia, and the breakaway state largely has to make do with what it has modified from captured 14th Guards Army stocks.
In this regard, the creation of the GT-MU fire-support vehicle makes a lot of sense. When observing the vehicle, one may at first view see it as a horrible conversion, with poor operating positions, and which aims to bring into combat a vehicle of which the armor protection does not exceed 6 mm, making it extremely vulnerable against any weapon with some anti-armor capacities. However, these conversions essentially allow the Transnistrian Army to extend the size of its mobile firepower, which otherwise is limited to the number of more classic vehicles it inherited and is able to maintain. It speaks of Transnistria’s ingenuity, but also desperation.
Transnistrian GT-MU with a camouflage netTransnistrian GT-MU. Both illustrations were created by Godzilla.
GT-MU Fire Support Vehicle Specifications
Length
5.15 m
Width
2.47 m
Engine
GAZ-73 V8 115hp liquid-cooled engine
Suspension
Torsion bars
Crew
Likely 3 to 4 (driver, gunner, loader, perhaps a commander)
Wan Cheng 4 illustration, created by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe based on work by David Bocquelet.
Republic of China (Taiwan) (1975)
Main Battle Tank – 1 Prototype Built
The Republic of China (中華民國), exiled in Taiwan, was a key US ally in East Asia during the later stages of the Cold War. Following the defeat in mainland China and Hainan during the Chinese Civil War, the Kuomintang and Republic of China were able to hold out in Taiwan. With the rest of China now part of the People’s Republic of China (中华人民共和国), the preservation of this strategic ally in the region meant that the Republic of China would receive large deliveries of American surplus equipment to build up the ROCA (中華民國陸軍/ Republic of China Army) and prevent a potential invasion attempt by the PLA (中国人民解放军/ People’s Liberation Army). However, the Republic of China was still late in receiving any of the more advanced US tanks, and had to rely on lighter M18s, M24s, and M41s for the first two decades of its exile on Taiwan. It was only in 1973 that the first M48A1 Patton tanks would be received by the ROCA. In 1975, the large Wan Cheng program was launched in order to repurpose and improve US vehicles. By that point, the United States had recently introduced the M48A5 tank for its National Guard units, and Taiwan attempted to replicate a similar upgrade on an M48A1; this would be called the Wan Cheng 4.
The ROCA and the Patton
Following the retreat of the Republic of China to the island of Taiwan, the country had received significant deliveries of US light armor in the 1950s. These included 300 M24s Chaffees, 400 M18 Hellcats, and 550 M41 Walker Bulldogs, reinforced by a further 150 in the late 1960s. In the early years of the ROCA’s exile, the reasonable assumption that these light vehicles could deal with the PLA’s armor could be made. The standard Communist Chinese tank was the T-34-85 (often incorrectly assumed to have been manufactured under license in China as the ‘Type 58’). The 76 mm guns on the M18 and M41 could deal with this tank with reasonable effectiveness. However, from the late 1950s onwards, the PLA introduced the ‘Type 59’, a locally-built T-54A, against which the ROCA lacked an effective response.
ROCA M48A1s parading in the streets of Taipei, 1975. The newest tank in the Republic of China’s arsenal, the M48A1 was already not the most modern opponent to Chinese Type 59s by that point. Source: taihuangsummit.com
Pleas from the Republic of China to acquire more modern tanks would regularly be made to the US, but would only be met in 1973 when a ROCA delegation was able to visit the United States to negotiate the purchase of 60 surplus M48A1 (two of which were equipped with dozer blades). Even then, these were already obsolete armor for American standards, with the standard M48 variant being the M48A3 at that time, the M48A5 was two years away from being introduced, and the M48 family having been relegated to the role of reserves by the M60 anyway. Further sales of M48-family tanks would only happen in 1979, meaning that. for much of the 1970s. the only main battle tanks in ROCA service were 60 old M48A1s, still equipped with the M41 90 mm gun and using the Continental AV1790 V12 650 hp gasoline engine.
American Upgrades to the Patton
The United States Army had already introduced several variants of the M48 since the M48A1 was pressed into service in 1952. By 1973, the standard US model was the M48A3, which mostly differed in having fitted a new AVDS-1790 diesel engine, which, in addition, to diesel fuel, also produced 100 hp more. Priority being given to the M60 line of tanks meant that, despite being introduced in the second half of the 1950s, the M48A3 was still relying on the old M41 90 mm gun in 1973. In 1975, the United States finally introduced the M48A5 upgrade, which was an improvement focused on the firepower of the M48 family that was at this point only to be used by the Army National Guard units following the withdrawal from Vietnam (with the notable exception of the 2nd Infantry Division, operating in Korea, receiving 140 M48A5s in 1978).
An American M48A5, fitted with a large xenon light on top of the gun. Source: Patton – A History of the American Main Battle Tank
The main feature of the M48A5 upgrade was the replacement of the 90 mm M41 by the 105 mm M68, which would be far more capable of dealing with Soviet armor in comparison to the older gun and allowed current US main battle tanks to all share the same 105 mm ammunition. Alongside this gun, the M16 fire-control system was installed. The gun had an M13 ballistic computer, with an infrared night vision light, and a new optical rangefinder. Most M48A5s would also receive a new, much lower cupola based on Israeli experience in the Yom Kippur war, though some early examples did not receive such a feature. In general, M48A5 tanks could differ quite significantly in details depending on which exact type of M48 they were converted from.
The Wan Cheng Program
Though local field conversions had existed in the past, including prior to the Republic of China’s exile to Taiwan, local armored fighting development was kickstarted in 1975 by the Republic of China Joint Logistics Command (聯合後勤司令部). This department was in charge of engineering projects since the military engineering bureau of the ROC Ministry of National Defence (中華民國國防部) had been re-attached to it in 1968. This kickstart in activity was likely caused by the appointment of a new commander of the Joint Logistics Command, general Lu Youlun (羅友倫) on April 4th, 1975. Another general of the ROCA, You Shieshi (游傑士), is known to have been involved in military vehicles projects of the era, such as the Wan Cheng. He appears to have been Major Director of the Army Ordnance Development Center (陸軍兵工整備發展中心). This service includes the Armored Vehicles Development Center (戰甲車發展中心), which is the main organization creating the ROCA’s armored vehicles. As such, You Shieshi was likely more hands-on with the project in comparison to Youlun.
ROCA General You Shieshi, Major Director of the Army Ordnance Development Center. Source: https://blog.xuite.net/ROCA General Lu Youlun, commander of the Republic of China Joint Logistics Command from April 4th, 1975 to March 31st, 1977. Source: https://blog.xuite.net/
The local development which would be undertaken from 1975 onward would largely start with programs to overhaul or combine elements of American armored fighting vehicles to provide more useful armored fighting vehicles. The most well-known example of a vehicle from this era in the west likely is the Type 64 light tank, combining the turret of an M18 Hellcat, of which the hull was likely very worn out by this point, with the hull of an M42 Duster. Other early forms of indigenous armored fighting vehicle development within Taiwan include the Type 65 light tank, an attempt to locally produce a copy of the M41 Walker Bulldog, and the diverse Wan Cheng program.
Wan Cheng (萬乘) is an old-fashioned literary term that refers to the ‘Army of Ten Thousand Chariots’. This was a reference to the massive army and power of the Chinese Emperor in comparison to neighboring rulers in ancient times, who were said to rather have ‘Armies of a Thousand Chariots’. This type of reference to old Chinese literature is quite common in the Republic of China.
The program consisted of armored fighting vehicles designs which were created on the base of American armored fighting vehicles modified in order to improve their capacities or make them able to fulfill different roles on the battlefield. Wan Cheng 1, 2 and 3 were all M113A1-based (the Wan Cheng 1 was a 120 mm self-propelled mortar, the 2 a fire support vehicle with an M24 Chaffee turret, and the 3 a multiple rocket launcher vehicle with 40 tubes for Kung Feng IV 126 mm rockets).
The Wan Cheng 4 differed from the previous three vehicles and was entirely disconnected from them in terms of features. The ROC had followed the development of the M48 series in the US, and saw the introduction of the M48A5 with great interest, seeing as it was an improved version of the same M48-type vehicles it was using. The 105 mm gun would be much more capable against Chinese Type 59 tanks and their further developments. But, with the acquisition of new tanks from the US being a generally complicated and arduous affair (the USA was, at that point, improving its relationship with the People’s Republic of China following the Sino-Soviet split and likely did not want to threaten these evolutions by selling quantities of modern tanks to the Republic of China), the idea of re-creating a similar upgrade in Taiwan blossomed. This ROC attempt at creating an M48A5 would be the ‘Wan Cheng 4’.
An M48A1 that Wanted to be an A5: The Wan Cheng 4
The Wan Cheng 4 prototype vehicle was taken from one of the 60 M48A1s that the Republic of China had acquired. The vehicle was subsequently modified by the Armored Vehicles Development Center.
The Wan Cheng 4 prototype in front of a more classic M48A1 of the ROCA at the Armored Vehicles Development Center. Source: War Thunder forumsA ¾ view of the Wan Cheng 4. Source: War Thunder forums
The main modification undertaken was replacing the 90 mm M41 gun with the more modern 105 mm M68. Unlike with the whole tank, the Republic of China had managed to acquire at least some of these pieces from the United States. It is unclear whether the M116 gun mount which was fitted in the M48A5 was delivered alongside the M68 guns, or whether the ROCA engineers had to create their own locally. The Wan Cheng 4 reportedly also featured a night vision device that could be stored in a stowage box at the rear of the vehicle. The vehicle also featured a fire control system that included a ballistic computer, infrared vision device, and coincidence rangefinder, but it has been reported as not being as accurate as the one fitted on the American M48A5.
There have been claims that the Wan Cheng 4 was refitted with the same AVDS-1790 750 hp diesel engine as fitted in M48 models after the M48A1. The vehicle has retained the classic engine deck of the M48A1, and has not adopted the large rear plate exhaust grills of the vehicles upgraded to M48A3 standard. However, it is known that it was possible to refit an M48A1 with the diesel engine without undertaking such a modification. Such a conversion was designed in the United States by Teledyne Continental Motors, although it is highly unlikely these were contracted by the ROCA. It is possible a similar conversion may have been performed on the Wan Cheng 4. Alternatively, the engine refit being a mere rumor is also a possibility.
The Surviving Vehicle: Differentiating the Wan Cheng 4 from other M48s
Though a single M48A1 was converted, it has survived to this day and is still on display in front of the offices of the Armored Vehicles Development Center.
A panel describing the vehicle can be found. On it, it is referred to merely as an “M48A5”, which may induce to the uninitiated that the vehicle is one of these. However, looking more closely at the Wan Cheng 4, there are a large number of different ways to identify it as a modified M48A1.
A short video of the Wan Cheng 4 prototype exhibited at the Armored Vehicles Development Center in 2012. Source: youtube
A front view of the Wan Cheng 4. The older, higher cupola, large rounded fenders, and M48A1/A3 type headlights are apparent. The sign that reads “M48A5” also is. Source: War Thunder forums
The vehicle indeed features rounded fenders, which are significantly different from the rectangular fenders with two diagonal raised lines featured on later upgrades of the M48, including M48A5. Looking at the turret, one can obviously observe that the Wan Cheng 4 features the earlier, high cupola type. This is not systematically a give-away that the vehicle is not an M48A5, seeing as a few of the first M48A5 conversions retained it, but the vast majority of M48A5s replaced the higher cupola with the much lower Israeli-inspired one. The vehicle also features the headlight type featured on the M48A1 and M48A3, but not on the M48A5.
By far the biggest giveaway of the Wan Cheng 4’s original identity can be observed at the rear of the vehicle though, in the form of the original engine deck. Whether the powerplant it hides is the diesel or gasoline engine is unknown, but it remains that the original M48A1 engine deck was not present on American diesel M48s. A travel lock can also be found on the engine deck, added due to the longer length of the M68 tank gun.
A rear view of the Wan Cheng 4. The engine deck is the one of a classic M48A1, outside of the travel lock one can see at the center. Source: War Thunder forums
There are no known internal views of the tank. It is likely that the vehicle lacks some of the changes which were brought on with the M48A5 as well, such as the new ammunition racks holding 54 rounds. Though the quantity of 105 mm ammunition stowed in the Wan Cheng 4 is unknown, it would likely be in the region of 40 rounds. In other regards, outside of the gun, the vehicle was likely identical to the M48A1 when it comes to armor, internal equipment, and crew positions.
Conclusion – A tank which the ROCA would Cruelly Lack
While a single M48A1 was converted to the Wan Cheng 4 standard, the reason the upgrade was not applied to the entire M48A1 fleet was likely not due to a fault of its own, but rather the ROC’s struggles at acquiring large quantities of military equipment from the US at this point in time. Although significant efforts to locally-produce components would be undertaken within Taiwan (for example, a local copy of the M41, the Type 65 light tank, would be locally-built in the same timeframe as the Wan Cheng program), there were notable struggles to manufacture more advanced barrels – the local production of the 155 mm XT-69 barrel, a local copy of the South African G-5, was notably a hurdle the ROC’s industry struggled at overcoming, vastly limiting the production and entry in service of the howitzer. It is quite likely similar issues may have prevented the local production of 105 mm M68 anti-tank gun and its fitting into the M48 without the direct US support that would arrive in the second half of the 1980s.
Though less advanced than the M48A5 used by the US, the Wan Cheng 4 would still likely have been an appreciated upgrade for the ROCA’s tankers, which had to wearily watch as the People’s Liberation Army’s Type 59, already on the upper end of what the 90 mm M41 could deal with, were progressively upgraded and supplemented by more modern tanks, such as the Type 69, in the following years. Taiwan would have to wait for the US to supply 400 M60A3 TTS tanks and support Taiwan with the manufacture of 400 CM-11 tanks (M60A3 hulls fitted with locally produced upgraded M48A3 turrets, armed with the 105 mm M68 & fitted with the M1 Abrams’s fire control system) and upgrade of 50 M48s to CM-12 standard (fitting them with the same turret) to equip the ROCA with 105 mm-armed tanks. Though the experience gained in the Wan Cheng 4 did help launch the local production effort which would later prove very useful for the local production and upgrade of vehicles, one can certainly lament the potential of having 105 mm-armed tanks by the late 1970s had international politics aligned more in favor of the ROC at the time.
Wan Cheng 4 illustration, created by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe based on work by David Bocquelet.
Wan Cheng 4 Specifications
Dimensions ( L x w x h)
9.3 x 3.65 x 3.10 m
Weight
Around ~45 tonnes
Engine
Continental AV1790 V12 650 hp gasoline engine OR Continental AVDS-1790 V12 750 hp diesel engine
An highly hypothetical view of the Renault DAC1 fast tank. Illustration created by Pavel "Carpaticus" Alexe.
France (1939-1940)
Fast Tank – Project Only
In the 1930s, France had a vast tank industry with a large number of different manufacturers competing to provide armored fighting vehicles for the Army. The cavalry combat tank France adopted in 1935 and produced from that point onward was the Somua S35, a 19.5 tonnes, decently armored and mobile tank armed with the 47 mm SA 35. In the late 1930s, the project that was most probable in succeeding the Somua was an incremental evolution, the Somua S40. This did not mean, however, that other manufacturers were not seeking to produce designs to fulfill a similar role and potentially replace the Somua. Whilst AMX presented a fairly well-known design in 1940, the AMX 40, which would fulfill a similar role to the Somua, a much more obscure design was also created by Renault – the DAC1.
Le Somua de Billancourt
The DAC1 design by Renault appears to date from 1939 or 1940. The company had previously, in 1936, been stripped of its armored vehicles manufacturing service located in its factory of Issy-Les-Moulineaux, which was nationalized and became AMX (Atelier de Construction d’Issy-Les-Moulineaux – Issy-Les-Moulineaux Construction Workshop). Renault would, however, quickly resume its own tank-building efforts in its own facilities of Billancourt. Prior to the AMX split, Renault had designed some vehicles for the cavalry, including the AMR 33 and AMR 35 light reconnaissance tanks, but also the AMC 34 and AMC 35 tanks which fulfilled the same AMC role (Automitrailleuse de Combat – Combat Armored Car, with the term armored car designating any combat vehicle of the French cavalry in the interwar era, regardless of it using wheels, tracks, or half-tracks). Those designs, while having the advantage of a two-man turret, otherwise used riveted and bolted construction with thin armor, and the later iteration, the AMC 35, was notoriously unreliable. Renault did not produce any cavalry tank that could compete with the well-armored S35 produced by Somua.
This very simplistic sketch is the only known visual of the DAC1. The text at the top right says “at project stage”, while the one at the bottom is 16 tonnes tank (Renault DAC1). Source: Tous les blindés de l’armée française 1914-1940
The DAC1 appears to have been an attempt by Renault at creating such a vehicle, and the project received the name “Le Somua de Billancourt” (“The Billancourt Somua”). The project is incredibly obscure and is known from a single outline as well as very few specifications.
The DAC1 was to be a 16 tonnes fast tank with a crew of three. It has also sometimes been noted that it was a competitor to the AMX 38, a vehicle which was, by all means, an infantry tank, causing some confusion.
The vehicle’s profile indicates a gun that was most likely the 47 mm SA 35, the same armament as used in the second production run of the Renault D2, the Somua S35, and the B1 Bis. A coaxial machine gun, almost certainly a 7.5 mm MAC31E, would be present to the left of the gun. The design of the turret features a prominent cupola, more so than most French designs of the era.
The hull has a very basic shape, with a seemingly sloped frontal plate, and only a moderately-sized section appearing over the suspension, suggesting a fairly high suspension run. The only distinct elements of the hull appear to be what would suggest a rear transmission.
The suspension type the vehicle would have used is unknown, and it is uncertain if this was ever determined by Renault engineers. This would likely have been a suspension type at least to an extent optimized towards maximum speed, which would differentiate the DAC1 from several late 1930s vehicles, such as the R40, which opted for the “AMX-type” suspension with a large number of road wheels, optimized for cross-country mobility over road speed.
Planned American Exile
Prior to June 1940, France had some fairly deep military-industrial ties with the United States, with France being the largest foreign customer of the American military-industrial complex prior to the Fall of France. Armored fighting vehicles were not the main point of interest for the French in America, with American armored fighting vehicles of the time not really fitting in any role the French Army desired.
However, another way of using America’s vast automotive industry to provide France with armored fighting vehicles had been considered. This would have been employing American factories to manufacture vehicles designed by French manufacturers. While this would require some efforts, notably tooling-wise, it could potentially allow France to exploit a much larger industry than its own.
Already considered before the campaign of France, this option became increasingly popular during the month of May and early June 1940, when the situation of French troops and France’s ability to retain its territories looked increasingly bleak, but the negotiation of an armistice with Germany was not yet certain. The French would notably send a mission, reportedly headed by AMX engineer Joseph Molinié, to the US to evaluate such a possibility.
It appears the DAC1 was one of the various designs considered for production in the United States, though reportedly, the American-made DAC1 would have its crew reduced to just two. It is unclear why the DAC1 in particular was considered for production in the US. However, by picking a design that was yet not complete, perhaps it was hoped that the last design phases would be undertaken in US standards and would perhaps allow for an easier start of production, in comparison to adapting tools and plans of an already in production or fully designed vehicle, such as the B1 Ter or S40 to US measurements and production standards.
Conclusion – One of the Most Obscure French Tanks
Any plans to produce the DAC1, or another French tank for the matter, in the United States was abandoned after the armistice with Germany entered into effect on 25th June 1940. Later in the war, a secret service within the Vichy Army, bent on resisting the Germans, the CDM, would hope to produce some of its design, such as for example the SARL 42, in foreign countries, the US being the obvious contender. This would never materialize either.
The DAC1 is easily one of the most obscure French tank designs of the late 1930s, with very little known of the elements and capabilities the vehicle would have had. Nonetheless, its crew of two or three suggest it would have likely retained the one-man turret which plagued French tank designs of the 1930s, handicapping an otherwise sound design. At just 16 tonnes and with a 47 mm SA 35 armament, it is also likely such a tank would have been far from groundbreaking by the time it would reach prototype stage or enter production, and would not provide a good evolutionary potential for later stages of the war.
A highly hypothetical view of the Renault DAC1 fast tank. Illustration created by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe.
DAC1 specifications
Weight
16,000 kg
Transmission
Likely rear
Crew
2 to 3
Armament
Likely a 47 mm SA 35 main gun and coaxial 7.5 mm MAC31E machine gun
A BMP-1 ZU-23 carrier in a typical Hellenic Army tricolour scheme
Greece (1992-Present)
Infantry Fighting Vehicle – 501 Purchased, Around 100 Currently In Service
The BMP-1 is the most produced infantry fighting vehicle in history. Introduced by the USSR in the 1960s and widely exported to Soviet allies during the Cold War, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and USSR gave Western-aligned countries access to surplus BMP-1s. One of these countries was Greece, which acquired the majority of Germany’s fleet of BMP-1s that had gone through the BMP-1A1 Ost upgrade, acquiring 501 vehicles. This was a considerable change for Greece’s Hellenic Army, which had not operated infantry fighting vehicles previously. Though the BMP-1 was already a dated vehicle in the 1990s and is now, by all means, obsolete, economic woes have resulted in Greece not being able to replace the old IFV they still operate. In recent years, a significant number have been transformed into 23 mm ZU-23-2 carriers, creating the unique situation of a conversion using former Eastern Bloc hulls and armaments, mated together by a NATO member.
The BMP-1A1 Ost
When first pushed into service in the late 1960s, the BMP-1 was a major addition to the Red Army’s arsenal. Despite the existence of some previous vehicles, such as the West German HS.30, it is often considered to be the first truly modern Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) to be adopted in massive numbers – it at least was for the Eastern Bloc. The vehicle could be used to support armored assaults in all types of terrains, thanks to its amphibious capacities, and was notably able to carry a section of infantry even in heavily contaminated terrain that would typically be expected after the use of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons. Support for accompanying tanks and dismounted infantry would be provided by a 73 mm Grom infantry support gun and a Malyutka missile launcher, with four missiles stored into the vehicle, to be used against armored vehicles.
More than 1,100 BMP-1s would be acquired by the East German NVA (Nationale Volksarmee/ National People’s Army) and would end up in the hands of the Western-aligned Federal Republic of Germany following the reunification of Germany in 1990. The decision was taken in December 1990 to maintain a number of these into service, and to this end, the BMP-1 would be ‘westernized’. This resulted in the BMP-1A1 Ost, a BMP-1 that forfeited the missiles, removed all toxic asbestos from the vehicle, added German-standard headlights, rear lights, wing mirrors, and Leitkreuz low-light identification markers, locked the 5th gear, and added an additional handbrake. Around 580 vehicles would be converted from 1991 to 1993.
BMP-1A1 Osts at the conclusion of their upgrade in the Neubrandenburg repair facility in Germany. Source: bmpsvu.ru
German Surplus and the Gulf War
In August 1990, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein launched an occupation of Kuwait over unresolved war debts Iraq could not pay as well as disputes over oil fields. This invasion, in breach of international law, resulted in the creation of a large coalition of countries led by the United States to liberate Kuwait and defeat Iraq. For Germany, which would not fully reunify until October 1990, this came at an unfortunate time, as the military and the whole political apparatus were solely focused on the massive re-organization needed with the integration of East Germany. As such, Germany did not contribute a ground component to the operation.
However, for reasons of international standing and NATO commitments, Germany still wanted to contribute to this coalition, which would include many of its traditional allies. This would be performed by delivering quantities of NVA surplus equipment to countries involved in the conflict in preparation for the Gulf War. At first, this was almost exclusively composed of non-combat equipment. These included vast quantities of Tatra trucks, trailers, containers, tents, and even water bottles for the US military, mine-clearing and laying equipment for the French, NBC decontamination equipment for Israel in fear of retaliatory Iraqi strikes against the nation, and SPW-40 NBC reconnaissance vehicles for Egypt.
Things escalated, however, when Turkey expressed interest in acquiring actual combat gear. The Turkish military was interested in assault rifles, machine guns, RPG-7, and even BTR-60 armored personnel carriers. These were not delivered before the end of the Gulf War. Turkish interest in former NVA weapons remained though, and sales would continue to be negotiated. Turkey and Greece, though both NATO members, have points of contention, notably around Cyprus and the Aegean Sea. The news of Turkey being interested in acquiring large quantities of ex-NVA equipment quickly led Greece, wanting to avoid being left behind Turkey in terms of military gear, to express interest as well.
A Turkish BTR-60, likely operated by border guards, on the Syrian-Turkish border in recent years. Turkish interest in the BTR-60 sparked the evolution of Gulf War arms sales into an occasion for both the Turkish and Greek militaries to acquire large quantities of surplus NVA equipment. Source: twitter
Within the pieces of equipment that interested the Hellenic Army was the BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicle. The Hellenic Army operated large numbers of M113s and locally-produced ELVO Leonidas 1 and 2 armored personnel carriers. Only a small fleet of 105 French-produced AMX-10P were available when it came to infantry fighting vehicles, while, on the other side of the Aegean Sea, Turkey was about to introduce the FNSS ACV-AIFV.
To this end, in 1992, Greece acquired a single BMP-1A1 from Germany in order to evaluate the vehicle and whether or not it would provide an acceptable vehicle for the Hellenic Army. This was judged to be the case, likely not only due to the capacities of the vehicle but also due to looming Turkish interest in former NVA equipment.In February 1992, the German parliament voted a motion to allow the sale of 200 BMP-1s to Greece; Subsequently, in 1994, the Hellenic Army would finally acquire 500 BMP-1A1 Ost. They were provided by Germany at an incredibly cheap price of 50,000 Deutsch Mark per unit, which translates to about between 60,000 to 70,000 USD in 2021 value. These BMP-1s were part of the much larger Materialhilfe III pack of deliveries undertaken by Germany to both Greece and Turkey. Outside of the BMP-1s, Greece notably received 21,675 RPG-18 disposable anti-tank rocket launchers, 11,500 Fagot anti-tank guided missiles, 12 OSA launchers with 928 missiles, 306 ZU-23 23 mm anti-aircraft guns, and 158 RM-70 rocket launchers with 205,000 rockets of ammunition. Neighboring Turkey received 300 BTR-60s, 2,500 machine guns, almost 5,000 RPG-7s with more than 197,000 rounds of ammunition, and perhaps more significantly, more than 303,000 AK-family rifles with more than 83 million rounds of ammunition. These sales were an opportunity for Germany to rid itself of massive quantities of ex-NVA equipment from its military it had no interest in operating, downsizing due to the conclusion of the Cold War, while the Greek and Turkish militaries could complete the gaps in their equipment by purchasing large quantities of off-the-shelf equipment. This was likely motivated by the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, which Germany had signed in 1990 and which would reduce the size of its armed forces and vehicles fleet.
The BMP in the Hellenic Army
The BMP-1A1’s introduction in the Hellenic Army closely followed the dubious decision taken in 1991 to phase the AMX-10P out of service outright. While the fleet of AMX-10P acquired had been small, the type would typically be considered a more modern infantry fighting vehicle than the BMP-1, providing at least better crew ergonomics as well as a 20 mm autocannon that was often a more adequate weapon in comparison to the fairly underwhelming low-pressure 73 mm Grom from the BMP-1A1. The BMP-1A1, therefore, became the only infantry fighting vehicle in Greek service and was widely distributed throughout the Hellenic Army.
A BMP-1A1 Ost in early Greek service. The vehicle features a unicolor green camouflage and is yet to mount a .50 cal machine gun. Source: bmpsvu.ru
The vehicles received Greek camouflage and markings. In the early years, this seemed to often consist of a dark green camouflage, with the Greek emblem of a white cross on a blue background on the sides of the hull. Quite curiously, the Leitkreuz, cross-shaped device placed on the left rear door of the vehicle, designed to improve visibility at night for convoy driving, was seen as a potential way to add another Greek marking on the vehicle, with the green rubber forming the background of the white cross being repainted blue on at least some vehicles.
Greek BMPs on the island of Chios, May 2016. Observe the opened rear doors. On the left ones, the repainted Leitkreuz can be seen. Source: bmpsvu.ru
A BMP with a Browning
The Hellenic Army is a prolific user of many American pieces of equipment, including the M2HB Browning .50Cal/12.7 mm machine gun already present on a number of Greek armored fighting vehicles, such as the M113, ELVO Leonidas or M48A5 tank. This weapon was eventually refitted onto the Greek BMP-1. This upgrade does not appear to have been carried out immediately after the BMP-1 entered service in Greece, but rather after a few years had passed and Greek crews had gotten accustomed to the vehicle.
A Greek BMP-1A1 in Athens, 1990s. This vehicle features a Browning machine gun but is yet to sport the multi-colored camouflage scheme typical of the later insular service. Source: armyrecognition
The .50 cal machine gun is installed on a swivel mount at the front of the turret. To use it, the gunner had to open the turret hatch and expose not only their head but also their torso. The whole turret hatch was changed so that it would not get in the way of a firing .50 cal. Instead of the classic forward opening hatch, it was modified to open to the right in a swinging motion.
A close-up on the turret of a Greek BMP-1A1, showing the swinging hatch and M2HB heavy machine gun. Samos, 2015. Source: bmpsvu.ru
Some BMP-1A1 Osts of the Greek Army were also modified with tow bars to be able to tow the ZU-23-2 dual 23 mm anti-aircraft guns also operated by the Greek Army. Later in their service life, many of the BMP-1s also received a more elaborate paint scheme which they still feature to this day (as of October 2021) in service in islands in the Aegean Sea. This consists of a mix of brown, beige, and green colors with even some hints of black. It can differ quite significantly regarding the unit operating the vehicles.
Canceled replacement: The BMP-3HEL
It quickly became obvious to the Hellenic Army that the BMP-1A1 would only provide a temporary solution to the lack of modern infantry fighting vehicles. At the cost at which they were obtained, the vehicles certainly cannot be argued to have been a bad deal, but the BMP-1A1 was, by the 1990s and the 2000s, a clearly dated vehicle. More modern IFVs have tended to be armed with 20 to 40 mm autocannons, which have proved far more reliable at providing fire support than the low-pressure, weak 73 mm Grom gun featured on the BMP-1.
Cypriot National Guard BMP-3s, with the leading vehicle flying the Greek flag, 2000s. Cyprus purchased T-80Us main battle tank and BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles from Russia in the 1990s. The BMP-3s remain, to this day, the most advanced IFVs of the Greek world. Source: militarist studio
While some local developments were made, with the ELVO Kentaurus prototype from 1998, the Hellenic Army finally chose to place its bets on the Russian BMP-3. This likely took inspiration from the similar decision which was taken by Cyprus in 1996. The Cypriot National Guard, a close ally of Greece, has operated the BMP-3 as its only infantry fighting vehicle since and appears to have encountered success with it. Armed with a 100 mm main gun able to fire high-explosive shells and anti-tank guided missiles as well as a coaxial 30 mm autocannon, the BMP-3 offered the prospect of being able to deal with most, if not all, Turkish ground targets, while offering a much more modern platform than the BMP-1. In December 2007, Greece formalized an order for 420 BMP-3, which were to be designated BMP-3HEL, and 30 BREM-L armored recovery vehicles from Russia.
These ambitions to equip the Hellenic Army with a large fleet of modern infantry fighting vehicles were dashed by the paralyzing economic crisis which took hold of the country from 2008 onwards. Though it had struggled with debts for decades, Greece found its economy in an incredibly poor state following the Subprime Mortage Crisis and overall downturn of the world economy. With much regret, the Hellenic Army was forced to abandon its dream of replacing the BMP-1A1 Ost with the most modern iteration of the BMP family. The contract with Russia was canceled in 2011, before any BMP-3 was delivered to Greece.
The indigenous Greek IFV prototype, the ELVO Kentaurus. Source: https://www.paraskhnio.gr/
A Rapidly Dwindling Fleet of BMP-1s
At the same time, a number of factors quickly led the size of the BMP-1A1 fleet operated by Greece to dwindle. In 2006-2007, the Hellenic Army transferred 100 vehicles to the new Iraqi Army at no cost, in order to help rebuild an Iraqi military which could stabilize the country. It appears these vehicles had the .50 cal machine gun and machine gun mount removed prior to being sent to Iraq.
A former Greek BMP-1A1 Ost, shortly after being delivered to the 2nd Mechanized Brigade of the 9th Iraqi Division and freshly repainted, January 2007. Source: bmpsvu.ru
A few years later, in April 2014, the Hellenic Army was still operating a sizable fleet of 350 BMP-1A1s. Around 50 vehicles had been lost to usage and maintenance woes. Once again, Greece’s financial struggles came back to bite its infantry fighting vehicles fleet. The BMP-1A1 proved to cause considerable additional costs in maintenance, seeing as it shared little to no elements with the standard M113 and ELVO Leonidas APCs of the Hellenic Army. As such, the decision was taken to phase out much of the fleet, about 250 BMP-1s, from service, and purchase the same quantity of surplus M113s from the United States to compensate for the lost infantry-transporting capacity.
Part of the BMP-1 fleet which was being phased out was used for targets in the October 2014 Parmenion exercises, which saw the old infantry fighting vehicles fall victim to bombing runs by F-4 Phantom jets or rocket and missile strikes from AH-64 Apache helicopters. From this point onward, the BMP-1A1 would regularly be used as a target, though this does not appear to have been the fate of the entire fleet of decommissioned vehicles.
An AH-64 Apache flies in front of a target field comprising several BMP-1A1 Ost, Evros prefecture (near the Turkish border with mainland Greece), 2014. Source: bmpsvu.ru
A Greek convoy of BMP-1A1s and M113s, 2013. The M113 generally proved to be a much easier vehicle to maintain, and a more comfortable vehicle in the task of carrying infantry.
The Greek Island Defender
The remaining BMP-1A1s which were not phased out of service were all put at the disposal of the Supreme Military Command of the Interior and Islands. This is a Greek army corps which is tasked with the leadership of the Greek units operating on islands of the Aegean Sea, which are dangerously close to the Turkish coast, making them prime targets in case of war between the two countries. Their position, notably that of Lemnos, also allows them to potentially threaten Turkish shipping moving through the Bosphorus.
A map of the Aegean Sea, showing the large number of Greek islands located just off the Anatolian coast of Turkey. Source: http://www.my-favourite-planet.de/english/europe/greece/northern-aegean/northern-aegean-01.html
BMP-1A1s were already present on the islands before the 2014 dwindling in fleet size, which largely affected the mainland fleet of vehicles. BMP-1A1s are not in the garnisons of all islands, just on Lesbos, Samos, Chios, and Kos.
Infantry dismounts exit a BMP-1A1 Ost, most likely on one of the Aegean islands, 2000s or early 2010s. The BMP-1’s small size and cramped conditions are quite apparent, as well as the considerable exposure to small arms fire the gunner is under to operate the M2HB heavy machine gun. Source: bmpsvu.ru
BMPs and ZU-23s
Even before the 2014 phasing out measures, work was being done on potentially putting the BMP hulls to new uses. The underwhelming capacities of the 73 mm Grom were all too obvious to the Hellenic Army, as well as most other operators of the BMP-1. Even if the 73 mm had been a great weapon, ammunition stocks for the Grom were quickly diminishing, and as such, continuing to operate the vehicle for a significant period of time appeared compromised, while larger stocks of 23 mm ammunition were still available.
In November 2013, the 308th Hellenic Army repair base, located on the island of Chios, presented three prototypes mating the hulls of old IFVs of APCs with autocannons. One had a ZU-23-2 on an M113A1 hull, whilst the other had a M61A1 Vulcan 20 mm Gatling autocannon on the same hull. There was also a prototype mounting a 23 mm ZU-23-2 on a BMP-1A1.
The three prototypes produced by the 308th repair base in 2013. From left to right, the ZU-23-2-armed BMP-1A1 Ost, the M61 Vulcan-armed M113 and the ZU-23-2 armed M113. Source: bmpsvu.ru
This conversion was looked at by the Hellenic Army with great interest. Combining the hull of the old BMP-1A1 with the 23 mm ZU-23-2 which had been acquired around the same time permitted considerable mobility to these pieces of equipment, while repurposing the old hulls for a more useful purpose than as a vehicle mounting the Grom. The conversion is rather simple, mounting the ZU-23-2 in what appears to be a fully rotatable mount featuring side shields, but no protection towards the front or rear, in place of the turret. Infantry dismount carrying capacity is likely forsaken for the capacity to carry more ammunition and transport the gun crew, with the turret portion of the vehicle featuring a crew of two in addition to a driver and commander in the hull.
The ZU-23-2 is one of the most ubiquitous anti-aircraft gun designs of the Cold War, produced since 1960. Firing the Soviet 23×152 mmB cartridge, it is able to produce a considerable rate of fire of 2,000 cyclic rounds per minute, though due to the need to replenish the 50-rounds ammunition boxes and prevent overheating, the practical rate of fire is closer to a lower 400 rpm. The dual guns remain fairly light, at around 950 kg, and are able to target flying vehicles at a maximum elevation of 90°, though using only optical guidance, its long-range capacities as well as use against high-speed targets is obviously limited. It has, however, found considerable use as a ground support weapon, where its fast output of 23 mm rounds has been found to potentially have deadly effects against soft-skin targets.
A ZU-23-2-armed BMP-1A1 with the gun slightly rotated to the right, during trials on Chios island. Source: bpmsvu.ru
After the November 2013 conversion was considered, it was decided to adopt it for widespread use in the Hellenic Army. From 2014 onward, the field workshop of the units which continued to operate the BMP-1A1 would run their vehicles through the conversion process. Not all vehicles were upgraded, with a mix of 73 and 23 mm-armed vehicles remaining in use rather than a single unitary armament.
While the 23 mm-armed BMP-1 may seem like a rather crude conversion, in the context of island defence where it is to be used, it should not be disregarded entirely. This context means the Greek military is likely to face a far higher proportion of light amphibious vehicles and landing crafts attempting landings, as well as low-flying helicopters, and proportionally less heavily armored ground-based vehicles or well-prepared fortifications. In these conditions, the 23 mm ZU-23-2 can offer some significant firepower not only against air targets, but also, and perhaps even more so, against soft-skin or lightly armored ground targets and even small-sized naval targets attempting landings.
A ZU-23-2 armed BMP-1A1 Ost firing, with spent cartridges being ejected, 2015. The multiple types of targets that the armament is able to engage likely offers some appreciable amount of versatility in comparison to the more limited 73 mm Grom. Source: bmpsvu.ru
Live-fire footage of BMP-1A1 armed with ZU-23-2s during exercises, 2017. The 23 mm autocannons have a more significant recoil than the 73 mm Grom and would likely be more taxing to the suspension long-term, but the rocking appears to remain manageable.
BMP-1A1s in the Aegean
From late 2014 onwards, the BMP-1A1 has only remained in Greek service as part of the Supreme Military Command of the Interior and Islands. This army corps is constituted of High Command of the National Guard (Ανώτερη Διοίκηση Ταγμάτων Εθνοφυλακής) units, which are in practice brigade-sized units comprising a number of infantry battalions and operating on the Aegean Islands. Six of these exist, but the ones in Rhodes and Lemnos do not operate the BMP-1A1. Their standard structure comprises five combat battalions, of which two are motorized, two are mechanized, and one is armored.
Samian BMPs
The brigade assuring the defence of the island of Samos is the 79th High Command of the National Guard. It is made up of 5 combat battalions: two mechanized, two motorized, and one armored. The island of Samos is fairly sparsely populated, with just over 30,000 inhabitants, but is dangerously close to Turkey, separated by the Mycale Strait, which is a mere 1.6 km wide at its narrowest point.
A BMP-1A1 Ost fires its M2HB heavy machine gun during exercises at Samos, March 2012. Source: bmpsvu.ru
The proximity to Turkey may account for the brigade being fairly well equipped and regularly engaging in military exercises. Its BMP-1s operate alongside M113s and M48A5 Patton tanks, which are retained on islands for the same reason as the BMP-1, their obsolescence being less affected by the light equipment used during an island assault.
Two M48A5s, three BMP-1A1 Osts, of which two are armed with ZU-23-2 23 mm guns, an M113, and a VBL during firing exercises in Samos, February 2015. Source: bmpsvu.ru
Samian BMP-1A1s appear to mostly follow the standard Greek army camouflage guidelines, with a lot of green and light brown and smaller amounts of beige and black.
BMP-1A1s move along dirt roads in Samos, 2016. Source: bmpsvu.ru
The forward position and high-readiness of the unit is likely a reason why it receives some significant attention. In June 2014, the unit was visited by Greek Minister of National Defense Dimitris Avramopoulos, who inspected the BMP-1s and their crews.
The Greek Minister of National Defense inspects BMP-1A1s on Samos, 2014. Source: bmpsvu.ru
Kos BMPs
The defence of Kos island is assured by the 80th High Command of the National Guard. The island of Kos has a similar population of about 30,000 as Samos, but has the advantage of being located slightly further from Turkey, sitting off the Turkish city of Bodrum.
A Kos BMP-1 ZU-23-2 carrier firing during military exercises in 2016. The vehicle features a by this point uncommon unicolor camouflage scheme. Source: bmpsvu.ru
BMP-1A1s present on Kos operate alongside M48A5 tanks, Leonidas APCs, and probably M113s as well. It is curious to note that, in 2015 and 2016 footage, ZU-23-armed BMP-1A1 appeared in an all-green camouflage scheme, which is otherwise uncommon in recent footage of Greek BMP-1A1s. More recent footage of other armored fighting vehicles present in Kos show them in more classic Hellenic Army camouflage though, and it is likely the BMP-1s have been repainted to follow this scheme as well.
Lesbian BMPs
The defence of the island of Lesbos is assigned to the 98th High Command of the National Guard. The island of Lesbos has a more sizeable population than Samos and Kos, of almost 115,000, and is the largest of the Aegean Islands located off the coast of Anatolia. It has the advantage of being slightly further away from Turkey compared to most other Greek islands of the area, rendering a potential invasion harder to a certain extent.
Lesbian BMP-1A1 Osts during firing exercises, February 2013. Source: bmpsvu.ru
There are fewer photographs of the Lesbian BMP-1s, but they appear to operate alongside M113s.
A Lesbian BMP-1A1 Ost in February 2013. The camouflage is worn out but otherwise fairly standard. Source: bmpsvu.ru
The Lesbian BMP-1A1s appear to have a fairly classic camouflage scheme, with dominant green and brown colors with smaller stripes of black and beige.
Chiot BMPs
The defense of the island of Chios is the responsibility of the 96th High Command of the National Guard. Chios has a small population of slightly under 55,000 people. It is separated from Turkey by a 5 km strait, with the Turkish harbor of Cesme and Izmir further to the east on the other side.
Chiot BMP-1A1 have been seen operating and training alongside M48A5 tanks, the much lighter Panhard VBL 4×4 light vehicles armed with .50 cal machine guns, M113s, and M577s.
BMP-1A1 Ost and M48A5s during exercises on Chios, April 2013. Source: bmpsvu.ru
There has been some significant variety in camouflage schemes seen in Chiot BMP-1s over the years. In 2013, BMP-1s appeared in a fairly worn-out camouflage scheme where green was much more dominant, with different tones of green separated by beige lines, and some minor black spots. Later, in 2013, some were seen with a two-tone brown and green scheme which seemingly removed the beige and black colors entirely. In 2015, some were seen with a scheme with a clearer, almost white beige, lines separated from the brown and green by black stripes. Since 2016, the vehicles have appeared in a more standard camouflage.
Infantry dismounts exit an unusually worn out Chiot BMP-1A1, August 2013. Source: bmpsvu.ruA Chiot BMP-1 in two-tone camouflage, November 2013. Source: bmpsvu.ruWhat appears to be a recently repainted Chiot BMP-1A1, with a firing range in the background. The vehicle sports a particularly pale beige in areas delimited by a black outline. Source; bmpsvu.ruPanhard VBLs, anti-aircraft guns, and a singular BMP-1 ZU-23-2 carrier during firing exercises on a beach, Chios, 2016. Source: bmpsvu.ru
Sale to Egypt
Since late 2017, discussions over the sale or gift of a number of former Hellenic Army BMP-1A1 Ost to Egypt appear to have taken place. The deal appears to concern vehicles that were stored in 2014 but never destroyed or scrapped, rather than vehicles currently in service in the Aegean.
It has been reported that an agreement for the transfer of 92 BMP-1A1s had been signed in late 2018, but it is unclear whether or not it has actually taken place. Some other sources mention 101 vehicles were instead delivered in 2016. ELVO, the Greek company which would be involved in the refurbishing operation during such a sale, filed for bankruptcy in March 2019.
Conclusion
Out of all the numerous operators of the BMP-1 worldwide, the Hellenic Army is one of the most atypical. While it is not the only NATO country still operating a BMP-1 variant, Slovakia being another example, it remains the only one to have acquired its BMP-1 from a foreign source, instead of inheriting them from a previous regime.
It is likely that these BMP-1s were only chosen as an off-the-shelf purchase to provide the Hellenic Army with a quickly available vehicle to begin training its units with IFV operations. Economical woes have meant that the BMP-1 is the only infantry fighting vehicle in service with the Hellenic Army, despite dwindling numbers due to successive sales or destruction.
As of 2021, an estimated 100 BMP-1s, a sizable portion of which have been modified into ZU-23-2 carriers, remain operating in the Aegean Islands. Though they can, by all means, be considered obsolete when compared to modern IFVs, when taking into account the very specific context of warfare in this area of the Mediterranean, where heavier combat vehicles may be hard to bring along for an attacking force, some combat value may still be found in the old Greek BMPs. Hopefully, this never happens, and the Greek servicemen still operating these old vehicles can eventually receive a more modern, potent, and comfortable ride if Greece ever finds the funds and willpower to provide one.
A BMP-1 in early Greek service, before it received the M2 Browning.A BMP-1 in a Chios bicolor schemeA BMP-1 in a typical Hellenic Army tricolor scheme, seen on ChiosA BMP-1 ZU-23 carrier in an unicolour Green scheme as seen on Kos A BMP-1 ZU-23 carrier in a typical Hellenic Army tricolour scheme
All illustrations created by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe based on work by David Bocquelet
Greek BMP-1A1 Ost Specifications
Dimensions ( L x w x h)
6.735 x 2.940 x 1.881 m
Weight
13.5 tonnes
Engine
UTD-20 6-cylinders 300 hp diesel engine
Suspension
Torsion bars
Forward gears
4 (5th gear locked)
Fuel Capacity
330 L (diesel)
Maximum speed (road)
40 km/h
Maximum speed (water)
7-8 km/h
Crew
3 (commander, driver, gunner)
Dismounts
8
Main gun
73 mm 2A28 ‘Grom’ (use prevented by German regulations)
Secondary armament
Swivel-mounted M2HB .50 cal
Coaxial 7.62 mm PKT (use prevented by German regulations)
Smoke grenades
6 x 81 mm 902V Tucha smoke grenades (formerly BMP-1P), none (formerly BMP-1)
Armor
Welded steel, 33 to 6 mm
Sources
Der modifizierte Schützenpanzerwagen BMP-1A1 Ost des DIEHI-Unternehmens SIVG Neubrandenburg, Wielfried Kopenhagen
Unterrichtung durch den Bundesrechnungshof Bemerkungen des Bundesrechnungshofes 1993 zur Haushalts- und Wirtschaftsführung (einschließlich der Feststellungen zur Jahresrechnung des Bundes 1991) (Bundestag Documents, 1993)
France (1931-1940)
Fortification Anti-tank Gun – 145 Built
One of the most famous aspects of France’s interwar military, often parodied but quite seldom truly studied in English-speaking circles, is the fortification complex known as the Maginot Line, placed at the border between France and Germany. An extensive defensive line constructed from the late 1920s to the mid-1930s and further extended in the following years, this defensive line is mostly known in popular history for having been bypassed by the German push through the Ardennes and Benelux.
The Maginot Line is a far more complex and nuanced subject than most popular history circles make it out to be though – notably, while a powerful line, it was in some ways more makeshift and less state-of-the-art than one may expect, or, at the very least, not that well planned. This is, for example, the case when it comes to the line’s anti-tank firepower. The Maginot Line made large use of old 47 and 65 mm naval guns disposed of by the navy. The army operated them in an anti-tank role. Two purposefully-designed anti-tank guns were still designed for the Maginot Line, though they would be very late in being mounted. Both were designed by APX, the 47 and 37 mm Canons de casemate modèle 1934.
A view of the gun itself. An 8 cm thick mask would fill the firing opening and separate the inside and outside of the casemate when the gun was in place. Source: maginot.org
Inception of the Maginot Line
Despite the 1919 Treaty of Versailles deeply weakening Germany, with the German military reduced to a small, rump force officially devoid of tanks or planes, in the eyes of French military planners, Germany remained a constant possible threat in the future. Even cut down to size and officially prevented from expanding its military, Germany remained a far more industrially powerful nation than France – in fact, the only nation that could eclipse France’s industry on its borders. The threat of a future rearmed Germany was considered very serious, and outfitting France to fight such a potential future enemy was a significant concern for French military planners.
As aforementioned, the German industry far outclassed France’s, and it was thought that France could not hope to stand on even ground with a re-armed Germany. However, Germany lacked the resources of a colonial empire, and, particularly with British support, could be prevented from accessing many foreign resources with a tight blockade. In these conditions, France would only have to hold for long enough for Germany’s industry, military, and will to fight to be weakened by a blockade. A defensive line on the French-German border was thought of as a good way to even out the playing field and allow for France to stand up to the more populous and industrial Germany for long enough.
After extensive debates in the early 1920s, a commission, the CDF (Commission de Défense des Frontières – Borders Defense Commission) was created to take care of the matter in late 1925. After identifying the major parts of France’s borders where fortification complexes would be needed and after starting to plan out major fortification lines, the CDF gave way to a new commission to manage the construction of fortifications on a smaller scale. This would be the CORF (Commission d’Organisation des Régions Fortifiées – Fortified Areas Organization Commission), created in August of 1927. This CORF would be the organization managing the construction of the Maginot Line from 1928 to 1935, including all the equipment which would be used to outfit the defensive line.
A CORF casemate which was equipped with a machine gun/37 mm armament, Sinnersberg, France. Source: Mathieu Stenger via Wikimaginot
The construction principles of the Maginot Line
The Maginot Line would be an in-depth defensive line, about 10 to 15 kilometers deep from the border.
On the border, small casemates would be located and used by border guards. These were only small fortifications and not meant to offer any form of viable resistance. They instead served as warning posts of an incoming attack and were used for border guarding roles in peacetime. In the few kilometers behind these small casemates, further small holding points and obstacles were located to slow down an enemy advance towards what would be the true core of the Maginot Line: the LPR (Ligne Principal de Résistance – Main Resistance Line). This LPR was constituted of an alternance of small infantry casemates as well as larger fortifications of varying size which would operate artillery of various types. Behind the LPR, some infantry observation posts and fortifications for resting troops could be found.
The Maginot Line’s anti-tank guns were, for the vast majority, to be installed on the LPR. During the construction of the line, the creation of dedicated casemates which would only host anti-tank guns was considered for a while, however, this solution would not be picked as the standard. Instead, casemates would be able to alternatively mount an armament of anti-tank guns or machine-guns. Work on anti-tank guns designed with these specifications in mind started at Arsenal de Puteaux (APX) in 1931.
The adoption of a 37 mm anti-tank gun
APX originally started working on a 47 mm gun – which would also be adopted as the model 1934. However, this piece quickly turned out to be a fairly large and heavy gun, and it was thought that it would end up being too late to be reasonably operated in many casemates. As such, work quickly began on a smaller and lighter gun that would be used in smaller fortifications.
A view of the 37 mm model 1934 seen from the left, showing the gun’s attachment to a bi-rail beam, which would be installed on the ceiling of the casemate housing the gun. Source: Notice provisoire
The first APX 37 mm anti-tank gun prototype was tested in May of 1933 – preceding the 47 mm prototype, which would be tested later this year. Trials appear to have been successful, and both anti-tank guns would be adopted in 1934. However, the industrial process for both guns would be particularly long. Despite being adopted in 1934, the first production 37 mm anti-tank guns would only be delivered in the Spring of 1937, to be used for crew training. Only a small production run of the 37 mm gun was to be conducted. The 47 mm was seen as the standard weapon, with the 37 mm serving as a replacement where the larger gun could not be mounted. Deliveries of the 37 mm model 1934 gun would be completed in the spring of 1938. 145 37 mm model 1934 anti-tank guns would be mounted in Maginot Line fortifications, in comparison to 336 47 mm model 1934 anti-tank guns. It ought to be noted that, in comparison, 75 old 65 mm (models 1888/1891 and 1902) and 434 old 47 mm (models 1885 and 1902) naval guns would also be used in an anti-tank role on the Maginot Line, albeit in smaller and less important fortifications than the modern guns.
Properties of the artillery piece
The 37 mm model 1934 gun was designed to serve an anti-tank role exclusively and was, as such, optimized for this task. This resulted in a long barrel (2.088 m, or L/56). This barrel was rifled, with 12 twists, angled at 7° towards the right.
The barrel, which was given a fairly thick protecting shroud in order to protect it from damage caused by enemy fire. Source: Notice provisoire
This barrel would be used to fire the model 1936 37×278 mm armor-piercing capped (APC) shell. This was a 900 grams projectile that would be launched by 280 grams of propellant, granting a high muzzle velocity of 850 m/s. At one kilometer, this shell would be able to perforate 30 to 40 mm of armor, though it is not specified whether this would be at normal incidence or at the standard incidence of 30°. This was, in any case, a respectable amount for a 1930s 37 mm anti-tank gun, particularly if it was at an incidence of 30°. A blank training shell was also issued. It appears a high-explosive shell also existed, but its high-explosive charge is unknown, as well as whether or not it was actually issued.
The trio of 37 mm shells designed for the model 1934 gun. From left to the right, the armor-piercing, training, and high-explosive shells. Source: tir-collection.com
The model 1934 anti-tank gun used a semi-automatic action. The gun would recoil thanks to two hydraulic brakes, one located over the barrel to the right, and one under it to the left. The casing would be ejected from the breech into a collecting system which was set up by a servant, allowing for the introduction of a new shell.
The particularities of mounting the gun in a fortification
The 37 mm model 1934 was designed to be mounted in casemates, and was to be interchangeable with a dual machine gun mount. This was done by a particular solution, mounting the gun to a bi-rail beam mounted on the ceiling of the casemate. This allowed the gun to be pushed around by the crew (with the gun, including all equipment, weighing about 500 kg).
A surviving 37 mm gun, showing the beam on which the gun would be moved around. Source: Wikipedia
Two different models of firing opening, the Trémie n°2 and Trémie n°3, existed for the 37 mm/dual machine gun duo. The practical difference between the two was the firing angles. On the n°2, the 37 mm had a lateral traverse of 42.3° total and a vertical traverse of -12 to +12°. On the n°3, the lateral traverse was the same, but the vertical traverse changed to -15° to +10°.
Switching from the anti-tank gun to the dual machine gun mount would leave the firing opening open for several minutes, meaning this could not be performed while under fire. In most fortifications, at least two firing openings existed, meaning that the machine guns could be placed in one opening and the gun in the other. If there were more weapons available (a machine gun pair and a gun) for a single firing opening, the standard procedure was to mount the gun during the day and replace it with machine guns during the night, under the notion that night operations would be conducted by small infantry formations rather than armored vehicles.
Crew and operation of the gun
The 37 mm model 1934, seen from the rear. The gunner would stand to the left of the gun, the loader to the right, and the aid-loader further behind the gun. Source: Notice Provisoire
Both the 37 and 47 mm anti-tank guns had a crew of three (gunner, loader, assistant loader), which could be raised to four by adding either the maintenance mechanic or a resting soldier during situations where rapid-fire was required.
The gunner of the piece was located to its left. In standard operation, fire would be ordered by the casemate-commanding officer, but in urgent situations, the gunner assumed the function of commander of the piece. The gunner would look through the gun’s sight, which was an APX L.653 sight. It allowed for a zoom of x2.5 and a field of view of 20.3°. The gunner would be tasked with aiming the gun. He would aim the weapon using two rotating wheels (one, located under the gun to the left, for the lateral traverse, and one to the level of the breech, to its left, for elevation). He would then remove the safety lever and press on the gun’s trigger to fire. After a firing phase, he would put the gun back in its ‘resting’ position, with the gun placed to fire at a range of 700 m.
The 37 mm model 1934’s breech block, showing the handle which the loader would use to open or close the breech. Source: Notice provisoireA view of the gun from the right, showing the place the loader would take when operating the gun. Source: Notice provisoire
The loader, standing to the right of the gun, would be managing the breech. A handle could be found on the breech, allowing it to be opened or closed; the loader would operate this handle in order to allow the shells to be ejected.
The third crew member, the assistant loader, stood to the rear of the gun, would set up the receiving box in which spent cases would be ejected and would insert the shells into the breech opened by the loader’s action on the handle. He would also get the shells out of their storage boxes and place them on the cap. In rapid-fire operations, the additional fourth crew member would take over this part of the operation, and hand the ready-to-fire shells to the assistant loader for him to insert them into the breech. A well-trained crew could hope to fire around 20 rounds per minute.
Limited use outside of fortifications
Outside of use in the Maginot Line, very little was done with the 37 mm model 1934, despite the gun offering some potent anti-armor capacities. The larger 47 mm anti-tank gun featured in a number of armored vehicles projects, for example as the main gun of some dual-armament heavy tank projects from the late 1930s. However, the only project which appears to have used the 37 mm was the Renault VE Type P, a project for a casemate tank destroyer related to the AMR 33 reconnaissance tank. A prototype was completed in 1935, but the type was never adopted for service by the French military.
The Renault VE Type P, mounting a gun known to be a derivative of the APX model 1934 fortification gun, though likely changed considerably to allow operations inside an armored vehicle. Source: char-français
Conclusion – A decent anti-tank gun with no service life
The 37 mm model 1934 gun was a decent weapon for the standard of the 1930s. Though little more than a filler to be placed where the 47 mm could not, it was still powerful enough to deal efficiently with anything the German military could field by 1940. While, unlike the 47 mm, it would not have had the firepower to defeat even France’s heaviest tank, or remain relevant for several years after 1940, it would still be efficient against the Panzer I, Panzer II, and the models of the Panzer III and Panzer IV fielded in 1940, as well as the Panzer 35(t) and Panzer 38(t).
However, the gun does not appear to ever have had the chance to demonstrate its armor-piercing capacities in practice. The Maginot Line saw relatively little combat due to being, in its majority, bypassed by German forces going through the Ardennes – where some minimal fortifications, with no dedicated anti-tank guns, existed – or the Benelux. Later in June, and even July, seeing as some bunkers surrendered days after the official armistice, some moderate attacks were performed on parts of the line – occasionally from the rear – but there are no reports of the 37 mm (nor the 47 mm) gun ever firing a shot in anger against German tanks.
After the Line’s capture by German forces, there has been no known use of the 37 mm gun. While still powerful, it was installed in a very specific way and used a purpose-built shell not known to be found in any other gun, which would have made even re-using the gun in German fortifications a costly and not worthy endeavor – especially as only a limited production run of the gun was performed. Most were left untouched during the German occupation, and have been degrading or been stolen or scrapped since, though a limited number of pieces are known to have survived and still be present in a number of Maginot Line casemates turned into museums.
The ammunition used in the Canon de casemate de 37 mm modèle 1934The gun from the left sideThe gun from the right side. Both illustrations created by Stoneheartisk
Canon de casemate 37mm modèle 1934 specifications
Caliber
37 mm
Barrel length
2,058 mm / L/56
Barrel rifling
12 twists, 7° to the right
Barrel & breech weight
142 kg
Recoiling ensemble weight
170 kg
Total weight
500 kg
Muzzle velocity
850 m/s
Crew
3 (gunner, loader, aid-loader), raised to 4 in rapid-fire situations
Rate of fire
Up to 20 rounds per minute
Shell type
Armor-piercing capped
Projectile weight
900 grams
Charge
280 grams
Armor piercing capacities
30 to 40 mm at 1,000 m (unknown incidence)
Effective Range
Estimated to ~800 m; sight markings for up to 1,500 m
Sources
Notice provisoire sur les matériels de 47 et de 37 de casemate Mle 1934 du 4 Mars 1939, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et de la Guerre, Direction de l’Infanterie, Paris, 1939
The DP2 with the armed turret
Both illustrations created by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe and Hadrien
France (1935-1937)
Amphibious Light Tank / Tracked Armored Car – 1 Prototype Built
The interwar era saw significant evolutions when it comes to armored vehicles, both in terms of technical and doctrinal aspects. A number of firms, particularly those in Great Britain, were progressively creating a wider variety of armored vehicles which would then significantly influence manufacturers in other countries. One of the concepts democratized during this era was that of an amphibious light tank, a vehicle that would assume reconnaissance and light cavalry combat duties while not being stopped by rivers or marshes. Though the British would be the first to produce such vehicles in the late 1920s and early 1930s, interest in this type of vehicle would eventually emerge in many other countries, including France. This would result in the Batignolles-Châtillon DP2 prototype dating from the mid-1930s.
The French cavalry’s amphibious tank
By the early 1930s, the French cavalry had already taken some minor interest in amphibious vehicles design, with some projects such as the Schneider-Laurent amphibious armored car, which used a wheel-cum track configuration similar to the Czechoslovak Kolo-Housenka (with Schneider having ties with Czechoslovak designers, notably Škoda, during the interwar years). Dating from around 1927, this project would not, however, go anywhere, and appears to have been planned as an unarmed vehicle.
The French cavalry was now interested in an armed, amphibious Automitrailleuse (literally translated to “Armored Car”). The term Automitrailleuse was used to designate all armored fighting vehicles of the French cavalry in the interwar era, regardless of propulsion method. As such, vehicles designated as automitrailleuse may have had wheels, tracks, or both, and ranged from tiny scout vehicles, such as the 5-tonnes AMR 33, to fairly large cavalry tanks such as the 19.5 tonnes S35. The design was created by the Section Technique des matériels automobiles de combat (ENG: Technical section of automotive combat equipment), with the technical realization being assured by the Compagnie Générale de Construction de Locomotives Batignolles-Châtillon (ENG: General Locomotive Construction Company Batignolles-Châtillon), located in Nantes, Western France. Batignolles-Châtillon, though it had previously manufactured some military equipment in the form of railway gun carriages, was a newcomer in the tank industry. Around the same time it produced the DP2, it would also submit a proposal for the 1933 light infantry tank program planned to replace the FT.
The DP2 design
A side view of the DP2. This shows the fairly small size of the one-man turret and 37 mm SA 18 gun mock-up in comparison to the hull, as well as very low suspension. The white circles match with the floatation line of the vehicle. Source: char-français
Batignolles-Châtillon produced their DP2 prototype in 1935. The vehicle was fairly large in size for a light tank. Its precise dimensions are not known, but the hull dwarfs the turret, an early model of the APX 5 used in some other light cavalry designs, in size.
The hull was clearly designed for maximum buoyancy, potentially at the expense of some aspects of ground warfare. It used riveted construction. It featured an elongated, bow-shaped front designed to fend small waves, with large, floating compartments on the sides. The vehicle’s suspension was located under these large floating compartments. It was a very small suspension design, with what appears to be a front drive sprocket and a rear idler. The suspension featured eight small road wheels, two independent ones at the front and back and three ensembles of two. These appear to have had very little mobility planned, with the vehicle overall having a very low, flat track run, as well as poor ground clearance. Once again, this is obviously intended to maximise buoyancy. It would, however, highly reduce the vehicle’s crossing capacities when dealing with trenches and other obstacles.
A front view of the DP2, showing the bow-like hull front, the large hull sides meant to improve buoyancy, as well as the cylindrical air intakes. Source: topwar.ru
As most other French light AFVs of the era, the Batignolles-Châtillon DP2 featured a two-man crew. The driver was located in the hull, his compartment being located behind the ship-like bow. This was noted to potentially considerably reduce his visibility when the vehicle was to exit the water, which was more often than not one of the most delicate maneuvers for amphibious tanks. The commander was to be located in the turret. However, when first unveiled, the prototype only featured a wooden mock-up and not an actual functional turret design. This mock-up was pictured with a 37 mm SA 18 main gun offset to the right. The vehicle reached a weight of 11.5 tonnes. Its armor layout is unknown, but, as was typically the case for light amphibious tanks, was likely very thin. The rear-mounted engine appears to have been a 225 hp, 12-cylinder engine. It was known to be fairly heavy, to the point where the center of mass of the vehicle was located too far to the rear, which could once again prove an issue when leaving water. The engine compartment sloped downward. One of the more curious features of the vehicle were large, cylindrical air intakes, located to the sides of the turret and driver’s compartment. The DP2 was also known to feature a turbine for movement on water, and as such, did not rely on the movement of its tracks. On water, the vehicle would turn by rotating the water outlet of the turbine. The vehicle’s registration was 8121-W1.
Navigation trials: Down, she goes
After the vehicle was unveiled in 1935, the idea to make it undergo navigation trials was submitted by the director of APX (Atelier de Construction de Puteaux – ENG: Puteaux Construction Works) located in the Parisian region. On 21st March 1936, these trials began in Poissy, on the River Seine, downstream from Paris.
On water, the vehicle proved quite promising. It moved at a maximum speed of 6.5 km/h. There were no issues entering water, and navigation was performed without any issues. Tests showed that adding a weight of 100 kg would lower the DP2 by 1 cm into the water.
However, leaving the water proved a far more difficult task. When trying to get out of the river, the vehicle naturally began posing itself on the river bank’s bottom, angling upward. This, however, proved too much for the engine compartment, which quickly began to flood. Filling up with water, the heavier and heavier DP2 sank right down.
Improving the DP2
Following the disastrous conclusion of these first navigation trials, the DP2 was recovered and sent back for further work to be performed on the vehicle.
A view of the improved DP2 on land. The vehicle not only features a new, actual turret, but also has removed air intakes, and new tracks, indicating this photo likely dates from after August 1936, perhaps March-April 1937. Source: char-français
Some considerable changes had to be brought to the engine compartment to ensure such an incident would not happen again. The engine louvers were modified and given retractable valves which would cover them when exiting the water, in order to ensure the engine compartment would not flood. Air intakes were also added so the engine could still have access to some air while this was taking place. Likely at the same time, the mock-up turret was replaced by a real one. This was an early version of the APX 5 turret, which would later be mounted on other vehicles, such as the AM 39 Gendron-Somua, AMR 35 ZT-2, and the Panhard 178 destined for the colonies. This one-man turret featured the 25 mm SA 35, a semi-automatic anti-tank gun, as its main armament, with a 7.5 mm MAC31E machine gun coaxially mounted. Though the gun was fairly low in caliber and not fully automatic, it was a decent anti-tank weapon that would be able to defeat most tanks of the era. Its operation within a one-man turret would remain suboptimal due to the overtasking of the commander though.
A side view of the vehicle from the other side. The removal of the cylindrical air intakes fairly significantly impacted the silhouette of the vehicle. Source: char-français
However, the modified engine compartment and functional turret raised the vehicle weight to 12.12 tonnes, which was judged to be too much. It was hoped that weight could be saved by adopting a lighter engine in the future, though this never materialized.
New trials
From 6th June to 13th August 1936, the revised vehicle was submitted to new trials. The DP2 was originally planned to cross 550 km on-roads, but only 115 km would effectively be run, during which the vehicle reached a maximum speed of 40.5 km/h. These trials appear to have focused on the performances of the suspension, with less attention given to amphibious capacities.
The DP2 crossing water, likely on the Seine and during the March-April 1937 trials. The vehicle’s performances on water were satisfying. It was getting out of the water that proved problematic. Source: char-français
The vehicle undertook some less significant revisions following these trials, notably new, stamped steel tracks which were judged to be more robust, before trials resumed again on 1st March 1937. During these, new water trials were undertaken, but the vehicle still proved to be lackluster. Though the DP2 did not sink this time, the engine compartment still proved to not be entirely waterproof, perhaps due to little more than the riveted construction of the vehicle. Starting up the engine also proved particularly difficult, and trials were stopped on 26th April 1937.
Out goes the DP2
After the disappointing conclusion of these new trials, the trials commission decided that the vehicle would need serious additional work before any new trials campaign could be undertaken. Following this, the vehicle was sent to APX’s facilities in Rueil – likely ARL. Its further fate beyond this point is unknown. The vehicle appears to never have undertaken a new trials campaign, though whether some modifications were brought to it after the last trials but before all work on the DP2 was abandoned is unknown.
The DP2 would not mark the conclusion of all Batignolles-Châtillon work in amphibious tanks, with the mysterious DP3 undertaking trials up to the German invasion of 1940. This odd vehicle, which massively differed from the DP2 in general architecture and appears to have disposed of a centrally-mounted turret entirely, preferring two-side mounted combat chambers, remains very mysterious to this day.
One of the two known photos of the DP3. The vehicle’s higher tracks, encompassing much more of the hull than on the DP2, can clearly be seen, as well as the circular combat chamber present on the side of the vehicle. Source: char-français
Conclusion – The disappointing French amphibious tank
The DP2 was not the first French amphibious armored vehicle to be conceptualized. However, it was the first vehicle that could be considered a fully armed amphibious tank trialed by the French military, in an era where that type of vehicle was widely studied and produced abroad, at this point largely due to the influence of British tank design. The DP2 would not prove to be a successful design by any margin. Despite good navigation capacities, the vehicle’s considerable woes when exiting water proved a major issue with the prototype, which would eventually lead to it being shelved.
As with many French interwar prototypes, the eventual fate of the DP2 is unknown. The vehicle is not known to have survived to this day. As such, it was very likely scrapped, though whether this was performed before the war, during the war, under German occupation or perhaps even post-war is unknown.
The DP2 leaving the water, likely March-April 1937. This operation would angle the vehicle downard, which was at risk of compromising the engine compartment. Leaving the water generally is the most difficult part of amphibious operations for vehicles with such capacities, and the DP2 proved unable to perform this task successfully. Source: char-français, colorized by Smargd123The DP2 with the early mockup turretThe DP2 with the armed turret Both illustrations created by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe and Hadrien Barthélémy
For information about abbreviations check the Lexical Index
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.
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Late 1980s-Unknown)
