An Uruguayan army Tiran-5sh; Illustration by Pavel "Carpaticus" Alexe, based on work by Tank Encyclopedia's own David Bocquelet and funded by our Patreon campaign
Oriental Republic of Uruguay (1997-Present)
Main Battle Tank – 15 Purchased
States on the South American continent have a mixture of tank fleets sourced from a variety of different manufacturers. Argentina fields its locally-produced but German-developed TAMSE TAM. Brazil made some serious attempts at developing a local tank in the form of the Bernardini MB-3 Tamoyo and Engesa Osorio, but now operates German Leopard 1s and American M60s. Venezuela has Russian T-72s and French AMX-30s, Chile has German Leopard 2A4s, etcetera.
Though Israel had made exports of tanks in the past in the form of M50andM51to Chile, the only foreign country that uses Israeli tanks nowadays is the small nation of Uruguay, bordering the much larger Argentina and Brazil. Uruguay never had a main battle tank during the Cold War era, rather using M24 Chaffees light tanks delivered by the US in the late 50s and, later, 22 M41 Walker Bulldogs delivered by Belgium in 1982 (the country also received 15 modernized M41Cs sourced from Brazil in the last decade). However, in 1997, Uruguay finally purchased its first main battle tanks. These would be the Israeli Tiran-5Sh, T-55s captured from Israel’s opponents during the Arab-Israeli wars and refitted with Western equipment.
Two Uruguayan Tirans advancing during exercises in 2020. The vehicle remains one of the most peculiar and “originally sourced” main battle tanks in use in South America. Source: facebook
The Tiran tanks
The state of Israel, created following the partition of the Mandate of Palestine in the aftermath of World War 2, fought its Arab neighbors of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, often supported by other Arab states, during the first decades of its existence. Egypt and Syria in particular used large numbers of T-54, T-55 and T-62 tanks delivered from the Soviet Union, with whom they had good relations at that point. In the 1967 Six-Days War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War, large numbers of these Soviet-delivered tanks were captured by the Israeli Defence Force.
The captured tanks were given the name of Tiran. The T-54 were designated Tiran-4, the T-55 Tiran-5 and the T-62 Tiran-6. The tanks were fairly extensively modified by the IDF. In the case of the Tiran-5, the vehicles received new fenders and stowage-bins, a pintle-mounted M1919A4 .30 cal machine gun, an infantry telephone, among several others. Eventually, a more significant upgrade was created in the form of the Tiran-5Sh. The main modification was replacing the original 100 mm gun with a 105 mm M68 gun, as mounted on Israel’s Magach (M48 and M60) tanks. Along with this, the tank’s Soviet machine guns were all replaced with Western ones: a coaxial machine gun firing NATO 7.62 mm ammunition, a Browning .50 cal machine gun in the commander’s cupola (in addition to the already present M1919A4), as well as Western radios, fire control equipment, an infrared searchlight, etcetera.
Tiran tanks in Israel during the process of refitting with Western equipment. Source: topwar.ru
The Tirans were issued to reserve units within the IDF. Though preferable options were available for frontline units (Centurions/Shot Kals and later Magachs and Merkavas), at this point, Israel was still surrounded by fairly actively hostile nations and more reserve equipment could always prove useful. In the following decades, as the Magach and Merkava entered service in large numbers, the Tirans were easy to dispose of to various allies or potential clients. Some were, for example, delivered to Lebanese Christian militias during the Lebanese Civil War.
The Uruguayan purchase
By the 1990s, the most powerful armored vehicles in the hands of Uruguay were M41 Walker Bulldogs light tanks and EE-9 Cascavel armored cars. Though useful vehicles for counter-insurgency operations, they were quite considerably outclassed in comparison to the tanks fielded by Uruguay’s neighbors, Argentina and Brazil, which both boasted MBTs such as the Argentinian TAM. Brazil had recently agreed to a large acquisition order, buying 87 surplus Leopard 1A1s from Belgium in 1995 and 91 M60A3s from the USA in 1996.
The end of the Cold War had resulted in large numbers of surplus vehicles appearing on the market. One of the options being offered was Israel’s Tiran tanks. Israel offered the Tiran to Uruguay for the first time in 1995, at which point it was rejected. However, Uruguay came back around and took up the offer in 1997.
An Uruguayan Tiran painted in a unicolor green scheme, with the suspension drenched in water and mud, during exercises in 2017. Source: Facebook
There was some opposition to the purchase of the Tiran tanks within the Uruguayan Army. The vehicle was viewed as too heavy for the Uruguayan infrastructure, though it was still one of the lighter main battle tanks around at 36.6 tonnes; only the 30.5 tonnes TAM truly is lighter, while for example, a Brazilian M60A3 is around 49.5 tonnes, and a Chilean Leopard 2A4 around 55 tonnes. More significantly, it was viewed as quite primitive. Equipment such as the fire control system and vision devices appeared inferior in comparison to, for example, later models of the Leopard 1 and M60. Indeed, it appears the army would have simply preferred to acquire a main battle tank of a different origin. This did not, however, deter the Uruguayan government, which bought 15 Tiran-5Sh tanks from Israel in 1997.
Into Uruguayan service
The 15 Tiran-5sh tanks were split between three different units of the Uruguayan Army. Seven were given to the Regimiento “Patria” de Caballería Blindado Nº 8 (8th Armored Cavalry Regiment “Patria”), operating from the city of Melo. Seven were given to the Regimiento “Misiones” de Caballería Blindado N° 5 (5th Armored Cavalry Regiment “Misiones”), operating from the city of Tacuarembó. The last Tiran was delivered to the Regimiento de Caballería Mecanizado de Reconocimiento N° 4 (4th Reconnaissance Mechanized Cavalry Regiment ), a unit based in the capital city of Montevideo and otherwise equipped with EE-9 Cascavel armored cars. Within the two armored cavalry regiments, the tank component appears to be of two groups of three Tirans, with the seventh tank commanding the two groups. Both regiments also feature a group of five EE-3 Jararacas. The 5th also includes 9 M113 APCs, while the 8th prefers 13 VBT Condors fulfilling a similar role.
A Tiran of the 5th Armored Cavalry Regiment in front of M113s. The tank features a turret basket with a radio antenna on top, large stowage boxes on the sides of the turret, and an M1919A4 machine gun. Source: Facebook
In Uruguay, the Tirans appear to often be designated as “Ti-67”, a colloquial designation that was not used in an official manner by the IDF. Nonetheless, this should not cause confusion: the vehicles remain of the Tiran-5Sh type. They feature an infrared searchlight linked to the main gun by braces. Unlike some of the IDF’s Tirans, the Uruguayan examples do not feature a heavy machine gun. They sometimes feature a .30 cal M1919A4 machine gun which is mounted on either the right or left of the turret. The vehicles have not been re-engined and still feature the 12-cylinders V-55 diesel engine producing 580 hp. Alongside the tanks, Uruguay appears to have purchased Israeli ammunition for the 105 mm guns, including M111 Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS), which serves as the tank’s anti-tank round.
An Uruguayan serviceman hands over what appears to be an M111 shell to a Tiran loader during firing exercises, September 2013. Source: FacebookAn Uruguayan Tiran fires during exercises in 2018. Source: Facebook
One of the more curious aspects of the Uruguayan Tirans is that they are covered with a number of hardpoints for Blazer Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA). However, the ERA has seemingly never been seen mounted on the vehicles, and it is unknown if the purchase even included these components.
A Tiran crossing a small ditch during exercises in 2018. The frontal arc of the tank is covered in hardpoints for Blazer ERA, but the tanks have never been seen covered in the actual reactive armor plates. Source: facebook
Conclusion – Potential replacement
Ever since their introduction in the country’s military, the Tirans have remained the sole main battle tank in service in Uruguay. Thankfully, Uruguay is one of the most stable countries of the South American continent, and as such, its main battle tank fleet has pretty much only been used for training purposes. Though the country sends a disproportionate amount of servicemen to UN operations in comparison to its size and population, the Tirans have never been part of these deployments. In a photo dated from 2018, A Tiran-5sh appears to have become a gate guardian at the base of the 5th Armored Cavalry Regiment, which raises the question as to whether or not the totality of the Tirans Uruguay acquired are still operational.
A gate guardian Tiran-5sh of the 5th Armored Cavalry regiment. Source: facebook
Though Uruguay has good relations with its two neighbors, Argentina and Brazil, one can still underline how the Tiran-5sh can appear underwhelming in comparison to the Brazilian M60A3s as well as Leopard 1A5 acquired in the 2000s, or a potentially upgraded TAM. Israel appears to not have missed the fact Uruguay may still prove to be a future client for main battle tanks, and in 2013, an Israeli delegation presented Israel’s upgraded versions of the M60, the Magach 6 and Magach 7, to the Uruguayan military. Nothing has so far come of it. Even within the Uruguayan military, the Tiran remains a small part of the armored vehicles fleet, with much larger numbers of EE-9s and M41s in service. With Uruguay unlikely to have to fight a war against its neighbors in the future, though at the same time remarkably stable ever since the end of the country’s dictatorship in the 1980s, the use for cutting edge armored fighting vehicles may simply be lost for the small South American country. Its current fleet of M41s, EE-9s, Tirans, Grizzlies and Huskies, M113s, EE-3s, VBTs and yet another curious purchase in the form of BVP-1s is likely sufficient for the Uruguayan Army.
An Uruguayan army Tiran-5sh; Illustration by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe, based on work by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet and funded by our Patreon campaign
Illustrations for the BMP-1A1 Ost, created by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe based on work by David Bocquelet
Federal Republic of Germany (1991-1994)
Infantry Fighting Vehicle – 764 BMP-1 Operated, Around 580 Upgraded Into BMP-1A1
During the Cold War, the two German states, the FDR/Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) in the west and the GDR/German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik/DDR) in the east, stood as two foot soldiers of NATO and the Warsaw Pact on the forefront of the Iron Curtain. Being certainly located on a major battlefield of a new all-out European war, both German states were considerably remilitarized when they were allowed to have their own armed forces, from the 1950s onward. As such, the East German NVA (Nationale Volksarmee/National People’s Army) received a total of around 1,133 BMP-1s from 1968 (when two training vehicles were received) to 1988, including a number of BVP-1s produced in neighbouring Czechoslovakia. Outside of a mere 24 BMP-2s, the BMP-1 was the sole infantry fighting vehicle in service with the NVA. With the peaceful conclusion of the Cold War though, these BMP-1s would never be consumed in great battles on the German plains. Instead, the East German BMP-1 fleet was inherited by the West German Bundeswehr, which now had to ponder what to do with this large fleet of infantry fighting vehicles, vastly different from its own Marders.
Schützenpanzer BMP-1
When first pushed into service in the late 1960s, the BMP-1 was a major addition to the Soviet Red Army’s Arsenal, and 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 – at least was for the Eastern Bloc. The vehicle could be used to support armored assault 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 which would typically be expected after the use of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons. Support for accompanying tanks as well as dismounted infantry would be provided by a 73 mm Grom infantry support gun and a Malyutka missile launcher, with four missiles stored in the vehicle, for use against armored vehicles.
West German Schützenpanzer HS.30. Source: panzerbauerNVA Schützenpanzer BMP-1s crossing a river during an exercise. Amphibious capacity was a major aspect of the BMP-1’s design. Source: Pinterest
In East Germany, the BMP-1 was the only infantry fighting vehicle available in large numbers – only 24 examples of its successor, the BMP-2, were ever delivered. The NVA also received nine BRM-1K recon vehicles and two BREM-CH armored recovery vehicles.
In the last days of the NVA, the BMP-1 outfitted six motorized rifle regiments, the 3rd, 7th, 9th, 16th, 23rd, and 27th. Though it appears a total of 1,133 BMP-1s had been delivered to the NVA, a few had been phased out during the 1980s due to wear and tear, and as such, 1,112 were available. This total included both some baseline BMP-1s and a considerable number of vehicles that had gone through the BMP-1P upgrade, which replaced the Malyutka missile with the more modern Konkurs, a new fire-extinction system to counter napalm, and an array of six Tucha 81 mm smoke grenades located on the rear roof of the turret. In East German service, the vehicles were known as Schützenpanzer BMP-1.
The German reunification
After years of crisis and decline, tensions within East Germany exploded in 1989. First, citizens tried to leave or apply for visas, notably using Hungary to try and cross into neutral Austria and from there into the democratic West Germany. With the opening of the border between the two starting in August 1989, tens of thousands of East Germans moved into Austria and later West Germany going through Hungary, seeking reunion with family and/or better opportunities in a more prosperous economy. Things escalated further in November, with massive protests in East German cities, while the opening of the West German-Czechoslovak border created yet another, even more easily accessible entry into West Germany for East Germans. By 9th of November, travel restrictions between the two Germanies were lifted; the once impenetrable Berlin wall started to be taken down.
In March 1990, in the last elections of East Germany, a branch of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) which supported quick reunification was appointed, with the following, last few months of East Germany’s existence being focused on quickly integrating East Germany into the Federal Republic. On 3rd October 1990, the five states of East Germany, as well as East Berlin, were formally integrated into the Federal Republic. The DDR and its armed branch, the NVA, were no more.
Former NVA armored vehicles, including, to the left, a BMP-1A1 Ost, in the Neubrandenburg repair facilities. Source: bmpsvu.ru
The large quantities of equipment left behind by the NVA were taken over by the Materiel Depot Service Gesellschaft (Material Service Depot Company/MDSG) to be warehoused and maintained. In December of 1990, it was decided the BMP-1 was one of the pieces of equipment of the former NVA that would, for a time, be operated by the Bundeswehr. Some 764 vehicles were to be pressed back into service.
The BMP-1 in Bundeswehr units
The BMP-1s were to outfit six units which were created in April of 1991 from re-forming six East German divisions, two armored and four motorized rifles divisions. These became Heimatschutzbrigade (Eng: Homeland Security Brigade) 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42. Heimatschutzbrigade 37 and 41 were the ones formed from former NVA tank divisions, and also included T-72 tanks, while the other four were the ones formed from motorized rifles divisions.
Another piece of formerly East German equipment, a T-72 tank, in service with Heimatschutzbrigade 37, Dresden, 1991. Source: twitter
The issue of Eastern Block standards
When inspecting and evaluating the BMP-1, it was found that the vehicle did not meet many of the standards expected of armored fighting vehicles of the Bundeswehr – more so in ergonomic qualities than in combat elements.
The vehicle’s front and rear lights were not up to the standards of West German vehicles. The lack of wing mirrors was noted. More worryingly, a number of elements which were not up to West German safety or health standards were found in the BMP-1. The fuel tanks embedded in the rear doors were thought to be a hazard. As the vast majority of operators of the type, the Bundeswehr found the interior cramped. Firing the 73 mm Grom’s ammunition was found to release potentially toxic nitroglycerin, while the coaxial 7.62 mm PKT would potentially release mercury. Toxic asbestos was also present in the brake bands, clutch lining, and gaskets.
If the BMP-1 was to remain in Bundeswehr service, these issues had to be fixed. The upgrades were designed by SIVG (System-Instandsetzungsund Verwertungsgesellschaft/System-Repair and Recovery Company) and FUG (Fahrzeug und Umwelttechnik Gesellschaft mbH/Vehicle and Environment Technology Company). SIVG was specialized in the demilitarization of armored fighting vehicles, while FUG was a manufacturer of commercial vehicles. It appears the former was a formerly East German maintenance facility, while the latter was a facility located in the West. The first three vehicles were converted as prototypes at Reparaturwerk Neubrandenburg (Neubrandenburg repair workshop), which was the main maintenance facility for BMP-1s in East Germany. This plant had been set up goind back to 1953 for the maintenance of Soviet and East German vehicles, and had the reputation to be one of the largest of its kind in Europe. It emloyed around 4,700 personnel. These first three conversions happened from January to March 1991. After they proved satisfactory, the upgrade was standardized as the BMP-1A1 ‘Ost’ (East). A further 100 vehicles were converted in Neubrandenburg from May to September of 1991, and another 399 at the same facility from October of 1991 to January of 1993. A further 83 vehicles were modernized by the SIZ 890 repair base located in Doberlug, another town of the Brandenburg province. The vehicles which were selected to be upgraded were the BMP-1 in the best conditions, which usually were BMP-1Ps. The total cost the German Ministry of Defence shared with the Bundestag for these conversions was at this point of 36.6 millions Deutschmarks (DMs). The goal of the upgrade program was to provide a stopgap until the Marder 2 would enter service, which was at this point scheduled for 1996. This never ended up happening, as the Marder 2 was cancelled. There was, however, also a political motivation behind such a refit, as it would showcase the Bundeswehr was actively integrating equipment from East Germany. Converting a vehicle took 250 to 268 working hours, which were usually performed in about 18 days.
Two of the three BMP-1A1 Ost prototypes at Reparaturwerk Neubrandenburg, 15th of May 1991. Source: bmpvsu.ru
Driving upgrades
Many of the additions brought by the Ost upgrade aimed at making the BMP-1 compliant with West German road regulations, and follow the same standard as West German vehicles. This translated in the vehicle’s headlights being replaced by some identical to those on the the Marder 1A3. In front of those headlights, small orange identification lights were placed. The same horn as on the Marder was also installed.
A close-up of the front-side glacis of the BMP-1A1 Ost of the Munster tank museum, showing the new light and headlight. Source: Vitaly V.Kuzmin collection via bmpvsu.ruA BMP-1A1 Ost with the rearview mirrors retracted against the hull. Source: bmpvsu.ru
Externally visible changes included a pair of wing mirrors, located behind the headlights. These could be retracted, with the glass facing against the hull. At the rear, rear lights were added to ease convoy driving. If, for one reason or another, the lights had to be turned off, a Leitkreuz (guiding cross) was added on the left rear door. This was a green rubber sheet on which a white cross was painted. A small 24V lamp was installed at the center of this cross to illuminate it at night, allowing the next vehicle to follow when driving in convoys at night.
A rear view of the Munster tank museum’s BMP-1A1 Ost, showing the new rear light and Leitkreuz. Source: bmpvsu.ru
The Ost upgrade also included a short metal ladder on the rear of the left fender, in order to ease climbing into or descending from the vehicle. It has often been claimed the vehicle received a set of West German smoke grenades. However, this does not appear to be the case. BMP-1A1 vehicles either do not feature smoke grenades, or feature them in the exact same arrangement as the standard BMP-1P. It appears that, for these vehicles, the original Tucha 81 mm smoke grenades were retained.
The new ladder seen on a Hellenic Army BMP-1 located on the grounds of the ELVO military company, 2015. Source: bmpvsu.ru
Safety improvements
The Ost upgraded vehicles were purged of all asbestos, of which the use is entirely banned in Germany. Much more significantly for the capacities of the vehicle, the 5th gear, the last of the gearbox, was locked on the vehicle, which reduced its maximum speed to 40 km/h, likely in a bid to ease maintenance and reduce wear and tear on the vehicle. The vehicles were also prohibited from driving on public roads, likely due to excessive wear and tear brought by their tracks. On private roads, the vehicles were prohibited fromgoing over 20 km/h. Thankfully, the vehicle were based either on or very close to the training facilities they were being used on. The clutch was optimized to allow for a smooth start of the vehicle, and the braking system was modified so that a handbrake was present for both tracks. The upgrade added a heater to keep the crew comfortable in winter conditions. At last, the fuel tanks present in the rear doors were removed and prevented from being filled. It is sometimes reported the fuel tanks were instead filled with styrofoam.
The inside of the BMP-1A1 Ost present at the Munster Tank Museum. Note the amber-colored protective cover for the periscope mount, designed to prevent the crew from hitting and injuring themselves against the sharp corners of the periscope. Source: bmpvsu.ru
On the inside of the vehicle, efforts were made to make the BMP-1 more comfortable. This was manifested in the addition of a heater as well as elements such as covers protecting the edges of the observation devices used by the dismounts in order to prevent head injuries. An anti-slip coating was also added on a number of points on the exterior of the vehicle’s hull.
A view of the BMP-1A1 Ost’s deck hatches. Anti-slip coating was applied near the center; it was also present on the vehicle’s fenders and hull top. Source: Recomonkey
What could not be fixed
The BMP-1A1 remained a moderate upgrade in scope, intended only to make the BMP-1 conform to German regulations. Many issues of the vehicle could never be fixed, and in several ways, the BMP-1A1 was inferior to even a baseline BMP-1 when looked solely through the lens of combat capacities. It ought to be noted the vehicle was also made lighter by 90 kg.
The most pressing issue likely was the armament not being up to Bundeswehr regulations. This was never fixed, though it appears some thought was given into researching 73 mm ammunition that would not eject nitrocellulose. On April 15 1991, approval was given for the production of safe pratcice rounds. Numbers to be procured rose to 80,000 73 mm and 3 millions 7.62 mm projectiles, which differed in the propellant used. It is unclear whether this batch of safe practice ammunition was ever completed and fielded*; As a consequence, regulations prohibited the use of armament on the BMP-1A1 Ost in peacetime. The autoloading mechanism was also removed from the vehicle. The BMP-1 can easily be reloaded manually, but this brought further overtasking for the sole crewman in the turret. Furthermore, the Ost upgrade also removed the missile launcher and guidance equipment, may it be for the Malyutka or the Konkurs/Fagot. Because of this, German regulations rated the vehicle as able to combat at ranges of 2,000 to 600 m by day, and below 400 m at night. Firing from the firing ports to any useful effect was found not to be possible, and as a whole the Soviet doctrine of “mounted combat” was considered to be inapplicable.
BMP-1A1 Osts at the conclusion of their upgrade in the Neubrandenburg repair facility. None bear an ATGM. This feature was removed from the Ost upgrade outright. Source: bmpsvu.ru
Additionally, while some efforts were made to make the inside more ergonomic, these were only details, and the limited volume of the BMP-1’s infantry compartment was something that was not fixable without a deep transformation of the vehicle the Bundeswehr was not willing to perform.
German service
The BMP-1A1 Ost were delivered to the Heimatschutzbrigades from late 1991 to early 1993.
Former NVA conscripts, now Bundeswehr soldiers receiving their BMP-1A1 Ost at Neubrandenburg. They sport mixed East and West German kit, with MPI-AK-74 and MG3s and uniforms mixing mostly West German elements with some East German ones. Source: bmpsvu.ruA similar photo of Bundeswehr soldiers receiving their BMPs. Source: bmpsvu.ru
They were operated in a transitional period for the Bundeswehr, which was incorporating the former NVA within its rank. The BMP-1A1 Ost was, as such, largely meant as a training vehicle as well as a way for the Bundeswehr to keep the last generation of NVA conscripts in operation, with vehicles, without having to re-train them for vastly different West German APCs or IFVs. The units which operated the BMP-1A1 often had a very mixed kit: the dismounts of the vehicle were typically observed using the West German MG3 machine-gun, but the East German MPi AK-74 rifle. Indeed, it appears that the standard loadout for squads mounted in the vehicle included a machine-gunner with an MG3, while other dismounts used a AK-74N. The driver and gunner were armed with AKS-74N rifles with folding stocks. There were plans to also arm such squads with the Panzerfaust 3 anti-tank weapon, but it was not yet fielded. Similarly, their base uniform is the West German one, but they retain some pieces of East German kit.
A BMP-1A1 Ost being resupplied by Panzergrenadiers during exercises in Franken. Source: bmpsvu.ru
Interestingly enough, the Neubrandenburg repair plant even went through the hassle of creating a driver’s training BMP-1A1 Ost by mounting the cabin of a FAP-500U, an East German driver’s training vehicle based on the ZSU-57-2, in place of the turret of a BMP.
The unique BMP-1A1 Ost driver’s training vehicle. Source: bmpsvu.ruThe FAP-500U driver’s training vehicle, itself a local East German conversion. Source: makettinfo.hu
A cheap and available off-the-shelf IFV for sale
Considering the BMP-1A1 Ost’s role as a training vehicle as well as a way to maintain East German conscripts in operation for the duration of their service, it is not surprising the vehicle did not remain in service with the Bundeswehr for long. While some may imagine the reunification of Germany would have meant a larger German Army, this was more than offset by the reduction in world tension that followed the end of the Cold War and the following massive reduction in military budget and sizes. The already existing Marder 1 fleet was largely sufficient for German needs, and in the last 1A3 variant, offered a considerably more capable vehicle in comparison to a BMP-1.
53 BMP-1A1 leave German service, replaced by Marder 1A3s, 381th Panzer-Grenadier battalion, 13th of April 1993. Source: www.pzgrenbrig38.deWest German infantryman stands behind a Marder 1A3. The vehicle offered a better solution to the Bundeswehr in comparison to upgraded BMP-1s. Source: Wikimedia commons
The BMP-1A1 Ost were therefore phased out of service in 1993-1994, with the decision to phase the vehicles out of service outright taken as early as January 1993. However, this does not mean they would be scrapped or all placed into museums. While Germany had no interest in a large number of surplus IFVs, some other European countries did. For nations which did not have IFVs, or if so, only in small numbers, a large number of very cheap off-the-shelf vehicles was a very attractive offer. Three European countries ended up purchasing ex East German BMP-1s. For Germany itself, this was found to be an amazing opportunity to recoup the cost undertaken by refitting the vehicles.
Greece bought the bulk of the BMP-1A1 Ost fleet, purchasing one vehicle for trials in 1992 and a batch of 500 ex-Bundeswehr vehicles in 1994, at a low price of just 50,000 Deutschmarks each. Greece also bought the sole BMP-1A1 driver’s training vehicle that had been converted. These would become the only infantry fighting vehicles in Greek service, as the Hellenic Army retired its small fleet of AMX-10Ps at the conclusion of the Cold War. The Greeks further modified their BMP-1 by adding an M2 Browning .50 calibre machine-gun on top of the turret. The vehicle was widely used by Greek mechanized troops, though the fleet has dwindled due to vehicles being sold to Iraq or more recently Egypt, or being used as targets in military exercises. The BMP-3 was considered and even ordered from Russia as a replacement, but the contract was cancelled when the 2008 economic crisis ravaged the Greek economy. From 2014 onward, a portion of the remaining Greek BMP-1A1 fleet was modified, replacing the turret with a ZU-23 dual 23 mm anti-aircraft gun. Around 100 BMP-1A1 Ost, including these conversions, remain in service on the Greek islands of Samos, Chios, Kos, and Lesbos.
A Hellenic Army BMP-1A1 Ost during military exercises in Samos, November 2014. Source: bmpsvu.ruThe Greek ZU-23-armed BMP-1A1 Ost conversion which has been in use since 2014. Source: Twitter
All the remaining BMP-1A1 Ost, save for the few which have remained in Germany, were sold to Sweden as part of a sale of 431 BMP-1s, the other being 290 baseline BMP-1 and 60 BMP-1P. The Swedes ran 350 of their BMP-1s through a series of upgrades performed in the Czech Republic, and with similar goals to the German Ost upgrade. These were designated ‘Pbv 501’. The others were kept as spare parts donors. The Pbv 501s were delivered from 1996 to 2001. It was decided to phase them out in 2000, and most of the vehicles were delivered straight into storage. They were eventually sold back to the Czech company which upgraded them in 2008, which proceeded to sell most of them to Iraq from 2015 onward, something Swedish legislation would not have allowed.
The other Western European BMP-1 upgrade, Sweden’s Pbv 501. Source: armedconflicts
Finland was another buyer of former East-German BMP-1s, but did not purchase a single Ost vehicle. Already a user of the BMP-1 prior to the end of the Cold War, Finland purchased 140 German BMP-1s in 1993-1994 and ran them through their own locally-developed upgrades.
Through both Greece, which transferred 100 BMP-1A1 Ost to the New Iraqi Army in 2005-2006, and the Czech company EXCALIBUR, which delivered a considerable number of Pbv 501, perhaps up to 250, through Bulgaria from 2015 onward, Iraq acquired a considerable number of ex-German BMP-1s. These served alongside surviving vehicles from the Hussein regime as well as BMP-1s delivered from other sources, such as Ukraine. The type has been widely engaged in the conflicts which have ravaged Iraq since. The Pbv 501, notably, being delivered from 2015 onward, were heavily engaged in the counter-offensive against ISIS aiming at taking back Mosul. In the 2014-2017 period, out of 85 destroyed Iraqi BMP-1s, 35 were identified to be Pbv 501s.
Iraqi BMP-1 in October 2017, fighting alongside M1 Abrams during the battle to retake Hawija, by this point the sole remaining ISIS enclave in central Iraq. This photo is unusual in that the vehicle in the foreground is an ex-Greek BMP-1A1 Ost, while the two BMP-1s in the background are ex-Swedish Pbv 501s. Source: bmpsvu.ru
At least one BMP-1A1 Ost has survived in Germany. It is present at the Munster tank Museum, by the side of an unupgraded NVA BMP-1 and the sole NVA BMP-2 to have remained in Germany. A BMP-1A1 Ost has appeared in demonstrations in Germany, though it is unclear if it is the same vehicle.
Conclusion
The BMP-1A1 Ost was an attempt at making a dated piece of Eastern Block equipment compatible with western standards of operation. The upgrade did not attempt to improve the combat capacities of the BMP-1 in any meaningful way, but instead concentrated on ergonomic elements and potential risks encountered when operating the vehicle.
Through the service of the vehicle was very short in Germany, through its export service, it would see four new users in the shape of Sweden, Greece, Egypt and Iraq. The Ost vehicles were significantly modified further for Sweden and by Greece, and through the eventual sale of Pbv 501 and Greek BMP-1A1s to Iraq, it would eventually see significant combat service in the Middle East. One can only wonder if the Iraqi soldiers operating the vehicle appreciated the quality-of-life improvements of the Ost upgrade, particularly when taking into account the removal of the missile armament in comparison.
Illustrations for the BMP-1A1 Ost, created by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe based on work by David Bocquelet
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
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)
Illustration for the M1989/M1992 self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, created by Tank Encyclopedia's own David Bocquelet and funded by our Patreon campaign
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (~1980s-Present)
Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun – Unknown Number Built
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has, since the 1960s and 1970s, maintained an armored vehicles industry that produces vehicles to meet the needs of a Korean People’s Army that struggles to get modern foreign vehicles imported. Though this initially started with fairly simple armored personnel carriers like the 323, and tanks like the M1981 or Chonma-Ho, North Korea would quickly start developing vehicles which require more significant development efforts. The M1989/M1992 self-propelled anti-aircraft gun is a good example of one of the more advanced vehicles North Korea was able to field from the late 1980s onward.
Previous North Korean self-propelled anti-aircraft guns
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or DPRK, often just known as North Korea, ever since its inception in the months following the end of World War Two, has been an adversary to the Republic of Korea (ROK). While the DPRK formed the pro-Soviet North, with a hard branch of the Marxist-Leninist ideology that would evolve into its own ideology combining socialist and nationalistic elements, Juche, the South, despite being for much of its history a dictatorial regime as well, would be closely aligned with the United States. The 1950-1953 Korean War demonstrated the Americans and their side of the peninsula’s capacities to take air superiority, and use it to massively handicap the movements, combat capacities, but also daily functioning of the northern country via massive bombings.
Air defense has, as such, been a major concern for the DPRK. Fixed air defence, for example, comes in the form of a vast ring of missile and artillery batteries around the capital, Pyongyang, but there is also the mobile air defence of its military forces. This materialized as early as the first days of the new North Korean Army in 1948, with trucks armed with anti-aircraft machine guns, but North Korea’s self-propelled anti-aircraft guns would mostly blossom from the 1970s onward. There were several factors for this. One was the fact that North Korea had developed a vast armored vehicles manufacturing industry, eventually being able to manufacture its own vehicles. Another, was the Soviet delivery of a small batch of ZSU-23-4s Shilkas which would provide a good technical basis.
A first primitive self-propelled anti-aircraft gun mounted dual 37 mm guns on the chassis of the Tokchon series of self-propelled artillery pieces, known as the M1978. A few years later, the M1985 was introduced. It used a hull directly based on the Shilka’s GMZ-575 hull. However, its armament was still primitive, basically using the ZSU-57-2’s 1950s-dated weapon system, with no form of radar guidance. A great leap forward was still needed to bring North Korea’s self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery to a reasonably modern level.
This would, at least partly, be accomplished by the vehicle known by the US Department of Defence (DoD) as the M1989. It ought to be noted that this vehicle has also been known as the M1992 by the same US DoD – for the sake of clarity, this article will solely use the M1989 designation. It also ought to be noted that this year-based designation is based on the year the vehicle was first observed in service. It is very common for the vehicle to have been in service with the DPRK for several years by the point it is first seen by Western observers. In the case of the M1989, while its development is extremely nebulous, as the DPRK’s always is, it appears American intelligence reported having spotted a prototype as early as late 1983 – suggesting a development process concentrated around, or at least starting, in the early 1980s.
Rows of M1985 with their guns elevated on parade. The predecessor of the M1989, with no guidance other than optical targeting and seemingly no way to target enemies at ground level, the M1985 was a very much obsolete design as soon as it was introduced. Its most significant achievement was most likely to put North Korea’s Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun (SPAAG) program to a good start, which would be developed much further into the M1989. Source: m.blog.naver
Guns from the navy
The M1989 appears to be quite directly based on the ZSU-23-4 Shilka, of which North Korea received a few examples from the Soviet Union in the early 1970s. One of the few self-propelled anti-aircraft systems received by North Korea (there has never been evidence of the country receiving the ZSU-57-2, nor the 250 ZSU-57-2 turrets that would be mounted on Type 59 hulls, as is often claimed), it was still a modern and feared weapon by the 1970s and would largely inspire North Korea’s engineers. In the case of the M1989, the most significant difference from the Shilka would be its armament.
Ever since the end of the Korean War and particularly the 1960s, the Korean People’s Army Navy (KPAN) has been building up a large fleet of coastal surface vessels, mostly torpedo boats, missile boats and gunboats. North Korea could indeed never hope to challenge the US Navy in open waters, even less so with the support of the Republic of Korea’s Navy or Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force. Instead, its fleet has largely been manufactured around harassment and massed missile attack tactics – a role for which torpedo and missile boats tended to be sorely needed. North Korea would obtain three different types from the Soviet Union in the 1960s: first the Komar, the world’s first operational missile boat; and later, around 1968, the Osa I; as well as the torpedo-launching Shershen-class – with a dozen of the first and four of the later being delivered. Outside of their P-15 Termit missile or their torpedo armament, both the Osa and Shershen-class featured another weapon system of interest to North Korea. This was the AK-230, a dual 30 mm anti-aircraft gun and Close-In Weapon System (CIWIS).
Future North Korean leader Kim-Jong Il observes one of the two Najin-class frigates from the deck of the solo Soho-class helicopter frigate, likely in the 1980s. One may observe an AK-230 system located behind the funnel. Two Najin-class frigates were built in the 1970s, one on each of North Korea’s coasts, in order to serve as command ships. Hopelessly outdated by modern standards, they remain the largest ship built by North Korea’s naval defence industry. Source: reddit
The Osa- and Shershen-torpedo and missile boat classes had been the first ships to mount the AK-230 – each operating two of the dual guns, one at the bow and one at the stern. The guns were guided by an MR-104 “Drum Tilt” pulse-only radar system. As CIWIS, these guns had been designed with the task of potentially destroying missiles, which, even more so than an anti-aircraft role, would require a very fast rate of fire. To solve this solution, Soviet engineers designed the two guns that would be present in one AK-230 system as four, rifle-barrelled revolver cannons, each firing at 1,000 rounds per minute and disposing of a 500-rounds belt. Their barrels were 1,930 mm long, and the guns overall were 2,670 mm long and weighed in at 155 kg each.
This gun system would fire electrically-primed 30×210 mm rounds, which had been purposely designed for the system. Two types were provided, an 1.12 kg explosive round with an explosive charge of 30 grams of the standard Soviet A-IX 2 explosive, and an armor-piercing traced round weighing in at ten grams heavier (1.13 kg) but fired at the same muzzle velocity of 1,050 m/s.
These guns were linked at an MR-104 Drum Tilt radar system for guidance. This radar design could locate targets at a maximum range of 22.4 km and an altitude of 9.1 km. The guns would, ballistically, have a maximum range of over six kilometers, but would realistically have a chance to operate effectively against their targets at ranges of four kilometers maximum, and lower.
Naval guns onto a ground vehicle’s turret
A closer view of an AK-230 on a North Korean torpedo boat, The turret retains a moderate size, but adapting its armament to be fired from a manned armored vehicle turret would still require some considerable work. Source: m.blog.naver
When looking at the AK-230’s performances, it is easy to see some favorable points in comparison to the ZSU-23-4’s main armament, despite the latter being more than decent when first introduced. Though the rate of fire of the Shilka’s quad armament would be superior (3,400 to 4,000 rounds per minute total, in comparison to 2,000 from the AK-230), the naval gun offered slightly higher velocity and larger shells. This resulted in a longer effective range, spanning up to around four kilometers in good conditions and still up to two and a half in worse ones – while two and a half kilometers were generally considered around the limit of the Shilka’s effective firing range, which would go down further in bad conditions. The larger shells also packed a higher punch which would result in more destructive potential by a limited number of hits – particularly at range.
These advantages likely pushed North Korea engineers to try and adapt the AK-230 into a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun design. It ought to be noted that the KPAN only used the AK-230 in a very limited number of designs ever since it started the mass-production of missile and torpedo boats, following the Soviet deliveries from the 1960s which provided inspiration. A locally-manufactured copy of the Osa I-class, the Soju, manufactured since the 1980s, despite its obsolescence by this point, appears to mount the AK-230. The three largest ships ever manufactured for the DPRK’s navy, the two Najin-class frigates and the unique Soho-class helicopter frigate, appear to mount some as well, perhaps delivered straight from the Soviet Union, seeing as these classes were commissioned from the early 1970s to the early 1980s. Indigenous North Korean designs, however, appear to more often than not retain the primitive 25 mm 2M3 autocannon, using only optical guidance.
As such, the choice to study a version of the AK-230 for the army, despite the gun seeing limited use in the branch it was originally used by, the navy, shows the high priority which was given to providing good air cover to North Korea’s armed forces, and particularly its armored divisions and regiments.
North Korea’s AK-230-based design was placed into a turret very similar to the one found on the ZSU-23-4 in terms of general architecture, but appears to be higher, more rectangular, and perhaps simpler. It is a fairly large rectangular turret with large stowage boxes on both sides. At the turret’s center, a high-elevation gun mount allows the target system to engage all types of aircrafts. To the rear center of the turret, as on the ZSU-23-4, the M1989 features a radar – though in appearance it is quite similar to the Shilka’s RPK-2 “Tobol”, the radar used by North Korea’s vehicle is thought to most likely have still been based on the MR-104 “Drum Tilt” – mainly for the reason that radar had been purposefully designed to operate with the AK-230.
Close views of an M1989’s guns during a 2012 parade in Pyongyang, also showing some of the turret’s welds. Whether or not modifying the guns for operations inside an armored vehicle changed their anti-aircraft performances in any significant way is uncertain, and remains impossible to evaluate considering the secrecy maintained by the DPRK around their armored vehicles – particularly those not known to have an export history, of which the M1989 serves as a good example. Source: m.blog.naver
As pretty much systematically for North Korea, it is quite impossible to see how much the armament may have been modified, as no internal views of the vehicle are known to exist. Modifying the AK-230 to fit alongside the crew within the turret of an armored vehicle likely required some significant modifications. For example, the 500-rounds belt would perhaps not have been very practical and changed for a shorter belt, perhaps similar to the 50-rounds belt found in a classic Shilka. The use of electrically-primed projectiles, in addition to the high electrical needs already created by a turret with a high-rotation speed and the presence of a radar, would perhaps have required higher electricity generation capacities. This gun system would also likely add some weight to the original ZSU-23-4 to a moderate extent, perhaps nearing about 20 tonnes total. The crew likely consists of four, as on the ZSU-23-4, with a driver in the hull, and a commander, gunner, and crewman operating the radar in the turret.
Hull – Re-using the GMZ-575 copy
When North Korea first designed a Shilka-inspired self-propelled anti-aircraft gun in the form of the M1985, the hull chosen for the vehicle was a fairly close version of the GMZ-575 chassis, originally used by the ZSU-23-4. A few different details appeared nonetheless. The North Korean model appears to have different side stowage, with four stowage hatches to be found instead of three on the Shilka. The glacis may be angled a few degrees further back. While the M1985 lacked them, the M1989 appears to re-introduce towing hooks, though it only uses two instead of the Shilka’s three. The North Korean chassis also appears to use different tracks, with a central pin and two side pads. Its tracks appear to be more tensioned, generally resting higher, and it appears to use starfish-type road wheels similar to those found in Soviet main battle tanks, rather than the type used in lighter vehicles, such as the PT-76 or the ZSU-23-4.
A good side view of an M1989 during a 2012 parade. Though this photo gives a good view of the high profile given by the radar, it also shows the starfish-type road wheels used by the M1989. Source: m.blog.naver
There is no way to know if the North Korean version of the GMZ-575 retains the propulsive elements of the Shilka or instead moved to use another engine. The GMZ-575 chassis was originally based on the PT-76 light tank, which North Korea is thought to have assembled at the Sinhung tank plant in the late 1960s and 1970s. Therefore, it is likely the chassis was relatively easy to start to manufacture. North Korea operates a number of other vehicles in a similar weight range, notably the variety of vehicles based on the 323 armored personnel carrier and the M1981 light tank. It is not impossible to think the North Koreans may have tried to introduce some part commonality between their fleet, but this is pretty much just conjecture.
If the North Korean version is believed to have similar capacities to the original GMZ-575, for example, if it kept the V-6P1 280 hp diesel engine or used a powerplant of similar capacities, it likely means the M1989 should be able to reach a maximum speed of about 50 km/h. Overall, it would be somewhat less mobile than main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles due to a lower power-to-weight ratio.
The first truly modern SPAAG in the KPA’s hands
Production of the M1989 started at some point during the 1980s. Seeing as it used the same hull as the M1985, the more advanced M1989 likely took the first type’s succession on North Korea production chains.
Footage of M1989s during training exercises, showcased to the DPRK’s viewership by Korean Central TV. The vehicles are painted in a dark green scheme with a North Korean roundel and seemingly no further identification. Source: reddit
In comparison to the previous M1985, the M1989 brought massive improvements. While the M1985 itself had been a major progress from the M1978 and various ZPU-4 systems mounted on hulls based on the 323 APCs, it still offered a primitive armament, albeit in the form of a truly dedicated, purpose-built air defence system. The M1989 took that base – the hull basically – and mounted an at least somewhat capable, radar-guided armament on it. The M1989 could hardly be called state-of-the-art by its 1980s introduction. It obviously paled in comparison to modern systems introduced in the 1980s, such as the Soviet 2M22 Tunguska, with its missile batteries, advanced radar and newer 30 mm guns, but it was still likely an improvement from the ZSU-23-4 Shilka in terms of firepower. And while the Shilka was a quite old design by the 1980s, it had still proven to be an effective one which was considerably feared by NATO in its prime days of the 1960s and 1970s. Even with a fairly primitive radar, a similar vehicle featuring somewhat longer-reaching guns was a significant addition to the Korean People’s Army arsenal and could pose a solid threat to the helicopter and close-air support planes fleets that would be operated by South Korea and the United States in case of a conflict.
Ever since it was first seen in the late 1980s, the M1989 has been a regularly recurring sight in the military parade in which the DPRK flexes its military and military-industrial muscles.
Rows of M1989s on parade at Kim-Il Sung square in Pyongyang. As in North Korean tradition, the three leading vehicles each bear a different flag. From front to back, the national flag, the flag of the Korean Worker’s Party, and the flag of the Korean People’s Armed Forces. Source: pinterest
An advanced, more modern SPAA system… that has yet to be seen
The M1989 is the most often seen of all North Korean self-propelled anti-aircraft guns ever since its introduction, this trend continuing in recent parades. Nonetheless, it does not appear to be the latest self-propelled anti-aircraft gun. An even more advanced model known as the M1994 is said to exist. Iit also uses an armament based on Soviet CIWIS, but instead of the AK-230, it takes the basis of the AK-630 30 mm rotary autocannon, firing shorter 30×165 mm shells at a whopping 5,000 rounds per minute, while also featuring two radars. One radar is for long-range target acquisition and the other for short-range tracking. It would also feature some optional side boxes for light anti-air missiles, likely a local version of the Igla. All in all, it sounds like a potent and particularly innovative vehicle by the DPRK’s standard. No photos or iconographic documents of it appear to have transpired and be publicly available though, and as such, how operational such a system may be is questionable.
Conclusion – The aging anti-aircraft shield of North Korea’s armored formations
By what can be readily observed of the Korean People’s Army – an obviously limited insight into what is going on in its entirety, seeing the secretive nature of the country and its armed forces – the M1989 appears to be the most common self-propelled anti-aircraft gun in North Korea’s service, as well as most likely the most modern one available in any significant number. In comparison to the vehicle it was based on, the M1989 may have brought some genuine improvements, and have been a fairly potent if not state-of-the-art vehicle by the point it was introduced.
M1989s on parade in 2012, with North Korean citizens cheering from the side. The M1989 certainly was a huge improvement in North Korea’s SPAAGs when first introduced, likely the biggest single lap undertaken in this field by the DPRK. Its capacities against modern aircraft will probably be not enough though. Source: m.blog.naver
In comparison to more modern vehicles though, the M1989 slowly but surely starts to pale. Most significantly, it finds itself in the uneasy position of having to face some potent and well-equipped air forces. The Republic of Korea Air Force’s has not yet entirely retired its fleets of F-4 Phantom and F-5E Tiger II aircraft that may still prove to be vulnerable targets to the M1989, as well as the army’s attack and transporter helicopters fleet, which still rely on some older type such as upgraded versions of the AH-1 Cobra. However, newer models of aircraft used by the ROKAF may prove too much to be handled by the aging system. The threat of multirole F-15s, F-16s, F-35s, T-50s and, in the future, perhaps even the new KF-21, being used for precision strikes with anti-radiation missiles or laser-guided bombs would likely leave the M1989 and its 1960s vintage radar (and much of North Korea’s numerous but outdated anti-aircraft defenses in general) unable to offer a credible defense. If the Korean conflict is to become hot again, the masses of North Korean armored vehicles, already facing numerous but modern South Korean tanks, would likely very much be under the threat of the South’s aircraft – not even considering the tremendous air power that the United States could potentially deploy. Despite all of North Korea’s efforts, denying the skies to their potential enemies seems to be too much of a hurdle to overcome for the isolated and impoverished “Hermit Kingdom”.
The first prototype of South Korea and Indonesia’s new KF-21 “Boramae” 4.5 generation fighter, unveiled on 9th April 2021. Though this type is only scheduled to take its first flight in 2022 and enter service in the second half of this decade, South Korea already operates a number of modern multirole aircraft, notably F-15s, F-16s, F-35s and, to an extent, the T-50 trainer in its TA-50 light attack and FA-50 light attack/fighter versions. The ability of the DPRK’s air defenses is uncertain when it comes to countering those. It becomes even more precarious when the ominous air components of the USAF, US Navy and US Marine Corps, as well as potentially Japan’s own Air Self-Defence Force, are taken into account. Source: Blog before flightIllustration for the M1989/M1992 self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, created by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet and funded by our Patreon campaign
A 5e Cuirassiers Coventry armoured car as seen during the Indochina war. Illustration by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.
France (1946-1952)
Armored Car – 40-64 Operated
The French Army in Indochina used a large variety of armoured vehicles originally produced during the later stages of the Second World War by either the USA or Great Britain. This situation was forced upon them due to the abysmal state of French industry immediately post-war. The French military, for a time, depended on its allies to equip its military forces, which were quickly becoming engaged in a conflict in French Indochina. One of the vehicles France was provided with was the Coventry Armoured Car.
French crews stand at attention in front of their Coventry Armoured Cars during the Indochina War. Source: char-français
The Coventry Armoured Car
The Coventry Armoured Car was designed by the Rootes Group during the Second World War. It was envisioned as a potential successor to previous British 4×4 armored car types, such as the Daimler and Humber. Production orders would, however, end up being fairly moderate, as it was decided production of the Daimler should continue. As such, only 220 Coventry Armoured Car Mk I would ever be produced. A version outfitted with the 75 mm QF gun was designed and designated the Coventry Mark II, but never progressed beyond prototype stage.
The Coventry was fairly heavy for a 4×4 armored car at 10.35 tonnes. It was lightly armoured, only 14 mm at its maximum thickness, and notably featured a crew of four, with a driver in the hull and three crew in the turret, something which was far from systematic in armoured cars of the time. With a dedicated loader, the 2-Pounder 40 mm main gun could provide a high rate of fire. It, however, lacked any mass-issued high explosive shell, which would prove a major issue, particularly against an enemy which fielded no armor. In this context, the coaxial BESA 7.92 mm machine gun would be a more efficient weapon. The vehicle was powered with a 6-cylinders Hercules RXLD engine producing 175 hp, giving a hp/ton ratio of 16.9 and granting a maximum speed of up to 68 km/h on a good road.
A Coventry at a stop on the side of a road in Indochina. Mediocre roads were often the best infrastructure these armoured cars could hope for within the French colony. Source: char-français
France procured the Coventry Armoured Car in 1946. The most commonly cited number of Coventry procured by France tends to be 40, but regimental organisation papers from the 5e RC tend to suggest more may actually have been employed, up to 64.
The First Indochina War
The French colony of Indochina comprised modern-day Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia. It was a large area, progressively conquered by the French in wars and agreements with local kingdoms and states from 1862-1863 to 1907. It suddenly became very vulnerable when France fell to Germany in 1940, and the colony, nominally loyal to Vichy, quickly fell under Japanese influence. It was eventually fully taken over in March 1945, with the French authorities deposed and French colonial troops and administrators taken as prisoners by the Japanese. Following the conclusion of the war, French troops returned to Indochina facing a bolstered independence movement, the Viet Minh. Though an uneasy peace existed at first, the possibility for conflict was obvious, and the French Army spent high efforts in mobilizing troops to send to Indochina with all kinds of various armored vehicles, even briefly re-using a number of Japanese tanks.
French Coventry Armoured Cars in Indochina. Both vehicles feature additional stowage boxes on the rear of the turret sides, and the rear vehicle notably features a prominent spare tire on the engine deck. Source: char-français
At the outset of the First Indochina War in 1946, two regiments were equipped with the Coventry Armoured Car Mk I: the 1er Regiment de Chasseurs A Cheval and the 5e Regiment de Cuirassiers. However, the 1er RCC soon gave up their Coventries when they were transferred north, to the Tonkin theater. Those Coventries they left behind were then given to the 5e RC, which formed two escadrons (ENG: squadrons) with them. Thus, the 5e RC was the main user of the Coventry Mk I for the duration of the First Indochina War.
Organization of the 5 RC
Due to the chaotic nature of the Indochina War and the transferring of units as operational conditions changed, the organization of the 5e RC was rarely set in stone. In 1946, the 5e RC was organized on the basis of a British Reconnaissance Regiment and thus consisted of a Regimental Headquarters, a Headquarters Squadron, and three Reconnaissance Squadrons. In February 1946, each of the squadrons consisted of two Coventry Mk I equipped ‘heavy’ pelotons (ENG: platoons) and 2 Humber Scout Car-equipped ‘light’ pelotons.
In August 1946, 2 escadrons equipped with Coventry Armoured Cars were transferred from the redeploying 1er RCC to the 5e RC. Sources differ on the exact number of escadrons transferred, but all agree that at least two escadrons were transferred – the total number of escadrons by the end of 1946 was 6, and it would remain at that number until 1951.
Infantry riding on the Coventry Armoured Car “Epervier” (ENG: Sparrowhawk). Source: char-français
From 1947-1951, the 5e RC’s organization appears to have remained mostly consistent. In 1948, the unit’s six escadrons were divided into two Groupes d’Escadrons (ENG: Squadron Groups) for easier command and control. According to CEFEO (Corps Expéditionnaire Français en Extrême-Orient/ ENG: French Expeditionary Corps in the Far East) documents, the organisation of the 5e RC consisted of:
1 Etat-Major et Transmissions (ENG: Staff and Communications)
2 Escadron Hors Rang (ENG: “Rankless” squadrons not part of a squadron group)
2 Etat-Major Groupe d’Escadrons (ENG: Squadron Group Staff)
5 Escadron Mixte (A.M. et S.C. Anglais) (ENG: Mixed Squadrons, outfitted with both Humber scout cars and Coventry Armoured Cars)
1 Escadron Type A (ENG: Type A Squadron)
All 6 of the 5e RC’s Combat Escadrons possessed Coventry Armoured Cars. Each Escadron Mixte possessed 9 Coventry Armoured Cars, in addition to 6 Humber Scout Cars. Each of the Escadron Mixte’s three Pelotons Mixtes possessed 3 Coventry Armoured Cars, while 5 of the 6 Humber Scout Cars were concentrated in a separate Peloton S.C. Humber. The Escadron Type A possessed 6 Coventry Armoured Cars and 11 Humber Scout Cars. The 6 Coventry Armoured Cars were divided between two Peloton Lourd (ENG: Heavy Platoons) and the Humber Scout Cars were divided between two separate Humber Scout Car Platoons. In total, this meant that the 5 RC would have 52 Coventry Armoured Cars and 41 Humber Scout Cars at full strength.
A Coventry aside a Humber scout car during a parade. The two types were employed in tandem by the 5e RC. A number of Humbers would be fitted with a makeshift machine gun-armed turret. Source: char-français
This organization changed from 1951-52, however. Two of the 5e RC’s squadrons were transferred to the Vietnamese National Army in this period. By 1952, the 5e RC had been reorganized to utilize the newly-arriving US equipment. Instead of 4 Escadrons Mixtes with British armored cars, the new Escadrons de Reconnaissance began to utilize US armored cars. One of the squadrons appears to have been converted to an Escadron de Chars Legers M5 (Type Sud), leaving the 5e RC with 3 Escadrons de Reconnaissance. The Coventries do not appear on the CEFEO TO&E for mid-1952, so it appears that they had been withdrawn by this time.
French servicemen camp up by the side of a Coventry Armoured Car in front of a bridge. Source: char-français
Use of the Coventry
The operational situation in Indochina, with rough terrain, Viet Minh harassment campaigns, and inadequate stocks of armored vehicles, meant that the Coventry saw wide use in the campaigns in southern and central Indochina in 1946-1951. The nature of the campaign meant that the armored cars could only be used for a few roles: road-opening operations, convoy escort missions, and outpost security. Reconnaissance units tended to disperse themselves widely, conducting these missions in peloton (and sometimes escadron) strength. The units were not without their problems. A lack of adequate mobile fire support and infantry inhibited the ability of armored cars to effectively conduct operations. French soldiers also noted that the armored cars were poorly suited to the terrain and that the guns were much too weak. This is no surprise, as the 2-Pounder was not mass issued with any high-explosive shell and, as such, could only damage an enemy target by direct hit, something far less reliable when facing enemy infantry using guerilla tactics in comparison to enemy armor. The Coventry Armoured Car was also noted to be particularly hard to maintain. This is not much of a surprise either, as only a small production type of the vehicle was ever made and it did not truly stick around in the producer’s militaries. While many other armored vehicles employed by the French in Indochina, such as the M5 Stuart or M24 Chaffee, or even M8 Greyhound, had been produced in massive numbers with an abundance of spare parts, such was not the case of the Coventry.
A Coventry patrolling a dirt road alongside local infantry, which was widely employed by the French. Source: char-françaisA Coventry Armoured Car provides cover to a convoy on an Indochinese road. The vehicle prominently features the emblem of the 5e Cuirassiers Regiment. The turret smoke dischargers are also very visible in this photo. Source: char-français
The 5e RC, and thus the Coventry, saw extensive combat action in Cochinchina, Annam, and Laos. Viet Minh forces there put immense pressure on the French forces from 1948 to 1951, and thus forced France to devote considerable resources to pacifying the southern countryside. Terrain was difficult to navigate, and the Viet Minh proved to be particularly adept at harassing French forces. However, the Viet Minh did not possess as much popular support in the south as they did in the north, limiting their capabilities severely. After years of hard fighting, French forces were able to gain the upper hand by 1952, and by 1954 had essentially pacified the south.
Conclusion – A British Armored Car Placed into a French War in Vietnam
The Coventry was retired from service by the French in 1952, replaced in the 5th Cuirassiers regiment by the M5 Stuart. In most regards, the Coventry had been pushed into a war it was not designed to fight in. The wheeled configuration of the vehicle was more often than not an issue in Indochina, where infrastructure was often below par and the ability to navigate through rough terrain, particularly marshes, jungles, and rice paddies, was a major positive. The armament was inadequate for counter-insurgency warfare, and the chronic lack of spare parts which plagued the French Coventry fleet made operation of the type an uphill struggle.
Enthusiastic French servicemen haul a Coventry Armoured Car out of a difficult situation. The type was suboptimal for Indochinese warfare in comparison to tracked vehicles which provided better crossroads mobility, particularly the amphibious LVT-4. The name Raspail in France is mostly known as the family name of a family which comprised François Vincent Raspail, a socialist politician and chemist of the 19th century, and his four sons, one of whom, Xavier Raspail, made a name for himself during the 1870 siege of Paris. It may also be the family name of a member of the regiment or perhaps a casualty. Source: char-françaisA Coventry Armoured Car stationed in front of an old temple in Indochina. The armored car would be one of many, many types of armored vehicles which would roll among the roads and jungles of Indochina and later Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia during the 20th century. The vehicle is named Potiphar, after the commander of the pharaoh’s guard who took Joseph in as a slave in the Torah’s Book of Genesis and the Quran. The registration number of the vehicle features prominently under the name. Source: char-françaisA 5e Cuirassiers Coventry Armoured Car as seen during the Indochina war. Illustration by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.
The Lorraine 50t heavy tank created by Wargaming, illustrated by Pavel "Carpaticus" Alexe and funded by our Patreon campaign
France (1950s)
Heavy Tank – Fake
After the liberation of the country in 1944-1945, France found itself with a serious need to rebuild its military industry, damaged by years of war and occupation, if it wanted to remain a serious player in international politics as well as a respected military power. Though the first vehicles studied, such as the Panhard 178B and ARL 44, would be at least partially based on pre-war projects or even secretive ones undertaken under the Vichy Regime, a new, medium tank program would soon see the emergence of a variety of designs. Most of the designers involved had been requested to design 50-tonnes tanks, resulting in FCM’s 50 t project, AMX’s M4 later evolving into the AMX-50, and Somua’s SM. In contrast, the company of Lorraine was requested to design a lighter medium tank which would mount a similar armament but at a reduced weight of 40 tonnes, eventually resulting in the 39.7 tonnes Lorraine 40t prototype. These would never enter service with the French Army though.
The acquisition of American M47 Pattons proved a more economical solution before a modern Franco-German tank would be adopted (following the French-German collaboration falling apart, this would result in the AMX-30). However, in the last decades, this whole generation of French vehicles has known a renewed popularity due to their inclusion in Wargaming’s popular game World of Tanks (WoT). There, this set of late 1940s and 1950s designs wonderfully filled the high tiers of WoT’s French branches. However, Wargaming is a company known to often bend the limits of historicity, and sometimes outright break them and include entirely fake vehicles within the game. A recent example, though one which has not yet been made available to the playerbase, is the Lorraine 50t, a supposed heavy tank design that is one of several Wargaming fabrications present in high-tier French tanks.
A side view of the Lorraine 50t in World of Tanks. The turret appears particularly large and high for the Lorraine hull. Source: Rita Status ReportA Lorraine 40t prototype during trials in 1953, with an AMX-13 on a trailer and an AMX-50-120 in the background. Source: pinterest
Wargaming’s Lorraine 50t
The Lorraine 50t was added to Wargaming’s ‘supertest servers’ as a ‘Tier 9’ French heavy tank in early May 2020. The tank has not yet been made available to the playerbase, and is supposed to be a future ‘promotional’/’reward’ tank rather than one obtained through the game’s ‘premium shop’ or traditional ‘tech trees’.
Wargaming’s render for the Lorraine 50t. Source: Reddit
The vehicle can shortly be described as a combination of the up-armored hull of the Lorraine 40t medium tank with a T.C.B turret, as featured in WoT’s AMX M4 1951 and AMX M4 1954 (these vehicles, mounting the T.C.B turret on hulls which were never meant to receive it, can also be considered as fakes), though a couple of questionable changes were brought to it. According to the vehicle’s ‘stat card’, the resulting combination would culminate in a highly mobile 50 tonnes tank thanks to an engine boosted up from 850 to 980 hp. When analyzing the vehicle in more detail though, the illusion of this tank being a realistic design falls apart very quickly.
Thicker armor, same wheels
The hull of the Lorraine 50t is a modified version of the one featured on the Lorraine 40t, already present in the game as a tier 8 premium tank.
A front screenshot of the Lorraine 50t, showing the hull’s pike nose shape and the massive size of the T.C.B turret. Source: MMOWG.net
The overall shape of the hull is the same, with the vehicle having a front forming a moderate, pike nose shape. However, the armor thickness differs massively between the two vehicles. The Lorraine 40t was a light vehicle for its relatively considerable size, and as such, was only given thin armor protection, which was not meant to resist modern anti-armor weaponry. The front armor was only 40 mm thick. WoT’s Lorraine 50t ups this to a much thicker 155 mm on the two larger plates forming the pike nose, while the small central plate at the top, under which the driver’s seat is located, was increased to 105 mm, and the lower front plate to 120 mm. The sides and rear armor of the vehicle were also increased, though to a more moderate extent. They went from 30 to 60 mm for the sides, and from 25 to 40 mm for the rear. The roof of the vehicle was also thickened from 20 to 40 mm.
A side view of the Lorraine 50t’s hull. Its architecture and design follow the Lorraine 40t’s closely, with the same torsion bars and return rollers, wheels with pneumatic rims, rear-drive sprocket, and front idler. The radiator is different though, with outlet grills on the side of the vehicle and without the large cooling fans mounted on the engine deck. Source: armor.wotinspector.com
Such changes would likely very considerably impact the weight of the Lorraine 40t hull, as well as shift its center of gravity towards the front to a large extent due to the most significant armor increase being on the front glacis plates. These changes would likely have required the suspension to be reinforced to handle the weight (particularly as the turret would likely be much heavier than that of the original Lorraine 40t turret). However, the Lorraine 50t shown in-game uses the same suspension as the 40t, with no sign of modifications. This suspension is in some ways a rather peculiar design. Though it uses a classic torsion bars design, the wheels used actually have pneumatic rims instead of metallic ones, a feature brought to lighten them on the original vehicles. The capacity of these pneumatics to handle the much higher weight of the Lorraine 50t would be very questionable.
A rear view of the Lorraine 50t. The tank is depicted with another model of Maybach engine and lacks the large cooling fans typical of the Lorraine 40t. Source: wotexpress
Wargaming’s Lorraine 50t did, however, receive a new engine. The original Lorraine 40t featured the German Maybach HL235 12-cylinders engine producing 850 hp. In the 50t, this is replaced by the “HL234 P50”, claimed to produce 980 hp. Historically, the HL234 was an engine proposed for use in German late war designs but never put into production. It would have produced only 900 hp, and as such, Wargaming boosted the engine by 80 hp, likely to improve the mobility characteristics of their Lorraine 50t. The engine deck was redesigned to accommodate this new engine, and lacks the large cooling fans typical of the 40t.
A monster turret on a princess hull
On this Lorraine 40t-based hull, Wargaming decided to mount a turret much larger than the one which originally featured – the T.C.B 120 turret from the mid-1950s.
The original turret of the Lorraine 40t was the late 100 mm-armed AMX-50 turret. It was a fairly light oscillating design on which, as on the hull, thick armor had been sacrificed to make the turret reasonably lightweight – with armor protection of 45 to 55 mm on the front, going down to 30 mm on the sides and rear. Wargaming does give a fairly realistic estimate of the weight of this turret on the 40t at 7.5 tonnes.
The 50t replaces this turret with the massive T.C.B 120. This turret was one of several designed after requirements shifted from a 100 to a 120 mm-armed tank in 1951. The gun used was to be the D.1203, which was a license-produced version of the USA’s M58 featured on the M103 – a massive and extremely powerful gun (still the most powerful 120 mm gun ever featured on a production vehicle in terms of kinetic energy release). This would require an equally massive turret to be operated properly. Several different turrets mounted the gun. Only oscillating designs are known to have been manufactured, but two conventional turrets armed with the monstrous gun were designed. The T.C.B was designed by C.A.F.L (Compagnie des Ateliers et Forges de la Loire – Workshops and Forges of the Loire Company), previously known as Saint-Chamond/FAMH. The gun is depicted as having 40 rounds of ammunition by Wargaming.
A front view of the T.C.B in the schematics. The turret was quite wide, but even more so long. It was a massive turret, way oversized for the Lorraine hull. Source: French military archivesProfile view of the T.C.B turret. The turret would have had a fairly limited depression of -6° and elevation of +13°, linked to the massive breech of the 120 mm gun. Wargaming overestimates both in its depiction of the tank, raising the depression to -10° and the elevation to +15°. Source: French Military Archives
The T.C.B 120 was a massive turret, 8.79 m long from the front of the barrel to the rear of the bustle (though 6.34 m would consist of the gun). The turret itself had a large turret ring of 2.67 m, and it is questionable whether the 3.3 m-wide hull of the Lorraine 40t could reasonably feature such a large turret ring. When taking into account external elements, the turret would be up to 2.9 m wide. It had a basket going 0.9 m into the hull.
The turret would accommodate a crew of three; a gunner and a commander to the left of the gun, and a loader to the right.
From left to right: the T.C.B turret in schematics, the turret’s depiction on the Lorraine 50t, and on the AMX M4 1954. The Lorraine offers a more accurate depiction of the turret, though another set of schematics does show the infrared cupola of the AMX M4 1954 as also having been considered. Sources: French military archives, armor.wotinspector.com & tanks.gg
The turret is known from two different sets of plans from 1954, which do depict it with some differences when it comes to cupolas and externally-mounted equipment. In both cases, the turret featured a large telemeter as well as smoke grenades installed to the front, near the top of the hull. Wargaming has implemented the turret in two different fashions in the game, with minor differences being present between the T.C.B found on the M4 1951/M4 1954 and the Lorraine 50t. The M4 T.C.B features a large cupola to the rear right, with a dual infrared device. The presence of this cupola and device is corroborated by a set of plans of the T.C.B mounted on the AMX-50B hull. Otherwise, a hatch is present towards the middle left of the turret and features a pintle-mounted 12.7mm M2HB machine gun which would be operated by the commander. There is no gunner’s or loader’s hatch.
In comparison, the T.C.B featured on the Lorraine 50t eliminates the large rear cupola, which, in the game, would have functioned as a ‘weak spot’. A smaller hatch/cupola is featured to the rear left. As on the M4 T.C.B, it is armed, though not an M2HB, but an even heavier weapon. This was a German MG 151/20 20 mm autocannon, which was a fairly commonly used secondary weapon on AMX-50 project vehicles, though neither it nor the M2 were ever shown on a T.C.B blueprint. The design also features new hatches, with two hatches to the right of the gun and one to the left. In this regard, the Lorraine 50t is more accurate to the only top view of the T.C.B from French plans, though the rear hatch/cupola featuring the MG 151 is too much to the right on Wargaming’s design in comparison to the French plans. Wargaming’s version of the turret also overestimates the depression, which goes from -6° to -10°, and the elevation, which goes from +13 to +15°. The traverse speed of the turret, at 26.25 degrees per second, is also very generous.
The first (1953) AMX-50-120 prototype, featuring not only the same 120 mm gun as the Lorraine 50t, but also the same MG 151/20 secondary armament. Source: War thunder forums
In terms of armor layout, the T.C.B 120 turret mounted on the Lorraine 50t is presented as a particularly heavily armored turret. In reality, the known schematics of the T.C.B 120 did not feature any armor thickness, and it is unknown if one was ever decided on at any point. In WoT though, the Lorraine 50t’s turret features a 300 mm-thick turret face (in addition to a 170 mm-thick mantlet), which gradually reduces to 260, 220, 210, 190, 170, 140 and then 120 mm going rearward into the front sides, with the sides themselves being 80 mm thick. The rear-sides plates are presented as 70 mm thick, and the rear plate at 40 mm. The roof is 60 mm thick towards the front and 40 mm thick on the rest of the turret. The MG 151/20 cupola has an armor layout going from 140 to 80 mm frontally, but only 40 mm on the rear and 20 mm on the roof.
The illusion of a realistic tank design falls apart
The thickly-armored T.C.B Wargaming outfitted its Lorraine 50t with is an absolute monster of a turret. Not only is the T.C.B massive in size to begin with, but Wargaming gave it an extremely thick armor layout which would, without a shadow of a doubt, have given it a very high weight. According to the game’s estimations, this weight would be of 16,895 kg, more than nine tonnes more than the Lorraine 40t’s turret – realistically, it would have been even more.
This is where the discrepancy between the performances of the Lorraine 50t in WoT, and those such a vehicle would realistically have, come into full view. Wargaming’s 50t is claimed to weigh exactly 50t, with a maximum loadout of 53t. Taking 50t as the standard weight, and removing the 16,895 kg of the turret, the hull would weigh in at 33.05. Taking the standard Lorraine 40t, removing the 7,500 kg turret would leave a tank with a weight of 32.2 tonnes.
However, the hull of the Lorraine 50t is also massively up-armored from the 40t, as well as receiving a new, more powerful and likely heavier engine. Simply put, there is no way these massive modifications would have added only around 800 kg to the weight of the tank. Wargaming’s Lorraine 50t is built around a massively underestimated weight – and its mobility is positively impacted by this lighter weight, with the Lorraine heavy tank able to reach a maximum speed of 50 km/h and sporting a power-to-weight ratio of 19.60 hp/tonne. WoT also completely ignores the center of gravity of the vehicle. With not only a largely thickened frontal armor, but also a massive turret mounted towards the front of the vehicle, the Lorraine 50t would be incredibly front-loaded, and the suspension, of which the capacity to sustain the additional weight was already questionable to say the least, would be incredibly front-loaded. The quick hull traverse depicted in the game, at 31.29°/second, would also be highly unrealistic.
A view of the T.C.B on the hull it was actually intended for, the AMX-50B, dated from July 1954. This depiction of the turret shows some differences in comparison to the other one known, notably in terms of cupola. Source: Mémoire des hommes
Though there is no proper way to estimate the weight of a “realistic” Lorraine 50t, seeing as no known estimation of the weight of the T.C.B turret exists, if it was given this turret in the very heavily armored form present in WoT, as well as the additional front armor and new engine, the Lorraine 50t would realistically weigh much more than 50 or even 53t – and, in practice, at least 60 tonnes and probably even more. It would also be a much more sluggish design with a fragile suspension, and likely plagued by reliability issues and breakdowns, which are in no way represented in WoT.
Conclusions – If you make a forgery, make one that makes sense
The Lorraine 50t can be summed up as an incredibly unrealistic design, in which Wargaming combined a hull and a turret never meant to be together, and which could really never have been. The T.C.B turret, particularly in this heavily armored form, is simply too large and too heavy to be mounted on a Lorraine – particularly an up-armored one – without skyrocketing the weight of the vehicle and massively overloading the suspension.
However, the Lorraine 50t is but one of several fake tanks present within World of Tanks. The French Batignolles-Châtillons Bourrasque, EBR 105 and AMX M4 1954 are also fakes, and many configurations of real French vehicles are also fantasy to one degree or another – for example, the M4 1951, while based on a real design, was never intended to receive the T.C.B it was given in WoT. Forgery extends way beyond the French ‘tech tree’ though. The Conqueror Gun Carriage, Caervanon Action X, and FV215b from the British tree are also fake, as are most Chinese tank destroyers or high-tier Italian medium tanks fairly recently added to the game. And while the creation of fakes could at least be defended to an extent when it comes to filling a hole in a line that no real design could fill, the recent addition of fake vehicles as premium or reward vehicles show Wargaming has no hesitation to make some tank up and pass it off as real for a quick buck.
The Lorraine 50t heavy tank created by Wargaming, illustrated by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe and funded by our Patreon campaign
Lorraine 50t specifications
Weight
50 metric tonnes, maximum load 53 metric tonnes
Engine
980 hp HL235 P50
Power-to-weight ratio in hp/tonne
19.60
Top road speed
50 km/h
Reverse speed
15 km/h
Hull traverse
31.29 deg/s
Crew
4 (Driver, Gunner, Commander, Loader
Main armament
1 x 120mm D.1203 gun (40 rounds)
Elevation and depression
+15 to -10° (+13 to -6 on real turret design)
Rate of fire
4.17 rounds per minute
Muzzle velocity
1,067 m/s
Secondary armament
None within WoT’s mechanics: depicted with a MG 151/20 autocannon, likely would feature a coaxial 7.5 mm MAC 31 machine gun as well
Turret traverse speed
26.25 deg/s
Hull armor
155 mm (hull glacis), 105 mm (driver’s post), 120 mm (lower front plate), 60 mm (sides), 40 mm (rear & roof)
Turret armor
170 mm (mantlet), 300 mm (front), 290 to 120 mm (front sides), 80 mm (sides), 70 mm (rear sides), 60 mm (rear), 140 to 80 mm (cupola), 60 mm (front roof), 40 mm (rear roof), 20 mm (cupola roof)
The dozer-equipped M24 after having been through the modernization, fitted with a new engine and with the .50cal machine-gun now brought to the front of the turret so it can be used by the commander from the opened hatch.
Oriental Republic of Uruguay (1957/1958-2019)
Light Tank – 17 Purchased
Uruguay, like several other countries in South America, has been a traditional customer of US military hardware. In Uruguay’s case, this first example were 40 M3A1 Stuart light tanks delivered in 1944-1945. In the years following the Second World War and the Korean War, obsolete armored vehicles which were no longer deemed as required for the current situation of the US military were given as military aid to US allies, particularly in Latin America. It was in this context that Uruguay would receive 17 M24 Chaffee light tanks in 1957-1958, which would proceed to remain in service within the Uruguayan Army all the way to 2019, an impressive 61 years of service.
Three M24 are lined in front of a Grizzly APC during army exercises in 2015. Uruguay was the last country to retire the M24, as well as likely the user operating the type for the longest time, introducing the tank in 1957-1958. Source: facebook
The first armored vehicles of Uruguay
Uruguay is located on the east coast of South America, between the two largest countries of the continent, Argentina and Brazil. It has traditionally maintained cordial relations with both. At the same time, in the decades following the repression of the Blanco revolt in 1904, Uruguay managed to evolve into what was at the time one of the more democratic and stable nations of South America. Though this was interrupted at times, notably with a coup in 1934, Uruguay remained one of the more prosperous and peaceful nations of the continent. As such, the need for a large fleet of armored vehicles was somewhat wasted on the South American nation. The first armored vehicles of Uruguay were a small fleet of three Citroën P28 armored cars received in 1933-1934 used by the Guardia Metropolitana Uruguayana, a unit of the Uruguayan police located in Montevideo. For a decade, these would remain the only Uruguayan armored vehicles, before Uruguay’s involvement in the Second World War alongside much of Latin America, on the side of the United States, resulted in the small country receiving a fleet of 40 M3A1 Stuart light tanks in 1944-1945.
Uruguayan M3A1 Stuarts. The vehicles would only be phased out of service in October of 2001, which is already a fairly outstanding and long service for this American light tank. Source: facebook
These tanks would be the most modern armored vehicles of Uruguay in the following years. By the late 1950s, they were becoming fairly obsolete even by South American standards though. While the Stuart was still very commonly used by other South American armies, notably Brazil, somewhat more potent vehicles were also commonplace. Argentina, for example, operated a considerable fleet of Sherman tanks, including some Fireflies of British origin. At the same time, with the conclusion of the Korean War, WW2-dated American surplus armor was exceptionally cheap.
Introducing Chaffees
In 1957-1958, Uruguay purchased a complement of 17 M24 Chaffee light tanks from the United States military. Deliveries were completed on September 30th, 1958. This was part of the American Military Assistance Program (MAP), under which the US provided military equipment to aligned nations within the context of the Cold War. These tanks did not come from the mainland US but were instead delivered from US Army stocks in Korea. A considerable amount of spare parts were likely delivered along with these, as well as in the coming years. Along with the Chaffees, Uruguay received a Sherman-based M74 Armored Recovery Vehicle.
Introduced by the US military in the later stages of the Second World War, the M24 was a potent light tank fitted with a 75 mm M6 gun, which featured considerable firepower against infantry and, by WW2 standards, even other armored vehicles outside of heavy tanks and the heaviest medium tanks. The tank was mobile and fairly easy to maintain and incorporated an M2 Browning 12.7 mm/.50 cal machine gun on top of the turret (it was to be fired in an anti-aircraft role by a man standing on the engine deck) as well as two .30-06 M1919A4 machine guns, one coaxial and one in the hull, operated by the assistant driver, who also operated the radio. With a crew of five, incorporating a driver, assistant-driver, a commander, a gunner, and a loader, the tank featured an effective division of tasks. All of these made it a fairly attractive light tank for internal security purposes. Although the more modern M41 featured considerably superior anti-armor capacities, this was not particularly important in the context of a South American country neighboring other countries which mostly operated other WW2 American tanks, and maintained cordial relations with Uruguay.
The tanks were delivered to the Batallón de Infantería Nº 13 (ENG: 13th Infantry Battalion), founded in 1904. After receiving the M24s, the regiment was renamed to Batallón de Infantería Blindado Nº 13 (ENG: 13th Armored Infantry Battalion). They formed the Compañía Blindada de Tanques (Armored Tanks Company), formally created on 12 July 1958. Two tanks formed a command section while the remaining 15 were divided into three platoons of five.
An M24 in service of the Uruguayan army during the first years, likely in the late 1950s or early 1960s. The vehicle features the Uruguayan army roundel and retains a unicolor camouflage, likely the original US Olive Drab. Source: uruguaymilitaria.comAnother Uruguayan Chaffee during manoeuvers early in the vehicle’s service in Uruguay; the vehicle still bears the large cocard and unicolour camouflage scheme. Source: facebook
The tanks appear to first have been used in a unicolor camouflage, likely olive drab. They received Uruguayan army roundels, comprising a blue roundel in the center, circled by white and then further circled by blue, with a red bar going through the roundel diagonally. Later, likely in the 1960s, the tanks were given a four-color scheme, comprising green, yellow, brown and a dark brown bordering on black. They also retained the same roundel and featured the number of the tank, from 01 to 17. The vehicle’s registration number ran from E-3001 to E-3017.
At some point, likely in the 1960s, one of the tanks was also fitted with a dozer blade designed by Alférez Otto Gossweiler (Alférez being a junior military rank in the armies of several Spanish and Portuguese’-speaking militaries). This dozer blade was mounted on vehicle n°16, one of the two vehicles belonging to the command section, which makes sense as a vehicle given special tasks that could be required by any part of the battalion. This singular vehicle appears to have retained the dozer blade ever since.
The Uruguayan Army M24 dozer during a parade. Source: live war thunder
Uruguayan Army service
The first months of the M24’s service in the Uruguayan Army were marked by several instances of ceremonial use in foreign presidential visits to Uruguay, during which the M24 would perform a parade in the streets of Montevideo, the Uruguayan capital, often in the company of the M3A1 Stuarts which were still retained in service by this point.
Uruguayan Army M24s during the April 1958 parade, their first public appearance in Uruguay. Source: uruguaymilitaria.com
The first of such instances was a parade on 7th April 1958, on the occasion of the visit of Argentinian President Arturo Frondizi. This was the first public appearance of the M24 in Uruguay, mere months or weeks after the vehicles were delivered. They performed a parade again during US President Dwight Eisenhower’s visit to Uruguay on 2nd to 3rd March 1960, alongside M3A1s.
Uruguayan Army M24s during the 1960 parade for the visit of US President Eisenhower. The tanks feature a numbering scheme seemingly not seen on other photos, in which their number is present in a white circle on the mudguard and lower turret side. Source: uruguaymilitaria.com
The 1960s were a decade of turmoil in Uruguay, with an economic crisis caused by struggling Uruguayan exports causing significant unrest and political uproar. This led to the rise of an armed revolutionary left-wing movement known as the Tupamaros or MLN-T (Movimiento de Liberación Nacional-Tupamaros, Tupamaros National Liberation Movement) which would progressively grow more violent. In 1968, the Uruguayan president, Jorge Pachero, declared a state of emergency that would see the military largely deployed in the streets. The following president, Juan María Bordaberry, would continue authoritarian policies and suspend civil liberties. In June 1973, he dissolved the Uruguayan congress and became a de facto dictator sponsored by the Uruguayan military.
During this time, the Tupamaros fought in an urban guerilla war against the Uruguayan military. The M24s were regularly employed in the streets as a show of force, being a very intimidating presence to potential insurgents. The dozer-blade-equipped tank, notably, would likely have proved effective in clearing out barricades. It has been theorized that the vehicle was fitted with this device during the era of struggle against the Tupamaros for this exact reason. By mid-1972, the Tupamaros had largely been defeated, killed, captured or forced into exile, as many other Uruguayans had been. The Uruguayan dictatorship would maintain itself all the way to 1985 however, engaging in repressive policies which, while often overshadowed by some employed by other regimes, such as Augusto Pinochet’s Chile, would see a large number of Uruguayans exiled, and many assassinations performed against political opponents, most of which actually took place outside of Uruguay’s borders. The M24s would continue to regularly be used for intimidation purposes during this era, though Uruguay would also purchase more modern tanks in 1982, buying 22 M41 Walker Bulldog light tanks from Belgium.
Late 1980s modernization
In 1984, elections were finally held, seeing Uruguay return to civilian rule from this point onward. Though amnesty for human rights abusers would be declared, Uruguay would move back towards being one of the more democratic and stable countries in South America in the next decades, which would culminate in a former Tupamaros, who had spent fifteen years in prison, José Mujica, being elected president in 2009.
At the same time as Uruguay was transitioning back to democracy, the M24s the country had now operated for about thirty years were becoming increasingly obsolete, and their engines, most significantly, worn out. The original M24’s twin Cadicall 44T24 engines, producing 220 hp, were simply worn out by more than 30 years of active military service of the M24s.
Therefore, it was decided to switch the powerplant of the tanks. For this purpose, the Brazilian company Bernardini was contracted. Some sources refer to this modernization as having occurred in 1983, while some others mention 1987. The M24s were refitted with the Saab-Scania DN11 220-230 hp engine, a Swedish industrial truck engine manufactured in Brazil. A turbocharged version of the same engine family, the DS11, was notably fitted in the Brazilian X1 series of light tanks. This was a commercially available engine for which parts could be very easily sourced. It was coupled with a GAV 762 automatic gearbox.
This amazing rear view of the M24s, with a rainbow in the backgrounds, gives a good view onto the vehicle’s engine decks, largely remodeled to accommodate the Scania engine, with the two large cooling fans being notable Source: facebookTwo M24s, one firing its gun, during exercises in 2016. The top view gives another good angle on the cooling fans. Source: facebookThis photo of an M24 Chaffee and a BMP-1 in an Uruguayan training facility gives a nice view of the Chaffee’s new engine deck. Source: bmpvsu.ruAerial footage of Uruguayan M24 and BVP-1s during the 111th anniversary of Batallón de Infantería Blindado Nº 13 in November 2015, giving a good view of the new engine deck of the Chaffees. Source: youtube
Other modernizations performed around the same time, though not necessarily by the Brazilian company, included refitting the M24 with modern radio equipment, fitting an ammunition-ready rack in the turret, and reboring the M1919A4 machine guns to fire 7.62×51 mm NATO ammunition. The position of the M2 Browning was also changed, with it now put further forward on the turret. Now, it could be operated by the commander reaching out of his cupola, rather than by a man standing on the engine deck. Some sources refer to the upgraded M24 as M24UR, with UR standing for Uruguayano Repotenciado (ENG: Uruguayan Repowered). However, it is unknown if there was anything official about this designation, or if it is colloquial.
An M24 during exercises in 2015. The vehicles have, since the refit, sometimes appeared with a sort of makeshift gun “travel lock” which appears to mostly consist of cords. Source: facebook
Since the modernization
At some point following their modernization, the M24s were given a new camouflage scheme, resembling the American woodland scheme, with a dark brown/black, a lighter brown, and a dark green color. The roundel was removed. In some photos, the number of the vehicle is retained in a dark color on the turret side, while on some others, no vehicle number is to be found.
An M24 during exercises, seemingly in 2017. This vehicle features the number in dark letters on the turret sides. Source: facebookUruguayan Army servicemen stand in front of M24s with camouflage nets in 2017. Source: facebookUruguayan M24s and crews during a military review, likely 1990s or early 2000s. Source: facebook
The 1990s saw the 13th Armored Infantry Battalion, in which the M24 were operated, receive a fleet of fifteen BVP-1s purchased from the Czech Republic. 10 were delivered in 1996, with a further five in 1998, and three vehicles for spare parts in 1999. These more modern infantry fighting vehicles would be operated alongside the M24s within the battalion’s fleet during the coming decades. Other purchases from the 1990s include, for example, Tiran-5Sh main battle tanks and 2S1 self-propelled artillery pieces.
Crewmen srand for a review; one can observe the BVP-1s behind the Chaffees in the background, an original mix of American 1940s and Soviet 1960s vehicle operated by Batallón de Infantería Blindado Nº 13 in the 90s, 2000s, and 2010s. Source: bmpvsu.ru
Uruguayan Army training alongside a Bell UH-1 helicopter in 2013. Source: facebookUruguayan service men stand in front of a BVP-1 and an M24 Chaffee during exercises in June 2014. Source: bmpvsu.ru
A video of the ceremony of the 111th anniversary of Batallón de Infantería Blindado Nº 13, including some drone footage.
An Uruguayan M24 operates alongside Cougars, circa 2018. Source: facebookUruguayan army personnel performing welding for repairs of an M24’s part during some of the last days of the Uruguayan Chaffees in service, in early November 2018. Source: facebook
Some rumors stated that the M24 were retired around 2012 or 2013, but this is nothing more than a misconception. The process of retiring the M24’s started as early as the 4th of June 2011, when it was announced that Brazil would donate 25 M41C’s to Uruguay. These M41C’s were at this point already withdrawn from Brazilian service and served as parade tanks or were delivered at maintenance bases until they were decommissioned. Brazil initially offered 29 M41C’s, but 25 would be selected in the end by Uruguay. It was decided somewhere before the 24th of April 2012, that the M41C’s would be sent to the 13th Armored Infantry Battalion, effectively announcing the imminent retirement of the M24.
From this moment on, the donation process would take another 6 years until it was finally completed. The United States had to give permission for the donation, which it gave on the 20th of May 2014. During these six years, the crews and the 13th Armored Infantry Battalion started training and reorganizing in preparation for the arrival of the M41C, partially by training on the M41A1UR. The first M41C was finally delivered on the 12th of December 2018, receiving a total of 15 that day, and the final M41C was delivered on the 14th of December. The 13th Armored Infantry Battalion announced the retirement of the M24UR from their combat unit on December 18th, 2018. It was officially retired on the 18th of July 2019, marking the official end of the M24’s 61- 62 years of service with the Uruguayan Army and the 13th Armored Infantry Battalion.
Uruguayan M41Cs in November 2019; a BVP-1, but also an M24, are visible in the background. Source: facebook
It appears that, however, three were retained for ceremonial uses, in order to, for example, lead the battalion’s vehicles in parades. As for other M24s, it is likely many will become gate guardians at various Uruguayan Army bases, as a number of previous Uruguayan armored vehicles already have. A photo dated from March 2021 indeed shows two M24s in the background some sort of exams undertaken for their former battalion under a tent. Uruguay is notably keen on preserving armored vehicles, with even one of their three P28s still in existence. If any others are left, it is likely they would provoke some considerable interest from museums and collectors around the world.
Personnel of Batallón de Infantería Blindado Nº 13 take exams in March of 2021. Two M24s are visible in the background. Source: facebook
Conclusion – The last M24s in the world
By the time they were retired, in 2018, Uruguay’s M24 Chaffees were the last tanks of the type in use in the world. Though retaining WW2 tanks for a particularly long time is not uncommon in South America – Paraguay still counts Shermans and Stuarts in its inventory – the Uruguayan Chaffees are notable in the sense that they have remained operational for a truly extended period of time without any major breaks, and indeed within the same unit. Indeed, operating in the same unit for 60 years, the 13th Armored Infantry Battalion’s M24 Chaffees are a serious contender for the longest continuously serving armored vehicles with one unit.
Camouflaged M24 Chaffees parked in front of a sunset during the 2016 exercises. Though they would soon go out of active service, the fact these tanks even served for so long – and appeared to remain operational through the decades – is a testimony to the quality of Uruguayan crews and mechanics operating the tanks. Source: facebook
While the vehicles are no longer operational in Uruguay, it appears they will continue to feature in years to come for ceremonial and decorative use – a well deserved honor after seeing generations of tankmen in the same light tank.
An Uruguayan M24 in the late 1950s, in Olive Drab camouflage, sporting the Uruguayan army roundel and the rear-mounted .50cal machine-gunThe dozer-equipped M24 after having been through the modernization, fitted with a new engine and with the .50cal machine-gun now brought to the front of the turret so it can be used by the commander from the opened hatch.The same M24 dozer in the later, “woodlands-style” camouflage adopted by the Uruguayan military.A standard M24UR with the new camouflage type and stowage on the turret sidesAn M24 with camouflage nets. All illustrations created by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon Campaign
Illustration of the M1985, Created by Tank Encyclopedia's own David Bocquelet and funded by our Patreon campaign
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (1980s-Present)
Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun – Unknown Number Built
Ever since the creation of the Korean People’s Army as the standing force of the North Korean state in 1948, the army had to deal with the threat of a US-supported South. The Republic of Korea, or South Korea, would typically benefit from air superiority due to the large involvement of the US Air Force on their side. As early as the pre-1950 build-up, some primitive self-propelled anti-aircraft guns could be found in the form of GAZ-AAs trucks armed with 12.7 mm machine guns.
The rise of indigenous North Korean self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery would mostly start in the 1970s though. During this time, due to a large build-up of North Korea’s military industry that was started by the local production or assembly of T-55s and PT-76s, North Korea was starting to diversify its production. It introduced a number of indigenous designs based on whatever Soviet or Chinese technology was available. Though a first self-propelled anti-aircraft gun was found in the form of the M1978, made on the hull of the Tokchon series of self-propelled artillery pieces and mounting two 37 mm Type 65 autocannons of Chinese origins, this was only a fairly primitive vehicle. Somewhat more advanced vehicles would be manufactured in the coming years – the M1985 being the first of a series of vehicles based on the hull of the Soviet ZSU-23-4 Shilka.
North Korea and the ZSUs: a complex and misunderstood relationship
The operation of the Soviet Union’s self-propelled anti-aircraft guns by North Korea – both the ZSU-57-2 and the ZSU-23-4 – is an often misunderstood subject. North Korea does not actually appear to have operated any of the two types in massive numbers. There is no tangible evidence of North Korea having even operated the ZSU-57-2 at all. Though a rumor states North Korea received 250 ZSU-57-2 turrets, which it mounted on Chinese Type 59 hulls, there have never been any solid sources backing such a claim up, nor photographic evidence, and this is likely a myth. The ZSU-57-2 was certainly known by North Korean engineers, and it appears to have inspired the M1985 self-propelled anti-aircraft guns in some ways, but it may have never set track on the Korean peninsula.
North Korea is, however, known to have received a small number of ZSU-23-4 Shilkas from the Soviet Union in the early 1970s. There exists some very limited photographic evidence of these Shilkas, and only a small number were likely received. They did, however, have a deep influence on the development of North Korea’s own self-propelled anti-aircraft guns.
North Korean officials in front of two self-propeleld anti-aircraft gun; to the left a 30 mm-armed M1989, and to the right one of the rare North Korean ZSU-23-4s Shilkas. Source: THE ARMED FORCES OF NORTH KOREA, On The Path Of Songun
The M1985: ZSU-57-2’s guns on a Shilka’s legs.
As the name it was given by the US Department of Defence implies, the M1985 self-propelled anti-aircraft gun was first observed in 1985. The actual date of its origin is unknown. We know that a prototype of the more advanced M1989 self-propelled anti-aircraft gun was spotted as early as 1983, and the M1985 likely predates this more advanced system. It may even have been part of the several vehicle models introduced in the late 1970s/early 80s alongside the M1981 Shin’Heung and the Chonma-Ho. The M1985, using mostly off-the-shelf parts from Soviet designs, likely did not have a particularly long development cycle.
The vehicle could be very shortly described as mounting the ZSU-57-2’s armament of two S-68A 57 mm autocannons on a chassis copied from the GMZ-575 found on the ZSU-23-4.
North Korea’s version of the GMZ-575 chassis
The hull of the M1985 appears to be a visually almost identical copy of the ZSU-23-4’s GMZ-575 tracked chassis. Only a few differences may be seen. The North Korean model appears to have different side stowage, with four stowage hatches to be found instead of three on the Shilka. The glacis may be angled a few degrees further back. The M1985 also lacks the three towing hooks found on the ZSU-23-4’s lower front plate. The M1985 also appears to use different tracks, with a central pin and two side pads.
Another view of M1985 in the same 2012 parade as earlier. The hull is very similar, but not exactly identical, to the PT-76-based GMZ-575. Source: m.blog.naver
There is no way to know if the North Korean version of the GMZ-575 retains the propulsive elements of the Shilka or instead moved to use another engine. The GMZ-575 chassis was originally based on the PT-76 light tank, which North Korea is thought to have assembled at the Sinhung tank plant in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Therefore, it is likely that the chassis was relatively easy to start to manufacture. North Korea operates a number of other vehicles in a similar weight range, notably the variety of vehicles based on the 323 armored personnel carrier and the M1981 light tank. It is not impossible to think the North Koreans may have tried to introduce some part commonality between their fleet, but this is pretty much just conjecture.
If the North Korean version is believed to have similar capacities to the original GMZ-575, it likely means the M1985 should be able to reach a maximum speed of about 50 km/h, and overall be somewhat less mobile than main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles due to a lower power-to-weight ratio.
Firepower: A ZSU-57-2 that cannot aim its gun low enough
On this GMZ-575-based hull, the North Korean mounted what appears to be essentially a new, but quite simple turret. It has a very simple rectangular shape when looked at from the side, but there are two slightly angled front-sides plates. The turret sides appear separated into a lower and upper section; the upper one may perhaps be folded down in some way, though the use of such a feature is somewhat questionable. The armor protection of the turret, as the hull, is likely very low – probably only able to resist rifle-caliber projectiles at most.
A row of three M1985s on Kim-Il Sung square during a parade. The simple shape of the turret, but also its division between a lower and upper section, may be seen here. Source: reddit
The turret is open-topped, and features as its main armament a local version of the dual 57 mm S-68A gun system found on the ZSU-57-2. Whether or not any significant modifications were applied to these guns is unknown. If they were kept identical to the original Soviet guns, the system could fire up to 240 rounds a minute. This rate of fire is hampered by the use of hand-fed five-round clips, requiring very frequent reloads. The shells in themselves are very powerful for an anti-aircraft gun. The projectiles weigh 2.8 kg and contain a 1.2 kg charge of nitrocellulose powder for the High Explosive shells, while the Armor Piercing shells offer some very decent penetration capacities of up to 110 mm or armor at 500 m – enough to deal with the vast majority of armored vehicles lighter than main battle tanks. These guns offer a strong recoil, which may be felt more strongly on the lighter GMZ-575-based hull than on the original ZSU-57-2. As on the ZSU-57-2, the operation of these guns is likely managed by four men, a gunner, two loaders and a sight adjuster. This would increase to five if the commander is included.
While powerful in theory, the operation of these guns is very much primitive even by the standards of the 1980s, let alone modern ones. With only optical sights, they are woefully outdated against modern planes, and while they may be effective against helicopters, those may typically identify the target, process it and send a missile on the way of an M1985 way before it can accurately estimate the range and start to fire. Against armored vehicles, the M1985 once again faces an issue, though a much simpler one. Simply put, the turret found on the M1985 does not appear to allow for anything but positive elevation. When looking at the turret, it does not appear the guns have enough space to target anything below their level. In other words, they would be unable to find an angle to fire against ground targets in the vast majority of scenarios. This appears to be a massive oversight. Considering whatever little views we have of the M1985, perhaps a way the vehicle could target ground targets – for example by lowering the turret’s side panels – may exist. It has, however, never been seen. The guns also feature a travel lock going up from the front of the hull.
Crewmen of an M1985 saluting from the open turret during a parade, with a flag of the Korean Worker’s Party in the forefront. Source: m.blog.naver
Operation by the Korean People’s Army
The M1985 has been in service of the Korean People’s Army at least since the early 1980s, but, as almost systematically with North Korean armor, details of its service use are pretty much non-existent. In comparison to previous types, such as the M1978 Tokchon-based self-propelled anti-aircraft gun or the M1983/M1984, which appear to be little more than a ZPU-4 quadruple 14.5 mm machine gun mounted on a 323 hull, the M1985 brings somewhat of an improvement, as a more mature self-propelled anti-aircraft design. However, this does not prevent it from being entirely obsolete in the era it was fielded in. Mounting an armament designed for an era in which it would face early jet fighters and primitive helicopters, it would be fielded at a point in which jet fighters could fly well past Mach 2, and helicopters, such as later versions of the AH-1 Cobra, or soon the new AH-64 Apache, with advanced targeting systems, could likely make short work of a self-propelled anti-aircraft guns that has nothing but optical sights and old, powerful but low rate-of-fire guns.
The production numbers of the M1985 are unknown. The vehicle was spotted in a number of North Korean parades, including some recent ones, but the introduction of the much more advanced M1989 self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, which seemingly uses the same chassis as the M1985 but features two radar-guided 30 mm guns, may mean that the M1985 only had a fairly short-lived production run. Nonetheless, the type remains in North Korean service today. The country has a policy of retaining armored vehicles in service way past the point of obsolescence (largely to outfit the very large army it maintains to defend itself, which could not be provided with enough material if only modern weaponry was retained) so it is not surprising to find a system with capacities similar to another one, which had its prime in the late 1950s, still be in main line service today.
Rows of M1985 with their guns elevated on parade. Though, in this way, the vehicle looks impressive, it is hopelessly outdated for modern warfare. Source: m.blog.naver
Conclusion – A stepping stone to more advanced self-propelled anti-aircraft gun designs
The M1985 could hardly be considered a decent self-propelled anti-aircraft gun. With an obsolete weapon system – by the late 1970s or early 1980s, while North Korea was introducing the M1985, Eastern Bloc countries were phasing out the ZSU-57-2 almost entirely – and no form of modern fire control, its firepower against air targets is very limited. Also, with seemingly no way of operating decently against ground targets either, the vehicle may have some very limited use overall.
Nonetheless, it remains an important stepping stone in North Korea’s path towards producing a modern self-propelled anti-aircraft gun. With the M1985, North Korea introduced its own version of the GMZ-575 chassis, which would then be used for the M1989 – mating this chassis with a Shilka-inspired turret armed with twin 30 mm guns based on the naval AK-230, with a targeting radar. An even more advanced vehicle featuring the same hull was mentioned, but with a turret armed with a 30 mm rotary cannon, once again based on a naval gun (the AK-630), as well as side-mounted man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS), with both a long-range target acquisition and short-range tracking radar. No photos of this seemingly quite advanced vehicle, designated M1994 by the US Department of Defence, appear to be publicly available.
A close view of an M1989, likely from the same 2012 parade as earlier photos. The vehicle uses the same hull as the M1985, but its turret mounts an armament much more suited to fight against modern anti-air threats. Source: m.blog.naverIllustration of the M1985, created by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet and funded by our Patreon campaign
M1985 specifications
Suspension
Torsion bars
Maximum speed (road)
~ 50 km/h
Crew
Likely 6 (driver, commander, gunner, two loaders, sight adjustor)
Armament
Locally-manufactured version of the 57mm S-68A
Rate of fire
240 rounds per minute maximum
Armor
Very light (likely no more than the ZSU-23-4, aka 15mm maximum)
The Germans armed forces made wide use of captured equipment during the Second World War, particularly the ground forces of the Wehrmacht, the Heer. Following the conquests of 1939 to 1942, thousands of armored vehicles were left behind German lines, sometimes lightly damaged or even intact. Efforts would be undertaken to field these vehicles, both by frontline German units seeking to strengthen their numbers and by rear-line security units seeking armor to fight against partisans and resistance movements in Europe. These are known as Beutepanzers (captured/trophy tanks).
As one of the most produced tanks of the war, and one fielded by the Soviets during the great German offensives in 1941-1942, large numbers of T-34s fell into German hands. Designated T-34 747(r) (German Beutepanzer designations used a three-digit system in which the first number would designate the type of vehicle, if starting with 7, a tank; the (r) would indicate the Soviet (Russland) origin of the vehicle), the vehicle would be widely used by German formations. Large number of local field modifications would be undertaken by the Germans, often consisting of fitting German equipment into their T-34s to ease their operations. However, the vehicles would sometimes operate in an entirely different role as to what they were originally intended for. The hull of the T-34 was fairly commonly used without its turret as a Bergepanzer (armored recovery vehicle), with the lack of such vehicles being a chronic issue within the German army. In 1944, it would appear that one of these Bergepanzer T-34s was modified by the field workshop of Schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653 on the Eastern front, being turned into a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun armed with a Flakvierling quadruple mount for the 2 cm Flak 38 autocannon.
The Conversion
Schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653 was a heavy tank destroyer battalion, operating mostly the Elefant (formerly known as Ferdinand) tank destroyer. By 1944, two of the battalion’s three companies were deployed on the Eastern Front, around North-Western Ukraine, while the other company was deployed in Italy.
Though the Elefant was the unit’s standard combat vehicle, it appears a number of other armored vehicles were present in the unit’s inventory, including some Bergepanzer T-34(r). One of these would undergo a conversion into a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun. This was performed by the maintenance company of the battalion, Werkstattkompanie 653. The conversion appears to have dated from May or June 1944. Interestingly enough, a similar conversion on the hull of a Bergepanther is also reported to have existed within the same unit in the summer of 1944, though there are no known photos of it.
The armament of the vehicle was a 2 cm Flakvierling 38 mounting four 20 mm autocannons. This quadruple mount was introduced in May of 1940. As well as combining the four guns, it included collapsible seats and folding handles. In the field configuration, it could elevate to up to +100°. Each of the individual 2 cm Flak 38 guns had a cyclic rate of fire of 450 rounds per minute, which would result in a massive 1,800 20 mm rounds sent downrange per minute on the Flakvierling, though in practice, due to operations such as reloading the gun, as well as minimizing overheating, the practical rate of fire would be around 800 rounds per minute, which was still massive for 20 mm ammunition. The rounds fired by the Flak 38 included SprGr.Patr.L/Spur (HE), Pzgr Patr 40 L/Spur (AP penetrating 40 mm at 100 meters) and Pzgr Patr L/pur m Zerlegung (AP/HE incendiary). Muzzle velocity varied from 830 to 900 m/s depending on which type of ammunition was used. The Flakvierling would weigh around 1,520 kg in operation, though the additional armor plates found on the Flakpanzer T-34’s armament make its weight hard to estimate.
The hull on which this was mounted was a T-34, the production factory and year not being known. This was the standard Soviet medium tank, which used a welded hull with both sloped front and sides, armored at 45 mm (not accounting for the angling). The engine was a V-2-34 V12 diesel engine producing 500 hp in theory, though in practice the output was typically lesser due to issues with air filters quality.
A rear view of the Flakpanzer T-34, along with a StuG III. The vehicle’s turret was fully open to the rear. Source: beutepanzer.ru
On the Flakpanzer T-34, this Flakvierling mount was given what could be described as the intermediate between a gun shield and a fully rotatable turret. The armor protection, though from the front it may appear as comprising all sides but the top, as it would be on a Flakpanzer IV Wirbelwind, was actually fully open at the rear, with only the front and sides being given armor. The armor plates were reportedly taken from disabled German half-tracks (likely Sd.Kfz.251s), which would give them a thickness of either 8 mm or 14.5 mm, most likely the lighter option (the lighter weight would have eased rotation of the mount, and there was a greater quantity of lighter plates to salvage from German half-tracks). These plates appear to have been welded together. The turret is at its highest at the front, with the front plates being fairly similar in shape to what could be found on the Flakpanzer IV Wirbelwind. The height of the armor plates declined progressively over the sides.
The Flakpanzer T-34, likely in July 1944. This photo gives a good view of the general architecture of the turret, but also of the armored collar installed along the turret race, and the large ammunition rack installed on the rear-right of the hull. Source: beutepanzer.ru
Outside of these additional armored plates, a large armor-plated collar was installed around the turret race, likely intended as protection to this very vulnerable part of the vehicle. Further modifications were undertaken to fulfill the vehicle’s role as an anti-aircraft weapon by adding a large ammunition container rack on the right rear of the hull, holding a number of stowage boxes for 20 mm ammunition. Spare track links were also present on the hull’s sides. The hull machine gun appears to have been retained.
Operation
The nature of the Flakpanzer T-34 crew’s composition is not known. In the field, a Flakvierling 38 would have a large crew of eight, but this was obviously not a possibility for a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun on a tank chassis, which could not transport such a high crew complement. A crew composition similar to the Flakpanzer IV Wirbelwind, with the radio operator ditched due to seating for only one crewman existing inside the T-34 hull itself, may have been adopted: this would have left the Flakpanzer T-34 with a crew of four. It would consist of a driver, a commander/gunner and two loaders. A photo of the vehicle in operation does show four servicemen posing on it, which would perhaps support this theory but is not deep, tangible evidence.
This photo, taken likely the same day as the previous one, shows four German servicemen posing on the Flakpanzer T-34. They may be the operators of the vehicle, with a four-man crew seeming to be the most practical and in line with more standard-issue German Flakpanzers. Source: beutepanzer.ru
The vehicle was operated by an anti-aircraft detachment that would have covered Schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653 on the Eastern Front. The vehicle is known to have been operated in July of 1944. This would be smack in the middle of Operation Bagration, the massive Soviet 1944 summer offensive. While no report of the Flakpanzer T-34’s combat record has surfaced, it is as such very likely the vehicle would have been engaged in combat during this time.
The battalion the Flakpanzer T-34 was operated in would be removed from the front on the 3rd of August 1944 for re-equipment and rest, after having been battered by weeks of fighting. Crucially, while twelve Elefants remained, no mention of the Flakpanzer T-34 exists after this point, and it appears the vehicle was not present as the unit was patched up, which suggests it was likely lost in July or very early August 1944. The exact causes of this loss are unknown. The vehicle may merely have been lost in combat, or have suffered a breakdown that could not have been solved due to lack of Soviet spare parts or advancing Soviet forces. The precise fate of the vehicle is in any case unknown, with all known views of it showing it during its short time in service of Schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653.
Conclusion – The only confirmed Flakpanzer T-34
The Flakpanzer T-34 has, over the years, gathered some considerable interest from Second World War armor enthusiasts. The vehicle has been upheld as an impressive example of the various field conversions and modifications that were often fielded during the conflict, particularly within the German armored forces. Indeed, the vehicle can be described as seemingly rather formidable for a field conversion. Though obviously some very important aspects of it, such as for example the rotation speed of its turret or even confirmation of its crew layout or armor thickness, are not known, the Flakvierling 38 was a deadly anti-aircraft system and the Flakpanzer T-34 would likely have far superior anti-aircraft performances than what would typically be expected of a captured tank hull modified for such duties in a field workshop.
The Flakvierling armed vehicle is not the only Flakpanzer T-34 claimed to have existed. Two other models have popped up in Internet rumors, but none are confirmed to have existed – one is fairly likely but the other not so much. The less likely one was that a T-34 was refitted with a much larger 8.8 cm Flak gun around the turret race and used in combat, reportedly in April 1945 in Saxonia. A photo manipulation has been circulated around showing a T-34 hull fitted with such a gun, the original photo instead showing a standard T-34-85. The more likely conversion would be a T-34 refitted with the triple MG 151/20 Drilling mounting featured in some anti-aircraft German half-tracks, a much lighter main armament which would likely have been far less problematic to install. A photomanipulation of this vehicle also circulates around, based on a photo originally showing a Bergepanzer T-34. A unit has reportedly been mentioned for this conversion, Panzer-Jäger-Abteilung 561, but its existence remains to be proven and it is best described as a rumor as of now. The Flakvierling-armed vehicle, as such, remains the only confirmed Flakpanzer T-34.
The Flakpanzer T-34 behind a Kübelwagen during its service, likely in Western Ukraine or Galicia, summer 1944. Source: beutepanzer.ruIllustration of the Flakpanzer T-34(r) (2 cm Flakvierling 38), created by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe on the basis of work by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.
Flakpanzer T-34(r) (2 cm Flakvierling 38)
Weight
Likely around 30 tons
Engine
V-2-34 V12 diesel engine producing 500 hp (theoretical)
Crew
Likely 4 (possibly commander/gunner, driver and two loaders)
Following the liberation of France, which started in June 1944 and was mostly concluded, with the exception of areas towards Alsace and some western ports by the end of August that same year, rebuilding France’s military industry quickly became a new priority for the French government. Once a world leader, the French military industry had been considerably weakened by years of German requisitions and Allied bombings. If France wanted to retain an important and independent place on the world stage, a healthy military industry would prove a massively useful tool.
The first phases of the French military industry getting back on its feet often took the basis of pre-1940 vehicles being modernized to suit modern needs (such as the Panhard 178B, the first armored fighting vehicle produced by France post-war) or used as the basis for vehicles swaying away from the original hull’s role. Within these, one could name three tank destroyers projects which were submitted by the Atelier Mécanique d’Issy-Les-Moulineaux (AMX) in November 1945, mating the hulls of two pre-1940 French tanks, the R35 and S35, with the British 17-pounder anti-tank gun.
A ¾ front view of the S35 tank destroyer, showing the general shape of the casemate, driver’s hatch, and the large rear ammunition locker. Source: Mémoire des hommes
AMX’s proposals
There were three different proposals for 17-pounder-armed tank destroyers based on old French hulls. Two were based on the Renault R35 hull, one with a front-facing, and one with a rear-facing gun. These both dated from 8th November 1945. The third project actually predates both, with two documents, a ¾ top view of the vehicle dated from 11th October 1945, and a set of plans dated from 10th October.
As for the choice of the old French tank hull, while a number of S35s were seized after the liberation of France, this number remained limited, and the project was most likely never seriously intended for production. Instead, it likely was a ‘proof-of-concept’ and a way for AMX’s engineers to get back into designing armored vehicles on the basis of familiar components. One could argue that, in comparison to the R35, the S35 would provide a more viable basis, being a larger vehicle more suited to mount a heavy gun the like of the 17 pounder.
Overall superstructure
A front view of the S35 tank destroyer, showing the offset gun, driver’s post, and location of the most important ammunition stowage. Source: Mémoire des hommes
Mounting the 17-pounder on the hull of the Somua S35 obviously required some major changes to the superstructure and hull, though perhaps more moderate than on the lighter and smaller base of the R35. In the case of the S35, pretty much the whole front section of the upper hull and turret would be removed in order to accommodate the 17-pounder and fighting compartment. However, the engine compartment and rear part of the hull would be kept pretty much unchanged.
Overall, removing the turret would free up 2,350 kg. A further 1,850 kg of upper hull armor plates would be removed as well, and an additional 200 kilos of equipment. With all of this removed, the Somua, before receiving any of the additional equipment, would go down from 20,000 to 15,600 kg.
In place of the previous front upper hull, a new large armored superstructure would be installed. This was a fairly high superstructure, though, at a maximum height of 2.25 m, the tank destroyer would overall be shorter than the S35 tank. This superstructure, however, retained a bulky and massive silhouette the tank would have lacked. To the front, the sides angled forward towards the gun, which was offset to the right of the hull. The weight of this armored superstructure would be 2,000 kg, which was a lot more than on the R35 proposals. Though this may partially be explained by the superstructure simply being, to an extent, larger, it was also likely better armored to an extent – though the vehicle’s armor protection would most likely still have been lower than on the S35, not even accounting for the open top.
A side cutaway view of AMX’s S35 tank destroyer, showing the considerable length of the vehicle, of which an ample proportion was represented by the barrel. Source: Mémoire des hommes
This new casemate housed the British 17-pounder anti-tank gun, one of the most powerful anti-tank guns fielded by the Allies during the Second World War. In the form mounted in the tank destroyer, it weighed 1,630 kg. The gun was installed quite far forward in the hull, so as to leave sufficient internal space between its breech and the engine compartment for the vehicle crew. As a result, it overhanged the front of the hull by a whopping 2.86 m, bringing the length of the vehicle to 7.93 m. This gun, placed far to the front, also brought the center of gravity forward by 0.48 m, or from about the middle of the fifth roadwheel from the front to about the middle of the fourth roadwheel from the front. The gun had a field of fire of 29° to the right, and 16° to the left. It could elevate to 22° and depress to -9°.
The vehicle featured a 250 kg rounded mantlet, similar to the two R35 proposals. Unlike those two, the larger size of the S35 hull meant there was little overhang of the casemate over the engine compartment; though the casemate featured a form of bustle which contained an ammunition locker. The engine was still basically free to access. The vehicle retained the same powerplant as a conventional S35, a Somua 8-cylinders 190 hp engine. However, the S35 tank destroyer would be somewhat heavier than the S35, with an estimated weight of 21,658 kg, which would have resulted in a power-to-weight ratio to drop to about 8.8 hp/tonne, and the vehicle could overall be expected to be somewhat less mobile than the original S35 tank.
Internal arrangement, ammunition stowage, and crew
The plans of the S35 tank destroyer, as with the two R35 projects, depict it with a crew of only two – a driver sitting on the left of the vehicle and given a vision hatch through the new armored superstructure, and a commander which would presumably also operate the gun all by himself. It is very unlikely such a crew configuration was actually intended to be used. More so than on the R35 projects, the armored superstructure of the S35 allowed for enough place to accommodate at least one, if not two, additional crewmen, which would be more than helpful to operate a gun such as the 17-pounder in optimal conditions.
A top view of AMX’s S35 tank destroyer, showing the internal space that would be allocated to the crew between the massive gun and the engine compartment. Though portrayed with two crewmen, it is likely the vehicle would realistically have had a larger crew. Source: Mémoire des hommes
Two different ammunition lockers were provided for the vehicle. One was located to the right of the driver, below the gun’s breech, and accommodated 24 shells. A larger ammunition rack was installed in a form of bustle formed by the armored superstructure towards the rear, which would contain 54 shells. Finally, four shells would be stored on each side of the armored superstructure to form ready-racks, giving the vehicle a total ammunition carrying capacity of 86 rounds – or 1,978 kg of ammunition, to which one may add 200 kg for the weight of the ammunition locker and racks. This meant that firing all of the vehicle’s ammunition would considerably lighten it up, by more than 9%. This was not, however, as impressive as the front-facing R35 tank destroyer proposal, which would lighten up by around 13% after firing all of its ammunition.
Conclusion – Not a way you want to use a Somua’s hull
This S35 project could be argued to be the most reasonable and realistic design out of the three which were proposed by AMX’s engineers in late 1945. This was simply due to the fact the larger S35 hull would provide a far more viable basis for a large anti-tank gun such as the 17-pounder in comparison to the R35 hull, which would struggle to accommodate such a gun in a way that would make its operation viable. Nonetheless, it remained an obsolete concept. A fairly slow, not amphibious nor airborne, open-topped tank destroyer would have served as an anachronism in the post-war battlefields, had it been chosen for production. This would not, however, be the case, with the few remaining Somua S35s in French hands continuing their service as cavalry tanks until 1946 in the 13ème Régiment de Dragons, and even as gendarmerie vehicles for some years in French North Africa.
Wargaming’s S35 CA, fictionally armed with a 90 mm gun. Source: youtube
The Somua S35 tank destroyer would likely have remained an obscure project in the archives of AMX, were it not for its introduction in Wargaming’s World of Tanks as the “S35 CA”. Even for what was only a blueprint, the vehicle could be modified by the player into an ahistorical configuration there, by replacing the 17-pounder by a 90 mm anti-aircraft gun. From the start, the vehicle is also powered by the 220 hp engine intended for the S40, and is later given a so-called “S40 Bis” 260 hp engine. This is also wrong compared to the historical configuration of the vehicle, and was obviously added as a gameplay element, disregarding the historical project – a pretty systematic policy for Wargaming, which many other French paper projects, the likes of the AMX-40, have suffered from as well.
The AMX S35 tank destroyer in a fictional French post-war scheme. Illustration created by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe on the basis of work by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquellet
Chasseur de Char de 76.2mm AMX sur châssis S35 specifications
Dimensions (L x w x h)
7.93 x 2.05 x 2.25 m
Weight in battle order
21,568 kg
Engine
Somua 8-cylinders 190 hp engine
Power-to-weight ratio
8.8 hp/ton
Armament
17-pounder anti-tank gun
Ammunition stowage
86 rounds
Crew
Uncertain (a driver and commander for sure; likely a loader, perhaps a gunner)
Kreuzer Panzerkampfwafen Mk IV 744(e) 243 during Operation Barbarossa, illustration by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet
German Reich (1940-1941)
Cruiser Tank – 9 Operated
“To the victor, goes the spoils”. The old proverb is often true of modern warfare as well. During the Second World War, the German Wehrmacht made very intensive and extensive use of captured armor to fulfill a wide array of roles, from security vehicles to hulls used to create tank destroyers and self-propelled guns. These vehicles are known as Beutepanzers. Prior to 1941, the vehicles captured in the greatest numbers and used most intensively were French tanks, due to the fall of the country and its large tank force to Germany in May-June 1940. However, it is often swept under the rug that Germany captured and reused some British equipment too. A considerable number of armored vehicles was left behind by the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) as it evacuated France in June 1940. Of these, a number of Mark IV Cruiser tanks are notable as these were, for a short time, actually employed by the Wehrmacht during Operation Barbarossa, albeit with poor results.
A Kreuzer-Panzerkampfwagen Mk IV 744(e) beside a German truck during Operation Barbarossa. Despite being captured in small numbers only, the Mark IV would have the dubious honor of participating in the German invasion of the Soviet Union in a flamethrower tank battalion’s ranks. Source: beutepanzer.ru
The Cruiser Tank Mark IV (A.13 Mk II)
As its name indicates, the Cruiser Mark IV was the fourth adopted model of the series of British Cruiser tanks, designed around high mobility at the cost of armor protection. The vehicle shared the A.13 designation with the fairly similar Cruiser Tank Mark III (A.13 Mk I), of which it was an improved version of.
The main features of the design were a front armor increased to 30 mm from 14 mm on the Mk III, a three-man turret armed with the 40 mm 2-Pounder anti-tank gun, a Christie suspension, and a powerful 340 hp engine that allowed for a high maximum speed of 48 km/h (even higher in trials). Overall, the design could be said to be fairly solid for the early war. A three-man turret was a feature not too common outside of German medium tanks, the 2-Pounder had good performances against early German tanks, the design was fairly mobile and 30 mm of armor, though it would not protect against 37 mm anti-tank guns, was still not particularly on the lower end of highly mobile tanks in the same weight class and role as the Mark IV, such as the Soviet BT-7, for example.
A German soldier stands inside a yet-to-be repainted Cruiser Mark IV during the campaign of France, 1940. It appears at least one Mark IV was immediately turned back against its original users during the campaign of France, before it was even repainted. Source: Beutepanzer.ru
A number of Cruiser Mark IVs were deployed within the 1st British Armoured Division sent to France as part of the British Expeditionary Force to fight against German troops. Though the Germans claimed the British lost 65 Mark IV in France, only about 40 appear to actually have been deployed there, with the overestimation perhaps due to confusion with the very similar Cruiser Tank Mk III (A.13 Mk I) and simple overestimation. With the campaign of France quickly turning disastrous after the German breakthrough at Sedan on 13th May 1940, the encircled British Expeditionary Force barely made it out during the famous Dunkerque episode – in which it left all of its heavy equipment, including whichever Mark IV had not been lost in combat, behind.
British tanks in German hands
The fall of France in 1940 had left the Germans with a tremendous quantity of captured tanks, or tanks abandoned with various degrees of potentially repairable damage, in their hands. The majority of these were French, and the German quickly set up infrastructure to recover these tanks and send them back to the French factories they captured for potential repair. A non-negligible amount of British tanks were also left behind. However, the issue was that, unlike for French tanks, the Germans had not captured the factories that were producing these tanks or their spare parts alongside the fleet, which made repairing and re-using British armor a much harder affair. This meant that, in general, British tanks were used in much smaller numbers and were much more discreet than their French counterparts in German hands.
Among the vehicles that were recovered were at least nine Cruiser Mark IV tanks, the most modern Cruiser type available to the British army at the time. These were given the German designation of Kreuzer Panzerkampfwagen Mk IV 744(e). Kreuzer Panzerkampfwagen was a mere German translation of their British designation as Cruiser tanks. The number in the 700s indicated a tank; the (e) indicated the vehicle’s country of origin, in this case, the United Kingdom (Englisch).
These nine Cruiser Mark IV tanks were assigned to a rather curious armored unit. In October 1940, they were delivered to Panzer-Abteilung (f) 100. The (f) stood for Flammpanzer. This was a unit centered around the Panzer II (f) Flamingo flamethrower tanks, with the Kreuzer-Panzer added alongside some Panzer IIs to provide more general-purpose supporting fire for these more specialized vehicles. It appears that, outside of these nine Cruiser tanks, some others, perhaps up to six, were sent to the German trials center at Kummersdorf to be evaluated, and a small number of others may have been used by security units, though this is not documented.
A Kreuzer-Panzer, originally a British Mark IVA, recognizable by the new mantlet, in German service in the Netherlands. The vehicle appears to still be identical to its original British specifications outside of the new paint job. Source: beutepanzer.ru
Panzer-Abteilung (f) 100 was stationed in the Dutch city of Terneuzen and village of Zaamslag, located in the southernmost part of the Dutch province of Zeeland, just north of the Belgian border. It stayed there from October 1940 to May 1941. During this time, the unit appears to have taken part in exercises in preparation for the hypothetical invasion of Great Britain, Operation Seelöwe (Sealion). It appears that at least one of the vehicles was loaded into some sort of landing barge during an exercise. As such, in the pretty much materially impossible scenario in which Seelöwe could have occurred, one would likely have seen a small number of Kreuzer-Panzer used by the Germans against their original manufacturers. Though details on the nature of the tanks’ stay in the Netherlands is unclear, they may, more pragmatically, have been used to familiarize German tankers with the vehicles they would have faced fighting against the British, a role in which they could have proved a useful tool.
A Kreuzer-Panzer used during landing exercises. Though the very small German fleets of Cruiser tanks likely would not have achieved much if an invasion of Great Britain ever took place, the vehicle was likely a good platform to familiarize German military men with British tanks. Source: beutepanzer.ru
Into Barbarossa
In May 1941, Panzer-Abteilung (f) 100 moved from its location in Zeeland to the Polish town of Murowana Goślina, North of Pozen/Poznan, and later near the Soviet border at Sielce. The unit was attached to 18. Panzer-Division and was to support its advance into the Soviet Union.
A Kreuzer-Panzer and Panzer II (f) Flamingos, one towing a trailer from the Renault UE, likely either in Poland prior to the start of Barbarossa or during the first days of the campaign. The British Beutepanzer could theoretically have defended the flamethrower tanks against enemy armor, but if the Soviets fielded T-34s or KVs, the Kreuzer-Panzer would prove mostly toothless. Source: beutepanzer.ruPanzer II (f)s in front of a Kreuzer-Panzer. Interestingly enough, the Beutepanzer had its original British tracks replaced with those of the Panzer II Ausf.D, shared with the Panzer II (f), likely due to lack of spares of British tracks and to ease logistical burdens. Source: beutepanzer.ru
Panzer-Abteilung (f) 100 comprised three companies. On 22nd June 1941, it appeared to have at its disposal, outside of the 9 Kreuzer-Panzer, 5 Panzer IIIs, 25 Panzer IIs, and its main force, 42 Flammpanzer II Flamingos.
A column of Panzer-Abteilung (f) 100, including a Panzer III, a Kreuzer-Panzer and Panzer II (f)s. Source: beutepanzer.ru
By this point, the Cruisers had been in German service for several months and had received a number of changes to integrate them into German units. Their original tracks had been replaced with tracks from the Panzer II Ausf.D1. The reasons behind this are unclear, but may very well be logistical, particularly as the Panzer II (f) also operated by the unit were typically converted Ausf.D chassis. The vehicles had also received Notek lights and shelves to hold jerrycans. One was given a tow hook to tow the French trailer originally designed for the Renault UE, which was widely used by the unit.
A Kreuzer-Panzer which received all sorts of German refits. The Panzer II tracks lack the spiky guide horns present on the original British tracks. One may observe the large stowage boxes added to each side of the turret. Source: beutepanzer.ru
Kreuzer-Panzers numbered N°141 to 144, 243 and two with numbers starting with 24 but with the last number unidentified have been found. As the first number in German tank numbering system indicates the company the vehicles served in, it appears the Kreuzer-Panzer served in at least two of the unit’s three companies, and with three numbers missing, the third company may very well have had their British Beutepanzer as well. Within the fairly diverse fleet of armored vehicles operated by such a small unit, the Kreuzer-Panzer were, alongside the five Panzer IIIs, the tanks with the best anti-tank capacities, far exceeding the 20 mm autocannons of the Panzer II, let alone the flamethrowers of the Flamingos. As such, the tanks being distributed in the unit’s companies may have been undertaken in order to provide protection to the flamethrower and autocannon-armed Panzers against Soviet tanks. The 2-Pounder was a very decent anti-tank gun by 1940. By 1941, it would still easily dispose of most Soviet tanks, the likes of the T-26, BT-5, BT-7 or T-28, however, it would largely struggle against T-34s and could realistically only penetrate them from the sides and at fairly short ranges. Against KVs, the gun was fairly hopeless to do anything outside of potentially damaging the tracks.
Kreuzer Panzerkampfwagen Mk IV 744(e) n°141, stopped, perhaps due to a breakdown, in a village likely somewhere in Eastern Poland or Belarus. Source: beutepanzer.ru
Conclusion – A swift end to the Kreuzer-Panzers
As Panzer-Abteilung (f) 100 headed into the Soviet Union alongside 18. Panzer-Division, it was heavily engaged in a number of battles, including the battle for Brest fortress, and less than ten days into the operation, was already past Minsk. However, the service of the British tanks in Operation Barbarossa would be very short. While there are no details on the precise performances of the tanks, the Kreuzer-Panzers would likely have proven very vulnerable to any form of Soviet anti-tank opposition. More than their thin armor protection though, the final blow to the vehicle’s service within the Wehrmacht appears to have been a question of reliability. With few spare parts, most tanks swiftly suffered breakdowns that could not easily be solved. It is known that by 11th July 1941, not even a month into Barbarossa, no Kreuzer-Panzers were left operational, and this appears to have been unchanged all the way to Panzer-Abteilung (f) 100 being retired from the front in November 1941. Though it is possible that some Beutepanzer Mark IVs were still serving in some security units in other parts of German-controlled Europe, there does not appear to be any evidence confirming this, and as such, German use of the Kreuzer Panzerkampfwagen Mk IV 744(e) may very well have ended within the first weeks of Barbarossa.
A Kreuzer-Panzer leads a column of Panzer-Abteilung (f) 100 during Operation Barbarossa. Though originally meant to cross long distances and exploit breakthroughs, the Mark IV could not hope to perform such duties for long if it lacked spare parts. Source: beutepanzer.ru
Despite its short life in the German Army, the Kreuzer-Panzer Mk IV 744(e) remains an interesting example of the large variety of uses Germany made for its Beutepanzers during the war – and has the dubious honor of being one of the few Beutepanzer types used on the frontlines during Operation Barbarossa, albeit only for a short period of time.
Kreuzer Panzerkampfwafen Mk IV 744(e) 243 during Operation Barbarossa, illustration by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet
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.
Oriental Republic of Uruguay (1997-Present)
