Wargaming's mish-mash of EBR parts with an anachronistic, modified TS 90 turret. Illustration by Ardhya 'Vesp' Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
France (1970s)
Armored Car – Fake
The French company of Panhard was and remains perhaps the largest provider of wheeled armored vehicles of the French military ever since the interwar era. The manufacturer of many of France’s most successful armored cars, such as the Panhard 178 or AML, one of the company’s most peculiar armored vehicles for its time was the 8-wheeled Panhard EBR. It was developed as a response to a program initiated as early as March of 1945 by the French Military, looking for a 75 mm armed, high-mobility, long-range wheeled reconnaissance vehicle.
Panhard’s vehicle was adopted in December of 1949 and mass-produced in two major variants all the way up to 1960. Notable for its quite heavy firepower for a wheeled vehicle (particularly the model fitted with the AMX-13’s FL-10 turret, produced from 1954 onward), 8-wheel configuration with two metallic side-wheels being used to improve the vehicle’s cross-terrain capacities (the vehicle using just the 4 front and rear wheels on good terrain), and dual driving post guaranteeing equal speed forward and backward, the EBR served as a mainstay of the French military’s reconnaissance force for most of the Cold War. The vehicle was finally retired in 1985.
In comparison to many other French military vehicles of the era, the EBR was long excluded from most popular video games focusing on armored vehicles, due to those, for a time, almost exclusively including only tracked vehicles. In recent years, though, the progressive diversification of these games, and notably Wargaming’s ‘World of Tanks’ (‘WoT’), has lead to the inclusion of French wheeled vehicles in WoT’s update 1.4, on the 6th of February 2018. As part of that upgrade, six French wheeled vehicles were added to the game; of those, one was Hotchkiss’ EBR prototype, the unlucky competitor to the Panhard EBR in the late 1940s, and two variants of the Panhard EBR: the EBR 90, and the so-called ‘EBR 105’, armed with a 105 mm gun in a turret that has never been seen on the EBR. (The model 1954 EBR, fitted with the FL-10 turret, would also be added a premium at a later date)
A render of Wargaming’s EBR 105. Source: Wargaming
Historical upgrades to the EBR’s firepower
Historically, the Panhard EBR went through two major upgrades to its firepower during its service.
A column of Model 1951 EBRs – the first production model – of France’s 8th Hussars Regiment during military exercises. Source: Char-français
As it first entered service, the EBR was fitted with the 75 mm SA 49 main gun; a medium-velocity 75 mm gun, offering anti-armor performances more along the lines of the 75 mm guns used in vehicles the likes of the Panzer IV during the Second World War – so quite outdated by the 1950s. This gun was fitted in the FL-11, a fairly small oscillating turret, featuring no autoloader but a manual loader instead.
The first concept for improving the EBR’s firepower was straight up giving the vehicle the FL-10 turret used on the AMX-13, which featured the longer 75 mm SA 50 with an autoloader, and was much larger and higher. This concept was first considered in 1951; an EBR prototype first received the FL-10 turret in 1952, and after an order in July of 1953, the first examples would be delivered in the last days of 1954. This model would be known as the EBR model 1954.
An EBR mle 1954 during cross-country exercises. The larger, heavier, and higher FL-10 turret gave the vehicle a much higher silhouette and center of gravity, though the 75 mm SA 50 main gun was vastly more potent than the original 75mm SA 49. Source: char-français
The 75 mm SA 50 offered much more firepower than the SA 49, but the addition of the FL-10 turret made the EBR heavier (from 12.5 to 14.9 tonnes) and higher (from 2.33 to 2.58 m). Therefore, the FL-10 armed model only supplemented the FL-11 armed one, with only about 280 FL-10 equipped EBR manufactured, while about 900 FL-11 equipped ones were produced.
The 1960s saw considerable evolution in anti-tank gun technology, and notably lower-pressure guns firing HEAT projectiles. These new guns could offer performances similar or even superior to older low-velocity guns at a fraction of the weight (albeit typically at a reduced maximum effective range). For the EBR, this resulted in the D.921A gun, the same as on Panhard’s lighter AML being adopted for the FL-11 equipped examples in 1964. With the Panhard EBR being out of production by four years at this point, 650 FL-11 equipped EBR were refitted with the 90 mm gun, and all remaining EBRs equipped with the FL-10 or FL-11 were phased out of service.
A 90 mm-armed Panhard EBR, with the side wheels retracted for road circulation. This model can be quite hard to differentiate with the original model 1951, seeing as the turret is the same and the main guns can be quite similar in length. Source: char-français
No major firepower upgrade appears to have been considered on the EBR following the refitting of the 90 mm D.921A, with the vehicle quickly appearing to be, by most measures, quite obsolete (lacking in NBC protection notably). While a replacement was considered as early as the 1960s in the form of the ERAC, its final development, the AMX-10RC, would only enter service in the late 1970s – leaving the last EBRs soldiering on until 1985 in France.
Wargaming’s EBR 105
In Wargaming’s World of Tanks, the EBR 105 stands as the pinnacle of French wheeled vehicles in the game, as a Tier X; it serves as the conclusion of the branch.
Wargaming’s description of the vehicle is as follows: “A variant of the Panhard EBR armored vehicle with more powerful armament. It featured improved suspension and the two-man GIAT TS 90 turret, upgraded to accommodate a 105 mm gun. The vehicle never saw mass production, nor entered service.”
Nothing is mentioned in the way of dates, however, a quick examination of the vehicle would show the vehicle would at least be a late 1970s development, due to its turret being first mounted on an armored vehicle in 1977.
The inaccurately-modeled TS 90 turret
The turret mounted on the EBR 105 is a modified version of the NEXTER TS 90 turret, mounted on the old hull of the EBR.
Introduced by Nexter in 1977, this is a welded two-man turret with a manually loaded 90 mm anti-tank gun in its historical configuration. This fairly light turret (2.5 tonnes with ammunition but without crew) could theoretically be mounted on any vehicle that could accommodate a sufficiently large turret ring as well as weigh at least 7.5 tonnes. In practice, however, it is mounted on the ERC-90 for the French army and export, VBC-90 for the French gendarmerie and Oman, and on the AMX-10 tracked chassis, creating the AMX-10P PAC 90 for export. A variety of other vehicles, such as the Mowag Piranha or even the M113 were modified to mount the turret but never went beyond the prototype stage with it.
A French Army ERC-90, the most common user of the TS 90 turret, in maneuvers near a river. In comparison to Wargaming’s modified model, the smaller dimensions of the actual TS 90 turret are obvious. Source: char-français
However, Wargaming did not straight up take the historical TS 90 turret and mount it on the EBR. This would already be an unhistorical combination; by the time the TS 90 was around, the EBR was on its way out, with its straight-up replacement, the AMX-10RC, beginning to enter service; the sometimes more than 25 years old hulls were worn out by years of intensive use, and there was little will or need to keep using them for long. Wargaming designed its own heavily modified version of it. It is referred to as the ‘Panhard EBR 105’ turret.
In real life, the TS 90 is a two-man turret with a manually loaded 90 mm gun. In this form, it is already quite cramped. Wargaming, however, swapped out the turret’s 90 CN-90 F4 for the older but larger 105 mm D.1504 or CN-105-57 – the 105 mm gun featured, for example, on the Israeli M51 Sherman, the AMX-13-105 or the SK-105 Kürassier. This gun is manually loaded on the EBR 105, however, it ought to be noted that another fake vehicle produced by Wargaming, the Batignolles-Châtillons “Bourrasque” which uses the same modified TS 90 turret, is fed by a two-rounds autoloader.
Wargaming’s 105 mm-armed version of the TS 90 is visibly extended towards the rear, most likely in order to simulate the larger breech. Unlike on the Bourrasque, in which the presence of both an autoloader and the larger breech would likely make the turret extremely cramped, the EBR’s version of the modified TS 90 may be somewhat plausible in terms of internal space; however, this turret having a two-man crew means the commander would also assume the role of loader, for the fairly large 105 mm rounds used by the CN-105-57 – making his task more complex and harder to perform. Historically, there are no known projects aiming to mount a 105 mm gun in the TS 90 turret. Light vehicles contemporary with its development (though they would have to be somewhat heavier to mount such a turret) typically used the TK 105 three-man turret featured in the AMX-10RC. This turret mounts a more modern 105 mm MECA F2 L/48 low-pressure gun, a far more modern gun than the CN-105-57 featured on the fictional EBR 105.
A view inside the TS 90 turret of an ERC-90. Source: World of Tank forums
Weight increase and mysteriously improved engine
Wargaming’s EBR 105 is stated to have a weight of 17 tonnes – whether the vehicle would actually feature such a weight with Wargaming’s fictional version of the TS90 turret is not known. This is, however, a considerable addition of weight onto the EBR, weighing slightly more than 2 tonnes more than the FL-10 equipped model 1954 EBR, and 4.5 tonnes more than the original, FL-11 equipped production model. While Wargaming does mention the vehicle as having a reinforced suspension in its short description, the EBR’s capacity to reasonably operate at such a weight is unknown.
What is almost certainly unimaginable though is that the vehicle received the tremendous upgrade in powerplant Wargaming gave the EBR 105. Historically, all models of the EBR used the Panhard 12H 6000S engine. This 12-cylinder air-cooled engine could produce up to 200 hp at 3,700 rpm, which was sufficient to give the EBR a quite admirable maximum speed for the time. The model 1951 FL-11 equipped model could peak at 105 km/h on a good road, and despite receiving no power plant upgrade, the heavier FL-10 equipped model 1954 was reported to be able to reach this speed as well.
The engine used in Wargaming’s EBR 105 appears to be a development of the original Panhard engine used in the EBR – being referred to as the ‘Panhard 12H 6000 X’, but it has been boosted to an implausible 720 hp. It is unlikely such a powerful engine could be derived from the 12H engine to begin with and combined with the idea that it may be fitted in an EBR hull is stretching the bounds of plausibility to the limit, seeing as this likely would result in a much larger power plant.
Wargaming’s EBR 105 did receive some notable changes to its design. Notably, the rear no longer features any form of driving post, but instead what appears more along the line of an engine compartment, which raises the question of where the vehicle’s fourth crew member, which Wargaming refers to as a ‘radio operator’, would be located. However, the idea that this hull change would be enough to fit such a powerful and likely larger engine is very unlikely (and in any case, nothing suggests the increased size of a largely boosted up version of the EBR’s engine was taken into account when designing the vehicle). This engine gives Wargaming’s vehicle a power-to-weight ratio of 42.35 hp/ton, far higher than the EBR model 1951’s mere 16 hp/ton. However, despite this, Wargaming’s EBR 105 is still appreciably slower than all other EBRs, at ‘merely’ 91 km/h. In general, all that surrounds its automotive capacities and upgrades can be described as quite nonsensical.
A rear view of the early render of the EBR 105; it is substantially different from that of a standard EBR, where the rear is very similar to the front in overall shape. However, it is unlikely this would be enough to accommodate the new 720 hp engine. Source: RitastatusreportA view of the general configuration of the EBR (though this is the FL-10 model, this can apply to all): with Wargaming’s vehicle featuring a likely very large engine at the rear, where the fourth crew member would sit is unknown. Source: char-français
Conclusion – Another kitbashed fake tank
The EBR 105 that Wargaming introduced into World of Tanks is obviously a fake vehicle. While it may take inspiration in the fact the EBR was mass-produced with two different turrets and received considerable firepower upgrades during its service life, this does not change the fact that, as it is presented, the vehicle makes little sense. The use of components such as the TS 90 turret would suggest the EBR 105 would have been a late 1970s project, and by that time, the far superior AMX-10RC would have been on its way to replace the EBR – 105 mm-armed or not. This is particularly underlined by the fact a vehicle such as the EBR 105 would have been very close to a complete rebuild; with a new engine, new turret, new hull rear, and reinforced suspension, there would, in the end, be little but the mere shell of the original EBR left, a most likely very costly upgrade.
The EBR 105 is far from the only fake tanks featured in World of Tanks; another French fake vehicle, the ‘Batignolles-Châtillon Bourrasque’, is quite closely linked to it, being a kitbash of the modified TS 90 turret modeled for the EBR 105 and the hull of the BatChat 12t light tank. It can be argued to be somehow even more nonsensical than the EBR 105, combining a modified version of a turret produced from the late 70s onward with a hull on which no developments are known after 1951. In general, WoT, particularly its higher tiers, contains a quantity of fake vehicles: one could, for example, cite most Chinese tank destroyers, or the FV215b, Conqueror Gun Carriage, and Caervanon Action X. As for unhistorical configurations of vehicles that did actually exist, those are legion, though some are more shocking than others; within French vehicles, the famous AMX-40 stands as a notable example.
French army AMX-10RCs preparing for a 14th of July parade in Paris in the late Cold War, with gendarmerie Berliet VXBs may be seen in the background. The existence of the AMX-10RC, which entered service in 1981 and was already at the prototype stage since 1973, makes any kind of significant upgrade of the EBR performed after this date redundant. By this time, the about 30-year old design would still be very much outdated, even with a more powerful engine and a completely new turret. Source: char-françaisWargaming’s mish-mash of EBR parts with an anachronistic, modified TS 90 turret. Illustration by Ardhya ‘Vesp’ Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
EBR 105 specifications
Total weight, battle-ready
17 tonnes
Engine
720 hp ‘Panhard 12H 6000 X’
Power-to-weight ratio in hp/tonne
42.35
Top road speed
91 km/h
Turning angle
33°
Main armament
1 x 105 mm D.1504/CN-105-57 main gun (36 rounds)
Rate of fire
5 rounds per minute
Secondary Armament
None featured in WoT specifications but possibly the same 7.62 mm AANF1 as on the standard TS90 turret
Turret traverse speed
66 deg/s
Hull Armor
40 mm (front & rear), 16 mm (sides), 20 mm (bottom), 10 mm (roof)
Turret Armor
15 mm (front & mantlet), 10 mm (sides & rear), 8 mm (top)
From the 1930s to the 1950s, the French company of Batignolles-Châtillon, based in Nantes, on France’s western coast, had several tries at designing tanks for the French army. In the 1930s, the company produced a light infantry tank prototype as well as the DP2 amphibious light tank. After the end of the German occupation of France, the company again produced a light tank for the program which would result in the AMX-13 – this being the Batignolles-Châtillon 12 tons – and, ultimately, created the Batignolles-Châtillon 25 tons, a lightweight medium tank prototype, in the 1950s.
None of Batignolles-Châtillon’s tanks were adopted by any military, with their most notable influence on service French vehicles being experience gained in the 25t project being used for the development of the AMX-30. In recent years, though, Batignolles-Châtillon’s designs (though almost exclusively the post-WW2 ones) have received newfound attention due to the inclusion of first the 25t, and later the 12t, to Wargaming’s popular online game World of Tanks, with the 25t notably being praised for its peculiar gameplay for years.
Wargaming’s care about the historical accuracy of the Batignolles-Châtillon vehicle is, however, very lackluster to say the least, with the recent Bourrasque premium tank being the worst offender – combining real elements of the 12 tons project, of which development ended in September of 1951, with an inaccurately-modeled turret from the 1970s.
A view of the Batignolles-Châtillon Bourrasque in the hangar within World of Tanks. Source: WIKIWIKI.jp
Bourrasque or 12T modèle 1954 ?
In December of 2019, a new premium French light tank was added to Wargaming’s supertest servers. It was then marketed as the “Bat.-Châtillon mle. 54”. After a few minor tweaks, the vehicle, identical in appearance, was added to all servers in May of 2020, under the new name of “Bat.-Châtillon Bourrasque”. This vehicle features a modified version of the GIAT TS90 turret used on vehicles such as the ERC-90 Sagaie, mounted on the hull of a Batignolles-Châtillon competitor to the project which would become the AMX-13.
The 12T modèle 1954 designation which was used at first, while it may seem in accordance with the French army designation system, is absolutely ahistorical. Development did not continue on the Batignolles-Châtillon 12T following the end of its trials in September of 1951, and seeing as AMX’s project ended up being adopted, becoming the AMX-13, continued developments on Batignolles-Châtillon’s hull would have been redundant.
Wargaming’s fake description of the Bourrasque: “A project of a French tank developed by Batignolles-Châtillon. The vehicle was to receive a two-man turret upgraded to accommodate a 105 mm gun. Existed only in blueprints.”
The Hull: Batignolles-Châtillon 12t
The Batignolle-Châtillon 12t hull which was actually manufactured. Though the suspension type it uses is different from Wargaming’s, the 12t hull present in WoT at least exists in blueprints. Source: Char-français
The hull used for Wargaming’s Bourrasque was taken straight from Wargaming’s already existing Bat-Chat 12t. It ought to be noted that, while a prototype of the 12t was manufactured, it does not match the one present in WoT; the 12t prototype used four large road wheels, two return rollers, and a torsion bar suspension.
Wargaming’s hull is instead based on one which existed only on paper, though it was projected both for a light tank and a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun. This hull uses seven interleaved road wheels, in a fashion that reveals the considerable German influence on France’s first postwar designs. An idler and drive sprocket are also present, but there are no return rollers; the type of suspension used would most likely be torsion bars.
The Bat-Chat 12t in the configuration used in WoT. This suspension type never left the drawing board. Source: char-français
The TS 90 Turret: Back to the Future
On this hull project, dating from the late 1940s and early 1950s, Wargaming decided to mount an absolutely unrelated turret; the GIAT TS90.
Introduced by GIAT in 1977, this is a welded two-man turret with a manually loaded 90 mm anti-tank gun, in its historical configuration. This fairly light turret (2.5 tons with ammunition but without crew) could theoretically be mounted on any vehicle that could accommodate a sufficiently large turret ring as well as weigh as least 7.5 tons; in practice, it is mounted on the ERC-90 for the French army and export, VBC-90 for the French gendarmerie and Oman, and on the AMX-10, creating the AMX-10P PAC 90 for export. A variety of other vehicles, such as the Mowag Piranha or even the M113, were modified to mount the turret, but never went beyond prototype stage with it.
In itself, the basic characteristics of the TS90 turret would likely make it compatible with a modified Bat-Chat 12t hull, but it is obviously highly anachronistic. The turret, as well as the CN 90F4 anti-tank gun that features as its main armament, were a 1970s development, using technologies that did not exist or were not widely in use at the time when the 12t was developed.
French Army ERC-90s on maneuvers in the Alps; the ERC-90 remains the most prolific vehicle using the TS90 turret. Source: Char-français
An Inaccurate Turret
However, while the turret Wargaming mounted on their “Bourrasque” is based on the GIAT TS90, it was added to the game in a modified form that obviously favors gameplay over historical accuracy.
In real life, the TS90 is a two-man turret with a manually loaded 90 mm gun. In this form, it is already quite cramped. Wargaming, however, swapped out the turret’s 90 CN-90 F4 for the older but larger 105 mm D.1504 or CN-105-57 – the 105 mm gun featured, for example, on the Israeli M-51 Sherman, the AMX-13-105 or the SK-105 Kürassier. This new gun is fed by a two-round autoloader, the type of which Wargaming did not care to specify. One could note that, while being older in comparison to the TS90 turret, this gun would still have been anachronistic if Wargaming kept the “mle 1954” designation, seeing as it was first introduced in 1957.
Wargaming’s 105 mm-armed version of the TS90 is visibly extended towards the rear, likely to model the 2-round autoloader that features ingame. Though the large turret extension towards the rear would likely be large enough for an autoloader, particularly a small 2-rounds one (though the type of autoloader has never been specified by Wargaming), the larger breech of the 105 mm CN 105-57 in comparison to the 90 mm CN-90 F4 would likely reduce the space available to the crew. Historically, there are no known projects that aimed to mount a 105 mm gun in the TS90 turret. Light vehicles contemporary with its development (though they would have to be somewhat heavier to mount such a turret) typically used the TK 105 three-man turret featured on the AMX-10RC. This turret mounts a more modern 105 mm MECA F2 L/48 low-pressure gun, a far more modern gun than the CN-105-57 featured on the Bourrasque.
A view inside the TS90 turret of an ERC-90. Source: World of Tank forumsA side view of the Bat-Chat Bourrasque in WoT; the turret has been extended towards the rear, and the position of the smoke dischargers has been changed accordingly. Source: MMOWG.netFrench Army ERC-90 Sagaie on parade, Bastille Day 2015. The turret is obviously smaller, with the rear compartment that likely models the autoloader in Wargaming’s turret being absent from the real one. Source: Wikimedia Commons
Interestingly enough, Wargaming does not call its turret by TS90 or a variation of this designation, such as TS105; instead, it is called “Panhard EBR S-105”. This likely is linked to the fact that the same fake turret was mounted in another French mish-mash present in WoT, the EBR 105; it misses the fact that Panhard rarely if ever designed turrets, with its vehicles instead using turrets from Fives-Lilles in the early Cold War and GIAT or Nexter after the 1970s.
A Theoretically Identical Weight
Officially, the Bourrasque does not have any specified weight; due to being a premium vehicle, it has a set of components with no need to progress and change some of them, and as such, the weight mechanic present in other WoT vehicles would be useless there. Nonetheless, seeing as we know the specified power of the Bourrasque’s engine as well as its horsepower-to-weight ratio, one can easily deduce the weight of the vehicle.
The Bourrasque has a 310 hp engine (A “Mathis 300-2”; though Mathis is an actual engine producer, no 310 hp model is known to exist, with the closest being either 200 or 500 hp engines), and a power-to-weight ratio of 25.8 hp/ton, giving it a weight of 12.01 tons – almost exactly 12 tons. It ought to be noted that the actual weight of the Batignolles-Châtillon 12t is unknown – even more so for the one using the same hull as Wargaming, seeing as it stayed on paper. However, it is quite likely that, equipped with the FL10 turret, it would have exceeded the requested weight of 12 tons, as did the AMX project that became the AMX-13. Fitted with an enlarged TS90 turret that features a larger 105 mm CN-105-57, it is impossible that the Bourrasque would realistically have a weight of almost perfectly 12 tons. The maximum speed achieved by the Bourrasque in WoT is 62 km/h.
Conclusion: Another Unhistorical Mish-Mash
In short, the Bourrasque featured in World of Tanks can be described as a mish-mash of a late 1940s-early 1950s hull, with a modified late 1970s turret that mounts a late 1950s gun. The historicity of such a combination is non-existent; even the turret and gun are not known to have ever been considered together, and mounting them on the hull of a vehicle that was out of consideration for years by the point they were developed could be described as nonsensical. As for why Wargaming created such a vehicle, while no official answer has been given, one could imagine that a very easy to make vehicle (seeing as both its hull and turret already existed within the game) that uses the name of Bat-Chat, which has quite the reputation in World of Tanks, may have seemed very attractive to Wargaming when they were considering a French high-tier premium tank.
The Bourrasque is far from the first fake vehicle featured in World of Tanks though; many such fabrications are present in the game. One could, for example, cite most Chinese tank destroyers, or the FV215b, Conqueror Gun Carriage and Caervanon Action X. France has not been spared either, with another fake mish-mash in the form of the EBR 105 that uses the same turret as the Bourrasque (though it can be argued as slightly less shocking, seeing as the EBR hull was at least used up to the 1970s and not discarded in 1951) as well as many vehicles been given very much unhistorical components, the famous AMX-40 being a notable example.
The fake marriage of the paper design of the Bat.Chat.12t, the ERC-90’s turret modified with an autoloader and an anachronistic 105 mm gun. Illustration by Ardhya ‘Vesp’ Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
Specifications
Total weight, battle-ready
12.2 tonnes
Crew
3 (Driver, Gunner, Commander)
Propulsion
310 hp “Mathis 300-2”
Top road speed
62 km/h
Power-to-weight ratio in hp/tonne
25.8
Armament
105 mm D.1504/CN-105-57 main gun with a two-round autoloader (36 rounds)
Rate of fire 5 rounds per minute
Secondary Armament
None featured in WoT specifications but possibly the same 7.62 mm AANF1 as on the standard TS90 turret
Hull Armor
20 mm (upper front)
40 mm (front)
30 & 20 mm (Iower front)
20 mm (sides & rear)
10 mm (bottom)
Turret Armor
15 mm (front & mantlet)
10 mm (sides & rear)
8 mm (top)
The armored force of France’s infantry, typically better funded and larger than the cavalry’s, had, during most of the interwar years, the WW1-era Renault FT, the most produced and arguably most successful tank of the First World War (at least, without a doubt, from the French side). An innovative light tank, the FT was produced in massive numbers and, with the adoption of new tanks being slowed down considerably after the end of the Great War, it proved to be the most suitable vehicle for the French military to settle on. By the 1930s though, the old FT had grown obsolete, and timid attempts to produce some somewhat heavier FT-based vehicles had resulted in the NC and D1, which were not built in numbers sufficient to replace or even substantially supplement the FT.
The 1933 light tank specifications
Anticipating a replacement for the FT would soon be requested by the French military, Hotchkiss offered, in June of 1933, their preliminary design for a light infantry tank – by that point a turretless, machine-gun-armed project. Hotchkiss’s proposal ended up as somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy, pushing the French army to establish requirements for a new light infantry tank to replace the FT.
Renault FT light tanks on a parade, likely on the 14th of July, in the interwar years. Source: char-français
Those new requirements were finalized on the 2nd August 1933. Though their formulation was a result of Hotchkiss’s proposal, they would be sent far and wide to French industrialists, with up to 14 different manufacturers working on a design, including some with little to no past experience. Indeed, the role of replacement of the FT, the French Army’s workhorse, would logically lead to massive contracts, as this was no irrelevant vehicle to replace.
The specifications sent to the various manufacturers were quite detailed, with performance requirements in a number of different aspects. The tank was to weigh 6 tonnes, feature a crew of two, and be armed with either one or two 7.5 mm machine-guns, or a 37 mm cannon. The maximum speed should be of 15 to 20 km/h, the armor 30 mm thick, and the vehicle should be able to run for 8 hours and at least 40 km. A large number of mobility requirements were also made, such as being able to climb a 65% slope, be stable laterally on a 60% one, or cross a 1.70 m wide-trench or ford water 1.20 m deep, among others. Generally, the requirements called for a vehicle very similar to the FT in role and capacities – merely updated to take into account some more modern features.
Batignolle-Châtillon enters in the fray
One of the manufacturers which offered a design for the specifications was Batignolles-Châtillon. A subsidiary of the larger Batignolles, Batignolles-Châtillon was installed in Nantes, western France. Formed in 1917 as the Compagnie générale de construction de locomotives Batignolles-Châtillon (Eng: General Locomotive Manufacturing Company Batignolles-Châtillon), the company’s products were mostly linked to locomotive and wagon manufacturing, but already included some military aspects, such as the carriages of railway artillery pieces.
A 370 mm modèle 1915 artillery piece on a Batignolles carriage. Source: Railway Artillery: A Report on the Characteristics, Scope of Utility, Etc., of Railway Artillery, Volume II via Wikimedia Commons
The first ‘Bat-Chat’
During the mid 1930s, Batignolles-Châtillon expanded its operation to include armored vehicles manufacturing, which is not particularly surprising from a locomotive manufacturer. Proposing a vehicle for the 1933 program was an important aspect of this foray into armored vehicles manufacturing, though it was not the only attempt. The company also simultaneously designed an amphibious tank design, the DP2.
As with most manufacturers, Batignolles-Châtillon offered a plan in 1934. A prototype was ordered to the company, which is quite notable. Only five manufacturers got to the prototype manufacturing stage, with the other four, APX, Renault, Hotchkiss, and FCM, being involved in military affairs to a greater extent and since an earlier point than Batignolles-Châtillon. Batignolles-Châtillon’s light infantry tank prototype would be completed in the early spring of 1935 and delivered to the trials commission of Vincennes on the 5th of April that year.
The Batignolles-Châtillon design weighed in at 11.76 tonnes at the prototype stage. It was notable for some of its construction principles, as the vehicle combined cast construction for its turret and riveted construction for the hull. It was the only prototype produced as a result of the 1933 program to use riveted construction. Despite this combination of casting and riveting, the Batignolles-Châtillon prototype is overall more reminiscent of the fully welded FCM design rather than the cast APX, Renault, and Hotchkiss vehicles.
A front 3/4 view of the Batignolles-Châtillon vehicle, from the trials at Vincennes; source: Archives de la Direction Générale de l’Armement of Châtellerault, via char-français
Hull design and construction
The Batignolles-Châtillon’s hull was notable due to its riveted construction. It featured front plates quite considerably angled backward, particularly for the lower hull and front sides. This front lower hull featured two doors from which the driver, sitting in the hull, would enter or leave the vehicle. The upper front hull featured two vision ports, one behind bulletproof glass and another behind a perhaps more solid steel cover. Vision ports under glass were also found on each of the front sides of the hull.
The vehicle’s hull got quite narrower behind the crew compartment, with the engine having a fairly diminutive size. The radiator was located at the rear, with the exhaust on the somewhat angled rear plates. Overall, and unsurprisingly for a riveted design, the hull used very angular shapes, making it comparable to the FCM 36 in this regard, though the Batignolles-Châtillon arguably made use of steeper angles. The precise dimensions of the hull are unknown, and in general little precise data has emerged from Batignolles-Châtillon’s light tank prototype. The armor thickness itself is also not known, though 40 mm (to meet the expected requirements that were updated in 1934) all-around were likely, and realistic considering the vehicle’s weight. The armor of the hull behind the suspension and on top would naturally have been lighter – if compared to other French vehicles of similar role and weight, likely in the 15 – 25 mm range.
A side view of the Batignolles-Châtillon light tank, with side skirts mounted. The narrower construction of the hull behind the crew compartment is obvious. Source: Archives de la Direction Générale de l’Armement of Châtellerault, via char-français
Powerplant and suspension
The Batignolles-Châtillon vehicle’s power plant was a 66 hp Unic diesel engine. There are few additional details available, however, this is a quite weak engine for such a heavy vehicle. With a power-to-weight ratio of 5.6 hp/ton, it is quite likely the Batignolles-Châtillon vehicle would have been quite sluggish, with even the quite slow R35 having 8 hp/tonne. Reaching anything higher than the program’s required 20 km/h appears an unlikely feat for the Batignolles-Châtillon tank.
The vehicle’s suspension consisted of seven road wheels, an independent one at the front, and six grouped in three bogies of two each. On top of those bogies were nine triangular mounting points for the side skirts, on which they would be riveted. The drive sprocket was installed at the front and the idler at the rear. In operations, the bogies would be covered by a side skirt, though the road wheels themselves would remain uncovered.
A view of the vehicle’s side with the side-skirt removed, showing the suspension used by Batignolles-Châtillon. Some elements are quite original and different from other suspensions used by French vehicles in the 1930s. The large side skirts mounting point are unheard of in other French designs of the time, and the road wheels using riveted construction, or the quite frail bogies, also differ significantly from other French suspensions of the time. Source: Archives de la Direction Générale de l’Armement of Châtellerault, via char-français
An original one-man turret
The Batignolles-Châtillon design featured a one-man turret armed with a 37 mm SA 18 main gun and a coaxial 7.5 mm MAC 31 machine gun. All of the vehicles in the program would eventually match this armament, although the Renault and Hotchkiss vehicles were first offered either without turrets or with a turret design fitted with two MAC 31s instead.
It should be noted that an armament of two MAC 31s instead of just one is often mentioned, but there do not appear to be any mount for a machine-gun outside of the co-axial one. It is possible this may refer to a backup machine-gun being stored in the vehicle either in case of the mounted one being damaged or having a failure or of the crew having to leave the vehicle. This was common in the French cavalry but rarer in the infantry.
As with the front hull, the turret featured a large number of visors. Glass-covered vision ports were featured on the front of the turret’s forehead’, towering quite considerably in the rear three-quarters of the design, as well as on each side. Smaller vision slots were found on the sides and front sides.
At the rear of the turret, a spring-loaded rectangular door could be found. It would allow the commander to stick out of the turret outside of combat situations, or to evacuate the vehicle in urgency. The commander would enter the vehicle from the front hull hatches, and not the turret door.
The size of the turret ring, while not known, was most likely 875 mm, as with the APX turrets featured on the APX, Hotchkiss, and Renault designs, and the FCM’s welded turrets. Turret interchangeability was a requirement for the 1933’s program turrets. In any case, the Batignolles-Châtillon light tank had a one-man turret, in which the crew member would occupy the roles of commander, gunner, and loader. Even with a lot of intelligent technical solutions, making such a turret ergonomically viable – especially with an armament heavier than machine-guns, even with a gun firing small shells such as the 37 mm SA 18 – was pretty much in the realm of fantasy. The commander would very likely have been very much overtasked in operations – though this is also no different from all other vehicles of the 1933 program, due to all following the requirements of a vehicle featuring 2 crewmen.
A rear view of the Batignolles-Châtillon light tank – showing the exhaust as well as the spring-loaded rear turret door. Source: Archives de la Direction Générale de l’Armement of Châtellerault, via char-français
Unsuccessful trials in 1935
The Batignolles-Châtillon light infantry tank was trialed in 1935, from the vehicle’s delivery in April of 1935 onward.
The vehicle did feature some interesting aspects. Notable was that the liberal use of glass-covered vision slots by the designers allowed for very good visibility, superior to that of other proposals for the light infantry tank design. The armor was also judged satisfactory, with the exception of the hull armor behind the suspension, though how vulnerable this section of the vehicle’s hull would be in practice is questionable. In terms of performance, the Batignolles-Châtillons did not at all appear to have been inferior to other candidates.
Where the Batignolles-Châtillon light tank failed, though, was in terms of reliability. Mobility trials of the vehicle were quite the failure. On the 24th June 1935, the tank was unable to accomplish a 50 km drive, with a breakdown requiring repairs. The weak engine was likely an important factor in those failures leading to the prototype being returned to its factory, and receiving some considerable modifications to its suspension.
Modifications and new in vain trials
The new suspension trialed on the Batignolles-Châtillons. It appears to have been pretty much entirely new, from the ground up, but this does not mean it was flawless: the various black arrows in this picture were part of the trial commission’s report and indicated parts of the vehicles where flaws were identified. Source: Pierre Touzin, Les Véhicules Blindés Français, Nancy 1979, via Wikimedia Commons
The Batignolles-Châtillon prototype was returned to its factory following the breakdown in late June, and then received an entirely new suspension, likely due to the old one being lackluster – once again not particularly surprising for a newcomer in armored vehicles design.
It returned to trials with idlers and sprockets that may have been slightly larger. However, those are by far the most moderate changes. Instead of seven, the vehicle now had six, larger road wheels of a newer design, with larger outer rims. Those road wheels were installed, two-by-two, on three bogies of a new, more sturdy design. Those featured horizontal and vertical springs allowing for more extensive movements of the road wheels. The vertical springs were located behind the bogie’s outer structure, on which the side skirt would most likely insert. Four classic rounded return rollers were featured.
This modified prototype was trialed in 1936, from the 20th January to the 1st August. In comparison to its first iteration, the new suspension likely improved the vehicle’s mobility. The gearbox also appears to have been more reliable on this modified prototype. However, the significant issue of poor power-to-weight ratio remained unsolved. Even if the Batignolles-Châtillon prototype had been perfect – as perfect as a two-men infantry tank could be – it is unlikely it would have been adopted at this point, with three of the five prototypes presented in the 1933 program, the Hotchkiss (H35), Renault (R35), and FCM (FCM 36) already having been adopted. Adding yet another very similar vehicle would have been redundant. In general, the quite similar FCM 36 appears to have been superior to the Batignolles-Châtillon in most aspects, although also mounting a diesel engine, the one it used offered a better power-to-weight ratio, and its welded construction would have been sturdier and more durable than the Bat-Chat’s riveted hull and cast turret. The main advantage the Batignolles-Châtillon would have had over the FCM would most likely have been vision, which, while not irrelevant, would still be little in comparison to the advantages offered by FCM’s welded design. Therefore, and while Batignolles-Châtillon appears to have attempted to salvage its design by suggesting outfitting the tank with a more powerful engine – the Batignolles-Châtillon light tank would not be adopted.
Conclusion – An unsuccessful but interesting first foray into armored vehicles design
The Batignolles-Châtillon light tank is quite notable in that it was one of the contenders for the replacement of the Renault FT. Though it would be an unlucky competitor to the R35, H35, and FCM 36, it is still notable that Batignolles-Châtillon, a newcomer in armored vehicle design, managed to have their proposal reach the prototype stage, something only a minority of the 14 manufacturers called upon succeeded in.
This unsuccessful first attempt would not result in Batignolles-Châtillon stopping their foray into armored vehicle design. In the late 1930s, they would continue studying amphibious vehicle design, with the DP2 and later DP3 amphibious tanks. The most famous Batignolles-Châtillon designs are not, however, those from the 1930s, but rather, the firm’s proposed vehicles from the 1950s: the Batignolles-Châtillon 12t, an unlucky competitor to the AMX-13, and, most significantly, the 25t, a lightweight medium tank which gathered some considerable online fame in the last decade. It ought to be noted, however, that no Batignolles-Châtillon armored vehicle would be adopted by the French military, the closest being the Batignolle-Châtillon’s powerplant being an inspiration for that of the AMX-30, which would become France’s standard-issue main battle tank in most of the Cold War.
The suspension of the Batignolles-Chatillon tank is visible here, showing the bogies, springs, and return rollers.The Batignolles-Chatillon light infantry tank, as it was built. The well-angled front (predating the T-34) is visible, as is the rather anemic gun. Illustration by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe, funded by our Patreon campaign.
Specifications
Crew
2 (Commander/gunner/loader, Driver)
Armament
1x 37 mm SA 18 main gun, 1x MAC 31 7.5 mm machine gun; perhaps an additional, back-up MAC 31
weight
11.76 tonnes
Engine
66 hp Unic Diesel
Power-to-weight ratio in hp/tonne
5.6
Armor
Most likely 40 mm all-around, lighter behind suspension & on top and bottom
France (1949-1953)
Amphibious Light Tank – 1 Prototype Built
Immediately after the conclusion of the Second World War, France found itself embroiled in a large-scale guerilla war in its colony of Indochina as it attempted to reassert control over the area. Seeking to overthrow their colonial rulers was the Vietnamese Việt Minh, led by Hô Chi Minh, as well as associated Laotian and Cambodian movements.
The French colony of Indochina map with its various territorial subdivisions: Cambodia, Laos, Cochinchina, Annam and Tonkin. Source: croiseur-lamotte-picquet.fr
Indochina was a particular theater that was characterized by a large number of swamplands and jungles, particularly along the Mekong Delta in the south of the country and the Hong River in the north. This type of terrain was particularly hard to operate in for French armored vehicles, particularly wheeled armored cars like the Panhard 178B or the British Coventry Armored Car, but even for tracked vehicles, such as the American M8 Scott or M24 Chaffee. Tracked amphibious vehicles were an obvious answer as to how to bring armored firepower into swamplands and rivers; however, by 1949, France was yet to have any of those vehicles in its inventory. While the USA had a potential answer in the form of the LVT-4 amphibious assault vehicle and its assault version, the LVT-4(A), the acquisition of such vehicles by the French had yet to be negotiated.
A Panhard 178B armored car in Indochina. Though armored cars were quite useful for patrolling roads, the limitations of such vehicles in rice paddies or swamps are obvious. Source: char-français
Setting requirements for an anti-guerrilla amphibious tank
On the 18th of January 1949, as the Indochina War had been raging on for more than three years by that point, the French EMA (Etat Major des Army – ENG: Army Headquarters) requested from DEFA (Direction des études et fabrications d’armement – ENG: Direction of Armament Studies and Manufacturing), the service in charge of directing France’s military research and production a light amphibious tank to be used in Indochina and, generally, in France’s colonies and overseas territories. Those other colonies and territories included Equatorial and Western Africa, and French Guyana – all places which would also benefit from the use of amphibious light tanks. This vehicle was desired to weigh not more than 11 tonnes, offer good off-road performance, particularly in swampy terrain, and mount a 75 mm howitzer in a turret.
Voisin/SNECMA’s proposal
On the 25th of April 1950, the Voisin branch of the state company of SNECMA accepted to design a vehicle for the light amphibious tank requirements, as well as to produce a scale model which would be used for floatation trials.
The Société des Avions Voisins (ENG: Voisin Planes Society) was, despite its name, more of a car-manufacturing company that had been founded by an aviation pioneer than an aircraft-manufacturing company. Founded in 1919, this company took the place of Aéroplanes Voisins (ENG: Voisin Aircrafts), an actual plane-manufacturing company that had manufactured a number of different aircraft for France’s aviation during the First World War. This included aircraft, such as the Voisin III to XI biplanes, which were notable for their pusher configuration.
The Société des Avions Voisins had, after the end of the Second World War, been incorporated first into the engine manufacturer Gnôme-Rhône, which was nationalized in 1945 to form the core of the state manufacturer SNECMA (Société nationale d’études et de construction de moteurs d’aviation – ENG: National aircraft engines study and construction society). Despite the Société des Avions Voisins being out of operations for five years by 1950, its name remained in occasional use for designs which were produced by what remained of its design bureau. This was the case of the CA 11 light amphibious tank; alongside a couple of other colonial amphibious projects from the same era, such as the CA 2 and CA 4 troop-transport tankettes, the CA 11 appears to have been Voisin’s sole foray into armored vehicles manufacturing.
The manufacturing of a scale model apparently went quite well, with an order for a mild steel prototype being made quickly. This prototype was manufactured in 1951-1952 and presented to the French military at Satory on the 20th of March 1953 for trials.
Voisin’s amphibious tank design
Voisin’s amphibious tank from a ¾ angle. Source: Les véhicules blindés français 1945-1977, Pierre Touzin, éditions EPA, 1978
The vehicle designed by the Voisin design team was a 12.5-tonne tank. Despite this light weight, the vehicle had fairly large dimensions, closer to a WW2-medium tank than a light tank, measuring 5.81 m long, 3.05 m wide, and 2.66 m high, with a ground clearance of 0.40 m. These large dimensions are likely a consequence of the vehicle’s amphibious hull design.
The fairly large hull of the Voisin tank bears some resemblance to the general shape of the LVT-4, likely due to some inspiration being taken from the American design. The boat-like hull shape optimized floatation capacity, with a bow striking out at the front, the drive sprockets being installed at its side, and, further back, a frontal plate angled backward. The suspension of the vehicle was relatively large, covering most of the hull’s side, in a fashion that can be reminiscent of vehicles such as the pre-war B1; such large suspension is typically installed to optimize all-terrain capacity. The suspension featured six fairly large road wheels at the bottom of the hull, as well as what appears to be a tender wheel at the rear. Three large box-shaped elements are located between the drive sprocket and tender wheels; the purpose of these may have been to improve floatation. The tracks were also clearly influenced by the LVT vehicles with a large curved grouser or spud on each link to improve traction is very soft ground as well as drive when negotiating water obstacles.
The engine, likely installed at the rear, was an air-cooled 8-cylinder, 10.857-liter unit producing 300 hp at 3,000 rpm, although it is not known whether it ran on petrol or diesel. This engine gave the CA 11 a very respectable power-to-weight ratio of 24 hp/ton; while the fuel consumption and capacity are unknown, the vehicle is known to have had a respectable range of 300 km. On road, the vehicle could reach a maximum speed of 54 km/h; on water, the maximum speed was 12 km/h. The CA 11 did not feature any hydrojet system; on water, its propulsion was assured by the tracks. These were 0.35 m wide, and appear to have used a flexible, most likely rubber construction. The armor layout of the vehicle is unknown, but the combination of light weight and fairly large dimensions of Voisin’s tank likely meant the armor was very thin, as typically expected of a counter-insurgency vehicle or amphibious tank. The crew configuration of the hull is also unknown; it may have had either merely a driver, or perhaps two crew members.
The SAGEM turret
A rear view of the Voisin CA 11, showing the flat rear of the turret’s basket. Source: Les véhicules blindés français 1945-1977, Pierre Touzin, éditions EPA, 1978
The Voisin CA 11’s turret was not designed by Voisin, but instead, by another company, SAGEM (Société d’applications générales d’électricité et de mécanique – ENG: Society of general electricity and mechanic applications). Although there is little detailed information on it, observing the few known photos of the CA 11 show the turret appears to have used a welded construction. To the left, a large commander cupola featuring a number of episcopes (perhaps 8) is located; another observation device can be found on the right-side. Though the crew configuration of the CA 11 is unknown, the turret generally appears to have been geared to house a two-man crew, with the commander to the left and the gunner to the right.
The main armament of the CA 11 was a 75 mm howitzer. Though the exact model is not specified in any source, the gun present on the vehicle shows many similarities with a 75 mm gun that was developed for the Panhard 178B, but never ended up used in the post-war model of the Panhard 178 armored car. This was a 75 mm gun based on the old 75 mm mle. 1897, shortened but firing the same shells with a lower velocity (though only by 15 m/s according to French documents). This gun was designated as the 75 mm SA 45. This gun was never known to have been mounted on a Panhard 178B prototype, and if it was actually the gun present on the CA 11, the Voisin amphibious tank may have been the first known vehicle to mount this obscure armament. It would have had the notable advantage of using the same ammunition as the 75 mm mle. 1897 – a mainstay of the French Army for decades, with large stocks of ammunition still in existence. That being said, while the CA 11’s gun appears visually similar to the SA 45, if it actually used this gun has not been confirmed. The vehicle’s ammunition stowage is unknown as well; it is, however, it is known that it used a 7.5 mm MAC31 as a coaxial machine-gun, likely on the right of the main gun.
Plans for the mounting of the 75 mm SA 45 in a turret, for the Panhard 178B armored car which ended up using the 47 mm SA 35 instead. This gun was likely the one used on the CA 11. Source: French military archives
Conclusion – Overtaken by the LVT-4
Voisin’s CA 11, though an interesting design for the challenges faced by France in Indochina, arrived way too late; by 1953, when the prototype was presented to the army, a solution had already been found to the problem of bringing armored firepower to the swamps and rivers of Indochina: The acquisition of American LVT-4s had been negotiated, with the first examples being delivered in 1950 – before the prototype CA-11 was even unveiled. While the CA 11 could arguably have filled a niche for the French if the American deliveries had only included machine-gunning armed examples it was rendered redundant as the American deliveries included 75 mm-armed LVT-4(A). The French themselves would eventually modify a number of the troop transport LVTP-4s to accommodate 75 mm recoilless guns or even turreted 40 mm Bofors autocannons.
With the presence of the LVT-4 in the French army, the procurement and production of the CA 11 would have been a costly and redundant affair. The Indochina War in general was, by that point, a costly and very unpopular affair in which France was embroiled, with no hope of quickly recovering the colony. With little enthusiasm for the idea of remaining involved in the region, France ended up pulling out in 1954, leaving, as far as possible, friendly local governments in place. The end of the Indochina war likely removed all enthusiasm for a colonial amphibious tank for a time although the LVT-4s which had been obtained were conserved. They went on to be used to form an amphibious assault school in Algeria and eventually being used during the Suez Crisis against Egypt in 1956. The Voisin CA 11 project was likely shelved indefinitely, marking an end to Voisin’s short foray into armored vehicles manufacturing. As for the manufactured prototype, its fate is unknown, but it very likely ended up scrapped.
French 40 mm-armed LVT-4s in rice paddies, Indochina. The use of the LVT-4 by the French army, including this local conversion performed by units in Indochina and retained in the following years, made the CA 11 redundant. As for the LVT-4, it would remain in French service until the 1970s.Tentative side profile of the Voisin CA-11, as no side drawings or good side pictures exist. Illustration by Yuvnashva Sharma, funded by our Patreon campaign.
Specifications
Dimensions
5.81 m x 3.05 m x 2.66 m
Total weight, battle ready
12.5 tonnes
Crew
Likely 3 (driver, commander, gunner)
Propulsion
8-cylinder 10.857 litre air-cooled engine producing 300 hp at 3000 rpm
Range
300 km
Ground Clearance
0.40 m
Max. Speed (road)
54 km/h
Max. Speed (water)
12 km/h
Armament
75mm howitzer (perhaps 75mm SA 45)
MAC 31 7.5 mm coaxial machine-gun
Illustration for the APX-6 tonnes infantry tank, created by Pavel "Carpaticus" Alexe and funded by our Patreon campaign
France (1934-1938 or Later)
Light Tank – 1 Prototype Built
Throughout most of the interwar years, the workhorse of the French army remained the Renault FT light tank. Developed under the direction of Louis Renault and with the support of General Estienne during the First World War, the small, manoeuvrable, and cheap to produce light tank proved very effective in comparison to the larger and sluggish Saint-Chamond and Schneider tanks. By the 1930s though, the FT’s heydays were gone, and innovations in tank design meant the vehicle was rapidly becoming massively obsolete. Though some efforts had been undertaken to update and produce heavier tanks derived from the FT during the 1920s and early 1930s, resulting in the Renault NC and then D1, those were not adopted in massive numbers, with just 160 D1s built for the French military.
The 1933 light tank specifications
Anticipating a replacement for the FT would soon be requested by the French military, Hotchkiss offered, in June of 1933, their preliminary design – by that point a turretless, machine-gun-armed project. Hotchkiss’s proposal ended up as somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy, pushing the French army to establish requirements for a new light infantry tank to replace the FT.
French Renault FT on manoeuvre during the interwar. The Renault FT was a massive success, and its effectiveness as the French army’s armored workhorse in 1918 was deeply ingrained in the minds of French military thinkers – to the point that, when it came time to search for a replacement to the antiquated light tank in 1933, the requirements that were formulated basically called for a modern remake of it. Source: char-français
Those new requirements were finalized on the 2nd of August 1933. Though their formulation was a result of Hotchkiss’s proposal, they would be sent far and wide across French industrialists, with up to 14 different manufacturers working on a design; indeed, the role of replacement of the FT, the French Army’s workhorse, would logically lead to massive contracts, as this was no irrelevant vehicle to replace.
The specifications sent to the various manufacturers were quite detailed, with performance requirements in a number of different aspects. The tank was to weigh 6 tonnes, feature a crew of two, and be armed with either one or two 7.5 mm machine-guns, or a 37 mm gun. The maximum speed should be of 15 to 20 km/h, the armor 30 mm thick, and the vehicle should be able to run for 8 hours and at least 40 km. A large number of mobility requirements were also made, such as being able to climb a 65% slope, be stable laterally on a 60% side grade, and to cross a 1.70 m wide-trench or ford water 1.20 m deep, among others. Generally, the requirements called for a vehicle very similar to the FT in role and capacities – merely updated to take into account some more modern features.
The state workshop of APX
One of the five manufacturers which went as far as manufacturing a prototype was the Atelier de Construction de Puteaux (ENG: Puteaux Construction Workshop), abbreviated as APX and sometimes known simply as ‘Puteaux’, after the commune they were installed in within Paris’ suburbs. Founded all the way back in 1866, this state-owned workshop mostly worked with artillery and firearms, producing the designs of various engineers and sometimes designing their own. They were not one of the first French manufacturers to get into tank production, though the SA 18 37 mm gun found on the FT was a Puteaux design. During the 1930s, Puteaux would extend their operations into the field of armored vehicles quite considerably; the majority of turrets mounted on French 1930s armored vehicles, from the Panhard 178 to the B1 Bis’, were designed by Puteaux. That being said, their proposal for the 1933 light tank program appears to have been the first tank designed by APX from the ground up.
The APX proposal
APX presented the project for their light infantry tank in February of 1934, and the vehicle’s design is mostly known from the plans that were presented then.
A view of the vehicle from the February of 1934 project. Source: char-françaisThe same overall view of the vehicle, with the side skirts covering the suspension and a turret armed with a 7.5 mm machine-gun and the 37 mm SA 18 main gun, dated from February of 1934. This larger version of the plans had first been edited and given a fake blueprint look but has here been restored to the original black-and-white. Source: Archives de l’armement de Châtellerault via warspot.net & Andrew Hills
The tank designed by APX was a vehicle quite diminutive in size, with a length of 4.40 m, a width of 1.58 m, and a height of 1.85 m, turret included. As for the ground clearance, it was quite low, at 0.35 m.
The vehicle used cast construction for both the hull and turret. Though the vehicle was small in size, the hull was, in comparison to the other light tanks submitted by other manufacturers, quite bulky. The driver’s compartment is easy to point out, sticking out from the front, and not being angled in the part featuring the vision port – something quite uncommon for cast French tanks. The angled part below featured a large two-piece hatch from which the driver would enter the driving position, which was noticeably low. The armor of the vehicle was 30 mm-thick all-around.
Powerplant and suspension
A somewhat notable feature of APX’s tank was the use of a diesel engine, a feature it shared with FCM’s proposal, which would become the FCM 36. In the case of the APX tank, the engine used was a two-stroke, 4-cylinder engine producing 65 hp at 2,500 rpm. With the weight of the vehicle being 6.85 tonnes, the horsepower-to-weight ratio was 9.5 hp/ton, a decent performance for an infantry support tank; the speed, with 19.8 km/h, was within the expected performances. The engine consumed 7 liters of fuel hourly on average, giving the vehicle a range of 150 km, or about 10 hours, thanks to its 70 liters fuel tanks.
A cut-away view of the APX light tank, dated from March of 1934.The same sideway cut of the APX 6 tons light tank, dated from March of 1934, showing the vehicle’s internal arrangement, the suspension, and the general shape of the hull. As for the previous one, this plan was first given a fake blueprint look but has here been given a more authentic black and white. Source: Archives de l’armement de Châtellerault via warspot.net & Andrew Hills
The transmission was installed at the rear, as was the radiator, installed in the sloped, rear part of the engine compartment. The mounting of the transmission led to the drive sprocket being at the rear of the vehicle, and the idler wheel at the front. The suspension consisted of 5 bogies with two road wheels each, the front bogie facing the front and the four others the rear, as well as an independent wheel between the rearmost bogie and the drive sprocket. There were four return rollers at the top. The suspension would, in operation, be covered by a side skirt, which featured openable covers in order to oil and maintain the road wheels. The rear drive sprocket was not covered by this side skirt.
Turret and armament
The APX light tank’s turret is a quite notable one in the history of French turret developments. By December 1933, APX had launched itself into the design of cast turrets, first for the B1 heavy tank, but soon for its own light tank.
The result was a mostly cylindrical turret design, featuring a rounded observation cupola on top, a door at the rear, and a mantlet sticking out at the front. Two vision ports were present, one on each side. The turret was notable for mounting both a 37 mm SA 18 main gun and a 7.5 mm machine-gun – while the program originally requested a vehicle that would have either, but not both. It should be noted the exact model of the 7.5 mm machine-gun which was to be used is not known. While the 7.5 mm MAC31E, which would become the standard French tank machine-gun of the 1930s, appears as the most likely answer, the FM 24/29 light machine-gun has occasionally been mentioned as the vehicle’s secondary armament. It should also be noted that another version of the APX tank, featuring two 7.5 mm machine-guns instead, may have been considered.
The turret was crewed by the commander, who also assumed the roles of gunner and loader. He sat on a retractable seat that rotated along with the turret, though reaching down quite far in the hull’s fighting compartment below. Ammunition for the 37 mm gun was stored on the sides of this combat compartment; the quantity of shells carried is not known.
An elusive prototype, suffering from anti-state bias
It appears that a prototype of the APX light tank was manufactured, being completed in October of 1935. Very little is known about it, and no photographs have survived to this day; it is known the prototype was still in existence by 1938, with a mention of a new oil pump being in construction for the design in a document dated from the 15th of December 1938.
Despite a prototype being manufactured, the APX light tank does not appear to really have been taken into consideration for adoption. APX was the only state-owned manufacturer to go as far as manufacturing a prototype, and this state-owned status appears to have warranted the prototype an ‘out of competition’ status.
It should be noted that the requirements for light infantry tanks were edited in May of 1934, now requesting a 40 mm-thick armor while raising the maximum required weight from 6 to 8 tonnes. It is not known if this change in requirements was considered when manufacturing the prototype.
The influential APX-R turret
While APX’s light tank design as a whole is obscure, its turret is not. It was, in 1935, adopted on both Renault and Hotchkiss’s light tanks, under a version that appears to have undertaken some minor evolutions, but remained vastly similar. This turret would be known under the designation of APX-R; featured on both the Hotchkiss and the Renault light tanks, which would become the two most produced French tanks of the 1930s, it would by far be the most common turret design in the whole of the French military by 1940, and even be refitted with a longer 37 mm SA 38 gun from 1939 onward. This massive borrowing from the APX light tank remains its main legacy, though one could hardly argue for it to be a particularly great one; the APX-R’s one-man design resulted in the commander being utterly overtasked, and even for a one-man turret, it was quite horrendous and inefficient ergonomically.
A Renault ZM prototype – the vehicle which would become the R35 – refitted with the APX-R turret. The ZM initially featured a cast turret without a cupola and armed with two 7.5 mm MAC 31E machine-guns. It was refitted with the APX-R in the spring of 1935 before the APX light tank prototype was even completed. Source: For the Records blog.
Conclusion – An APX venture of questionable success
The APX light tank is, in itself, a quite obscure vehicle. An unlucky competitor to the R35, H35 and FCM36, despite seemingly reaching the prototype stage, no photos have been known to survive up to this day. The light tank does not appear to have been seriously considered for the role of standard light infantry tank for the French army either.
Nonetheless, the influence of the design via the APX-R turret ought not to be underestimated – thousands of French tank commanders would, in the later interwar and during the campaign of France, serve in a turret design originally designed for the APX 6-tonnes. As for the prototype itself, its eventual fate is unknown. As often with French pre-1940 French prototypes, the most probable fate of the vehicle was scrapping, though the question remains, by whom; The French prior to 1940, the Germans during the occupations of France, or even the French during the post-war reconstruction era? It appears unlikely an answer to this question will arise anytime soon.
Illustration for the APX-6 tonnes infantry tank, created by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe and funded by our Patreon campaign
APX Light infantry tank specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
4.40 x 1.58 x 1.85 m
Ground clearance
0.35m
Weight
6,850 kg
Engine
2-strokes 4-cylinders diesel engine producing 65 hp at 2,500 rpm
Maximum Speed
19.8 km/h
Power-to-weight ratio (in hp/ton)
9.5
Fuel tanks capacity
70 lites
Average hourly fuel consumption
7 litres
Range
150 km/ 10 hours
Crew
2 (Commander/gunner/loader, Driver)
Armament
1 37 mm SA 18 main gun, 1 7.5 mm machine-gun (either MAC31E or FM 24/29)
Illustration of the AEM one-man light tank, produced by Pavel 'Carpaticus' Alexe and funded by our Patreon campaign
France (1930s)
Light Tank – None Built
Arguably the most important tank producer during the First World War alongside the United Kingdom, throughout the 1920 and 1930s, France enjoyed a large armor industry which was composed of a considerable number of different manufacturers and designers. These produced various quantities of prototypes as well as designs that never left the drawing board. One of those was the AEM one-man light tank proposal, a project from a lesser-known manufacturer, which never left the drawing board. This was probably a blessing, as the design for the operation of an entire armored vehicle by one crew member was not at all a viable concept.
An obscure design
The one-man light tank is one of two designs which were found in the archives of the DGA (Direction Générale de l’Armament – ENG: General Armament Direction) in Châtellerault, attributed to an obscure manufacturer known as AEM (Atelier d’Études Mécaniques – ENG: Mechanical Studies Workshop). The other sketch corresponds to another quite odd design, a two-man light tank with a particularly low turret and an articulated track design.
The other design submitted by AEM – a curious two-man tank featuring a very low turret armed with what appears to be a 13.2 mm Hotchkiss machine gun, and two articulated sets of tracks. Source: char-français
The exact date of these sketches is not known, though they are estimated to be from the 1930s. The AEM one-man tank is known by two profile sketches: one showing the vehicle as it would have looked like from the side, and an internal cutaway showing the internal arrangements. It ought to be noted that the one-man tank proposal is sometimes referred to as the “FT Bis” on the internet. This designation, however, is not at all historical and, while the arrangement of the AEM may look superficially similar to the FT, nothing suggests the one-man light tank was in any meaningful way based on Renault’s WW1 light tank.
External design
The external appearance of the AEM one-man tank. Source: DGA Châtellerault via char-français
The AEM light tank was a vehicle of very limited dimensions. Two measurements are featured on the plans which have survived up to this day: the length of the hull, 2.85 m from the front of the hull to the rear of the tail (which was similar in shape to a trench-crossing tail, but was an integral part of the hull, housing the transmission), and the height of the hull, 1.5 m. From these, the height of the turret can also be extrapolated and should be around 0.615 m without the periscope, and 0.77 m including it, giving a height of 2.115 m without the periscope and 2.27 m with it. Including the barrel, the total length of the vehicle should have been about 3.15 m.
The AEM’s turret had a conical section shape with a relatively rounded top from which a periscope stuck out. This shape meant it would likely have been quite wide for such a small vehicle, though the width of the AEM one-man tank remains unknown. This turret featured a vision port on the left side, and would most likely have had the same feature on the right.
The suspension was composed of 13 tiny road wheels, quite similar to the suspension on the much earlier and much heavier FCM 1A and FCM 2C. Two larger wheels were present at the front and rear of the suspension. The drive sprocket appeared to have been featured at the rear, alongside the transmission, while the front wheel would most likely have been a tender wheel. This suspension would be entirely covered by an armored side skirt.
The thickness of the armor which would have been protecting the vehicle is not known, though it would obviously have been very thin and would have unlikely provided protection from anything bigger than a rifle-caliber round.
Internal arrangement
The internal layout of the AEM one-man tank. Source: DGA Châtellerault via tous les blindés de l’armée française 1914-1940
The AEM tank was to be crewed by a single person. He would sit on a seemingly quite elaborate seat for a tank design, mounted just below the turret in the hull. From there, his feet would reach the clutch pedal while his head would reach in the turret. The steering was, as on most vehicles of the era, assured by two levers.
Almost certainly, the turret was armed with a machine gun. That being said, the weapon featured in the sketches does not match either the new 7.5 mm MAC 31E or the old 8 mm Hotchkiss mle 1914 machine guns. Although most of the barrel is covered by a shroud, the tip does not match with either of those designs, and neither does the pistol grip. The heavier Hotchkiss 13.2 mm mle 1930, which would have been quite ambitious in such a small vehicle, does not match either. It is quite likely the machine gun featured in the sketches was purely representative. In this case, considering the design appears to have been dated from the 1930s, the 7.5 mm MAC 31E would have been the most probable choice.
The turret did feature a sight for the machine gun, installed to its left, a periscope that stuck out from the turret’s top, and vision ports on the sides.
The engine was installed just behind the crewman’s seat. There does not appear to be any bulkhead separating the crew and engine sections of the vehicle, a quite archaic feature already after the FT had shown how much of a drastic improvement this was for crew conditions. The model, power, or fuel of this engine is not known. The transmission was installed at the rear, in what appeared similar in shape to a trench-crossing tail, but was an integral part of the AEM tank’s hull.
Conclusion – a terrible design that didn’t go anywhere
The AEM light tank is only known from two sketches. It appears to have never been seriously considered for production, as indicated by the plans not even being properly numbered. This was likely for the best. The operation of a tank, no matter how small, by a single crewman is generally doomed to fail. The amount of attention required to drive a vehicle, observe from the limited vision available from inside an armored vehicle, and operate a weapon, even a machine gun, is far too much to be the task of just one man. During the campaign of France, even two-man tanks such as the R35/40 and H35/39 proved to absolutely overwork their crews, particularly the commander. Not only that but the suspension designed of the AEM tank, seemingly inspired from WW1-era heavy tanks, would most likely not have been able to provide the tank with an adequate speed, while the tank’s tiny dimensions meant it would most likely have struggled to cross many obstacles despite the trench-crossing tail-shaped rear hull. In practice, the vehicle would have been little more than a mobile machine gun with very thin armor and mediocre mobility, while having a more than 2-meters high profile.
The AEM design would not, however, be the last one-man tank offered to the French military, despite the obvious drawbacks of such a design. As late as 1940, engineer Joseph Francois Raymon Collomp would design a one-man tank tasked with minelaying and demining operations as well as armed with a machine gun, tasked by a single crewman in an incredibly uncomfortable lying position. Thankfully, this design would not go anywhere either.
Illustration of the AEM one-man light tank, produced by Pavel ‘Carpaticus’ Alexe and funded by our Patreon campaign
The original, 105mm-armed configuration of the FCM 1A
France (1916-1918)
Heavy Tank Prototype – 1 Built
1916 was a massively important year in the history of armor development, for both France and the world at large. It was during this year that Britain’s Mark I tanks were first engaged in combat, and that two French tank designs, the Saint-Chamond and the Schneider CA1, were first ordered for mass-production. In the history of France’s armor development in particular, 1916 was also marked by the start of one of the most ambitious tank projects of the war, which would result in a wildly innovative design: the FCM 1A.
1916: Procurement chaos and lessons from the British
The First World War had, during the mere months after it broke out, turned from a mobile war of maneuver to a vastly more static war of position prompted by the considerable evolutions of the late 19th and early 20th century in artillery and small arms technology, which were not matched by advancements in transport and motorization. With both sides finding it impossible to achieve large breakthroughs, and France seeing some of the most industrial parts of its territory occupied by the Kaiser’s troops, there were massive incentives to find a solution to the problem caused by trench warfare; the idea of all-terrain armored vehicles is one which quickly appeared in the minds of engineers in both France and Great-Britain.
The first years of these armor developments, 1915 and 1916, were, in France, marked by a variety of vastly different proposals being put forward. However, this was largely without a formal structure being in place to evaluate them properly. Engineers and representatives would often collaborate to try and push their design to the forefront, as various figures tried to gain a hold on the procurement of armored vehicles by negotiating with the Under-Secretary of Armament Albert Thomas. The most famous of those figures is undoubtedly Colonel Jean Estienne. Col. Estienne had gained some considerable control upon the procurement of France’s armored vehicles, most notably after he was named director of the Artillerie Spéciale (special artillery, France’s tank force in WW1) in September of 1916. Nonetheless, while Estienne would be extremely influential late in the war (particularly for the adoption of the FT), in 1916, his control was still very incomplete.
A good example of this chaotic procurement process in 1916 was the procurement of the Schneider CA1 and Saint-Chamond tanks. Both were vehicles which shared a number of characteristics, such as a casemate-mounted 75 mm gun (a short Blockhaus-Schneider howitzer on the CA1, while the Saint-Chamond mounted a longer field gun, first of Saint-Chamond design but later the standard french 75mm mle 1897), and a short suspension that left much of the hull’s front forward, which proved detrimental to trench crossing. Both of those vehicles were designed in ignorance of the other, with no coordination over their performance or protection. Nonetheless, 400 of both vehicles were ordered within a short time of each other in 1916. While Estienne had been a major proponent of the CA1, he would only learn of the existence of a Saint-Chamond tank around the time the order for it was finalized.
The major proponent of the Saint-Chamond had been another military figure who played a key role in the birth of France’s tank force, General Léon-Augustin Mourret, who was the leader of the French’s Army automotive service. Gen. Mourret was a rival to Estienne, particularly in 1916, and Mourret was also to be at the origin of FCM’s heavy tank projects.
Early production Saint-Chamond tanks, a vehicle Mourret was the proponent of, on the move. The Saint-Chamond had, in theory, impressive firepower thanks to its 75mm field gun, but this was counterbalanced by an atrocious off road mobility Source: pinterest
Gen. Mourret appeared to have been imagining the concept of a heavy tank for some time in the summer of 1916. In September, he took part in a bilateral meeting between the French and the British, which was held to reach the conclusions of the first operational use of British tanks at the Somme. Among the participants of this meeting was Lt. Colonel Albert Stern, leader of the Tank Supply Committee and previously part of the Landship Committee, and a key figure in Britain’s tank development during the war. Mourret traded views with Stern, and was introduced in more extensive detail to the British Mark I tank design. When comparing it to the French vehicles in development at that time, Mourret found the Mark I to be substantially more advanced. Mouret notably lauded that the naval engineers had had a major role in the vehicle’s development, and judged that they had done a superior job to the French Saint-Chamond and Schneider CA, which were mostly the result of artillery manufacturers. Notably, he found that the naval engineers had thought of vastly superior fire protection, air circulation, and habitability arrangements than Schneider and Saint-Chamond. He also found that the British design’s heavier weight (the Mark I weighed 27-28 tons, whereas the Saint-Chamond weighed 23 tonnes and the CA1 a mere 13.5 tonnes) was necessary to allow a better blend of protection, firepower, and mobility.
The FCM project gets on its tracks
In October of 1916, Gen. Mourret, supported by the Undersecretary of State for Inventions Regarding Defence, Jules-Louis Breton (also deeply involved in the study of armored vehicles), managed to lobby the Undersecretary for Artillery and Military Equipment, Albert Thomas, to order a heavy tank prototype from a naval shipyard. Clearly, the goal was to emulate the British method and to try and develop a vehicle superior to the CA1 and St. Chamond. Thus, on the 20th of October 1916, an order for a prototype vehicle was placed with Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerranée (FCM ).
Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerranée (Eng: Forges and Shipyards of the Mediterranean), was a naval shipyard with its main facilities at La-Seyne-Sur-Mer, on the Mediterranean coast. The company enjoyed a stellar reputation in the 1900s and 1910s, being a major producer of civilian ships and warships alike. Upon receiving the order, FCM’s administrator, Frédérick Moritz, gave the task of designing and producing the vehicle to the company’s shipyard at La-Seyne-Sur-Mer. The shipyard’s director, Léonce Rimbaud, recruited the engineers Lucien Savatier and E.Jammy to lead the project. They quickly got to work and, by January 1917, had already produced a design of which they had made a large wooden mockup.
The wooden mockup produced at FCM’s facilities in January of 1917. It already shows a good view of the tank’s general shape and features; its elongated hull, large turret, and short-barrelled 105 mm howitzer main gun. By January of 1917, this was by all means a very modern looking machine. Source: char-français
The council shall decide your fate: divisions at the CCAS
In the meantime, at the request of Undersecretary Jules-Louis Breton, Undersecretary Albert Thomas created the CCAS, or Comité Consultatif de l’Artillerie Spéciale (Eng: Advisory Committee of Special Artillery). Officially brought into existence on the 13th of December 1916, this committee grouped representatives of various ministries, the French Army high command, industrialists, and deputies who had been involved in armored vehicle design. This last category included Col. Estienne, and some in the committee who shared his views.
This FCM project, designed by FCM with help from Renault, was the subject of the very first discussions within CCAS on the 17th of December 1916. The second CCAS meeting, held on the 30th of December, had as main topic Renault’s light tank project (which would become the FT). At that second meeting the FCM design was also discussed, which by that point had become a fairly well established concept of a 38-tonne tank armed with a 105 mm howitzer, protected by 30 mm of armor and powered by a 200 hp engine. This set of characteristics was presented by FCM’s administrator Frédérick Moritz. The project’s development was therefore going in a direction quite opposite to what Estienne desired. Col. Estinne, known in France as the ‘father of the tank’, wanted the Artillerie Spéciale to focus on a very light and also a very heavy design. The FCM project was simply not being made large enough to fulfill this second category. He also preferred the idea of a higher-velocity 75 mm gun as the main armament of the heavy tank, opposed to the low velocity 105 mm howitzer planned.
The third meeting of the CCAS, on the 17th of January 1917, was dedicated almost entirely to the FCM project. Undersecretary Jules-Louis Breton had, days prior, on the 13th, visited FCM’s facilities at La-Seyne-Sur-Mer and been presented with the already solid design in the form of the complete, to-scale mockup, which made a massive impression on Breton. While Estienne was not present in this meeting, he too had been presented this project, and found it to be well-presented and satisfactory despite it not being the ‘very heavy design’ he had wanted. Estienne noted his preference for a 75 mm gun over the 105 mm howitzer and was overall satisfied enough that he requested the CCAS to approve the production of two prototypes, one with an electric and one with a mechanical transmission, though in the end the prototypes ordered would not be the same as what Estienne requested. Breton, on the other hand, wanted an order for 50 vehicles to be passed immediately, but he saw this being rejected by CCAS. The majoritarity vote by CCAS was to focus on material already in production and viewed the doctrine of heavy tank use as still being too ill-defined to warrant a production run.
While this meeting was viewed as disappointing by proponents of the FCM design, including Breton, on the 5th of February 1917, the Ministry of Armament ordered two additional prototypes from FCM, in addition to the first ordered in October 1916. While this first prototype would have a mechanical transmission, the two newly ordered vehicles would feature oil-electric and oil-hydraulic transmission designs. These two later prototypes would not actually end up being produced.
1917: Half a year wasted in delays
By early 1917, the first prototype was due to be completed and begin its trials in May. While development and production of the tank itself was done by FCM, the gearbox and engines were a product of Renault.
The whole of 1917 was marked by tremendous delays from Renault which meant that, without its engine or gearbox, the prototype’s trials could not begin. The exact reason for those delays is not quite known, though Renault being overtasked and already vastly engaged in the FT light tank, notably, have been raised as potential explanations. In any case, by June, FCM was still awaiting Renault’s part of the deal. By August, when asking the firm about the whereabouts of those elements, Breton received an answer saying that the engine and gearbox would not be delivered for at least three weeks. Finally, on the 18th of October 1917, Moritz was able to place a date – around the 20th of November – for the FCM 1A’s trials to begin. In practice, they would begin a month later, on the 20th of December 1917, with the presence of the CCAS as well as a number of other officers, including an American and a British representative.
The FCM 1A: The hull and armor design
The hull designed for FCM’s heavy tank was rectangular, narrow, and elongated. The vehicle had an impressive length of 8.35 m, but, at 2.84m wide including the suspension, was only slightly larger than the much lighter Saint-Chamond. The hull was also quite tall, standing at 1.98 m, and had a ground clearance of 40 cm. To its front, it featured a single Hotchkiss mle 1914 8 mm machine-gun firing through a ball mount on the lower glacis. Two crewmen, the driver, and a machine-gunner, stood at the hull’s front, each having an openable vision port. Three crewmen stood further back in the hull, with two located behind the turret ring, tasked with handing the 105 mm shells from the hull racks to the turret. The third man was a mechanic tasked with operating and maintaining the engine and transmission. The hull, without the suspension, engine, and radiator, had a weight of 17,500 kg (including 5,500 kg of armor). Those elements (suspension, engine, and radiator) had a weight of 19,300 kg. A total of 122 105 mm rounds were carried within the hull, 18 in front of the turret ring, 8 to each side of it, and 44 on each side of the hull behind the turret.
A front view of the FCM 1A, showing the opened vision ports for the two crew members sitting at the front of the hull. Source: char-français
The suspension of the FCM 1A featured a series of 4-wheel bogies, some placed on the inside and some on the outside of the track. Six small return rollers were present on the top of the suspension and it appears to have had a front drive sprocket and a rear idler. This layout may seem basic by modern standards, but a major innovation for French armored design was that the suspension was as long as the hull itself. On the CA1 and particularly the Saint-Chamond, the hull stuck out in front and behind the suspension, making the vehicle’s movement on irregular terrain – systematic in trench warfare – very hazardous. With its extremely long hull and equally long suspension, the FCM 1A was not at such a risk of becoming embedded in a bank or trench as it crossed this difficult terrain. Also helping the tank over rough and often saturated ground were the 60 cm wide tracks which gave the vehicle ground pressure of just 0.6 kg per cm² (58 KPa).
A rear view of the FCM 1A prototype leaving a ditch, showing the marks left by the tracks on the ground. Source: char-françaisAnother rear view of the prototype, showing both the large radiator grill, and a vertical obstacle the tank just crossed. Source: char-français
A particularly impressive feature of the FCM 1A was its armor layout. The vehicle offered 35 mm of armor on the front, 21 mm to the side and rear, and 15 mm on the bottom and top, on both the hull and turret. While this may not seem particularly impressive by WW2 standards, it was exceptional by the standards of WW1. For example, the 15 mm of belly or roof armor was heavier than the primary armor on the CA1, which had a maximum of 11.5 mm of armor or the Saint-Chamond with just 17 mm (and only on a small, up-armored area of the vehicle). Even in comparison with the British-American Mark VIII International Liberty heavy tank, this was heavy armor, as that vehicle did not feature more than 16 mm of armor. Only the German A7V could somewhat compete with the FCM 1A’s frontal 35 mm of armor with its 30 mm, but the German design was inadequate cross-country and was totally outclassed by FCM’s heavy tank.
The engine used on the FCM 1A was a 12-cylinder Renault petrol engine producing 220 hp at 1,200 rpm. This engine provided the FCM 1A with a respectable power-to-weight ratio of 5.3 hp/t. This was higher than the CA1 at 4.4 hp/t, Saint-Chamond at 3.9 hp/tn, British Mark IV Male at 3.75 hp/t, and the British Mark V at 5.2 hp/t. Of vehicles which had at least reached prototype stage by 1917, only the British Medium Mark A ‘Whippet’ outdid the FCM’s horsepower per ton at 6.4. The FCM 1A’s engine compartment also had quite considerable additional space available to allow for a larger, more powerful engine in the future and the proposed evolution of the design, the 45-tonne FCM 1B, which was to mount a 380 hp engine. Exhaust for the engine was featured on the top of the hull, behind the turret; the radiator was to the rear of the hull.
The FCM 1A going into a ditch in front of the delegation assembled to examine it during the December 1917 trials. Source: char-français
Turret and firepower: monstrous explosive charge
The FCM 1A featured what appears to be a fully rotating turret. Whilst this vehicle by no means invented the concept, this was still a fairly uncommon feature for WW1 tanks, particularly on vehicles of this size.
The FCM 1A’s turret was mostly rounded in shape, housing two crew members. To the left sat a commander/gunner, and to the right, a loader which would also serve as machine-gunner. The vehicle had a large, initially square command cupola that stuck out on the left side, from which the commander could observe the battlefield.
The main gun featured in this turret was a Schneider 105 mm short howitzer. This gun was purposely designed for the FCM 1A and may have been loosely based on Schneider’s model 1913 105 mm field gun, albeit substantially shortened. The very short barrel of the gun only gave it a muzzle velocity of 240 m/s; however, the shells fired from the FCM 1A’s gun had a massive 4 kg explosive charge, heavier than the entire shells fired by most other tanks of the war, which generally had 57 mm guns, like the British and German tanks. By way of comparison, the explosive shells fired by the French Army’s standard 75 mm field gun, the model 1897, featured on the late model of the Saint-Chamond tank, contained just 0.695 kg of explosives. While the rate of fire of the FCM 1A’s 105 mm gun would have been very low, its destructive potential against trench systems and fortifications was great.
As secondary armament, the tank featured two Hotchkiss mle 1914 8 mm machine-gun, each in a ball mount; one to the right of the turret, the other on the hull’s lower plate. The standard issue machine-gun of the French Army from 1916-1917 onward, progressively replacing the older, more vulnerable to mud Saint-Etienne model 1907, the Hotchkiss machine-gun fired 8 x 50 mm rimmed Lebel ammunition from either 24 or 30-rounds rigid strips, or 249-rounds metal belts. It had a rate of fire of 400 to 500 rpm on average, and was appreciated for its high reliability and air-cooling, which made it reliable even in the mud of the trenches. There were also 5 openable firing ports from which the crew could fire either the CSRG Chauchat model 1915 machine-rifle firing the same 8 x 50 mm Lebel cartridge as the Hotchkiss from smaller 20-rounds magazine at a rate of fire of 250 rpm, or their side-arms (model 1873 or 1892 revolvers).
The turret had a weight of 4,600 kg, which included 1,300 kg of armor. The armour layout was similar to the hull, except the 35 mm thickness was apparently all around the turret. The complete vehicle had a weight of 41,400 kg, reaching a height of 3 m with the observation cupola, and 2.78 m without it.
Trials at La-Seyne-Sur-Mer: A Char to end all Chars
Trials of the FCM 1A began at FCM’s facilities at La-Seyne-Sur-Mer on the 20th of December 1917, in front of a large delegation. FCM had, by that point, made it clear that the FCM 1A prototype was mostly experimental, and was not intended for military adoption as it was presented.
A view of the FCM 1A prototype during its trials at La-Seyne-Sur-Mer, giving a good view of the odd square command post initially featured on the tank. Source: char-françaisThe FCM 1A prototype dives into a crater during its trials. Source: char-français
The obstacle course which had been prepared for the FCM 1A included 3.50 m -wide trenches, 0.90 m-high walls, and artillery shell craters 6 meters in diameter and 4 meters in depth. The FCM 1A was easily able to overcome them. The vehicle was tested in some considerable slopes, and was able to climb up to a 65% slope. It also tried going through a forest of pines, going over a 35 cm-wide tree and shattering a 28 cm one. The tank could reach a maximum speed of 10 km/h, and cruised at 6 km/h on good terrain, well within the standards of WW1 tanks. This first series of trials concerned mobility only, and there were not yet any firing trials of the gun. They have however, been quite extensively documented, with an 18-minutes film being available on the internet.
The FCM 1A left a major impression on the delegation. The vehicle offered some impressive cross-country capacities – far superior to the very mediocre ones featured on the previous Saint-Chamond and CA1. Its massive size was thought to potentially have a major morale effect on enemy forces if it was to enter service. The vehicle also featured many innovative design choices. The FCM 1A was not without flaws – notably, due to the length and narrowness of the vehicle, turning while stationary was almost impossible, although the track was not at any point at risk of going off. One of the impressive features of the FCM 1A, which may not appear obvious at first glance, was the considerable internal space allocated to the crew. With 7 crew members (lowered to 6 during the trials, when it was realized that a single crewman was enough to hand the shells from the hull to the turret), the FCM 1A had one of the smallest crews of non-light tanks of WW1. The 23-tonne Saint-Chamond, for example, had a crew of 9, the 29-tonne Mark V a crew of 8, and the 30 to 33 tonne A7V a crew of 20. At the same time as having relatively few crewmen, the large space inside made the FCM 1A quite impressive in terms of internal habitability, allowing the crew to operate in far better conditions than on most other vehicles of the era. The FCM 1A was also reported to be well-designed to counter fires, as a result of having been designed by a naval shipyard, and to have a good number of escape hatches should the crew have to evacuate the tank. There was no bulkhead separating the crew and engine compartments, though no crew member operated near the engine. However, due to the tank’s size, no vehicle in possession of the French Army of the time could realistically tow it. The solution was provided by attaching tow-points and a fairlead on the vehicle, meaning an FCM 1A could be used to tow and recover another one should the need arise, although how effectively it would do so is unknown, as just one prototype of the tank was ever built.
A frontal view of the FCM 1A prototype going through a forested area during its trials, once again showing the particularly short barrel of the main gun. Source: char-français
Soon after the trials began, the FCM 1A’s great performances provoked some considerable interest. The new Minister of Armament, Louis Loucheur, wrote to French Président du Conseil (a role mostly similar to a British Prime Minister in the French Third Republic) Georges Clémenceau, requesting an order for 100 vehicles to be placed. The request was for the first 15 to be delivered in July, and 80 more to be available by the end of the year. However, no order ended up being placed due mainly to follow-ups of the FCM 1A that FCM had, in the meantime, proposed.
Side views of the FCM 1A prototype climbing a slope during its December of 1917 trials, showing us how elongated and large the vehicle genuinely is. Source: char-français
18-minutes film of the FCM 1A’s trials at La-Seyne-Sur-Mer
A project doomed… by its own evolutionary potential
Indeed, around the same time as the FCM 1A began its trials in late 1917, FCM had brought forward three new tank designs, based on the experience collected by designing and manufacturing the 1A. The lightest was the FCM A, a 30-tonne, 6.92 m-long tank armed with a turret-mounted 75 mm howitzer. The middleweight was the FCM 1B which was the most directly derived from the 1A. The FCM 1B was to be 7.39 m long, featuring a long-barrelled 75 mm gun in a turret, be powered by a new 380 hp petrol engine, and with a final weight of 45 tonnes. Lastly, and heaviest of all was the FCM 2C project. By this time, the FCM 2C was a 9.31 m-long, 62-tonne tank project, which immediately got the attention of Estienne to fulfil the role of that ‘very heavy tank’ he wanted as a complement to the FT.
The lightest of the FCM tank proposals, the 30-tonne FCM A. source: char-français
By the end of the December trials, the influential Col. Estienne remarked on the FCM 1A’s success, albeit noting that the trials had been performed on particularly dry ground, and that there was a risk of the tank’s rear end sinking in the mud due to most of the propulsion elements being located there. Estienne and the French Army’s GQG (Grand Quartier Général – ENG: Great Headquarters) ended up opting for the evolved FCM 2C design, which pushed the FCM 1A’s size and gigantism even further, in January 1918. Even being particularly optimistic, this FCM 2C could only enter service in 1919.
Continued trials on the FCM 1A
While it had been decided the French Army would adopt the FCM 1A’s heavier, 75 mm-armed cousin, the FCM 2C, trials and experimentations nonetheless continued on the prototype as it had already been manufactured. Firing trials of the 105 mm gun were performed on the 5th to the 7th of February 1918, which satisfactory results.
The FCM 1A on the beach of La-Seyne-Sur-Mer, the home town of FCM, where it was manufactured. Source: flickr
Later that year, the FCM 1A prototype did receive some considerable modifications, notably to the turret. The 105 mm howitzer was swapped out, replaced by a much longer gun. While a number of photos of the FCM 1A armed with this gun exist, it has yet to be identified, and even its caliber is unknown; both 47 and 75 mm have been suggested. In any case, this appears to be a much higher-velocity gun than the 105 mm – likely not as good in fortification and trench-busting, but more accurate at longer ranges, and perhaps able to pierce some armor. The vehicle’s cupola was also redesigned; from its original, square shape, it adopted a rounded one, featuring a stroboscope system: two round-shaped plates with holes pierced in them, able of quick rotating, allowing the commander to see out of the vehicle while offering some good protection against machine-gun fire.
The FCM 1A later during its trials, with a number of personnel sitting on it, showing the size of the vehicle, as well as the new long gun of unknown caliber. Source: Tumblr, char de franceThe re-armed FCM 1A prototype at an unknown facility, with a Renault FT light tank in the background; source: char-français
Fate – A formidable photo background
Unlike many French prototypes of the 1910s and 1920s, the eventual fate of the FCM 1A is quite well-known. The impressive-looking prototype was, in the 1920s and 1930s, placed outside the Versailles tank school, as a ‘flower pot’. It slowly degraded in this state (with the tracks for example being removed at some point), while often being used as a photo background for studying officers due to its impressive look.
The FCM 1A as it finally laid to rest. An abandoned but still majestic vehicle, with part of the side skirts having been removed and giving a better image of the suspension. Here, the tank was popular for young officers to have their photos taken in front of. Source: char-françaisFrench tankers from the Versailles tank school pose in front of the FCM 1A prototype. Source: char-français
The FCM 1A prototype was still at Versailles when France fell to German armies in 1940. Long out of use and completely incapable of even running, the old prototype most likely met an unceremonious end at a scrapyard; the last known photo of it dates from 1940 and shows a German soldier standing on the aged beast.
The by this point very much damaged by the elements FCM 1A serves as a photo background for the last time, this time for a German soldier, 1940. Source: pinterest
Conclusion – An impressive tank, that was not to be.
Out of all the vehicles which reached prototype stage in WW1 France, the FCM 1A was without a doubt one of the most advanced and powerful. For a vehicle designed in 1916 and which had its prototype manufactured in 1917, FCM’s heavy tank indeed presents a variety of modern features; a rotating turret, sensible crew accommodations, and a very powerful main armament in the context of trench warfare, protected under one of the thickest armors of the era.
Despite these very modern features, the FCM 1A was hindered both by the massive delays caused by Renault in 1917, as well as Estienne’s opinion that a heavy tank design ought to be heavier. This contributed to the vehicle not being adopted, though this was not without some forms of regret – in October of 1918, in a letter to Clémenceau, the Minister of Armament once again reminded that the FCM 1A had a crucial advantage over the 2C – it had been built, and, while the 2C was still vastly on paper at that point, the 1A could quite realistically have entered service. Indeed, had it been adopted, it would not have been entirely unthinkable to see the 1A used in combat during the last weeks of WW1.
Nonetheless, even if this impressive WW1 prototype never reached serial production, it remains a fairly important vehicle in the history of French armored development; not only because of its own impressive merits, but also because it launched FCM into armored vehicle design. The shipyard would, in the 20s and 1930s, become a major producer of such, with the FCM 2C in the 1920s, but also the FCM 36 light infantry tank, and participation in the B1 program both with the 1920s FCM Char de Bataille and some considerable other experimentations, notably on the B1 Ter project. FCM would be active all the way up to the postwar years, when it still offered some designs such as the FCM 50T medium tanks, though it could not help being completely superseded by the state-owned AMX. This involvement of FCM in French armored vehicles design goes to show that naval shipyards indeed offered an alternative to artillery manufacturers in the beginning of tank production, with the enclosed, armored nature of tanks arguably making them more similar to warships, albeit much smaller, than to simple mobile artillery pieces.
FCM 2C n°9 Champagne, with its crew standing in front of it. Initially thought of as a 62-tonne, 9.31 m long tank in 1917, the FCM 2C ended up going all the way up to 69 tonnes and 10.37 meters; it remains, to this day, the longest tank to ever see service (about 25 cm longer than the TOG-2).The original, 105mm-armed configuration of the FCM 1AThe later, long-barreled version of the FCM 1A
Both illustrations created by Pavel ‘Carpaticus’ Alexe and funded by our Patreon campaign
FCM 1A specifications
Dimensions (L x w x h)
8.35 m x 2.84 m x 3 m
Ground Clearance
0.40 m
Weight
41,400kg
Engine
12-cylinder Renault petrol producing 220hp at 1,200rpm
Maximum speed
10 km/h
Power-to-weight ratio (in hp/ton
5.3
Ground pressure
0.6 kg/cm² ( (58 KPa)
track width
60cm
Suspension
Leaf springs
Trench crossing
3.5m
Step
1m
Maximum slope climbed
65%
Crew
7 men (driver, hull machine-gunner, commander/gunner, loader/turret machine-gunner, mechanician, two servants), later reduced to 6 by removing a servant
Main armament
1 turret-mounted 105 mm howitzer, later replaced by an higher-velocity gun of unknown caliber
Secondary armament
1 coaxial Hotchkiss mle 1914 8 mm machine-gun, 1 hull Hotchkiss mle 1914 8 mm machine-gun, 5 firing ports for CRSG Chauchat mle 1915 8 mm machine-rifle or revolvers
Turret weight
4,600kg
Armor
35 mm on the front of the hull and entire turret, 21 mm on the sides and rear of the hull, 15 mm on the roof and top
M1981 in amphibious landing configuration, with trim vane and side logs, as well as the North Korean flag, as seen in landing exercises in 2016
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Late 1970s/Early 1980s-Present)
Amphibious Light Tank – Unknown Number Built (500 Sometimes Mentioned)
North Korea maintains one of the most peculiar large scale military industries of the modern world. Though the most famous of the country’s vehicles are without a doubt the main battle tanks – the Chonma-ho and Songun-Ho – North Korea actually manufactures a very wide range of vehicles, from self-propelled artillery pieces to light armored personnel carriers. An interesting vehicle in North Korea’s arsenal, and one which may have played a pivotal role in the development of North Korea’s military industry, is the M1981 Shin’heung, an amphibious light tank also known as the M1985 (its name given by the US Department of Defence) or the PT-85 (a popular name given due to the vehicle’s often greatly exaggerated link to the PT-76).
The sources of North Korea’s military and tank industry
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), often just known as North Korea, was formed following the capitulation of Japan. The Soviet Union came to control the northern half of Korea. The state was solidified after the 1950-1953 Korean War led to a stalemate, with both pro-American South Korea and pro-Soviet North remaining in place.
The North Koreans quickly began to develop a form of arms industry. As early as 1949, they began the manufacture of the Type 49 submachine gun, a copy of the Soviet PPSh-41. Their production of firearms continued through the 1950s and 1960s, to include the Type 58, an AK copy, as well as some of the first “indigenous” weapons, or at least some of the first to differ from the Soviet arsenal. Introduced in 1964, the Type 64 pistol was a close copy of the old Belgian FN 1900, an odd choice for a new pistol. It was most likely inspired by the pistol’s symbolic role as a common pistol in 1900-1940s Asia, which was employed by Korean partisans against Japanese rule.
Two 323s – on which the M1981’s hull was based on – parading in North Korea, featuring their standard armament of two 14.5 mm machine-guns as well as a battery of anti-aircraft missiles, likely Strelas in this instance. They bear the flags of North Korea, and of the Workers’ Party of Korea. Source: militaryimages
The production of armored vehicles appears to have started in the 1970s. This coincides with North Korea raising military expenses after those had been kept at a moderate level throughout the late 1950s and 1960s, as well as the country being forced to assert its independence from the Soviet Union due to the Sino-Soviet Split complicating North Korea’s relations with the two larger communist powers on its borders.
Up to this point, North Korea had merely used vehicles supplied by the Soviet Union or China, but this option started to appear fairly unreliable as it was questionable whether the Soviets or Chinese would provide modern weaponry, seeing as North Korea was trying to keep balanced relations between the two communist powers that were now bitter rivals.
The Korean People’s Army adopted a locally-produced version of China’s Type 63/YW531 in the early 1970s, the vehicle appearing to be designated as “323” in North Korea (though it is often called VTT-323 by western enthusiasts), and being given the name of M1973 (after the year it was first observed) by the American Department of Defence. It already incorporated some significant differences from the original vehicle, such as an additional road wheel, as well as a turret armed with twin KPV 14.5 mm machine-guns.
It also appears that, at least to an extent, two large orders of tanks from the Soviet Union were produced and assembled in North Korea – an order for 1,000 T-54s, passed in 1966 and delivered from 1967 to 1974, and another order for 1,000 T-55s, passed in 1970 and delivered from 1972 to 1982.
It also appears that a local production run of the PT-76B, or more likely simply the final assembly of vehicles otherwise produced in the Soviet Union, took place in the 1970s. The place of this PT-76 production run was most likely the Ryu Kyong-su Tank Factory, in Sinhung county – the latter name Sinhung or Shin’heung often being associated to the vehicles which would be produced in this factory (typically amphibious vehicles such as the 323 and obviously the M1981).
The Shin’heung appears
The M1981 Shin’heung amphibious tank appears to have been developed in this context, and it took inspiration from a variety of vehicles North Korea had previously acquired or even produced locally – the 323 and PT-76, but also perhaps the T-54/T-55 and the Type 63 amphibious tank.
The M1981 Shin’heung, as the West first learned of it: parading down Kim Il-Sung square, Pyongyang, with not only the standard armament but also a Malyutka anti-tank missile. Source: Eugen system forums
As is typically the case for North Korea, the vehicle’s development is completely unknown in the West, and the vehicle’s existence was known for the first time when lines of Shin’heung paraded down Kim-Il-Sung square in Pyongyang – this being on the parade for the 40th anniversary of the Fatherland Liberation War, in 1985, leading to the vehicle first being designated as M1985 by the American Department of Defence. The vehicle is theorized to have actually originated in the late 1970s or the early 1980s, with the North Korean designation seemingly being “M1981 Shin’heung”.
Observing the vehicle, though, can lead to some amount of guessing as to how the vehicle was developed, or rather, which vehicles it took inspiration from. The Shin’heung is often thought, in popular imagination, to be a mere copy of the Soviet PT-76, merely refitted with an 85 mm gun. This is not helped by the popularity of the “PT-85” name for the vehicle. In practice though, North Korea’s design is quite different from the Soviet one. Its hull is based on the one of the 323, though largely modified, and while the turret clearly takes inspiration from the Soviet tanks, it is clearly not the same design either.
Hull Design: From APC to amphibious tank
The hull of the M1981 Shin’heung is based on the 323, which, from the 1970s onward, has been produced in large numbers by North Korea, appearing to be the country’s standard armored personnel carrier.
A closer view from the last picture, showing the M1981 in its original configuration. The hull bears notable similarities with the 323 but has obviously been considerably modified. Source: massimotessi.altervista.org
Major modifications had to be undertaken to turn this fairly diminutive armored personnel carrier hull into an amphibious tank. The most notable was the vehicle is considerably lengthened. The original YW531 was 5.48 m long, but while accurate measurements of the M1981 are not known in the West, the vehicle is clearly longer than the 323. Another road wheel was added, bringing the total to 6, and an estimation places the vehicle at a length of about 7.60 m based on the various available photos. The vehicle also appears to have been widened to an extent, notably over the fenders, and incorporates sloped sides – it appears the width went up from 2.98 m on the 323 to around 3.10 m on the M1981.
The hull appears to have been lowered to an extent – a quite logical course of action, seeing as the troop compartment was removed. The rear of the hull was considerably changed to accommodate the change of purpose. The rear doors for the infantry were removed, and a hydrojet, of a design similar to the PT-76’s, was added on each side. The radiator of the engine appears to be installed at the rear as well, with the exhaust on the roof of the rear hull.
A rearview of several M1981s, showing the vehicle’s engine bay as well as its turret hatches and radio antenna. Source: IMCDb, from the movie Haebit Palgara, 2010
The exact engine which is used on the M1981 Shin’heung is unknown. The original Chinese YW531 is known to use an 8-cylinder, 320 hp air-cooled and turbocharged diesel engine, the KHD BF8L 413F, and it is possible this engine may have been retained on the M1981. A 6-cylinder water-cooled diesel producing 240 hp is sometimes mentioned as an alternative. As for the suspension, the vehicle appears to have torsion bars similar to those found on the 323. The M1981 lacks the fenders covering the upper part of the suspension and tracks. The tracks are similar to those found on the 323 and PT-76. The hull appears to be home to one crewman, the driver, seated at the front right of the hull. He has a number of episcopes at his disposal in order to view the outside of the vehicle, as well as an openable hatch.
The vehicle, with the turret included, is estimated to weigh in at around 20 tons, and a maximum speed of around 60 km/h is sometimes mentioned – which would make it similar to China’s Type 63 amphibious tank, and about 15 km/h faster than the PT-76. The speed on water is estimated to be around 10km/h – the same as the PT-76, with which the M1981 likely shares the hydrojet design. A range of about 500 km has also been estimated.
M1981s on the parade at Kim Il Sung square. These vehicles feature some upgrades (IR projector, hull lights), and this side angle gives a decent view of their 6 road wheels. Source: M.blog naver.com
The armor values of the M1981’s hull are unknown but are likely similar to vehicles such as the PT-76, 323, or Type 63. This would give it armor somewhere between 10 and 20 mm in thickness, likely able to only resist rifle-caliber projectiles and artillery shrapnel, as is typically expected of a light amphibious tank.
A number of tools are stored on the sides of the hull. When first shown in 1985, the M1981 featured four headlights, two on each side, installed towards the front, though new light configurations have appeared since then. Spare track links are often seen on the sides of the vehicle as well.
Turret design and armament: Multiple inspirations
The M1981 features a horseshoe-shaped turret. Though it may seem vaguely similar to the PT-76’s in general shape, it appears to be higher, with the armor plates sloped inward at a lower angle than on the Soviet vehicle. Most details are also quite different. The turret features a notable bulge on the rear-right of the turret to accommodate the commander’s cupola, which includes a number of episcopes. Instead of a large, single hatch, the M1981 features two, one on the rear right (in the commander’s cupola) and one on the rear left. Rounded in shape, those hatches are fairly similar to those found on the T-54, which North Korea may have produced in the late 1960s and 1970s. The turret has a flat section at the front, where the main gun is installed, alongside a coaxial machine-gun to the right and a vision port to the left. Circular hand grips can be found on the sides of the turret. Including the turret, the M1981 appears to be about 2.80 m high.
A view of several M1981s on parade in Pyongyang, at an unknown date (though likely during the 1990s or 2000s judging by the IR projector and hull lights), showing the general shape of the turret. Though it may seem similar to the PT-76 at first, the turret of the M1981 is far from identical to that of the Soviet light tank. Source: M.blog naver.com
The main armament of the M1981 is an 85 mm gun. It is very likely based on the Chinese Type 62-85TC rifled gun, present on the Type 62 and Type 63 light tanks, which North Korea is known to have used from the 1970s onward. The guns generally look similar, though there are some differences. The bore evacuator is further back on the North Korean model, which may be caused by the gun being longer altogether.
The ammunition used by the Chinese gun, and thus likely North Korea’s version as well, is the 85×629 mmR, the same caliber as the WW2-era Soviet 85 mm used in later models of the T-34 as well as the SU-85. China is known to produce a variety of ammunition for the gun, comprising AP, APHE, HE, Frag-HE, HEAT, APFSDS-T and smoke rounds. It is quite likely North Korea has access to some, if not all of these rounds, and produces some locally, seeing as the same shells can also be fired from the country’s T-34-85 fleet. The quantity of ammunition the vehicle may carry is unknown. The coaxial machine gun used is of an unknown model, though the PKT is a potential candidate.
As for the crew, the M1981 appears to house two crewmen in the turret, a commander and a gunner. It has, however, sometimes been mentioned that the vehicle could house a third turret crewman, a loader. While all photos of the vehicle in parades only show two crewmen standing out of the turret, the seemingly larger size of the M1981’s turret in comparison to the PT-76 may perhaps be able to house an additional loader.
When first shown in 1985, the M1981 featured an additional weapon: a Malyutka missile launcher, either the Soviet 9M14 or the North-Korean produced model, the Susong-Po. This missile was mounted on top of the turret, behind the main gun. It has, however, only been observed on the M1981 once, during the 1985 parade. Since then, no photos of the vehicle show it armed with a Malyutka. Though it is possible the missile may be fitted back onto the vehicle if need be, it has been theorized that giving the M1981 a missile for the 1985 parade was done with the goal of spreading misinformation on the vehicle’s actual capabilities, without the M1981 actually being adapted to fire the Malyutka. It is sometimes claimed the vehicle may be fitted with a 14.5 mm KPV heavy machine-gun on an anti-aircraft mount. Though this would not be an unusual feature on a North Korean vehicle, it has never been observed on the M1981.
Service of the M1981
The M1981 Shin’heung has been operational in the Korean People’s Army (KPA) since the early 1980s. The vehicle is generally understood to have fulfilled an important role in the offensive-minded KPA of the pre-1990s: South Korea is a country comprising a large number of rivers, which considerably complicate operations for heavier, non-amphibious tanks, such as the various models of Chonma-Ho. The M1981 would not be as troubled by these rivers and could operate alongside amphibious armored personnel carriers such as the 323 to provide them with additional firepower that is a lot easier to move around wet areas than heavier vehicles.
The M1981 has also, quite recently, been shown in amphibious landing exercises, in which the vehicles featured a foldable plate (known as a trim vane) used to break waves, which is not typically seen during parades. The role of landing vehicle is another one which can reasonably be expected of a light amphibious tank, the M1981 playing, in general, a role similar to the PT-76 in the Red Army or the Type 63 amphibious tank in the People’s Liberation Army.
An M1981 Shin-heung during amphibious exercises, North Korea, March 2016. Source: RedditA closer view of the same vehicle, showing the M1981’s amphibious configuration, as well as logs mounted on the hull side. The main gun appears to be plugged. Source: militarytodayA third photo – perhaps from the same exercise – showing M1981s and 323s heading inland after landing on a beach. Source: military-today
Upgrades and modifications
Ever since it was first seen in 1985, the M1981 has become a fairly common vehicle in North Korean parades. This allows observers to see several upgrades and modifications which have been applied to the North Korean vehicle since the 1980s.
M1981s parading down Kim Il Sung square while bearing the flags of the party and North Korea. The photo is undated. It may perhaps be the 1992 parade, or another one from the late 80s or 90s. The vehicles do feature some upgrades, notably the IR projector, as well as the new hull lights. Source: M.blog naver.com
A first upgrade was conducted at an unknown time, but likely in the 1990s or even perhaps late 1980s, seeing as the majority of photos of M1981s we know of, including a number of black-and-white or poor quality photos, show them with elements that were added with this unknown upgrade. This upgrade includes a large infrared projector placed on the right of the main gun and is linked to it by braces for elevation. New lights are also found on the hull, two to three, depending on the vehicle, on the right side of the main front plate, and, not always mounted, an additional one on the smaller front-left side plate. These lights are of various configurations. In some parades, for example, the M1981 appears to feature two infrared lights along with a regular one.
Three photos taken of a couple of M1981s in 2009, giving a better view of the upgrades the vehicle was given. Source: massimotessi.altervista.org
In a 2015 parade, the M1981 appeared with several new upgrades, in addition to the ones seen in 2010. The vehicles were given six smoke grenade launchers, three on each side of the turret, as well a new secondary weapon: a 9K38 Igla man-portable anti-aircraft missile, likely a model of North Korean manufacture. As with the Malyutka back in 1985, whether or not this weapon is truly intended to be deployed with the M1981 remains to be seen. If so, it would grant the vehicle some self-defense capacities against helicopters and low-flying aircraft. With a crewman likely having to operate the weapon from the vehicle’s exterior, its practicality is quite dubious. This practice is very common in North Korean parades though, with all kinds of military vehicles – from the most modern models of the Chonma-ho tanks, as well as the new Songun-Ho, all the way to lightly armored self-propelled artillery pieces – all having been shown with Iglas.
M1981s on the parade in 2015, featuring infrared lights, smoke launchers and Iglas. Source: massimotessi.altervista.org
Production
The production numbers of the M1981 – as with any military vehicle from North Korea – are impossible to know in detail, due to the highly secretive nature of the country.
It should be noted that the M1981 appears to, in any case, have continued being regularly used and even developed upon long after its introduction in the early 1980s. Indeed, as late as 2009, a new vehicle based on its hull, the M2009 “Chunma-D” armored personnel carrier, was observed. This would tend to indicate that the vehicle was still in production (though it has also been theorized the Chunma-D may have begun production as a way to repurpose the M1981 production lines after production of the type was ended), as new variants using its hull were being introduced. Therefore, it is quite likely an important number of M1981 Shin’heungs are still present in the Korean People’s Army. An estimate of 500 vehicles in service is often brought up but is pretty much unverifiable.
Nine M1981s on the parade at Kim Il Sung square. The M1981 is likely to be quite a common vehicle in the DPRK’s army, though it is impossible to know to which precise extent. Source: M.blog naver.com
The M1981 likely played a key role in the development of North Korea’s arms industry. It is by no means the first armored vehicle produced in North Korea, with the 323 and most likely T-54 and T-55, and perhaps even the earliest models of the Chonma preceding it. However, unlike all of those vehicles, the M1981 is not merely an exact copy or slightly modified version of the original model. Though it very obviously takes some inspiration from other vehicles of the era, most notably the 323 and PT-76, but also perhaps the T-54 and Type 63, it is not a mere variant of any of those, and massively differs from any of them individually. As such, the M1981 could be argued to be North Korea’s first truly indigenous armored vehicle, setting a major precedent for a North Korean military industry. The industry would only grow in the following decades, developing, notably, updates of the Chonma-Ho, which, from a mere lightened copy of the T-62, would be vastly upgraded, eventually evolving into the current Songun-Ho. This later tank, while still in the vague filiation of the T-62, has little that remains from the Soviet 1960s main battle tank.
An M2009 Chunma-D on the parade with the flag of the party, 2009. An interesting development of the M1981, the M2009 is an armored personnel carrier developed from an amphibious tank… which itself had its hull developed from an armored personnel carrier. Source: massimotessi.altervista.org
Conclusion – A small, obsolete light tank for the world, a massive step forward for North Korea
The M1981 Shin’heung is, by today’s standards and even to an extent in the 1980s, an obsolete vehicle. The capacities of its main gun, as well as its fire controls, are certainly obsolete against any kind of modern competition – China, which operated light tanks with similar armament in the form of the Type 62 and Type 63, has long updated them with 105 mm main guns and more up-to-date fire control systems, and has now introduced more modern vehicles which have replaced the first and are on their way to replacing the second. For North Korea though, no replacement appears to exist for the M1981, with even the October 2020 parade not featuring any. The vehicle has received some upgrades in the last few years, but they are vastly insufficient, and while it may very well still be in production, the Shin’heung is long past its prime.
Nonetheless, the vehicles likely played a major role in North Korea’s industrial history, allowing the country to switch from a mere license/local producer of Chinese or Soviet equipment, as several of the Eastern Bloc countries were, to a country which develops, at least to an extent, its own vehicles. This development turned out to be crucial for the country known as the “Hermit Kingdom”: the collapse of the Eastern Bloc left North Korea isolated, with only some moderate links remaining to Russia, and military links seemingly restricted to mostly China, Syria, and Iran. Its ability to develop its own vehicles has likely been crucial in allowing the Korean People’s Army to field vehicles more advanced than mere T-62 copies. However, even the most modern North Korean tanks, such as the Songun-Ho or the new tank revealed in 2020, would not compare favorably at all to modern South Korean tanks such as the K2, K1A2 or K1A1.
A recent view of M1981s on the parade at Kim-Il-sung square, fitted with the most modern features: two infrared front lights on the hull, an Igla missile, and smoke launchers. Despite these timid improvements, the M1981 remains long obsolete. Source: military-todayA Chonma 216, the most advanced of the Chonma series of T-62-derived main battle tanks, in front of an M1981 during the Korean Tank Crews Competition, 2017. A good example of some of the newest and oldest of North Korea’s armored vehicles. Source: KCBC via National InterestThe M1981 as it was first observed in 1985, with a Malyutka missile and no infrared searchlightAn M1981 with the flag of the Worker’s Party of Korea, with the upgrades received in the 1980s or 1990sM1981 with the North Korean flag as seen in 2009M1981 in amphibious landing configuration, with trim vane and side logs, as well as the North Korean flag, as seen in landing exercises in 2016M1981 with camouflage and the North Korean flag as seen in some recent paradesM1981 with the most recent upgrades that have been seen, smoke launchers and an Igla missile, in 2015. Illustrations by Pavel “Carpaticus” Alexe based on work by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet
M1981 Shin’heung specifications (estimations)
Dimensions (L-W-H)
7.60×2.10×2.80 m (estimations)
Total Weight, Battle Ready
~20 tonnes
Engine
Unknown (Perhaps a 320 hp 8-cylinders air-cooled diesel engine or a 6-cylinders water-cooled 240 hp diesel engine)
Suspension
Torsion bars
Maximum speed (road)
~60 km/h
Maximum speed (water)
~10 km/h
Range
~500 km
Crew
3 (driver, commander, gunner), 4 sometimes claimed
Main gun
85 mm derived from Type 62-85CT
Secondary armament
Coaxial 7.62 mm machine-gun
Either 1 Malyutka ATGM, 1 Igla MANPAD, or perhaps 1 KPV 14.5 mm machine-gun (whether any of those would actually be used in operations is unknown)
France (1931)
Infantry Tractor – 3 Prototypes Built
The early 1930s were marked by the worldwide popularity of the tankette concept, which produced a variety of vehicles used in sometimes quite radically different manners across most major industrial powers of the world. The Citroën P28 original prototype was one of the more original derivatives of this design. Designed to serve as an infantry tractor, it used a half-track configuration with Kégresse suspension, which makes it a quite interesting and original design. While not adopted as an infantry tractor, with the more traditional fully-tracked Renault UE being picked, it became an interesting half-track cavalry armored car.
In the wake of the Carden-Loyd
In 1928, production of the British Carden-Loyd Mark VI tankette began. The result of several years of experimentation on one and two-man turretless armored vehicles, this British tankette was a 1.5 ton heavy vehicle with a two-men crew. A novelty on the international market, which was relatively stagnant and dominated by the WW1-era French Renault FT, the Carden-Loyd seemed to offer new possibilities as a lighter and cheaper armored vehicle.
The potential was not lost on France and, in June and July 1930, two Carden-Loyds were tested at the Centre des Essais de Véhicules (Vehicles Trials Center) of Vincennes. Those trials had been conducted at the initiative of engineer Edgar Brandt. Brandt was a prolific artillery designer, responsible notably for the Brandt 27/31 81 mm mortar, an evolution of the British Stokes that would, in turn, be adopted, modified, and/or copied by virtually every major and many minor military powers of the 1930s. It is reported two different Carden-Loyds were tested, one of a “light” and one of a “heavy” model. The light one could be outfitted with a machine-gun and used as a small combat vehicle, while the heavier one was tried as an armored tractor with a tracked trailer, with the purpose of carrying the Stokes-Brandt mortar and ammunition.
The Type N program
The trials of the two Carden-Loyd vehicles proved influential in the French Army’s infantry services. On October 7th, 1930, a set of specifications was issued for a new type of vehicle. These would be véhicules blindés de ravitaillement de l’infanterie, or armored infantry supply vehicles. This set of specifications was given the denomination of “Type N” a few weeks later. The Type N specifications requested vehicles with a maximum height of 1.10 m, able to carry a load of 950 kg, typically a mortar or heavy machine gun with ammunition, crewed by two men, able to reach 35 km/h, and with an autonomy of five hours.
Projects from three different companies were ordered to be built as prototypes. The orders covered six prototype vehicles, trailers to be used by these vehicles, as well as larger trailers on which the vehicles could be carried on, towed by a truck. The first company to receive orders was Latil, which produced a design created by Brandt and Vickers-Armstrong, the makers of the Carden-Loyd. The Latil design was very similar to the original British vehicle, and one of the six prototypes was actually imported from Great Britain. The second company was Renault, generally speaking, the giant of the French armored vehicles industry in the era, which produced the UE, a small entirely tracked tankette, obviously inspired by the British Carden-Loyd but still a new design. Finally, Citroën produced the P28, a vehicle far more different from the British tankette that inspired the Type N program
Citroën’s infantry tractor
Citroën’s military vehicles of the 1920s were almost systematically fitted with the Kégresse track system. This system consisted of tracks that, instead of separate metallic interlocked parts, were instead a unitary, flexible belt. It had been created by French engineer Adolphe Kégresse whilst he was based in Imperial Russia, from 1905 onward. In 1919, Kégresse returned to France and was hired by Citroën. From then on, his track systems were featured on a large number of military vehicles, often in a half-track configuration, including artillery tractors and armored cars such as the AMC P16 (designed by Citroën but produced by Schneider) and even some Renault FT light tanks.
The vehicle presented by Citroën to match the Type N specifications was no exception to the rule. It was a small half-track with two wheels at the front used for steering and powered Kégresse tracks at the rear. These had a large front sprocket and a single bogie holding two road wheels as well as a large rear trailing wheel. A notable feature of the Citroën vehicle was that it was crewed by only one man, who sat at the front-left of the vehicle, under an openable 6 mm-thick armored hood with vision hatches on the sides. The engine was to his right; the rear of the vehicle was unarmored and featured a storage bin where weapons or ammunition would typically have been carried. The front of the P28 featured two distinctive round headlights. No armament was fitted, as the vehicle was merely intended to transport arms and ammunition under minimal protection, not to actively fight.
The driver’s hood on prototype 35248. Source: char-françaisPhoto of prototype 4016-W1, showing the P28’s notable headlights. Source: char-français
The engine used was a Citroën C4 4-cylinder, 72×100 1,628 cm3 engine with an output of 30 hp. This gave it a maximum speed of 39.5 km/h on-road, without a trailer. It should be noted that, when the order for prototypes was placed by the French military, the production of three half-tracked vehicles and three fully tracked ones was requested. The tracked version never left the drawing board and even its design remains unknown as of today.
Unsatisfactory trials
Three prototypes were manufactured by Citroën, registered as 35248, 35249, and 4016-W1. The first prototype began its trials at Vincennes on 24th July 1931 and continued trials there until the 29th. The two other prototypes were delivered to the training grounds along with their trailers on July 31st of the same year. The trailer that had been designed by Citroën was wheeled, unlike the Renault UK trailer of the UE, which was tracked.
Prototype 4016-W1 shown towing the Citroën trailer, and with the side hatch open. Source: char-françaisPrototype 35249 with a similar trailer on a platform. Source: char-français
The vehicles generally performed quite poorly during those trials, with complaints being addressed to Citroën. Notably, the vehicle’s cooling left a lot to be desired, with risks of overheating the engine. There was no system for the driver to detach the trailer without leaving the vehicle, which was both impractical and potentially dangerous under fire. The French Conseil Consultatif de l’Armement (Consultative Council of Armament) was pushed to make a choice between the different vehicles in October 1931. While its trials had not been without flaw either, the more conventional Renault UE was adopted by the French military, cutting short the P28’s life as an infantry tractor, though not as a military vehicle in general.
Conclusion – a future in the cavalry
Despite the rejection of the Citroën P28 infantry tractor, it did see further evolution thanks to interest from the cavalry, which considered the vehicle’s potential evolution into a light reconnaissance armored car, leading to at least one of three prototypes being converted to mount a turret instead of the storage bin, and the order of 50 armored car variants of the P28 featuring a centrally-mounted turret in October of 1931.
As for the infantry tractors prototypes, their fate beyond 1931 is unknown. It is quite likely they ended scrapped, if not by the French in the 1930s, then by the German occupiers during the Second World War.
Whilst Citröen’s proposals were not adopted, they remain the most original vehicles offered to the French Army as part of the Type N program. In comparison, the Latil-Brandt vehicle was little more than a copy of the original Carden-Loyd, and the Renault UE took a lot of inspiration from the British vehicle, particularly suspension-wise.
Illustration for the Citroën P28 tractor, created by Andrei ‘Octo10’ Kirushkin and funded by our Patreon campaign
Illustration of the AMX-40, created by Pavel 'Carpaticus' Alexe and funded by our Patreon campaign
France (1940)
Cavalry Tank – None Built
The Char de Bataille AMX 40 modèle 1940, more famously known as simply the AMX 40, is one of the numerous French tank designs which were created in the 1930s and 1940s, but never went past the drawing board, either due to not garnering enough interest, or the unfortunate interruption caused by France’s military woes in 1940. AMX’s cavalry tank project is arguably one of the most famous of those designs, largely due to its appearance and distinct look in a popular video game.
Christie and Cruiser influences
One of the most important trends in worldwide 1930s tank design was the Christie suspension. This system made use of very large road wheels which moved vertically on bell cranks. One of its main advantages was that it enabled very high speeds in tanks and potentially allowed for convertible drive, which allowed the tracks to be removed. Christie-type suspensions were experimented on by a variety of designers in the 1930s, the British and Soviets being the most extensive users of the system with tanks such as the BT-2, BT-5, BT-7, Cruiser A13 Mark I and Mark II.
France was not one of the first countries to experiment with Christie designs, mostly due to French tank designers preferring suspensions which enabled greater cross-road capacities, even at the expense of speed. Nonetheless, Christie suspensions were considered to an extent. A Christie chassis is known to have been trialed in front of the Commission de Vincennes in March of 1938. Later, in April of 1939, there were some exchanges between the French and British technical services, including on the subjects of tanks. Some of the more modern British tanks of the time were the A13 Mark I and Mark II cruisers. Those designs, using Christie-type suspensions, offered faster maximum speeds than French cavalry tanks designs, with 48 km/h. The only French tracked vehicles that offered a better maximum speed at the time were the AMR 33 or AMR 35 reconnaissance light tanks/tracked armored cars, which could only bring to bear a 7.5 mm or 13.2 mm machine gun in a one-man turret, while the A13s featured the potent 2-Pounder 40 mm anti-tank gun in a 3-man turret. Those designs had some considerable influence on Joseph Molinié, chief engineer of the fairly young AMX design bureau, a state-owned tank manufacturer born out of the nationalization of Renault’s tank producing services in 1936.
The AMX 40 project
The influence of the Christie and Cruiser designs pushed the AMX design bureau to make plans for a vehicle that combined these features with some more commonly found in French, but not British designs, such as, notably, a cast construction. The result was the AMX 40, a design presented on 4th March 1940, which could be summed up as the meeting between the British Cruiser tank concept and French industrial techniques. AMX hoped the proposal could potentially become a replacement for the S35/S40 cavalry tanks manufactured by Somua & cie, a subsidiary of Schneider.
Basic characteristics
The AMX 40 proposal was a 16-ton cavalry tank, which featured a 3-man crew, a commander/gunner and a loader in a 2-man ovoid turret, and a driver in a centrally placed driving post. The vehicle would have had a length of 5.33 meters, a width of 2.45 m, and a height of 2.37 m (1.58 m without the turret). The hull, without the suspension, was 2.03 m wide. The vehicle made use of cast construction and featured, as main armament, the 47 mm SA 35 anti-tank gun, featured in a large variety of French tanks of the late 30s, such as the Somua S35 and S40, the B1 Bis, or the second production run of the Renault D2.
Hull design
The AMX 40’s hull used cast construction. In comparison to most other tanks of the era, it had a much rounder shape, which was interrupted by the central driving post. This post featured a large openable hatch, which could be opened to provide vision when outside of combat. In combat, three episcopes, one in the center and one on each side, would provide vision for the driver. To his right was the ammunition stowage for 7.5 mm drum magazines, and to his left batteries and storage.
A top view of the AMX 40’s hull arrangement; the driver sat in a central driving post, in front of the ovoid turret. Source: Archives de l’Armement, Châtellerault
The tank would have been steered via a steering wheel. One of the various unusual features of the AMX 40 would have been a Robin-Van Roggen continuously variable transmission, an automatic transmission system without individual gears. This transmission was installed on the rear left of the hull, behind the engine. The AMX 40 was, as designed, powered by a 4-cylinder Diesel Aster engine which produced 160 hp at 2,000 rounds per minute, though a larger and more powerful Aster Diesel which had 6-cylinders and would produce 220 hp was considered to replace this first engine. This engine was also installed on the hull’s left-side, with the air filter and radiator on its right; to the right of the transmission, was the tank for engine oil. The exhaust was on the transmission’s left.
A cutaway view of the AMX 40’s engine arrangement. Note the fuel tanks on the hull sides. Source: Archives de l’Armement, Châtellerault
The diesel fuel tanks of the vehicle were installed in the hull sides. As the diesel fuel used by the vehicle was less flammable than ordinary fuel, they were thought of as potentially increasing the tank’s protection to a small extent. The armor of the AMX 40’s hull was 60 mm thick at the front, 50 to 30 mm on the sides with additional 15 mm sponsons, and 40 mm at the rear. The use of cast and heavily sloped armor meant that, unless projectiles hit the driver’s post, they would strike the vehicle on sloped armor, heavily increasing the armor’s effectiveness.
The AMX 40’s fuel stowage arrangement, with diesel in the two front side fuel tanks, and engine oil in the rear one. Source: Archives de l’Armement, Châtellerault
In front of the engine compartment but behind the turret, the AMX 40 featured a radio, of which the exact model is unknown. Another very odd feature, the hull-mounted anti-aircraft machine-gun, was mounted in this area of the tank.
Suspension
The AMX 40 project featured a model of suspension based on the Christie design. At the rear of the suspension was the drive sprocket, and at the front, an idler wheel. The suspension featured four large road wheels per side, which had a diameter of 82 cm. Considering their size, there was no need for return rollers.
As with several Christie designs, the AMX 40 was meant to be able to continue operating in the event of a broken track. To this extent, the first two road wheels were driving wheels which could be rotated to an extent, while the two rear wheels were motor wheels.
Most of the suspension was protected by 15 mm-thick side skirts, which would only have left the bottom of the roadwheel, the front of the tender wheel and the rear of the drive sprocket visible.
A view of the AMX 40’s suspension design. Source: Archives de l’Armement, Châtellerault
As a cavalry/cruiser tank, the AMX 40 was planned to reach quite high speeds, with 45 to 50 km/h on-road being the goal. However, with a horsepower of just 10 hp/t with the first Aster diesel engine, whether or not such a maximum speed could be reached is quite questionable.
Turret design
A view of the AMX 40’s turret design. Source: Archives de l’Armement, Châtellerault
Like the hull, the turret of the AMX 40 had a cast construction. It had an egg-like shape, with the rounded gun mantlet sticking out at the front. This turret was meant to house two men. To the left of the gun, the gunner (who also assumed the role of commander), and to the right, the loader. They were sitting on a strap that rotated with the turret. Though a two-men turret was a quite commendable feature for French designs, which massively used ergonomically catastrophic one-man turrets in the 1930s, the small diameter of the turret ring, with just 90 cm, would likely have made this turret quite cramped.
The turret featured a hydraulic rotation system commanded by a handle in the turret. The tank for the liquid used for this system was located in the rounded top of the turret. There was a single vision source for the turret, a panoramic telescope installed on top of the turret. The two openings on the side of the turret were for the tank’s optical rangefinder. The right opening housed an optical sight which would have allowed for a field of view of 50°, whereas the left opening housed a telemetric sight which would have allowed for a field of view of 15°.
A top view of the AMX 40’s turret sight arrangement. Source: Archives de l’Armement, Châtellerault
The turret featured a 60 cm wide round hatch on the rear, which could serve to evacuate the vehicle. It may have also allowed the commander to sit on it when opened, and look out of the tank. The turret was protected by 60 mm of armor all around and, as with the hull, its cast construction made it heavily angled, which could have further increased its effective armor.
Armament and ammunition stowage
The main armament of the AMX 40 was a 47 mm SA 35 anti-tank tank installed centrally in the turret, which had a maximum depression of -14° and elevation of +18°.
The standard issue shells for the 47 mm SA 35 were the Obus de rupture modèle 1935, and the obus explosif modèle 1932, both 47×193 mmR.
The Obus de Rupture modèle 1935 was an armor-piercing capped (APC) shell. It weighed 1.62 kg, and had a muzzle velocity of 660 m/s. German testing of the shell showed an armor penetration of 40 mm at an incidence of 30° and a range of 400 m. This was far superior to the penetration capacities of the SA 34.
The Obus explosif modèle 1932 was a high-explosive (HE) shell. It weighed 1.41 kg, including 142 grams of explosives, and was fired at a muzzle velocity of 590 m/s.
A view of the 47 mm SA 35 gun used on the AMX 40 as well as B1 Bis, S35 and second-series D2. Source: http://www.dws-xip.pl/encyklopedia/brpoj47sa35-fr/
The AMX 40 also featured a coaxial machine gun, which, as with the vast majority of French tanks of the era, was a MAC 31E machine gun. It used the standard 7.5×54 mm French cartridge. The MAC31 Type E had a weight of 11.18 kg empty and 18.48 kg with a fully loaded magazine, those being 150-rounds drums. The machine gun was gas-fed and had a maximum cyclic rate of fire of 750 rounds per minute. It had a muzzle velocity of 775 m/s.
The AMX 40’s hull-mounted anti-aircraft machine gun, of very questionable practical use. Source: Archives de l’Armement, Châtellerault
One of the vehicle’s odder features, a retractable anti-aircraft 7.5 mm machine gun, most likely the MAC 31E, though the MAC 34 aircraft machine gun is sometimes mentioned instead, was also placed behind the turret. This machine gun would emerge behind the turret, and be used against aircraft to the rear of the vehicle. Though it did feature an anti-air sight, the usefulness of this machine gun in practice is very much questionable: its firing arc was to the rear only, and to operate it, one of the three crewmen would have to leave his post. Though an anti-aircraft mounted on the top of the turret would most likely have been far more effective, with no hatch on top of the turret, this would not have been practical either.
A top view of the AMX 40’s internal arrangement, showing the 47 mm ammunition stowage in the periphery of the turret. To its rear, the two 36-rounds racks, to its front in the center, the collapsing 30-rounds rack, and on the sides, the two 10-rounds racks. Source: Archives de l’Armement, Châtellerault
The AMX 40 had two circular racks for 36 rounds each on each side of the hull, behind the turret and in front of the radio and anti-aircraft machine gun. Another ammunition rack for 30 rounds was located just behind the driver’s seat and could be collapsed for easier access from the turret. Two small racks of 10 shells each were located in the hull, in front of the turret, and to the sides of the collapsing rack. This gave the vehicle a total 47 mm ammunition stowage of 122 rounds, none of which were stored within the turret itself.
As for 7.5 mm ammunition stowage, 4 150-round drum magazines were present in the turret, on the side, and to the front of it. In the hull, to the right of the driver, was a rotating chain mechanism that could contain 30 drum magazines. This chain would be rotated as magazines were taken from it, in theory allowing for constant access to new magazines, though the need for such a system was questionable. With 34 150-rounds drum magazines carried, the AMX 40 had 5,100 7.5 mm cartridges at its disposal.
A project which did not go anywhere
The AMX 40 is often said to have been planned as the replacement to the Somua S35 and S40 tanks. This statement ought to be tempered to an extent. It is quite clear that, with the design of a cavalry tank such as the AMX 40, the state-owned tank manufacturer wanted to compete with the privately-owned Somua to provide a cavalry tank for the French Army. However, the AMX 40 was presented in March of 1940, mere months before the fall of France, and by June of 1940, it appears the project was still far from being considered for prototype production. The fall of France would result in a large number of projects being canceled, though the design of new French armored vehicles would continue both openly and covertly, with vehicles such as the Panhard 178 CDM, CDM Armored Car or SARL 42 on the covert side, or improvements of the Somua S40 on the more official side.
The plans of the AMX 40, the main source of information on the project. Source: Archives de l’Armement, Châtellerault.
Errors with the AMX 40 in World of Tanks
As it is, the AMX 40 was a short-lived cavalry tank project which, while it did include some unusual and interesting features, did not go anywhere near even prototype production, and as such would most likely have remained fairly ignored. This, however, changed drastically when Wargaming’s popular online game World of Tanks (WoT) added French tanks as part of its 7.1 update in January of 2012, with the selection of vehicles added including the obscure AMX cavalry tank project.
The AMX 40, as it is featured in WoT, is in several ways inaccurate. When first unlocked, while the vehicle features its original turret, it is armed with the 47 mm SA 34, a much less potent predecessor to the SA 35, which was mounted in several tanks of the mid-1930s, such as the B1 or first series D2, but was long out of consideration for any new designs years before 1940. The historically accurate 47 mm SA 35 can then be researched. In-game, the armament of the AMX 40 can be upgraded even further though. The original ovoid turret design can be replaced by a new turret that the game calls the “Renault Balland”. This is, in fact, the turret design of the Renault G1R, a medium tank project which reached the mock-up stage, and of which a prototype was to be assembled in the summer of 1940. This turret, however, was a very particular design. The gun mount’s weight was laid on the hull itself, with the mount going to the bottom of the hull, its weight not laying on the turret itself. It is unlikely such an unusual turret design could have been fitted on the AMX 40 without extensive modifications. This is even more noticeable due to the fact that this turret is simply too large for the AMX 40 hull, with some considerable overhang on the side of the driver compartment. When first unlocked, this turret mounts the 47 mm SA 35, though it can later be armed with a 75 mm gun called the “SA 32”. While the turret does follow the historical path of the G1R turret, with evolved from a 47 mm to a 75 mm main armament (as well as from a two-machine gun to a one machine gun commander cupola), the use of the “SA 32” designation for a 75 mm gun is questionable.
The “Renault-Balland” turret with the 75 mm “SA 32” gun. This screenshot is from an older version, the gun having since been modified to look more similar to its appearance on the actual G1R turret mock-up. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-x6K-iIxUEThe new look of the 75mm-armed AMX 40 since update 9.22, with a gun more truthful to the actual G1R, though whether or not its turret could have been mounted on the AMX 40 is highly questionable at the very least. Source: https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2018/01/11/amx-40-coming-to-hd-in-patch-9-22/The actual G1R design with the turret that Wargaming mounted on the AMX 40. Source: char-français
Among other inaccuracies present in WoT’s AMX 40 is the engine. The Aster engine the vehicle starts with produces 150 hp, instead of 160 hp. While a historical option for an engine upgrade, the only historically accurate potential upgrade for the AMX 40, exists in the form of the 220 hp Aster engine, Wargaming instead went with a 190 hp “Somua LM” engine. In-game, the AMX 40’s poor engine power translates to very poor mobility, with the tank struggling to reach 20 km/h on even ground. Though the 45/50 km/h maximum speed hoped by its designer was certainly optimistic, this remains a surprisingly low speed for a tank meant for cavalry duties.
Conclusion – an obscure project rendered famous by gaming
The AMX 40 is, as it was historically, a fairly obscure project, which only existed for three months, and as such never really went far at all in its development. It did feature a considerable number of odd and sometimes innovative features. Its cast construction took the general lack of hard angles and use of sloped surfaces on French vehicles to a new level, and its two-man turret was quite significant for a French cavalry tank below 20 tons, though by the time the tank would realistically have entered service if adopted, in 1941 or even 1942, its armament would most likely have been quite lackluster, and the hull’s ability to mount a larger turret was doubtful due to its design.
The vehicle entered a second life due to its introduction in the popular video game WoT, being generally laughed at, though at the same time viewed with affection by the community. This newly-found relevance of the vehicle may also make it confusing, as another project which went much further bears the name of AMX-40 – a major evolution of the AMX-30 MBT offered as an export tank in the 1980s, mounting a 120 mm gun and many system which are now featured in the Leclerc. Though a prototype of the modern AMX-40 remains in Saumur, all that has survived of the WW2 project are the plans.
Illustration of the AMX 40, created by Pavel ‘Carpaticus’ Alexe and funded by our Patreon campaign
AMX 40 specifications
Dimensions (l x w x h)
5.33 x 2.44 x 2.37 m
Hull width without suspension
2.03 m
Weight
16,000kg (estimated)
Engine
Aster 4-cylinders diesel producing 160hp at 2,000 rpm; Aster 6-cylinders diesel producing 220 hp considered.
Maximum speed
45 to 50 km/h (estimated)
Power-to-weight ratio (in hp/ton)
10 (Aster 160hp)
Transmission
Robin Van Roggen continuously variable transmission
Fuel Tanks
400 liters
Average hourly fuel consumption
17 liters per hour
Range
< 500km
Suspension
Christie
Crew
3 men (Commander/gunner, loader, driver )
Armament
47 mm SA 35 main gun (122 rounds), coaxial MAC 31E machine gun, hull-mounted MAC 31E or MAC 34 anti-aircraft machine gun (5,100 7.5 mm rounds)
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.
France (1970s)
