Member since 2016. Specializes in weird. 113 articles & counting...
Viking & Mythic Norse Iconology on Norwegian Tanks
Vikings and their longships terrorized the coasts of Europe between the 8th and 11th centuries, setting sail from Scandinavia, but more commonly Norway. Norway’s military (the Forsvaret) has not forgotten its cultural tradition and heritage. From Valhalla to Ragnarök, Viking tradition, although not officially recognised, runs through the Norwegian military, with its strongest presence found …
United Kingdom (1960s) Experimental Turret – 3 Built In recent years, thanks largely to erroneous publications and popular video games such as ‘World of Tanks’ and ‘War Thunder’, a comedy of errors has surrounded the history of the officially named ‘Centurion Mantletless Turret’. This redesigned turret – intended for installation on the Centurion – is …
United Kingdom (1950-1957) Heavy Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – 3 Built (1 Stage 1, 2 Stage 2) In the late 1940s, the British War Office (WO) was concerned that – after the debut of the IS-3 in 1945 – the Soviet Union would continue to develop heavily armored tanks. As such, the War Office filed a …
United Kingdom (1954) Mine Clearing Flail Tank – Approximately 42 Built Some of the most important vehicles to hit the beaches of Normandy on D-Day, 6th June 1944, were ‘Hobart’s Funnies’ of the 79th Armoured Division, Royal Engineers. These vehicles – named after the 79th’s Commander, Major-General Percy Hobart – were specialist variants of armored …
United Kingdom (1950s) SPG – Fake The British FV214 Conqueror Heavy Gun Tank was developed in the early 1950s in answer to the increasingly hostile Soviet Union, and its newly developed heavily armored tanks, such as the IS-3. The 120 mm gun-armed Conqueror was the first and last Heavy Gun Tank produced and operated by …
Kingdom of Norway (1946-1990s) Light Tank – 141 Operated The Second World War was rough for Norway. Falling to German invasion in April 1940, the country suffered 5 long years of occupation which only ended with the surrender of Nazi Germany in May 1945. Following this, Norway had to rebuild its military from the ground …
Landsverk 120 (L-120) in Norwegian Service ‘Rikstanken’
Kingdom of Sweden/Kingdom of Norway (1938) Light Tank – 1 Operated Even into the 1930s, Norway was not one of the more industrially advanced countries in Europe. As such, Norway was a relative latecomer to the idea of mechanizing its armed forces. It was not until the mid-1930s that the Royal Norwegian Army (No: Hæren) …
United Kingdom (1950s) Heavy Gun Tank – Fake The need for a heavily armed tank was highlighted for the British Army in 1945, when the Soviet Army unveiled its newly developed heavy tank – the IS-3 – at the Berlin Victory Parade. The Armies of Britain, France, and the USA realized they had nothing to …
United Kingdom (1950-1957) Heavy Gun Tank – 1 Mock-up & Various Components Built Viewing the public debut of the Soviet Union’s IS-3 heavy tank at the Berlin Victory Parade of September 1945, the Western powers – including Great Britain – were shocked. As heads of the British, American, and French Armies watched these machines clatter …
Republic of Hatay (1938) Heavy Tank – Fictional In 1989, the initial Indiana Jones trilogy of movies – created by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas – was coming to an end with the final installment; Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The film, set in 1938, sees the swashbuckling fictional archeologist, Dr. Henry ‘Indiana’ Jones …
Vikings and their longships terrorized the coasts of Europe between the 8th and 11th centuries, setting sail from Scandinavia, but more commonly Norway. Norway’s military (the Forsvaret) has not forgotten its cultural tradition and heritage. From Valhalla to Ragnarök, Viking tradition, although not officially recognised, runs through the Norwegian military, with its strongest presence found in the Tank Battalions of the Hæren (Norwegian Army). While Denmark and Sweden are also nations with a strong Viking heritage, it would appear this concept of tank naming and the use of mythic icons is something unique to Norway.
Even today, many Viking traditions are carried on. For example, the Officers of Norwegian troops stationed in Afghanistan would often give their men morale-boosting speeches ending in them all yelling “Til Vallhall!”, literally meaning “To Valhalla!” (although this did prove highly controversial). This Viking culture has also become a tradition among the Norwegian tank battalions, with some units or branches using Norse icons as emblems. The Kavalerieskadronen (Armored Cavalry), for example, uses a blue emblem depicting Odin, one of the most powerful of the Norse Gods, on horseback with his two ravens. Tanks of the Telemark Bataljon are identified by their Viking Longship standard, and a white longship motif applied to their vehicles.
Such iconology has also trickled down to a personnel level, with individual tank troops naming their vehicles after Norse Gods and Deities, or using the Old Futhark language (Norse Runes) in naming.
Leopard 2A4NO of the Telemark Bataljon. Note their Longship emblem. Photo: Broń Pancerna, Flickr
The use of Viking Iconology or images from the Norse mythos seems to be quite unit specific. For instance, 2 Stridsvogneskadron, Panserbataljonen (2nd Tank Squadron, Armoured Battalion) uses a red emblem depicting the head of an ‘Armored Dragoon’, representing the cavalry roots of the Norwegian tank arm.
Leopard 2A4NO ‘URD’, of 2 Stridsvogneskadron, Panserbataljonen. Note the red ‘Armored Dragoon’ emblem above the name. ‘URD’ refers to ‘Urðr’, one of three mythological maidens, this one representing fate. Photo: forsvaret.no
Heritage
The origin of this tradition in the Norwegian military likely grew from the increased sense of national pride that built up as a consequence of the German occupation during the Second World War. The state and media would use the sentence “Aldri mer 9. April” throughout the Cold War, which means “Never again, 9th of April”, referring to the date Norway was invaded by Nazi Germany, the 5 year-long occupation began.
“Historically, Norwegian military units have included Viking symbols and Norse-related names in unit patches and on vehicles and planes. Even Norwegian squadrons operating under the RAF-umbrella during World War Two included Norse mythos names on some of their planes and symbols in the squadron patches.”
– Dag Rune Nilsen, former tanker of Panserverneskadron, Brigade Nord.
There were, of course, Norwegian sympathisers to the Nazi cause during the war, inspired by one of the most famous collaborators of the War, Vidkun Quisling, leader of the Norwegian Fascist party and origin of the term ‘Quisling’ – a traitor who collaborates with an enemy force occupying their country. Many Norwegians became indoctrinated into the Waffen SS. This led to the raising of outfits like the infamous 5th SS Panzer Division ‘Wiking’ in January 1941 and the ‘Norwegian Legion’ (Den Norske Legion, Freiwilligen-Legion Norwegen) in June 1941. While the ‘Norwegian Legion’ was made up completely of Norwegian volunteers, ‘Wiking’ was formed from volunteers from not only of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway), but also Belgium and The Netherlands as well. Both the Legion and Wiking would serve on the Russian front, however, the Legion would be stood-down in 1943. Wiking would fight through the remainder of the War, surrendering to American forces in May 1945. To recruit Norwegian men to their cause, the Germans played heavily on Norway’s Viking past, using Viking iconology in their recruitment posters, and even in regimental rings or medals. Norwegian men that had joined the SS faced persecution after the War and were labeled as traitors. Many were also put on trial.
Norwegian SS recruitment posters. Note that the posters play on Norway’s Viking past. Source: warhistorynetwok (left) & pinterest (middle & right)
With the dawn of the Cold War, Norway once again faced invasion, this time from its neighbor, the Soviet Union, with which it shared a northern border. “Aldri mer 9. April” became a countrywide call for the military to be combat-ready, and willing to defend the country to the last man – to die before they allowed their country to slip back into an occupation. The Nazi occupation was a harsh lesson for the Norwegian people, and they did not take the experience lightly. This sense of defending their nation, no matter the cost, was the foundation of Norwegian military ethos for the next 50 years.
Viking Tankers
The Norwegian Military borrowed iconology from their infamous warrior ancestors, the Vikings. However, the state have never officially approved of publicly embracing or glorifying war and its disturbing sides, which was a part of the Viking ‘religion’. This ‘religion’ followed the sentiment, in Norse paganism, that dying with glory in battle would guarantee you passage to Valhalla, the sacred halls of the gods where you would fight, drink and enjoy the afterlife with comrades that had died alongside you in battle. In recent times, the officers in Afghanistan using this ancient heritage as a weapon to boost morale in Norwegian forces faced backlash in the media, as it was a dangerous concept to glorify combat and war in such a manner. Regardless, this tradition lives on in the hearts and minds of a part of the Norwegian soldiers, whether it be the symbolism employed in the combat divisions of Norway, or in the morale of the soldiers themselves.
Leopard 2A4NO ‘Allfader’ (rear) and ‘Arvaker’ (front). ‘Allfader’ is a reference to the God Odin, the ‘all father’. ‘Arvaker’ is a reference to Árvakr, one of two mythical horses that pull the sun across the sky. Photo: Military Armament
The first application of a mythological icon on Norge tanks would appear to be in the late 1940s or early 1950s. Starting straight after the end of WW2 – and the Nazi occupation – Norway began to raise a fleet of M24 Chaffee light tanks, thanks to aid from the USA. Eleven of these were stationed at Sola airfield (South-east Norway) in defense of the airstrip (part of the national effort to defend Norway’s various airfields). The tanks of this unit – known as the ‘Stridsvogneskadron Sola’ – were adorned with emblems depicting Odin on horseback with his two Ravens. This would later go on to be used heavily by the Kavalerieskadronen (Armored Cavalry).
M24s of Stridsvogneskadron Sola. The Odin emblem is just visible on the turret sides. Photos: National Archives of Norway CC BY-SA 4.0 & Hans Thostensen, Stavanger City Archives, respectively
Unfortunately, from here, it is currently impossible to track how and when new symbols or naming systems began to be put into use. Since then, however, numerous other examples have appeared. It is from this point onwards, that tank crews also began to adorn their vehicles with names from the Norse Mythos. It was not all about Vikings however, as the following quote describes:
“During my time in the Armed Forces, the trend was to name the vehicles after cavalry horses from the past. I believe that this was actually a “rule”. The names could be found in the old records of the individual horses.”
– Dag Rune Nilsen, former tanker of Panserverneskadron, Brigade Nord.
Further Examples
Leopard 2A4NO of 2 Stridsvogneskadron, Panserbataljonen. This tank has the words “Bitit Fyrst” written on the sponson in Old Norse Futhark runes (Viking text). Translated, the words mean “Bite/Strike First”. This is also the motto of the ‘Panserbataljonen’. Photo: svt.se.Leopard 1A5NO of the Kavalerieskadronen (Armored Cavalry), part of the Panserbataljonen. Their blue emblem depicts Odin on horseback with his two Ravens. Here it can be seen applied to the plated welded over the old range-finder position. Photo: Broń PancernaCV9030N “Ragnarokk” deployed in Afghanistan. “Ragnarokk” is an alternate spelling of Ragnarok, and refers to a series of catastrophic events, the doomsday of the Gods, foretold to lead to the death of the great Norse figures, such as Odin, Thor, Loki, and others. Photo: Wikimedia CommonsLeopard 2A4NO ‘Hærfjotur’. Hærfjotur was a Valkyrie from the Norse Mythos. The Valkyries were sent by Odin to watch over Wars and Battles to decide who would die, and would take the dead to Valhalla. Photo: Pinterest.Leopard 1A5NO ‘YMER’ of the Kavalerieskadronen (Armored Cavalry). ‘Ymer’ is a reference to the Ice Giant ‘Aurgelmir’, one of the first living beings in Norse Mythology. Photo: Broń PancernaPatria (Sisu) XA-203 ‘NȦGRINDER’ of the Telemark Bataljon. ‘Någrinder’ is a reference to the realm of the dead in Norse Mythos. It is a gate through which the damned pass. Photo: Tankograd Publishing.M109A3GN ‘Hårdbard’. ‘Hårdbard’ is a character from the Norse Mythos who once denied Thor passage to the realm of the Gods, Asgard. Photo: Tankograd Publishing
Other Examples
It must also be said that the Norwegian Army is not the only nation to apply such mythical names or legendary historical references to their tanks or armoured vehicles. Perhaps the most famous application of Norse God names to a military vehicle are the monstrous Karl-Gerät Mortars used by the Germans in the Second World War. This is not a surprise as Germanic mythology is largely based in Norse origins. Six of the seven Mortars built were named Baldur (formerly Adam*), Wotan (formerly Eva*), Thor, Odin, Loki, and Ziu. Baldur was a god of light, while Wotan was an alternate name for Odin. Loki was the Norse god of mischief and Ziu (Germanic name for Týr) was the god of War and Law.
*Referring to the biblical Adam and Eve
540 mm Karl-Gerät 041 ‘Loki’. Photo: Pinterest
Another example is Irish. In the early 1950s, the Irish Army purchased 4 Churchill tanks from Great Britain. In the early years of their service, they were all named after characters in Irish Celtic Mythology, with Ḋiarmuid (a warrior) and Fionn (a hunter) being a couple of examples. There is also a Greek example, although it is not mythical. Starting in 1981, a series of ELVO Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) have been named ‘Leonidas’ after the legendary Spartan king that led ‘the brave 300’ into battle at Thermopylae in 480 BC.
Conclusion
This topic is a highly questionable one. Whether using ancestry as a weapon of morale versus the glorification of war is a highly complex and difficult point of debate. Traditional ties to a home country and its ancestry can be seen as a boon to some, but under the wrong circumstances can lead to the glorification of war and its horrible sides. Something today’s militaries are keen to avoid.
The Norwegian effort in Afghanistan came under scrutiny under what’s called today “The Alfa-Case”, where the male-magazine Alfa posted interviews about the Norse warrior culture and pictures in their magazine in 2010. This sparked large controversy as officers and soldiers that were interviewed glorified combat, citing it as “Better than sex”. This is even more controversial, as Norway’s mission in Afghanistan was not a ‘war’ mission, but a ‘peace’ mission.
As this went public, the at-the-time defense minister Grete Faremo and the Chief of Defense Harald Sunde put their foot down and referred to it as “Unacceptable attitudes” in reference to the warrior culture that started to grow in the Norwegian Afghan Mission. The sparking questions of ethics and uncultured behavior in the military was taken very seriously and the military started a Board of Ethics committee to combat such behavior in the military, as it put Norwegian soldiers at risk. Some rumors about soldiers seeking firefights in Afghanistan, have yet to be clarified whether true or not.
An article by Mark Nash and Steffen Hjønnevåg.
A Stridsvogn M24 of Stridsvogneskadron Sola. The emblem on the turret side is one still commonly used in the Kavalerieskadronen (Armoured Cavalry), and is a representation of the Norse God Odin and his Ravens. Illustration produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
Leopard 2A4NO of 2 Stridsvogneskadron, Panserbataljonen. This tank has the words “Bitit Fyrst” written on the sponson in Old Norse Futhark runes (Viking text). Translated, the words mean “Bite/Strike First”. This is also the motto of the ‘Panserbataljonen’.
CV9030N “Ragnarokk” deployed in Afghanistan. “Ragnarokk” is an alternate spelling of Ragnarok, and refers to a series of catastrophic events, the doomsday of the Gods, foretold to lead to the death of the great Norse figures, such as Odin, Thor, Loki, and others.
These two illustrations were produced by Pavel Alexe, based on work by David Bocquelet
United Kingdom (1960s)
Experimental Turret – 3 Built
In recent years, thanks largely to erroneous publications and popular video games such as ‘World of Tanks’ and ‘War Thunder’, a comedy of errors has surrounded the history of the officially named ‘Centurion Mantletless Turret’. This redesigned turret – intended for installation on the Centurion – is often incorrectly identified as the ‘Action X’ turret, with the X being the Roman numeral for 10. It is also known as the ‘Action Ten’ or simply as ‘AX’. In turn, vehicles fitted with the turret, such as the intended Centurion, then have a false suffix attached to them, ‘Centurion AX’ being an example. There is also a false belief that the turret is associated with the FV4202 project, however as we will see, this is not the case.
But what is the truth behind the awkwardly titled ‘Centurion Mantletless Turret’? (for ease this will be shortened to ‘CMT’ throughout the article) Unfortunately, that is currently a hard question to answer, as much information surrounding the turret and its development has been lost to history. Thankfully, due to the efforts of amateur historians and Tank Encyclopedia members Ed Francis and Adam Pawley, some fragments of its story have been recovered.
The first falsehood to tackle is the name ‘Action X’. The name ‘Action X’ appeared in a book published in the early 2000s after the author cited seeing the name written on the back of a photo of the turret. What he fails to mention is that this was written in the 1980s, and does not appear in any official material.
The ‘Centurion Mantletless Turret’ mounted on a Centurion chassis during trials. Photo: The Tank Museum.
Development
By the late 1950s, early 1960s, the FV4007 Centurion had been in service for over 10 years and had already proved to be a reliable vehicle, highly adaptable, and well-liked by its crews. In those 10 years of service, it had already been in use with two types of turrets. The turret of the Mk.1 Centurion was built to mount the famous 17-Pounder gun. It was roughly hexagonal with a gun mantlet on the leading edge. This gun mantlet did not run the entire width of the turret, but to the left-hand side was a step in the turret face with a large bulbous blister mount for a 20 mm Polsten cannon. The Centurion Mk.2 brought with it a new turret. While still roughly hexagonal, the large bulbous front was changed to a slightly narrower casting, with a mantlet that covered most of the turret face. The 20 mm Polsten mounting was also removed. Large stowage boxes were added to the outer circumference of the turret and gave the tank its instantly recognizable appearance. This turret would stay with the Centurion for the rest of its service life.
Left, a Mk.1 Centurion with the original turret, note the 20 mm Polsten mount. Right, a Mk.3 Centurion with the second turret type, this became the de facto Centurion turret. Photos: Quora & The Tank Museum, respectively
The FV4201 Chieftain was also in development in the early 1960s, and well on its way to becoming the British Army’s next frontline tank. The Chieftain featured a new mantletless turret design. The mantlet is a piece of armor at the breach end of the gun barrel that moves up and down with the gun. On a ‘mantletless’ turret, the gun simply protrudes through a slot in the turret face. With the Centurion proving to be a great export success, it was hoped the Chieftain would follow suit. The Chieftain was, however, expensive.
This would appear to be where the story ‘Centurion Mantletless Turret’ comes in. Evidence suggests that the turret was developed alongside the Centurion and Chieftain, as a means of creating a method for poorer countries to upgrade their Centurion fleets if they could not afford to invest in the Chieftain.
The last surviving ‘Centurion Mantletless Turret’, as it sits today in the car park of the Tank Museum, Bovington, UK. Photo: Adam Pawley
Overview
The design was quite different from the standard Centurion design, but it remained somewhat familiar to existing Centurion operators, foreign or domestic, making the transition easy on potential crews. A large sloped ‘forehead’ replaced the mantlet of the standard turret, with sloping cheeks replacing the vertical walls of the original. The coaxial Browning M1919A4 machine gun was moved to the top left corner of the ‘forehead’, with the aperture of the coaxial gun surrounded by 3 raised ‘blocks’ in the cast armor. The machine gun was connected to the main gun via a series of linkages.
Left, the cheek of the CMT. Right, the cheek of the standard Centurion turret. Photos: Adam Pawley
The gun mount was designed to be adaptable and could carry either the Ordnance 20-Pounder (84 mm) gun or the more potent and infamous L7 105 mm gun, making it ideal for operators of both guns. The gun would pivot on trunnions placed in the slightly bulbous turret face, the location of which is identified by welded ‘plugs’ visible in the turret cheeks. The gun would be aimed via a unity sight that emerged from the turret roof, in front of the Commander’s cupola.
One of the things that the mantlet helps to protect from is shrapnel and debris entering the fighting compartment through the gun mount. In this mantletless design, plating was installed on the inside of the turret to ‘catch’ any fragments that made it through.
The face of the mantletless turret showing the aperture for the main gun. The frame around the aperture is a mounting point for a canvas cover. On the right is a close up of the coaxial machine gun position. Photos: Adam Pawley
Internally, the layout of the turret was pretty standard, with the loader on the left, gunner front right, and the commander behind him in the right rear corner. The decision of what cupola would be equipped on the turret would likely have fallen to the end-user. For the trials, the turret was predominantly equipped with a ‘clam-shell’ type cupola – possibly a version of the Commander’s Cupola No.11 Mk.2. It had a domed two-piece hatch and around 8 periscopes and there was a mounting point for a machine gun. The loader had a simple flat two-piece hatch and a single periscope at the front left of the turret roof.
On the left, the roof of the Mantletless Turret. The cupola is missing from this surviving example at The Tank Museum, Bovington, as is the unity gunsight which would be present in the rectangular slot in the foreground. On the right is the No. 11 Mk.2 Cupola, while it is not the model used on the Centurion Turret, it is an example of a ‘clamshell’ cupola. Photos: Adam Pawley & Richard Stickland, respectively
The turret bustle stayed the same basic shape, with mounting points for the standard bustle rack or basket. A feature carried over from the standard turret was a small circular hatch in the left turret wall. This was used for loading in ammunition, and throwing out spent casings. On both the left and right turret cheeks, there were mounting points for the standard ‘Discharger, Smoke Grenade, No. 1 Mk.1’ launchers. Each launcher featured 2 banks of 3 tubes and were fired electrically from inside the tank. The typical Centurion turret stowage bins were also installed around the outside of the turret, although they were modified to fit the new profile.
Unfortunately, most of the armor values of the turret are currently unknown, although the face is around 6.6 inches (170 mm) thick.
Centurion fitted with the Mantletless Turret undergoing trials in the 1960s. Note the unity sight emerging from the top left of the turret roof, in front of the cupola. Also note the 105 mm L7 gun. Photo: The Tank Museum
Not an FV4202 Turret
It is a common misconception that the ‘Centurion Mantletless Turret’ and the turret of the FV4202 ‘40-ton Centurion’ prototype are one and the same. The FV4202 was a prototype vehicle developed to test many of the features that would be employed on the Chieftain. However, these turrets are not the same. While they are extremely similar, there are noticeable differences.
The ‘Centurion Mantletless Turret’ on the left, with the FV4202 turret on the right. The differences are quite noticeable in these shots. Photos: Adam Pawley & fighting-vehicles.com, respectively.
The CMT is far more angular in its geometry compared to the FV4202 turret, which has a much rounder design. The cheeks of the CMT are straight angles where the FV4202 is curved. The trunnion holes on CMT are both in a downward angled section, while on the 4202 the slope is facing up. The armor ‘blocks’ around the coaxial machine gun are also shallower on the FV4202. It would also appear that the gun was mounted slightly lower in CMT. It is not clear as to whether there are any internal differences.
While the turrets are not identical, it is evident that they do share a similar design philosophy, both being mantletless designs with a similar placed coaxial machine gun.
Trials
Just three of these turrets were built, all of which took part in trials undertaken by the Fighting Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (FVRDE). Two turrets were mounted on a regular Centurion chassis and put through a series of tests. The remaining one was used for gunnery trials. While info on most of the tests has disappeared, details of the gunnery trial that one of the turrets – casting number ‘FV267252’ – underwent in June 1960 at the request of the ‘Turret’s and Sighting Branch’ are available.
The turret was subject to fire from rounds as small as .303 (7.69 mm) and .50 Caliber (12.7 mm), through 6, 17 and 20-Pounder rounds, as well as 3.7 in (94 mm) rounds. Both Armor-Piercing and High-Explosive rounds were fired at the turret. The results of the test are displayed below in an extract from the report ‘Trials Group Memorandum on Defensive Firing Trials of Centurion Mantletless Turret, June 1960’.
The full 1960 report on the ‘CMT’ can be found HERE
Conclusion
Of the 3 built, just one of the turrets – casting number ‘FV267252’ from the 1960 report – now survives. It can be found in the car park of the Tank Museum, Bovington. One turret has disappeared, while the other is known to have been destroyed in further firing trials.
Large chunks of the history of the Mantletless Turret remain missing, unfortunately, and the history we do know has been twisted and contorted. The name ‘Action X’ will no doubt continue to plague this turret for years to come, thanks in no small part to Wargaming.net’s ‘World of Tanks’ and Gaijin Entertainment’s ‘War Thunder’ online games. Both have incorporated a Centurion equipped with this turret into their respective games, identifying it as the ‘Centurion Action X’. World of Tanks is the worst offender, however, as they have also mated the turret with the hull of the FV221 Caernarvon and created the entirely fake ‘Caernarvon Action X’, a vehicle that never existed in any form.
Left, the Centurion ‘Action X’ as it is represented in War Thunder. Right, the fake Caernarvon ‘Action X’ in World of Tanks. Photos: Gaijin Entertainment & Wargaming.net, respectively.
Centurion fitted with the Mantletless turret equipped mounting the L7 105mm gun. Illustration produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
United Kingdom (1950-1957)
Heavy Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – 3 Built (1 Stage 1, 2 Stage 2)
In the late 1940s, the British War Office (WO) was concerned that – after the debut of the IS-3 in 1945 – the Soviet Union would continue to develop heavily armored tanks. As such, the War Office filed a requirement for the development of a gun capable of defeating a 60-degree sloped plate, 6 inches (152 mm) thick, at up to 2,000 yards (1,830 meters), and a suitable vehicle to carry it.
This requirement led to the development of the ‘Ordnance, Quick-Firing, 183 mm, Tank, L4 Gun’, the largest purpose-built anti-tank gun to have ever been created. It was intended that this gun would be mounted on a new ‘Heavy Gun Tank’ based on the FV200 series chassis. This was designated the ‘Tank, Heavy No. 2, 183 mm Gun, FV215’.
A project was also launched to find a way to get the gun into action quickly on an existing hull. This could then be constructed quickly should the Cold War turn hot before the FV215 was ready.
This is where the FV4005 project comes in.
The FV4005 Stage 2, also unofficially known as ‘Centaur’. The two visible crew members give an idea of the scale of the gun. Photo: The Dark Age of Tanks, David Lister. Colorized by Jaycee “Amazing Ace” Davis.
The Quest for Firepower
The development of the L4 started in 1950, and was aimed at increasing the firepower of the ‘Heavy Gun Tanks’. This was a uniquely British designation that was not governed by tank weight, but the size of the gun. A requirement was formulated for a tank armed with a gun capable of defeating a 60-degree sloped plate, 6 inches (152 mm) thick, at up to 2,000 yards (1,830 meters), a feat impossible even for the powerful 120 mm L1 gun of the FV214 Conqueror. By 1950, Major General Stuart B. Rawlins, Director General of Artillery (D.G. of A.) had concluded that there was no gun available with that level of ballistic performance and an investigation was launched. Initially, the British Military looked at the development of a 155 mm gun that would be standardized with the USA. However, even this lacked the required punch and, as such, 6.5 and 7.2 inch (165 and 183 mm respectively) High-Explosive Squash Head (HESH) shells were looked at.
At this time, the British Army came to the conclusion that a ‘kill’ did not necessarily mean the complete destruction of an enemy vehicle, and just damaging it was enough to take it out of action was enough. For example, a blown-off track is seen as a kill as it took the enemy vehicle out of action; today this is known as an ‘M’ (Mobility) kill. A ‘K’-Kill would be the destruction of a vehicle. The term used for this method at the time was ‘disruption not destruction’. The 6.5 in/165 mm HESH was not thought to be powerful enough to ‘kill’ a heavily armored target in this manner unless it hit bare armor plate. Attention, therefore, turned instead to the larger 7.2 in/183 mm shell which – Maj.Gen. Rawlins thought – would be powerful enough to render the target inoperable, and therefore ‘kill’ it, wherever it impacted.
The monstrous 183 mm L4 installed in the open-turret of the FV4005 ‘Stage 1’. The location appears to be ‘Workshop 5’ (the so-called ‘secret shed’ at Elswick) Photo: Ed Francis
The projected gun was designated the 180 mm ‘Lilywhite’. The background of this name is unknown. It may be an interpretation of the ‘Rainbow Code’ used by the WO to identify experimental projects. The ‘Red Cyclops’ flame gun attachment for the FV201, and the ‘Orange William’ experimental missile are examples of this. If this was the case, however, the name should be ‘White Lilly’. It may even simply be named after a Lieutenant Colonel Lilywhite of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. It must be said that this is all speculation, and no evidence currently exists to support the theory.
It was not until December 1952 that the designation of the gun was officially updated to 183 mm. The design of the gun was accepted and was serialized as the ‘Ordnance, Quick-Firing, 183 mm, Tank, L4 Gun’. In reality, only the HESH shell underwent further development and the number of charges was dropped to one. The 183 mm L4 became one of the largest and most powerful tank guns in the world.
Background of the Project
From the start, the FV215 was the intended mount for the 183 mm gun, with development starting around the same time as the gun in 1950. The vehicle was based on the FV200 series chassis, with similarities to the FV214 Conqueror. The turret, however, was moved to the rear of the vehicle. The turret was capable of full 360-degree traverse, but it had a limited firing arc due to the size and power of the gun. This ‘Heavy Gun Tank’ would take a while to develop, so, in November 1950, the WO filed a requirement for a stop-gap vehicle capable of carrying the weapon into service should hostilities erupt before the completion of the FV215. A similar connection can be found with the Conqueror and the FV4004 Conway.
A developmental image of the ‘Tank, Heavy No. 2, 183 mm Gun, FV215’ – the intended carrier of the 183 mm L4 Gun. Photo: Rob Griffin, Conqueror
Following the end of General Rawlins’ investigation, and with some degree of urgency to get the 183 mm gun into service as quickly as possible, a carrier design was finalized, as this extract from a 1951 ‘AFV Development Report’ describes:
“A limited traverse, lightly armoured S.P. mounting based on the Centurion hull and weighing some 50 tons[*]. This would be known as F.V.4005 and could be in production by December 1952. Because of the use of parts in existing production, it was considered that quick limited production could be achieved. It was also clear that much would be learned about the hitherto unknown art of mounting so large a gun as an S.P. mounting.”
*50 long tons. Long tons are a unit of mass unique to the United Kingdom; for ease, it will be shortened to ton when used again. 1 long ton is equal to about 1.01 metric tonnes, or 1.12 US ‘Short’ tons.
The design of the vehicle would be held in limbo, ready to go into production if necessary. This stopgap vehicle would be based on the Centurion of the FV4000 series, with the original turret removed. The vehicle would go through two ‘Stages’ or ‘Schemes’. ‘Stage 1’ was built to test the gun and its mount on the Centurion chassis. The ‘Stage 2’ was a finalized design and would be the production standard. The vehicle was given the designation of ‘Heavy Anti-Tank, SP, No. 1’ – ‘SP’ standing for ‘Self-Propelled’. Officially, the FV4005 was never given the traditional British ‘C’ name such as the FV4101 Charioteer and FV4004 Conway before it. However, extensive account files of Vickers Ltd. from 1928 to 1959, shed some light on what it may have been. This particular extract – graciously provided by researcher Ed Francis – is from December 1952:
“Design and manufacture of equipment for mounting 180 mm gun on “CENTAUR” Tank – FV4005. Trials have now been carried out at Ridsdale and certain modifications to design have been found necessary… ”
In total three prototypes were ordered – a single Stage 1, and two Stage 2s. The FV4005 would fill the role of a ‘Heavy Gun Tank’. As such, the vehicle would engage targets from long-range, firing over the heads of attacking lighter tanks.
The Centurion Hull
The Centurion was chosen as the basis for this vehicle and three Mk.3 hulls were removed from service for the prototype development. Other than the removal of the turret and various small additions, the hull would remain mostly unaltered. Armor on the hull remained the same thickness, with about 3 inches (76 mm) at roughly 60 degrees on the front slope. A 650 hp Rolls-Royce Meteor petrol engine, located at the rear of the vehicle, propelled the tank. The Centurion used a Horstmann style suspension, with 3 bogies per side carrying 2 wheels each. The drive sprocket was at the rear with the idler at the front. The driver was located at the front right of the hull.
The Centurion Mk.3. The FV4005 prototypes were based on the hulls of Mk.3s. Photo: super-hobby
Details of the 183 mm L4
Just a small number of the ‘Ordnance, Quick-Firing, 183mm, Tank, L4 Gun’ were built, but it is unclear just how many. Records suggest at least 12 were built. Unfortunately, the exact length of the 183 mm gun is currently unknown, but it was somewhere in the region of 15 feet (4.5 meters) long. It was fully rifled with a large ‘bore-evacuator’ (fume extractor) placed roughly half-way down its length. The gun alone weighed 3.7 tons (3.75 tonnes).
High-Explosive Squash Head (HESH) was the only ammunition type to be produced for the 183 mm gun. Both the shell and the propellant case were of gargantuan proportions. The shell weighed in at 160 lbs. (72.5 kg) and measured 29 ¾ inches (76 cm) long. The propellant case weighed 73 lbs. (33 kg) and measured 26.85 inches (68 cm) long. The case contained a single charge that propelled the shell to a velocity of 2,350 fps (716 m/s). When fired, the gun produced 86 tons (87 tonnes) of recoil force and had a recoil length of 2 ¼ feet (69 cm).
Artist’s representation of the 183 mm HESH shell and its propellent case, in scale with a 6 foot (1.83 meter) man, based on recorded dimensions. The markings and colour of the shell are purely speculative but are based on British markings of the time. Image produced by Tank Encyclopedia’s Mr. C. Ryan.
HESH shells have an advantage over regular kinetic energy rounds as their effectiveness does not decrease with distance. This shell works by creating a shockwave on detonation. Once this wave reaches a void, it reflects back. The point at which the waves cross causes tension feedback which rips apart the plate, carrying a scab with approximately half the kinetic energy forwards, scattering shrapnel around the interior of the target. Test firing of the L4 against a Conqueror and a Centurion proved how powerful the round was. In two shots, the 183 mm HESH shell blew the turret clean off the Centurion, and split the mantlet of the Conqueror in half. HESH could also serve as a dual-use round just as capable of engaging enemy armor as for use as a high-explosive round against buildings, enemy defensive positions, or soft-skinned targets.
Stage 1
In a 1951 Ministry of Supply: Fighting Vehicle Division ‘AFV Development Report’ – regarding the development of an AFV mounting of the 183 mm gun – the ‘Stage’ or, ‘Scheme 1’ is described as such:
“Embodies a concentric recoil system in a mounting in trunnions on an undercarriage, the whole of which rests on the existing turret race rings. No crew protection is provided and one prototype only will be made to obtain experience of firing such a large gun from the Centurion hull.
It is anticipated that although all round traverse will be possible, firing will be confined to a limited angle forward on either side of the fore and aft line.
Prototype should be completed by 31st December, 1951”
The Stage 1 was built as a test vehicle, as such, it lacked a few components. On the Stage 1, a bespoke platform was constructed that was installed over the original turret ring. This platform was a solid floor, did not incorporate a basket, and was not, in any way, enclosed. The L4 gun was installed in a rigid mount and was completely fixed in elevation. The platform was capable of full horizontal traverse, but firing would be restricted to a limited arc over the front and rear of the vehicle. As mentioned in the report, the gun used a concentric recoil system. This utilized a tube placed around the breech end of the barrel, acting as a space-saving alternative to traditional recoil cylinders.
Two down view of the FV4005 ‘Stage 1’ at ‘Workshop 5’. Note the concentric recoil system at the breech end of the gun, and the gunner’s seat on the left of the gun. Photos: The Tank Museum, Bovington
Space on the platform was limited, as such, there were only positions available – presumably – for the gunner and loader. The gunner was seated on the left of the gun in a well-padded seat complete with a back-rest. Behind him was a large rack for ammunition stowage. The fact that the gun was fixed in elevation allowed the installation of a mechanical ‘loading assist’ device to help the loader handle the combined 233 lb (105.5 kg) weight of the ammunition by aligning it with the breach. This was not an automatic loader as it lacked a rammer. There was no seat for the loader. The driver’s position – the front right of the hull – was unchanged.
A look at the breach end of the L4 and with the ammunition rack on the left, and the ‘loading assist’ on the right. Photo: The Tank Museum, Bovington
The only other changes to the Centurion hull were the addition of a large recoil spade at the rear and a large folding travel lock or ‘gun crutch’ to use the British term. The spade was used to transfer recoil forces from the chassis directly to the ground, easing the strain on the suspension. When the vehicle was in position, it would be lowered to the ground. When the gun was fired, the spade provided a back-stop by digging into the ground.
Rare image of the ‘Stage 1’ traversing a vehicle-deployed bridge. Note the large ‘gun crutch’. Photo: Ed Francis
The ‘Stage/Scheme 1’ was subjected to numerous firing trials. Despite some issues with the concentric recoil system, the trials were a general success. Work then progressed to the ‘Stage/Scheme 2’ vehicle.
Stage 2
In the same 1951, Ministry of Supply: Fighting Vehicle Division ‘AFV Development Report’, the ‘Stage/Scheme 2’ was described as the following:
“Embodies two conventional recoil systems with a hydropneumatic recuperator and an independent run out control. Undercarriage similar to above [Stage 1] but of fabricated construction.
A superstructure for crew protection will be provided but weight considerations will preclude more than a limited degree of splinter protection.
A sight is being designed in which the body is fixed with relation to the gun mounting, and internal moving parts apply angle of sight, target elevation and correction for trunnion tilt. The range scale is visible in the sight eyepiece.
Layout designs have been prepared and details will be completed shortly.
A prototype should be available by March, 1952.”
The Stage 2 was built closest to what a production version of the FV4005 would consist of. As such, a number of changes were made between the two Stages. The biggest change was the design and construction of a fully enclosed turret to the form of little more than a large box. The loading assist for the loader was also deleted, and the concentric recoil system was replaced by a hydropneumatic type.
Original blueprint of the FV4005 ‘Stage 2’. Photo: Ed Francis
The turret was welded and fabricated from ½ inch (14 mm) thick steel and was there to protect the crew from small arms fire and shell splinters. As this was intended to be a second line vehicle that would keep out of the range of enemy AFVs, the FV4005 did not need really thick armor. Also, with the addition of this impressive gun, the chassis and engine could not take any extra weight. The turret was split into two parts: a sloped face and a completely boxed rear end. The turret face was mantletless, with a large face-plate angled at a very shallow angle. The cheeks were also slightly angled. These angled sections terminated in completely vertical turret walls and a flat roof. The roof stepped up as the rear section of the turret was taller and box-like, with external structural ridges. Internally, this rear section was where the ammunition was stowed against the walls. In total, 12 rounds were carried.
There were two hatches on the roof and one large door on the rear. The roof hatches were two-piece and, in front of them, were two single periscopes installed in the turret roof. The large rear door was used for crew access, but it was also used for ammunition resupply via a winch and rail. Charges would be placed on the rail and then winched into the turret. Turret crew would consist of four men including the gunner and commander. As the loading assist of the Stage 1 was deleted on the Stage 2, two loaders were required. One loader would handle the charge, the other the projectile.
A view of the large door at the rear of the turret showing the resupply rail. Note also the breech just visible inside the turret. Photo: Ed Francis.
On the turret face, to the left of the gun, was a large square bulge. This was the housing for the primary gun sight. The particulars of this sight are unknown, however, there is a suggestion that it was based on the TZF-12A of Panther fame. This, however, cannot be corroborated. While the turret was capable of full 360 degrees horizontal traverse, firing was limited to a limited arc over the front and rear of the vehicle. This was a safety feature necessitated by the power of the gun.
Like the Stage 1, the Stage 2 featured a recoil spade installed at the rear of the vehicle. However, on the Stage 2, a hand-cranked winch was installed on the rear of the vehicle to lower the spade.
Rear view of the FV4005 Stage 2 showing the recoil spade and winch above it. Photo: Ed Francis
Like the Stage 1, the Stage 2 went through a number of firing trials. Where the Stage 1’s concentric recoil system suffered some faults, the Stage 2’s more typical hydro-pneumatic system operated without issue. In total, 150 rounds were fired during the tests at Ridsdale, Northumberland. In a 1955 Fighting Vehicle Division ‘AFV Development Liaison Report’ of the Ministry of Supply it is stated that: “General functioning [of the Stage 2] has proved satisfactory”.
Fate
Despite the general success of the project, the FV4005 suffered much the same fate as the FV215. The feared Soviet heavy tanks, like the IS-3, which these vehicles were designed to defeat, were not being made in the massive numbers expected, indicating a shift in policy to lighter, more maneuverable, and more lightly armored tanks. The need for ‘Heavy Gun Tanks’ like the Conqueror, FV215 and the FV4005 stand-in, from this perspective, was simply becoming absent. Other changes were also taking place as technology-wise, larger caliber guns with their huge ammunition were becoming obsolete by improved anti-armor performance of smaller guns and by the appearance of a new generation of accurate Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM).
The dismounted turret of the FV4005 Stage 2. Photo: Ed Francis
The FV4005 project was officially canceled in August 1957, around the same time as the FV215. The three constructed prototypes were divided between various establishments. The Stage 1 was given to the Shoeburyness Proof and Experimental Establishment where the turret was removed and the Centurion hull returned to service. One Stage 2 was offered to the Royal Military College for Science, while the Fighting Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (FVRDE) kept the other Stage 2. The Centurion chassis were also likely returned to service. At some point, one of the turrets found its way to The Tank Museum, Bovington, where it sat alone for a number of years before being mated with a spare Centurion hull owned by the Museum. The vehicle now sits as a ‘Gate Guardian’ outside the museum, alongside a Sherman Grizzly.
The FV4005 Stage 2 ‘Gate Guardian’ as it stands today at the entrance to The Tank Museum, Bovington. Photo: warspot.ru
Illustration of the FV4005 Stage 1 with the open top gun platform, produced by Pavel Alexe.
Illustration of the FV4005 Stage 2 with enclosed turret, produced by Pavel Alexe, based on work by David Bocquelet.
Both Illustrations were funded by our Patreon campaign.
Specifications (Stage 2)
Dimensions (L-W-H)
7.82 (without gun) x 3.39 x 3.6 m
(25’7″ x 11’1″ x 11’8”)
Total weight
50 tons
Crew
5 (driver, gunner, commander, x2 loaders)
Propulsion
Rolls-Royce Meteor; 5-speed Merrit-Brown Z51R Mk.F gearbox 650 hp (480 kW), later BL 60, 695 bhp
United Kingdom (1954)
Mine Clearing Flail Tank – Approximately 42 Built
Some of the most important vehicles to hit the beaches of Normandy on D-Day, 6th June 1944, were ‘Hobart’s Funnies’ of the 79th Armoured Division, Royal Engineers. These vehicles – named after the 79th’s Commander, Major-General Percy Hobart – were specialist variants of armored vehicles, all with a specific role to fill. One of the most successful of the ‘Funnies’ was the Sherman Crab.
The Sherman Crab was a mine-clearing variant of the Sherman V (M4A4 to the Americans). It utilized a powerful flail suspended from a frame at the front of the tank. This flail consisted of a large drum with multiple long chains attached to it. Spun at high speed, the chains beat the ground, either blowing up mines where they sat, ripped them from the ground, or beat them into deactivation. The Crab served admirably for the remainder of the Second World War. After the War, however, and with the removal of the Sherman from British Service, designers began to look for a new flail vehicle based on a new, British-built chassis.
Initially, consideration was given to making a flail variant of the FV200 series of universal tanks, then in development as a replacement for the Centurion. However, when the development of the FV200 was canceled, the flail version went with it. As such, designers turned to an old faithful – the Churchill, a heavy and obsolete vehicle available in large numbers, and cheap.
What would emerge from this became known as the FV3902 Churchill Flail, or as it is more commonly known, the ‘Toad’. Entering service in 1954, the Toad featured one of the most powerful mine flails ever created and became one of the last Churchill types to see service – albeit in a training capacity – with the British Army. It is in the Army that the vehicle gained the name ‘Toad’. Quite why is a mystery, although it may just be because it is a rather ugly vehicle – depending on the eye of the beholder, of course.
A brand new FV3902 ‘Toad’ fresh off the assembly line. The size of the flail drum is quite apparent. Photo: Wheels & Tracks #20, Apr. 1987
Development
The Flail tank was originally thought up in 1942 by a South African officer named Capt. Abraham du Toit. The first flail tank to be used by the British Army was the Matilda Scorpion. This consisted of a basic frame carrying the flail drum mounted on the front of the tank. The drum was propelled by a separate engine mounted on the side of the tank. Development of flail tanks would continue to evolve throughout the War, before culminating in the famous Sherman Crab. The Crab was a more advanced, purpose-built variant, compared to the rather haphazard construction of the Matilda Scorpion. The flail was now carried by a purpose-built frame that could elevate or depress as required. The Crab did not require a secondary engine, as the flail was driven by the tank’s own power plant by a power take-off. A key feature of both the Matilda Scorpion and Sherman Crab was that they were to remain combat effective as they kept their turrets and main guns although they would usually have to operate with the turrets reversed in order to prevent damage when ‘flailing’ its way through a minefield.
The famous Sherman Crab, a valuable asset on the invasion beaches of D-Day in 1944. This is a surviving example, found at The Tank Museum, Bovington, UK: Photo: Author’s own.
By 1945, the development of Britain’s next generation of tanks was well underway. Immediately after WW2, the War Office (WO) reviewed the future of the British Army’s tank arm. In 1946, they did away with the ‘A’ designator used on tanks such as the original Churchill (A.22). The ‘A’ number was replaced by the ‘Fighting Vehicle’ or ‘FV’ number. This resulted in vehicles of the Churchill family becoming members of the ‘FV3900’ series. In an attempt to streamline the tank force and cover all the bases, it was decided that the military needed three main families of vehicles: the FV100, the FV200, and FV300 series. The FV100s would be the heaviest, the FV200s would be slightly lighter, and the FV300s would be lightest. All three projects were almost canceled due to the complexity that would’ve been involved in producing the respective series. In the end, both the FV100 and FV300 series were canceled. The FV200 hung on in its development, however, as it was projected that it would eventually replace the Centurion.
Many variants of the FV200 were planned, including gun tanks (such as the FV201, previously known as the A.45), flame throwers, recovery vehicles, and even a flail tank. This vehicle was to be designated FV216 but, unfortunately, there is no indication of what this vehicle would have looked like. In 1949, the FV200 series of common vehicles were canceled in favor of the Centurion, taking the FV216 with it. A few FV200s were built, however, these being the FV214 and FV221 Gun tanks, and the FV219/FV222 recovery vehicles.
The Churchillian Choice
With the cancelation of the FV200, and no plans to convert the Centurion, designers were left wanting. Eventually, they chose to adapt the hull of the Churchill, specifically the Mk.VII. The Churchill Mk.VII was the last big upgrade to the Churchill gun-tanks. Like all Churchills, it was built by Vauxhall Motors, based in Bedfordshire. This version – sometimes termed the ‘heavy Churchill’ or ‘A.42’ – saw the addition of a new turret design and thicker hull armor up to 6 inches (152 mm) thick. It was powered by the same 350 hp Bedford 12-cylinder, 4 stroke, water-cooled, horizontally opposed, petrol engine as all Churchills, which propelled the vehicle to a rather lackluster 15 mph (24 km/h). The Mk.VII used the standard Churchill suspension of individually sprung road wheels with a rear-mounted sprocket wheel. One of the more famous conversions of the Mk.VII was the Crocodile flamethrower tank. It was also the basis of the post-war version of the AVRE, the FV3903.
The standard Churchill Mk.VII. Photo: Wikimedia commons
The Mk.VII was chosen for a few main reasons:
There was a large number of hulls available. Production of the Mk.VII Churchill did not cease until after the Second World War, in October 1945. As a result, large numbers of brand-new tanks were simply lying in storage unused.
This vehicle would be employed by the Royal Engineers (RE). Thanks to vehicles such as the Churchill AVRE and Churchill ARK, the Engineers were familiar with the type, making driver training and maintenance far easier.
The Churchill was obsolete. So, rather than carve up the newer front-line Centurion, it made sense to cannibalize an older vehicle. Despite the obsolescence, it must be said that the Crocodile variant of the Churchill did serve in the Korean War.
At a glance, the Churchill may not seem a wise choice for a mine-clearing vehicle. This was due to the position of the driver in the front of the hull and the fact that – during WW2 – the Churchill proved to be vulnerable to mine damage, especially the hull floor. Tests were mounted to assess this by towing a Mk.VII Churchill over mines. The detonations highlighted weaknesses in the weld seams which split open. This fault was dealt with by strengthening and reinforcing the welds. In between and behind the ‘horns’ of the track, the driver had extremely poor visibility. Adding a flail to the front hindered his vision even further due to how low he sat in the hull. This necessitated the raising of the driver’s position, however, this had regressive consequences. One of the most valuable features of both the Scorpion and Crab vehicles was that they retained their turrets and armaments. By raising the Driver’s position – and with it, the superstructure – there was no room for a turret. The tank has now lost its ability to defend itself, or act as a gun-tank when so required.
Schematic of the FV3902. Image: Wheels & Tracks #20, Apr. 1987
Another point of regression was down to the Churchill’s lack of horsepower. The Crab made powering the flail unit far less complicated by using a power take-off from its own engine to propel the flail. However, the Churchill’s Bedford ‘twin-six’ 12-cylinder petrol engine was not powerful enough to begin with, without propelling an extra component. As such, like the Scorpion, a secondary engine was to be installed to drive the flail.
With these considerations, a design was finalized as the FV3902. It would end up being one of the most extensive adaptations of the Churchill ever devised. The design of the vehicle would revolve around a large flail assembly suspended from the front of the hull and driven via a secondary engine. Large springs in cylindrical housings were installed on the hull sides to act as a counter-balance for the flail. The secondary engine would be placed behind the 2-man crew compartment at the front of the new armored superstructure. When not in use, and for travel, the flail assembly could be folded back over the superstructure of the vehicle. The rear of the vehicle would also include an automatic safe lane marker system contained in a long box, a relatively advanced feature at the time.
The first FV3902 prototype, Reg. 34 ZR 36, with flail assembly in the stowed position. It is seen here on the back of an Antar tank transporter at the British Railway Workshops in Horwich. Photo: Wheels & Tracks #20, Apr. 1987
The Cumberland-based Distington Engineering Company was contracted to produce schematics and act as the overseer of the entire project. Two other firms were also brought on; Robinson and Kershaw Ltd. and British Railway Workshops (BRW). Robinson and Kershaw, based in Dukinfield, would be responsible for the modification of the hulls and the fabrication of the new superstructure. BRW, based in Horwich, was responsible for the mechanical equipment and fitting of the flail assembly. Between them, 42 Toads would be built, comprising 2 Prototypes, 6 interim/pre-production models, and 34 service vehicles.
Prototypes and Interim Models
The first FV3902 prototype was completed at the Horwich Works in April 1954. For the most part, this was identical to what would become the production model, however, it did differ in one respect. On this pilot model, a hydraulic system was installed. It was placed in the secondary engine bay and was driven by a take-off from the secondary plant. The hydraulics had three purposes. Firstly, it would power a winch system used to raise and lower the flail boom. Secondly, it would retract the lane marker system at the rear of the vehicle. Lastly, it would power a contouring device that would keep the flail at the same constant height while deployed, no matter how rough the terrain. Prototype 2 followed in about September the same year. This featured a worm-drive for the retraction of the boom and a sensor system for contouring. Both No. 1 and No. 2 prototypes used multiple springs in the counterbalance cylinders on the sides of the hull.
The prototype vehicles were followed by 6 interim, pre-production models built between April and July 1955. The pre-production versions carried some different features to the prototypes, some would be carried over to the production versions, some would not. Retraction equipment for the lane marker system was removed, meaning it would be permanently carried in the deployed position. The same applied to the flail boom. It was still possible to fold the boom back, but this was now a matter of cables and brute force. Inside the counterbalance cylinders, the multiple springs were replaced by single, concentric springs. Another addition was a ‘splash board’ placed across the track ‘horns’ at the front of the tank. This would help to control the amount of debris being thrown up by the flail. Also, fuel for the flail engine was now drawn from a separate fuel tank. An electromagnetic ‘station-keeping’ device was also installed – basically a rudimentary guidance system that would keep the vehicle on a straight path.
On the left, FV3902 No. 1, identified by the hydraulics and cables of boom retraction gear. On the right, FV3902s having their flails fitted at Horwich. The vehicles at the front are Interim Models. Photos: Ed Francis & Wheels & Tracks #20, Apr. 1987, respectively
Overview of the Production Model
Production models of the FV3902 began to be delivered in January 1956. At 56 long tons* (56.8 tonnes), the Toad was 14 tons (14.22 tonnes) heavier than the standard Mk.VII, and was one of the heaviest of the Churchill-based vehicles. It was even heavier than the Centurion by around 4 tons (4.06 tonnes). As a result of the increased weight, the already slow 15 mph (24 km/h) top speed of the Churchill was reduced to 12.7 mph (20 km/h). The vehicle’s dimensions also changed quite dramatically. While the basic length and width of the hull remained the same at 24 ft 5 in (7.44 m) long and 10 ft 8 in (3.25 m) wide, the new components added a lot of girth. With the addition of the boom arms of the flail, the width increased to 13 ft 6 in (4.11 meters). With the addition of a splashboard between the track ‘horns’ and the lane marker system at the rear, the length increased to 26 ft 3 ½ in (8 meters). With the flail deployed, this jumped to 37 ft 2 ¾ in (11.34 meters). Height wise, the new superstructure increased height to 8 ft 7 in (2.61 meters), only a few inches more than the original 8 ft 2 in (2.49 meters). With the flail in the stowed position, the height jumped to 12 ft 4 in (3.75 in).
*Long tons are an archaic measurement used in the UK – for ease, it will be shortened to ‘ton’. 1 long ton is equal to about 1.01 metric tonnes, or 1.12 US ‘Short’ tons.
The Churchill Toad alongside its predecessor, the Sherman Crab. The size difference between the two is plainly apparent, although the Toad is still shorter in height than the Crab. Photo: Haynes Publishing/The Tank Museum.
The Fastest Flail in the West
The huge flail designed for the FV3902 was, and still is, one of the most powerful chain-flails ever mounted on a vehicle. Equipped on the Toad, it required its own engine. Unlike the Scorpion predecessor, the engine would not be placed outside of the hull, rather it would be built into the new superstructure. The engine chosen was the Rolls-Royce M120 water-cooled, petrol-injection engine, a derivative of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine famous for powering the British Spitfire and American Mustang fighter aircraft of World War 2. Versions of this engine were also used in the Cromwell, Centurion, and Conqueror tanks, among others. This particular version produced 650 hp, and was placed in the rear of the new superstructure in lengthwise orientation, behind the crew compartment. The clutch and drive end faced towards the front of the tank. The engine bay also housed the fuel and lubrication tanks, as well as the ventilation and air cleaning systems for both engines. Cooling air was drawn in through a large panel of louvers on the rear of the superstructure. After passing over the engine, It was vented through large fan and radiator systems located on the sides of the hull. Access to the engine bay was granted by 4 large, interlocking plates on the roof. Exhaust from the secondary engine was carried along pipes mounted atop the fenders, just above the typical Churchill air-intakes for the Bedford engine (the main engine exhaust pipes remained on the engine deck).
A modified hull fabricated by the Distington Engineering Company arrives at Horwich for the installation of the flail assembly. Note the new superstructure and large radiators on the side. At the rear, the large louvers of the air intake can be seen. Photo: Wheels & Tracks #20, Apr. 1987.
The flail was carried by two large arms, approximately 10 feet (3 meters) in length that were attached to large pivot points on the sides of the hull. Large cylindrical housings placed towards the rear of the hull were placed on the hull sides as well. These were slightly smaller than those of the prototype and interim vehicles and also sat higher to grant better ground clearance. They were still large at around 4 feet (1.2 meters) long and just over a foot (30 cm) in diameter. They were not too dissimilar to the piston housings found on steam locomotives – not a surprise considering the manufacturers. Like the interim vehicles, they contained large concentric springs connected to long rods which were, in turn, connected to the pivot hubs of the flail arms. These acted as counterbalances for the large flail rig. On the production models, the contouring device was removed, meaning there was now no need for the Hydraulics. Instead, the arms would rest on large skids with built-in steel caster wheels. The skids would glide over soft ground while the casters would role on hard surfaces. These casters would also swivel so the vehicle could still pivot with the boom deployed. It was found in tests that even if the skids were blown off by mine detonation, the counterbalance springs were strong enough to keep the boom rigid on their own.
A look at the immense counter-balance spring housing and supporting rod on the left of the vehicle. Photo: Toadman’s Tank Pictures
To drive the flail, power would be taken forward from the Rolls-Royce engine via a dog clutch into a bevel gearbox in the nose of the tank, under the crew compartment. The drive passed into the pivot mount of the left boom arm to a second bevel box and driveshaft within the arm. Because of this, the left arm was noticeably thicker than the right. Yet another bevel box was located at the flail hub, which transferred power to a drive shaft that ran the length of the flail drum to an epicyclic reduction final drive at the opposite hub.
This shot a Toad under construction at Horwich shows the internal drive shaft installed in the left flail arm. Note also, the eyelets for the flail chains. Photo: Wheels & Tracks #20, Apr. 1987
The 650 hp engine would revolve the drum clockwise at 150-revolutions per minute. The drum itself was about 11 feet (3.3 meters) wide, about 20 inches (50 cm) in diameter and consisted of two hemispherical halves that were bolted together over rubber drive bands. Sixty eyelets were welded to the drum for attachment of the flail chains. These chains were about 4ft 10 in (1 ½ meter) long and terminated in a large ‘bob’ or ‘element’ weighing 2 ½ lbs (1.13 kgs). These ‘bobs’ consisted of large diamond-shaped clubs on the early vehicles, while simple solid balls would be used on the production models. Rotating at 150 rpm, the chains would be traveling at around 61 ½ mph (99 km/h), meaning each of 2 ½ lbs/1.13 kg ‘bobs’ would be impacting at 5.5 x 10 to the power 9 Joules per strike.
While it was designed to detonate mines, the flail could also be used for light obstacle clearance. The spinning chains would have no trouble tearing through hedgerows (known as ‘bush-bashing’) or barbed wire. On the interim vehicles, cutters, and deflector plates were installed below the boom arms to stop debris – particularly barbed wire – getting caught up in the tracks. These were not installed on the production models as they interfered with the skids. The flail was not to be started unless the vehicle was in motion, otherwise, a large trench would be dug in front of the tank. When flailing, the vehicle moved at just 2 mph (3 km/h). Spare chains would be stowed on the engine deck, at the rear of the vehicle.
The boom on an interim vehicle is held aloft, note the length of the chains that terminate in the solid metal, 2 ½ lb (1.13 kg) balls, or ‘bobs’. This particular vehicle is equipped with large deflectors under the arms, not a feature carried on to the production model. Photo: Wheels & Tracks #20, Apr. 1987
When not in use, and for travel, the boom arm had the ability to be folded back over the superstructure of the Toad, where it came to rest on horn-like protrusions emerging from the sides of the secondary engine compartment. The folding of the boom shortened to the overall length of the vehicle by about 10 feet (3 meters). While early versions used either hydraulic or cable systems to mechanically hoist the boom up and back, the production model was devoid of these and as such, and a manual method was employed. Carried on the splashboard were two cables of 50 and 100 feet (15 & 30 meters). These would be attached to an extra eyelet on the flail drum, trailing in front and behind the vehicle. A cable guide placed on the hull roof between the crew hatches was also installed. This was attached as required and was otherwise stowed on the splashboard. Should a friendly tank be available, it was possible for it to physically pull up or lower the boom into the required position. Alternatively, if there was a handy immovable object present – like a tree for instance – the cables could be attached and the vehicle would perform the task itself by slowing moving forwards or backward. Deployable ground anchors were also available for this purpose. A safety lockout was installed to prevent the flail drum spinning in the travel position – for obvious fatally messy reasons.
Left, side view of the single surviving Toad with the boom in the travel position. Right, a head-on view of the vehicle. Note the cable stowage on the splashboard and the cable guide on the roof between the crew positions. Photo: Toadman’s Tank Pictures
Lane Marker System
The Churchill Toad was equipped with a sophisticated flag marker system, housed in the large box overhanging the rear of the vehicle. For the time, it was a rather ingenious and complex system, and it was one of the first purpose-built units.
The box housed 59 marker poles on an endless chain. The chain was driven from the left final drive via an external rod. The flags were automatically dispensed every 50 feet (15 meters) with a maximum markable distance of 968 yards (885 meters). The markers were propelled by a .303 caliber blank cartridge at the top of each pole. An automatic hammer in the outer edges of the box fired blank. A long spike would emerge from the compact flag as it was propelled into the ground. The pole then telescoped up, extending to four times its stowed length. The poles were painted red and yellow. If the vehicle was clearing solo, both sides would fire. If two vehicles were operating side by side, the driver could select which side fired, be it left or right. Assuming they could be retrieved, the markers were reusable.
Triple view of the lane marker system. Left, the rod that drives the system via the left final drive is visible. Middle, one can see just how wide the system is. Right, a look inside at the cups that hold the markers. Photos: Toadman’s Tank Pictures
Crew Compartment
The crew compartment was located at the front of the tall new superstructure built atop the front of the Churchill chassis. A large, sloping, 5 ½ inch (140 mm) thick front plate stretched from the bottom of the bow to the compartment roof. This protected the crew compartment from mine explosions or errant flail links and, to a certain degree, enemy gunfire. The splash board was placed roughly midway on the plate, stretching across the track horns. The board was made of thin sheet metal and mounted on a frame, which in turn rested on two long supports rooted to the bottom of the bow. The sloping front plate featured 12 smoke grenade launchers, consisting of 4 banks of 3 tubes. Two banks were angled off to the left, the other two to the right.
‘34 ZR 92’ here is a production model nearing completion at Horwich. Note the sloping forward plate with smoke grenade launchers, and the large splashboard with cable and cable guide stowed upon it. Photo: Wheels & Tracks #20, Apr. 1987
A small, two-man crew operated the Toad, consisting of the commander and the driver. Located on the right, the driver’s controls were much the same as the standard Churchill with a few new additions to control the flail, such as a hand throttle and clutch control. He had a single-piece circular hatch above him with padding on the inside. For vision, when ‘buttoned-up’, he had two periscopes that protruded from the compartment roof, just in front of the hatch. Sat to his left was the commander who sat under a derivative of the No. 1 Mk.2 Allround Vision Cupola with 7 pericopes placed around the circumference. The cupola featured a two-piece ‘clam-shell’ style hatch that opened to the left and right. As the circular hatches in the hull sides of the standard Churchill were welded over to make room for the boom pivots, the room hatches were the only way in and out for the two crew members.
Views of the crew positions with the driver’s (left) and commanders (right), underneath are the internal views of the respective positions. Photos: Toadman’s Tank Pictures (top) & Haynes Publishing (bottom)
Other Details
The vehicle was covered in ample stowage points. Stowage bins covered the outer walls of the superstructure. There were two large bins on the left and right wall, with the rearmost bin double the size of the forward bin. These would be used for both the personal items of the crew, but also for spare chains and other vehicle-related items. Spare track links were carried on the air intakes on the hull sides, while tarps and netting would be bound upon the splashboard. Pioneer tools (shovels, pickaxes) were stowed on the fenders at the rear.
Headlamps were placed on top of the track fenders at the front of the vehicle, just underneath the splashboard. Not the best of locations in hindsight, as these would surely be blown off or damaged during flailing.
Left, the large stowage bins on the right of the superstructure. Middle, track link stowage on the air intake. Right, one of the fender-mounted headlights. Photos: Toadman’s Tank Pictures.
Conclusion
At the point the Toad was developed, the Churchill was about 12 years old. Yet the use of the hull proved that the reliability and hard-wearing nature of the vehicle was still valued. Alongside the FV3903 AVRE and the Mk.II ARV – which was also deployed in the Korean War – the Toad would be one of the very last uses of the Churchill tank in the British Army.
A Toad in operation ‘bush-bashing’. Photo: Wheels & Tracks #20, Apr. 1987
The Churchill Toad was posted to units of the Royal Engineers, but would never get a chance to chew up a battlefield in a combat situation. However, it would go on to be used in training exercises. The vehicle was also tested in beach assault scenarios where it would be launched from a landing ship and wade onto the beach. These tests would regularly take place at Instow in North Devon. For the tests, it was equipped with wading extensions to the air intakes. With the intakes fitted, the flail boom could not be retracted, so the vehicle would wade in with it deployed.
A Toad taking in part in beach assault tests. Note the wading extensions on the air intakes. Photo: David Payne.
During the Cold War, other anti-mine technologies developed during WW2, such as rollers, ploughs, and line charge launchers, continued to evolve, while flails somewhat fell out of favor. Although the Toad was by no means the last of its kind.. Various types of flail vehicles are still in use by militaries around the world today, such as the German M48-basedKeiler – developed in the 1970s, and the British Aardvark Area Mine Clearing System (AMCS) – developed in the 1980s. As well as serving in military operations, they are also often used for United Nations land mine clearing missions.
Only one Churchill Toad survives today, ‘35 ZR 10’, with the designation “4A”, and it has been on quite a journey. For many a year, it sat on various Army Bases open to the elements and rotting. Between 2006 and 2008, RR Services in Kent, England began a long process of restoring the vehicle. After an extensive restoration, the now fully operational vehicle was unveiled on 16th May 2008 and demonstrated before an audience. As a safety precaution, the chains were shortened, and the flail was run at half-speed. It was then handed over to the late Jacques Littlefield, of the famous Littlefield Armor Collection or ‘Military Vehicle Technology Foundation (MVTF)’ in Portola Valley, California, USA.
The Toad arrived at RR Services for restoration in 2008. Note that the vehicle is painted in some kind of desert colours although there is no information available to suggest it was ever taken to a desert. Photo: milweb.net
This vehicle was part of the Littlefield Collection until Mr. Littlefield’s untimely death in 2009, after which the collection began to be sold off. On Saturday, July 12, 2014, the Toad was put on the auction block. The winning bid of US$80,500 went to the Australian Armor and Artillery Museum of Cairns, where it continues to stand on display today.
The Toad on display at the Australian Armor & Artillery Museum, Cairns. Photo: David Barlow
The ‘Toad’ in flailing position. With the boom extended, the vehicle was 37 ft 2 ¾ in (11.34 meters) long. The large spring cylinders support the flail when it is deployed.
The ‘Toad’ with the flailing drum in the ‘transport’ position. This allows the vehicle to move around relatively unhindered. Although, its 56 long ton* (56.8 tonne) weight did make it very sluggish.
These illustrations were produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
Churchill Toad specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
9.38 x 4.01 x 3.20 m (30’7” x 13’2” x 10’5”)
Total weight
54 tons
Crew
2 (Driver and Commander)
Propulsion (Tank)
Bedford twin-six petrol, 350 hp (261 kW) at 2,200 rpm
The British FV214 Conqueror Heavy Gun Tank was developed in the early 1950s in answer to the increasingly hostile Soviet Union, and its newly developed heavily armored tanks, such as the IS-3. The 120 mm gun-armed Conqueror was the first and last Heavy Gun Tank produced and operated by the British Army. It had a short service life of just 11 years, from 1955 to 1966. While the Conqueror was based on a hull that was designed to be adaptable, no Self-Propelled Gun was ever built using this hull.
Decades later, the popular online game World of Tanks (WoT) – published and developed by Wargaming (WG) – was preparing a new British tank line. Due to poor research or possibly completely intentionally, the top of the artillery tech tree appeared as the ‘Conqueror Gun Carriage’ or ‘GC’, a completely fictional adaptation of the Conqueror chassis which utilizes an archaic 9.2 inch (234 mm) ‘siege gun’ placed in a fixed superstructure.
That being said, elements of this tank did exist in one form or another.
The Conqueror Gun Carriage (GC) as it is presented in World of Tanks. Image: Wargaming.net
The WoT Representation
A small ‘History’ is provided for this vehicle by Wargaming:
“A proposal to mount a 234-mm howitzer on the chassis of the Conqueror. The power unit was placed in the front. Existed only in blueprints.”
– WoT Wiki Extract
Despite not being given its ‘Fighting Vehicle (FV)’ number, the Conqueror GC is presented as a vehicle of the FV200 series produced in the early 1950s, in the early years of the Cold War. The FV200s date back to the final stages of the Second World War, when the British War Office (WO) was looking for a ‘Universal Tank’. The ancestor of today’s Main Battle Tanks (MBTs), the idea of the Universal Tank was that one chassis would spawn many variants, thus reducing costs, development and making maintenance and supply far easier. The first in the series was the FV201. Despite a long development period, the FV201 project was canceled in 1949, with development moving onto the FV214 Conqueror. As such, only four vehicles of the FV200 series were ever produced and entered into service. These were the FV214 Conqueror and FV221 Caernarvon gun tanks, and the FV219/FV222 Conqueror Armoured Recovery Vehicles (ARVs).
The ‘Conqueror GC’ as it appears in ‘World of Tanks’. While clearly fake, the vehicle is based on a real chassis. Photo: Wargaming.net
Self-Propelled Gun (SPG) variants of the FV200 were planned. These were based on the FV201. The SPGs were designated the FV206 and FV207. The FV206 was classed as ‘Self-Propelled Medium Artillery’ while the FV207 was ‘Self-Propelled Heavy Artillery’. While it is unknown what gun the FV206 would have used, it is known that the FV207 was to mount a 155 mm howitzer. Neither of these vehicles made it further than plans, and no drawings of them exist today.
A representation of the FV207 exists in World of Tanks, but as no official documents remain, it is hard to believe that this representation is in any way accurate. Neither the ‘blueprints’ mentioned in WG’s claim to the historicity of the vehicle ‘Conqueror Gun Carrier’ nor this FV207 have ever been publicly presented either. The FV207 appears to be based solely on the real FV3805 instead. Either way, there is no way to confuse the alleged and invented FV207 with an even more invented Conqueror GC.
The FV201-based FV207 as it appears in World of Tanks. Image: Wargaming.net
Cold War British SPGs
For much of the Cold War, the Royal Artillery – the part of the British Army responsible for this kind of vehicle – relied on one Self-Propelled Gun, the FV433 Abbot. The Abbot was built on the hull of the FV432 Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) and was equipped with a 105 mm Howitzer in a fully traversable turret. The Abbot appeared in the late 1950s, but before this was in development, there were experiments with other SPG designs.
After the Second World War, the United Kingdom was still using the Sexton as its primary SPG. A long development program was launched to find a replacement and, while ultimately resulting in the Abbot, other vehicles also went through development. The design that came closest to completion was the BL 5.5 inch howitzer-armed FV3805 which was based on the Centurion. While this made it to prototype trials, it never entered service. The Abbot would serve as the UKs front line SPG until the early 1990s, when it was finally replaced by the 155 mm gun-armed AS-90.
Left, the FV433 Abbot and, right, the experimental Centurion-based FV3805. Photos: Author & Ed Francis
In-Game Design of the ‘GC’
‘Gun Carriage’ is a uniquely British term used to describe Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs). Although this fake one is labeled as being based on the FV214 Conqueror, the layout of the hull suggests that it is actually based on the FV215. The FV215 never entered service, but it was designed to be the Conqueror’s replacement and, while sharing many components, had a narrower hull, a rear-mounted turret, and a centrally mounted engine. This layout is shared by the fake ‘GC’ with a fixed fighting compartment at the rear and centrally mounted engine.
The FV214 Conqueror (left) and its intended replacement, the FV215 (right). Photos: Author & Tankograd Publishing respectively
This fixed compartment, or casemate, holds the 9.2 inch main armament. The design of the compartment seems to take a lot of cues from the FV3805, featuring the same cylindrical, ‘limited traverse turret’ and a similar layout of periscopes, sights, and hatches. There is also a large hatch and recoil spade installed on the rear of the vehicle. Real SPGs, as they are operated in pre-arranged fixed positions, usually operate with the large rear hatch, or ‘tail-gate’, open. It provides easy access for resupplying ammunition during a fire-mission and also, by being open to the elements, provides ventilation by letting smoke and fumes from the gun escape. The spade is used to transfer recoil forces from the chassis directly to the ground, easing the strain on the suspension. When the vehicle was in position, it would be lowered to the ground. When the gun is fired, the spade provides a back-stop by digging into the ground.
Left, the real FV3805 prototype. Right, the fake Conqueror GC. Note how similar the casemates are, as well as the layout of hatches and periscopes/sights. It is likely that the game designers took a lot of inspiration from the real vehicle. However, they added one more hatch than they needed to. The hatch closest to the gun, on the wall of the casemate, was for the driver of the FV3805. The hatch is also present on the ‘GC’, but as the driver is in the hull, this would be redundant. Images: Ed Francis & Wargaming.net respectively
Armor on the hull is listed as 130 mm (5.11 in) for the front of the hull, 50.8 mm (2”) on the sides, and 76.2 mm (3”) on the rear. This is not too far off the armor thicknesses of the Conqueror, however, it is tricky to pin-point the exact thickness of the hull armor due to conflicting sources. The upper hull was between 4.7 and 5.1 inches (120 – 130 mm) thick, sloped at 61.5 degrees from vertical. This would give an effective thickness of either 11.3 or 12.3 inches (289 – 313 mm). Side armor was 2 inches (51 mm) thick. This is not the same for the more similar FV215 however, with planned thicknesses of 4.9 inch (125 mm) sloped at 59 degrees on the upper glacis and just 1 ¾ (44.5 mm) on the sides and rear.
The crew is also closer to that of the FV215, being made up of a 5-man team. This consists of the commander, gunner, driver, and 2 loaders. It must be said though, that two loaders would be expected in a vehicle such as this due to the scale of ordnance. As with all FV200s, the driver of this fake SPG sits at the front right of the hull.
Mobility
Despite the closer similarity to the FV215 which would have used a Rover engine, this fictional SPG is listed as having the same engine as the Conqueror, consisting of the Rolls-Royce Meteor M120. This was a water-cooled, petrol-injection engine developing 810 horsepower at 2,800 rpm. It was a derivative of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, famous for powering the British Spitfire and American Mustang fighter aircraft of World War 2. In-game, this propels the SPG to a top speed of 34.3 km/h (21 mph) forwards, and 10 km/h (6 mph) in reverse.
The Rolls-Royce Meteor M120 engine installed in the Conqueror. User Handbook for Tank, Heavy Gun, Conqueror Mk.1 & 2 – 1958, WO Code No. 12065
The Horstmann suspension of the ‘GC’ is one of the accurate parts of this vehicle. On the FV200s, the suspension system had 2 wheels per-bogie unit. The wheels would be made of steel, measuring approximately 20 inches (50 cm) in diameter, and constructed from 3 separate parts. These consisted of an outer and inner half, with a steel rim in contact with the track. Between each layer was a rubber ring. The Horstmann system consisted of three horizontal springs mounted concentrically, guided by an internal rod and tube. This allowed each wheel to rise and fall independently, although the system did struggle if both wheels rose at the same time. Four bogies lined each side of the hull of the vehicle, giving it 8 road-wheels per side. There would also be 4 return rollers, 1 per bogie. The drive sprockets were relocated at the rear of the running gear, with the idler wheel at the front.
Left, a schematic drawing of the Conqueror’s four Horstmann suspension bogie units. Right, this view of a Mk.2 Conqueror being unloaded from a flatbed trailer shows how the suspension actuates. Sources: User Handbook for Tank, Heavy Gun, Conqueror Mk.1 & 2 – 1958, WO Code No. 12065 & Rob Griffin
Archaic Armament
One of the most illogical choices in the design of this spurious gun carriage is its armament consisting of the BL 9.2 Inch Howitzer Mk.II. The BL (Breech Loading) 9.2 inch (234 mm) Howitzer was a ‘heavy siege howitzer’ designed in 1913. It saw service with the Royal Artillery in the First World War as a counter-battery weapon.
Period line-drawing of the BL 9.2-inch Howitzer Mk.II. Image: Landships.info
In its day, this howitzer was an extremely powerful weapon, firing a high explosive shell that weighed up to 290 pounds (130 kg). These shells could vary from 28 to 32 inches (71 – 81 cm) long, with a High-Explosive (HE) payload – of either Amatol, Lyddite, or Trotyl (TNT) – weighing anywhere from 25 – 40 pounds (11 – 18 kg). There were two versions of the 9.2-inch howitzer – the Mk.I and the Mk.II. It is the Mk.II that was chosen for this fake SPG.
Artist’s representation of the 28 & 32 inch (71 – 81 cm) long shells of the 9.2-inch (234 mm) Howitzer showing their scale against a 6-foot (1.83 m) man. Produced by Tank Encyclopedia’s own Mr. C. Ryan.
With a 13 ft 3 in (4 m) barrel, the Mk.II appeared in late-1916 in response to a request for greater range. The Mk.I had a range of 5.7 miles (9.2 km) while the Mk.II had an increased range of 7.9 miles (12.7 km) with a muzzle velocity of 1,600 ft/s (490 m/s). The complete gun weighed around 6 long tons* (6.1 tonnes) and had a maximum elevation of 55-degrees. The in-game depiction limits it to 45 degrees, probably due to internal space limitations. On this fake SPG, the gun is mounted in a thinly armored cylindrical housing – known as a ‘limited traverse turret’ – that gives it a horizontal traverse arc of 60 degrees. The exposed parts of the gun, such as the recoil-buffer, are also covered in a representation of protective armor.
*Long tons are a unit of mass unique to the United Kingdom; for ease, it will be shortened to ton. 1 long ton is equal to about 1.01 metric tonnes, or 1.12 US ‘Short’ tons.
Just over 500 BL 9.2-inch Howitzers were produced. While there is no question that it was a powerful weapon, the howitzer would have been completely obsolete in the early-Cold War era that this vehicle is set in. The weapon was officially retired during the Second World War, and was replaced by much more accurate and advanced weaponry.
Head-on view of the Conqueror GC showing the large Howitzer in its armored cylindrical ‘limited traverse turret’. Note also the armor wrapped around the recoil buffer and the area above the barrel. Image: Wargaming.net
God Save the Truth
The Conqueror Gun Carriage is, without doubt, a fake vehicle. It is not the worst of Wargaming’s fake tank crimes, as at least a few of the components used in its design did exist in one form or another. In reality, there would not have been a need for this ‘Gun Carriage’. Had there been a need, it is highly unlikely that designers would turn to an almost-antique weapon to arm it, especially as the gun was officially retired almost 10 years before this vehicle would have ‘existed’.
Rear-view of the Conqueror GC showing the recoil-spade and rear ‘tailgate’. Image: Wargaming.net
Illustration of the fake Conqueror Gun Carriage (GC) produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
Kingdom of Norway (1946-1990s)
Light Tank – 141 Operated
The Second World War was rough for Norway. Falling to German invasion in April 1940, the country suffered 5 long years of occupation which only ended with the surrender of Nazi Germany in May 1945. Following this, Norway had to rebuild its military from the ground up. Luckily, after their surrender, the German Wehrmacht left behind vast stocks of equipment. This included rifles, machine guns, anti-tank guns, tools, and even some aircraft, all of which were adopted by the Norwegian Military (Forsvaret, Eng: “The Defence”).
A small number of tanks were also among the equipment left behind, a mix of various types of Panzer III and StuG IIIs. These were mostly of poor condition, however, so they went straight into storage. Fortunately for the Norwegian Military, the United States were keen to keep their European allies strong in the face of an increasing threat from the Soviet Union. As such, in 1946, Norway received 17 M24 Chaffees from the United States.
The Chaffee would give the Norwegian Army (Hæren) their first taste of operating a relatively modern armored vehicle, having not had a tank to operate since the single L-120 ‘Rikstanken’ of the late 1930s. Eventually, Norway would operate a total of 141 Chaffees and, through upgrades, would keep them in service until the early 1990s.
Norse Chaffee on Maneuvers in the 1950s. Photo: Pinterest
The M24 Chaffee
The M24 Chaffee, named after Army General Adna R. Chaffee, entered service in 1944, largely replacing the M3 and M5 Stuarts. It was a small tank, at 16 foot 4 inches (5.45 m) long, 9 foot 4 inches (2.84 m) wide, and 5 foot 3 inches (2.61 m) tall. It was also light at just 20.25 tons (18.37 tonnes). Armor on the vehicle was ¾ inch to 1 ½ inch (19 – 38 mm) thick. It was armed with the 75 mm Lightweight Tank Gun M6. It was operated by a 5 man crew, consisting of the commander, gunner, loader, driver and assistant driver/radio operator.
It was a very maneuverable vehicle, powered by twin Cadillac 44T24 8 cylinder petrol engines producing 220 hp combined. The transmission and drive wheels were located at the front of the vehicle. The Chaffee rolled on 5 paired roadwheels attached to a torsion bar suspension. The fifth road wheel was attached to the idler wheel at the rear of the running gear. This is because the idler was of the compensating type, meaning it was attached to the closest roadwheel by an actuating arm. When the roadwheel reacted to terrain, the idler was pushed out or pulled in, keeping constant track tension.
Armament consisted of the 75 mm Lightweight Tank Gun M6 which had a concentric recoil system (this was a hollow tube around the barrel, a space-saving alternative to traditional recoil cylinders). Variants of this gun were also used on the B-25H Mitchell Bomber, and the T33 Flame Thrower Tank prototype. The gun had a muzzle velocity of 619 m/s (2,031 ft/s) and had a maximum penetration of 109 mm. The elevation range of the gun was around -10 to +13 degrees. Secondary armament included the coaxial .30 Cal (7.62 mm) Browning M1919 Machine Gun, and the .50 Caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning Heavy Machine gun which was mounted on the rear of the turret roof.
Norwegian M24 Chaffee of Stridsvogneskadron Sola – the airstrip defense force based at Sola airfield. Photo: National Archives of Norway CC BY-SA 4.0
Norsk Chaffees
Norway received its first Chaffees after the Second World War, when US troops stationed in the country left the Norwegians 17 M24s when they withdrew. Further military aid came from the US under the ‘MAP’, starting in 1946. The ‘Military Aid Program’ benefited the war-ravaged countries of the Second World War by providing them the means to rebuild their military and defenses. Other countries that benefited from the MAP included France, Portugal, and Belgium, but also former enemy nations such as West Germany and Japan. The initial 1946 delivery was sent directly to Trandum leir, a Norwegian Army Camp (now closed) near Ullensaker.
Part of the M24 fleet based at Trandum in the early 1950s. Photo: digitalmuseum.no
In 1949, Norway and the West became an even more united front. In April, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed, and NATO was born with Norway a founding member. As it shared a border with the Soviet Union, it was seen as a crucial partner. With this close proximity to the potential enemy, invasion was expected. The focus of the Norwegian military at this time was defending its strategically important airfields. For this, three Dragoon Regiments were created; ‘DR 1’, ‘DR 2’ and ‘DR 3’. These were split between various airfields. These included Gardermoen, Eggemoen, Sola, Fornebu, Værnes, and Bardufoss. To give an idea of the strategic importance of some of these airports, Gardermoen was located near Oslo, the capital of Norway, and was the main base of the Luftforsvaret (Royal Norwegian Airforce). Sola, located on Norway’s south-eastern coast, was an important link with the western Allies. Værnes, located roughly in central Norway, allowed transit to the North and South of the country.
3 of the 11 M24s operated by Stridsvogneskadron Sola at Kjevik at a 1950 defense summit. Photo: Hans Thostensen, Stavanger City Archives.
Initially, the garrison forces were equipped with recycled Panzer IIIs and StuG IIIs left behind by the surrendering German forces. In Norwegian service, these were called Stridsvogn KW-III and Stormkanon KW-III, respectively. Due to a lack of available M24s, the garrison forces were equipped mostly with these aging vehicles. Thanks to the birth of NATO, however, Norway began to receive more military aid, and the number of M24 Chaffees available to the Army vastly increased. By 1951, the entire KW-III force had been replaced by the plentiful Chaffees. As a result, all airport garrison dragoon regiments were re-armed with the Chaffee*. Norway received its last Chaffee in 1955; however, MAP did not just provide tanks. Through this program, the Norwegians received 300 fighter aircraft, 8,000 vehicles of various types, 800 field guns, and 100,000 tonnes (110,200 tons) of ammunition.
*A detailed article on M24s at the Sola airstrip can be found in the Jan. 2017 issue of the Norwegian Museum Magazine
Norwegian Chaffees also had a royal connection. From 1955 to 1957, Prince Harald (now King Harald V) served in a Chaffee crew during his conscription years in the Norwegian Armed Forces.
Prince Harald stands before his M24 Chaffee in the late 1950s. Photo: Reddit
The M24s gave the Hæren excellent service for many years, but come the late-1960s, the M24 was obsolete, and an upgrade program began. This resulted in the NM-116 and NM-130. Four unmodified M24s were given to the Heimevernet (the Norwegian Home Guard) which operated them well into the late 1970s. Any leftover vehicles were either sent to the ranges, or placed into storage.
A Heimevernet Chaffee in the late-1970s. Photo: modellnorge.no
The majority of tanks that remained after their retirement from the Heimevernet were either scrapped or sent to military firing ranges. A small number of vehicles – exact amount unknown – were used as static coastal defenses. For this, their turrets were removed and placed on concrete plinths. When not in use, the turrets were covered with a camouflaged metal ‘shed’ to keep them concealed. When needed, the ‘sheds’ were raised via hydraulics. In a fashion similar to the KW-III turret placements at Ft. Bjørnåsen, these turrets were part of a larger bunker system. An example of this is a bunker system was located in Harstad, in the far north of Norway. The turrets remained in place until the end of the Cold War (early-1990s), after which they started to be removed. The last use of the standard Chaffee came in 2002, when it featured in a rather risqué Norwegian mineral water commercial.
The removal of the turrets from Harstad in northern Norway. Photos: Dag Rune Nilsen
By the late-1960s, the Chaffee was getting a little bit long in the tooth. Naturally, the Forsvaret began looking for a way to increase the lethality of their tank arm. At this time, however, Norway was not the richest of countries so, instead of spending millions of Kroner on a new vehicle, they chose to upgrade the Chaffee. The Oslo based company of Thune-Eureka A/S was chosen to develop the upgrades, which incorporated a new 90 mm main gun, a new, more powerful engine, a new transmission, and various other modernizations.
Pre-production model of the NM-116 Panserjager. Photo: reddit
The upgrade program centered around a new main armament, consisting of a French D/925 Low-Pressure 90 mm gun. Firing a Hulladingsgranat M62 High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) round, the weapon was capable of defeating up to 320 mm (12.6 in) of armor, a vast improvement over the M24s original 75mm gun. This was complimented by a new coaxial Browning .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine gun, and a laser range-finder placed over the barrel. The main automotive upgrade was the replacement of the original engine with a new Detroit Diesel 6V-53T. Other, smaller modifications included a new Leopard 1-style rubber-pad track, a new sprocket wheel, new radios, and German-made smoke dischargers.
This upgraded vehicle, now designated NM-116, entered service in 1975. With the new upgrades came a new role. The upgraded Chaffee went from being a light tank, to a tank destroyer, hence ‘Panserjager’. The NM-116 was an ‘ambush predator’, and would use its small size and good maneuverability to outflank the enemy, engage, and then withdraw along pre-arranged lanes of engagement. The NM-116 was a successful conversion, but by the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the tank was becoming obsolete. Its gun simply did not have the penetrative power to combat modern armored fighting vehicles. This led to the NM-116 receiving the nickname ‘Pansernager’, literally meaning ‘Armor Nibbler’ due to the weapon’s lack of killing power. Nevertheless, the tank served the Norwegian Army well for 18 years, finally being retired in 1993.
NM-116s and crews in the Norwegian mountains on exercise, late-1980s. Photo: Dag Rune Nilsen.
To support the new NM-116, it was also decided that a new Armored Recovery Vehicle (ARV), or ‘Bergepanser’, be developed. For this, four Chaffees were separated from the NM-116 project. The conversion work to turn the vehicles into ARVs was undertaken by Kvaerner Eureka AS. The four Chaffee hulls went through the same automotive upgrades as those being upgraded to NM-116 standard. The turrets, however, were completely removed and replaced with a large crane. A small dozer blade was also installed on the vehicle’s lower glacis.
The NM-130 Bergepanser. Photo: Dag Rune Nilsen
This ARV was designated the NM-130 Bergepanser. The large pivoting crane was telescopic and could be raised or lowered by a hydraulic ram. It had a 2 to 7 tonne (2.2 – 7.7 ton) capacity, with integral 19-tonne (21 ton) capacity winch. The crane had a relatively low lift capacity as it was not designed to lift an entire vehicle, rather just its components. The 2-7 tonnes lift capacity was more than enough to hoist the NM-116’s Detroit Diesel engine which weighed just 600 kgs (1323 lbs). It was necessary that the cable have quite a high tensile strength so it could tow or retrieve the NM-116. For this, the cable was threaded through fairleads (a device that guides a line, rope or cable) placed behind the winch drum. This allowed the vehicle to tow vehicles behind it. To do this though, the crane would have to be traversed 180 degrees. The NM-130’s dozer blade performed three main roles: light earthmoving operations/obstacle clearance, support during lifting operations, and anchorage when winching.
The Bergepanser entered service around the same time as the NM-116 and left service with its tank-killing brother in the early 1990s. There is a possibility that it stayed on in service a little longer to serve Norway’s fleet of M48s and Leopard 1s, but concrete evidence of this cannot be found.
NM-130 Bergepanser with crane at full erection. Photo: hestvik.no
Conclusion
The Chaffee gave the Norwegian Army one of its earliest experiences in the operation of relatively modern armor after the Second World War, and served as its primary tank for many years. In total – thanks to the NM upgrade programs – the M24 gave the Hæren approximately 47 years of service, making it one of Norway’s longest-serving armored vehicles. This is surpassed only by the now 56 years of the M113 which – again thanks to upgrade programs – has remained in Norse service since around 1964.
Not many unmodified Norwegian Chaffees remain, however, there are a few. In the late-90s, early-2000s, the Norwegians began removing the Chaffees from their ranges and storage. A few vehicles went to Museums around Norway, but Museums around the world also began buying them and restoring them for display. An example of such a vehicle can be found at The Museum of the American G.I. in College Station, Texas, USA. The vehicle has since been restored to a fully operational condition.
The Chaffee of the Museum of the American GI, an ex-Norwegian army vehicle. Photo: Michael Kellet, americangimuseum.org
A Stridsvogn M24 of Stridsvogneskadron Sola. The emblem on the turret side is one still commonly used in the Kavalerieskadronen (Armoured Cavalry), and is a representation of the Norse God Odin and his Ravens. Illustration produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
Kingdom of Sweden/Kingdom of Norway (1938)
Light Tank – 1 Operated
Even into the 1930s, Norway was not one of the more industrially advanced countries in Europe. As such, Norway was a relative latecomer to the idea of mechanizing its armed forces. It was not until the mid-1930s that the Royal Norwegian Army (No: Hæren) began to express an interest in Armored Fighting Vehicles. It was around this time that it developed its first armored vehicles – 3 improvised armored cars built on commercial truck chassis. By 1936 though, the Army was looking for something a little tougher. The Army became interested in the L-120, a prototype light tank in development by its fellow Scandinavian neighbor, Sweden. While the L-120 – built by Landsverk – would not become a success in Sweden, 1 prototype hull was purchased by and delivered to the Norwegians.
The tank was delivered without a turret, leaving the Hæren to build a basic one of its own design, equipped with a machine gun. The L-120 was Norway’s first-ever tank and would be known by many names, including ‘Kongstanken’ (Royal Tank) and ‘Norgestanken’, (Norwegian Tank); however, it is most popularly known as the ‘Rikstanken’ (The National Tank).
In Norwegian service, the tank would never see combat. Although it was used in training in 1938 and 1939, it was left in storage when the German Army invaded in April 1940. After the invasion and subsequent occupation, the vehicle remained in storage. By war’s end, however, the tank had disappeared.
The L-120 ‘Rikstanken’. This photo is quite rare in that it is one of the only photos showing the machine gun installed in the turret. Photo: Wikimedia commons
What’s in a Name?
According to the Forsvarsmuseet (Norwegian Armed Forces Museum) in Oslo, the names given to the L-120 have some interesting history in their own right. The names ‘Norgestanken’ and ‘Kongstanken’ were actually double entendres. In Norwegian, the word ‘tanken’ means both “the tank” and “the thought”. The noun ‘Norgestanken‘ can therefore also mean ‘The Norway thought’, an old nationalistic term for the idea of an independent Norway – Norway had only gained independence from Sweden in 1905. ‘Kongstanken’ can also mean “the royal thought”, and can signify grand, bold, or idealistic thinking. This generation of Norwegians remembered the struggle for independence, so it is easy to see why so much reverence was placed in the name.
In 1936, the Swedish Military was looking to replace the Stridsvagn m/21-29 and Stridsvagn m/31. A requirement was put out for two new tanks, one armed with a 37 mm gun, and a lighter vehicle armed only with machine guns. Landsverk would design two vehicles to fill these roles, the L-60 and the L-120. The L-60 would fill the medium tank role, and would later enter service as the Strv m/38. The L-120 was under consideration for the role of the light tank. At least 3 prototypes were built, each with slight differences, mostly regarding the design of the radiator grills and the design of the driver’s hatch. Design-wise, the L-120 was extremely similar to the previous L-100 light tank concept. The design was typically Swedish, being quite a narrow vehicle, with a hull that sloped to the rear, and a large diameter sprocket wheel at the front of the running gear. The L-120 has a claim to fame in that it is one of the first-ever tanks to feature a torsion bar suspension.
One of the L-120 prototypes complete with a machine gun-armed turret. It has some differences compared to the Norwegian example, in particular the vent on the hull side and the design of the driver’s hatch. Photo: landskrona
By 1937, two prototypes had been produced, and by May were taking part in trials. The trials highlighted that their engines left them underpowered, and they were extremely unreliable. As a result, the Swedes canceled development of the L-120, with the military instead opting for the Czechoslovakian-built AH-IV tankette.
Norwegian Purchase
Despite the tank’s failures in the eyes of the Swedish military, the Norwegians expressed interest in the L-120 to see whether it would be compatible with their dragoon and cavalry units. Initially, the Norwegian Army was granted a budget of 20,000 Kroner. However, the shipping costs of a complete tank would have risen to 50,000 Kroner due to the weight. As a result, the vehicle was shipped in a stripped-down condition without armor plating, a turret, or any armament. The Norwegian Army took delivery of this basic tank hull in 1938.
The L-120 that would make it to Norway. Note the differences to the vehicle pictured above. The date and location are unknown, but as the turret is different to that used on the example sent to Norway, this may well be the prototype under trials in Sweden. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Overview of the ‘Rikstanken’
Unfortunately, not much information regarding this L-120’s unique specifications survive today, but there are fragments that can be retrieved. The L-120 weighed between 4 and 4.5 tonnes (4.4 – 4.9 tons), measured 4 meters (13 ft 3 in) in length and was about 1.7 meters (5 ft 8 in) wide. With the original turret, it measured 1.65 meters (5 ft 4 in) in height. Propulsion was provided by an 85 hp, 6 cylinder Volvo Type DC – presumably, petrol – engine, reportedly taken from the Volvo LV93 series of commercial trucks. This ran through a 5 speed (4 forwards, 1 reverse) gearbox, also apparently taken from the LV93 truck. The engine was located at the rear of the tank and powered the forward-mounted sprocket wheels, propelling the vehicle to a top speed of about 50 km/h (31 mph). The running gear consisted of 4 split, spoked, and rubber-tired road wheels per side on a torsion bar suspension. There was a larger diameter, spoked trailing idler wheel at the rear, and the return of the track was supported by two return rollers. The track was of quite a short pitch, and quite narrow at about 15 cm (5.9 in) wide.
This photo of one of the L-120 prototypes during trials grants a clear view of the vehicle’s running gear. This is not the example sent to Norway and is one of the other two vehicles, identified by the large grill on the hull side. Photo: ftr.wot-news.com
The L-120 hull that made it to Norway was unique in appearance compared to the other prototypes. The front of the vehicle was dominated by a large sloping upper plate that extended back to the turret ring. There is a suggestion that the tank was delivered without armor, and as such, iron plates were installed on the vehicle. This cannot be corroborated at the time of writing, however. The sides of the hull also sloped inwards. A simple box-like hood was added over the driver’s position, placed slightly to the left of the centerline. Three simple vision ports in the hood provided vision for the driver, one of only a two-man crew. The steering tillers were also reportedly missing when the vehicle arrived, leading to their replacement with a steering wheel. This is another detail that currently can not be corroborated.
The other crew member was the commander/gunner who would be located in the turret. As the vehicle arrived without a turret, the Norwegians had to fabricate their own. They came up with a simple cylindrical turret with a flat roof and a single-piece hatch. This seems to be quite crude in nature and simply hinges backward at a crease in the middle of the roof plate. The only way the commander could see out effectively would be to operate head out, as there do not appear to have been any vision devices in the walls or roof of the turret. However, in some of the surviving photos, it would appear that there may be simple slits cut into the sides of the turret. Considering the rudimentary nature of the turret, it must be assumed that horizontal traverse was manual, but whether this was by gearing or brute force is unknown. It is also unknown how thick the metal used to fabricate the turret was, and whether it made it taller or shorter than the original turret.
A post-invasion photo of the ‘Rikstanken’ with a posing German soldier. Note the sloping upper plate, square hood for the driver and the round aperture in the turret ‘face’ for the machine gun main armament. Photo: armed-conflicts.com
For armament, the Norwegians installed an American made Colt M/29 ‘Mitraljøse’ (heavy machine gun) in a simple circular cut out in the ‘face’ of the turret. This weapon was a Norway-specific version of the Colt MG38, the export version of the Colt M1928, which in turn was an export version of the famous Browning M1917. It was chambered in the Norwegian 7.92 x 61 mm round, and remained a water-cooled, recoil-operated machine gun, and had a rate-of-fire of 590 rounds-per-minute. This gun was a sensible choice, as it was the most plentiful – perhaps only – heavy weapon in service with the Norwegian Army at this time, with around 1,800 in operation.
Norwegian troops operating an M/29 at Narvik in 1940. It should be noted that this is a reversed image as the M/29 feeds from the left, not the right. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Other details on the vehicle include simple headlights on the fenders over the sprocket wheels, the exhaust pipe on the right rear fender, a larger stowage box on the left rear fender, and pioneer tools (pickaxes, shovels, etc) stowed around the back end of the vehicle.
Service
The service history of the ‘Rikstanken’ can be described as patchy at best. What remains are a series of fragments, mostly consisting of second- or even third-hand accounts.
Between 1938 and 1939, the L-120 was predominantly used in training exercises alongside the cavalry and the 3 improvised armored cars. All 4 vehicles were passed around the cavalry and dragoon units so they could all train with and gain experience operating with armor. As part of the cavalry, the tank received the number ‘PV-1’, which was painted on both of the fenders over the sprocket wheels. It would appear that the tank was predominantly based at Gardermoen, just North of Oslo, at the base of the 1st Dragoon Regiment.
Two shots of the L-120 with – what appears to be – Norwegian troops. On the left we can see the tank, possibly at Gardermoen, between 1938 and 1939. Note the ‘PV-1’ stenciled onto the fender. On the right, we can see the tank in a poor state, buried in snow, with the rear plate missing. Note the exposed engine. Photo: armedconflicts.com
It would appear that the mechanical issues that emerged during the Swedish trials once more reared their heads during Norway’s time operating the vehicle. The Norwegians also came to the conclusion that the engine was far too underpowered. There were also brake issues, once reportedly causing the vehicle to crash into a tree. A Colonel by the name of Christopher Fougner – Commander of the 2nd Dragoon Regiment, was of the opinion that the tank was a waste of money and time, reportedly stating that the only working tank the Norwegian Army would ever see would belong to an attacking enemy. This is ironic considering the events that would transpire just a couple of years later, in 1940.
April 1940 would, of course, bring the invasion of Norway by Nazi Germany, and subsequent occupation. The L-120’s role in the invasion is, again, uncertain. There is a possibility that the tank did see some action in defense of Norway, but it would appear this was not the case. Even so, its ability to combat the more advanced Panzers of the Wehrmacht is highly questionable, although it may have done well against infantry. However, it seems more likely that the tank – along with the armored cars – were left at the Gardermoen base when the garrison forces left to face the invaders. Indeed, there are many post-invasion photos of German troops posing with the vehicle to suggest this.
The ‘Rikstanken’ onboard a ship. Quite why it is on a ship, where it is going, or why, is unknown. Note the large stowage box and pickaxe at the rear. Photo: armedconflicts.com
This, unfortunately, is where the trail runs cold. It is unknown what happened to the vehicle during the duration of the occupation, or whether it survived to the end of the war. Nothing is thought to remain of the vehicle today.
Conclusion
Successful or not, the L-120 ‘Rikstanken’ is an important vehicle in Norway’s military history. Despite the mechanical issues, it gave the Norwegian Army their first experience in the operation of a tank.
The ‘Rikstanken’ in a rather poor state with posing German soldiers. Photo: armedconflicts.com
It was not until the end of the War, and the Nazi occupation, that the Norwegian Army would gain more advanced armored vehicles. The surrendering German Army left behind swathes of equipment, including Panzer III medium tanks and StuG III assault guns, which would be pressed into service as the Stridsvogn and Stormkanon KW-III, respectively. Norway would also receive a small number of the American built M24 Chaffee light tank, which would serve them into the later years of the Cold War.
Landsverk 120 (L-120). In Norwegian service, it was known as the ‘Rikstanken’ meaning ‘National Tank’. It was fitted with an improvised turret mounting an M/29 machine gun. The grey color is speculative as it is unknown what color the vehicle would have been. This illustration was produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
The need for a heavily armed tank was highlighted for the British Army in 1945, when the Soviet Army unveiled its newly developed heavy tank – the IS-3 – at the Berlin Victory Parade. The Armies of Britain, France, and the USA realized they had nothing to counter this new threat. In later years, the IS-3 would prove to be a far less threatening tank than originally thought. At the time, however, these armies were concerned. In response, the US would develop the M103 while the French would experiment with the AMX-50. Great Britain would develop the FV214 Conqueror and FV215 Heavy Gun Tanks.
Decades later, the popular online game World of Tanks (WoT) – published and developed by Wargaming (WG) – was preparing a new British tank line. Due to poor research or possibly completely intentionally, the top of the tree appeared as the Heavy Gun Tank FV215b, a fictional marriage of a FV215 chassis with the FV214 turret and gun with a fictional engine. Fortunately, Wargaming has withdrawn this fake vehicle, although they replaced it with an equally questionable one.
That being said, elements of this tank did exist in one form or another, so those shall be explored.
In-game render showing a profile view of the FV215b. Image: Wargaming.net
The WoT Representation
A small ‘history’ is provided for the vehicle by Wargaming:
“A proposed plan for a heavy tank based on the Conqueror Mk. II. Unlike the production model, this modification featured rear placement of the fighting compartment. Never saw production or service.”
– WoT Wiki Extract
The FV215b is presented as a vehicle of the FV200 series. The FV200s date back to the final stages of the Second World War, when the British War Office (WO) was looking for a ‘Universal Tank’. The ancestor of today’s Main Battle Tanks (MBTs), the idea of the Universal Tank was that one chassis would spawn many variants, thus reducing costs, development and making maintenance and supply far easier. The FV215b is also presented as a variant of the planned FV215, or to give its officially long-winded title, the ‘Tank, Heavy No. 2, 183mm Gun, FV215′. This tank was set to be the replacement of the FV214 Conqueror (Tank, Heavy No. 1, 120mm Gun, FV214).
In-game render of the FV215b showing a top-down view. Image: Wargaming.net
Reality: Heavy Gun Tanks
The term ‘Heavy Gun Tank’ is a uniquely British designation. It refers to the size and power of the gun, not the size and weight of the tank. Heavy Gun Tanks were specifically designed to destroy enemy tanks and/or fortified positions.
Tank, Heavy No. 1, 120 mm Gun, FV214 Conqueror. The Conqueror was Britain’s answer to the Soviet IS-3. It served from 1955 to 1966. Photo: Author’s own
The Conqueror was the first and only ‘Heavy Gun Tank’ that Britain would build and put into active service. Based on the FV200 chassis, the Conqueror was an imposing vehicle. It measured 25 feet (7.62 meters) long – not including the gun, 13.1 feet (3.99 meters) wide and 11 feet (3.35 meters) tall. It weighed 65 long tons* (66 tonnes), had armor up to 13 inches (330 mm) thick and was armed with the powerful L1 120 mm gun. Firing Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) rounds, this gun was able to punch through up to 17.3 inches (446 mm) of 55-degree angled steel armor at 1,000 yards (914 meters). Entering service in 1955, the Conqueror had a short service life, being retired in 1966 after just 11 years of service. It was replaced by the FV4201 Chieftain.
*Long tons are a unit of mass unique to the United Kingdom; for ease it will be shortened to ton. 1 long ton is equal to about 1.01 metric tonnes, or 1.12 US ‘Short’ tons.
The next step would have been the FV215. This was in development just as the Conqueror entered full-scale production. This vehicle used a modified chassis that was slightly narrower than the FV214 at 12 feet (3.6 meters) compared to 13.1 feet (3.99 meters). The FV215 would also have had a rear-mounted turret, and would have been equipped with a powerful L4 183 mm Gun. To accommodate the rear-mounted turret, the powerplant was moved to the center of the vehicle. It would appear that this fake ‘FV215b’ is based on the hull of the real FV215.
‘Tank, Heavy No. 2, 183mm Gun, Fv215’, the planned replacement for the FV214. Developed in the early 1950s, it was armed with the powerful L4 183 mm Gun. It never entered service. Photo: Rob Griffin, Conqueror
In-Game Design of the FV215b
The ‘FV215b’ is basically a rear-turreted Conqueror, although it is based on the real FV215 chassis as stated above. There was never a ‘b’ variant of any description planned for the FV215. In-game specifications record the vehicle as weighing 70 tonnes or 68 long tons. This is heavier than both the FV214 and the real FV215 by about 4 long tons (4.06 tonnes). Hull armor is listed as 152.4 mm (6 inches) on the front, 101.6 (4 inches) on the sides, and 76.2 (3 inches) on the rear. This is nowhere near accurate. On the real FV215 hull, armor was planned to be 4.9 inch (125 mm) sloped at 59 degrees on the upper glacis and just 1 ¾ (44 mm) on the sides and rear.
Despite errors like this, the FV215b does share some accurate parts of its design with both the FV214 and FV215 respectively. These include the 4-man crew (commander, gunner, loader, driver), Horstmann suspension system, the turret and integral ‘Fire Control Turret’, and the 120 mm L1 gun.
In-game render of the FV215b. Image: Wargaming.net
Engine
In-game, the FV215b is equipped with the Rolls-Royce Griffon. This is, in reality, an aircraft engine. While Rolls-Royce aero engines have been adapted for use in armored vehicles, there is no evidence at all to suggest that there was ever a plan to make an AFV variant of the Griffon. An example of a converted Rolls-Royce aero engine is the Meteor – as used in the Conqueror. This was an adaption of the Merlin, an engine famous for powering the British Spitfire and American Mustang fighter aircraft of World War 2.
The Griffon was a 37-liter, 60-degree V-12, liquid-cooled engine. It was the last V-12 aero engine built by Rolls-Royce, with production ceasing in 1955. It was used on such aircraft as the Fairey Firefly, Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Sea Fury. The engine produced over 2,000 hp in its plane configuration, but in game it is listed as producing just 950 hp. This is not far fetched, as converted aero-engines were often de-rated for use in armored vehicles. Meteor is an example of this. As the Merlin, it produced up 1,500 hp depending on the model. When de-rated as the Meteor, it produced just 810 horsepower.
The Rolls-Royce Griffon V-12 Aero-engine. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
The real FV215 was set to be propelled by the Rover M120 No. 2 Mk.1 producing 810 hp and propelling the vehicle to a top speed of just under 20 mph (32 km/h). In this fake tank, the installed Griffon engine is recorded as propelling the vehicle to a top speed of 21 mph (34 km/h). While faster than the real FV215, this is the same top speed as the Conqueror which was propelled by a less powerful engine. As with the real FV215, the engine is mounted centrally, separating the Driver (located in the right front corner of the hull) from the rest of the crew in the turret.
Suspension
The Horstmann suspension of the FV215b is one of the accurate parts of this vehicle. It has been used on all the FV200s including the Caernarvon and Conqueror, but also on the Centurion. On the FV200s, the suspension system had 2 wheels per-bogie unit. The wheels would be made of steel, measuring approximately 20 inches (50 cm) in diameter, and constructed from 3 separate parts. These consisted of an outer and inner half, with a steel rim in contact with the track. Between each layer was a rubber ring. The Horstmann system consisted of three horizontal springs mounted concentrically, guided by an internal rod and tube. This allowed each wheel to rise and fall independently, although the system did struggle if both wheels rose at the same time. Four bogies lined each side of the hull of the vehicle, giving it 8 road-wheels per side. There would also be 4 return rollers, 1 per bogie. The drive sprockets were relocated at the rear of the running gear, with the idler wheel at the front.
Left, a schematic drawing of the Conqueror’s four Horstmann suspension bogie units. Right, this view of a Mk.2 Conqueror being unloaded from a flatbed trailer shows how the suspension actuates. Sources: User Handbook for Tank, Heavy Gun, Conqueror Mk.1 & 2 – 1958, WO Code No. 12065 & Rob Griffin
Turret & Armament
Both the turret and main armament of the FV215b were taken straight from the FV214 Conqueror.
The main armament of the FV215b consists of the 120mm L1A1 ‘A’ gun. While there were two versions of the 120 mm Gun – the L1A1 and L1A2 – there was never an ‘A’ subvariant. Maximum penetration in-game is listed as 326 mm (12.8 inches).
To give it its full name, the ‘Ordnance, Quick Firing (QF), 120 mm Tank, L1 Gun’ was an extremely powerful weapon with dimensions to match. Muzzle to breach, it measured 24.3 ft (7.4 m) and alone weighed 2.9-tons (3 tonnes). The gun was designed to fire both Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) and High-Explosive Squash Head (HESH) ammunition. The in-game penetration of 326 mm is far lower than that of the real gun. Firing the APDS round at a muzzle velocity of 4,700 fps (1,433 m/s), the L1 could penetrate up to 17.3 inches (446 mm) of 55-degree angled steel armor at 1,000 yards (914 meters). Elevation is listed as +15 to -7 degrees. This is accurate to the Conqueror, although a limiter prevented the gun from depressing past -5 degrees.
The impressively long 120 mm L1 gun, seen here on a surviving Conqueror Mk.2. Photo: Author’s own
The turret is a fairly accurate representation of the one designed for the FV214 Conqueror. Even so, the armor values are way off. In game, it is listed that the turret is protected by 254 mm (10 inches) of armor on the face, 152.4 mm (6 inches) on the sides, and 101.6 mm (4 inches) on the rear. In reality, it is hard to pin-point the exact armor thicknesses on the Conqueror’s turret, thanks largely to conflicting sources. We do know that armor on the turret was between 9.4 – 13.3 in (240 – 340 mm) sloped at 60 degrees on the face, with a 9.4 in (239 mm) mantlet. The sides were 3.5 inches (89 mm) thick, while the rear was 2 inches (51 mm) thick.
A couple of features unique to the Conqueror turret also remain present. One of these is the Fire Control Turret (FCT) – located at the rear of the turret. This replaces the traditional commander’s cupola, and is a self-contained unit that can rotate independently of the main turret. The FCT features an integral range-finder for use by the commander. He would scan around looking for targets, range it, and then pass the data onto the gunner who would then engage.
The other feature is the hatch on the right wall of the turret. This hatch is the ejection port for spent main-gun casings. They were ejected from the turret via the troublesome ‘Mollins gear’, a piece of equipment that frequently broke down on the Conqueror.
In-game render of the FV215b showing the rear-mounted turret. Image: Wargaming.net
99.9% Non-Existent
The FV215b is, without a doubt, a fake vehicle. It is not the worst of Wargaming’s fake tank crimes, as many of the components used in its design did exist. In reality, there would not have been a need for this tank. The real FV215 was designed to replace the Conqueror and have more firepower, so a tank created by mating the FV215 and FV214 would have been completely pointless.
The Tank was introduced to ‘World of Tanks’ in 2014 just to fill the British ‘Tier X’ heavy tank role. In 2018, it was replaced by another less-than-authentic tank, the ‘Super Conqueror’, at least on PC. The FV215b remains in the console and Blitz versions of the game.
Quite remarkably, this photo of a Mk.1 Conqueror with the turret traversed over the engine deck has often been mistaken for an FV215b. Such mis-identifications are a clear result of Wargaming introducing fake tanks and trying to pass them off as real. Photo: Profile Publications
Illustration of the fake FV215b Heavy Gun Tank produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
United Kingdom (1950-1957)
Heavy Gun Tank – 1 Mock-up & Various Components Built
Viewing the public debut of the Soviet Union’s IS-3 heavy tank at the Berlin Victory Parade of September 1945, the Western powers – including Great Britain – were shocked. As heads of the British, American, and French Armies watched these machines clatter down the Charlottenburger Chaussee, they saw the shape of a new generation of heavy tanks. From the exterior, the IS-3 was a tank with well-sloped and – apparently – heavy armor, a piked nose, wide tracks, and a gun at least 120 mm in caliber. At least in appearance, this was superior to anything being fielded by the other victorious Allied powers at the time.
The respective officials knew that they had nothing in their arsenal capable of potentially combatting this menacing tank that was now in service with an increasingly aggressive USSR. In response, the militaries of these countries began to develop heavy tanks that – they hoped – would be able to combat the IS-3. The United States would develop the M103 heavy tank, while the French experimented with the AMX-50. Britain went in a different doctrinal direction and created a ‘Heavy Gun Tank’. This was a uniquely British designation that was not governed by weight, but the size of the gun. This vehicle was based on the experimental FV200 ‘Universal Tank’ chassis and given the official and somewhat long-winded title of ‘Tank, Heavy No. 1, 120 mm Gun, FV214’. This vehicle would be better known as the ‘Conqueror’.
Weighing in at 65 long tons* (66 tonnes) with armor up to 13.3 in (340 mm) thick, the Conqueror was one of the largest and heaviest tanks Britain would ever field. Like the M103 and AMX-50, the Conqueror was armed with a powerful 120 mm Gun, specifically the ‘Ordnance, Quick-Firing, 120mm, Tank, L1 Gun’. This gun could punch through an impressive 17.3 inches (446 mm) at 1,000 yards (914 meters) firing Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) ammunition. This was more than enough to combat the IS-3 but, at the time, this was unknown to the British War Office (WO). As such, even greater firepower was investigated.
What followed was the FV215. With its monstrous, 183 mm gun, this vehicle has become something of a legend among enthusiasts of a particular age, largely due to a popular video game. Unfortunately, this has meant a number of falsehoods have been spread about the vehicle. This article will highlight the truth behind this uniquely British vehicle.
*As this is a British vehicle, mass will be measured in ‘Long Ton’ otherwise known as the ‘Imperial ton’. It will be shortened to ‘ton’ for ease with a metric conversion alongside.
An original half-photo, half-drawn representation of the FV215 and its monstrous 183 mm gun. The addition of smoke launchers, radio antenna, headlamps, and other small details suggest that this was a finished design, and it is the closest representation of what the finished vehicle may have looked like. Photo: Rob Griffin, Conqueror
The FV200 Series
In the aftermath of the Second World War, the War Office reviewed the future of the British Army’s tank arm. In 1946, it did away with the ‘A’ designator used on tanks such as the Churchill (A.22) and Comet (A.34). The ‘A’ number was replaced by the ‘Fighting Vehicle’ or ‘FV’ number. In an attempt to streamline the tank force and cover all the bases, it was decided that the military needed three main families of vehicles: the FV100, the FV200, and FV300 series. The FV100s would be the heaviest, the FV200s would be slightly lighter, and the FV300s would be the lightest. It should be noted that the rest of the FV series 400, 500 etcetera were not in weight order although these first 3 serials were. All three projects were almost canceled due to the complexity that would have been involved in producing the respective series. In the end, both the FV100 and FV300 series were canceled. The FV200 hung on in its development, however, as it was projected that it would eventually replace the FV4007 Centurion.
The FV200 series included designs for vehicles that would fill various roles ranging from a gun tank to engineering vehicles and Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs). It was not until later years that the other uses of the FV200 chassis were explored, such as with the FV219 and FV222 Armoured Recovery Vehicles (ARVs). The first of the FV200 series was the FV201, a gun tank that started development in 1944 as the ‘A.45’. This tank weighed around 55 tons (49 tonnes). At least two or three FV201s were built for testing, but the project went no further than that. Work on the project ceased in 1949.
The FV201 (A.45) test vehicle with Centurion turret and 17-Pounder gun. Photo: Tankograd Publishing
Background
As the ‘Heavy No. 2’ part of its designation implies, the FV215 was intended to be a follow up to the FV214 Conqueror – ‘Heavy No. 1’. The vehicle was also known as the ‘FV215, Heavy Anti-Tank Gun, SP’ (SP: Self Propelled). The project started life in mid-1949, and was aimed at increasing the firepower of the ‘Heavy Gun Tanks’. A requirement was formulated for a tank armed with a gun capable of defeating a 60-degree sloped plate, 6 inches (152 mm) thick, at up to 2,000 yards (1,828 meters), a feat impossible even for the powerful 120 mm L1 gun of the FV214. By 1950, Major General Stuart B. Rawlins, Director General of Artillery (D.G. of A.) had concluded that there was no such gun available with that level of ballistic performance. Initially, the British Military looked at the development of a 155 mm gun that would be standardized with the USA. However, even this lacked the required punch and, as such, 6.5 and 7.2 inch (165 and 183 mm respectively) High-Explosive Squash Head (HESH) shells were looked at.
‘Tank, Heavy No. 1, 120 mm Gun, FV214 Conqueror’. The FV215 – ‘Heavy No. 2’ – was a follow up to this tank. This is a surviving Mk.2 Conqueror known as ‘William’ and can be found at the Wight Military & Heritage Museum, Isle of Wight, UK. Photo: Author’s own.
At this time, the British Army was of the non-doctrinal opinion that a ‘kill’ did not necessarily mean the complete destruction of an enemy vehicle. For example, a blown-off track was also seen as a kill as it took the enemy vehicle out of action; today this is known as an ‘M’ (Mobility) kill. A ‘K’-Kill would be the destruction of a vehicle. The term used for this method at the time was ‘disruption not destruction’. The 6.5 in/165 mm HESH was not thought to be powerful enough to ‘kill’ a heavily armored target in this manner unless it hit bare armor plate. Attention therefore turned instead to the larger 7.2 in/183 mm shell which – Maj.Gen. Rawlins thought – would be powerful enough to render the target inoperable, and therefore ‘kill’ it, wherever it impacted.
The projected gun was designated the 180 mm ‘Lilywhite’. The background of this name is unknown. It may be an interpretation of the ‘Rainbow Code’ used by the WO to identify experimental projects. The ‘Red Cyclops’ flame gun attachment for the FV201, and the ‘Orange William’ experimental missile are examples of this. If this was the case, however, the name should be ‘White Lilly’. It may even simply be named after a Lieutenant Colonel Lilywhite of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. It must be said that this is all speculation, and no evidence exists to support the theory.
It was not until December 1952 that the designation of the gun was officially updated to 183 mm. The design of the gun was accepted and was serialized as the ‘Ordnance, Quick-Firing, 183 mm, Tank, L4 Gun’. The 183 mm L4 became one of the largest and most powerful tank guns in the world. With the gun developed, the rest of the vehicle had to be designed around it. It is estimated that the vehicle would have cost between £sd44,400 and £sd59,200 (£1,385,662 – £1,847,549 in today’s Pounds) per unit.
The FV215 in Detail
Overview
Based on the Conqueror adaption of the FV200 chassis, the hull of the FV215 would have shared some similarities. For example, the hull would have been 25 feet (7.62 meters) long. It would have been slightly narrower than the FV214 at 12 feet (3.6 meters) compared to 13.1 feet (3.99 meters). With a planned height of 10.6 feet (3.2 meters), the FV215 would have been slightly shorter than the FV214. Unladen, the vehicle would weigh 61 tons (62 tonnes) while being in ‘battle order’ – i.e. fully equipped – would have seen the weight climb to 65 tons (66 tonnes).
The FV215 would have been operated by a 5-man crew consisting of the commander (turret left), the gunner (turret front right), two loaders (turret rear), and the driver (hull front right).
Photo of a scale model of the FV215 taken as part of the Fighting Vehicle Research & Development Establishment (FVRDE) report. Photo: Ed Francis
While the basic chassis and running gear remained the same as the FV214, the layout of the rest of the vehicle was completely changed. Three turret layouts were considered – front, middle, and rear. A rear-mounted turret was chosen as was considered more advantageous to balance. The power plant was also moved to the center of the vehicle.
The driver remained at the front right of the hull. Like on the Conqueror Mk.2, he had a single periscope – in this case, a No. 16 Mk.1 periscope with a 110° field-of-view – mounted at the top of the upper-glacis plate for vision. He would have had a large hatch above his head that would pop up and swing to the right. As with the FV214, two traditional tiller bars would have been used to operate the vehicle. Also, the driver’s seat could be placed at various heights and positions, allowing the driver to operate head-out or under the protection of a closed hatch. Extensions atop the tiller bars would allow easy operation when driving head out.
Photo of the full-scale mockup vehicle showing the open hatch of the driver’s position. Note also the pericope in the upper glacis. The purpose of the hatch beside the driver’s is unknown. Photo: Ed Francis
The glacis is listed as being a 4.9 inch (125 mm) thick steel plate, sloped at 59 degrees. Side armor was to be 1 ¾ inch (44 mm) thick plus the 6 mm thick ‘bazooka plates’ added over the running gear. The floor would have been 0.7 inches (20 mm) thick, with an extra 0.6 inch (16 mm) ‘mine plate’ installed below the driver’s position. The roof of the hull would have been 1 ¼ inches (32 mm) thick.
Turret
Mounted at the rear of the hull, the new turret was large and boxy. Unlike the Conqueror’s cast turret, the FV215’s turret was to be of welded construction. Existing dimensions list the turret as 12 feet (3.6 meters) wide sitting on a 95 inch (2.4 meter) diameter turret ring. Overall, the turret would have weighed 20 tons (20.3 tonnes). Unfortunately, the exact thickness of the turret armor is unknown as records list the turret face only as “will protect from a 100 mm gun in a 30-degree arc”. The rear of the turret and the roof would have been 0.6 inches (17 mm) thick.
Another view of the FV215 scale model showing the turret at the rear of the vehicle. Photo: Tankograd Publishing
A feature carried over from the Conqueror was the rangefinder. On the FV215, this would have been used by the gunner, not the commander as with the FV214. This was placed laterally across the front of the turret roof, and was made by the York-based company of Cook, Throughton & Simms. The rangefinder had a 6 foot (1.8 meter) sight-base and used the ‘coincidence’ method of ranging. This method consists of laying two images on top of each other. When the two images completely overlap, the range measurement is taken. This information is then used by the gunner to accurately range the gun.
The commander – located on the left of the turret – would have been equipped with a large rotating cupola designated the ‘Cupola, Vision, No. 5’ mounting a ‘Sight, Periscope, AFV, No. 11’ along with a ‘Periscope, Tank No. 20’ and ‘No. 21’ providing an uninterrupted view of 140 degrees. A collimator was also provided that would display the view of the gunner’s main sight.
Internal view of the full-scale FV215 mockup showing the Commander’s position and instruments. Photo: Ed Francis
Two smoke dischargers, presumably the ‘Discharger, Smoke Grenade, No. 1 Mk.1’ as on the Conqueror, would have been placed on the sides of the turret. Each launcher featured 2 banks of 3 tubes and were fired electrically from inside the tank. Atop the roof, on the hatch for the two loaders, was an air-defense mounting point for a machine gun. This was set to be a .50 Cal (12.7 mm) Browning M2 heavy machine gun – known simply as the .5 Browning in British service. This was an uncommon choice for British vehicles of this era. The machine gun could elevate to +70 degrees and depress 5 degrees. Four boxes totaling 950 rounds were carried for the .50 Cal.
Armament
The ‘Ordnance, Quick-Firing, 183mm, Tank, L4 Gun’ was one of the only parts of the FV215 that was built and tested. A small number of the guns were built, but it is unclear just how many. Records suggest at least 12 were built. In an effort to get it into service before the development of the FV215 had finished, the W.O. explored the idea of mounting it on the Centurion chassis. This resulted in the development of the experimental FV4005, a vehicle that would have been rushed into production should the Cold War have turned hot. A similar connection can be found with the Conqueror and the FV4004 Conway. Unfortunately, the exact length of the 183 mm gun is currently unknown to the author, but it was somewhere in the region of 15 feet (4.5 meters) long. It was fully rifled with a large ‘bore-evacuator’ (fume extractor) placed roughly half-way down its length. The gun alone weighed 3.7 tons (3.75 tonnes) while its mount weighed 7.35 tons (7.4 tonnes). Although the turret was capable of full 360-degree traverse, firing was physically limited to a 90-degree arc – 45 degrees over the left and right of the vehicle. It could also fire directly to the rear. A safety lockout prevented the gun from firing over the ‘broadside’ position. The gun would have a vertical traverse range of +15 to -7 degrees, however, it is unclear whether – as with Conqueror – it would have been fitted with a limiter that halted it at -5 degrees.
The Ordnance, Quick-Firing (QF), 183mm, Tank, L4 Gun. Here it is mounted on the Centurion-based FV4005, a stop-gap vehicle designed to bring the 183mm into service quickly should the Cold War turn hot. The two visible crew members give an idea of the scale of the gun. Colorized by Jaycee “Amazing Ace” Davis. Photo: The Dark Age of Tanks, David Lister
The gunner sat on the left of the gun, in front of the commander. This was unusual for British tanks as it was more common for the gunner to be located on the right of the gun. He had hand controls for elevation and traverse, both of which were electrically powered. Duplicate controls were also available to the commander, but only the gunner was equipped with manual backups. The elevation controller also featured triggers for the main gun and coaxial machine gun. The gunner would aim the main armament via the ‘Sight, Periscope, AFV, No. 14 Mk.1’.
High-Explosive Squash Head (HESH) was the only ammunition type to be produced for the 183 mm gun. Both the shell and the propellant case were of gargantuan proportions. The shell weighed in at 160 lbs. (72.5 kg) and measured 29 ¾ inches (76 cm) long. The propellant case weighed 73 lbs. (33 kg) and measured 26.85 inches (68 cm) long. The case contained a single charge that propelled the shell to a velocity of 2,350 fps (716 m/s). When fired, the gun produced 86 tons (87 tonnes) of recoil force and recoil length of 2 ¼ feet (69 cm).
Artist’s representation of the 183 mm HESH shell and its propellent case, in scale with a 6 foot (1.83 meter) man, based on recorded dimensions. The markings and color of the shell are purely speculative but are based on British markings of the time. Image produced by Tank Encyclopedia’s Mr. C. Ryan.
HESH shells have an advantage over regular kinetic energy rounds as their effectiveness does not decrease with distance. This shell works by creating a shockwave on detonation. Once this wave reaches a void, it reflects back. The point at which the waves cross causes tension feedback which rips apart the plate, carrying a scab with approx half the energy forwards, scattering shrapnel around the interior of the target. Test firing of the L4 against a Conqueror and a Centurion proved how powerful the round was. In 2 shots, the 183 mm HESH shell blew the turret clean off the Centurion, and split the mantlet of the Conqueror in half. HESH could also serve as a dual-use round just as capable of engaging enemy armor as for use as a high-explosive round against buildings, enemy defensive positions, or soft-skinned targets.
This oversized ordnance is the reason the vehicle would be manned by two loaders. Between them, they could achieve a rate of 2 to 2 ½ rounds per minute. Also, due to its size, ammunition stowage was limited to just 20 rounds. Twelve of these would have been ‘ready-rounds’ stowed in the turret against the interior of the walls.
Photo looking inside the full-scale mockup of the FV215. Here we can see the ammunition stowage on the right interior wall of the turret. Photo: Ed Francis
The size and power of the gun were also why the rear-turret design was chosen for the FV215. Because of its – estimated – 15 foot length, the gun would overhang the front of the vehicle considerably should it have been placed in a centrally mounted turret. This could lead to the gun being buried in the ground when approaching or descending steep inclines, fouling the barrel. Having the gun at the rear also made the vehicle a more stable firing platform as the front half of the vehicle acts as a counterweight to the recoil force, preventing the vehicle from tipping too far backward.
As well as the roof-mounted machine gun, secondary armament consisted of a coaxial L3A1 .30 cal (7.62 mm) machine gun – the British designation of the US Browning M1919A4. This was not coaxial in the traditional sense, as it was not integral to the main gun mount. Rather, the machine gun was placed in a blister, cast into the roof with the range-finder and located on the top-right corner of the turret. The L3A1 had the same vertical traverse range as the main gun at +15 to -5 degrees. Six boxes totaling 6,000 rounds were carried for the ‘coaxial’ machine gun.
Mobility
While the Conqueror was equipped with the Rolls-Royce Meteor M120 petrol engine, it was planned that the FV215 would use the Rover M120 No. 2 Mk.1. This 12-cylinder, water-cooled petrol engine produced 810 horsepower at 2,800 rpm. This would have propelled the vehicle to a top speed of 19.8 mph (32 km/h). A Merritt-Brown Z5R gearbox would also be installed, providing 5 forward gears and 2 reverse. Due to the turret being relocated to the rear of the vehicle, the power plant was placed centrally in the hull, separating the driver’s compartment from the fighting compartment. The engine was also placed 6 inches (15 cm) off the centerline, but whether this was to the left or right is unknown. The exhaust pipes would emerge from the sides of the hull roof, just in front of the turret and terminate in large trumpet-like tubes. The reason for these are unknown. The Rover engine would be fed by 250 UK gallons (1,137 liters) of fuel. As with the Conqueror, a small, auxiliary 4-cylinder petrol engine was provided to drive a generator that would supply the vehicle with electrical power, with or without the main engine running.
An original schematic of the FV215 from the 1950s. Note the centrally-placed engine. Source: The Tank Museum
Like the FV201, Centurion and Conqueror before it, the FV215 was set to utilize a Horstmann suspension system with 2 wheels per-bogie unit. The wheels were made of steel, measuring approximately 20 inches (50 cm) in diameter, and constructed from 3 separate parts. These consisted of an outer and inner half, with a steel rim in contact with the track. Between each layer was a rubber ring. The idea behind this was that it would be more efficient on the rubber and would not need to be replaced as often. The Horstmann system consisted of three horizontal springs mounted concentrically, guided by an internal rod and tube. This allowed each wheel to rise and fall independently, although the system did struggle if both wheels rose at the same time. Four bogies lined each side of the hull of the vehicle, giving it 8 road-wheels per side. There were also 4 return rollers, 1 per bogie. The advantage of using bogies lies in maintenance and crew comfort. Having externally mounted bogies means there is more room inside the tank and also, should the unit become damaged, it is relatively easy to remove it and replace it with a new unit.
Left, a schematic drawing of the Conqueror’s four Horstmann suspension bogie units. Right, this view of a Mk.2 Conqueror being unloaded from a flatbed trailer shows how the suspension actuates. Sources: User Handbook for Tank, Heavy Gun, Conqueror Mk.1 & 2 – 1958, WO Code No. 12065 & Rob Griffin
Despite the engine being repositioned, the drive sprockets remained at the rear of the running gear, with the idler wheel at the front. Going by the pre-production imagery, it would appear the spoked idler of the FV214 was replaced with a solid wheel. The track was 31 inches (78.7 cm) wide and had 102 links per side when new. The suspension gave the vehicle a ground clearance of 20 inches (51 cm), and the ability to climb a 35 inch (91 cm) vertical object. It allowed the tank to cross trenches up to 11 feet (3.3 m) wide, negotiate gradients up to 35 degrees, and ford water obstacles up to 4.5 feet (1.4 m) deep without preparation. The vehicle had a turning circle of 15 – 140 feet (4.8 – 42.7 m respectively) depending on gear selection. It could also pivot or ‘neutral’ steer on the spot with each track turning in opposite directions.
So Close, Yet So Far
In 1951, the company of Vickers had filed a report on the concept of the FV215 and, by June 1954, a contract had been signed for the production of a prototype vehicle known as ‘P1’ (Prototype No.1). In October that year, it was also clear that the AA mount for the .50 cal machine gun would not be ready, and as such an L3A1 was substituted. In March 1955, the same year the FV214 entered service, the order had increased to include two pre-production vehicles. A full-scale mock-up – including interior components and a faux engine – was completed between July 1955 and January 1957, with 80% of accompanying schematics also produced. Work started on P1 in September 1955 with a selection of spare parts. The two pre-production vehicles were canceled in early 1956, but work went ahead on P1 which was set to be completed at some point in 1957. Troop trials would then take place by the end of that year. This, however, is where the FV215 story ends.
Head-on view of the small scale mockup. Photo: Ed Francis
In 1957, with just the gun, a couple of turret faces, and a number of other smaller parts built, the FV215 project was officially canceled. This decision was largely down to the Army. From the outset, the Army was not keen on the concept of the vehicle, mostly due to the fact that large-caliber weapons provide a number of logistical issues, mostly caused by the sheer dimension of the weapons. One only has to look at the Conqueror and the issues its size presented to operators during its time in service to understand this hostility to the FV215. At the same time, there was a new contender in the race to find an opponent for the USSR’s heavy armor. Of course, by the mid-1960s, the FV215’s intended opponent, the IS-3, would prove to be a far less threatening tank than the Allies had imagined roughly 12 years prior in 1945.
The new contender was the FV4010, a heavily modified, turretless vehicle built on the Centurion chassis and armed with the newly developed Malkara Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM). This vehicle offered the same damage potential as the 183 mm gun, but in a lighter vehicle and with better accuracy at long ranges. Even though this vehicle also went through full-scale development, it too would not see production or service. The Malkara missile, however, was accepted for service.
Line drawing of one of the designs for the Centurion-based FV4010, armed with the Malkara ATGM. This drawing was produced by Ed Francis, based on line drawings found in the archives of The Tank Museum, Bovington.
Had the FV215 entered service, it would have filled the role much the same as the Conqueror. Its role on the battlefield would have been to support other friendly troops, rather than strike out on its own. It was designed to destroy enemy tanks from afar, covering the advance of the lighter tanks such as FV4007 Centurion. In offensive operations, the FV215 would be placed in overwatch positions and fire over the heads of the main force as it advanced. In defensive operations, the vehicle would again take an overwatch role, but this time from key, pre-set strategic positions to meet an advancing enemy.
A Centurion Mk.3 alongside a Conqueror Mk.1. The FV215 would fulfill the same role as the Conqueror – providing heavy fire support to attacking lighter tanks. Photo: Profile Publications
Busting a Myth: FV215A & B
Over the years, a couple of erroneous designations have emerged concerning this vehicle. These are the ‘FV215A’ and ‘FV215B’. The ‘FV215A’ is the false designation, probably mistaken for the planned AVRE (Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers) vehicles of the FV200 series. The FV215B is simply a fictional designation for the FV215 Heavy Gun Tank.
Had it entered service, there is no doubt that the FV215 would have been one of the most deadly gun-tanks to have ever existed. At the same time, it is not hard to see why it was not accepted for service. The Conqueror on the other hand, would end up staying in service for 11 years, finally being retired in 1966. It was Great Britain’s first and last ‘Heavy Gun Tank’.
The logistical and high-cost nightmare of the Conqueror would have only continued with the more heavily armed FV215. Heavy vehicles are expensive, not only to build, but to maintain. The heavier a vehicle, the harder the wear and tear on parts, so parts have to be replaced more often increasing maintenance time and burden and so on.
On top of this there was another issue: the feared Soviet heavy tanks like the IS-3 were not being made in the massive numbers expected indicating a shift in policy to lighter, more maneuverable, and more lightly armored tanks. The need for the Conqueror and FV215 from this perspective was simply becoming absent. Other changes were also taking place as technology-wise, larger caliber guns with their huge ammunition were becoming obsolete by the improved anti-armor performance of smaller guns and by the appearance of a new generation of accurate Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM).
It is perhaps ironic that the Soviet tank which perhaps started this fear, the IS-3, was itself found to be seriously wanting in combat. Losses during the invasion of Prague to little more than lightly armed civilians showed serious tactical failings in the way in which tanks were handled along with the utter disaster of their use in the 1967 Six-Day War with Israel. Here, Egyptian IS-3s were lost in large numbers to mechanical failures and to ‘inferior’ lighter tanks like the British-supplied Centurion and American-supplied M48. The paper-tiger had had its day and the IS-3-smashing Heavy Gun Tanks were as obsolete as the tanks they were designed to counter.
An article by Mark Nash, assisted by David Lister, Andrew Hills & Ed Francis.
Illustration of ‘Tank, Heavy No. 2, 183mm Gun, FV215’. The representation of a 6 ft (1.83 m) gives some idea of the scale of the vehicle and its 183 mm L4 gun. The vehicle is represented in the standard British Army green. As the vehicle never entered service, some of the smaller details – such as the wire reel and lifting eyes – are speculative. This illustration was produced by Brian Gaydos, based on work by David Bocquelet, and funded by our Patreon campaign.
Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
25 feet x 12 feet x 10.6 feet (7.62 x 3.6 x 3.2 meters)
Weight
61 – 65 long tons (62 – 66 tonnes)
Crew
5 (Driver, commander, gunner, 2 loaders)
Propulsion
Rover M120 No. 2 Mk.1, 12-cylinder, water-cooled, 810 hp
Suspension
Hortsmann
Speed (road)
19.8 mph (32 km/h)
Armament
Ordnance Quick-Firing (QF) 183 mm Tank L4 Gun (20 rounds)
Sec. 1 – 2 L3A1 (Browning M1919A4) .30 Cal (7.62mm) Machine Gun (6000 rounds)
.5 Browning (Browning M2) .50 Cal (12.7 mm) heavy machine gun (950 rounds)
Armour
Hull
Front (Upper Glacis): 4.9 inch (125 mm) @ 59 degrees
Sides: 1 ¾ in (44 mm) + 0.2 in (6 mm) ‘Bazooka Plates’
Roof: 1 ¼ in (32 mm)
Floor: 0.7 in (20 mm) + 0.6 in (16 mm) ‘Mine Plate’
Turret
Face: “protection from a 100 mm gun in a 30-degree arc”
Rear: 0.6 in (17 mm)
Roof: 0.6 in (17 mm)
In 1989, the initial Indiana Jones trilogy of movies – created by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas – was coming to an end with the final installment; Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The film, set in 1938, sees the swashbuckling fictional archeologist, Dr. Henry ‘Indiana’ Jones Jr., race against a band of Nazis in the hunt for the legendary cup of Christ – The Holy Grail.
The film includes an elaborate chase scene featuring a tank owned by the fictional ‘Sultan of Hatay’, the ruler of a republic located somewhere in the region of Turkey. In appearance, it is similar to that of the real-world Tank Mk. VIII ‘Liberty’. While portrayed in the movie as a real tank operated by ‘The Army of the Republic of Hatay’ – with great similarity to a real World War I tank – it is, however, a completely fictional vehicle.
Officially, this tank was never named. It is often just referred to as ‘The Indiana Jones Tank’ or ‘The Last Crusade Tank’. For the purpose of this article, the vehicle will be identified as the ‘Hatay Heavy Tank’, based on its country of origin and appearance.
Often identified as the ‘The Indiana Jones Tank’ or ‘The Last Crusade Tank’, this vehicle was built specifically for the film. Although inspiration has been taken from the real WW1-era Tank Mk. VIII, the vehicle in the film never existed. Photo: Paramount Pictures
The Film Representation
This Heavy Tank is vaguely reminiscent of the Tank Mk. VIII ‘International Liberty’. The Mk. VIII appeared in 1918, and was the most modern iteration of the ‘quasi-rhomboid shaped tank’ design, made successful by the British in 1916, starting with the Tank Mk. I. The Mk. VIII was a joint project between Britain and the United States, with plans to construct the vehicles in France – hence the name ‘International Liberty’, often shortened to just ‘Liberty’. The idea of the joint project was to give both nations a common tank for their respective armies. In total, 125 Mk. VIII tanks were built, but they entered service too late to see action in WW1.
Where the Hatay tank differs is the presence of a large Churchill-esque turret mounted atop the vehicle, instead of the small superstructure present on the real Mk. VIII. It is unclear whether this is supposed to be a modification made by the fictional country or whether it is supposed to be an ‘original’ feature. In reality, no British production tank of World War 1 era was equipped with a turret like this, and armament was primarily carried in sponsons projecting from the flanks of the vehicle. The first turreted British tank to enter service did not, in fact, appear until 1924 in the shape of the Vickers Medium Mk. I.
Overview of the Heavy Tank
Reminiscent of the Mk. VIII, the Hatay Heavy Tank is quasi-rhomboidal in shape and around 36 feet (11 meters) long and weighing 28 tons (25 tonnes). These statistics are not too far off the Mk. VIII’s length and weight, at 34 ft 2 in (10.42 m) and 41 tons (37 tonnes) respectively. The vehicle’s tracks, as is typical with British heavy tanks of WW1, travel around the entirety of the hull. There are rollers hidden by the side plating at the bottom of the track run. No springing system of suspension was used but, given the low speed of the vehicle, just 5 to 6 mph (8 – 10 km/h) for the Mk. VIII, it was not necessary either. Despite the vehicle’s similarities to the Mk. VIII, the forward track sections are slightly different. On the real Mk. VIII, the forward track sections revolve over a large curve. On this Heavy Tank, the track sections are much more sharply angled, more like the early British Mk. I to V tanks.
Above, the real Mk. VIII tank. Below, the ‘Hatay Heavy Tank’. Note the differences between the two, but also the similarities. Photos: Craig Moore & johnstoysoldiers, respectively.
Despite the size of the tank, it would appear to be operated by just a four-man crew, unlike the real Mk. VIII which needed a crew of 10 to 12 men. However, there does seem to be room inside the Hatay tank for 8 to 10 people standing fully upright. There also appears to be ample room for a 4-man fist-fight. The crew consists of the driver located front and center of the hull who controls the tank via the traditional method of two tiller bars. His primary vision is via a suicidally large hole – for want of a better word – in the front of the tank. This hole is at least 6 inches/15 cm in height and a foot/30 cm wide and would offer no protection to him at all in a battle situation. It does appear to be part of a larger hatch that opens out and down. This is probably his main point of entry.
The fact that two people can see through the driver’s ‘vision port’ gives an idea of scale. Vision ports on armored vehicles are usually small to limit the amount of fragmentation or bullets entering the driver’s face or tank in general. With a port this size, the driver would be lucky not to get hit by a full-size shell, let alone a small-caliber bullet. These large ports are not unique to the driver’s position, they can be found all over the tank. Photo: Paramount Pictures, edited by Author.
The vehicle requires two gunners – 1 for each sponson gun. They would aim, load, and fire the weapon themselves. The last member of the crew is an overworked commander positioned in the turret. He appears to be responsible for loading and firing the turret’s gun, as well as commanding the tank. The engine of the tank is located in the large ‘tail’. It is of an unknown type and the speed of the vehicle is unknown. It is, however, certainly faster than the 5 to 6 mph (8 – 10 km/h) of the Mk. VIII.
A joint view of the left side 6 pounder gun and Hatay operator. Photo: Paramount Pictures, edited by Author.
For armament, the tank is equipped with two sponson-mounted cannons. These are presumably Hotchkiss 6-pounder (57 mm) guns – as would be found on the real Mk. VIII. These guns were operated a bit like giant rifles and were aimed completely by hand without gears and fired via a pistol grip. On the Hatay tank, these were augmented by the addition of a fully rotatable turret on the roof of the vehicle. This is a one-man turret – visually similar to the turret of a Mk. III Churchill, albeit much smaller and pre-dating it by about 5 years (film setting) – mounting an unknown gun, identified simply as a “six-pound gun” by Indiana Jones when first laying eyes on the vehicle. This turret does not seem to have a basket, but there is a platform suspended from the roof underneath it for the commander to stand on. This platform does not appear to rotate with the turret. The commander’s primary vision from the turret is a large slit in the turret face on the left of the gun. This appears to be part of a larger port that can swing up and open, but the gun seems to lack an accurate sight of any description, be it periscopic or telescopic. There is a large circular hatch in the turret roof that opens up and back but this has no vision devices.
The Turret of the Hatay tank is visually similar to that of the Churchill Mk. III. Note the “six-pound” gun and vision slit beside it. Note also, the large open hatch. The inset image of the interior shows just how much room there is inside the vehicle with the driver in the foreground and the turret platform behind. Also, notice the stacked up machine gun ammunition. Photo: Paramount Pictures
The tank is completely devoid of any machine gun armament which would have been far more useful for shooting someone on horseback in the movie than the 6-pounder. On the real Mk. VIII, machine guns would be found in ball mounts in the large access hatches behind the sponsons, and in the roof superstructure. Even without machine guns, a large amount of small arms ammunition cans do appear to be carried. Of course, fitted with machine guns, poor Indiana would have been gunned down much more quickly, so perhaps omitting them was a convenience for the movie rather than anything attempting to mirror historical reality.
Other Details
The only periscope present on the tank would be more at home on a submarine. It is a literal periscope, located behind the turret. It is manually pushed up from inside the tank and is capable of 360-degree rotation. The periscope is completely useless in this position, as forward vision would be blocked by the turret. Also, raising the periscope would be impossible if the turret was traversed to the rear as the main gun barrel would collide with the scope. There is a reason these devices are not found on tanks and quite why this was added to the movie is unclear as its sole purpose seems to be to provide an attempt at humor when Indiana kicks it sending the control handle spinning into the back of the operator’s head.
The submarine-style periscope located at the rear of the vehicle. Photos: Paramount Pictures
The exterior of the tank is absolutely festooned with the stowage of auxiliary equipment. Tarpaulins, shovels, netting, reels of cable, unditching beams, bundles of other sundries, and even spools of barbed wire are carried. While many real-world tanks carry a mix of such equipment – excluding the barbed wire – the sheer amount present on the Hatay tank is absurd.
A collection of images showing the amount of random items stowed on the vehicle. Photo: Paramount Pictures
The tracks bear no resemblance to the tracks used on the Mk. VIII or any British tank of the First World War or interwar period. They are more akin to industrial excavator tracks – not a surprise given the vehicle the tank was built on for the movie. World War 1 British tank tracks, like those used on the Mk. VIII, were deceptively simple consisting of a frame on the back of the track link (for the driving gear to engage) with a plate bolted to the front for contact with the ground. The links were pinned together through this frame, with bulges on one side to accommodate the curve of the track.
Left, the simplistic tracks of the real Mk. VIII. Right, the industrial-style tracks of the movie tank. Photo: Craig Moore and the Micky Moore Collection, Pepperdine University Special Collections and University Archives, respectively.
Battle in the Desert
The trail of the Holy Grail leads to the Republic of Hatay. Hatay is a fictional country in the approximate vicinity of Turkey in the movie. A real Hatay does exist as a province in modern-day Turkey, although at the time of the setting of the film, a Hatay did exist as an autonomous state before unifying with Turkey in 1939. A small Nazi team competing with Dr. Jones for the Grail – lead by American treasure hunter and Nazi-sympathiser Walter Donovan and SS Colonel Vogel – visits the Sultan of Hatay to ask for safe passage through his country (nonsensically, Hatay is a Republic led by a monarch in the movie) The Nazis and Donovan offer the Sultan coffers of gold and various treasures as ‘payment’. He refuses the treasure and instead takes the Nazi delegation’s Rolls-Royce Phantom II (the Sultan even liked the color). In return, The Sultan then promised them a fully armed escort with transport vehicles and tanks, although only one actually appears in the film. (Clip)
The Heavy Tank leads the joint Nazi/Hatay force on route to the Grail location. Photo: Paramount Pictures
Equipped with the tank and large unit of Hatay infantry, the Nazi contingent advances on the fictional ‘Canyon of the Crescent Moon’, the supposed location of the Grail. Indiana, along with his ally, Sallah, and father – Prof. Henry Jones Sr. – await them in the valley. The Nazi’s are holding Indiana’s friend – Prof. Marcus Brody – prisoner, so he plans to retrieve him before progressing onto the Grail. As Indiana spots the tank, the tank fires a round at his position, blowing Sallah’s brother-in-law’s car to bits.
The Nazi contingent is attacked by the Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword, a group dedicated to keeping the location of the Grail a secret. In response, the Nazi’s move Marcus Brody into the tank, and slaughter the attackers. Donovan and a small team leave them to battle each other, and progress to the Grail. Taking advantage of the distraction, Indiana steals a small group of horses from the Hatay forces. Unknown to him, Henry Jones Sr. then sneaks into the tank to attempt to rescue Marcus, despite his son (Indiana) telling him to hide. Jones Sr. is foiled by Colonel Vogel who takes him prisoner inside the tank. Indiana, not knowing that his father has been taken prisoner, flees with the stolen horses. Vogel then takes command of the tank and uses it to pursue Indiana. Linking up with Sallah, Indiana is told his father has been locked up in “the belly of that steel beast”.
The tank engages the horse-riding Indiana. Photo: Paramount Pictures.
The tank starts to fire upon Indiana, narrowly missing him a few times. Indiana runs rings around the tank, causing it turn sharply and run headfirst into a column of reinforcing Nazi/Hatay troops. The tank then hits a Kubelwagen-esque vehicle, flipping the small car upwards and impaling it on the barrel of the turret gun. For some minutes, the vehicle continues the case with the car stuck on its front, before Vogel coldly instructs the turret gunner to load the gun and blast the car off the front of the tank (this would not work in reality). With the barrel obstruction cleared, the tank then continued to run over the wrecked car which was propelled quite a distance off the front of the vehicle.
Taking advantage of this commotion, Indiana rides alongside the left flank of the tank, and jams a rock into the muzzle of the left sponson’s 6-pounder. The gunner pulls the trigger attempting to hit his target, only for the gun to blow up, causing him to fly across the interior of the tank.
Left, a rock is jammed in the muzzle. Right, the result of that action. Photo: Paramount Pictures
As a result of the explosion, the interior fills with smoke. Vogel emerges from the top hatch and begins taking potshots at Indiana – who is now pursuing the tank on horseback – with his Walther P38 9 mm semi-automatic pistol (a weapon which did not enter production for about 3 years after the film is set). Indiana responds in kind with his trusty Webley (.455/.475 caliber Webley 1896 W.G. Army Revolver – the Webley ‘Green’, made between 1885 and 1912). Indiana gains on the tank, eventually leaping onto the engine deck. He is subsequently joined by a group of Nazis who leap aboard from an alongside truck. After dealing with them, he gets into a one-on-one fist-fight with Vogel.
One of the guards inside raises the incongruous submarine-style periscope and enjoys the view of the brawl going on atop the tank. He turns away to make a clumsy joke about “Americans fighting like women”. As he does, Indiana accidentally kicks the raised periscope, causing the internal handle to whack the guard on the back of the head, knocking him out. Henry Jones Sr. and Marcus Brody take advantage of this and begin brawling with the guards. Knocking one guard out, Jones Sr. mans the right sponson gun, and proceeds to blow another truck full of Nazi troops away.
Henry Jones Sr. blows away a truck full of Nazi’s with the right sponson gun. Photo: Paramount Pictures
The blast knocks Indiana off the back of the tank. He gets carried along the top of the track-run, falls off the side, and he is left hanging off the broken left gun barrel. Colonel Vogel takes one of the shovels stowed on the turret and attempts to beat Indy, and instructs the driver to drive the tank into the canyon wall to grind him off. Inside the tank, Henry Jones Sr. and Marcus attempt to escape through the turret hatch, only for the Nazi soldier previously subdued by Henry Jones Sr. to return for a second bout. He drags Jones Sr. down from the turret and grabs a stray P38 pistol lying on the hull floor. Before the Nazi could fire, Marcus bashes him over the head with a spent 6-pounder casing, causing a negligent discharge of the pistol. The bullet ricochets around the interior of the tank before striking the driver – who has been completely oblivious to the brawl taking place just feet away – and striking him fatally between the eyes. His dead body slumps against the controls causing the tank to lurch to the right, away from the canyon wall but towards a deep canyon.
Indiana manages to climb back onto the tank as Vogel has now fallen onto the front of the vehicle. Jones Sr. and Marcus now proceed to climb out onto the roof of the tank. Vogel comes back for another go at Indiana, knocking Marcus off the back of the tank. Vogel takes a swing at both Joneses with yet another shovel, missing Jr. but striking Sr., causing him to fall onto the upper track run. He gets carried along the track run before Jones Jr. manages to snag his father’s leg with his trusty bull-whip. This has the unfortunate side effect of grating his father’s skin against the rotating metal track. Fortunately, Jones Jr.’s friend, Sallah, rides to the rescue on horseback, and proceeds to grab Jones Sr. from the tank, and takes him to safety. The brawl between Indiana and Vogel continues as the tank careens towards the canyon. Indiana manages to jump off at the last minute, but Vogel is carried over the edge of the canyon wall with the tank. The tank and its unfortunate rider are then smashed to pieces on the canyon floor, thus ending the service life of Hatay’s one and only tank. A significant continuity error of note occurs here in the film, whereupon crashing the model of the tank which was destroyed in the film loses its turret, but in the following scene has the turret back on as the vehicle rolls over. (Clip)
The Tank and Vogel plummet to the canyon floor. Photo: Paramount Pictures
Building the Tank
For the filming of the movie which took place between May and September 1988, the tank was designed and built by special effects artist George Gibbs, who took inspiration from the real tanks of the First World War. The Tank Museum, Bovington, in the UK allowed measurements of their Mk. VIII to be taken. As a thank you, the production team gave Bovington one of the Nazi Eagle standards from the first Indiana Jones film, ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’. This now resides in the museum’s artifacts archive. Both director Steven Spielberg and writer George Lucas wanted the tank to look as real as possible. As a result, Gibbs decided to build a full-scale working prop. It was built using parts of a 28-ton (25 tonnes) excavator, especially the tracks, which weighed 7 tons (6.3 tonnes) alone. The vehicle was built almost completely out of steel instead of the usual lighter materials such as plastics, wood, or fiberglass. The idea was that it would enhance the visual appearance of the tank, but also to make the prop tough enough to survive the violent terrain that its scenes were shot in. This terrain was a canyon in Almeria in the south of Spain.
Original production sketch of the tank. Photo: Ultimate Movie Collectibles
In the words of Gibbs himself:
“World War I tanks did not have suspension, so we built ours without suspension also. Because of that, I knew the vibration inside that tank would be absolutely tremendous and would shake a mockup vehicle to pieces. For that reason, I decided to build the tank from steel. Also, if any of it ever broke apart we could quickly weld it back together. As it turned out, the tank went down the sides of mountains and over really hard, rocky surfaces without any damage at all-and I knew then that I had made the right decision.”
The vehicle was propelled by two Range Rover V-8 petrol engines, connected to two hydraulic pumps – 1 per track unit. A motor from a bulldozer was also installed to provide electrical power. All 3 of the guns were real, and all of them fired blank charges.
The Gibbs Special Effects team working on the replica. Photo: filmtrickery.com
It took Gibbs and his team 4 months to build the tank. It was flown to Almeria aboard a Short Belfast heavy freight aircraft. To transport the vehicle to location, it was loaded onto a heavy transport truck.
According to Gibbs:
“We were lucky, shooting went smoothly and the tank only let us down twice. The first time was because the rotor arm in the distributor broke and it took us a day to get a new one from Madrid. The second time, it was so hot that the solder in the oil coolers actually melted and flowed around with the oil into the valves, shattering two of them to pieces. So we had to change one of the engines and that also took one day. I think everyone expected to lose a lot more time, but the tank worked really well.”
Behind the scenes shot of the making of the ‘car-on-gun’ scene. Photo: Micky Moore Collection, Pepperdine University Special Collections and University Archives
The only real part of the interior was the driver’s seat. The rest of the interior scenes were filmed in a studio. The tank was driven in the film by special effects technician Brian Lince.
“Brian did an excellent job. Being in that tank was like being in an oven, and he was in there every day for nearly eight weeks. We had ten industrial electric fans inside to try and keep Brian cool, the engine cool and the hydraulic oil cool. Not only was it hot in there, but since the tank had no suspension, Brian got rattled around so much that when he came out and tried to take a cup of tea, he would spill it before he could get it to his lips.”
To safely accommodate the filming of the elaborate fight scenes that took place atop the vehicle, Gibbs duplicated the upper half of the tank to identical detail – complete with rotating tracks – and mounted it on a large 4-wheel trailer – reportedly an ex-army searchlight trailer. Alone, this semi-tank weighed around 8 tons (7.2 tonnes). Unlike the full tank, it was made from aluminum, and the tracks were made of rubber so stunts could be performed safely. ‘Catchers’ were also installed around the vehicle to catch anyone that fell off – on purpose or accidentally.
The ‘half-tank’ behind the scenes on a flatbed trailer used for transport. Photo: Photo: Micky Moore Collection, Pepperdine University Special Collections and University Archives
In total, it took 10 days to film the ten minutes-worth of tank scenes at a total cost of US $200,000 a day. For some of the long-range shots, and the scene where the tank drives off the cliff, a smaller scale remote control model was constructed. It was an exact replica of the full-size vehicle, down to the smallest detail. This model was about 6 feet (1.83 m) long and 2 feet (60 cm) high.
The small-scale remote control model used for some of the shots. Photo: Micky Moore Collection, Pepperdine University Special Collections and University Archives
Where is it Now?
It is unknown what happened to the tank in the years directly after filming. However, for a number of years it simply sat rotting in the ‘boneyard’ of Hollywood studios – an area full of forgotten movie props. After some time, it was moved to Disney’s Hollywood Studios at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and put on public display. It was not repainted or restored, however, and left in poor condition.
The sorry state of the vehicle in the boneyard. This photo was taken in 2007. Photo: Jim Goings
Sometime later, in around 2010, 2011, the vehicle was repainted in plain desert-tan scheme, and placed in a mock scene with prop WW2 German equipment, complete with MG34 machine gun nest. This is how it remained until around 2015 or 2016, when the vehicle was completely overhauled and repainted back to its movie appearance – complete with Hatay markings – with a large set built around it, again with German Army-themed props. This is how the vehicle continues to sit today.
The Hatay Heavy Tank as it sits today at the Hollywood Studios attraction at Walt Disney World, Florida. Photo: Always Ready For Adventure!
The Hatay Heavy Tank, often just referred to as ‘The Indiana Jones Tank’ or ‘The Last Crusade Tank’. The vehicle was inspired by the real world, WW1-era Tank Mk. VIII, but featured a number of fictional additions such as the large turret. Illustration produced by Pavel Alexe, based on work by David Bocquelet, funded by our Patreon campaign.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Republic of Hatay (1938)
