Karl Wilhelm Krause Field Modified Flakpanzer IV Illustration made by Godzilla
German Reich (1943)
Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun – At Least 3 Modified
In the early years of the Second World War, the Germans did not use a dedicated anti-aircraft vehicle based on a tank chassis. As the German Air Force was more than capable of providing cover for the panzers, this was not deemed a priority at that point. In the later stages of the war, things changed drastically, and the need for well-protected vehicles based on tank chassis became apparent. While attempts were made to design such vehicles in late 1943, they led to the creation of a 3.7 cm armed Flakpanzer IV which had folding sides. This design proved to be unsuccessful for many reasons, forcing the Germans to find another solution. In late 1943 or early 1944, the 12th SS Panzer Division’s Anti-Aircraft Detachment decided to take matters into their own hands and modified three Panzer IVs by adding the 2 cm Flakvierling 38 on top of the superstructure. Little did they know that their improved design would lead to the creation of probably the best German anti-aircraft vehicle and possibly even the best of its class during the war.
Karl Wilhelm modified Flakpanzer based on a Panzer IV chassis and armed with 2 cm Flak 38 Flakvierling anti-aircraft gun. Source: H. Walther (1989) The 12th SS Panzer Division HJ
Search for an Anti-Aircraft Tank
In the early stages of the Second World War, the responsibility for covering the ground forces from enemy air attacks was solely in the hands of the Luftwaffe (English: German Air Force). This did not mean that the Panzer divisions and other ground forces were left without the means to respond to any kind of such threat. The Germans employed a series of anti-aircraft weapons, from standard machine guns provided with anti-aircraft mounts to more dedicated weapons, including the 2 cm, 3.7 cm, and the 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns. There were also other caliber weapons, such as the 5.5 cm Flak, which proved to be a failure and was never used in any significant number. These were mostly towed weapons quite well suited to slow infantry formations.
Panzer divisions were units whose greatest combat potential was combined firepower and excellent mobility. Once the enemy line was pierced, they would rush into the enemy’s rear, causing great havoc and preventing them from forming an organized retreat. Towed anti-aircraft guns did not work well in this concept, and a weapon system with better speed was more desirable. The Germans employed a series of half-tracks for this purpose. For example, in their organizational structure (dated April 1941), the anti-aircraft companies of a Panzer division consisted of four 2 cm armed Sd.Kfz.10 and two Sd.Kfz.7/1 half-tracks armed with the four-barrel version of the same gun. In addition, the same number of towed guns was also included. As the German industry never managed to fully equip the Army, these numbers differed depending on the availability of these weapons. Half-tracks armed with anti-aircraft guns proved vital in providing the panzer divisions with protection from enemy aircraft attacks, but they themselves were far from perfect. Probably their greatest problem was the lack of protection. While some would receive armored cabins, this was not enough.
A 2 cm armed Sd.Kfz 10 half-track. Colorization of an Sd.Kfz.10/4 in the Soviet Union in spring 1944. Colorization by Johannes Dorn Source: www.panzernet.net
Developing a mobile self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicle based on a tank chassis was deemed to be more effective. The first such attempt was more a field modification, adapting a Panzer I for this role. A more dedicated attempt was initiated in 1942, when Krupp was instructed to develop a lightweight chassis that would be able to be armed with a variety of weapons, ranging from 2 cm to even 5 cm anti-aircraft guns. To speed up development time, the Panzer II‘Luchs’ chassis was proposed for the project. Given the cancellation of the Panzer II Luchs, Krupp instead proposed the ‘Leopard’ chassis in early November 1942. As the Leopard suffered the same fate as the Luchs, this idea was also scrapped. Proposals to use a modified six-wheel Panzer IV chassis also lead nowhere. In any case, the already overburdened German industry had enough problems keeping up with demand. As such, adding another chassis was deemed unnecessary.
The simpler solution was to use a Panzer IV chassis for this project. Other chassis were not considered, as the older vehicles were being phased out of production, while the newer Panther was desperately needed in its original tank configuration. The Luftwaffe officials initiated this project in June 1943. Once again, Krupp was responsible for its realization. This would lead to the creation of the 2 cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV prototype. This was basically a Panzer IV with a modified superstructure with four large folding sides. As the armament was deemed insufficient, a stronger 3.7 cm anti-craft gun was to be installed instead. As this caused some delays in the start of production, as a temporary solution, the Panzer 38(t) was modified into an anti-aircraft vehicle armed with one 2 cm gun, leading to the creation of the Flakpanzer 38(t).
The 2 cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV. Source: T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 12-1 – Flakpanzerkampfwagen IV and other Flakpanzer projects development and production from 1942 to 1945.The 2 cm armed Flakpanzer 38(t) was another temporary solution intended as a stopgap until better designs were available. Being rather poorly armed by late-war standards, it proved insufficient for the job. Source: www.panzernet.net
Need for a New Design
The previously mentioned Flakpanzer projects, while resolving some issues to some extent, were far from perfect. For example, in the case of the Flakpanzer 38(t), it was simply too lightly armed. The larger Panzer IV offered a better platform for stronger armament. But the early Flakpanzer IV design had a huge disadvantage. Namely, in order to give the vehicle crew enough visibility to spot enemy aircraft at long range, they had an overly complicated platform with folding armor sides. These needed to be lowered in order for the gun to be used.
The successor of the first Flakpanzer IV was the 3.7 cm armed Möbelwagen, which was basically the same design with some changes. It would see extensive use up to the war’s end. Source: www.panzernet.net
A Flakpanzer that incorporated its armament in a fully traversable turret was seen as the solution. In early 1944, Generaloberst Guderian, Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen (English: Inspector-General for Armored Troops), gave the Inspektion der Panzertruppen 6 / In 6 (English: Armored Troops’ Inspection Office 6) direct orders to begin work on a new Flakpanzer. This order contained a series of requirements that this vehicle had to comply with. A protected and fully traversable turret was seen as important. An interesting fact to point out is that, at this point, the development of the Flakpanzer was solely the responsibility of In 6 due to Generaloberst Guderian’s personal orders.
In 6’s new Flakpanzer project was led by the Generalmajor Dipl. Ing. E. Bolbrinker. After a short analysis of the state of the German military economy, it became immediately clear that designing a completely new Flakpanzer was out of the question. The German industry was hard-pressed, mostly due to the high demands for more combat vehicles and constant Allied bombing raids, so designing and building a new vehicle would take too much time and resources, both lacking by 1944. Another solution was needed. Generalmajor Bolbrinker hoped that, by collecting a team of young tank officers, their enthusiasm and ideas would help him find a solution to this problem. This group of young tank officers was led by Oberleutnant J. von Glatter Gotz, who is mostly known for his later Kugelblitz Flakpanzer design. Little did they know that such a vehicle was already being operated by a German unit on the Western Front.
Field Modified Flakpanzer
In the hope of increasing the mobility of anti-aircraft guns, it was somewhat common for the German troops to mount these on any available chassis. Usually, simple trucks were mainly employed in this role. All kinds of captured vehicles were also used in this manner but in limited scope. Tank chassis were rarely used for this modification, mainly due to the insufficient numbers, but they did occasionally happen. For example, the obsolete Panzer I chassis was reused to mount either small-caliber machine guns to even 3.7 cm caliber anti-aircraft machine guns. The Bergepanzer 38(t) chassis was also used in this manner. Even the larger Panther was used in this role. For example, the troops from the 653rd Heavy Tank Destroyer Battalion (which operated the Ferdinand anti-tank vehicles) modified one of their Bergepanther by adding a four-barrel 2 cm anti-aircraft gun on top of it. These, of course, were unique vehicles that were mostly simple field modifications built by using salvaged damaged tanks in order to use them for other purposes, in this case as mobile anti-aircraft vehicles.
Soviet soldiers inspect an abandoned Panzer I Ausf.B with three MG 151s. Source: forum.ww2.ruA 2 cm Flak 38 armed Bergepanzer 38(t). Source: modelingmadness.com
The Karl Wilhelm Krause Filed Modified Flakpanzer IV
One such modification would be initiated by Untersturmführer Karl Wilhelm Krause, who was the commander of the Anti-Aircraft Battalion of the 12th Panzer Regiment. This anti-aircraft battalion was part of the infamous 12th SS Panzer Division ‘Hitlerjugend’. The 12th SS Panzer Division itself was relatively new, being formed in summer 1943 in Western Europe. Elements of the 1st SS Panzergrenadier Division (LSSAH) were used as its base, supplemented by veterans of the ordinary German Army, the Wehrmacht, but also some from the Luftwaffe. Interestingly, the majority of the 12th SS Panzer Division’s personnel was rather young, being 17 or 18 years old. Its combat strength just prior to the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944 consisted of some 98 Panzer IV Ausf.H and J and 66 Panthers. For anti-aircraft defense, it was provided with 12 Flakpanzer 38(t) SPAAGs and 34 2 cm Flak guns.
The majority of the 12 SS Panzer Division consisted of reliable Panzer IVs. Source: H. Walther The 12th SS Panzer Division HJ
At this point, it is important to note that the work of Karl Wilhelm Krause was rather obscure and is poorly documented in the sources. While a number of sources mention that this modification was likely made in 1944, H. Meyer (The 12th SS: The History of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division: Volume One) mentions that these vehicles were present in the unit way back to at least October 1943. In the organizational structure, the 12th Panzer Regiment’s 2nd Abteilung (English: Battalion or detachment) consisted of one platoon equipped with three modified 2 cm Flakvierling 38 armed Panzer IVs instead of its intended 2 cm Flak platoon (with 6 guns).
Karl Wilhelm Krause experimented with the idea of mounting a 2 cm Flakvierling 38 on a Panzer IV chassis. He proposed this idea to his superior, Obersturmbannfuhrer Karl-Heinz Prinz, who gave him the green light for its implementation. The whole installation was simple in nature. The turret was simply removed and a modified mount the Flak was placed on top. As previously mentioned, it is likely that no more than three such vehicles were converted.
The man behind this project was Untersturmführer Karl Wilhelm Krause. Interestingly, he was Adolf Hitler’s personal assistant from way back in 1935. At some point, he was transferred to the frontline, where he served in the 12th SS Panzer Division. Source: H. Walther The 12th SS Panzer Division HJ
During this time, in Germany, In 6 was heavily involved in the new Flakpanzer development. Due to the deteriorating German industrial situation, the simplest and cheapest solution was desperately needed. At some point, Generalmajor Bolbrinker heard of Krause’s Flakpanzer work and dispatched Leutnant Hans Christoph Count von Seherr-Thoss to France in order to inspect this vehicle. Leutnant Hans was impressed with this vehicle and wrote a report about it to In 6 on 27th April 1944. In it, he suggested that this vehicle should be used as the base for the new Flakpanzer IV project. It also claimed that the 12th Panzer Regiment’s commander, Obersturmbannführer Max-Wünsche, presented a picture of this vehicle to Adolf Hitler himself, who urged the use of this vehicle as the basis for the new Flakpanzer which was in development. There appears to be no official or unofficial name given to these vehicles.
Design
The design of the vehicle is not mentioned in any available sources. Which precise chassis version was used is unclear given the relative obscurity and poor coverage in the sources. Author H. Walther (The 12th SS Panzer Division HJ) simply mentions that three 2 cm anti-aircraft guns were mounted on older Panzer IV chassis. If this conversion was made in late 1943, using tanks that were already in the Division, this would mean that these were likely Panzer IV Ausf.Hs.
The available pictures of the vehicles offer a chance to identify the tank chassis. Given that one vehicle had the flat driver plate with the round-shaped machine gun ball mount of the new type, it could be any chassis starting from the Ausf.F onward. What is odd is to use new tanks in this manner, given that the Germans were in short supply of them. The likely scenario is that they reused older tanks, like the short barrel Ausf.F, which may have been used as a training vehicle in the division. Damaged tanks were often reused in this manner too, but given the fact that the 12th SS Panzer Division was newly created and did not see combat by this point, it is unlikely that they would have received a damaged Panzer IV tank, besides maybe for training. In any case, due to the similarities between different late Panzer IV vehicles, only some educated guesses can be made about their overall construction.
The Hull
The hull appears to have been unchanged from the original Panzer IV, which seems to have been the most logical thing to do. The most obvious place to implement changes would be on top of the superstructure, where the main armament was positioned.
The Suspension and Running Gear
This Flakpanzer IV’s suspension and running gear were the same as those of the original Panzer IV, with no changes to the overall construction. They consisted of eight small doubled road wheels on each side suspended in pairs by leaf-spring units. There were two front-drive sprockets and two rear idlers in total. The number of return rollers is not clear, as the vehicle side is partially covered with wooden branches, but appears to be standard four on each side.
The front-drive sprocket can give some hints on which version these (or at least one) vehicles were based on. This vehicle used the driver sprocket similar to that used on the Panzer Ausf.F and G versions. The later Ausf.H and J used a slightly simplified sprocket design. Of course, many later produced or repaired Panzer IV used any parts that were available, and seeing versions that incorporated parts from different versions was rare but possible.
Close-up view of the Karl Wilhelm Flakpanzer suspension unit. The front-drive sprocket suggests that this vehicle may be based on the Panzer IV Ausf.F or G. Source: H. Walther (1989) The 12th SS Panzer Division HJComparison between the front-drive sprocket of a Panzer Ausf.G (to the left) and Ausf.H (to the right). Source: www.panzernet.net
The Engine
Both the Panzer IV Ausf.G and H used the same engine, the Maybach HL 120 TR(M) 265 hp @ 2,600 rpm. The Ausf.G was a bit faster, at 42 km/h, while the heavier Ausf.H had a reduced maximum speed of 38 km/h. The operational range was 210 km on a good road and 130 km cross-country. The fuel load of 470 liters was also unchanged.
The Superstructure
The superstructure received some modifications in order to accommodate the 2 cm Flak gun. What precisely was done is unknown. In the photographs of this vehicle, it appears that the 2 cm Flak gun was slightly recessed inside the turret opening. It also could simply be a simple illusion due to perspective. In any case, the mount had to be installed inside or on top of the superstructure. As this vehicle was used as inspiration for the later Wirbelwind, the latter’s design could cast some light on how this may have been achieved. To make a stable platform for the new gun, on the Wirbelwind, the gun support was constructed from two T-shaped carriers (around 2.2 m long) that were welded to the chassis interior. An additional plate with holes for securing the gun was also added. This plate also had a large round-shaped opening for the mounting of the collector ring. This collector ring was important, as it enabled supplying the turret with electricity from the tank’s hull.
The Karl Wilhelm Flakpanzer was armed with the 2 cm Flak 38 Flakvierling anti-aircraft gun. Note that, in this photograph, it appears that the 2 cm Flak gun is slightly moved inside the turret opening. The reason why this vehicle is lacking a gun shield is unclear. In addition, also note that its crew likely consisted of six, the commander, a gunner, two loaders, a radio operator, and the driver. Source: H. Walther (1989) The 12th SS Panzer Division HJ
The Armor Protection
The armor protection of the hull and the superstructure ranged from a maximum of 80 mm to 8 mm. The difference was that the Ausf.G used 50 mm of frontal armor with added (welded or bolted) 30 mm of armor. Most built Ausf.H tanks received the single 80 mm thick frontal armor plates.
With the two surviving pictures of these vehicles, it can be seen that one vehicle did not even have the gun’s armored plate, that was normally used with this weapon. The second vehicle received a rather simple three-sided armor, the thickness of which is unknown, but likely only a few millimeters thick to stop small-caliber bullets or shrapnel. The rear and top are completely open.
This is the second Karl Wilhelm Flakpanzer. It has a simple three-sided gun shield. The soldier next to it appears to be an American soldier, which suggests that at least one vehicle was captured intact. Source: Unknown
The Armament
This vehicle was armed with the 2 cm Flakvierling 38 anti-aircraft gun. A well-known anti-aircraft gun of the Second World War, it was designed by Mauser-Werke to replace the older 2 cm Flak 30 and was introduced in May 1940. Its effective firing range was between 2 to 2.2 km, while the maximum horizontal range was 5,782 m. The maximum rate of fire was 1,680 to 1,920 rpm, but 700-800 rpm was a more appropriate operational rate of fire. The elevation was –10° to +100°.
While the 2 cm Flakvierling 38 was fed by 20-round magazines, it is unknown how much ammunition was carried inside the vehicle. The gun itself had a special ammunition box in its base on both sides, where up to 8 magazines could be stored and which were in easy reach by the two loaders. This meant that at least 320 rounds could be carried around the gun. Given that the internal 7.5 cm ammunition racks were empty, as the original main gun was removed, additional space could have be used to store more magazines inside the vehicle’s hull.
The 2 cm Flakvierling 38. Source: Wiki
For self-defense, the crew had at their disposal one MG 34 with 600 rounds of ammunition and their personal weapons, with some 3,150 rounds of ammunition, which was standard for all Panzer IVs at this point.
The Crew
In order to effectively operate this vehicle’s main gun, the gun crew had to consist of a minimum of three members. These included the gunner, positioned in the center, and two loaders placed on either side of the gun. These crew members were placed on top of the superstructure. Inside the vehicle, the driver and the radio operator (also the hull machine gun operator) were unchanged. According to the surviving photographs, a commander was also present, probably acting as an additional spotter for potential targets and directing the whole operation. It is also likely that he too was positioned on the top of the superstructure.
In Combat
Not much is known about the precise use of these vehicles by the 12th SS Panzer Division. One of the first mentions of the combat actions of these Flakpanzer IVs regards 14th June near Caen. On that morning, a high-ranking officer, Sturmbannführer Hubert Meyer, along with his driver, Rottenführer Helmut Schmieding, went to examine the 26th Panzer Regiment’s positions near le Haut du Bosq. On their way back, they were spotted by an Allied ground attack aircraft, which proceeded to attack them. While they managed to find cover, the enemy aircraft was engaged by the field-modified Flalpanzer IV. The enemy aircraft was quickly brought down by the extensive anti-aircraft fire.
By 9th July, the 12th SS Panzer Division was fighting a losing battle for Caen. It was one of the last German units to abandon Caen’s defense. By this point, its fighting strength was greatly reduced, consisting of only 25 Panthers, 19 Panzer IVs, and a few remaining Flakpanzers. If the three modified Panzer IVs survived up to this point is unknown, but unlikely.
During the actions in France in 1944, these Flakpanzers were noted to be quite an effective weapon system. They were credited with shooting down at least 27 enemy aircraft. One of the gunners of these vehicles, Sturmmann Richard Schwarzwälder, later wrote: “… On 14 June 1944, when you were being chased by a fighter-bomber, I already had downed seven aircraft and been awarded the Iron T Cross II. I had a total of fourteen kills … At the start of the invasion, it was still easy to shoot them down, the guys were flying low and were inexperienced. However, this was to change soon. .. “.
An interesting fact to point out is that the Division’s Flakpanzer 38(t) SPAAGs also achieved some success. One vehicle was credited with bringing down at least 5 enemy aircraft. Source: H. Walther The 12th SS Panzer Division HJ
The fate of the three modified Flakpanzer IV is unknown. Given that the Germans suffered great losses in the West during 1944, it is suggested that these were likely lost at some point in the campaign. At least one vehicle appears to have been captured intact after possibly being abandoned by the Germans (either broken down or running out of fuel, which was a common thing for the Germans at this point of the war). Its fate is unknown but it was likely scrapped at some point by the Allies.
What was left of the Division would be pulled back to Germany to be rearmed and for recuperation. In October 1944, in order to replace its lost Flakpanzers, it received four 2cm Flakvierling 38 armed and four 3.7 cm armed Flakpanzer IVs. In the case of the 2 cm armed Flakpanzer, this was the new Wirbelwind, which by this point entered service in limited numbers. Ironically, the unit was armed with the vehicle they helped develop.
Legacy of Karl Wilhelm Krause Flakpanzers
Karl Wilhelm Krause’s Flakpanzer design, despite being a simple improvisation, greatly influenced further Flakpanzer IV development. Based on his work, an improved Flakpanzer IV that was equipped with a fully rotating open-top turret armed with four 2 cm Flakvierling 38 would be developed. This was the Flakpanzer IV ‘Wirbelwind’ (English: Whirlwind), of which over 100 were built (the precise number is unknown). They proved to be highly effective and served up to the end of the war.
While deemed a generally successful design, the Wirbelwind was built simply too late to have any effect on the outcome of the war. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/gallery/wirbelwind
Conclusion
Karl Wilhelm’s Flakpanzer IV, while just a simple field modification, proved to be an excellent anti-aircraft vehicle given how many enemy aircraft it is claimed it shot down. His design was not without flaws. These vehicles were poorly protected, as the crew (at least on one vehicle) did not even have a gun shield, making them completely exposed to any kind of enemy return fire. Given the limited information available on them, a more detailed analysis of the whole design is impossible. Regardless, given the fact that it served as a base for the later Wirbelwind, it seems that the whole design had merits that the Germans recognized.
Karl Wilhelm Krause Field Modified Flakpanzer IV Illustration made by GodzillaA second vehicle equipped with an improvised armored shield Illustration made by Godzilla
Karl Wilhelm Flakpanzer IV Technical (estimated) specification
Dimensions (l-w-h)
5.92 x 2.88, x 2.7 m,
Total weight, battle-ready
22 tonnes
Crew
6 (Commander, Gunner, Two Loaders, Radio Operator, and Driver)
Type 5 Ho-To. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.
Empire of Japan (1945)
Self-Propelled Gun – 1 Prototype Built
During the Second World War, the Japanese tank industry was mainly focused on developing light tank designs. These were cheap, robust, and had a very simple construction. On the other hand, their armor and armament were rather weak. These could do very little even against Allied light tanks. In order to somewhat resolve this issue, the Japanese would introduce, albeit in small numbers, a series of modified vehicles equipped with weapons of various calibers. While some of these would actually even see combat, others remained only at the prototype stage. This was the case with the unusual Type 95 modification named Type 5 Ho-To.
The only known photograph of the unusual Type 5 Ho-To self-propelled artillery. Source: R. C. Potter Ordnance Technical Intelligence Report No 10
History
The Japanese tank designs developed prior to and during the Second World War had a rather simple construction, being lightly armored and armed. Given the terrain that these vehicles were intended to operate in, ranging from the vast mountainous terrain of Asia to the countless islands of the Pacific, these proved perfect for the task in the first years of the war. While the defending Allies may have had superior designs, the Japanese used their small weight and mobility to outpace the enemy, often surprising them.
The most produced and probably most successful light tank in the Japanese during the early offensive actions was the Type 95 Ha-Go. With some 2,269 being built (the production numbers differ significantly depending on the source), Type 95 was a relatively common Japanese tank that saw most of its service in the Pacific and Southeast Asia. Initially, it was quite successful against the enemy, but as the Allies began introducing new modern equipment, such as the M3 Light Tanks and later M4 Shermans, the Type 95 became obsolete. With its light armament of a 37 mm gun and armor of up to 12 mm, it could do little against the enemy armor and most ended their service life in futile kamikaze attacks or as static bunkers.
The Type 95 Ha-Go light tank. Source: oruzhie.info
The Type 5 Ho-To
The Type 95 and later Type 97 medium tanks’ weakest point was their armament. The short 37 mm and 57 mm and even the dedicated 47 anti-tank guns simply lacked the firepower to seriously threaten the significantly better armored Allied tanks. The Japanese responded by developing small quantities of modified Type 97s, arming them with 75 mm, 105 mm, and even 150 mm guns, mostly mounted in a partly open fighting compartment. Such vehicles were actually used in combat in small numbers and, while not perfect, they proved to be of good use when nothing more suitable was available. These were somewhat similar in appearance to the GermanMarderseries of vehicles.
The Type 4 Ho-Ro self-propelled artillery armed with a 15 cm howitzer was built in small numbers by the Japanese and saw limited combat service. Source: www.mmowg.net
By 1944 and 1945, Japan was hard-pressed on all fronts. Its industry barely kept up with the war demands. Production of armored vehicles was particularly critically affected. While some attempts were made to increase the tank firepower by introducing the Type 3 Chi-Nu medium tank, the production could simply not keep up with its demands for it.
Map of Allied advances against the Japanese-occupied territories from 1943 to 1945. Source: Wiki
Another solution was to simply reuse the available tanks by rearming them with more potent guns. In the last year of the war, the Japanese tried to create a self-propelled version using the Type 95 chassis. This was probably done to reuse the already existing light tank chassis and to keep costs as minimal as possible. They created two rather obscure vehicles, of which very little is known about even to this day. One was the Type 5 Ho-Ru anti-tank version. The second vehicle was a self-propelled version armed with an obsolete 120 mm howitzer designated as Type 5 Ho-Ro. The purpose of the later vehicle is not clear, but it was probably intended to act as a mobile fire support platform. As the 12 cm howitzer also used shape charge rounds, it may also have been intended as an anti-tank vehicle. In appearance, this vehicle shared some resemblance to the previously mentioned Type 4 Ho-Ro self-propelled artillery vehicle.
A very detailed illustration of the Type 5 Ho-To vehicle. Note that, while this illustration has a side vision port, the only known photograph does not have them. It also lacks the elevation mechanism that slightly protruded out of the front armored shield. Source: The Imperial Japanese Tanks, Gun Tanks Self-Propelled Guns
The Type 5 Ho-To’s Design
The precise and even general specifications for this vehicle are almost unknown. Given that it was based on a rather well-documented chassis and with the surviving photograph, some educated guesses can be made.
Hull
The Type 5 Ho-To self-propelled gun would have had more or less a standard hull configuration for most World War Two vehicles. It would have consisted of a fully protected front-mounted transmission, an open-top crew compartment with the main gun in the center, and an engine in the rear, which was likely separated from the crew space by a firewall. The upper glacis retained its two rectangular transmission hatches. The whole vehicle was constructed using mostly riveted armor with slight welding.
Engine
No information is available regarding if the engine was changed or modified in any way. It is highly likely that, in sheer desperation and due to a general lack of resources, the engine was left unchanged. The Type 95 was powered by a 120 hp Mitsubishi 6-cylinder diesel engine. With a weight of 7.4 tonnes, the light tank could reach a top speed of 40 to 45 km/h. While most parts of the upper superstructure and turret were removed, adding the gun with its ammunition would likely have led to the same or even slightly increased weight. Due to the lack of information in the sources, it is difficult to predict its speed or its operational range.
The engine was installed in the rear of the vehicle, slightly off to the right. Its exhaust protruded from the engine bay’s right, bent at a right angle, and was then fixed to the right rear fender. The transmission was located at the front of the vehicle, along with the drive wheels. This meant that a prop shaft extended through the crew compartment, protected by a simple hood.
Suspension and Running Gear
The Type 5 Ho-To utilized an unchanged Type 95 suspension. It was a bell-crank suspension, which consisted of bogies mounted on arms that were connected to a long helical compression spring placed horizontally on the sides of the hull. The spring was protected by a long segment of piping, riveted to the hull side. The bogies pushed against each other via this spring when passing over terrain, allowing them to actuate. It had four road wheels, with two large wheels per bogie. There were advantages to the bell crank system. There were two return rollers, one above each bogie, and an idler wheel at the rear.
The Type 95 and most other modern Japanese tanks employed a simple bell-crank suspension. While not perfect, it was easy to produce and maintain. Source: oruzhie.info
Superstructure
The original Type 95 superstructure, along with the turret, was removed and replaced with a new open-top superstructure of a quite simple design. The new superstructure consisted of simple angled plates which appear to have been welded to each other. There are a few bolts noticeable on the front plate which also indicate that it was connected to some form of a frame behind it. The front plate had a large opening in the middle for the gun. It appears that, due to limited space inside the vehicle, part of the main gun elevation cradle protruded out of this protective shield. There was also an observation hatch for the driver located in the right bottom corner. Lastly, on the top left, is what appears to be a small opening, possibly used for the gun sight.
The front sides were protected by two trapezoidal-shaped plates. Behind them were the partially protected sides. It is likely that this was done to reduce weight but also help with loading additional spare rounds. No top nor rear armor was provided for the crew. This left them quite exposed to enemy return fire and shrapnel.
Front view of a miniature model of a Type 5 Ho-To. Source: live.warthunder.comSurprisingly, the side armor plate was almost cut off in half. This would leave the crew dangerously exposed to enemy fire from the sides. Also, note the large ammunition box located on top of the engine compartment. Source: ive.warthunder.comIn comparison, the Type 4 Ho-Ro, while a similar design, had fully raised side armor. It too was provided with an ammunition box placed above the engine compartment. Even though a somewhat larger vehicle, it too suffered from a rather cramped crew compartment despite being open to the rear. Source: www.mmowg.net
Armor Protection
The original Type 95 was only lightly protected, with the armor thickness ranging from 6 to 12 mm. On the lower hull, the upper glacis armor plate thickness was 9 mm at a 72° angle, the lower front was 12 mm placed at an 18° angle, and the sides were 12 mm. The armor of the new superstructure was only 8 mm thick, which would offer only limited protection from small arms fire.
Armament
The main armament of this vehicle consisted of one 12 cm Type 38 field howitzer. This weapon dated back to World War One and was developed based on the German Krupp L/12 howitzer. Like many artillery pieces of that period, it was provided with a screw breech lock and used a hydro spring recoil with a recuperator, which had tapered grooves.
The 12 cm howitzer used two-piece ammunition, with the cartridge and the powder propellant being separated. It could fire high-explosive, armor-piercing high-explosive, and smoke ammunition. While it would be relegated to second-line duties due to its obsolescence, the Japanese developed shape-charged ammunition for it that could penetrate some 140 mm of armor.
Given its age, it is not surprising that its overall performance was outdated by 1940s’ standards. The muzzle velocity was only 290 m/s, which gave it a maximum firing range of a meager 5,670 m. It had an elevation of -5 to +43 and a traverse of only 2°. Its total weight was 1,260 kg.
12 cm Type 38 field howitzer side view. Source: L. Ness Rikugun Guide To Japanese Ground Forces 1937-1945
There is no information about the ammunition load. Given the generally small size of the vehicle combined with two-part ammunition, this would be quite limited, down to possibly only a few rounds. The spare ammunition was stored in a box placed above the engine compartment.
Crew
Even the crew number is unknown. Given the fact that the Type 95’s interior only had room for two crew members (plus the commander in the turret), it is highly likely that this would also have been applied to this vehicle. This meant that there was only room for the driver and the commander. This would have meant that the commander would have had the additional task of operating the gun. The driver, positioned on the left side of the vehicle, would have to act as a loader. This would greatly affect this vehicle’s overall performance. For example, prior to the engagement, the driver would have to exit his position and go back to the rear to take ammunition from the ammunition box, leaving the vehicle completely immobile and easy prey.
An alternative would be that other crew members, such as a dedicated loader, could have traveled with a separate vehicle also carrying extra ammunition.
The Type 95’s small size is obvious here, where two Soviet soldiers examine a captured vehicle. Source: oruzhie.info
The fate of the Type 5 Ho-To
Almost nothing is known about this vehicle in secondary sources. What is known is that at least one vehicle was built and probably tested. How it performed, unfortunately, is unknown. It was either a failure as a design or its further development and possible production were stopped by the end of the war. The final fate of this vehicle is not known, but it was likely scrapped at some point.
Conclusion
The Type 5 Ho-To, at first glance, may have been seen as a cheap modification that could have been done rather easily from available resources, such as the Type 95 chassis and 12 cm howitzer. In reality, the whole Type 5 Ho-To concept was flawed in many ways. It would have been quite cramped with limited available space inside it. Its main armament would likely have a limited traverse and elevation firing arc. This would have greatly limited its effectiveness in combat but also forced it to constantly change position, possibly causing significant stress on the whole chassis assembly. If the light chassis could effectively sustain the 12 cm gun’s firing recoil without any damage is unknown.
Type 5 Ho-To. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.
Empire of Japan (1945)
Self-propelled Anti-tank Gun – Possibly 1 Prototype Built
During the Second World War, the Japanese tank industry was mainly focused on developing light tank designs. These were cheap, robust, and had a very simple construction. While they performed well in the first years of the war, the Japanese failed to properly respond to the increase of armor protection of the tanks of their enemies. The Japanese would introduce the much improved 47 mm anti-tank gun, which offered a better chance of knocking out enemy armor. It was this weapon that was used to arm an obscure and generally unknown project which was initiated in early 1945, the Type 5 Ho-Ru anti-tank vehicle, which was based on the Type 95 Ha-Go chassis.
A visual illustration of how the Type 5 Ho-Ru may have looked like. Source: ww2f.com-3
History
The Japanese tank designs developed prior to and during the Second World War had a rather simple construction, being lightly armored and armed. Given the terrain that these vehicles were intended to operate in, ranging from the vast mountainous terrain of Asia to the countless islands of the Pacific, these proved perfect for the task in the first years of the war. While the defending Allies may have had superior designs, the Japanese used their small weight and mobility to outpace the enemy, often surprising them, as demonstrated by the fall of Singapore.
Map of the Japanese expansion by 1942. Some of these offensive operations also included the use of parachute units, albeit to a limited extent. Source: Pinterest
The most produced and probably most successful light tank in the Japanese Army during the early offensive actions was the Type 95 Ha-Go. With some 2,269 being built (the production numbers differ significantly depending on the source), Type 95 was a relatively common Japanese tank that saw most of its service in the Pacific and Southeast Asia. Initially, it was pretty successful against the enemy, but as the Allies began introducing new modern equipment, such as the M3 Light Tanks and later M4 Shermans, the Type 95 became obsolete. With its light armament of a 37 mm gun and armor of up to 12 mm, it could do little against the enemy armor and most ended their service life in futile kamikaze attacks or as static bunkers.
The Type 95 Ha-Go light tank. Source: oruzhie.info
The Type 5 Ho-Ru
The Type 95 and later improved Type 97 medium tanks’ weakest point was their armament. The short 37 mm and 57 mm simply lacked the firepower to seriously threaten the significantly better armored Allied tanks. This became quite apparent after the border conflicts with the Soviet Union, especially at the battle at Khalkhin Gol in 1939. Based on this experience, the Japanese initiated a new program to improve their anti-tank guns. This would lead to the creation of the 47 mm Type 1 anti-tank gun, which entered service in 1942. One of the first tanks to be armed with this gun was the Type 97 Chi-Ha, which replaced its older 57 mm guns in a new turret. While not perfect, the 47 mm Type 1 would become the most used (but still in relatively small numbers) Japanese anti-tank gun during the war.
The Type 97 Chi-Ha tank received a new turret armed with a 47 mm gun. While its anti-tank performance was increased, it was still barely enough to deal with the Allied tanks. Source: ww2f.com
The shortcomings of the 47 mm caliber rounds quickly became apparent to the Japanese, who initiated the development of a series of vehicles armed with 75 and 100 mm guns. These were based on modified Type 97 chassis by adding a new open fighting compartment. While primarily designed as mobile artillery, these vehicles could be still used in anti-tank combat. Given that they were not fully protected, they were quite vulnerable to enemy return fire. The Japanese response to this was a fully protected 75 mm armed Type 3 Gun Tank Ho-Ni III. Only slightly more than 30 such vehicles were ever built and used for protecting the main Japanese islands.
By 1944 and 1945, Japan was hard-pressed on all fronts. Its industry barely kept up with the war demands. Production of armored vehicles was particularly critically affected. While most of the previously mentioned vehicles saw some combat action, their actual production numbers were limited. As new vehicles could not be produced, another solution was to simply reuse the chassis of any available tanks, rearming them with more potent guns. This was rather successfully done by the Germans during the war. In early 1945, the Japanese army began experimenting with this idea. As there was probably plenty of Type 95 Ha-Go chassis available, the Japanese attempted to create a simple and cheap anti-tank vehicle. The Type 95’s superstructure and turret were removed and, in their place, a new simplified superstructure armed with the 47 mm anti-tank gun was placed, creating the Type 5 Ho-Ru anti-tank vehicle. Precisely who initiated this project and who actually built the prototype is currently unknown.
The Type 5 Ho-Ru’s Design
It is important to note here that the Type 5 Ho-Ru is a barely documented vehicle with little to no information about its history. It is so obscure that, today, not a single surviving photograph exists besides rather poor-quality drawings. Given that it was based on a rather well-documented chassis, some educated guesses can be made.
Probably the only rather poor drawing of this vehicle that is known to exist. How precise it is, sadly, can not be known at this point. It does give some insight into the design. Source: Wikipedia
Hull
The Type 5 Ho-Ru anti-tank vehicle would have had a more or less standard hull configuration for most World War Two vehicles. It would have consisted of a fully protected front-mounted transmission, an open-top crew compartment with the main gun in the center, and an engine in the rear, which was likely separated from the crew space by a firewall. The upper glacis retained its two rectangular transmission hatches. The whole vehicle was constructed using mostly riveted armor with slight welding.
Engine
No information is available regarding if the engine was changed or modified in any way. It is highly likely that, in sheer desperation and due to a general lack of resources, the engine was left unchanged. Type 95 was powered by a 120 hp Mitsubishi 6-cylinder diesel engine. With a weight of 7.4 tonnes, the light tank could reach a top speed of 40 to 45 km/h. While most parts of the upper superstructure and turret were removed, adding the gun with its ammunition would likely have led to the same or even slightly increased weight. Due to the lack of information in the sources, it is difficult to predict its speed or its operational range.
Suspension and Running Gear
The Type 5 Ho-Ru utilized an unchanged Type 95 suspension. It was a bell-crank suspension, which consisted of bogies mounted on arms that were connected to a long helical compression spring placed horizontally on the sides of the hull. The spring was protected by a long segment of piping riveted to the hull side. The bogies pushed against each other via this spring when passing over terrain, allowing them to actuate. It had four doubled road wheels, with two large wheels per bogie. There were two return rollers, one above each bogie, and an idler wheel at the rear.
The Type 95 and most other modern Japanese tanks employed a simple bell-crank suspension. While not perfect, it was easy to produce and maintain. Source: oruzhie.infoA side drawing of the Type 5 Ho-Ru, where the original Type 95 suspension can clearly be seen. Also note that it would have been a quite small vehicle that could be easily concealed and camouflaged, perfect for ambush tactics. But its small size would also have greatly hindered the crew’s handling of the main armament and the vehicle itself. Source: I. Moszczanski Type 95 Ha-Go
Superstructure
The original Type 95 superstructure, along with the turret, was removed and replaced with a new partially open-top superstructure of quite a simple design. The new superstructure consisted of simple angled plates which appear to have been welded to each other. The front plate had a large opening for the gun located slightly offset to the left. To the lower right, a driver visor port was located.
A model of the Type 5 Ho-Ru showing the front superstructure armor plate. Note the gun placed on the left side, with the small driver visor port next to it. Source: live.warthunder.com
The side armor plates appear to be slightly angled. These were made using single five-sided plates with a sharp angle at the top. While the original drawing has no small vision slits cut into the side armor plate, some more modern illustrations and models appear to have them. These were generally easy to make, so it is possible that the Type 5 Ho-Ru would have had them. They would have provided the crew with a limited side view without the need to expose themselves out of the vehicle.
While the front part of the top armor was enclosed, if this was the case with the rear part is difficult to know. If it was indeed enclosed, then there would have been at least one or two hatches for the crew to enter or exit the vehicle. It is also possible that it was open-topped. This somewhat makes sense, as the Type 5 Ho-Ru was rather a small vehicle and this would have given the crew more room to operate the gun. In addition, it would have provided necessary ventilation for the exhaust gasses created after firing the gun. Lastly, it would have also reduced the number of materials needed to build this vehicle to some extent. There were no other side nor top hatches for the crew to exit the vehicle.
Rear view of Type 5 Ho-Ru top superstructure. In this model, the rear top part was left open. If this was the case for the real vehicle is sadly hard to tell. Source: live.warthunder.com
The Type 5 Ho-Ru, to some extent, highly resembled the Italian Semovente L40 da 47/32 anti-tank vehicle. The overall configuration, including the position of the same caliber gun , and the whole superstructure are somewhat similar. Also, the Italian vehicle was developed in response to the desperate need for better-armed vehicles. Of course, the two vehicles are completely unrelated and it is highly likely a case of convergent evolution that they share some similarities. Despite that, the Semovente offers us a glimpse of how the Type 5 Ho-Ru’s construction may have looked.
While obviously different in design, the Semovente L40 da 47/32 shared some similarities with the Type 5 Ho-Ru Source: Semovente L40 Comando Plotone vehicle on the first series hull. Source: FIAT ArchivesThe Semovente L40 da 47/32 rear view. Source: Pinterest
Armament
The main armament of this vehicle consisted of a 47 mm Type 1 anti-tank gun. It was a modern anti-tank gun and was quite superior to the older Japanese 37 mm anti-tank guns in terms of armor penetration. Other improvements over the old guns included adding a larger gun shield, and using rubber wheels which enabled it to be towed using trucks. This gun was introduced to service in 1942.
The 47 mm Type 1 could fire high-explosive and armor-piercing high-explosive ammunition. When using the armor-piercing rounds, the 47 mm gun could penetrate some 52 mm of armor angled at 0° at a distance of 1 km. The muzzle velocity of this round was 827 m/s. The towed version had an elevation of -10° to +18° and a traverse of 58°. Its total weight was 805 kg. While it could engage older Allied tanks, by the time this weapon became available in sufficient numbers, the Allies had introduced better-armored designs, such as the M4 tanks. The 47 mm Type 1 anti-tank gun could destroy an M4 from the sides at closer ranges but, frontally, could do little against it.
The Type 1 47 mm anti-tank gun was modified to fit into tanks and armed the Type 97 Shinhoto Chi-Ha, Type 1 Chi-He, Type 3 Ka-Chi, and Type 5 Ke-Ho tanks. There is no information about the ammunition load on the Type 5 Ho-Ru, but given the small size, it would probably have been limited.
The towed version of the 47 mm Type 1 gun. Source: www.armedconflicts.comFor installation inside tanks, the 47 mm guns had to be slightly modified. Source: A. M. Tomczyk Japanese Armor vol.10
The Semovente 47/32 was armed with the same caliber gun. The gun was mounted on the left side of the hull, in support that allowed a horizontal traverse for 27° and a vertical traverse from -12° to +20°. Despite being a small vehicle its ammunition load consisted of 70 rounds. This may give some indication of the Type 5 Ho-Ru it is almost impossible to know precisely.
The Cannone da 47/32 Mod. 1935 on the L40 mount. The bag for the ejected cartridges and the round in the breech can be seen. Source: Ansaldo Archives
Armor Protection
The original Type 95 was only lightly protected, with the armor thickness ranging from 6 to 12 mm. On the lower hull, the upper glacis armor plate thickness was 9 mm at a 72° angle, the lower front was 12 mm placed at an 18° angle, and the sides were 12 mm. The armor thickness of the Type 5 Ho-Ru new superstructure is unknown. Given that its Type 5 Ho-To cousin, which was developed approximately at the same time, was protected by an 8 mm of armor, it is possible that at least the side armor plate of the Type 5 Ho-Ru would have been the same thickness. Of course, this is just an educated estimation without any actual information to confirm this.
Crew
Even the number of crew numbers is unknown. Given the fact that the Type 95’s interior only had room for two crew members (plus the commander in the turret), it is highly likely that this would also have been applied to this vehicle. This meant that there was only room for the driver and the commander. If this was the case, then the commander would have had the additional task of operating the gun. The driver was positioned on the left side of the vehicle. The driver probably also acted as a loader. As such, the commander/gun operator would have been completely overworked, reducing the performance and effectiveness.
The Type 95’s small size is obvious here, where two Soviet soldiers examine a captured vehicle. Source: oruzhie.info
Here, once again, the Italian Semovente L40 da 47/32 may give a hint on the number of crew members. The dimensions of this vehicle were a length of 3.82 m and a width of 1.92 m. In this small space, the Italians managed to squeeze in three crew members, with the commander/gunner being positioned behind the gun. The loader was just right of him and the driver was in front of the loader.
The Japanese vehicle was slightly larger, with a length of 4.38 m and a width of 2.07 m. In theory, this meant that they too could have used a three-man crew. It is important to note that the Japanese developed this vehicle in early 1945, when shortages of material and men were obvious. It is thus quite possible that they had decided to use two crew members out of a lack of manpower. Once again due to lack of any source, this can not be known for sure.
The Semovente L40 da 47/32 interior with its crew. Despite being a rather small vehicle, it was operated by three crew members. This was far from perfect but, given its limited overall size, unavoidable. In contrast to the Type 5 Ho-Ru, the Italian vehicle was completely open-topped. Source: Pinterest
The Fate of the Type 5 Ho-Ru
This is one of several generally poorly documented Japanese vehicles. The Type 5 Ho-Ru prototype may have been completed by April 1945 and tested during the summer. How accurate this information is, is difficult to know, but highly possible.
What happened after that or the overall performance of this vehicle is sadly unknown. There are two versions of its final fate. One is that the Japanese tested it, but the project went nowhere, either due to a lack of resources to build more or due to some design issues. After this, the Japanese may have scrapped it. The prototype or plans being lost to one of many Allied bombing raids should also not be excluded as a hypothesis.
Alternatively, the prototype was left for the defense of the Japanese ‘home islands’ and then was captured by the Allies. Given the lack of mentions of the Type 5 Ho-Ru in the sources and no surviving pictures, the previous version may seem to be closer to the truth. Once again, due to a general lack of information, it cannot be known for sure.
Conclusion
Given its obscurity, as not even a single picture of it is known to exist, not much can be said about the Type 5 Ho-Ru. On paper, this vehicle offered many advantages. It was cheap, small in size, having a relatively effective gun when engaging enemy tanks from sides, reusing already existing vehicles, and weapons, etc. On the other hand, its small size would lead to a quite cramped interior and the gun itself by this time struggled against Allied armor. It is also unknown if there were any other issues with the design. In the end, due to a lack of proper sources, a precise conclusion could not be made that truly reflects its overall performance.
Type 5 Ho-Ru specifications
Dimensions
Length 4.38 m, Width 2.07 m
Armament
47 mm Type 1 gun
Crew
2 to 3 (Commander and driver possibly even a gunner)
L6 in Yugoslav Partisan Service. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.
Yugoslav Partisans (1943)
Light Reconnaissance Tank – Unknown Number Operated
Italy’s capitulation in 1943 left a huge political and military vacuum in Yugoslavia. More importantly, plenty of military equipment and weapons were left for the taking. For the Yugoslav Communist Partisans, this was a great opportunity to come into possession of various equipment and weapons which they desperately needed. Thanks to this, they would manage to acquire a number of varied vehicles, including Italian L6/40 light tanks.
An L6/40 from the 1st Proletarian Division near Livna in October 1943. Source: B. B. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu 1941-1945
The Carro Armato L6/40
After the Ethiopian War (1935-36), the Italian Regio Esercito (English: Royal Army) understood that the Carri Veloci or CV (English: Fast Tanks) were now obsolete. The Fabbrica Italiana Automobili di Torino or FIAT (English: Italian Automobile Company of Turin) and Ansaldo already started the development of new tanks on the CV tank series chassis, such as the Carro d’Assalto Modello 1936 (English: Assault Tank Model 1936) presented in November 1935. The results were mixed. The prototype was equipped with a new torsion bar suspension that performed excellently, but the rest of the vehicle was not satisfactory.
In April 1936, the same two companies presented the Carro Cannone Modello 1936 (English: Cannon Tank Model 1936), a totally different modification of the CV33. Still, this vehicle was abandoned even after some drastic changes. The development of the Carro Armato L6/40 started in December 1937. The project was financed by the private funds of Ansaldo and FIAT.
On 26th October 1939, the Carro Armato M6T was presented to the Regio Esercito’s High Command. It had a new hull with torsion bar suspension and a single-man turret armed with two 8 mm medium machine guns. The vehicle was quickly rejected by the High Command because the Spanish Civil War, in which Italian light tanks were involved, showed the Italians that modern armored vehicles needed light cannons to fight against enemy armored vehicles. Also for this reason, General Cosma Manera ordered the adoption of a new turret armed with a 20 mm automatic cannon capable of engaging both flying and armored targets. A new prototype was presented with a one-man turret armed with a 20 mm automatic cannon, which, contrary to the specifications, could not elevate enough to engage flying targets.
Italian L6/40 light tank. While vastly improved in contrast to the earlier CV.33 and 35 series it was by the time of introduction already outdated, Source: www.worldwarphotos
After some tests carried out until early 1940, the light tank was officially adopted in April 1940 with the name Carro Armato L6/40, short for Carro Armato Leggero da 6 tonnellate Modello 1940 (English: 6 tonnes Light Tank Model 1940). Over 400 were produced and deployed in all theaters of war, such as the Balkans, southern France, North Africa, the Soviet Union, and the Italian peninsula, with questionable results.
The L6/40 was developed on the base of the CV33 and CV35, now renamed Carri Armati L3/33 and L3/35, and was meant to fight in narrow and soft mountain roads. The majority of the time, it was used as a reconnaissance tank in open fields like the North African deserts, not its intended role.
The only task that the L6/40 was able to perform with good results was anti-partisan operations. Until 1943, this meant fighting against the Yugoslav Partisans and, after 1943, also against Italian Partisans that hid in the mountains to avoid Nazi-Fascist capture.
Axis invasion of the Balkans
After Italy’s unsuccessful invasion of Greece, Benito Mussolini was forced to ask his German ally for help. Adolf Hitler agreed to provide assistance, fearing that a possible Allied attack through the Balkans would reach Romania and its vital oil fields. In the path of the German advance towards Greece stood Yugoslavia, whose government initially agreed to join the Axis side. This agreement was short-lived, as the Yugoslav government was overthrown by an anti-Axis pro-Allied military coup at the end of March 1941. Hitler immediately gave an order for the preparation of the invasion of Yugoslavia. The war that began on 6th April 1941, sometimes called April War, was a short one and ended with a Yugoslav defeat and the division of its territory between the Axis powers.
Map of the partition of Yugoslavia after the invasion. Slovenia was divided between Germany, Italy, and Hungary. The Croatian puppet state was given most of western Yugoslavia, including Bosnia. Macedonia was divided between Italy, which also took Montenegro, and Bulgaria. Northern Serbia was occupied by Hungary. What was left of Serbia was placed under German occupation. Source: Wiki
L6 tanks In Yugoslavia
Following the partition of Yugoslav territories, a general uprising led by two resistance movements caused huge chaos in the ranks of the occupiers. In order to respond to this new development, the Italians began increasing the number of armored vehicles operating in Yugoslavia. While these were mostly obsolete and improvised vehicles, some were new designs, including the L6/40.
The precise date when the Italians introduced the L6 in Yugoslavia is not quite clear. The 1° Gruppo Carri L ‘San Giusto’ (English: 1st Light Tank Group), which operated in Yugoslavia from 1941 with 61 L3s split between 4 squadrons, may have received its first L6/40 tanks in 1942 together with some AB41 medium armored cars. In reality, these probably arrived sometime in early 1943. The first evidence of their use in Yugoslavia is May 1943 according to Partisan reports. In them, they referred to the Italian tank as “Large tanks”. The term “Small tanks”, which they also used at this point, likely referred to the smaller L3 tanks. Given the general Partisan lack of knowledge about the precise names of enemy armor, these and other names should not come as a surprise.
An L6/40 during a stop to rest in Croatia. Note the license plate, which seems to be ‘Regio Esercito 5163’, and the Mickey Mouse face painted on the superstructure. Source: facebook.com
Another Italian unit that operated the L6 in Yugoslavia was the IV Gruppo Corazzato ‘Cavalleggeri di Monferrato’ (English: 4th Armored Group). This unit had 30 L6/40 tanks and was deployed in Albania, with headquarters in Berat.
In occupied Slovenia, during August and September 1943, the XIII Gruppo Squadroni Semoventi ‘Cavalleggeri di Alessandria’ had some L6 tanks. While the L6/40 was used in Yugoslavia by all warring parties, it was less common than its anti-tank Semoventi version which shared the same chassis.
In Communist Partisan Hands
Following the Italian capitulation in September 1943, the German Wehrmacht launched Fall Achse (English: Operation Axis) in the hope of capturing as many Italian weapons and territories as possible. During this operation, over 20,000 Italian soldiers were killed and over a million were disarmed and captured. The Germans also captured 977 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs), of which about 200 were AB41 armored cars. They were not the only ones to do so. After the collapse of the Italian armed forces in Yugoslavia, despite German attempts to prevent Italian weapons and vehicles from falling into the Partisan’s hands, many in fact did. In part thanks to their quick response, the Partisans managed to acquire a number of Italian armored vehicles.
After the collapse of Italian forces defending the town of Split, the Partisans captured a fairly large number of armored vehicles. These included 22 L3/33 and L3/35 light tanks, 7 armored cars and armored trucks, at least one Hotchkiss H-39, and two L6/40 tanks. From these, the Partisans formed the Tenkovski Bataljon Glavnog štaba Hrvatske (English: Tank Battalion of the High Command of Croatia) on 24th September 1944. One of the first actions of these vehicles was to fight off attacks from the German 7. SS-Freiwilligen-Gebirgs-Division ‘Prinz Eugen’ (English: 7th Mountain SS Volunteer Division) which was tasked with capturing Split. After heavy fighting with the Partisan defenders, the Germans had to temporarily abandon their attack, losing a few armored vehicles in the process. Despite having a rather strong armored unit, the Partisans decided to use these in small numbers attached to individual units.
In this area, another unit that operated the L6/40s was the elite Partisans 1st Proletarian Division. Most, if not all, L6/40s captured in Croatia would be lost shortly after the large German counter-offensive in late 1943. This offensive’s goal was to destroy the large concentration of Partisan forces in Croatia. While the Partisans suffered great losses in manpower and equipment, the German offensive failed in its main goal of completely destroying the opposing forces.
In Split, in September 1943, the Partisans captured fairly large quantities of armored vehicles, including this L6/40 (Regio Esercito 5163) from the 31° Reggimento Fanteria Carrista. Source: B. B. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu 1941-1945The same tank, poorly camouflaged by the Partisans Source: B. B. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu 1941-1945In total, two L6/40s were captured in Split. The vehicles had belonged to the 31° Reggimento Fanteria Carrista of the Italian Army. Source: B. B. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu 1941-1945
The 13. Proleterska Brigada (English: 13th Proletarian Brigade) also operated two L6/40 tanks. What is interesting is that these two tanks were part of the 2nd Company of the 1st Battalion of the 31° Reggimento Fanteria Carrista, whose men actually joined the Partisans. They were assigned to an armored unit under the command of the I Korpus (English: First Corps) of the Partisans. Not much is known about their service, apart from the fact that they were operated by their previous Italian crews.
The L6/40 from the 13th Proletarian Brigade, whose crew consisted of ex-Italian soldiers. Source: PinterestPartisans in front of a captured L6/40 tank. Source: Pinterest
After this point, most Partisan L6/40 tanks were actually captured from the Germans or their Croatian allies, which had operated them in smaller numbers in occupied Yugoslavia. Few other Partisan units managed to capture more L6/40 tanks. One of them was in the tank unit of the High Command of the Slovenian Partisans. These were used to harass vital German supply lines.
An Abandoned German-operated L6/40 tank. Despite being of Italian origin, it saw service in Yugoslavia with various warring parties. Source: www.worldwarphotosAn L6/40 in Slovenian Partisan service, although other sources claim this shows an Italian crew. Source: B. B. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu 1941-1945
One L6/40 tank would be used in a desperate struggle against the German invaders during Operation Rösselsprung (Eng. Knight’s Move). This operation was launched by the Germans in May 1944 in an attempt to capture or liquidate the Partisan leadership, including Josip Broz Tito, who was thought to be located in the small town of Drvar in Bosnia. As Drvar was deep inside the Partisan-held territories, moving ground forces would potentially give the Partisans time to evacuate their command staff. The successful airborne rescue operation led by Otto Skorzeny in Italy in September 1943 inspired some of the German commands to launch a similar operation in the Balkans. The whole operation, led by Skorzeny, managed to free the imprisoned Benito Mussolini from his prison which was located high in the Campo Imperatore mountains. They used gliders to quietly land his forces which later captured the unsuspected Italian garrison.
To eliminate the Partisan leadership, Hitler instructed Generaloberst Lothar Rendulic to devise similar plans. The airborne operation was launched on 25th May 1944. While the Partisans were aware of the enemy build-up, the attack came as a surprise. The Germans landed in force and began organizing search parties to find Tito and his headquarters. Other forces, including some armored elements, were to provide additional support, but this would need time to arrive to support the landing units. This meant that the German invasion force had to fight on its own until reinforcements arrived.
During their preparations, the Germans were not expecting to encounter enemy tanks. Unknown to them, at Drvar there was a small Partisan unit with four captured Italian tanks. These were referred to as FIAT Ansaldo. Identification of these vehicles is difficult for a few reasons. The Partisans’ knowledge of precise tank designation was poor at best. This particular designation is often referred to as the small CV.33 and 35 fast tanks, L6 light tanks, or even the anti-tank version of the latter. One of them was a flame-throwing vehicle.
Political commissar Soća Kragujevčanin and others from this unit initially thought that the Germans were Allied planes that frequently made flights over these territories. Once the bomb started to fall it became clear that this was an attack, and the crew began to prepare to organize a somewhat chaotic resistance.
The crew of one vehicle, which consisted of Montenegrin Spaso Đurašković and Bosnian Milan Jelača, rushed to their vehicle. An unnamed Italian soldier, who had joined the Partisans at some previous point, who was the driver, froze with fear and was unable to start the tank. Both Spaso and Milan managed to get the frightened Italian out. They were joined by Commissar Soća. With Spaso as the driver, and Milan as the gunner positioned in the turret, the tank proceeded to Drvar, where they engaged the enemy with gun and machine gun fire. Why the remaining tanks were not used immediately is not quite clear.
At some point during the chaotic battle, the tank ran into a brick wall and was temporarily immobilized. The stunned crew did not immediately know what had happened to the tank. They were also completely blinded, as they were unable to see through the vision slits. The crew realized that they were surrounded by the enemy and that some kind of cover had been thrown over them. However, the Germans lacked any weapons to destroy the tanks and possibly waited for reinforcement. The tank crew considered its options, either to blow up the tank or to try to fight off the enemy with their personal weapons. They tried the latter and began throwing hand grenades out of the turret and hull hatches. In the process, all were wounded, but they somehow managed to free themselves and move the tank again. During this engagement, they actually damaged the tank with their own grenades as fuel began to enter the interior.
The crew of this tank was not actually aware of what was happening. As the tank was temporarily immobilized by accident, a group of Yugoslav civilian prisoners were passing by with their German captors. Among them, a 16-year-old girl named Milka Bosnić saw what was happening. She rushed to the tank, and despite the chaos around her, managed to take off the shroud covering the tank. While she saved the tank crew, the German soldiers stabbed her to death with bayonets. She was later proclaimed one of the youngest national heroes of Yugoslavia. This event was even portrayed in the movie Desant and Drvar (Eng. Landing at Drvar) from 1963. A mock-up of a tank based on a full-track tractor was used to portray the Partisan tank.
Milka Bosnić, the youngest national hero of Yugoslavia, sacrificed her own life to save the tank crew. Source: WikiFor the movie Desant na Drvar, a full-track tractor was modified to resemble something close to a tank. Source: Still from the movie Desnat na Drvar
The tank’s crew continued engaging enemy soldiers. A group of German paratroopers tried to hide inside a house. The tank driver simply rushed the vehicle into the house, killing those hiding inside. They then decided to move to a small village some 6 km away from Drvar, where Tito was actually located at that time. When they reached their destination at Bastas, all three decided to abandon the tank, which was likely worn out from the damage suffered. Milan was too badly wounded and was left there. The remaining crew reported to the Partisan’s command on what had happened. They were instructed to go back and try to use the remaining vehicles. Unfortunately for them, these had already been captured by the Germans.
The villagers tried to move the disabled tank in the hope of hiding it from the Germans. With the help of Milan Adamovic, who had some experience as a mechanic, they managed to start the tank. Disaster struck when they managed to drive the tank into some vegetation near the River Unac. Being immobilized, the villagers could only try to camouflage it as best they could. Surprisingly, the advancing Germans never found the tank. The tank remained there until the end of the war. At some point, it was recovered and placed as a monument at the museum in Drvar. It is not clear in what conditions the tank was when it was recovered. Sadly, due to negligence, most parts of this vehicle have been stolen over the years.
The remains of the said tank at Drvar. Source: www.xiwl.com
How do we know that this tank was a L6/40? There are few indications that it was this tank. If we ignore the name given to it in Partisan sources, which does not help much, the mention of a gun and a turret indicate that this was a L6/40 tank. The larger Italian medium tanks were generally rarely captured and used by the Partisans. The most common vehicles were the small CV-series and the L6 and its modification. The number of three crew members is somewhat confusing, as the L6’s interior space was quite cramped, even for two. This can nevertheless be explained by the chaotic nature of this battle. Lastly, the surviving vehicle at the museum is the chassis of an L6 tank. The anti-tank version of this vehicle seems unlikely, as it was not armed with a machine gun (as standard), was not fully enclosed, and lacked a turret.
In Summer 1944, the 5th Partisan Corps formed a tank company named Lazo Martin, equipped with three tanks: a Hotchkiss and two L6/40 tanks. In September 1944, due to poor mechanical condition, two tanks were out of service and had to be abandoned. The surviving L6/40 was used during the attack on Banjaluka in Bosnia. The city was defended by at least three Croatian tanks. As the Partisan L6/40 was driving toward its target, it ran over a mine and was damaged. After repairs were made, the single tank proceeded toward its objective. While managing to penetrate the enemy defenses, the tank soon had an engine breakdown. After even more repairs were made, the tank continued on. Interestingly, during the fighting with the enemy, the commander of the sole Partisan tank, Lazo Martin, managed to somehow convince the crews of two Croatian tanks to switch sides. In October, the tanks from this unit participated in the fight for Travnik. After that action, the L6 was not used in combat again until to early 1945.
L6/40 from the Partisan 5th Corps next to a Hotchkiss tank in late 1944. Source: B. B. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu 1941-1945
In late 1944, using the various captured equipment in liberated Serbia, a crew training center was opened. In its inventory, it allegedly had between 2 to 3 L6/40 tanks. Some more L6/40s would be captured from the retreating German and Croatian forces in Slovenia at the end of the war.
The Partisans did not bother adding new camouflage nor any special markings besides a red star. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba
L6 Tanks after the War
Following the end of the war, the newly created Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija (English: Yugoslav People’s Army) incorporated in its inventory a vast selection of different armored vehicles, including a few L6/40s. While most of these would remain in limited service in the years after the war, the fate of the L6/40 is not clear. Given their weak firepower and protection, their use, if any, may have been limited at best.
At the end of the war, a number of enemy rail wagons full of armored vehicles were captured. Source: www.worldwarphotos
Conclusion
The L6/40 was one of many different armored vehicles operated in occupied Yugoslavia. It would see service with all sides, including the Croatians, Germans, Italians, and Partisans. Despite being an obsolete tank design by the standards of 1942, the L6/40 was surely a welcome addition to the Partisans, who often only managed to capture the weaker but more numerous L3 fast tanks.
L6 in Yugoslav Partisan Service. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.
Carro Armato L6/40 in Yugoslav Partisan Service specifications
Dimensions
3.82 x 1.80 x 1.175 m
Total weight, battle-ready
6.84 tonnes
Crew
2 (driver and commander/gunner)
Propulsion
FIAT Tipo 18 VT 4-cylinder 68 hp at 2,500 rpm with an 165 liter tank
Speed
42 km/h
Range
200 km
Armament
one Cannone-Mitragliera Breda da 20/65 Modello 1935 and a 8 mm Breda Modello 1938
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1985-2000)
Main Battle Tank – At Least 3 Incomplete Prototypes Built
Throughout its existence, the Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija (JNA, English: Yugoslav People’s Army) strove to develop a domestic tank design in order to break its dependence on foreign suppliers. The initial projects involved either reusing already available components or simply improving an available design. None of these ever reached beyond the prototype stage. The first successful locally-produced tank, although a licensed copy, was the M-84, which entered service in the second half of the 1980s. Despite being a competent design, the Yugoslav Military High Command wanted an even better-performing tank, which would lead to the Vihor project.
Following the end of the Second World War, the JNA entered a short period of close cooperation with the Soviet Union. This cooperation is reflected in the procurement of large quantities of military equipment, including tanks, such as the T-34-85. While the JNA was still in its early development phase, political tensions between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, more precisely between Tito and Stalin, began to arise. Stalin wanted to impose a more direct Soviet control of Yugoslavia, as in the other satellite Eastern European states, something that Tito fiercely objected to. This led to Tito’s famous ‘no’ to Stalin, the so-called Tito-Stalin Split, in 1948, which basically isolated Yugoslavia from the Eastern Bloc. The situation became even more critical as Yugoslavia’s eastern borders were surrounded by the Soviet allies. The possibility of a Soviet invasion was a real threat to Yugoslavia at that time, as the examples of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 showed.
The JNA, at this point, was in a quite precarious situation. The Army was in the process of reorganization and rearmament and was heavily dependent on Soviet military supplies. The problem also resided in the fact that the Western powers initially refused to deliver any military support to Communist countries. One way to resolve the dependence on foreign aid was to introduce domestic tank production. The production of domestically developed tanks was something that the JNA was obsessed with. This was, at that time, an almost impossible task. It required a well-developed industry, experienced engineering staff, and, probably most importantly, time, all of which Yugoslavia lacked at that moment. The industry and its infrastructure were almost destroyed beyond repair during the war. Many specialized workers were either killed or displaced across Europe and the fact that the Germans took almost all machine tooling and equipment with them did not help either.
Nevertheless, in 1948, work on such vehicles was initiated. The Petar Drapšin workshop was instructed to produce 5 prototype vehicles. The new tank was designated simply as Vozilo A (English: Vehicle A), also referred to sometimes as Tip A (English: Type A). In essence, it was to be based on the Soviet T-34-85 tank with improved overall characteristics. While it used the same gun and the suspension, the superstructure and turret design were greatly changed.
While the 5 prototypes were completed, they quickly showed a number of deficiencies. Most of these were due to inexperience, lack of adequate production capacity, and more importantly, the fact that there were no design plans. All five tanks were generally different in detail from each other. For example, some were heavier by a few hundred kilograms. When the JNA field-tested these vehicles, it was not possible to make an accurate assessment of their capabilities. They could not be considered as prototype vehicles for possible future production. In order to get any useful information, it was necessary to produce several more vehicles, which were deemed too expensive. This led to the cancellation of this project.
While the Vehicle A project was canceled, in the years that followed, the JNA would conduct a series of different projects aimed at either developing a new vehicle by using existing components from available tanks or improving the performance of those vehicles that were in service. This led to a series of different experimental designs, such as the self-propelled Vozilo B (English Vehicle B), M-320, M-628 ‘Galeb’ (English: Seagull), and M-636 ‘Kondor’ (English: Condor), etc. These mostly included components from different existing tank designs, such as the Soviet-designed T-34-85 or the US-designed M4 Sherman and M47 Patton tanks. With a better relationship with the Soviet Union in the 1960s, T-54s and T-55s began to arrive in increasing numbers. The JNA initiated a project to locally produce a copy of the T-55 under the name T-34D. In the end, besides a few prototypes, nothing came from these projects. The reason for this was the inability of the Yugoslav industry to produce these tanks. At the same time, it was deemed cheaper to simply buy the new equipment from aboard. Ultimately, work on these would be suspended during the 1960s.
The hybrid M-636 was one of many attempts to build and design domestic tanks using components from other tanks that were in service with the JNA. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba
The First True Domestic Tank – the M-84
For more than a decade, there were no attempts to develop a domestic tank design. After a long and exhausting negotiation with the Soviets, the JNA finally managed to purchase a license for the production of the T-72 Main Battle Tank (MBT) in 1978. The first prototype (possibly two) was finished in 1979. As the first T-72 tanks began to be produced, the JNA military hierarchy wanted to go further by developing a new improved design. While it was to be heavily based on the T-72, the new project was to incorporate nearly 60% of newly developed parts and components (tracks, electronic installation, improved engine, protection, etc). This would lead to the creation of an initiative known as T-72MJ, later renamed to M-84, of which some 650 tanks would be built in a few different versions.
The M-84 tank entered production in 1984 and, by the time production ended in 1991, some 650 were built. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba
The Vihor Project
When the M-84 entered service, it was deemed a good design. More importantly, it fulfilled the decade-long dream of the JNA’s Military High Command of producing a domestic tank. Still, it was theorized that even this tank would eventually become obsolete and that the tank technology regarding protection, armament, and speed would progress further. Thus, as the M-84 production was underway, the Glavni Vojnotehnički Savet (English: Chief Military Technical Council) initiated a new tank project designated as ‘Zadatak Vihor’ (English: Task Whirlwind).
The new tank was to have improved firepower, mobility, and protection to rival that of other modern tank designs in the world. To speed up the development time, the most advanced components of the existing T-72 and M-84 tanks were to be reused. Despite this, it was to be quite different from these two tanks.
In order to gain a better grasp of the new tank technologies, a JNA military delegation would be sent to a couple of countries around the world. In early 1985, one of the first countries visited was France and Ateliers de construction d’Issy-les-Moulineaux (AMX) tank manufacturer. The JNA delegation was presented with the new development of the AMX armor plates. The French engineers were highly interested in the T-72’s performance. The JNA officials were especially interested in the AMX engine developments and talks were initiated on the possible purchase of the V8X 1,000 kW engines. While serious negotiations were undertaken, for unspecified reasons this was never realized.
Egypt and China were also visited. As the Egyptian tank industry was modest, not much was learned there. China was more promising and the JNA delegation had the chance to see the Type 59, but otherwise, no deals were made. In the US, the JNA delegation visited the TACOM military center near Detroit in mid-1985.
Lastly, the United Kingdom was visited in 1986. At that time, the United Kingdom’s arms industry was in an economical crisis and was more than willing to sell various military equipment. The JNA officials were not keen to purchase any technologies from the United Kingdom as most parts would not fit or were simply too expensive to acquire.
In any case, the first drawings and calculations of what would become the new tank were completed in 1985. As no major issue was found with the first drafts, the project got the green light, and work on the first prototype began in 1987. The completion of the prototype stage was to be achieved by the end of 1994 or 1995, with a production of some 15 trial vehicles. If all went without a problem, a yearly production order of 100 vehicles was to be given. The production run was to begin in 1996 and end in 2012. This vehicle was to replace the T-55. The first pre-prototype vehicle was completed in 1989 and given to the Yugoslav Army for testing. However, this would never be close to achieving.
Name
The first prototypes received the OBV A-85 designation. The production vehicles were to be known as Vihor M-95. In various sources, this vehicle is also known as either Vihor M-90 or M-91. The practical naming convention of the vehicles in JNA service was closely related to the year of introduction. Given that it was estimated that this vehicle would enter production in 1995, the M-95 designation (not to be confused with the Croatian development project with the same name) may seem appropriate. To avoid any confusion, this article will refer to it simply as the Vihor.
Vihor Design
It is important to note that the Vihor was in the early experimental development state, so much of its overall performance is not known with total certainty. If the development process was fully completed, new changes may have been implemented or discarded.
Chassis
The overall Vihor hull was rather simple in its design. It could be divided into three sections. The front part, where the driver was positioned, was protected with a simple but steep angled armored plate. In the center, the turret with its main armament was positioned. Lastly, to the rear, the fully enclosed engine compartment was located. Its construction was made by welding mostly flat armored plates, with the exception of the front part. The Vihor hull design was more or less a direct copy of the M-84. To the front, there was a hatch for the driver that opened to the right side. The engine compartment was covered with a much larger access hatch.
The Vihor used quite a similar chassis to the M-84 and T-72. Probably the biggest difference is the slightly steeper angle of the front armor plate. Source: www.srpskioklop.palubaAn M-84 for comparison. Source: www.srpskioklop.palubaAnother view of the Vihor chassis (the turret is from an M-84 tank). Note the driver’s and the engine hatches are open. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba
Engine
The Vihor was to be powered by the B-46-TK-1 1,200 hp engine. This engine was an improved version of the engine used on the modified M-84A/AB, the 1,000 hp V-46TK engine. The power ratio in this vehicle was 27.2 hp per tonne. In comparison, the T-72 had a power ratio of 18 per tonne, while the Abrams (depending on the variant) ranged between 23 to 26 hp per tonne. It received two turbochargers with an exhaust air cooling system.
Two sub-versions of this engine were proposed, one using components imported from abroad and a second variant with domestically developed parts. The engine could effectively work at temperatures ranging from -30°C to +53°C. This was a potentially great chance for export around the world.
With a vehicle weight of only 44 tonnes, the maximum speed achieved was 75 km/h. This speed even slightly exceeded the expectations and calculations made prior to its testing. Acceleration from 0 to 32 km/h required seven seconds. The transmission was a GC-TRONIC hydromechanical transmission that had 5 forward + 1 reverse gear.
The engine compartment was also cleverly designed to be as small as possible. The engine, with its dimensions of (L-W-H) 153 x 103 x 95 cm, and the transmission assembly took up only 3.4 cubic meters. This greatly aided to reduce the vehicle’s overall dimensions and helped to save weight.
The Vihor was to be powered by a B-46-TK-1 1,200 hp engine, which was basically an improved version of the used on the modified M-84A/AB tanks. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba
Suspension
The suspension consisted of six road wheels, a rear-drive sprocket, a front idler, and three return rollers. These were suspended using torsion bar units. While more or less a copy from the M-84, there were some differences. Firstly, the Vihor’s roadwheel vertical travel was increased to 350 mm in comparison to 280 mm on the M-84. The road wheels were built using aluminum alloys. The 580 mm wide tracks were built using either steel or a combination of aluminum alloys. Rubber rims could be added to the tracks. The weight of one track assembly was 1,900 kg. When equipped with rubber rims, the weight of these tracks was increased to 2,300 kg.
The Vihor had a simple suspension design consisting of six road wheels, a rear-drive sprocket, a front idler, and three return rollers per side. Source: www.srpskioklop.palubaClose-up view of one of six road wheels. Source: www.srpskioklop.palubaWhile the Vihor was to be equipped with standard all-steel tracks, replacing them with rubber rim tracks was also an option. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba
Turret
The original electrohydraulic traverse system was replaced with an electromechanical one. Thanks to this system, the turret’s horizontal rotation speed was 20°/s, so it swung 360° in 18 seconds. In contrast to the generally round-shaped turret used on the M-84 and T-72, the Vihor received a quite different design. While the front was quite similar, the rear of the turret was redesigned and extended. The extra free space was used to store the radio and other equipment. On top of the turret, there were two escape hatches for the turret crewmembers. The one on the left was for the gunner and the one on the right for the commander. Various equipment and storage boxes were to be externally mounted on the turret sides.
Inside the turret, the radio equipment was located to the rear. This was an encrypted, frequency hopping radio with 16 programmed channels and a frequency range of 30 to 87.9 MHz. The command vehicles were to be equipped with additional radio equipment.
Rear view of a mock-up of the Vihor turret. It was greatly extended to the rear to provide additional working space inside the turret. Source: Wiki
Armament and Ammunition
For the main armament, the 125 mm 2A46M smoothbore gun was chosen. This was the basic armament of the M-84 tank and Soviet-built MBTs such as the T-64 and the T-72. Given its availability and general effectiveness, it was logical to reuse this gun for the Vihor project. The difference was that it would have received a number of improvements and modifications to further increase its effectiveness and durability. These included adding a muzzle reference system (MRS) for measuring gun barrel curvature, thermal insulation lining of the barrel, using better raw materials for the production and improved production techniques for its construction, and testing a new quick-change mechanism, among others. The gun was to be provided with horizontal and vertical stabilization during the acquisition of targets. In order to help the crew with targeting, the Vihor was to be provided with advanced electronic ballistic computers.
The Vihor fire control system was a complex unit consisting of many elements, such as the day/night sight. Another interesting device with which the Vigor was equipped was a display for the commander connected to the gunner’s sight. This permitted the commander to see the targets that the gunner was aiming at. The Vihor was also equipped with thermal imaging with a magnification of 8x to 10x, a laser range finder, third-generation night vision, a laser-warning receiver connected to the externally mounted smoke launchers, etc. The electronic ballistic computer could be used to enter all necessary information regarding the target.
The electro-mechanical autoloader was basically the same as the one used in the M-84. This autoloader was located under the turret, on the tank’s floor. It held 22 rounds in its rotating transporter. An additional 18 rounds were to be stored inside the crew compartment. With these and other various improvements (like adding a bidirectional movement autoloader), the rate of fire was estimated to be around 10 rounds per minute.
It was requested that the gun, with all its improvements needed, be capable of piercing 400 mm of RHA armor at ranges of 2 km using Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) rounds. When using High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) rounds, it was supposed to be able to penetrate around 600 mm of RHA armor.
Besides the main armament, the secondary armament did not change from the M-84. It consisted of one coaxial 7.62 mm PKT and a turret-mounted 12.7 mm NSVT heavy machine gun. While sources do not mention ammunition load, this would most likely have remained the same as on the M-84. This meant 2,000 rounds for the PKT and 300 rounds for the NSVT heavy machine gun.
The main armament of the Vihor consisted of a 125 mm 2A46M smoothbore gun. Secondary weapons consisted of two machine guns. Source: Wiki
Armor and Protection
The Vihor would have had increased armor protection compared to other modern Yugoslav tanks. The front hull side was angled at 71° and the new armor construction was to provide protection the equivalent of 650 mm thick homogeneous steel plate armor according to M. C. Đorđević (Odbrana Magazine). Other sources, such as like www.srpskioklop.paluba, listed the frontal armor thickness to be equivalent to 500 mm of homogeneous steel armor. Against HEAT rounds, it offered 600 mm protection. The flat side armor plates were much weaker, with a thickness of just 70 mm.
The turret front armor thickness is unknown. What is known however is that it was angled at 40° and provided the same level of protection as the hull front armor. Similar to the improved M-84 versions, the Vihor also had a cast turret. In addition, its turret front had a cavity that was filled with quartz sand mixed with an adhesive.
Additional protection could be acquired by adding anti-HEAT screens or Explosive-Reactive Armor (ERA). In the case of the Explosive-Reactive Armor, it was a domestically developed KAO M-99 type. These, in the best case scenario, provided an 80% increase in protection against HEAT rounds. More realistically, these provided additional protection in the area of 30% to 50%. Against kinetic rounds, it offered a slight increase of protection of around 25%. The M-99 armor was immune to fire up to 23 mm caliber rounds, including artillery shrapnel or detonations of close positioned explosive-reactive units. This armor added a total weight of 750 kg, a further 250 kg if the sides were also protected. The development of this armor began in early 1990s, and it was not yet ready to be added on the prototype. It was actually never fully installed on any Vihor tank.
The Vihor was also to be equipped with the BDK smoke dischargers. These consisted of 24 discharge units, divided into two groups, and placed on either side of the turret. The maximum effective range of this system was 500 m. Besides standard smoke rounds, illumination, anti-infantry, or anti-missiles flares could be used.
The Vihor was also provided with Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) protection. It received an inner lining that protected the crew from neutron radiation. A detector for biological weapons was also added. Lastly, an automatic fire extinguisher system was installed inside the vehicle.
The last and probably one of its greatest assets was its small size. Generally speaking, all Soviet tank designs (which were copied by JNA) had smaller dimensions than Western designs, and the Vihor was no exception. Its total volume was around 12.6 m3.
The domestically developed KAO M-99 Explosive-Reactive Armor (ERA) single box unit. Source: www.srpskioklop.palubaWhile the KAO M-99 would see service on later Yugoslav vehicles, like this experimental improved T-55, it was not fitted on the first Vihor prototype. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba While not tested with the KAO M-99 ERA, the installation of smoke dischargers was trialed. Source: www.srpskioklop.palubaMiniature mock-up of a Vihor fully equipped with side skirts and smoke dischargers. Source: Wiki
Crew
The Vihor had a crew of three, consisting of the commander, the gunner, and the driver. Their positions were unchanged in comparison to the M-84 tanks. The gunner and the commander were placed in the turret, while the driver was positioned in the lower hull.
Like on the M-84, the Vihor would have had a crew of three, with the commander and the gunner positioned in the turret, while the driver was located inside the Vihor’s front hull. Source: web.archive.org
The Fate of the Project
The single pre-prototype was equipped with an M-84 turret and used for extensive drive testing. Depending on the sources, this vehicle managed to successfully drive between 1,500 to several thousand kilometers. No major problems with the first design were noted. While the development of the Vihor was underway, the Yugoslav wars broke out. This marked the end of many military projects, including the Vihor. The first pre-prototype test vehicle was located in Belgrade, nowadays Serbia, prior to the war. Due to a lack of documentation and proper equipment, it was not possible to fully finish this prototype. It would eventually be stored in the VTI Kumodraž depot. In 1993, a new Vihor project was announced, which was to have a stronger engine and hydrodynamic suspension unit. This project led nowhere and was likely just a propaganda tool to boost morale. At that time, Yugoslavia was under sanctions and in a dire economic situation, so developing such a design would have been almost impossible.
The surviving hybrid Vihor is currently stored in Serbia. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba
Two completed prototype hulls were located at the Đuro Đaković workshop, while the two incomplete turrets were left in Slovenia when the war started in Yugoslavia. The Croatians would use the two hulls together with the available documentation and tooling to start their own tank development project. This would lead to the creation of the Degman and M-84A4D projects, which are currently at the prototype stage.
Based on surviving parts and documentation, the Croatian military industry would go on to develop the Degman. Source: Wiki
Conclusion
The Vihor was the JNA’s final attempt to develop a modern domestic tank design. It would have possessed a series of advanced systems and, combined with good overall driving performance, held the promise of becoming an excellent design. Unfortunately, its final realization was stopped by the outbreak of the Yugoslav wars. How would it have performed in future testing and evaluation is difficult to know precisely. It was nevertheless an interesting design initiated when Yugoslavia was in a huge political and economical crisis, which ended in a war and the cancellation of this and many other projects.
Vihor M-91 Main Battle Tank by Jaroslaw Janas.
Vihor M-91 specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
9.74 x 3.65 x 2.21 m
Total Weight, Battle Ready
44 tonnes
Crew
3 (driver, commander, and gunner)
Propulsion
1,200 hp B-46-TK-1
Speed/off-road
75 km/h, 50 km/h
Range
600 to 700 km
Armament
125 mm 2A46, One 7.62 and one 12.7 machine gun.
Armor
Equivalent up to 500 to 650 of homogeneous armor
Number built
At least three incomplete prototypes
Sources
M. C. Đorđević (2015), Odbrana Magazine
M. Jandrić, Seventh Decade of the Military Technical Institute (1948. – 2013.)
B. B. Dumitrijević (2010), Modernizacija i intervencija, Jugoslovenske oklopne jedinice 1945-2006, Institut za savremenu istoriju
M. Dragojević (2003) Razvoj Našeg neoružanja VTI kao sudbina, Zadužbina Adrijević
StuG III Ausf.B Illustration made by David Bocquelet
German Reich (1940)
Assault Gun – 300 to 320 Built
The concept of using mobile, well-armed, and well-protected infantry support vehicles was theorized in German military circles during the 1930s. Production limitations caused by the underdeveloped German military industry prevented the realization of this project for many years, and the production of tanks was seen as a higher priority. By May 1940, the first 30 vehicles, the StuG III Ausf.A, were ready for service and some even saw action against the Western Allies in France and the Low Countries. They quickly showed that this concept had merit and the Germans began a slow but steady increase in production. This led to the introduction of the StuG III Ausf.B version, a slight improvement over the Ausf.A, which had only been built in quite limited numbers.
The StuG III Ausf.B. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz
The Road to the Sturmgeschütz III Ausf.B
Production of the first pre-series vehicles of the StuG III series was undertaken in 1937. These 0-series vehicles served mainly for evaluation and as testbeds and training vehicles. While a vehicle that could provide mobile fire support was deemed desirable by the German Army, the lagging industrial capacity was barely able to fulfill the needs of the Panzer divisions. It would take years before the first operational vehicles were actually produced. In October 1938, the Waffenamt (Eng. Ordnance Bureau) issued a production order for 280 vehicles. This included 30 vehicles of the Ausf.A series, and 250 vehicles of the Ausf.B version (chassis numbers 90101 to 90400).
The first production order of 30 vehicles (Ausf.A version) was barely completed by the time of the planned German offensive against the Western Allies in May 1940. Surprisingly, their overall combat performance was not documented by the Germans and was even hardly mentioned in the sources. Only one StuG III Ausf.A was reported to have been lost, but it was recovered and repaired. The performance of the StuG III in France was deemed a success, and the Army officials demanded the production numbers of the newer version be increased. As a result, the previous order of 250 StuG III Ausf.Bs was increased by 50 (chassis numbers 90501 to 90550).
The StuG III Ausf.A, which was visually almost identical to the later Ausf.B version. Source: Anderson Sturmartillerie
Even for famous vehicles, such as the StuG III, sources disagree on how many were built. The previously mentioned numbers are provided by Walter J. Spielberger in Sturmgeschütz and its Variants. T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz) also provide the same figures. On the other hand, D. Nešić in Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka suggests a slightly higher number, at 320. The difference of 20 vehicles may be explained by the fact that around 20 Ausf.A/B hybrid vehicles were also constructed.
The second StuG version is known as the Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone Ausführung B, or more simply, as StuG III Ausf.B. It was more or less the same vehicle as the previous version. Nevertheless, some changes were implemented to improve the shortcomings noted on the Ausf.A. The StuG III Ausf.B was to be built using Panzer III Ausf.G and H series hulls. The first production run of 250 vehicles began in July 1940 and ended in March 1941. The remaining 50 were completed between March and April (or May depending on the source) 1941. The production was carried out by Alkett instead of Daimler-Benz. Alkett would remain the factory that would produce the bulk of StuG III vehicles until later in the war, when M.A.N and MIAG joined the production.
Organization and Distribution to the Units
In the early years of the war, due to the quite limited German mobilized industrial capability, the production of new StuG III vehicles was slow. For example, during the German offensive against France and its Allies in May 1940, the only 24 available StuGs were distributed to four batteries: the 640th, 659th, 660th, and 665th. Due to a limited number of available vehicles, the Germans were forced to deploy them in small sturmartillerie batterie (Eng. assault gun battery). These were divided into three zuge (Eng. platoons), each equipped with only two vehicles. In time, as more StuG IIIs became available, their unit strength was increased to abteilungen (Eng. battalion) strength of 18 vehicles. These battalions were divided into three batteries, each 6 vehicles strong. These would be further reinforced with three additional vehicles which were allocated to the platoon commanders.
Just prior to the May 1940 offensive, the Waffen-SS, a military branch of the Nazy Party, was slowly forming its first larger combat formations. The leader of this formation, Heinrich Himmler, wanted the best weapons available for the LSSAH (Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler) Division. This Division was formed by combining the three SS regiments, Deutschland, Der Fuhrer, and Germania. Himmler himself urged for the creation of SS assault batteries. He received a response on 7th May 1940 from the Oberkommando des Heeres (Eng. High Command of the German Army). In this letter, Himmler was informed that, due to shortages of weapon availability even for the Army, the SS formation was to receive few heavy weapons. This, however, included a unit of four StuG III vehicles. There is a mention of a reduction of the number of vehicles per batterie from 6 to 4 StuG III.
Despite the lack of trust of the German Army towards the SS, given their connections to the Führer himself, it could do little but comply. The LSSAH would receive its StuG III vehicles during May 1940. As crews for these were still undergoing training, they would not see action on the Western Front.
Thanks to the increased production of the Ausf.B and later versions, it became possible to increase the size of the assault batteries to battalion size by summer 1940. In 1941, it became possible to equip more batteries with a command vehicle, replacing the Sd.Kfz.253 in this role. Even with the increased production of StuG IIIs, these still remained part of independent units that would be attached to other infantry units depending on the needs. The first exception to this rule was the Grossdeutschland Regiment which, after the Western campaign ended, permanently received the 640th Battery. The Waffen SS once again tried to receive a large number of the StuG IIIs permanently allocated to them. In this early stage, they had to be content with receiving a battery of only six vehicles. An increase of the number of batteries per Waffen SS division was initiated at the end of 1941, but it took some time to be fully implemented.
Design
While visually quite similar to the Ausf.A, the new Ausf.B incorporated some minor changes that can help distinguish between these two versions. It is important to note that some changes were not implemented on all vehicles, and having elements from both versions on the same vehicle was not that uncommon. The StuG III series was based on the Panzer III chassis and shared many components mainly related to the hull and suspension’s design. In the case of the StuG III Ausf.B, it was based upon the Panzer III Ausf.G and H tank chassis.
The Panzer III Ausf.H served as a base for the StuG III Ausf.B vehicles. Source: www.panzernet.net
Hull
The StuG III Ausf.B’s hull could be divided into three major sections: the forward-mounted transmission, central crew compartment, and rear engine compartment. The front hull was where the transmission and steering systems were placed and it was protected with an angled armor plate. The two square-shaped, two-part hatch brake inspection doors were located on the front hull.
Above the protected front hull, where the transmission and steering systems were placed, two square-shaped, two-part hatch brake inspection doors were placed. While this vehicle is an Ausf.A version, the later Ausf.B did not receive any change to this part of the vehicle. Source: www.worldwarphotos.info
Suspension and Running Gear
The StuG III Ausf.B used a torsion bar suspension, like the previous version. In order to reduce the chance of accidentally throwing the track off, the first return roller was moved slightly to the front. In an attempt to increase the overall mobility of the vehicle, slightly wider tracks were used on the Ausf.B. They were widened from 380 to 400 mm. A wide rubber rim was added on the six doubled road wheels to increase their service life. Another visual change was the use of modified cast front drive wheels. Some vehicles retained the older type sprockets.
A close-up view of the Stug III Ausf.A suspension. Source: www.panzernet.netAn Ausf.B with the older type front sprocket used on the Ausf.A. Source: www.panzernet.netThis would be replaced with a new cast front drive wheel. Also, note the first return roller, which was moved further to the front. Source: www.worldwarphotos.info
Engine
The Ausf.B was powered by a slightly modified twelve-cylinder, water-cooled Maybach HL 120 TRM engine providing 265 hp @ 2,600 rpm engine. The difference between this and the previous engine was the use of a new lubrication system.
Illustration of the Maybach HL 120 engine.Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants
Transmission
The StuG III Ausf.A was equipped with an overly complicated ten forward and one reverse speed Maybach Variorex SRG 32 8 145 semi-automatic transmission. While, in theory, it provided the Ausf.A with a maximum speed of up to 70 km/h, it was overcomplicated and prone to frequent breakdowns. Almost from the start, this showed itself to be unusable in the long run. As it proved too problematic, it was replaced with a much simpler SSG 76 transmission unit.
Superstructure
The box-shaped upper superstructure was mostly unchanged, with the exception of slightly modifying the top hatch design. Another small change was the deletion of the two rear-positioned storage boxes.
Top view drawings of the StuG III Ausf.A (top) and B (bottom). Notice the slight difference in the design of the gunner’s periscope hatches, located on the top left side, just behind the driver’s position. Source:T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz
The Armor Protection
The StuG III Ausf.B’s armor protection was unchanged from the previous version. It was well protected, with a 50 mm thick frontal armor. The sides and rear were somewhat lighter, at 30 mm. One minor improvement regarding the Ausf.B’s protection was adding a metal cover for the nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung (Eng. smoke grenade rack system) which was positioned on the rear of the hull.
While a minor modification, the StuG III Ausf.B and later versions that used this system, received an armored cover for the smoke grenade rack system located to the rear of the vehicle. Source: warspot.ru
The Armament
The main armament remained the same as in the previous version.. It consisted of a 7.5 cm StuK 37 L/24. As it was intended as a close support weapon, it had a rather low muzzle velocity. Despite this, it was a fairly accurate gun, with a 100% hit probability in action at ranges up to 500 m. The accuracy dropped to 73% at 1 km and to 38% at distances of over 1.5 km.
While it was primarily designed to engage fortified positions using a 7.5 cm Gr Patr high-explosive round weighing 5.7 kg (at a 420 m/s velocity), it was also fairly good for engaging enemy armor. This fact is often overshadowed by its close support role. The 7.5 cm PzGr patr was a 6.8 kg armor-piercing round with a muzzle velocity of 385 mps, and could pierce around 39 mm of 30° angled armor at distances of 500 m. The 7.5 NbGr Patr was a smoke-screen round. The 7.5 cm StuK 37 was equipped with a Rundblickfernrohr RblF 32 type panoramic gun sight. The elevation of the gun -10° to +20°, while the traverse was limited to 12° per side. The ammunition load consisted of 44 rounds mostly stored in front of the loader. Additionally, an MP38 or 40 submachine gun was provided for crew protection.
While being a short barrel weapon, the 7.5 cm StuK 37 L/24 was quite an effective weapon when used against fortified positions and lightly armored tanks. The numerous kill marks on this vehicle is clearly an indicator of this. Source: /www.worldwarphotos.infoThe early-built StuG IIIs did not have a machine gun for self-defense against infantry. It was believed by the Germans that the StuG III would work in close cooperation with friendly infantry formations, which would provide sufficient firepower to overcome the enemy infantry. This proved not to be the case and later versions would receive a machine gun with a shield and even a remotely operated mount. The crew of this vehicle appears to have added a small improvised mount for a machine gun operated by the loader. Source: /www.worldwarphotos.info
The Crew
The vehicle had a crew of four: commander, driver, loader, and gunner. While loaders were positioned to the right of the gun, the remaining crew were placed opposite them. Drivers were positioned on the left front side of the hull. Just behind them was the gunner, and right behind them were the commanders.
Due to the small size, there was only room for four crew members. While not perfect, it proved enough for its role. Source: www.panzernet.net
In Combat
In Yugoslavia
The StuG III Ausf.B first saw action during the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia and Greece in the Balkans. The war in the Balkans was initiated by the Italians during their failed invasion of Greece. Following the deterioration of their military situation, they asked their German allies for help. Counting on its Balkan allies and the neutrality of Yugoslavia, the German Army prepared for an invasion of Greece. The whole situation was complicated by the overthrowing of the Yugoslavian government on 27th March 1941 by pro-Allied military officers. Hitler was furious with this development and ordered that Yugoslavia be occupied.
For the upcoming Balkan campaign, only four assault gun battalions were available. These were the 184th and 197th, which were allocated to the 2nd Army, and the 190th and 191st allocated to the 12th Army. The 184th and 197th participated in the attack on Yugoslavia. They were meant to attack from Germany towards modern-day Slovenia and Croatia. Their advance was blocked, as the Yugoslavian Army had blown up many vital bridges. They would eventually cross towards Yugoslavia. Given the rapid collapse of the Yugoslavian Army, their combat use was likely limited. Nevertheless, at least two StuG IIIs were reported lost in Yugoslavia.
Four StuG III Ausf.Bs from the 184th Assault Gun Battalion in Slovenia on 12th April 1941. Source: Bojan B. Dumitrijević and Dragan Savić Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištuProbably the same vehicles somewhere in Croatia. Four. Source: D. Predoević, Oklopna vozila i oklopne postrojbe u drugom svjetskom ratu u Hrvatskoj
The other two assault gun batteries were stationed in Bulgaria. From there, they would cross the border to Greece and proceed to attack the Metaxa Line. Unfortunately, similar to the French campaign, their combat use in this operation is poorly documented by the Germans.
Documents from the 190th Assault Battalion mention some combat activity during the first few days of the campaign. The 190th Assault Battalion’s first combat engagement occurred on 6th April 1941, when they provided covering fire for the German infantry at Tchorbadshisko. This attack failed in front of the fortified Greek Army positions. The following day, after a heavy artillery bombardment, this position was taken. From 9th to 10th April, the 190th Assault Battalion helped clean up the remaining defending bunker positions before finally crossing the Nestos River.
The 191st Assault Battalion was tasked with supporting the 72nd Infantry Division. The main aim of this division was to take Rupel Pass. Given the strongly fortified positions and hilly terrain, the StuG IIIs could not be effectively used. The Germans could not overcome the strong enemy positions. By 9th April, the defenders abandoned their positions, which enabled the Germans to proceed through the enemy’s rear lines.
A StuG III Ausf.B from the 191st Battalion advancing through Greece. Source: T. Anderson Sturmartillerie Spierhead Of the Infantry
In the Soviet Union
For the upcoming invasion of the Soviet Union, the Germans managed to form 12 assault gun battalions and 5 additional batteries equipped mainly with the Ausf.B versions, though also with smaller numbers of the Ausf.A and later C and D versions. These were divided into the three Heeresgruppen (Eng. army groups), Nord (Eng. North), Mitte (Eng. Centre), and Süd (Eng. South). Given as it was expected that the main effort was to be carried out by Army Group Centre. Eight assault battalions were allocated to this part of the front, the 177th, 189th, 191st, 192nd, 201st, 203th, 210th, and 226th. Army Group North received five batteries (659th, 660th, 665th, 666th, and 667th) supported by two battalions (184th and 185th). The remaining two battalions (190th and 197th) were later reinforced by the 202nd and 209th Battalions, working with Army Group South.
Despite expecting a quick Soviet Army collapse, this did not occur. Instead, the Germans started facing strong and stubborn enemy resistance. For example, in the case of the 184th Battalion, of its original 21 vehicles, only 16 were operational by 20th August 1941. Two StuG IIIs were completely destroyed and had to be replaced. In the case of the 203rd Battalion, a report dated 14th August 1941 mentioned that only one vehicle was lost, but it also mentioned that only between 33% to 66% of the vehicles were operational, and the remaining were out of action, waiting to receive new engines.
The StuG III, while not intended to engage enemy armor, could easily defeat Soviet light tanks thanks to their armor-piercing rounds that could penetrate some 34 mm of armor at 1 km. Besides seriously underestimating the enemy’s combat strength and resolve, the German intelligence office also failed to pick up on the new Soviet tank designs, the T-34 and the KV series. The StuG III’s armor-piercing round proved almost useless against the armor of these new tanks. In firing trials carried out on the Eastern Front in September 1941, it was found that the T-34’s front armor could not be penetrated when using the standard armor-piercing rounds. In rare and lucky cases, the turret’s front armor was penetrated. The side and rear were also immune to the German 7.5 cm armor-piercing rounds. The only vulnerable spot was the lower hull side, which could be easily penetrated. The high-explosive round was more effective. While it could not penetrate the thick enemy armor, it was strong enough to seriously damage the vehicle and its mechanical components.
Despite their impunity to German anti-tank guns, the Soviet tank crews were let down by poor leadership, poor logistics, poor maintenance, inexperience, and lack of spare parts. The 201st Battalion mentioned that, on 2nd October, at least two T-34-76 tanks began firing at a damaged StuG III vehicle. The German StuG began retreating back to warn others from the advancing enemy tanks. The two Soviet tanks followed the damaged StuG III. The remaining StuG IIIs sprang to action and, after a brief engagement, the enemy T-34 tanks were destroyed.
A StuG III Ausf.B somewhere in the Soviet Union during 1941. While the wooden logs acted as improvised protection, their purpose was likely to help cross difficult obstacles. Source: /www.worldwarphotos.info
The losses suffered in the war and the introduction of later improved versions ultimately led to the surviving Ausf.B’s being withdrawn back to Germany. Once there, they would mostly be allocated to training schools, such as the Sturmgeschütz Ersatz und Ausbildung Abteilung (Eng. Replacement and Training Battalion), which was stationed in Denmark during 1944 and had at least one Ausf.B in its inventory.
While being the best protected German vehicle in the early part of the war, the StuG III was not invincible and many were lost during 1941. Source: www.worldwarphotosDifferent StuG IIIs (from B to G versions) from the Sturmgeschütz Ersatz und Ausbildung Abteilung located in Denmark 1944. Source: T. Anderson Sturmartillerie Spierhead Of the Infatry
In Soviets Hands
The fighting in the Soviet Union was harsh for both sides which often led to huge losses in men and materials. To compensate for their loss of equipment, the Germans and the Soviets would often reuse captured vehicles. The Soviets operated at least one captured StuG III Ausf.B vehicle, which belonged to the 197th Assault Gun Battalion.
A StuG III Ausf.B in Soviet hands. Source: warspot.ru
Modifications
StuG III Ausf.A/B Hybrids
Due to frequent delays in production, largely due to the introduction of the new transmission on the Panzer III and as there were no new available chassis, some 20 additional StuG III Ausf.A variant were built using superstructures intended for the StuG III Ausf.B version.
The unusual StuG III Ausf.A/B hybrid, used as a replacement for the delayed production of the later Ausf.B series. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (199) Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz
Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33
Due to the need to fight the well-entrenched Soviet positions at Stalingrad, the Germans hastily modified some 24 StuG III vehicles for this role. The modification was simple, as the original StuG III superstructure was replaced with a new box-shaped one armed with a 150 mm gun. The first prototype was based on the StuG III Ausf.B chassis. Some of the 24 rebuilt Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33 (English: assault infantry gun) used components taken from the StuG III Ausf.A and B.
This particular vehicle uses the front drive wheel of an Ausf.A with a combination of moving return roller and wider tracks of the Ausf.B. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2006) Panzer Tracts No.9-1 Sturmpanzer
Remote Control Tank
At least one StuG III Ausf.B was modified as a Leitpanzer (English: control tank) used to remotely control and carry the small Landungsträger (English: demolition charge carrier). For this variant, the gun was removed and improved radio equipment with a large 2 m long rod antenna was added.
At least one StuG III Ausf.B was modified as a Leitpanzer. Source: T. Anderson Sturmartillerie Spierhead Of the Infantry
Fahrschul Sturmgeschütz
An unknown number of StuG III Ausf.Bs were used as training vehicles. Their role was highly important, as the inexperienced and untrained crews had little combat potential on the battlefields.
This StuG IIII Ausf.B was used as a training vehicle. Note the sign Fahrschule (Eng. driving school) painted on the right front side of the superstructure. This particular vehicle is quite interesting, as its opening on the superstructure’s top left was completely enclosed. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.8 SturmgeschützAnother vehicle but this time without the gun used for crew training. Source: Panssarikilta Facebook group
Conclusion
Like its predecessor, the StuG III Ausf.B also showed that the assault gun concept was a success. From the technical side, it resolved some mechanical issues present on the Ausf.A, but also improved the mobility to some extent. It was also built in much greater numbers, enabling the Germans to form additional StuG units. While it would ultimately be replaced with improved versions, some of the Ausf.B’s remained in use up to the end of the war.
StuG III Ausf.B Balkans, April 1941. Illustration made by David B.Ausf.B, Russia, winter 1941-42. Illustration made by David B.
T-34-85 in JNA service. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1945-2000)
Medium Tank – 1,000+ Operated
After the Second World War, the Jugoslovenska Armija (JA, English: Yugoslav Army), better known as the Jugoslovenska Narodna Atmiija (JNA, English: Yugoslav People’s Army), was created. Initially, it was equipped with armored vehicles of various origins. Most had been captured by the enemy during the war. Besides them, the JNA operated a number of vehicles given to them by the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. This included the T-34-85 tanks that formed the Second Tank Brigade. While, later, more advanced tank designs would be acquired, the T-34-85 would remain in use up to 2000.
The first T-34-76 tanks that appeared in Yugoslavia were operated by the German SS Polizei Regiment 10 (English: 10th SS Police Regiment), which had 10 such vehicles in late 1944. These were used to protect Trieste and saw service against the Yugoslav Partisans. Out of 10 German T-34-76s, the Partisans managed to capture between 5 or 6 before and at the end of the war. These remained in use after the war and one has even been preserved to this day.
The improved T-34-85 version was used in Yugoslavia for the first time by the advancing Soviet 3rd Ukraine Front. These supported the Yugoslav Partisans, helping them liberate many towns in Serbia, including the capital, Belgrade. After their mission was completed, the 3rd Ukraine Front began moving toward Hungary to continue fighting the remaining Axis forces there.
The Yugoslav Partisans got their chance to operate the newer T-34-85 tanks in late 1944. On the order of Stalin, a tank brigade operated by Partisan crews trained in the Soviet Union was formed. This unit would be known as the Second Tank Brigade and was formed on 8th March 1945. The Brigade was organized according to the Red Army model of the Tank Brigade. As far as equipment is concerned, this brigade was equipped with 65 T-34/85 tanks and 3 BA-64 armored cars.
The Unit arrived in Topčider (Serbia) on 26th March. After a military parade held in Belgrade on 27th March, it was sent to the Syrmian Front (21st October 1944 – 12th April 1945), where this Brigade participated in the heavy fight that lasted until the final collapse of the German forces there. The Second Tank Brigade also participated in the fighting for Slavonia and during the liberation of Zagreb. Besides the T-34-85 tanks supplied to the Second Tank Brigade, the Partisans managed to salvage a few abandoned Soviet T-34-85 tanks left in Yugoslavia.
T-34-85 tanks of the Second Tank Brigade on their way to Trieste, May 1945. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.
First Years after the War
After the war, the Partisan forces became the nucleus of the JNA. Initially, the main armored forces consisted mainly of captured or supplied Allied vehicles. The captured vehicles, in reality, had little combat value given their obsolescence and lack of spare parts. Their more important role was to provide the necessary crew training. Due to the shattered industry and infrastructure across Yugoslavia, the production of new vehicles and equipment was not possible. Thus, the rearmament of this new army was heavily based on foreign imports. In the first few years after the war, the main Yugoslav arms and weapons supplier was the Soviet Union. Given that both countries were led by Communist parties and had cooperated during the war, this was not surprising. Through them, the JNA received great quantities of weapons and equipment, including tanks. The Soviets also sent a number of tank instructors to Yugoslavia. While the documentary records of these early years are somewhat lacking, it is known that Yugoslavia received some 66 tanks in 1946 and 308 in 1947. By that time, the JNA had in its inventory some 425 T-34-85 (including a few T-34-76) tanks. This number also included vehicles that had been operated during the war.
An interesting photograph of a T-34-85 during military exercises in 1949. Note the Jagdpanzer 38(t), SU-76, and even Bren gun carriers in the background. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.
While these two countries were nominally friendly toward each other, the Soviet tank shipment quality was less so. The majority of tanks received lacked any kind of documentation of their previous use or their mechanical life. Information, such as their age or usage, was also unknown. Some even had completely unusable engines. Moreover, great numbers of the spare barrels supplied were of the 76 mm caliber which the JNA did not need in large numbers.
While the JNA was still in its early development phase, political tensions between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union and, more precisely, between Tito and Stalin, began to arise. Stalin wanted to impose a more direct Soviet control over Yugoslavia, something that Tito fiercely objected to. This led to the famous so-called Tito-Stalin Split in 1948, which basically isolated Yugoslavia from the Eastern Bloc.
The situation became even more critical, as Yugoslavia’s eastern borders were surrounded by Soviet allies. The possibility of a Soviet invasion was a real threat to Yugoslavia at that time. The problem was not only the lack of equipment and tanks, but also attempts of desertion by at least two generals. They tried to escape to Romania using a training tank (type not specified, but a T-34-85 highly likely) from a tank school in Bela Crkva, which was close to the border. The escape attempt failed and one of the deserters was killed in the process.
Fear of sabotage was also present. Most accidents or negligence in properly operating tanks were often placed under investigation as possible sabotage. The majority of these could simply be attributed to poor maintenance or the inexperience of the crews. Still, there were cases of deliberate sabotage. For example, one T-34-85 was sabotaged by throwing a metal plate inside its driving gears.
The Tito-Stalin Split caused huge economic and political strain on Yugoslavia, but in the long run, proved arguably beneficial. Yugoslavia turned more towards the west. This would lead to a more liberal variant of communism, Titoism, which improved living conditions significantly more than those of other European Communist countries in the following decades.
The First Domestic Attempt to Develop an Improved T-34-85
In the meantime, the JNA found itself in a critical situation. The army was in the process of reorganization and rearmament and was heavily dependent on Soviet military supplies. The problem also resided in the fact that the Western world initially refused to deliver any military support to Communist countries. One way to resolve the dependence on foreign aid was to introduce domestic tank production. The production of domestically developed tanks was something that the JNA was obsessed with. This was, at that time, an almost impossible task. It required a well-developed industry, experienced engineering staff, and probably most importantly, time, all of which Yugoslavia lacked at that point. The industry and its infrastructure had been destroyed almost beyond repair during the war.
Nevertheless, in 1948, work on such a vehicle was initiated. The Petar Drapšin workshop was instructed to produce 5 prototype vehicles. The new tank was designated simply as Vozilo A (English: Vehicle A), also sometimes referred to as Tip A (English: Type A). In essence, it was to be based on the Soviet T-34-85 tank with improved overall characteristics. While it used the same gun and suspension, the superstructure and turret design were significantly changed. While the 5 prototypes were completed, they quickly showed a number of deficiencies. Mostly due to inexperience, lack of adequate production capacity, and more importantly, that there were no design plans, all five tanks were generally different in detail from each other. For example, some were heavier by a few hundred kilograms or were built using different materials. When the JNA field-tested these vehicles, it was not possible to make an accurate conclusion as to whether they were successful or not. They could not be considered as prototype vehicles for possible future production and, in order to get any useful information, it was necessary to produce several more vehicles, which was too expensive. This led to the cancellation of his project.
In the years that followed Stalin’s death in 1952, the relations between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union gradually warmed. This was also the case with military cooperation, thanks to which the JNA was able to acquire new equipment during the 1960s. This came at the right time, as the JNA was in great need of armored vehicles given the global political turmoil regarding the Cuban crisis in 1961 and 1962. The previous acquisition of Western armored vehicles also came to an end. Through the Soviets and other Eastern Bloc states, the JNA acquired vast quantities of new equipment, such as T-54 and T-55 tanks, which were far superior to the aging T-34-85.
In 1966, during negotiations with the Soviets, the JNA’s experts were interested in purchasing the improved T-34-85 model 1960. It is not quite completely clear why this decision was made. Prior to the purchase, the JNA’s hierarchy debated whether it was worth buying this obsolete tank at all. Some ten arguments were made against it, while only two were made in support of the idea. The arguments for its acquisition revolved around the fact that most parts of these tanks could be domestically produced by this point. The 1960 version of the T-34 had several improvements in comparison to those that were already in service within the JNA. It was, among other things, powered by a new V-2-34M-11 engine, had better sights and periscopes, the suspension was strengthened, it used the new ‘Starfish’ drive wheels, and had a new communication system for the crew. Before any deal with the Soviets was made, the JNA asked that these tanks should be delivered either as a free donation or at a simple symbolic price. The JNA officials proposed a price of US$8,000, while the Soviets gave a counteroffer of nearly US$40,000 per piece. The deal was done in US dollars for some unclear reasons. A deal would be eventually made for the acquisition of 600 improved T-34-85 tanks, including some 140 of the command version. These arrived in three batches of 200 tanks each from 1966 to 1968. With them, a vital supply of some 24,380 HEAT rounds also arrived. These were in high demand by the JNA, which tried to find a means to increase the older 85 mm gun’s anti-tank capabilities. The demand for improved ammunition was such that the Yugoslav negotiators asked for these to be delivered before the actual tanks. The new T-34-85 tanks were marked with white tactical numbers located on the turrets: 99– (for tanks received in 1966), 18— (1967), and 19— (1968).
The T-34-85 version of 1960 is mostly recognizable because of the anti-aircraft machine gun. Its new road wheels were quite similar to the T-54/55’s ones. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.Side view of the improved version. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.
The new T-34-85 vehicles were intended to completely replace the M4 tanks. Interestingly, besides the received T-34-85 tanks, the JNA officials asked the Soviets for the delivery of T-34s armed with 100 mm guns. It is not quite clear, but it appears the JNA was not aware that this vehicle was not produced by the Soviets. The confusion with it lay in the fact that the JNA wrongly thought that the Romanian armed forces possessed 100 mm-armed T-34-85s, which, according to them, were likely imported from the Soviet Union. Romania possessed no such thing, the closest thing being the SU-100 tank destroyer.
Designation
A number of authors, including B. B. Dimitrijević (Modernizacija i Intervencija Jugoslovenske Oklopne Jedinice 1945-2006), describe this tank as the T-34B. The origin of this designation is not clear. but it is possible that it was given in order to differentiate them from the older versions. These sources do not specify if the older T-34-76 or even the unimproved T-34-84 were marked as T-34A as they do not even use this designation in any context. On the other hand, sources, such as F. Pulham and W. Kerrs (T-34 Shock: The Soviet Legend in Pictures), mention that the T-34B designation referred to the older T-34-85 and not the later improved vehicles used by the JNA. To avoid any potential confusion, this article will use the simple T-34-85 designation.
Further Attempts for Improvements and Standardization
While the Vehicle A project was canceled, experiments on improving the T-34 continued for some time after that. With the arrival of Western equipment, such as the M4 and M47 tanks, there was an issue regarding available spare parts. The production of parts for Soviet vehicles would be adopted in time. On the other hand, the JNA officials decided not to adopt the production of spare parts for Western vehicles. These were to be acquired from abroad instead. During the 1950s, a series of experiments and testing was undertaken in order to see if improving the performance and standardization of parts and weapons was possible. The JNA was especially interested in replacing the M4’s engine with the one from the T-34-85. In addition, the armament of these two tanks was to be replaced with 90 mm caliber weapons. Another small standardization effort included reboring the Browning machine guns from 7.62 mm to 7.92 mm caliber.
Most of these modifications were undertaken at the Machine Bureau in Belgrade, formed in 1950. Most of the manpower at this bureau was relocated to the Famos factory, where production of the V-2 engine and the gearbox began in 1954 and 1957 respectively. In addition, at Famos, the idea of a self-propelled vehicle armed with a 90 mm gun, known as Vozilo B (English Vehicle B), possibly using components of the T-34-85, was proposed, but nothing came from it.
In 1955, after testing two French AMX-13 tanks, which were rejected, mostly due to their price, the idea of domestically-built tanks was once again considered. In 1956, this led to the M-320 proposal. The project would be rejected due to its price and because it did not utilize components taken from the T-34-85 tank. It was replaced with a new proposal, the M-628 Galeb (English: Seagull), which was in essence an improved T-34-85 tank. There were two versions of this vehicle. The AC-version was to be armed with the standard 85 mm gun but equipped with M-53 domestically produced machine guns, new radios, a new V-2-32 engine, etc. The second proposal was the AR-version, armed with a 90 mm gun and a 12.7 mm machine gun.
At the end of 1958 and early 1959, one T-34-85 armed with a 90 mm gun was tested. During the firing trials, it was noted that, firing at a range of 500 m, it could not penetrate 100 mm of armor plate angled at 30o. The firing rate was reduced to only four rounds per minute, in comparison to the original T-34-85, which had a firing rate of 7 to 8 rounds per minute. Due to the larger rounds, the ammunition load had to be reduced from 55 to 47 rounds. Despite these deficiencies, in April 1959 a small pre-prototype series was meant to be built. Additional changes were to be tested, such as the installation of a 12.7 or 20 mm anti-aircraft gun mounted on top of the turret, improving electrical installations, control systems, etc. Several different workshops were to be included in the realization of this project. For example, the turret was developed and tested by Železara Ravne, Bratstvo was responsible for the installation of the gun inside the turret, and the final assembly was to be done by Famos. Due to a lack of experienced engineers to lead the project, large quantities of newly produced parts could not be used due to poor quality.
In 1960, attempts to improve (or reuse some of its parts for other projects) the T-34-85’s performance continued. This led to the M-636 Kondor (English Condor), which incorporated some components from the T-34-85.
Front view of the experimental M-636. Few pictures of these experimental vehicles have survived to this day. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.
In 1965, the so-called Adaptirani (English Adapted) T-34-85 was tested. These received a number of modifications, including the installation of a 12.7 anti-aircraft machine gun, smoke dischargers, improved hydraulic steering, etc. Other projects, such as using a 2 cm anti-aircraft gun and improved nuclear protection, were discarded early on. The Adapted and the previously mentioned T-34 armed with the 90 mm gun were used for testing the added and modified equipment.
Besides the installation of the 90 mm gun, other larger weapons were also considered for the T-34-85. These included the 100 and 122 mm caliber guns. Interestingly, the 122 mm gun was tested on an M4 with a modified turret. While a production order for some 100 vehicles was given, it was ultimately rejected. The project was briefly revived, using the T-34-85 tank for the conversion.
The year 1966 was crucial for the older JNA tanks (the M4 and T-34-85). By this time, the more modern equipment, including improved T-34-85 tanks, were arriving in larger numbers. For this reason, it was decided to slowly remove the M4 from service but also stop any attempt at modifying either of the tanks. This year basically marked the end of any project that involved improving or changing the design of the T-34-85.
The two modified T-34-85 tanks were found in a military warehouse in Banja Luka (BiH) in 1969. Given the rather slow and ineffective Yugoslav bureaucracy, it is not a surprise that these two tanks appear to have been stored and ‘lost’. After a dilemma about what to do with them, a decision was made to use them as basic training tanks (with the guns non-operational). Later, it was ordered to switch the main gun back to the original 85 mm gun.
Of all previously mentioned modifications, only a few would be adopted for service. The most obvious modification was adding a 12.7 mm Browning heavy machine gun on top of the turret. These were mainly reused from the obsolete M4 tanks. The standard handrails from the turret were replaced with new ones. Probably the most important change was the installation of the M-68 infrared device.
In 1967, two army technical overhaul plants (TRZ 1 Čačak and TRZ 3 Đorđe Petrov) made an analysis of opportunities for improvement of these older models to T-34-85 1960 standards. These analyses showed that it was feasible to upgrade them, even within the scope of the existing military industry. All older T-34-85s were to be modified to the new standards, adding a more powerful engine, an anti-aircraft gun, installing new drive wheels when the old ones wore out, improved night vision systems for night driving, etc.
The process of modernization began in 1969 and was undertaken by the technical overhaul plant Čačak. In early 1970, the installation of four series of night vision systems began. The problem was the slow upgrading process of older engines to the new standard. For this reason, delegations were sent to Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Soviet Union, in order to buy more engines. In 1972, 150 new engines were bought. In 1973, new engines were fitted into the tanks while the older engines were used for training by battalions armed with this type of vehicle. The delegations were especially keen on engines from Czechoslovakia and Poland. The Poles offered 100 revamped engines. However, they also could produce new engines if a deal was made. A year later, 120 V-34M-11s were bought. Another innovation was the introduction of the R-113 and R-123 radios, which were to replace the outdated SET 19 radio.
Modificatications characteristic of the Yugoslav T-34-85 tanks. 1 – new handrails, 2 – remains of the standard handrails, 3 – one of the machine gun support types, 4 – alternate placement for the machine gun. Source: www.hrcappuccino.org1 – the second type of machine gun support, 2 – stand of the machine gun support. Source: www.hrcappuccino.orgThe third type of machine gun support. Source: www.hrcappuccino.orgThe way of fixing the machine gun was when it was located in the alternate position. The barrel of the gun was laterally fixed. Source: www.hrcappuccino.orgAnother way of fixing the machine gun. This method was used when the machine gun was located on the turret. The gun was fixed with this type of ingot. Source: www.hrcappuccino.org
Besides these improvements, a number of T-34-85s were modified to be used as training tanks. In essence, only a firing imitator device was added above the gun. Interestingly, during the winter of 1969/1970, a small prototype series of T-34-85 tanks were modified, receiving a 2 cm gun (taken from old captured German Flak AA pieces), which was installed inside the 85 mm gun. This was done to help during firing training. This was successfully tested by the 211th Armored Brigade.
The training vehicles had to fire a firing imitator device that was added above the turret and the gun. Source: www.mycity-military.com
Non-Combat Modifications
For a long time, the JNA had planned to convert some T-34-85s into mine-clearing vehicles. On one prototype, the turret was removed and, in its place, a crane was installed. The results were not satisfactory and the project was canceled. The single prototype remained in use up to 1999, when it was abandoned in Kosovo and Metohija by the VJ (Vojska Jugoslavije, post-1992 Army of Yugoslavia).
The single mine-clearer prototype was built in the late 1950s and remained in use with the later Army of Yugoslavia up to 1999. It was left behind after its armed forces left Kosovo and Metohija the same year. Source: www.srpskioklop
Another proposal to develop a recovery vehicle based on the T-34-85 was also examined. This vehicle was designated M-67, but as newer improved ammunition arrived from the Soviet Union for the T-34-85, it was deemed wasteful to use the tank chassis in this manner, so the project was rejected. Projects including a bridge-carrying version were also tested, but they too were canceled.
Ordinary T-34-85 tanks could be equipped with an M-67 military plow to help dig trenches and shelters. In addition, every third tank would have a PT-55 anti-mine device and every fifth a dozer.
A T-34-85 equipped with a plow. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba
Export
A lesser-known fact is that Yugoslav T-34-85 tanks were exported, but precise information is still somewhat lacking. While not completely clear, there is a chance that the JNA supplied a few T-34-85 tanks to the Cypriot Army during the 1970s. While no documentation was ever found of this alleged transfer of these tanks, authors such as B. B. Dimitrijević (Modernizacija i Intervencija Jugoslovenske Oklopne Jedinice 1945-2006) mention that there is some photographic evidence suggesting that some Cypriot vehicles were equipped similarly to the T-34-85s that were in JNA service (night vision equipment and 12.7 mm anti-aircraft machine guns).
It is known that, during 1970, some 10 tanks with ammunition and personnel were delivered to the Angolese Communist guerilla MPLA. The retired tanks of the 51st Motorized Brigade were sent from the port of Ploče, Croatia. All costs for the transport were paid by the Yugoimport-SDPR company. According to some sources, Yugoslav tanks were also in the hands of Middle Eastern and other African countries.
Service in Yugoslavia
In service, the T-34-85s were used in various military exercises and parades. Despite the cooperation with the Soviet Union (except for the period from 1948 to Stalin’s death) regarding the acquisition of spare parts, the JNA had trouble doing effective mechanical maintenance of these tanks. This was due to many reasons. The first problem was the rather poor mechanical condition of many vehicles supplied prior to 1948. They lacked proper documentation, so the JNA engineers simply did not know about their use and mechanical maintenance history. Another major problem was the prolonged delay in starting the domestic production of spare parts and equipment. During the early 1950s, some 30% of available T-34-85s were out of service for various reasons, but mostly due to mechanical breakdowns.
In order to resolve this issue, during this time, at least 5 technical repair institutes were formed. These proved insufficient for the job and the number of inoperative T-34-85 tanks began to rise, reaching half of the available tanks in 1956. A huge problem was the inability of the domestic industry to begin producing spare parts. The problem with domestic production of spare parts took more than a decade to be resolved to some extent. Production of these in the civilian industry proved problematic and too expensive. This forced the JNA to use the technical repair institutes for this role. This, of course, was another problem, as these rarely communicated with each other, which led to them producing spare parts for their own demands. Relocation of spare parts from storage to the designated units was slow and usually needed between 6 to 20 months to arrive.
Trieste Crisis
After the end of the war, the political tensions between the Western Allies and Yugoslavia began to rise. The focal point of this growing crisis was the Italian city of Trieste, which the Yugoslav officials wanted to occupy. The negotiations for resolving this issue and avoiding possible conflict lasted several days. Finally, on 9th June 1945, an agreement was signed between the Yugoslav and Western Allied representatives. The Yugoslav Army was to evacuate Trieste. The city and its surroundings were divided into two spheres of influence. Zone A was controlled by the Allies and included the city itself and its surrounding. Zone B included the city of Istra and part of the Slovenian coast. Both the First and Second Tank Brigades (equipped with the T-34-85 tanks) were present during this crisis.
On 9th June 1945, an agreement was signed between the Yugoslav and Western Allied representatives. The city and its surroundings were divided into two spheres of influence. Zone A was controlled by the Allies and included the city itself and its surrounding. Zone B included the city of Istra and part of the Slovenian coast. Source: Wiki
At the end of 1945 and the start of 1946, the Allies began repositioning additional Polish units to the area of Trieste. This caused great concern to the Yugoslav hierarchy, which followed these new developments with interest. The Yugoslav build-up of additional forces began shortly after, as the Second Tank Brigade was repositioning to this area. After a series of peace negotiations, an agreement was signed in September 1947. This allowed Yugoslavia to take some of the disputed territories in Slovenia. This was actually the first usage of tanks after World War Two ended.
In October 1953, the Western powers authorized the Italians to position their forces in the city of Trieste. This move caught the Yugoslav military and political authorities completely unprepared. They immediately responded by concentrating additional forces, with the aim of expelling the Italians in case they entered the city. First to respond was the 265th Tank Brigade equipped with M4 tanks. Due to political reasons, this unit was to be replaced with the 252nd Tank Brigade equipped with T-34-85 tanks, which was previously positioned in the eastern part of Yugoslavia for an anticipated Soviet attack. Luckily for all sides, despite the great confusion and stubbornness on both sides, no actual combat occurred. Political negotiation began shortly and a final agreement was signed. Yugoslavia agreed to stop attempts to annex this area.
Prior to the Yugoslav Wars
The T-34-85 represented a great portion of the JNA’s armored forces. For example, in 1972, there were 1,018 T-34-85 tanks in service within the JNA, which was 40% of Yugoslav armored forces in total. They served in armored units such as the 5th Armored Brigade, including the 14th, 16th, 19th, 21st, 24th, 25th, 41st, and 42nd Armored Regiments. The vehicles were also used in motorized units, such as the 36th and 51st Motorized Brigades, and rifle units, for example, the 12nd Rifle Brigade. The tanks were used in training units and educational centers, among others, at Zalužani, as well.
During the 1980s, the process of withdrawing the T-34-85 tanks from service began. They were moved from armored units to motorized and even to infantry units in the independent armored battalions. A huge number of this type of vehicle was transferred to warehouses, where they remained until the early 1990s. By 1988, there were around 1,003 T-34-85 tanks in the JNA’s inventory. In the early 1990s, T-34-85 tanks were in service with at least 17 armored battalions of various motorized brigades.
T-34-85 tanks in one of the warehouses of the JNA. Notice that one vehicle has a five-digit tactical number (18704), while the vehicle on the left (2884) has a standard four-digit tactical number. Another interesting detail is the different types of road wheels on vehicle no. 18704. Source: Poligon 2/2018The T-34-85s were quite common during many military parades celebrating the victory in the Second World War. Source:www.srpskioklop.paluba
The Yugoslav Civil Wars
The political and economical crisis of the late 1980s, together with ever-rising nationalism in all federal entities in Yugoslavia, would ultimately lead to a bloody and costly civil war. These events are still politically and historically controversial, especially in the countries of the former Yugoslavia. The reasons why it started, who started it, when and even its name are still ferociously debated to this day. Unfortunately, the war was accompanied by great suffering and crimes committed by all warring parties.
The authors of this article seek to be neutral and to write only about the participation of this vehicle during the wars without any involvement in current-day politics.
By the early 1990s, the JNA, despite the obsolescence of the T-34-85 tanks, still had fairly large numbers of them. The majority were, by this point, stored in various military warehouses across the country. All warring parties would manage to get their hands on them. They would see extensive action simply as they were available in sufficient numbers and relatively simple to use.
Just prior to the civil war that broke out in 1991, Yugoslavia was home to many different, mostly Slavic people. While for decades they lived in peace, the rise of nationalism and economic stagnation, to name a few reasons, ultimately plunged this country into a bloody civil war, with thousands of human lives lost. Tenths of thousands were also forced to abandon their homes. Source: www.pinterest.com
Slovenia
The tensions that would eventually lead to open war, began in late 1990. By 25th June 1991, both the Croatian and Slovene parliaments unilaterally declared independence. The remaining Yugoslav government issued orders to the JNA to begin military action against these two republics. In late June 1991, in Slovenia, a short and the least bloody conflict in the breakup of Yugoslavia took place. Even though the T-34-85 tanks were present in Slovenia, it is likely that the vehicles were not used in this conflict.
After the war and retreat of Yugoslav forces, the tanks were returned to warehouses, located in Vipava and Pivka. According to some sources, over a dozen were sold to Croatia, while the rest were either sent to museums or scrapped.
Croatia
Soon after the end of the war in Slovenia, clashes started in Croatia. Prior to this event, there had been some minor skirmishes between Croatian and Serbian paramilitary forces. After June 1991, the JNA took a more aggressive stance. At first, the JNA also used units equipped with T-34-85 tanks against the Croatian forces. It is known that the 16th Rifle Brigade used them, which participated in the fighting in Western Slavonia. The tanks were also used during the battles near Dubrovnik and Konavle.
Destroyed T-34-85 operated by the JNA during the fighting for Stari Grabovac, near Vukovar, Eastern Slavonia. Notice the ‘JNA Jugoslavija’ inscription. The tank has also received a new tactical number at the front of the turret – 6. The older number, 18018, was also kept. Source: Poligon 2/2018
Several units operated vehicles of this type: the 5th Proletarian Brigade, 145th Rifle Brigade, and the 316th Motorized Brigade. The 9th Corps, stationed near the city of Knin, also operated T-34-85 tanks. Some of the tanks were transferred from the island of Vis a year before.
At the moment when the war broke out, Croatian forces did not have a single T-34-85 tank. However, they managed to capture some and, after doing necessary repairs, the tanks were sent to Croatian units. Some sources also imply that Slovenia delivered over a dozen tanks to Croatia.
In the late Autumn of 1991, units of the 2nd Titograd Corps started blocking and shelling Dubrovnik. The main goal of this attack was either to annex the city to Montenegro or declare the separatist Republic of Dubrovnik. The fierce clashes ended in May 1992 with the JNA’s defeat.
A Croatian T-34-85 nicknamed ‘Leopard’ in the Dubrovnik region. The man on the right is Major Andrija Matijaš Pauk. He was one of the most famous Croatian commanders of the armored forces. Source: Poligon 2/2018
An important role in the defense of Dubrovnik was played in the Croatian 163rd Dubrovnik Brigade. One of the T-34-85 tanks became a true legend within Croatian forces, nicknamed Malo bijelo (English: Little White). Allegedly, during the battle, it survived two shots from 9M14 Malyutka anti-tank guided missiles. The tank also managed to destroy several enemy vehicles. At least two armored personnel carriers, one T-55, and a truck were claimed to have been destroyed.
Malo bijelo allegedly survived two shots from Yugoslav 9M14 Malyutka anti-tank guided missiles. Source: Poligon 2/2018
The characteristic feature of vehicles that belonged to the Croatian 136rd Brigade was the sandbags added to the hull and around the turret. Even though this kind of protection was primitive, it may have been somewhat effective, as the Malo bijelo story could indicate.
Malo bijelo seen from the other side. The word Sokol (Falcon) is written on the barrel. Source: Poligon 2/2018
Moreover, this kind of protection was also used by other Croatian units in the region of Dubrovnik between 1991 and 1992. In 1992, Croatian forces started pushing the Serbs back. During this period, the Croats captured over a dozen T-34-85 tanks. After some months, they were sent to armored battalions of various brigades of the Zbor narodne garde – ZNG (English: Croatian National Guard), later renamed to the Hrvatska vojska (HV, English: Croatian Army).
Croatian T-34-85 with the characteristic protection made of sandbags and checked red and white coat of arms painted on the front, Dubrovnik, 1992. Source: Poligon 2/2018
In August 1992, Croatian tanks of the 114th, 115th, and 163th Brigades participated in Operation Tigar (English: Tiger) and then in Operation Medački džep (English: Medak Pocket) during September 1993.
Destroyed T-34-85 operated by the Army of Serbian Krajina by Croatian forces in Karlovac, 1992. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_destroyed_T-34-85_tank_in_Karlovac,_Croatia.jpg
The T-34-85 tanks also participated in Operacija Bljesak (English: Operation Flash) during May 1995 in Slavonia, and in Oluja (English: Operation Storm). These two operations basically marked the end of the war in Croatia. However, the T-34-85 tanks were not used in the first line, but rather in infantry support tasks.
Soldiers of the Army of Serbian Krajina posing in front of a T-34-85 tank, Osijek, between 1991 and 1992. Poligon 2/2018
It is not known how many tanks survived the war but it is known that, after the war ended, they were retired and gradually scrapped. An interesting fact is that some vehicles were still in a military base in Benkovac between the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. The state of the vehicles shows that it was some kind of warehouse.
Croatian tanks used various types of improvised protection. In addition to the already mentioned sandbags, rubber was also used. They also strongly differed from Yugoslav tanks in the paint job. While some kept their original olive green color, some were painted with camouflage. The first type of camouflage consisted of brown stains on the standard olive green, while the second type had three colors – light green and brown stains on the base olive green. The fourth type had the most colors – light green, brown and black stains on the base olive green. A lot of vehicles had a painted red and white Croatian checkerboard and their nicknames as well (Belaj bager, Demon, Mungos, Malo bijelo, Leopard, Pas, Sv. Kata, and Živac) on the hull and turret.
While the Croatian forces often managed to take over equipment from the now disintegrating JNA, some military units managed to repel the attacks using their manpower and equipment. One such event occurred during the JNA break out of the Stjepan Milanšić-Šiljo military barracks near Logorište. This barrack, which was meant to house fairly large units, was guarded by only a skeletal crew of 40 soldiers. These had the responsibility of guarding some 63 T-34-85 and T-55 tanks and other equipment. The encirclement of this JNA point began to tighten in August 1991. Due to the poor organization of the attacking Croatian units, this could not be fully implemented and the JNA could slowly reinforce its beleaguered garrison. The situation escalated when the Croatian soldiers killed 17 previously disarmed JNA soldiers. On 4th November 1991, the trapped garrison launched a general breakout with all available equipment. After two days of heavy fighting, the previously trapped JNA units managed to escape. They managed to evacuate 21 T-55 and 9 T-34-85 tanks. During the harsh fighting, the JNA forces lost between 8 to 10 tanks, many of which were T-34-85s. The Stjepan Milanšić-Šiljo military barracks was previously set on fire and were shelled by the JNA artillery, destroying much of its pre-war inventory.
One of the JNA T-34-85s lost during the Stjepan Milanšić-Šiljo breakout. Source: www.srpskioklop.palubal
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In spring 1992, another war broke out, this time in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Territorial Defense Force of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina managed to capture 19 T-34-85 tanks in Zenica at the beginning of the conflict. Later, they were assigned to various units, where armored battalions (platoons) were formed.
Later, the Bosniaks (known before as the Bosnian Muslims) captured more vehicles of this type, and after repairs, the tanks were sent to units of the Armija Bosne i Hercegovine (English: Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina).
It is assessed that the total number of T-34-85 tanks operated by Bosnia and Herzegovina was around 45. Some sources also state that a part of these vehicles were imported from other countries, with the West turning a blind eye. This is rather interesting as, officially, there was an embargo on exporting arms to warring countries in the Balkan region.
T-34–85 operated by the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, probably in 1993. National insignias representing the country are on the turret (Coat of Arms, inscription BiH). Notice also the improvised protection made of rubber. Source: Poligon 2/2018
After the beginning of the war, the T-34-85 tanks were intensively used by the JNA, mainly in the regions of Posavina, Herzegovina, and central and eastern Bosnia. They were also used during the Siege of Sarajevo to support infantry and as entrenched firing points.
In May 1992, the JNA (which also changed its name to the Vojska Jugoslavije (VJ, English: Army of Yugoslavia) withdrew from Bosnia and Herzegovina, while huge numbers of heavy equipment left behind, including T-34-85 tanks. They were sent into service with the Vosjka Republike Sprske (English: Army of the Republika Srpska) including personnel that had decided to stay. At first, armored equipment was stationed in the region of Banja Luka, then being split between individual units for infantry support tasks.
Besides Bosniaks and Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Croats within the Hrvatsko Vijeće Odbrane – (HVO, English: Croatian Council of Defense) also operated T-34-85 tanks. They were used against the two other groups, mainly in 1993.
During the war, there were also attacks on international peace forces. On 3rd May 1995, Bosnian Serb forces attacked a checkpoint of the UNPROFOR (United Nations Protection Force) in Maglaj, where soldiers of the 21st Regiment of the Royal Engineers were stationed. On the Serbian side was at least one T-34. Even though the attack was repulsed, six British soldiers were injured because of the tank’s fire.
Many tanks used during the war were equipped with improvised protection in order to protect the crew. According to available photos, the protection was made from thick sheets of rubber. However, a universal scheme of up-armoring did not exist, so, in reality, every tank had its protection made in a different way. Still, many tanks had this kind of protection on the hull and on the turret as well. It is not known if this kind of protection was effective, especially against modern anti-tank weapons.
Bosnian Serb T-34-85 with improvised protection, Bijeljina, between 1994 and 1995. Source: Poligon 2/2018
The war ended in 1995, when the Dayton Peace Treaty was signed. Bosnia and Herzegovina was the last post-Yugoslav operator of the T-34-85 tanks, as the last 23 tanks were sent to be scrapped in 2000.
Abandoned T-34, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1995. Source: Poligon 2/2018T-34-85 which belonged to the Army of Republika Srpska, Doboj, 1996. Source: Poligon 2/2018
Macedonia
Meanwhile, Macedonia became independent in the Autumn 1991. There were either 4 or 5 T-34-85 tanks that were operated by the JNA in the area, but they were not evacuated from Macedonia in time. The Macedonian Army operated them for a short time. They were retired and probably used as monuments and sent to museums. However, it is not known when this happened and some sources state they were repaired and entered service in the Summer of 1993. This means they could have stayed in service for a bit longer.
In the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
The Savezna Republika Jugoslavija (SRJ, English: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) was the union between Serbia and Montenegro. At the beginning of 1993, its army had some 393 T-34-85 tanks. The end of the T-34-85 tanks in VJ service came to an end in 1996 due to the armament regulations instituted by the Dayton Agreement (late 1995). The former Yugoslav countries had to reduce their numbers of military armored vehicles. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia retained the right to have around 1,875 armored vehicles, of which 1,025 were tanks). Following these restrictions, a large number of older vehicles were removed from service. All VJ T-34 tanks were removed and sent for scrap metal, with the exception of those few which were given to museums. One can be seen at the Kalemegdan military museum in Belgrade.
The surviving T-34-85 at the Serbian Kalemegdan military museum in Belgrade. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba
Given the rather large number of used T-34-85, it should not be surprising that over a dozen or so vehicles survived the Yugoslav wars. They are exhibited in various museums, storehouses, or even in private collections.
A JNA T-34-85 in the Pivka museum in Slovenia. Source:/ftr.wot-news.comT-34-85 tanks operated by the Croatian Army lined up in Benkovac. The photo is interesting because it shows various versions of modernized T-34-85s. It is also interesting because of the various camouflage types. Source: Poligon 2/2018
JNA T-34-85 on the Movie Screen
The Yugoslav film industry often made films with the theme of the Partisan’s exploits during the Second World War. The JNA often provided the necessary military equipment to portray enemy armored vehicles. One example was the movie Battle of Neretva from 1969. In it, some T-34-85 were modified to resemble the German Tiger tanks, even though these tanks were never actually used in Yugoslavia during the war. The creators of this movie went for a much more imposing visual effect than historical accuracy.
A Yugoslav T-34-85 disguised as a Tiger tank in the movie Battle for Neretva. Source: www.reddit.com/
The JNA’s T-34-85s were also used to portray German Tiger tanks in the 1970 classic Kelly’s Heroes. The film featured Hollywood greats, such as Clint Eastwood, Telly Savalas, and Donald Sutherland. Three modified T-34-85 were used in this movie. The film was a US-Yugoslav co-production, filmed mainly in the Croatian village of Vižinada, on the Istria peninsula
Similar Tigers in the movie classic Kelly’s Heroes. Source: www.pinterest.com
Conclusion
Despite being obsolete, the T-34-85 was an important armored vehicle in the JNA arsenal. It represented over 40% of all available tank models. Even though the JNA acquired more modern tanks, and despite many mechanical and maintenance issues, the T-34-85 persisted in service up to the 1990s. Unfortunately for a weapon intended to protect Yugoslavia, it helped tear it apart during the civil wars in the 1990s. After those wars, nearly all would be removed from service and sent to be scrapped, with the last vehicles finally being sent to the scrapyard in 2000, several decades after they first entered service.
An article by John Stevenson and Marko Pantelic. The authors of this article would also like to thank Discord user HrcAk47#2345 for providing data related to ammunition.
T-34-85 in JNA service. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.
T-34-85 specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
6.68 x 3 x 2.45 m
Total Weight, Battle Ready
32 tonnes
Crew
5 (driver, radio operator, gunner, loader and commander)
Propulsion
500 hp
Speed
60 km/h (road)
Range
300-400 km (road), 230-320 (off-road)
Armament
85 mm ZiS-S-53 gun, with two 7.62 mm DT machine guns and one 12.7 mm Browning M2 heavy machine gun.
AB41 captured and later deployed by the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia, 1944.
Yugoslav Partisans/Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1943-1953)
Medium Armored Car – At Least 40+ Operated
When Italian forces retreated from Yugoslavia in September 1943 after the Italian Armistice, they left plenty of weapons and armored vehicles for the Partisans to take. Armored vehicles were especially valued by the Partisans, which previously did not have any in significant numbers. Among these were a number of AB41s which would be used extensively during the war. The Partisan AB41s that did survive the war would remain in use up to the early 1950s before finally being replaced by modern equipment.
The author would especially like to thank Arturo Giusti for providing pictures and information for this article.
A Partisan AB41 after the war. It belonged to the last production batch, as evident from the 20 liters can supports and the smoke grenade box on the rear side. Note that only the spare tire was of Italian origin, and the other ones were of civilian origin. Source: pinterest.com
The Italian AB41
The Italian AB41 medium reconnaissance armored car was the second and most successful model of a heterogeneous family of armored cars called AB, short for AutoBlinda (English: Armored Car).
It was an evolution from the AB40, which was developed in late 1937 for the Italian Regio Esercito (English Royal Army) and Polizia dell’Africa Italiana (English: Police of Italian Africa) and entered production in 1940. This model was armed with only three medium machine guns and could not support the troops with adequate firepower. For this reason, in 1941, Ansaldo engineers decided to mount the Torretta Modello 1941 (English: Turret Model 1941) one-man turret armed with a 20 mm L.65 Cannone-Mitragliera Breda da 20/65 Modello 1935 and a coaxial medium machine gun, plus another medium machine gun in the rear. The new armored car entered production in March 1941.
The AB41 armored car in the North African desert in 1941. Source: https://comandosupremo.com/autoblinda-40-41/
The new 20 mm gun had enough anti-tank capabilities to be able to counter almost any enemy armored car or light tank of the early war, with the Armor Piercing rounds penetrating 38 mm of the vertical armored plate at 100 meters.
The new AB41 had an increased weight of 7.52 tonnes compared to the 6.4 tonnes of the AB40. The FIAT-SPA engineers, the factories that were responsible for producing the engines, slightly increased the engine power for the AB41, from the 78 hp of the FIAT-SPA ABM 1 to the 88 hp of the FIAT-SPA ABM 2. Thanks to this engine, the armored car had a maximum road speed of 78.38 km/h and, with its 195 liters petrol tank, it had a range of 400 km. In total, the Regio Esercito produced 644 AB41 armored cars until 8th September 1943, when the Kingdom of Italy made public its Armistice with the Allied forces.
Axis Invasion of the Balkans
After the unsuccessful invasion of Greece by Italian forces, Benito Mussolini was forced to ask for help from his German ally. Adolf Hitler agreed to provide assistance, fearing a possible Allied attack through the Balkans would reach Romania and its vital oil fields. On the path of the German advance towards Greece stood Yugoslavia, whose government initially agreed to join the Axis side. This agreement was short-lived, as the Yugoslav government was overthrown by an anti-Axis pro-Allied military coup at the end of March 1941. Hitler immediately gave an order for the preparation of the invasion of Yugoslavia. The war that began on 6th April 1941 was a short one and ended with a Yugoslav defeat and the division of its territory between the Axis powers.
Map of the partition of Yugoslavia after the invasion. Slovenia was divided between Germany, Italy, and Hungary. The Croatian puppet state was given to most of western Yugoslavia, including Bosnia. Macedonia was divided between Italy, which also took Montenegro and Bulgaria. Northern Serbia was occupied by Hungary. What was left of Serbia was placed under German occupation. Source: Wiki
Autoblinda AB41 in Yugoslavia
Prior to the collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, its army attempted to acquire modern armored vehicles. Despite having a history of political tension with its neighbor, Italy, the Yugoslav Royal Army purchased weapons and equipment from them. This also included an order for 54 AB40 armored cars. Due to the outbreak of the war, nothing came from this.
An early model of the AB40, the predecessor of the AB41. It was armed with three machine guns and was built in limited numbers. Source: https://comandosupremo.com/autoblinda-40-41/
Following the partition of the Yugoslav territories, a general uprising led by two resistance movements caused chaos in the ranks of the occupiers. By 1942, these two groups became quite effective in carrying out raids against Italian supply lines. In order to provide sufficient protection, the Italian Army began reinforcing its units in Yugoslavia with various armored vehicles, most of which were improvised armored trucks and Carri Armati L6/40light tanks, but also some AB41 armored cars. The use of the AB41 in Yugoslavia is generally poorly documented, but what is sure is that they were used operationally up to 1943.
Italian AB41 in Yugoslavia. Source: italie1935-45.com
In Communist Partisan Hands
Following the Italian capitulation in September 1943, the German Wehrmacht launched Fall Achse (English: Operation Axis) in the hope of capturing as many Italian weapons and territories as possible. During this operation, over 20,000 Italian soldiers were killed and over a million were disarmed and captured. The Germans also captured 977 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs), of which about 200 were AB41 armored cars. They were not the only ones to do so. After the collapse of Italian armed forces in Yugoslavia, despite German attempts to prevent Italian weapons and vehicles from falling into the hands of the Partisans, many of them did. In part thanks to their quick response, the Partisans managed to acquire a number of Italian armored vehicles. Which exact vehicles and models were captured is unknown. There were plenty of AB41s captured intact, in some cases delivered by Italian soldiers that did not want to join the Germans and joined the Partisan forces or as a barter for free passage.
Following the Italian capitulation managed to liberate a huge portion of Yugoslav territories previously occupied by the enemy. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/8oh5dh/map_of_partisan_resistance_in_yugoslavia_1943/Partisans captured AB41 after the Italian capitulation. It has the former Italian Royal Army plate ‘Regio Esercito 576B’. The front tire was a Pirelli Tipo ‘Artiglio’ continental tire, the spare one was a Pirelli Tipo ‘Libia’ for sandy soils, while the rear one was a civilian one. Source: B. D. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne Jedinice Na Jugoslovenskom Ratištu
These were pressed into service by the Partisans who were active in Croatia and Slovenia. The Partisans from Slovenia managed to capture over 90 armored vehicles of various types from the Italians, including at least 15 AB41 armored cars. The Partisans never used these as a unified fighting force. Instead, these were allocated to various units depending on the needs. Usually, during an attack on enemy fortified positions, a platoon that consisted of two tanks, two AB41 armored cars, and one armored truck would be employed. The tanks and the armored cars would use their firepower and armor to suppress the enemy defenders (usually Slovenian collaborators), which often lacked any form of anti-tank weapons. As the defenders were occupied, the armored truck filled with Partisan fighters would storm the enemy positions and attack from the rear. In Dalmatia (Croatia), the Partisan First Proletarian Division operated two AB41 during October 1943. Most of these vehicles would be lost during the German counter-attack which failed to destroy the Partisans but inflicted severe losses on them.
The few surviving AB41s that did survive were hidden by the Partisans. These would be put back into action after July 1944.
Three AB41s were used in September 1943 to reinforce the Tank Battalion, which was under the direct control of the Partisan High Command stationed in Croatia. Two were allocated to the 1st Company and one to the 2nd Company. For unspecified reasons, these saw action for the first time in January 1944, during the liberation of the small village of Oštarija around Lika. According to the original Partisan plan, the two AB41s were to provide fire support to the infantry from the 8th Kordunaška Division. The defending Croatian garrison was well defended inside brick bunkers. With heavy machine-gun fire, they managed to pin down the Partisan infantry, which could not advance. The two AB41s took the initiative and towed two anti-tank guns to storm the enemy line. They managed to break in and the guns began shooting at the bunkers. It is not clear in the sources who operated the anti-tank guns, whether it was the crews of the armored cars or if they carried additional soldiers. It seems probable that these were operated by the crews of the armored car themselves due to the small space inside the vehicles, which did not permit the transportation of other soldiers and anti-tank ammunition inside. Regardless of this, the enemy bunkers were quickly taken out with close fire from these guns. Seeing their defense crumbling, the remaining defenders tried to retreat but were cut down by the Partisans. From 14th to 16th January, these AB41s were used in various reconnaissance patrols and often clashed with the enemy.
On the 15th, an AB41 was sent on a reconnaissance mission near Ogulin. During the mission, the vehicle came across a German column that did not attack it, presumably thinking it was their own armor. The Partisans opened fire at close range and drove away. Unfortunately for the Partisans, they ran into three German tanks, two Somua S35s and one Panzer II. The AB41’s gun was unable to defeat the enemy tanks, which returned fire. Seeing the odds stacked against them, the Partisans once again drove off. On the 16th, one AB41 ambushed a group of Germans, capturing four mortars and one anti-tank rifle. The following day, a German aircraft spotted the Partisan AB armored cars and dropped a few bombs that missed them. In May, the Germans launched a large offensive that forced the retreating Partisans to hide their armored vehicles, including the AB.
In May 1944, the Germans launched an airborne raid on Drvar, which was undertaken to capture the Partisan leader, Josip Broz Tito. The Partisans’ defenders had one AB41 armored car which did not see action, as it was destroyed by a German Junkers Ju 87 ‘Stuka’ dive bomber. Ultimately, the operation failed, as Tito managed to escape. After a month in hiding, the AFVs were once again put to use. Given the fear of another German airborne attack, the Partisans attempted to keep one AB41 armored car and two light tanks as a security force for the Partisan High Command.
Despite being available in limited numbers, the AB41 was extensively used by the Partisans up to the end of the war. This particular vehicle had two Pirelli Tipo ‘Artiglio’ tires and a Pirelli Tipo ‘Libia’ as a spare tire. Source: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/ratniplen/fiat.htm
In August, Croatian forces attempted to storm the Partisan-held airfield at Krbovsko Polje, which was defended by one AB41 armored car and two light tanks. The AB41 proved vital for the defense of this airfield. Initially, it managed to fool the attackers, who believed it was operated by the Germans. In the end, due to the enemy’s superior numbers, the Partisans had to abandon this position. The AB41 was also vital at this point, providing cover for the retreating Partisans.
In November, the AB41s were successfully used against the Croatian and German defenders of Cazin. Thanks to their speed, they often managed to outflank the defenses, inflicting severe losses. When the town was liberated, of 500 defenders present during the battle, some 200 were claimed to have been killed thanks to the AB41s.
On 14th December 1944, a lone Partisan AB41 managed to single-handedly hold a 3 km wide front line during the Axis attempts to recapture Lika. As the Partisans lacked any infantry reinforcements, they sent one AB41 that was available. During the heavy day of fighting, it managed to hold back the enemy, firing some 410 20 mm rounds in addition to 1,400 rounds of the machine gun’s ammunition. The following day, its crew managed to maintain the same success in keeping the enemy at bay, spending some 540 rounds for the main gun plus 1,700 rounds of machine gun ammunition. This action, even though slightly dubious in its claims, gives an excellent idea of how easy the vehicle was to maintain. More than a year after its capture, with no spare parts for the armored car and cannon, the untrained Partisans were able to use this AB41 with excellent results. The vehicle would be actively used up to late December when it was withdrawn from the first line for repair. It would see action again in February 1945.
Due to the bitter winter, there was limited fighting up to February 1945. On 11th February, Croatian and German forces took back some Partisan-held territories. The following day, the Partisans mustered for a counter-attack, which was to be supported with one AB41. The fighting was heavy and the AB41 armored car was hit by an anti-tank rifle, killing one and badly wounding two more crew members. Despite this, the rear driver managed to drive the AB to safety. On 13th February, a new crew was ready and the repaired AB41 was put back into action. Most of February and March saw heavy use of the Partisan-operated AB armored cars. During the fighting at Bihać, one of them was lost. The crew of this vehicle was attacking an enemy bunker inside the town, but they failed to notice a second bunker close by. The defenders used a Panzerfaust to destroy the Partisan AB41. One crew member was killed while the remaining three managed to evacuate from the knocked-out AB41 in time. One more AB41 was badly damaged on 8th April 1944, with two crew members being wounded. In May, the Partisans managed to capture more than 20 AB armored cars from the retreating Axis forces. Due to poor Partisan documentation, the precise number is impossible to know.
One of the dozen or so captured AB41s during the Partisan advance in May 1945. On this vehicle, all the tires were of the Pirelli Tipo ‘Artiglio’ type. The antenna was removed from this vehicle for unknown reasons. Note the white painted letters on the superstructure and the improvised 20 liters can support the rear part. Source: B. D. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne Jedinice Na Jugoslovenskom RatištuA train with various captured enemy equipment, including one AB41 armored car. Source: beutepanzer.ru
After the War
Following the end of the war, the new Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija or JNA (English: Yugoslav People’s Army) used the captured ABs for crew training and fighting the remnants of the defeated enemy that were still present in Yugoslavia. These would remain in service up to 1953, before finally being replaced with more modern equipment.
An AB41 next to an Sd.Kfz.251/22 half-track armed with the 7.5 cm PaK 40 during military exercises in 1951. Source: pinterest.comIn the years after the war, the AB41s would often be seen on military parades, like during this one, held in Belgrade in October 1945. The left vehicle had two original Pirelli Tipo ‘Artiglio’ tires and two boxes mounted on the front fenders instead of the 20 liters cans. Source: www.paluba.info
Conclusion
The AB41 proved highly effective armored vehicles that saw service with the Partisans. The type was operated in limited numbers but would often be employed in the heaviest of fighting. Even in the hands of the inexperienced Partisans, it proved to be a great armored vehicle even in the role of a support vehicle rather than a reconnaissance vehicle.
The surviving vehicles would remain in service sometime after the war, providing the new tank recruits with the necessary initial experience and training in operating such vehicles. Unfortunately, despite their role in this resistance movement, no Partisan AB41 is known to have survived to this day.
AB41 captured and later deployed by the People’s Liberation Army of Yugoslavia, 1944.AB41 of the Yugoslav People’s Army. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.
AB41 specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
5.20 x 1.92 x 2.48 m
Total Weight, Battle Ready
7.52 tons
Crew
4 (front driver, rear driver, machine gunner/loader, and vehicle commander/gunner)
Propulsion
FIAT-SPA 6-cylinder petrol, 88 hp with 195 liters tank
Speed
Road Speed: 80 km/h
Off-Road Speed: 50 km/h
Range
400 km
Armament
Cannone-Mitragliera Breda 20/65 Modello 1935 (456 rounds) and Two Breda Modello 1938 8 x 59 mm medium machine guns (1992 rounds)
Maeda Ku-6. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.
Empire of Japan (1943)
Experimental Glider Tank – 1 Mock-up Built
While tanks can provide excellent offensive firepower, they can not always be easily transported to where they are needed. In the case of Japan during WW2, this was possible to achieve by using ships to transport them to where they were needed. During the war, the concept of a flying tank was becoming an interesting concept for the Japanese military hierarchy. Transporting tanks via air could potentially offer benefits to the airborne troops, who were often left without proper firepower support. This would lead to the creation of the Maeda Ku-6 tank glider.
The Concept of Airborne Operations
The idea of placing airborne troops behind enemy lines offers many tactical advantages. These can attack weak points and enemy supply lines. This in turn would force the opposing side to redistribute its own forces to deal with this problem. On the other hand, airborne forces often lack proper artillery or armor support, making them somewhat an easy target for well-equipped enemies. Some nation armies responded to this by employing light field artillery or even recoilless guns. Transporting armored vehicles proved a more daring task to implement. Tanks, for example, could not be easily carried inside a transport plane or even parachuted due to their weight. The American and British responded by developing lightly armored and armed light tanks, such as the M22 Locust or the Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, designed an auxiliary glider contraption that would be used to transport a tank, the Antonov A-40. This principle would also be tested by the Japanese Army during the war, which led to the creation of the Maeda Ku-6 project.
The American M22 Locust light airborne tank. Source: WikiAntonov’s project of a flying tank was unsuccessfully tested by the Soviets. Source: Wiki
Airborne Japan
The Japanese began developing simple glider designs for civilian use in 1937. Following the successful use of gliders by the Germans during their conquest of the West in May 1940, the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) began developing new gliders in June 1940. In response to this, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) began its own project soon after. In Japanese terminology, these were designated Kakku (English: to glide).
Both the IJA and IJN had and used parachute units. It is important to note that these were relatively small units that were rarely employed in their intended role. For these reasons, their equipment was more or less the same as that of ordinary infantry formations. They saw the most active service during the fight for the Dutch East Indies in 1942. These were mainly used to capture various vital strategic points, such as airfields or weakly defended positions deep into the enemy’s rear lines. Following the end of this campaign, the Japanese did not use paratrooper units in their primary role. These paratroops formations were instead mainly used as ordinary infantry units.
Japanese paratrooper IJN units had two notable deployments: in the successful Battle of Manado (11th-12th January 1942) on Celebes Island (also known as Sulawesi), and in the Battle of Timor (19th February 1942-10th February 1943), where IJN paratroopers suffered heavy casualties. Their IJA counterparts were used more as a commando unit and were only ever airdropped during the conquest of Sumatra in February 1942.
Map of the Japanese expansion by 1942. Some of these offensive operations also included the use of parachute units, albeit to a limited extent. Source: pinterest
In 1943 attempts were made in order to increase their firepower. It is unclear how much impact the experiences from the airborne operations of February 1942 had. It was proposed to use specially designed glider tanks that could be flown to their designated target and thus provide necessary firepower to generally weakly armed parachute formations. In addition, this vehicle could be airlifted to any other theater of war without a need for them to be transported by ships which were by this time becoming dangerous due to US navy and submarine activities.
The Maeda Ku-6
The project was initiated by the Army Head Aviation Office in collaboration with the Fourth Army Research Center. The first drawings of this new design were soon ready and were allocated to the Maeda research center for the construction of a working prototype. In the early stage of development, the new tank was to be transported by an especially designed glider. But as Maeda was unable to create a glider that could transport a light tank another solution was needed. Maeda engineers suggested another approach to this problem. As no glider could be developed to carry a tank, maybe the tank itself could be modified to be used as a glider.
While Maeda was responsible for the glider development, the design of the tank was given to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. It is unclear if it was a completely new tank design or if Mitsubishi reused some of the existing vehicles that were in service. According to the Japanese Army and Navy Aircraft Complete Guide, the Type 98 light tank was used for the project. This tank was intended as a replacement for the Type 95 Ha-Go but this was never achieved as it was built too late and in too few numbers.
The Type 98 light tank on which the Ku-6 was allegedly based. Source: Wiki
Name of the Project
According to E. M. Dyer (Japanese Secret Projects Experimental Aircraft of the IJA and IJN 1939-1945), the new light tank was designated as So-Ra (Sora-Sha), which could be translated as the “sky” or “air” tank. The whole project would be designated Kuro-Sha, with the Ku and Ro (meaning the number ‘6’) taken from the Ku-6 glider designation. Lastly, the Sha stands for “tank”. An older source, J. E. Mrazek (Fighting Gliders of World War II), mentions that the tank design originated in late 1939. According to Mrazek, the tank was initially designated ‘special Tank project 3’. It received the Sora-Sha designation before being changed to Kuro-Sha (English: Black Vehicle).
Technical Specification
Given its experimental nature and the loss of the original documentation, not much is known about the So-Ra light tank.
Due to its intended use, the So-Ra had to be as light as possible. Its total combat weight was estimated to be around 2.9 tonnes. The overall hull design was likely to have consisted of the rear engine compartment and the front crew compartment.
Suspension
Based on the available picture of the wooden mock-up of the So-Ra, it was to have an unspecified five-road suspension. What kind of suspension would be used is unclear. If the previously mentioned fact was sorely based on a Type 98 light tank then it would be using a bell-crank suspension which was quite common on Japanese tanks. Its later improved version, the Type 2 Ke-To, used a much-simplified bell crank suspension. To complicate the matter further, author D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Japan) mentions that the tank glider project would use a torsion bar suspension. It would likely have had a front-drive wheel, rear idler, and two return rollers.
Type 2 Ke-To with its slightly different suspension to the Type 98. Source: Wiki
Engine
The So-Ra was to be powered by an air-cooled four-cylinder 50 hp @ 2,400 rpm gasoline engine. Fuel capacity was to be around 150 liters. Thanks to its small weight, the maximum speed with this engine was estimated to be around 42 km/h.
Superstructure and Turret
On top of the hull, a superstructure was placed. Its central part appears to have had a simple box-shaped structure to allow the crew to fit inside the short and small vehicle. The front driver compartment was provided with three large vision ports. This was necessary, as the driver was also the glider pilot, so giving him the best possible view of the surroundings was important. On top of the driver compartment, an escape hatch was likely located. The centrally-positioned turret also appears to have a simple box-shaped design.
Armor
The armor thickness of this tank is unknown, but given its role, it would have been very light. E. M. Dyer mentions that it would have likely not exceeded more than a maximum of 12 mm.
Armament
Regarding armament, three different configurations were suggested. The first would have been a 37 mm gun. Which precise type is unclear, but given its availability, it was possibly the Type 94 tank gun, as some sources have suggested (E. M. Dyer Japanese Secret Projects Experimental Aircraft of the IJA and IJN 1939-1945). This tank gun was actually a modified 37 mm Type 94 infantry anti-tank gun. It had a muzzle velocity of 575 m/sec, it could penetrate 35 mm of armor at 300 m with Armor Piercing (AP) rounds. The gun could also fire High-Explosive (HE) rounds, although the effect of 37 mm HE was rather minor. A semi-automatic sliding breechblock fed the ammunition. Loading the gun would have been extremely easy to do one-handed, as the cartridges were rather small, at around 13 cm long and 4 cm in diameter.
A close-up view of a dismounted Type 94 37 mm gun. Note the firing pistol grip handle and the shoulder-guard stock. Source: forum.axishistory.com
If this vehicle was truly based on Type 98 or the improved Type 2 Ke-To, the 37 mm Type 1 may have been used. This is basically the same gun but with a longer barrel which offered a better velocity of 797 m/sec. The armor penetration was also increased to 44 mm at ranges of 500 m. Note that these numbers may vary between different sources.
The second variant consisted of a single 7.7 mm or larger caliber machine gun. This would have possibly been the Type 97 7.7 mm heavy ‘tank’ machine gun. This was an air-cooled machine gun, fed from a top-loading magazine, similar to the British Bren gun. This machine gun was actually a Japanese version of the Czech ZB vz 26 machine gun. It was equipped with a stock that was angled off to the right, allowing a gunner to line their eye up with the sight.
The Type 97 7.7 mm Heavy ‘tank Machine Gun. Note the top-loading magazine, x1.5 scope, and the armored barrel cover. Source: ww2f.com
Lastly, a flamethrower was considered a potential armament. Given the small size of the Ku-6 vehicle, the ignition fuel load for it would have been quite limited.
The ammunition load of either gun or machine gun version is unknown. However, given the cramped space inside the small glider tank, and the need to save weight, this would likely be quite limited.
Crew
The So-Ra would have been operated by two crew members. The driver was positioned in the front of the vehicle. He was also responsible for piloting the whole glider. Behind him, in the turret, the commander, who was also responsible for operating the main armament, was positioned. This small crew would greatly affect the tank’s overall performance. Given the limitation in size and weight, adding more crew members was not possible.
Wing Configuration
The Ku-6 was designed as a tank transporting glider. Due to the loss of the original documents, not much is known about its overall design. Over the years, historians have devised two different designs of how this contraption may have looked based on available information.
According to the first proposals, the tank itself was designed to act as an improvised glider fuselage. The wings and the tail assembly would be attached to it. The tank crews would be provided with wired control wires inside the vehicle. In front of the tank, a towing cable would be added.
In the first version, the wings were to be attached to the So-Ra sides with the tail assembly to the rear. Source: www.armedconflicts.com
The second version is completely different. Above the tank, a larger wing with a twin tail boom was added. These two components would be connected by struts. In both cases, once the tank hit the ground, the wing assemblies could be easily removed, which meant that the tank could immediately go into action with relative ease.
The second version was completely different in appearance. Source: www.armedconflicts.com
As the tracks would cause huge drag, specially designed sleds would be attached to them during take-off to facilitate an easier take-off. With the whole wing assembly, the Ku-6 had a length of between 12.8 to 15 m (depending on the source) with a width of 22 m. The maximum speed that could be achieved during the flight was 174 km/h.
It is important to note that these are both speculations on behalf of historians, and the actual method of constructing the glider is currently unknown.
Testing and Project’s Fate
Due to the slow pace of work, the first operational glider prototype was completed in 1945. The tank itself was not ready by this time. As a temporary solution, a wooden mock-up of it with extra weight was intended to be used instead. The prototype was taken to the sky by a Mitsubishi Ki-21 aircraft. Almost from the start, the Ku-6 proved to have poor overall flight performance. The pilot had a poor view. Lastly, as it was specially designed to carry the So-Ra, its transport capacity for other vehicles was limited. The IJA officials quickly became disinterested in the Ku-6, focusing instead on the Ku-7, which looked more promising. Another aspect that we must take into account was the generally poor state of the Japanese Army in 1945. By this point, it was so battered and depleted that realistically undertaking an airborne operation was an impossible task. In the end, the Ku-6 would be terminated and the fate of the single prototype is unknown, but it was either scrapped or lost during Allied bombing raids.
The prototype was taken to the sky using a Mitsubishi Ki-21 aircraft. Source: WikiThe Ku-7 was a more orthodox glider design. While small numbers were built, they would be mainly used for testing and were not used operationally by the Japanese Army. Source: https://listverse.com/2015/09/29/10-goofy-warplanes-of-world-war-ii/
Conclusion
The Ku-6 seems like an interesting concept that could have offered a number of benefits to the Japanese in the early years of the Pacific theater. By 1943, when the project was initiated, the war situation for Japan had rapidly deteriorated, with the Allies pressing on all sides. In reality, the Ku-6 proved to be too flawed in design. It was difficult to control and the pilot had poor visibility. Given that it was a glider, it would make an easy target for enemy fighters which, by its construction time, had almost complete air supremacy.
Maeda Ku-6 hypothetical side wing configuration. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.Proposed version with the top wing construction. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.
Maeda Ku-6 specifications
Tank Dimensions
4.07 x 1.44 x 1.88 m
Total weight
2.9 tonnes
Crew
2 (driver and commander)
Propulsion
Four-cylinder 50 hp@2,400 rpm gasoline engine
Armament
37 mm gun or 7.7 machine gun or a flamethrower
Armor
Possibly up to 12 mm
Top speed
42 km/h
Sources
D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Japan, Beograd
Partisan operated T-34-85. Illustration made by Godzilla
Yugoslav Partisans (1944-1945)
Medium Tank – 5 to 6 T-34 and 65+ T-34-85 Operated
During the Second World War, Yugoslavia was a frontline where all kinds of mostly obsolete armor and rare prototypes were used. In some instances, more advanced and modern tanks also saw service, as was the case with the Soviet T-34-76 and the improved T-34-85 medium tanks. Initially used by the Germans in limited numbers, these tanks would see more extensive action with the Soviets, especially during the liberation of Belgrade. The Partisans also had a chance to operate these vehicles, either captured by the Germans or supplied directly by the Soviets.
Yugoslav T-34-85 during a parade on 20th October 1945 held in Belgrade. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.
Axis Invasion of the Balkans
After Italy’s unsuccessful invasion of Greece, Benito Mussolini was forced to ask his German ally for help. Adolf Hitler agreed to provide assistance, fearing that a possible Allied attack through the Balkans would reach Romania and its vital oil fields. In the path of the German advance towards Greece stood Yugoslavia, whose government initially agreed to join the Axis side. This agreement was short-lived, as the Yugoslav government was overthrown by an anti-Axis pro-Allied military coup at the end of March 1941. Hitler immediately gave an order for the preparation of the invasion of Yugoslavia. The war that began on 6th April 1941, sometimes called April War, was a short one and ended with a Yugoslav defeat and the division of its territory between the Axis powers.
Map of the partition of Yugoslavia after the invasion. Slovenia was divided between Germany, Italy, and Hungary. The Croatian puppet state was given to most of western Yugoslavia, including Bosnia. Macedonia was divided between Italy, which also took Montenegro, and Bulgaria. Northern Serbia was occupied by Hungary. What was left of Serbia was placed under German occupation. Source: Wiki
The T-34-76 and the T-34-85 Medium Tanks, the Most Iconic Soviet Tanks
The T-34 became the standard medium tank of the Soviet Red Army during the Second World War. It was produced in two main variants, the T-34 (often labeled the ‘T-34-76’) armed with a 76.2 mm gun (initially the L-11 76.2 mm gun but replaced in 1941 with a F-34 76.2 mm gun) main gun in a two-man turret, while the later T-34-85 was armed with an 85 mm gun (initially a D-5T 85 mm gun in a two-man turret, and quickly replaced by the S-53 and ZiS-53 85 mm gun in a three-man turret).
The T-34 was produced between 1940 and 1944 in some 35 different sub-variants. These variants of the T-34 suffered from a variety of issues.
The early T-34s manufactured before the German invasion of the USSR were well-made tanks with good fittings and quality of life items such as air filters and adequate head and tail lights. The T-34 design however was imperfect, the suspension being a major issue causing internal space issues and structural failures. The early T-34s suffered from gearbox issues due to improper manufacturing, however overall these vehicles were of high quality.
Shortly after the war’s onset, production quotas were increased and manufacturing sped up. Therefore the tank’s quality fell greatly, losing items such as the air filters, tow hooks were simplified, along with the external storage. The number of parts needed to make the T-34 fell, as almost every item within the tank was simplified and often non-essential parts were scrapped. One of the main drawbacks of the T-34, and many other pre-war tank designs, was the two-man turret. This forced the commander to perform too many different tasks, such as being the gunner, giving orders to the rest of the crew, battlefield observation, and using the radio. The initial production T-34s had turret-mounted radios, but due to the overworking of the commander, the radio was moved to the hull for the engineer to use.
As the Great Patriotic War (the Soviet name for WWII) progressed, the T-34s main armaments became weaker and less effective on the battlefield. While the L-11 and F-34 guns were more than capable of dealing with the early German tanks such as the Panzer III, Panzer 38(t), and Panzer IV, the new German ‘heavies’ with armor thicknesses above 100 mm became fearsome counterparts for the T-34s, often requiring combat ranges to close to as little as 50 m. Regardless of these problems, some 35,853 T-34-76 tanks would be built. A precise number is almost impossible to know. One of the reasons for this was the fact that the Soviets added new chassis numbers to rebuild vehicles.
The T-34-85 was the latter version of the famous Soviet T-34 medium tanks. Thanks to a sufficiently large turret ring it was possible to mount a new turret equipped with an 85 mm L/55.2 D-5T or the more common L/54.6 ZIS-S-53 guns. This gun was able to penetrate the frontal armor of the Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger at a distance of about 1,000 m. The ammunition load consisted of some 60 rounds.
Most T-34 (except for around 2,000 T-34-76s manufactured at 112 and STZ that used the older M-17F engine that powered the BT tanks with an output of 450 hp) were powered by a V-2-34, 38.8-liter V12 diesel with an output of 500 hp. This propelled the tank to a maximum speed of 55 km/h and a range of 350 km on-road thanks to the 556 liters internal fuel tanks. With additional external fuel drums (the number of used drums varied depending on the period of the war) with 50 liters each, increasing the maximum range to around 550 km.
Between the period 1944 to 1946, some 25,914 would be produced. Other tanks were produced by Communist Bloc countries after the war. For example, some 2,376 were produced by Czechoslovakia from 1950 to 1956 and 685 by Poland from 1951 to 1955. Just above 95,000 (sources vary widely) vehicles of all kinds (medium tanks, self-propelled guns, armored recovery vehicles, etc.) were produced on the T-34 chassis.
First Appearance of the T-34 in Yugoslavia
Following the quick conquest of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia during the April War (6th to 18th April 1941), its territories were divided between the victorious Axis forces. Due to the harsh and brutal occupation by the Axis troops stationed in Yugoslavia, by the second half of 1941, two resistance groups started a rebellion against the occupiers. These proved difficult to defeat, forcing the enemy to send more and more troops and material. In the case of the Germans, they employed whatever they had at hand. These were mostly older or captured enemy equipment. In rarer cases, more modern equipment was also available in limited numbers. During the summer of 1944, the SS Polizei Regiment 10 (English: 10th SS Police Regiment) was transferred from Ukraine to Trieste in Northern Italy. Once there, it was tasked with defending the vital transport lines against the Partisans. This unit would be used in this role up to the end of the war. In its inventory, this unit had around 10 T-34-76 tanks of various types.
A German operated T-34-76 (ChKZ) in Yugoslavia 1944/45. Source: www.srpskioklop.palubaA turretless T-34 is operated by the Germans in Yugoslavia. It was likely used as a recovery or ammunition supply vehicle. Source: B. D. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne Jedinice Na Jugoslovenskom Ratistu 1941-1945
The Soviet T-34-76and T-34-85 Tanks in Yugoslavia
During autumn 1944, the Soviet 3rd Ukraine Front was ordered to proceed toward Yugoslavia and help the Partisans to eliminate German forces that were occupying Serbia. This formation was supported by large armored elements, which consisted of 358 T-34-76 and T-34-85 tanks and self-propelled guns. These saw extensive action against the German-held Serbian towns, such as Kruševac, which was liberated on 14th October 1944. Some 50 T-34-76 and 110 T-34-85 tanks were allocated for the liberation of the capital Belgrade. After successfully defeating the Germans in Serbia, the Soviets moved north toward Hungary.
A Soviet T-34-85 during the liberation of Belgrade. Source: www.srpskioklop.palubaMany Soviet T-34s were lost during the heavy fighting for Belgrade, as the defending Germans employed 88 mm Flak guns. Source: www.lupiga.com
The T-34-76 in Partisan Hands
The German T-34-76 tanks from the 10th SS Police Regiment were employed against the advancing Partisan 4th Army in Spring 1945. The Partisan forces were supported by the First Tank Brigade, which was equipped with British-supplied M3A1/A3 tanks and AEC Mk.II armored cars. While the M3’s 37 mm gun could do little against the armor of the T-34, the Partisans instead used the AEC’s 57 mm gun, which was more effective in dealing with enemy armor. The Partisans also operated at least one 7.5 cm PaK 40 armed Stuart tank which was modified in early 1945.
The First Tank Brigade operated several modified M3 tanks which were armed with captured German weapons. At least one was armed with the effective 7.5 cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun. While the additional firepower was welcome, the whole design was rather crude. Due to the lack of anything better, it remained in use up to the end of the war. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.
During the fighting near Ilirska Bistrica at the end of April, one German T-34-76 tank was destroyed by a modified 7.5 cm armed M3 tank. On 30th April 1945, the Partisans liberated Bazovica but were pushed back by German T-34-76 tanks. These were counterattacked with the Partisans’ own armored units. Inside the small town, the Partisan AECs engaged the advancing T-34-76s. One AEC armored car crew fired at least 8 rounds at the leading T-34-76. The German armored unit was eventually shattered and its T-34-76 tanks were either destroyed or captured. Between 5 or 6 tanks were captured by the Partisans, with 3 or 4 being captured at Ilirska Bistrica and 2 more in Bazovica. Those that were fully operational were immediately put back into service. One was even used to enter Trieste at the end of the war. After the war, these were used with the later improved version for some time before being removed from service. One T-34-76 does survive and is now located in Banja Luka.
A Partisan operated T-34-76 in Trieste, near a famous ice cream shop, during May 1945. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.While not clear, at least 5 or 6 T-34-76s were captured by the Partisans and put to use. Source:www.srpskioklop.paluba.One of the few Partisan armored vehicles that were capable of destroying a T-34-76 was the AEC Mk.II armored car. Partisans from the First Tank Brigade especially used these vehicles in this role. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.A knocked-out T34 in Italy on the road to Firenza, Trieste Area. The photo was taken by a member of the New Zealand 2nd Division. The victorious Partisans painted Tito’s name on the turret’s front. This particular T-34 was manufactured at Krasnoye Sormovo 112 in 1943. Source: Facebook group Captured Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFV’s)Rear view of the same vehicle. Source: Facebook group Captured Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFV’s)The only surviving T-34-76 Partisan tank is located in Banja Luka. Just behind it is a BA-64, one of three such armored cars supplied by the Soviets. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.
Creation of the Second Tank Brigade
As previously mentioned, the best trained and equipped Partisan armored formation was the First Tank Brigade. It was organized and equipped by Western standards. While the Partisans provided the Allies with sufficient crews to form an even larger formation, this was never realized. The Allies, for various reasons, did not want to provide additional armored vehicles to the Partisans. On the other hand, the Soviets were quite willing to help but were prevented from doing so by the distance between these two forces at that point. In order to not waste time, the remaining 600 Partisans that were stationed in Italy were transported by air to the Soviet Union by the Soviet Sokolov Group from the Italian city of Bari to Kyiv in Ukraine. Once all were assembled, they were transported to Moscow, before finally reaching their final destination in Tehnicko, a village near Tula.
Additional personnel were recruited in various ways, including people of Yugoslav origin that were being held in Soviet camps. A Partisan delegation was even sent to the Grozny prison camp, where additional manpower was recruited from the German Legionary Units. Interestingly, the Partisan officials that visited this prison were strictly forbidden from recruiting any former Croatian Ustaše soldiers. Yugoslav soldiers that were in service prior to the war and had been schooled in the Soviet Union also joined this unit.
This was the first step in the creation of the unit later known as the Second Tank Brigade. The order for the creation of such a unit to support the Yugoslav Partisans was issued by Stalin himself in order from 7th September 1944. In comparison to the First Tank Brigade, this unit was to be solely organized based on Soviet equipment and training. Initial plans for the Tank Brigade T-34, as this unit was initially designated, included that it had to be formed by 1st November 1944, something which was not achieved.
The organizational structure of this unit was based on the Soviet model. It would have three tank battalions with two (some sources mention three) tank companies each, each with three platoons. The platoon’s strength was 3 tanks with 1 additional for the platoon commander. In addition, the Brigade’s command unit was equipped with 2 tanks. In total, this unit was supplied with 65 T-34/85 tanks and 3 BA-64 armored cars. No further shipment of additional tanks was made by the Soviets during the war. At least one (possibly more) T-34-85 tank would be recovered from abandoned Soviet equipment. These would be salvaged by the Partisans during the winter of 1944/45.
Partisan crews were being trained by the Soviet instructors next to a T-34-76. Note the Yugoslav flag with the red star painted on its turret side. Source: B. D. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne Jedinice Na Jugoslovenskom Ratistu 1941-1945
While such a unit in the Soviet Army would have been supported by a mechanized infantry battalion, the Partisan unit did not have this support. Instead, the Partisans were to provide their own units for this role. These would be trained in Yugoslavia. The purpose of the mechanized infantry battalion was to provide the tanks with close infantry support elements. Ideally, the battalion was to be equipped with trucks for transport, but the Partisans lacked these, and the soldiers had to use the tanks themselves for transport. Additional auxiliary units, such as reconnaissance, a medical platoon, and one anti-aircraft company were also used. Similar to the Soviet Army, the Second Tank Brigade also had a political commissar in it.
The unit was officially formed on 6th October 1944. To train the Partisan’s crews, the Soviets had to provide 16 T-34 tanks. Due to the harsh weather, with temperatures reaching -40 °C, the Partisans had trouble adapting to the climate. There were often cases of frostbite and some soldiers had to be sent back to Yugoslavia for medical reasons.
After the completion of crew training, the Brigade was finally fully formed on 8th March 1945 and was temporarily named First Tank Brigade, but this would be shortly changed to Second Tank Brigade. During the same month, the Brigade was slowly relocated to Yugoslavia. It was transported by rail from the Soviet Union through Romania and Bulgaria and finally reached Topčider (Serbia) on 26th March 1945. The following day, it participated in a military parade in the capital of Belgrade. On 28th March, the 1st and 3rd battalions were transferred to the Syrmian Front. Initially, the Brigade was positioned at Erdeviku, where the mechanized infantry battalion was being formed. Elements of the 2nd Battalion were slightly delayed before they too were sent to the front. Its 2nd Tank Company was stationed in Belgrade to provide protection for the city and the Partisan High Command.
In Combat
The Syrmian Front was a vital German defense line in the area of Srem and Slavonija. The Germans fortified their positions using extensive trench lines, vast minefields, and entrenched firing points. This line was vital for them, as it protected the retreating units from Greece and Yugoslavia. The Partisans were poorly adapted to this kind of combat and had significant issues penetrating enemy defense positions.
The Syrmian Front was a heavily fortified German defense line located in the northern parts of Yugoslavia. It was vital for the Germans as it served as a strategic defensive point for the retreating units from Greece and Yugoslavia. Source: ebrary.net
On 12th April 1945, the Second Tank Brigade was split to provide firing support for the advancing Partisans. The 1st Battalion was attached to the 1st Proletarian Infantry Division and the 3rd Battalion to the 21st Serbian Infantry Division in the region of Vinkovci. Opposing them were elements of the German 34th Corps supported by Croatian forces. The attack began on the same day, with the Partisans advancing toward Vukovar supported by artillery. The baptism of fire of the Second Tank Brigade started chaotically. Despite having the mechanized infantry battalion as support, possibly due to poor coordination, the two units attacked independently. Due to heavy German and Croatian resistance and poor leadership of the Second Tank Brigade, great losses could not be avoided. The unit lost 8 vehicles, with two badly damaged, five lightly damaged tanks, and one BA-64 armored car completely written off. The mechanized infantry battalion lost a third of its personnel. The commander of this unit forbade the infantry from disembarking from the tanks that carried them until the enemy line was reached. Most were killed before this actually happened and the tanks were left with no infantry support. Despite these heavy losses, the unit managed to reach the city of Vukovar that day.
Due to a lack of trucks, the supporting infantry units from the Second Tank Brigade had to use the tanks themselves for transport. Due to poor decisions, they were often forbidden from leaving the tanks until they reached the enemy lines. This tactic led to severe losses. Source: D. Predoević Armored units and vehicles in Croatia during WW II, part I, Allied armored vehicles
The following day, under heavy German anti-tank fire, two more tanks were lost. These were taken out by 7.5 cm PaK 40 fire. One of them received a hit between the turret and the upper hull. Although the turret was severely damaged, the tank was not completely destroyed. At this point, the Partisans were forced to abandon damaged tanks regardless of the extent of the damage. The Brigade’s engineers simply lacked the experience and probably even equipment to tow these to safety.
In the meantime, the absent 2nd Tank Battalion advanced toward the front line. It was initially sent to Bosnia to help liberate Brčko. Due to delays in crossing the Drina river, it did not participate in the liberation of its target and instead was ordered to move toward Županja, in Croatia. On 13th April, it came into contact with the retreating enemy. The enemy forces simply began retreating faster than the Partisan’s tank could follow. Finally, the enemies were cornered near the village of Gudinci. Unfortunately for the Partisans, the Germans blew up the bridges, preventing the Partisans from following them. Attempts to build improvised crossing bridges were abandoned after two Partisans soldiers were killed by German fire. Instead, the 2nd Tank Battalion managed to find another crossing. They immediately began attacking the German positions supported by only a single infantry battalion from the 5th Infantry Division. Partisans expected the resistance to be weak and that the enemy would simply retreat, as they had done before. The enemy’s resistance was heavier than expected. While providing firing support for the infantry, two T-34-85 tanks became bogged down in a canal that the Partisans failed to spot in time. One of them had its barrel digging into the ground. The Partisans abandoned the attack but successfully evacuated the two tanks during the night. The following day, another attack was launched. This time, the Partisans attacked the village from a distance with tank fire. After several rounds were fired, the tanks rushed toward the village expecting that their fire had weakened the defenders. When the two lead tanks reached the village, they were instead met with Panzerfaust fire. Both were taken out, with the last tank managing to pull back. Under heavier Partisan pressure, by the end of the day, the enemy was beaten back.
While elements from the Second Tank Brigade were meant to participate in the liberation of Brčko, due to their late arrival, they failed to do so. Source: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/t34/galerijat34/index.htm
On 16th and 17th April, other elements of the Second Tank Brigade were positioned at Vinkoci, awaiting necessary repairs and the arrival of the 2nd Tank Battalion. In addition, the damaged tanks were finally recovered and gathered there for repairs. On 18th April, the Second Tank Brigade was meant to begin attacking Axis positions near the village of Pleternica. Once again, inadequate leadership and poor assessment of the enemy’s defensive line lead to a failed attack. One tank was taken out, likely hit by a Panzerfaust. The whole unit had to retreat after an Axis counterattack. The Axis counterattack was spearheaded by one Hotchkiss and three FIAT (possibly L6/40s, which was a common German-used tank by this time) tanks. The following day, another attack was launched by the Partisans. This time, they systematically began demolishing houses in order to take away any possible cover from the enemy. The enemy armor was not used against the Partisan tanks, as they really could do little against them. The fighting for this village lasted up to 20th April. While the Partisans finally managed to take it, they failed in their objective to cut off the elite German 7. SS-Freiwilligen-Gebirgs-Division “Prinz Eugen” (English: 7th SS Prince EugenVolunteer Mountain Division), which managed to escape. The Brigade lost two more tanks, with one destroyed and the other damaged. Any further breach was not possible, as the T-34-85s came under strong enemy fire. The Brigade was instead pulled back to its starting positions.
On 22nd April, elements from the Second Tank Brigade supported the advance of the 21st Infantry Division in their advance in the area of Brod–Batrina-Novska. This attack was more successful and the enemy was driven off. The pursuit was not possible, as the Germans blew up the bridges over the River Orljava.
After this, the Brigade was positioned in the village of Oriovici. From 23rd April to 4th (or 5th, depending on the source) May, this unit was inactive due to a general lack of spare parts, fuel, and ammunition. The greatest problem was the lack of summer lubricants. The Second Tank Brigade commander simply failed to request these from the Soviets on time. For this reason, the T-34-85 engines often overheated. During this time, the unit’s commanders came under criticism from the Partisan High Command. Due to their poor leadership, the brigade suffered unnecessary losses. In addition, the unit as a whole was rarely used. Instead, smaller groups of tanks were used to support the infantry, which greatly affected their performance. How many tanks were lost by this point is not known precisely. According to the Partisans’ own documentation, dated 25th April 1945, they had 50 fully operational tanks. Croatian documents from the war listed 34 destroyed Partisan tanks during April 1945. Both of these factions had reasons to present figures that may not have been completely true. For the Croatians, by this point, any kind of success could be used for propaganda purposes. The Partisans, on the other hand, may have downplayed their losses to hide the Brigade’s rather poor leadership.
Once the necessary supplies reached the Brigade, the march to the west continued on 4th May. By this point, the enemy resistance was collapsing. The enemy was now desperate, trying to reach the Allies in Italy to avoid surrendering to the Partisans. On 6th May, while crossing a bridge over the Ilova river, the bridge collapsed under the weight of the tank, taking the tank with it. Luckily, the driver survived the fall, and the tank was quickly salvaged from the river but was so badly damaged it could only be repaired after the war. The Partisans simply failed to properly test the bridge’s stability before crossing. On 8th May, as the Brigade was approaching Zagreb, they came under fire and one tank was lost. The city was fully liberated on the following day. On the 10th, elements from this Brigade, supported by the mechanized infantry, attacked enemy positions at Šestina. Once again, the infantry was forbidden from disembarking from the tanks, leading to heavy losses. Finally, with the capture of Zagreb and the larger workshop located in it, the Partisans managed to seize a variety of trucks they provided to the infantry. The tanks entered Ljubljana shortly and they would be sent to Trieste, where they awaited the end of the war.
The Second Tank Brigade during the liberation of Ljubljana in May 1945. Source: /www.srpskioklop.paluba.Two T-34-85s in Trieste at the end of the war. While not used during the final fighting for the city, they would be used for political pressure placed on the Allies to hand over the city to Yugoslavia. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.The Second Tank Brigade operated a few BA-64 armored cars. One was lost during an early engagement of this Brigade. Source: B. D. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne Jedinice Na Jugoslovenskom Ratistu 1941-1945
After the War
After the war, the surviving T-34 tanks would be used as the main fighting force of the newly created Jugoslovenske Narodne Armije (English: Yugoslav People’s Army) for years to come. Despite their obsolescence, they would remain in service up to the early 2000s.
An older T-36-76 next to a T-34-85 in Yugoslav service after the war. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.
Conclusion
The T-34-76 saw quite limited service with both Partisans and the Germans in the final months of the war. It’s later improved version, T-34-85, was also present in the closing months of the war. Nevertheless, it saw heavy action, albeit mostly in the Soviet’s hand, especially during the liberation of Serbia where the enemy resistance was strong. While the formation of the first Partisans unit equipped with this tank was initiated back in September 1944, the unit did not reach Yugoslavia until March 1945. The Second Tank Brigade would still see some action, but in comparison to the First Tank Brigade, it performed quite poorly. Despite being equipped with the best available tank that was used in Yugoslavia, they were often outperformed by the enemy. This was mostly due to the unit commanders’ poor tactical decisions and general lack of experience. Nevertheless, the T-34-85 contributed to the final liberation of Yugoslavia. It would remain one of the most available tanks in post-war Yugoslavia up to its collapse in the 1990s.
T-34-85 specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
6.68 x 3 x 2.45 m
Total Weight, Battle Ready
32 tonnes
Crew
5 (driver, radio operator, gunner, loader, and commander)
Propulsion
V-2-34, 38.8-liter V12 diesel 500 hp
Speed
Road Speed: 60 km/h
Range
300 km (road), 230 km (off-road)
Armament
85 mm ZiS-S-53 gun, with two 7.62 mm DT machine guns
Armor
40 to 90 mm
Number operated
5 to 6 T-34 and 65+ T-34-85
Few older T-34-76 were captured and used by the Partisans. Illustration by Godzilla.Second Tank Brigade operated the much improved T-34-85 tanks. Illustration by Godzilla.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
German Reich (1943)
