Author: Andrew Hills

Lancia 1ZMs in Tianjin, China

Post author By Andrew Hills
Post date August 17, 2019
2 Comments on Lancia 1ZMs in Tianjin, China

Kingdom of Italy (1932-1943)

The tiny concession of Tianjin (written as Tien-Tsin or Tientsin in many period sources) in China was one of several small Italian possessions in the area and was run by Italy between 1901-1947. Italy had been granted the territorial concession in the Xinchou Treaty (also known as Boxer Protocol) on the 7th September 1901 by the Chinese Government following the Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901) and was occupied the following year. It was just 46 hectares (114 acres) and had a population of only a few thousand ethnic Chinese and under a thousand Italians and other foreign nationals. The shape was roughly rectangular with the southern border on the White River (Pei Ho) (the Italians sometimes had gunboats stationed there); Trieste Street on the west bordering the Austro-Hungarian concession; and Trento Street on the east bordering the Russian concession; Fiume Street formed the northern border and linked to the Beiping (Peking – modern-day Beijing) – Mukden (modern-day Shenyang) railway line through the city, very close to the East Station.

Map of Tianjin from 1912 showing (in green) the small Italian concession
The value of such a small concession is questionable, except that it served as a mark of international prestige for the Italian Empire and allowed the political legation to the Chinese Government to be properly protected.

Ermanno Carlotto Barracks. Sources: Public domain and Battaglione San Marco
In 1925, Italian leader Benito Mussolini created the 600 strong Battaglione Italiano in Cina (Italian Battalion in China) based in this concession. These new troops replaced the slightly more ad-hoc protection for the concession provided previously by the Regia Marina (RN). It was formed from soldiers of the San Marco, Libya, and San George Company’s who were housed in the Ermanno Carlotto Barracks (Italian: Caserma Ermanno Carlotto) named after a fallen Italian hero from the Boxer Rebellion. Along with these troops was a police force of Chinese police led by Italian officers. This constituted a very large military presence for such a small territory, and it was tasked with ensuring that the concession would not be able to be cut off from either Beiping or the sea.
Weapons at the concession around this time included at least two 76mm guns and a quantity of machine-guns, but no heavy weapons. There were continuing problems around the concession and incidents in the years following this (1926) lead to concerns over the safety of Italian citizens living there. To bolster defenses still further, four Ansaldo-Lancia 1ZM armored cars were sent to the concession in 1932 to help maintain law and order.

Four Series 3 1ZM’s on parade on 4th November 1932 in Tianjin. Two 76mm mountain guns are visible by the altar. Source: trentoincina.it

A close up of the 1ZM’s shows them fitted with 3 machine-guns. Source: trentoincina.it

Still from a newsreel of celebrations held in 1935 with a parade of equipment including the 1ZM’s. Source: Luce. This newsreel can be found at the end of this article.
By 1936 though, some troops were transferred away from the concession to Africa, leaving the force much reduced. The events of 1937 changed this situation when Japanese forces attacked the Chinese held part of the city of Tianjin and occupied it. This led once again to significant fears for the concession being attacked by either Chinese or Japanese troops, and consequently, a new delivery of soldiers – a battalion of the Grenadiers of Savoy (Granatieri di Savoia) – from Italy arriving in the concession. As things settled down by the end of 1938, most of these troops were once again withdrawn or relocated. By the end of the 1930s, the entire Italian military presence in China amounted to less than a 1000 men divided between Tianjin (~400), Shanghai (215), Shanhaiguan (25) and Beiping legation and radio station (15), along with an unknown number of naval personnel.

Some of the soldiers of the Granatieri di Savoia arriving by lighter to the riverside on 14th September 1937. Photo collection Karl Kengelbacher

The Lancia 1ZM. Illustration by David Bocquelet, modified by Bernard ‘Escodrion’ Baker.

World War II

Italy entered World War Two on the side of the Axis in June 1940. Initially, this did not affect the concession of Tianjin significantly, as the now-enemy forces of Great Britain had abandoned its concessions in August 1940. Only in the middle of 1941, was the concession once again felt to be under threat, and as a result, and consequently, reinforcements were despatched.
Nonetheless, the concession, being surrounded by the Japanese with whom they were allied, was relatively calm, but the events of September 1943 changed everything. Italy had signed an armistice with the Allies and officially capitulated on the 7th, becoming a co-belligerent force fighting with the Allies against a mainly fascist loyalist force called the Repubblica Sociale Italiana (RSI) and the German occupiers in what was effectively a civil war in Italy. What this meant for Tientsin, was that the former Japanese allies now became potential enemies. The Italian troops stationed in China were given specific orders not to cause any trouble or engage with the Japanese forces and to scuttle any ships which would otherwise not be able to reach an Allied controlled port. Thus, the Lepanto, the Carlotto, and the Conte Verde were scuttled in Shanghai.

Unusual overhead view of the four Lancia 1ZM’s lined up in the concession.
Despite efforts not to aggravate the Japanese, the position in Shanghai changed on 9th and 10th September 1943, when the troops stationed there were seized by the Japanese. Those who chose to collaborate were put to hard labor, with the remainder of the men being sent to POW camps along with other Allied soldiers. The troops stationed at Beiping radio station, despite orders not to resist, fought against the Japanese until they could destroy the station and all documentation which might help the new adversary. The tiny force of just 100 sailors and soldiers led by Captain Baldassare held-off over 1,000 Japanese soldiers and some light tanks until surrendering on the 10th. They received very harsh treatment from the Japanese for their defiance, but given the equally harsh treatment given to some troops who ‘stayed loyal’ to the Axis, perhaps it did not matter anyway.
In Tianjin, the situation was equally confusing. The troops in China had no knowledge about the armistice of the 7th September and thus had no time to prepare. The senior officer commanding Italian forces in Tianjin at the time was the Captain of the Frigate Carlo dell’Acqua, who had at his disposal about 600 men, 300 rifles, some pistols, and about 50 machine-guns of various types. Four 76 mm guns made up the most powerful weapon in their arsenal along with the four ancient Ansaldo-Lancia 1ZM armored cars fitted with the FIAT Model 1924 6.5 mm machine-gun, and some unarmored motor vehicles. With plenty of ammunition and food for a week, he was going to have to face down the Japanese.
The Japanese under Lt. Col. Tanaka had over 6,000 men with numerous light armored vehicles and reportedly some tanks, as well as two gunboats. The Japanese provided an ultimatum to the Italian defenders to surrender, but this was rejected resulting in the Japanese firing some light artillery to attempt to intimidate the defenders. The Italian loyalty was fractured, with about a third of the troops wishing to remain loyal to the fascist regime but the rest not. Surrounded, outnumbered, and facing annihilation by the Japanese, the contingent surrendered. To have resisted would have been futile as it would have resulted in a lot of damage to the area and deaths of civilians for no purpose. The troops who surrendered elsewhere were often treated very badly by the Japanese by either being sent to POW camps or forced to carry out hard labor, so there was no good option available for the soldiers.
Having surrendered, their weapons and armored cars would have therefore fallen into Japanese hands, as at this time there was little time to destroy the equipment. No pictures are known to show the Japanese using these vehicles, although it is possible they would have been reused within the city for policing. No trace of them survives, so they were most likely scrapped then or subsequently.
Therefore, by 10th September the Japanese had completely occupied the Italian concession of Tianjin. Shortly afterward, the RSI chose to officially cede the concession over to the Chinese puppet state of Wang Jingwei. That Japanese puppet state would eventually fall to the forces of Chiang Kai-Shek. All rights to Tianjin were formally ceded by Italy on 10th February 1947 by the government of the Republic of Italy to the government of the Republic of China. Those Italian troops who survived the treatment of the Japanese finally returned to Italy in 1946.

Sources

Automitragliatrici Blindate E Motomitragliatrici nella grande guerra, Nicola Pignato
Cronologia.leonardo.it
Marina.difesa.it
Italy’s Encounters with Modern China: Imperial Dreams, Strategic Ambition: ‘The Italian presence in China: Historical trends and perspectives 1902-1947, Guido Samarani
From the Bulletin of the Historical Office of the Navy March-June 1989, (written in 1933 by the Ten. Fanteria Amleto Menghi), San Marco
Italian Armed Forces in China 1937-1943
Self-portrait in a convex mirror: Colonial Italy reflects on Tianjin, Maurizio Marinelli
Making concessions in Tianjin: heterotopia and Italian colonialism in mainland China, Maurizio Marinelli
Italian Surface Units in Far East 1940-1943, Alberto Rosselli at www.icsm.it

WW2 Italian APC Prototypes

Autoblindo T.L.37 ‘Autoprotetto S.37’

Post author By Andrew Hills
Post date August 10, 2019
2 Comments on Autoblindo T.L.37 ‘Autoprotetto S.37’

Kingdom of Italy (1941)
Light Armored Car – 1 Prototype Built

This vehicle started life in early 1941 with the need for a light armored vehicle for use in North Africa. Italy had a long experience in mobile desert warfare having used armored cars in the desert before the First World War. They had in its possession the design of a very mobile heavy artillery tractor, the T.L.37 (Trattore Leggero – Fast tractor). The T.L. 37 was an excellent vehicle with very distinctive oversized pneumatic tires and it was to form the experimental basis for a new light armored car built by FIAT-SPA for colonial service. The vehicle would sometimes be referred to as the T.L.37 Autoblindo, but also as the A.S.37. ‘A.S’ stands for Autoblindo Africa Settentrionale (North Africa Armoured Car), although the A.S.37 name was somewhat confusingly later applied to the armored personnel carrier which followed this one.

Italian Trattore Leggero 37 (T.L.37) with large pneumatic tyres used as a tractor for hauling field guns.

Design and Layout

Just like the T.L.37, the engine for the vehicle was at the front, with the driver positioned at the front left. It retained the basic frame from the T.L.37 with the same over-sized pneumatic tyres, but now an armored body enclosed the vehicle. At least one door, consisting of two parts – upper and lower – was on the right-hand side and a second door on the other side. The back of the vehicle sloped off sharply from the roofline and on top was a small turret. As the A.S.37 personnel carrier version followed this vehicle, it can be surmised that there was no second front seat (on the left) and that the fuel tanks were positioned near the back around the rear wheels.
Power for the T.L.37 was provided by a model 18VT 4.053 4 cylinder petrol engine which delivered 52hp at 2000rpm and the later A.S.37 used a modification of this engine delivering 67hp. It is not known whether the Autoblindo T.L.37 used the original 52 hp or the upgraded model.

Autoblindo T.L.37. Photo: Pignato

Protection and Armament

The vehicle was protected by flat steel plate armor up to 8.5 mm thick and probably down to 6 mm thick in places, bolted to a steel frame. This armor would have provided adequate protection to small arms fire and shell splinters. The vehicle was fully enclosed except for the turret. Initially, it had been planned to use the turret of the AB40 armored car, which would have meant it was armed with a pair of Breda Model 1938 8 mm machine-guns, but for unknown reasons, this turret was not available. Instead, a small open-topped turret based on that used on the L6 light tank was mounted. The turret had no back or roof and the sides were very short and steeply angled backwards. A large hooped ring, possibly for mounting a machine-gun for protection from aircraft went over the turret. The turret mounted a single Breda Model 1935 20 mm cannon.

Left side view of the Autoblindo T.L.37. Photo: Arms of Breda

Illustration of the Autoblindo T.L.37 ‘Autoprotetto S.37′ produced by Yuvnasva Sharma, funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Fate

Following the requirement in early 1941, FIAT-SPA built this single prototype and it was sent to North Africa immediately for trials. Unfortunately, there was no opportunity to effectively evaluate the vehicle under combat conditions. The T.L.37 Autoblindo (A.S.37) is reported to have been lost at Sidi Rezegh (located south of the main road between Tobruk and Bardia, East of El Adem) possibly through a mechanical failure in Autumn 1941.

Autoblindo T.L.37 after it was found by the British showing no sign of battle damage. Photo: Tank Museum, Bovington
FIAT-SPA was not to be dismayed by this failure, however. Instead, they further refined the vehicle, abandoned the turret and sloped rear, and by April 1941, had already got plans in hand for an open-topped version for transporting troops and stores or for convoy escort duties. That vehicle was also known as the A.S.37. A vehicle looking very similar to this one but without the turret.

Lince specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	4.95 x 1.92 x 1.8 m (without turret)
Total weight, battle-ready	5 tonnes (est.)
Crew	2-3
Propulsion	4.053 liter 18VT 4 cylinder petrol engine producing 55 – 67hp
Speed	50 km/h
Range	725 km
Armament	2x Breda Model 1938 8mm machine-guns or 1x Breda Model 1935 20mm cannon
Armor	6mm – 8.5mm steel
Total Production	1

Links & Resources

War Wheels.net
A Century of Italian Armoured Cars, Nicola Pignato
Encyclopedia of Armoured Cars, Crow and Icks
Italian Tanks and Combat Vehicles of WW2, Ralph Riccio
Gli autoveicoli da Combattimento dell’Esercito Italiano, Nicola Pignato
Mezzi Corazatti Italiani 1939-1945, Nicole Pignato
Arms of Breda – Oto Melara

WW2 Italian Prototypes

CV3 Rampa Semovente

Kingdom of Italy (1938)
Bridge Carrier – 3 Built

The CV3 (Carro Veloce 3 tonnellate), later known also as the L3 (3 tonne light tank), was the most widely produced and used Italian tank of the second world war, with production starting prior to the Second World War and continuing throughout. Several thousand were made and it, unsurprisingly, found itself used and converted to fulfill a wide variety of roles, from a recovery vehicle to a mortar carrier. One of the least known variants of the CV3 series is the self-propelled ramp (Rampe Semovente) version.

Three CV3 Rampa Semovente driving abreast during the October 1938 parade. Source: Italian Newsreel October 1938

The Name?

It is important to start with the name. This vehicle is so obscure that it is known only as a result of being recorded in footage of a parade in Rome on the 19th October 1938 attended by the Japanese Ambassador and Benito Mussolini who watched whilst on horseback. No formal name for this variant is known and, as far as it is known, no documentation for it seems to have survived the war. As a result, it is being referred to by the author only by a literal description of its role, a self-propelled ramp or, in Italian, ‘Rampa Semovente’, pending discovery of the actual name.

The Churchill ‘ARK’ ramp carrier. Source: IWM H36593

The Role

The most similar vehicle to this unusual-looking machine is the British Churchill ARK. ‘ARK’, or ‘Armoured Ramp Carrier’, could be used in two ways: either to provide a ramp which following tanks could pass over to clear high obstacles, cliffs, wall etcetera; or to create a bridge over a wide gap which would otherwise be impassable without a full-length bridge. There were various versions of the British ARK, but in Italy there had only been some limited tests with bridge layers from the CV3 and no prior work on an ‘ARK’ type system. As fitted to the CV3, this would work in exactly the same way.

The Design

The design of the bridge/ramp consisted of a single long curved span of framing, presumably made from steel, with the roadway laid over the top. The roadway consisted of a series of transverse steel supporting struts over which was a mesh forming the surface over which following vehicles would pass. A rectangular section right at the apex of the curve was missing, as this was directly over the heads of the two crew positions of the CV3 and would have prevented them from getting out. It can be inferred that the method of employment would involve the abandonment of the vehicle with the bridge in place and with a separate section of roadway being put over this gap, or else, it would not be useable by wheeled vehicles. It also necessitates the modification of the CV3 vehicle with the removal of the two roof hatches that would otherwise not be openable. Another modification to the CV3 was the fastening of supporting brackets for the curved roadway to the body. It is not known if the main armament – a pair of machine-guns – was removed or not. They would not interfere with the bridge, but the use of such a weapon firing through the roadway grille would be very restricted and could damage the roadway.
The curvature of the framework attached to the body of the tank provided sufficient stiffness and strength to bridge or ramp over an obstacle and still bear the weight of passing tanks or trucks. At the front and rear of the design are folding ramps on wheels which can be lifted or lowered into position providing the short span required to cover the gaps between the bridge section and the ground, and to account for undulations in the ground.
A final, and helpful touch is the addition of a longitudinal white stripe painted across the roadway section which would assist vehicles in staying in a straight line as they pass over the vehicle.

Illustration of the ‘Rampa Semovente’ by Bernard ‘Escodrion’ Baker, based on work by David Bocquelet.

Utility

The vehicle clearly retains the original two-man crew of driver (right), and commander/gunner (left), although the status of the armament is unknown. No other modifications are known to the vehicle, but in use – even if just a parade – the vehicle is seen carrying the bridgeway with the end folded up. Upon arrival at an obstacle, the ramps can be released, presumably from inside via a cable release, rather than outside, which under fire would have been extremely hazardous. Once in place, the crew can either get out and leave it in situ for as long as the ramp is in use or simply wait for the one of two vehicles immediately behind to go over the top before withdrawing.

CV3 Rampa Semovente showing the missing section in the middle to permit crew entry/exit. Source: Italian Newsreel October 1938

Production

With the crew having to abandon out of the top rather than out of the sides, as on the British ARK, they would be dangerously exposed to enemy fire and, with the bridge section curved over the front, any firepower of the vehicle would also be limited. The relatively small size of the bridge carried and the overhang at the front and back severely limited the mobility of the vehicle. Likely, these are these reason that very few (perhaps just the three shown in 1938) were built. None are known to have seen any active deployment and the status of the vehicles is unknown.

An impression of positions for the ramp in use. Top: Carriage, Middle: As a ramp, Bottom: As a bridge

Specifications
Dimensions	>5 (est.) x 1.4 x 1.5 (est.) meters
Crew	2 (driver, commander/machine-gunner)
Weight	3.5 – 4 tonnes
Top speed	40 km/h (25 mph)
Total Production	3

Sources

‘Luce’ Italian Newsreel, Rome Parade October 1938
FIAT-Ansaldo. Maintenance Manual L.3 Light Tank circa 1938

Cold War Canadian Prototypes

‘Firefly’ Firefighting Tanks

Post author By Andrew Hills
Post date July 23, 2019
5 Comments on ‘Firefly’ Firefighting Tanks

Canada (1988-2000)
Firefighting Vehicle – None Built

Canada is a vast nation with enormous forested areas, so it is of no surprise that a variety of designs have cropped up over the years to fight forest fires. For a vehicle firefighting in remote and rugged areas, good levels of mobility are required and so it is also no surprise that tracked vehicles are particularly well suited for the sort of job in question.
Likewise, the use of jet-exhaust for firefighting activities is not a completely new concept, nor is the repurposing of old tanks for civilian usage.
The real question is, has anyone ever combined a surplus tank with jet engines for fighting fires? Surprisingly to many, the answer is yes. There was a T-34 tank hull with jet engines used in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, where the force of the jet exhaust could blow out the oil wells left burning by retreating Iraqi forces. Less known is a daring idea from 1998 in Canada using a similar principle.

The Name

First and foremost, the use of the name ‘Firefly’ has to be addressed. Despite it including the word ‘fire’, neither the Sherman nor Churchill tanks used in this Canadian modification were ‘Firefly’s’ in the tank sense of the word, that is, fitted with the 17 pounder gun, which clarifies some of the confusion over which version of tanks are being described.

The hull selected for this version appears to be that of an M4A3(76)W HVSS Sherman and is described (but not shown) as using the trailer for water and fire retardant. Source: Patent CA2242736.

The Design

The design for the Firefly tank was submitted by Robert Matheson of Edmonton, Canada on July 1988 and covers the use of a ‘Turbine Jet Engine-Army Tank Forest Fire-Fighter’ described as:

“an apparatus which will enable the user to fight forest, brush or grass fires by injecting water or another fire retardant into the high pressure large volume of air being exhausted from a turbine jet engine mounted on the turret of an obsolete army tank which provides the required with, mobility and ability to direct airflow from the jet engine by use of the rotatable turret”

The description is therefore simple and explanatory but requires some elaboration. The tanks to be used are not necessarily Shermans or Churchills, as shown in the patent, but are an indication that any surplus or obsolete tank would be fit for the purpose.
It should also be noted that, although Canada did use Churchill tanks, and Firefly’s and Crocodiles and Shermans at various times, they did not operate the M4A3E8 shown in the drawing domestically, they only operated M4A2E8’s.
The tank itself should be selected because it has the mobility to go off-road for firefighting and because the mass of the vehicle means that the back pressure from the use of the jet turbine would not cause it to lift off the ground. Mounting the turbines onto the turret also adds the ability to turn and direct the blast of air/water in any direction. The only modification other than the addition of the two jet turbines to the turret was the removal of the gun from whichever tank was selected. No additional heat insulation for the vehicle or cooling system was envisaged, relying instead on the vehicle to provide inherently some “substantial protection from the heat of the fire to allow the operator to attack the fire where such action would be most effective”.

Artists impression of the Churchill-based ‘Firefly’, based on existing drawings.

Artists impression of the M4A3E8-based ‘Firefly’, based on existing drawings.

Both of these Illustrations were produced by Alexe Pavel, based on work by David Bocquelet.

Critique

The use of aircraft to fight forest fires is a very expensive endeavor and depends on the weather conditions at the time. Fire trucks struggle to go off-road and further struggle to deliver a sufficient volume of water to stop a fire. With a particular emphasis on the protection of buildings at the margins of the forested areas, these Firefly vehicles would be able to deliver a large quantity of water and fire retardant like AFFF at high pressure injected into the exhaust of the engine blasted at the fire.
The example vehicles on the patent were both drawn or described equipped with a trailer carrying water and fire retardant. However, the quantity of liquid in such a trailer would be just a fraction of what would be needed to make a difference to a forest fire. There was only brief consideration of a direct hook-up to available mains supplies of water or pumps feeding water from a stream or lake described as “a means could be readily provided to have the ability to supply a constant supply of water”. In this regard, the design is a failure, as even if it gets to the fire in the right place, it would not be able to sustain operations long enough to make much of a difference. The reuse of the existing Churchill (A.22F) Crocodile fuel trailers would indicate a volume of water of about 400 Gallons (UK), (1,818 liters) but the drawing also clearly shows the Firefly trailer is at least twice as small as the Crocodile one relative to the tank. Perhaps as much as 1000 Gallons (UK) (4,546 liters) could be carried, although this would not last very long pumped into the exhaust to fight the fire.
Fires are hot. This may seem obvious, but tanks are made of metal and riding in a hot metal box would be an exhausting experience. With the operators of the tank most likely having to be inside the vehicle with the hatches shut, the temperatures may well have become intolerable, and there is no discussion of additional cooling or air-handling systems provided to ensure that the operators did not succumb to the heat and stifling conditions inside.

Churchill Mk. VII (A.22F) version with modified Crocodile trailer. Source: Patent CA2242736
Attaching the turbines to the turret causes additional problems. The weight of these jet turbines would likely overstress the ability of the turret motors to rotate the turret properly, and even if they did not, the pipework connections would prevent a full range of motion. The force from the turbines would also cause a lot of stress on the turret ring as well.

Conclusion

The idea of attaching jet-turbines to tanks is definitely possible and had been done before, as had the idea of using them for fire-fighting purposes. This plan was no doubt well-intentioned and did combine the elements needed for firefighting, but overlooked some key design and operational hurdles, not least of which being that regardless of the technical merits of the design, who was going to pay for the operational costs and maintenance of these obsolete tanks. Presumably, lots of these modifications would be needed in every province due to the slowness of moving them from A to B and the vast landmass of Canada. Hazards to the crew from smoke and heat were inadequately addressed and there was insufficient consideration given to providing a sufficient supply of water for sustained operations. Other matters, like whether it was advisable to blast a fire with air at high velocity possibly adding to the spread of burning embers was not discussed at all. The final note should, of course, be the tanks. Yes, it is true the design is shown using a Sherman and a Churchill tank and, whilst these might be amusingly anachronistic, they are only indicative of how such equipment would look on a surplus tank. Whilst the design has no military value and a questionable value for civilian purposes, these designs are probably more interesting to model makers today.

Source

Canadian Patent CA2242736, filed 7/8/1998, granted 1/8/2000

WW2 Italian Other Vehicles

Culqualber and Uolchefit Tanks

Post author By Andrew Hills
Post date July 13, 2019
4 Comments on Culqualber and Uolchefit Tanks

Kingdom of Italy (1941)
Armored Tractor – 2 Built

There have been many attempts over the years, in a variety of countries, to turn track-laying industrial equipment into expedient armored vehicles. Their tracks and ability to carry, tow, or move heavy loads has produced expedient military vehicles based on everything from cranes to farm tractors. More common though, were those based on track-laying earthmovers and bulldozers. The production of these vehicles has usually been driven by the lack of alternative armor from actual tanks, and the campaign in Abyssinia was no different.

‘UOLCHEFIT’ tank on patrol, Summer/Autumn 1941, Gondar region. Souce: Pignato

Strategic Background

Italy had invaded Abyssinia (modern-day Ethiopia and Eritrea) back in 1935 and fought a rather long war and insurgency against a very determined native defense force. Although they had used a number of armored cars and light tanks, such as the CV3 series, there was still a serious shortage of armor in the colony. Some additional stocks had been delivered prior to the outbreak of World War 2 in 1940 (Italy didn’t join in until 1940), but even with these, stocks of armor were still inadequate.
Far from Italy, at the end of vulnerable supply routes, it was effectively cut-off by Great Britain when Italy declared war in June 1940. It was an enormous territory to protect, sandwiched between Anglo-Egyptian Sudan to the North-West, British and French Somaliland to the North, and British held Kenya to the South. Supplies would have to skirt around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid the British held and controlled Suez Canal, which meant that the colony was effectively isolated and vulnerable. Hopes of a quick victory in Egypt to wrestle control of the Suez Canal from the British would prove vain at best, so, in the meantime, the colony was on its own. The situation was no better for the British either. Just because they effectively had the colony surrounded and cut-off did not mean it was not a threat. Positioned and dominating the Horn of Africa, this Italian territory posed a significant threat to the vital British supply route through the Gulf of Aden to the Suez Canal and up the East African coast to South Africa, Rhodesia, and Kenya. Removal of this threat to a vital supply line was essential for the British.
The 1.7 million square kilometer area comprising most of present-day Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia was collectively known as Africa Orientale Italiana (AOI) and was divided into 6 military regions. These were Eritrea (capital Asmara), Amara (Gondar), Scioa (Addis Ababa – regional capital and capital of Abyssinia), Galla-Sidamo (Jimma), Harrar (Harar), and Somalia (Mogadishu). Italian forces were widely dispersed over this rugged and unforgiving terrain with just 39 light tanks (CV3 and FIAT 3000) and 24 M11 medium tanks. The bulk of the Italian armored force in the region was made up by armored cars, 126 of them in total, and all of these vehicles and troops (just over ¼ million Italian and Native) had to guard an area nearly 7 times to size of France.
Benito Mussolini’s ideas of a quick war meant that the AOI was fine and could be left to its own devices until after Britain had sued for peace. Italy would keep its possession and take a slice of France as well as maybe some more territory in North Africa or in the Mediterranean. Unfortunately for Mussolini and for AOI, Britain did not sue for peace. It was not going to be a quick war with easy territorial gains for Italy, but a long fight in which all of her colonies were going to fall one by one, including AOI.
For the troops in AOI, the war actually started fairly well. The borders of British Kenya and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan were crossed and small border areas occupied, and in August 1940 a full scale, successful invasion of British Somaliland was mounted. French Somaliland was more complicated but was effectively taken out of the war by the terms of the Franco-Italian armistice.
Early successes aside though, it was not to last and the British counterattacked in force simultaneously from Kenya in the South, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan in the North-West and occupied British Somaliland. Despite some determined resistance, it was a fool’s errand for Italy. The AOI, led by the Duke of Aosta, never stood a chance of winning, the question had only been one of how long they could last. Pressed from all sides and with an ever-dwindling number of resources, Italian forces had withdrawn progressively back towards the highland area
Addis Ababa fell to the British on 3rd April 1941 as the Duke withdrew to the stronghold of Amba Alagi which also fell to the British on 19th May 1941. The war for AOI continued though as British and Ethiopian forces pressed the Italians back towards Gondar by November 1941. Gondar was the capital of the Asmara region and lay to the north of Lake Tana, guarded by mountain passes at Wolchefit and Kulkalber.

Protecting Gondar

Italian forces in AOI were poorly equipped in general, with very little motor transport and little armor. Following the loss of Kassala, Somaliland, and Addis Ababa, there was even less available. Like so many other places when there was no armor to be had, it was improvised. In this case, twice.
Two ‘tanks’ were manufactured and named for these key passes guarding Gondar, known as ‘Culqualber’ and ‘Uolchefit’ respectively.

Factory fresh Caterpillar RD series tractor, circa 1935-1937. Source: caterpillar.com

‘UOLCHEFIT’ pictured in the Gondar region, Summer-Autumn 1941. Source: Pignato

Uolchefit

Uolchefit (Wolchefit) was made from a Caterpillar RD7. The RD series of tractors began in October 1931 in the United States and was an extremely popular and well-selling machine with ‘RD’ used to describe the names of this series from 1935. One of the first popular, powerful, and reliable diesel engined tractors, they sold well around the world. A couple of machines had made it to Ethiopia before the war and were used in the grading and construction of roads.
The RD-7 was powered by the reliable Caterpillar 13.6 l D-8800 (831 ci) 4 cylinder vertical diesel engine. Tested in Nebraska in 1936, this engine delivered a maximum of 95 hp at 1000 rpm (belt horsepower) and 78 hp at 1000 rpm (drawbar horsepower). Adjusted to sea-level, this was 100 hp and 83 hp maximum respectively, with the highest permissible rating as 86 hp and 62 hp respectively. This engine was coupled to a 5-speed gearbox (4 forward, 1 reverse) and a top speed of 5.5 mph (8.9 km/h) forwards in 4th gear and 2.2 mph (3.5 km/h) in reverse.
Without the armored body, the RD-7 was 4.12 meters long, 2.46 m wide and 2.03 m high (to top of bonnet), with a ground clearance of 39 cm (1940 data).

‘UOLCHEFIT’ pictured in Gondar Summer-Autumn 1941. Source: Pignato

Culqualber

It is mentioned in some sources that the Culqualber tank was based not on the RD-7 but on the D-6. The D-6, also made by Caterpillar, weighed just over 8 tonnes and was tested in Nebraska in September 1941. During that testing, it delivered a maximum 78 hp at 1400 rpm (belt horsepower) and 63 hp at 1402 rpm on the drawbar. Adjusted to sea-level, this was 67 hp and 81 hp maximum respectively with the highest permissible rating as 69 hp and 50 hp respectively. Powered by a Caterpillar 7.7 l D-6600 (468 ci) 6 cylinder vertical diesel engine coupled to a 9 speed gearbox (5 forward, 4 reverse), the D-6 was capable of speeds up to 5.8 mph (9.8 km/h) in fifth gear and 5.4 mph (8.8 km/h) in reverse and was carried on 16 inch (409 cm) wide tracks. The D-6 was slightly smaller than the RD-7, measuring 3.78 m long, 2.04 m wide, and 1.91 m high (to top of bonnet) with a ground clearance of 31cm.

‘CULQUALBER’ pictured in the Gondar region Summer-Autumn 1941. Source: Pignato

‘CULQUALBER’, Summer-Autumn 1941. The name painted on the side is barely visible. Source: Archivio Centrale dello Stato

Layout

Both vehicles were made in the same way but differ in their features. Culqualber featured a very pronounced inverted ‘V’ shaped roof over the boxy superstructure. Armor covered all sides and roof with the engine covered by a large armored grille. The rear of the machine was pointed, and in some photographs, a spot lamp can be seen in the middle of the superstructure. The driver’s position remained unchanged from when it was a tractor and he was provided with a rectangular viewport to see through and a machine-gun on each side.
Photographs also show that the roof contained two rectangular hatches roughly centrally over the V-shaped roof which served as the only access or exit to and from the vehicle for the crew. The two machine-guns, usually mounted alongside the driver in the front, could also be moved to either of the two firing ports in the rear or the two firing ports in each side. Culquaber appears to be a smaller vehicle (D-6 rather than RD-7) than Uolchefit which would match the description of it being based on a D-6. There appears to have been space for just three crewmen, a driver, a machine-gunner, and a commander, who would also act as another machine-gunner. One particular photograph of Culqualber shows it without the spot lamp and what appears to be a more pronounced roof. It is unknown whether this is the vehicle early or late in her life but, as it is the only photo showing this, the assumption is it was taken before she was finished. A confusion, however, is what appears to be camouflage painted on one side of the vehicle not seen in other photographs. This leaves open the possibility that a third, unknown vehicle was also produced

‘UOLCHEFIT’ pictured in Gondar Summer-Autumn 1941.

Uolchefit is noticeably longer and wider than Culqualber with space alongside the engine for a machine-gun position on each side at the front. Like the Culqualber, the casemate has a central driver’s rectangular vision port and is flanked by machine-guns. It has two large firing ports and two smaller vision ports in each side with the rear-most one on each side mounting another machine-gun. The rear of the vehicle sticks out over the rear of the tracks narrowing to a small rear panel. Each panel has a vision/firing slit and the sloping roof over the back had another slot capable of mounting a high angle machine-gun, something very useful in the mountainous terrain of the region. Assuming each gun would be manned at the same time, this makes for a crew of driver, commander/machine-gunner, and up to 6 other machine-gunners.

Rear of ‘UOLCHEFIT’ showing the high angle machine gun and rear vision/firing port closed on the starboard side. Source: Archivio Centrale dello Stato

Illustration of ‘UOLCHEFIT’ produced by Yuvnashva Sharma, funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Armor

The original Caterpillar D-6 and RD-7 tractors carried no armor at all, so, in order to be bulletproof, armor had to be fabricated. Being cut-off from supplies, the number of trucks available to the force had diminished greatly. Spares could not be found, so trucks were salvaged as they broke down, and shortages of tyres were serious, resulting in a large graveyard of scrap trucks available. With no supplies of armor plate available, the solution was the ingenious use of the leaf spring suspension units taken from trucks and split apart. Straightened out, these springs were then welded to form the armor which was probably supported on some kind of framework also made from the scrap trucks. The result was not pretty, but was functional and provides a unique appearance to the armor. The armor is therefore estimated to be about 10-12 mm thick.

‘CULQUALBER’ with front spot lamp. Source: Pignato

Either ‘CULQUALBER’ without the front spot lamp and with a different roof and camouflage or a third unidentified vehicle. Source: Pignato

Armament

Uolchefit was fitted with seven 6.5 mm FIAT Model 1914 machine-guns. Two were fitted at the front with one either side of the engine, 2 more in the casemate above the driver’s position, one in each side and a seventh in the rear, facing backward. Culqualber, on the other hand, was fitted with two 8 mm FIAT Model 1935 machine-guns. The two were usually mounted in the front at the level of the driver, but could be moved to the rear or sides as needed. An unknown amount of ammunition was carried in each vehicle.

Combat

Both vehicles were constructed on their tractor donor chassis by Officine Monti di Gondar (workshops of the Monti company in Gondar) in late June to early July 1941 and both were soon pressed into combat. In a memo from the Commander of forces in Amhara, Gondar, dated August 23rd, 1941 to the Italian High Command, he reported setting up a platoon of tanks by taking two Caterpillar tractors and applying armor to them. He readily acknowledged that although they might have only a small military value would still provide positive support for the morale of Italian troops and likewise damage the morale of the British and Ethiopian forces. He also asked if more such vehicles would be available, presumably to create more tanks.*
A further memo from the Commander in Amhara, Gondar, dated 18th September 1941, stated that two vehicles had been made and that, although they could only manage 6 km/h, they provided valuable cover from fire as they were impenetrable to machine-gun fire and rifle bullets at 200 m.
An additional armored vehicle based on a truck was also made and all three vehicles saw combat on 13th September at Lake Tana, although one source states that only Uolchefit was present at this western garrison at Fercaber, with Culqualber in the main garrison at Culqualber pass. What is certain is that no photos show both vehicles together.
The conditions inside the vehicles were bad. During the action on the 13th, the heat and fumes inside the vehicles meant crewmen were fainting inside them. The report dated the 18th does not say that they were knocked out, suggesting that they were both still fully operational on that date.
Records for the use of these tanks in combat is unsurprisingly rare. It is known that they saw combat on 13th September at Laka Tana. The Wolchefit Pass fell on 28th September 1941 after an assault by the British after which they marched on Gondar and attacked on 27th November 1941. The resistance there lasted just three days and the loss of Gondar marked the end of official Italian resistance in AOI. The two tanks, Culqualber and Uolchefit, must have been lost or abandoned between 13th September and 27th November.
*’History of the Combat Units of the MVSN (1923-1943)’, published in 1976 states that 6 caterpillar tanks were made but this appears to confuse these tanks with other improvised armored vehicles for a total of six.

Conclusion

The Uolchefit and Culqualber tanks were not the only tanks made from the Caterpillar RD series. Thousands of miles away and compelled by similar reasons, a far more famous vehicle was made in New Zealand. The famous ‘Bob Semple Tank’ was also based on this chassis. The chassis saw other attempts too. The firm of Disston produced a ‘tank’ based on the RD tractor too which met with some limited commercial success before the war. The compelling need to produce improvised armor has led to many attempts to produce a tank based on a sturdy tractor chassis and, like the Bob Semple tank before it, these Italian designs were short-lived. The only claim to fame these have though is that they stake a claim to the first ‘tank’ produced on the continent of Africa.

Specifications (Uolchefit, RD-7 Based)
Dimensions (L-W-H)	4.12 x 2.46 x 2.03 meters
Total weight, battle-ready	9.5 tonnes (w/o armor or guns)
Crew	Up to 8 (driver, commander/machine-gunner, 6 other machine-gunners)
Propulsion	Caterpillar 13.6 litre D-8800 (831 ci) 4 cylinder diesel, 61.94hp at 1000rpm (drawbar)
Top speed	5.5mph (forwards), 2.2mph (reverse)
Armament:	7x FIAT M1914 6.5mm machine-guns
Armor	Leaf-spring suspension steel <20mm

Specifications (Culqualber, D-6 Based)
Dimensions (L-W-H)	3.78 x 2.04 x 1.9 meters
Total weight, battle-ready	8.05 tonnes (w/o armor or guns)
Crew	3 (driver, commander/machine-gunner, machine-gunner)
Propulsion	Caterpillar 7.7 l (468 ci) 6 cylinder vertical diesel, 49.93hp at 1400rpm (drawbar)
Top speed	5.8mph (forward), 5.4mph (reverse)
Armament:	2x FIAT M1935 8mm machine-guns
Armor	Leaf-spring suspension steel <20mm

Sources

www.caterpillar.com
Nebraska Tractor Tests Report No.255: Caterpillar Model RD-7 (Diesel), January 1936
Nebraska Tractor Tests Report No.358: Caterpillar Model D-7 (Diesel), January 1940
Nebraska Tractor Tests Report No.374: Caterpillar Model D-6 (Diesel), January 1941
How Italy was defeated in East Africa in 1941, Ian Carter, IWM
History of the Second World War: Mediterranean and Middle East Vol.1, Sir James Butler
Gli autoveicoli da combattimento dell’Esercito Italiano, Nicola Pignato & Filippo Cappellano
History of the Combat Units of the MVSN (1923-1943), E.Lucas-G. De Vecchi, 1976
I Corazzati Di Circostanza, Nico Sgarlato

WW1 French Armored Cars

Filtz Armored Tractor

France (1915)
Armored Tractor – 10 Built

It was not long into World War One before the dynamic movement of armies ground to a halt as both sides dug in for a war which was to become synonymous with slaughter. The greatest factors in producing this stalemate, a situation which remained virtually unchanged on the Western Front between 1914 and 1918, was the modernization of weaponry which took place at the end of the 19th Century. The modern machine gun and artillery, combined with thick belts of barbed wire, meant that neither side’s infantry could cross no man’s land without incurring horrendous casualties or hold onto territory they gained across the wire.
A new type of weapon was being born out of the simple necessity to beat the effects of the wire on the troops and, whilst this would eventually result in the tank, there were numerous steps and missteps in the evolution towards that weapon.

Beginnings

The French were pioneers in armored warfare and had armored cars before the start of what would be World War I. These cars were basically commercial motor vehicles onto which a little armor (mostly bulletproof) was added. These were well suited for patrolling what roads there were but wholly unsuited to even moderately wet or boggy ground, let alone ground covered with wire entanglements. Tractors, on the other hand, were still wheeled but were well known as being able to cross muddy fields by virtue of the large wheels spreading the weight of the vehicle. It is no surprise therefore that the French, in the early era of developing armored vehicles, sought to use tractors for a variety of purposes.
The tractor building firm of Georges Filtz produced agricultural equipment before the war and, in January 1915, Filtz’s ideas about using his tractors were taken by General Curmer to General Joffre. These ideas basically revolved around using an existing, tried and proven vehicle, cheaply fitted with armor to crush its way through the wire. The idea had significant appeal to Joffre and was approved for tests.

Believed to be the original Filtz armored tractor, this vehicle retains the open web tractor wheels, a different position of view slits, and no vision flaps other than at the front. The roof hatch also lacks the triangular section to hold it open at an angle. Source: Chars Francis via the Vauvillier and Danjou collections

Design

Construction of the machine was undertaken by the Technical Engineering Section (STG) and involved reversing the tractor. The large diameter rear wheels would become the front wheels and, accordingly, the small pair of front wheels would become the rear wheels. This kept the engine at the front, where it was protected by a square-shaped steel bonnet followed by a fighting compartment made from a much larger box shape of steel sat at the back, where there was enough room to stand. Initially, the vehicle retained its open web type steel wheels at the front and back. Later, these would be covered over with steel covers hiding the spokes.

Believed to be the first Filtz armored tractor, this retouched image still shows the open web wheels. Note: a ‘mirrored version of this IMAGE has also appeared in print later but this is believed to be the original facing left to right. Source: Granier
The main cab, made from 10 flat panels of bulletproof steel up to 12mm thick, was riveted to a steel frame and surmounted by a slightly angled roof at the front, which then descended steeply as the bodyline tapered towards the rear. At the rear, over the pair of solid wheels which had been fitted with a circumferential solid rubber tire, was a rectangular door. This door served as the only access to and from the vehicle. A single flap inside the door served for ventilation and also seeing backward. Two vision slits were provided in each side of the cab, at the back and two more, fitted with armored flaps, were fitted on the corners of the front. The flat front of the cab had a single light machine gun, mounted centrally, flanked by two horizontal rectangular visions ports, each with its own protective flap.

No proper roof hatch or periscopes were fitted, meaning all visibility had to be done ‘buttoned up’ via these slots. The only roof access was by means of an unusual square flap in the back, over the door. Folded back, it would remain at an angle of about 45 degrees to the horizontal, unable to go flat due to a small triangular section between the hinges. This triangular section held up the hatch meaning that one man, and it can be speculated that this was for the commander, to sit out of the roof to get a better view ahead. Although this would be suicidal in combat, it would be useful behind the lines and also provide a lot of ventilation into the stuffy compartment.

The unusual roof hatch at the back open (left) and closed (right). Note the chain steering system connected to the rear wheels as well. Source: Chars Francais

The engine remained unchanged from the standard 45hp and was protected under an armored box with a simple overlapping set of horizontal panels at the front to protect the radiator. There are no apparent ventilation grilles on the vehicle, suggesting that air for the engine was simply drawn in from underneath the bonnet. The position of the exhaust is unclear but presumably was underneath. Steering was done by means of chains running from the front of the cab, underneath the cab and to the small wheels at the back.
At the back end of the sides of the engine armor, there were two doors, each of which allowed for access to the mechanicals of the vehicle. A flat rectangular plate hung down from the front, under the radiator armor and allowed for the fitting of an angled steel picket to be fitted which was intended to force barbed wire down underneath the vehicle or snap.

Filtz tractor named ‘La Foudroyante’, showing the later type of solid wheels. No armament or wire cutter bar is fitted. Source: Chars Francais via Touzin collection (left)

Illustration of the Filtz Armored Tractor, produced by Yuvnashva Sharma, funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Spring 1915

The finished Filtz armored tractor was ready for presentation in February 1915 and an order for 10 vehicles was placed the following month, to be ready by summer. By the summer of 1915, other better ideas had emerged for breaching enemy wire, using tracked machines rather than wheeled machines or repurposed agricultural equipment. The 10 vehicles ordered were duly delivered by July 1915, but tests of them showed the importance of the work on tracked vehicles.

Filtz tractor with a machine gun fitted undergoing tests through a barbed-wire entanglement. Source: Chars Francais
Despite showing some potential, these Filtz tractors proved hopeless. The large wheels were still unable to provide enough traction in soft mud, especially with the added weight of the armor and obviously could not cross trenches or shell craters without getting stuck. They could crush down wire well though, as long as it was tight enough to cause it to snap, a loose wire would simply foul on the machine.

A group of three Filtz tractors, one facing away from the camera. No weapons can be seen and one displays the registration number 37456. The vehicle further from the camera shows the name ‘JOFTRINE’. Note that the middle vehicle is also lacking the wire-crushing bar under the radiator. Source: Chars Francis via Casaubon collection

Utility

Despite having proven somewhat hopeless for the role for which they were designed, nonetheless, the machines found use. In August that year, despite their failing, in the absence of alternative vehicles, they were issued to the French 4th and 10th Armies for use in combat in the region of Verdun. Attempts to use them in combat, however, were fruitless. They were unable to cross the terrain without getting stuck and were withdrawn to work behind the lines without having fired a shot in anger.

Conclusion

Behind the lines, these vehicles found use hauling supplies and unditching other vehicles which had got stuck, but they never saw combat and were eventually scrapped. On a hard surface, they proved adequate, able to maintain speeds of up to 7 to 9 mph (11.3 to 14.5 km/h) in either direction but were, therefore, worse than a normal armored car. Off-road, they were worse than a tracked vehicle, and thus, the Filtz tractors, a promising idea to begin with, proved inadequate, just another small misstep on the road to effective armored fighting vehicles for the French Army.

A Filtz tractor in use behind the lines providing a good view of the front of the cab and radiator. The wire-crushing bar is still fitted. Source: unknown

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	3.8 x 1.4 x 1.6 meters
Propulsion	45hp, unknown type
Speed	7 to 9 mph (11.3 to 14.5 km/h)
Armament	1x machine gun
Armor	8 – 12 mm
Total Production	10

Sources

Chars Francais, Tracteur Cuirasse Filtz

Granier, V. (1919). Les etapes successives de l’arme victorieuse: Le tank. La Science et la Vie No.44
Scientific American (1919). Inventions that Won the War.

Vauvallier, F. (2014). The Encyclopedia of French Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles: 1914-1940. Histoire and Collections.

Zaloga, S. (2010). French Tanks of World War 1. Osprey Publications

WW2 Italian Prototypes

Ansaldo Light Tractor Prototype

Post author By Andrew Hills
Post date June 25, 2019
No Comments on Ansaldo Light Tractor Prototype

Kingdom of Italy (1930-1931)
Tracked Tractor – 1 Built

By the mid 1920’s, it had become apparent to the Italian military that its existing fleet of armored vehicles was effectively obsolete and that it had a dire need for a small armored vehicle able to haul fields guns and other stores.

Carden-Loyd Mark V* with Schwarzlose machine gun tested by the Italians. Source: Ceva and Curami
In 1929, Italian General Ugo Cavallero examined a number of British-built Carden-Loyd Mark V* and VI light tanks which had been purchased and sent to Italy for testing. While the Mark VI was found to be adequate and put into service as the CV29, the V* was found to be wanting. It was no good as a tank and was not suitable for towing artillery and stores. As a result, a new vehicle would be needed for this role, and as a similar sized vehicle was already under development to replace the temporary use of the CV29, it made sense that the new tractor should match (as far as possible) the new light tank.

Ansaldo 1931 Light Tank Prototype (right) seen next to the Ansaldo Light Prototype Tractor (left). Source: Archivio Ansaldo

Trial and Development

With the lessons from the trials of the CV29 being incorporated into an improved vehicle, the Ansaldo Light Tank 1930 Prototype, the same designer, the famous Ansaldo engineer Giuseppe Rossini, designed a second vehicle based on this 1930 design to fulfill the tractor role. As both vehicles shared the same width and approximate performance, in addition to all of their mechanical parts, this was a beneficial idea from the point of view of supply and logistics for the Army. This vehicle would be built at the Ansaldo works at Sestri Ponente, near Genoa.

Ansaldo 1931 Light Tank Prototype (right) seen next to the Ansaldo Light Prototype Tractor (left). A tracked trailer can be seen against the building to the right. Source: Pignato

Layout

The new tractor was very similar to the 1930 Prototype, sharing many of the same features, but whereas the tank version had the casemate which was to be a defining characteristic of the type, this tractor had an open-topped design instead. The open-topped part was shaped like a giant hooper sloping upwards and outwards away from the body and with a rolled lip around the top edge, ensuring bullet splash would not ricochet dangerously upwards. Further, this rim is likely to have formed part of the retention for a weather cover or screen, although this is not known to have been produced or tested. Like the 1930 prototype Light Tank, the upper bodywork was all welded with bolting and riveting kept to the lower sections. The nose plate on both vehicles was noticeably different, with no bolting reinforcement on the tractor version, suggesting that the armor was reduced on this vehicle from a maximum of 14 mm to just 8 mm or so. This was enough to provide indirect protection from shell splinters and indirect rifle fire, but not heavy enough to withstand direct close-range fire like the tank.

Ansaldo Light Tractor towing a tracked trailer. The very low profile is very apparent. Source: Archivio Ansaldo
Both vehicles, however, shared the same distinctive circular tow hook bolted to the center of the nose plate. No armament was carried on the tractor either; its role was not one of combat but one of support. The crew layout remained the same for the driver who was positioned on the right, but as there was no armament needed, the commander/gunner would be able to sit much further forwards in this tractor. However, photographic evidence shows the seating position was retained further back, alongside the driver, which would provide a small space in front of the passenger but no space in the vehicle for a third crew member. Without images of the interior or the original design though, it is not possible to know for sure how many men this vehicle could hold, but its small size suggests that 2 men would be the maximum.
Ansaldo Light Tractor during mountain trials. The two men seated show little additional room is provided for a third man or equipment inside the vehicle. It appears from this photo that a second support wheel has been fitted in front of the track support wheel. The pre-series CV3/33 also had a pair of support wheels at the back but this arrangement does not appear in other images of the tractor so the final arrangement of these wheels is unclear. Source: Pignato

At the rear of the vehicle, the tractor had a subtle change to the flat-roofed engine bay of the 1930 Light Tank Prototype. The grilles which had been flat were now fitted into the roof which had a slight pitch to it. It is unclear what changes were made inside the bay to necessitate this change, but one simple assumption might be that it was just to increase air-space and the cooling around the engine. The unusual ventilation grooves in the cover for the muffler on the exhaust remained unchanged.

Illustration of the Ansaldo Light Tractor Prototype, produced by Bernard ‘Escodrion’ Baker, funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Mobility and Suspension

The suspension for this tractor was different from the 1930 prototype. It was, in fact, the one used on the 1931 modification to the 1930 prototype light tank, changing from the 3 pairs of wheels to the better known 2-1-1-2 arrangement in which the fore and aft pairs of wheels were on a bogie and the central individual wheels were mounted on a dog-leg shaped arm. The horizontal supporting bar for the suspension components was retained, although it was shorter and slightly reshaped. The rear idler mount was also changed from a simple bar holding it in place to an integrated mounting holding a small wheel to keep the track from excessive flexing during high-speed movement and especially from being buckled up during reversing.
One change was made during testing though. As a result of problems caused by mud being thrown up by the tracks, a pair of mudguards were installed on the tractor. These consisted of a small metal arm at the front and back of the vehicle holding a small scraper to clean off clods of mud. Between the two was suspended a long and rather flimsy steel mudguard supported along its length by two small ‘arms’ sticking out from the body. While the design was clearly a temporary one to prevent mud from being a problem, it would likely not withstand the rigorous use of troops for whom it would be a convenient step to use getting in and out.

Ansaldo Light Tractor Prototype showing the removable mudguards and extra wide track grousers fitted for trials. Source: Private collection
Photographic evidence shows this tractor undergoing testing in 1930, although it is unclear whether this vehicle preceded the 1931 modification to the 1930 Light Tank Prototype or not. Either way, the suspension on show demonstrates that the 1930 tank suspension had already been superseded very quickly within its first year.

The Ansaldo Light Tractor Prototype during testing in 1930 showing the suspension change from the 1930 Light Tank to the 1931 Light Tank. Source: Pignato
Power for the vehicle is not known for certain, but it is likely that it was the same FIAT CV3 type 4 cylinder petrol engine as was later adopted for the production vehicles. That 2.745-liter engine received various improvements and modifications to the power output. As the production engine in the formally adopted CV3/33 delivered 43 hp, it is a reasonable assumption to place the engine output for this 1930/1 prototype at or about 43 hp. In this case, this would have enabled to the tank to manage about 40 km/h on a road and about 14 km/h off-road, slower if towing a gun, trailer, or sledge.

Ansaldo Light Tractor during testing circa 1930-1931. Source: Private collection

Conclusion

The Ansaldo Light Tractor Prototype never received any orders although it was an acceptable vehicle for its role. It shared a commonality of parts with the CV3 tank, but in effect, this also left it redundant as the tank could perform almost all of the tractor’s roles in towing guns or trailers whilst the tractor could do none of the tank’s roles. It was not the end of the saga though. Ansaldo would have another attempt at a CV3 (L3) based tractor. What happened to the tractor prototype is not known, but it is assumed that it was simply scrapped for parts for the production of other CV3 vehicles.

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	3.17 x 1.4 x 1.00 meters
Total weight, battle ready	Aprx. 3 tonnes
Crew	1 +1 (driver/commander, 1 other)
Propulsion	40-43hp FIAT CV3 petrol
Top speed	40km/h road, 14 km/h off-road
Armor	Aprx. 8 mm
Total Production	1

Sources

Italie1939-45.com
Pignato, N, Cappellano, F. (2002). Gli Autoveicoli da Combattimento Dell’Esercito Italiano V.2. Stato Maggiore dell’Esercito
Curami, L., Ceva, A. (1994). La Meccanizzazione dell’Esercito Italiano. Arte Della Stampa

WW2 Italian Tank Prototypes

Ansaldo Light Tank Prototype 1930 ‘Carro Armato Veloce Ansaldo’

Post author By Andrew Hills
Post date June 22, 2019
No Comments on Ansaldo Light Tank Prototype 1930 ‘Carro Armato Veloce Ansaldo’

Kingdom of Italy (1929-1930)
Light Tank – 1 Built

In the mid 1920’s, it had been apparent to the Italian military that their existing fleet of armored vehicles, consisting mainly of tanks like the FIAT 3000, was effectively obsolete. Various programs were undertaken to upgrade, improve, and replace their armored vehicles, although budgets were very tight. The nation was still reeling from the appalling loss of life and financial ruin which had followed World War One.
Armor would have to be small, light, and portable. The main areas for military operations were going to be the colonies in Africa, where armor had to travel long distances, and in the mountains of northern Italy. A new tank needed to be faster than the existing FIAT 3000, transportable in the back of a standard army truck, and capable of carrying machine guns for infantry support.
Looking for modern tanks to replace their obsolete fleet, in 1929, Italian General Ugo Cavellero examined British-built Carden-Loyd Mark V* and VI light tanks, a number of which had been purchased and sent to Italy for testing. Great Britain was seen as being at the forefront of tank technology by the Italians, and so, had a great influence upon their thinking regarding armored vehicles. The CV29, as the Carden-Loyd Mark VI light tank would eventually be known under Italian service, became the general template from which an Italian vehicle would follow. This Italian designed vehicle would follow the approximate dimensions and layout of the CV29, but would improve on the design in terms of protection and firepower. It was to become the most widely produced Italian vehicle in service in World War 2, and was subject to numerous upgrades and modifications. That vehicle was the CV3 Light Tank.

Original Carden-Loyd Mark VI light tank with Vickers machine gun. The tripod is stowed on the front of the machine on the left-hand side. This vehicle in Italian service was known as the CV29. Source: Beamish collection

Trial and Development

The CV29s had been subjected to trials in 1929 and then further trials over the next three years covering its ability to cross obstacles or to cover long distances in the desert, with a final evaluation carried out in Italian Somaliland in 1933. The tests were not particularly impressive, but in the absence of an alternative light tank, 100 CV29’s were tentatively scheduled for production following the purchase of a license for that number. The idea was to keep the CV29 in service whilst the Italians developed their own vehicle. As it happened, only 25 CV29s were ordered and they were used mainly for training. The lessons from the trials of the CV29 were then to be incorporated into this improved vehicle designed by the famous Ansaldo engineer, Giuseppe Rossini.
This 1930 prototype is sometimes referred to as the ‘CV29 Second Version’ and also as the ‘CV28’, although this seems more to do with the fact that the 1930 prototype had no official name than to any connection to an actual CV29 other than that already mentioned. In 1928, the hunt for a new tank had begun without a clear name for what it was going to be called, and by 1931, the hunt was officially known as ‘Carro armato da accompagnamento per la Fanteria’ (Infantry Tank). Just a year later though, official documentation clarified the name of the vehicle to ‘Carro Armato Veloce Ansaldo’ (Ansaldo Fast Tank). Because of the changing names for the project overlapping the development of several vehicles within it, it is easier for the sake of clarity to retain ‘1930 Ansaldo Light Tank Prototype’ as the designation.

Ansaldo Light Tank Prototype of 1930 showing its ability to cross a trench. Source: Ceva and Curami

Mobility and Suspension

The replacement had been developed from the original wooden design shown in 1929, which had four wheels on each side and a single machine gun mounted high up in the front. By 1930, that early wooden model had been turned into a metal prototype by the firm of Ansaldo with a much shallower angled front but the same front drive/rear engine layout.

Illustration of the Ansaldo Light Tank Prototype 1930 ‘Carro Armato Veloce Ansaldo’ by Jarosław Janas, funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Layout

The new shape body was the first appearance of the characteristic casemate which is a trademark of the CV3 series. Armament though, was still feeble, with just a single FIAT model 1914 6.5mm water-cooled machine-gun mounted behind a large curved mounting on the front left for the commander/gunner and the driver sitting on the front right. Movement for the machine-gun was excellent permitting a wide field of fire as it was able to move 20 degrees in each direction horizontally and could be elevated between -12 and +18 degrees. An estimated 3,800 rounds could have been carried, but as it was a prototype, this was not definitive, and this estimate is based on the loadout of the CV3/33 when it was eventually finished.
The engine was at the back and the transmission at the front with the drive shaft running between the two men. The body of the vehicle was mostly welded armor between 8 and 14mm thick with some bolts used to attach sections together. Notably, the vertical front plate on the nose of the vehicle was bolted together as were the two vertical reinforcing pieces. On the glacis, above this nose, was a single wide hatch used for accessing and also for cooling the transmission.

The internal layout of either the 1930 or 1931 version of the prototype tank. The interior layout has the commander/gunner on the left and the driver on the right. The chequer plate floor gives an idea of the attention to detail which went into the design. Source: Pignato
On the casemate itself was a wide rectangular hatch on the front right for the driver, in addition to a large rectangular hatch on the right of the driver for vision. Another two square hatches were provided in the back of the casemate directly behind the driver and gunner respectively. The roof was a single large metal panel attached by two simple hinges at the back of the casemate, being large and awkward to open and close.
At the rear, the engine bay had a flat roof and ventilation for the engine was provided by means of large louvered grilles on each side of the engine compartment. On the roof of the engine compartment, there were more ventilation louvers. One unusual feature is the addition of ventilation grooves into the cover for the muffler on the exhaust from each side, presumably there to help keep the exhaust cool or assist in air flow.

Ansaldo prototype during testing in 1930. Source: Ansaldo

Conclusion

Many of the features of this 1930 prototype would be carried over into an improved version, such as the general layout and shape, but the suspension had still been shown to need improvement, and the use of the water-cooled FIAT model 1914 machine-gun was cumbersome. An improved, less cumbersome machine gun would later be used, but the immediate need was improved mobility. This required changes to the suspension.
Nevertheless, the 1930 Light Tank prototype was an effective little vehicle, and in tests, it showed a lot of promise. Enough promise that further trials were ordered for 1931. It was small enough to fit in a truck and agile enough to traverse the terrain Italy was expecting to have to fight over in the 1930’s. It had mobility and could support infantry attacks with the machine gun. Although it was not ideal, it marked the first homegrown tank since the production of the CV29. Development of the 1930 Prototype would continue perfecting elements of the design to create a capable and flexible armored platform. Before it could be ready for production there was still work to do. This 1930 Prototype was changed by the end of 1930 to a new vehicle incorporating improvements.

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	3.17 x 1.4 x 1.28 meters
Total weight, battle ready	3.2 tonnes
Crew	2 (driver, commander/machine-gunner)
Propulsion	40-43hp FIAT CV3 petrol
Top speed	40km/h road, 14 km/h off-road
Armament:	1x FIAT Model 1914 Water-Cooled 6.5mm Machine-Gun
Armor	8 – 14 mm
Total Production	1

Sources

Modern US Prototypes

Composite Armored Vehicle – Advanced Technology Demonstrator (CAV-ATD)

Post author By Andrew Hills
Post date June 20, 2019
No Comments on Composite Armored Vehicle – Advanced Technology Demonstrator (CAV-ATD)

United States of America (1992-1998)
Technology Demonstrator – 2 Built

CAV-ATD. Source: Hunnicutt

Background

The work in the early 1980s with the M113 and then in 1987 with the Bradley, had shown the potential of using composite materials to replace aluminum as the choice of hull armor. Tests with the M113 had shown marginal benefits, but the tests with the Bradley had been far more promising. So promising in fact that, in 1992, plans were drawn up to develop these ideas into a program for a new generation of composite armored vehicles. To this end, in December 1993, a contract (DAAE07-94-C-R011) for an estimated US$54m was issued to the firm of United Defense to produce a lightweight high survivability light tank using composites in order to develop the technologies needed for wider adoption of composite materials for vehicles. The allowable weight range given under the funding contract was 17 – 22 tons (15.42 to 19.96 tonnes). The CAV-ATD was to weigh the full 22 tons (19.96 tonnes) upon completion.
The Composite Armored Vehicle was to take the form of an Advanced Technology Demonstrator and was known as the CAV-ATD as a result. CAV was developed by the Army in its Thrust ‘Advanced Land Combat’ program. ‘Thrust 5’ required an operational concept vehicle for a scouting lightweight vehicle assessing the tradeoffs for performance and production capabilities and cost. As such, the CAV-ATD served as the bridge between ‘Thrust 5’ and ‘Thrust 7’ as one of three vehicles in ‘Thrust 5’. The other two were the Light Contingency Vehicle (LCV), which was an 8-10 ton vehicle as a joint DARPA-Army-Marine Corps ATD, and a third project using these technologies for an advanced turbine engine for a multi-role fighter.
‘Thrust 5’ objectives had been manufacturing processes, ‘Thrust 6’ was about exploiting the “synthetic battlefield environment”, and ‘Thrust 7’ had objectives of affordability.

Objectives and Justification

The US Army’s Master Plan ‘FY1997’ defined the objectives for the CAV-ATD as demonstrating the “technical feasibility, operational potential, and cost-effectiveness of composite materials for combat vehicle structures” and to “validate designs, models, and simulations” for such vehicles. It was to set the guidelines for the design and production for future combat systems in order to improve strategic deployability. Improving this would involve a projected 33% reduction in the existing structure and armor weight on the system to be achieved using composite materials.

Assessment

The CAV-ATD was assessed in four critical areas: weight, deployability, survivability, and affordability. Currently available vehicles were based around a monolithic aluminum armored body, like the M113 or M2 Bradley, over which the ATD offered a minimum of a 33% weight saving for equivalent structure and armor. It easily met the deployability requirement as, like the others, is was transportable by means of a C130 or C141 aircraft. In terms of cost of production (assuming production difficulties were resolved), it was projected that it would cost no more than 1.4x the cost of producing a metal hulled vehicle.

Funding

The US Army’s Master Plan ‘FY1997’ stated that the CAV-ATD project started in ‘FY1994’ at a cost of US$16.8m for preliminary design analysis and virtual prototyping including the production of a model for simulations. By ‘FY1995’, an additional US$29.4m were allocated to carry forward critical design review with assembly beginning in ‘FY1996’ at a cost of $10.8m. The testing of the design was funded through ‘FY1997’ at a cost of US$13.5m with a final phase of testing and validation into ‘FY1998’ at a cost of US$1.5m. All told, the entire project for the CAV-ATD cost US$72m over 6 years from the awarding of the contract to the conclusion of validation tests. The original contract had been estimated for just US$54m so it had gone exactly ⅓ over the original estimated price.

Manufacture

Producing two prototype vehicles was not a problem, but scaling this up to produce 60 vehicles a month, considering the time taken to cut and lay the glass-fiber matting, compress it, cure it and add other materials was very complex especially when the tape dispenser for the glass-fiber had to accommodate both thick and thin areas of composite and still retain tension across the fibers. This would require entirely new manufacturing processes, and the CAV-ATD would be augmented with thicker composite materials to accommodate these manufacturing questions. As a result, the CAV-ATD then took on the ‘Thrust 6’ questions relating to stealth.

Schematic of the 3 ATD projects under the Thrust program including the CAV-ATD. Source: Carriveau
The actual manufacture of the CAV-ATD was undertaken at United Defense’s San Jose plant in California, but it sub-contracted much of the component manufacturing work to Spectrum Textiles Inc (STI) and Boeing specifically for the stitching of the fabric used in the composites. STI produced the fabric and Boeing stitched it together using their own stitching machine. An audit of the program in 1999 clarified that Boeing intended to use their own machine rather than the stitching machine funded by NASA.

The 13 major steps in the CAV-ATD hull production. Source: Karr
The process used to manufacture the hull was the patent-pending Co-injection resin-transfer molding (CIRTM) system which had been developed by the US Army Research Laboratory and the University of Delaware. Older composite vehicle had been manufactured using the vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) system but CIRTM was superior to this as it could incorporate all pieces of the armor, plastic, ceramic, and metal within a single process. It was also less polluting as a process as it did not require the use of adhesives in the secondary manufacturing process. Crucially, CIRTM allowed for each layer in the composite to be stitched through to the other layers which improves load transfer making it more effective as armor.

Protection

The CAV-ATD was to use the third generation of ceramic composite armor technology from United Defence. The Bradley composite hull was Generation 1 and the M8 AGS was Generation 2. The development of the hull, therefore, used the experience gained from production of the M2 Composite hull and used the same type of S-2 glass fiber laminate with ceramic tiles embedded within the epoxy resin serving as the armor for the tank. This type of composite armor with embedded structures is known as Composite Integral Armour (CIA) and was an evolution of the composite with applique from the composite Bradley.
Within the armor, each 4-inch (101.6 mm) 0.7” (17.78 mm) thick hexagonal Silicon Carbide (SiC) ceramic tile was bonded to a rubber backing, creating a complex armor system providing good protection at a minimal weight and bulk. This armoring system was effective, even providing protection against 30 mm APDS ammunition across a narrow frontal arc 30 degrees each side of the center line and 14.5 mm AP ammunition elsewhere, although the sides would still be vulnerable to 14.5 mm ammunition. The outer layer of thinly applied polymer matrix was meant to protect the tiles from incidental damage as the tiles constituted the majority of the ballistic protection. Their roles were to break up the incoming projectile and erode it to the point where it could not penetrate, with the rubber backing providing multi-hit capability. The inner layer of composite served the function of the vehicle’s structure absorbing the residual kinetic energy from the projectile and had a final thin inner coating of phenolic polymer that acted as the spall liner.

Cross section of the hull armor of the CAV-ATD. Source: NASA

Results of firing trials on the Generation 2 composite showing strike face (orange) and back face deformation (right). Note: ‘UDLP’ stands for United Defense Limited Partnership. Source: McCauley et al.

Schematic of the approximately 40 mm thick Generation 3 Composite Ceramic armor used on the CAV-ATD. Source: Grujicic et al.
The vehicle itself, much like the M2 Composite, was made in two halves; a top half and a bottom half. These were then attached together, presumably to a framework. To provide internal protection for the crew, a titanium crew capsule was built within the vehicle, which was sandwiched between the front-mounted transmission and centrally mounted engine.

Computer model of the top half of the rear section of the CAV-ATD armor showing the complex arrangement of composite and metal elements. Source: NASA
The reason for this unusual layout was simple. It freed up all the space at the back to create a mini-APC capable of ferrying supplies or up to 6 soldiers. The roof and floor of the hull were sufficient to protect only against small explosive devices like bomblets and anti-personnel mines.

CAV-ATD illustration by Yuvnashva Sharma. Funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Stealth

The CAV-ATD was to feature a series of measures to make it stealthy as well. Ground radar is a significant threat to vehicles which often goes ignored and, just like aircraft, the first element to not being hit is not being seen. Measures tested to make the CAV-ATD less visible to ground radar and thermal imaging systems were improved seals over the paneling to prevent radar signals from entering and a coating with radar absorbing material. The shape of the vehicle was also designed in such a way as to prevent reflection of a radar signal and the exhaust was shrouded in such a way as to minimize the heat visible outside. A further and obvious feature is the large fringed skirts hanging down obscuring all of the wheels along each side. This too would prevent a radar signature from entering under the track guards and bouncing around creating a large signature.

Basic hull shape showing stealth features. Source: Hunnicutt

CAV-ATD during trials. 1997-1999 (left) and the color of the vehicle during testing (right). Source: Hunnicutt and Mullins respectively

Automotive

Power for the CAV-ATD came in the form of a General Motors 6V92TIA diesel engine producing 530 gross horsepower connected to a Lockheed Martin HMPT-500-3EC mechanical transmission with a plan to later replace this with an all-electric transmission. This was supposed to take place under a program called ‘Advanced Mobility Systems’, with an overall goal of reducing hull weight and volume by 25% over existing systems while increasing range and mobility. This was due to begin in 1997 but the CAV-ATD did not get tested with the ‘advanced motor and generator configured for electric drive’

Cross-sectional layout of the CAV-ATD. Source: Hunnicutt

Suspension

Suspension for the CAV-ATD was provided by a hydropneumatic system with 6 road wheels on arms connected to the main body on each side running on a flat 15” (381mm) wide T150 track. A budget report in 1992 reveals that a new lightweight track was being developed for the CAV-ATD starting ‘FY1994’, incorporating metal matrix composites and Austempered Ductile Iron (ADI) technologies but it is not known if this project led to a track to test on the vehicle or not. A second project for a track was also budgeted for ‘FV1994’ to use ‘band track’; an all rubber track instead of a metal one which would reduce weight and noise.

Firepower

Firepower was originally planned to consist only of the 25 mm Bushmaster cannon, although Hunnicutt (1999) claims that other weapons systems were evaluated on this platform. The US Army’s Master Plan ‘FY1997’ detailed the prospective future development of the CAV-ATD and some of the analysis of it which was to include not just a 6,000-mile endurance test with it fitted with the 25 mm cannon but also to measure the loads on the hull for the use of a 105 mm gun.

Variants

The CAV-ATD itself was just a demonstrator but the essential structure and shape of the vehicle were to form, along with the data from the trials, the prospective basis of a series of future vehicles or development of existing programs. These were to include a scout vehicle, a light infantry fighting vehicle, a light self-propelled howitzer, and the Crusader self-propelled gun. The CAV-ATD project was later seen as developing technology for incorporation within the Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS), Future Combat Systems (FCS) demos, and Future Infantry Vehicle (FIV) programs.

Conclusion

The CAV-ATD was produced to test technologies around armor and stealth. The goal had been to evaluate the production of a lightweight, well protected, well-armed vehicle for scouting and other light work with a set budget and that could produce at least 60 vehicles a month. Such production was essential to test not just the viability of the vehicle as a concept but also how the construction of a similar vehicle could be scaled up for mass production.
The Army summarised the operational advantages of the CAV-ATD stating “CAV’s operational advantages will improve survivability through inherent signature reduction of composite materials on vehicle shaping, and improve agility and deployability by reducing structure and armor weight” and it generated a lot of valuable lessons. The costs and complications of producing composite vehicles though remain unresolved as the CAV-ATD was eventually abandoned. The M2 Bradley remains the mainstay of the US APC fleet and the hunt for a light tank remained unresolved. The armor technology tested on the CAV-ATD was found to be “ballistically efficient”. It worked and reduced weight but was complex and expensive. The technology was directly transitioned to the Crusader SPG program as part of the Automated Fiber Placement (AFP) process (from Allinat), but that too ended without mass production.
United Defense’s contract for the work on the CAV-ATD expired in August 1999 without a production contract. Whilst the Composite Integral Armor (CIA) in the CAV program worked for the threat and built confidence in the military in such a system of armoring, it fell short of the requirements for medium caliber threats.
It remains to be seen if this technology is ever incorporated into a mass production US vehicle as the generations of composite armors continue to advance.

CAV-ATD in the workshop showing the signature reduction rubber skirting. Source: American Society of Composites

CAV-ATD specifications
Dimensions (LxWxH)	246.4” x 107” x 82.5” to top of hull (1.626 x 1.272 x 1.21 m) 100.36” (1.255 m) reducible to 94.36” (1.240m) to top of 25 mm weapon’s station
Total weight, battle ready	22 tons (20 tonnes)
Crew	2-3
Propulsion	General Motors 530 hp 6V92TIA diesel engine
Armament	25 mm Bushmaster cannon
Armor	Composite glass fiber, ceramics and titanium
For information about abbreviations check the Lexical Index

Sources

Analysis of Thick Sandwich Shells with Embedded Ceramic Tiles. (1996). Carlos Davila, C. Smith, F. Lumban-Tobing. NASA Technical Memorandum 110278
Bradley: A history of American fighting and support vehicles. (1999) R.P. Hunnicutt, Presidio Press
Modal Analysis of the M113 Armored Personnel Carrier Metallic Hull and Composite Hull. (1995). Morris Berman. Army Research Laboratory
Ceramic Armor Materials by Design. (2012). James McCauley, Andrew Crowson, William Gooch, A. Rajendran, Stephen Bless, Kathryn Logan, Michael Normandia, Steven Wax. Ceramic Transactions Series No.134
The effect of a carbon-nanotube forest-mat strike face on the ballistic-protection performance of E-glass reinforced poly-vinyl-ester-epoxy composite armour. (2006). M. Grujicic, W. Bell, K. Koudela, B. Cheeseman. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, South Carolina
Technical Report AD-A276-660. (1993). Gary Carriveau. US Army Tank Automotive Command.
Engineering in the Manufacturing Process. (1993). Defense Science Board Task Force Report, US Department of Defense
Army Science and Technology Master Plan Vol.I. FT1997 (1996). US Department of Defense
Army Science and Technology Master Plan Vol.II. FT1997 (1996). US Department of Defense
Descriptive summaries of the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Appropriation. (1992). Department of the Army.
Audit Report 00-019. (1999). Office of the Inspector General. US Department of Defense.
The 1998 United States Army Modernization Plan. (1998). Department of the Army.
Design Tools for Assessing Manufacturing Environmental Impact. (1997). Charles Karr, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, USA
Fourteenth International Conference Proceedings. (1999). American Society of Composites.
Cost-Effective Manufacturing of Damage-Tolerant Integral Armor. (2000). Bruce Fink, John Gillespie, Department of the Army.
Titanium Structures for Army systems. (2001). W. Mullins. US Army Research Office.

WW2 Australian Prototypes

G. Crowther’s ‘Land Fortress Tank’

Post author By Andrew Hills
Post date June 18, 2019
4 Comments on G. Crowther’s ‘Land Fortress Tank’

Commonwealth of Australia (1945)
Moving Fortress – None Built

War can stimulate the minds of the young and the old alike to develop weapons. Whilst the majority of would-be tank designers have finished their basic school education, it seems one precocious Australian schoolboy by the name of ‘G.Crowther’ saw his opportunity in 1945 to make his contribution. As such, he drafted up his own design for a ‘Land Fortress’ tank and posted it to the Army Inventions Directorate.

Crowther Land Fortress tank from the right-hand side. Photo: Author

Design and Layout

Generally, tank designs that go by the name ‘land fortress’ or ‘land battleship’ etcetera are huge, impractical, and ill-conceived, even when designed by experienced engineers. Master (not Mister – ‘Master’ here, referring to a youth) Crowther, however, is an exception to this trend. His Land Fortress tank exhibits many interesting features, albeit relatively crudely drawn.
Sporting not two but three caterpillar tracks – the third caterpillar running directly down the middle of the vehicle – this offered the potential for improved off-road performance with a lower ground pressure compared to a design with just the traditional two tracks, although at a significant increase in weight and complexity. The engine and main fuel tanks were positioned at the front, between the driver and the front of the hull. A second emergency fuel tank lay at the rear, along with one on the bottom of the hull. Behind the driver was a small spherical turret for a gunner using machine-guns, and above this, the main turret which housed a 25-pounder gun. Behind that main turret was yet another turret fitted with twin machine-guns. All of the above was set within a highly curved smooth hull providing very clean lines over the body of the tank.
A final machine-gun position was set at the very rear, at the same level as the driver, but operated by a gunner and the final weapon, a flamethrower, was mounted on the front of the hull and was operated by the driver.
In total, Crowther’s design mounted no less than 6 machine guns, 1 flamethrower, and one 25-pounder main gun. With multiple turrets and a very high track design, the vehicle is more emblematic of the inter-war era than the end of World War 2. For a tank of 1945 though, it was unsuitable and brought forth no new ideas about tank design to the Australian Army. Perhaps the most overlooked part of the design though is the choice of a third track. This was not new, the firm of William Foster and Co. of Lincoln had designed ‘belly tracks’ back in WW1 for the same lower ground pressure reason. The addition of tracks under the hull obviously provided more bearing surface on which the weight of the machine was spread out and also reduced the chance of ‘bellying-out’ when crossing obstacles.
It seems extremely improbable that a schoolboy in Australia back in 1945 would have had an in-depth knowledge of experimental tank designs in Great Britain from World War 1, so it is interesting to note that he seems to have developed this idea independently.

Illustration of G. Crowther’s ‘Land Fortress Tank’, produced by Wolfgang ‘Wolf’ Hinze, funded by our patreon Campaign.

The Official View

The June 1945 report into Crowther’s design suggestion was short but was not as dismissive as perhaps a first glance might have suggested. There were some good features to it for crew protection, such as the forward mounted engine and the extremely well-sloped body and turrets, which were obviously well designed to deflect shots too. The era of the multi-turret tank was well over by 1945 and the choice of the powerful but low velocity 25-pounder gun for the main armament was not going to be suitable for a main gun in the post-war era.
The report, perhaps a little gently due to the age of the designer, ended saying:

“whether or not there would be anything of value in this idea is difficult to say. Perhaps one of these days streamlined tanks will be the vogue and the design outlined may then be approached”

Master Crowther was thanked for his idea, the paperwork was filed and quietly forgotten. No examples of this Land Fortress Tank were ever built and the youthful designer likely went back to his studies. It is not known what became of him.

Specifications
Armament :	25-Pounder gun 6 machine-guns 1 flame thrower
Suspension	Triple Tracks

Sources

Australian Army Inventions Directorate file 19886, 1945

Kingdom of Italy (1932-1943)

World War II

Sources

Kingdom of Italy (1941) Light Armored Car – 1 Prototype Built

Design and Layout

Protection and Armament

Fate

Lince specifications

Links & Resources

Kingdom of Italy (1938) Bridge Carrier – 3 Built

The Name?

The Role

The Design

Utility

Production

Specifications

Sources

Canada (1988-2000) Firefighting Vehicle – None Built

The Name

The Design

Critique

Conclusion

Source

Kingdom of Italy (1941) Armored Tractor – 2 Built

Strategic Background

Protecting Gondar

Uolchefit

Culqualber

Layout

Armor

Armament

Combat

Conclusion

Specifications (Uolchefit, RD-7 Based)

Specifications (Culqualber, D-6 Based)

Sources

France (1915) Armored Tractor – 10 Built

Beginnings

Design

Spring 1915

Utility

Conclusion

Specifications

Sources

Kingdom of Italy (1930-1931) Tracked Tractor – 1 Built

Trial and Development

Layout

Mobility and Suspension

Conclusion

Specifications

Sources

Kingdom of Italy (1929-1930) Light Tank – 1 Built

Trial and Development

Mobility and Suspension

Layout

Conclusion

Specifications

Sources

United States of America (1992-1998) Technology Demonstrator – 2 Built

Background

Objectives and Justification

Assessment

Funding

Manufacture

Protection

Stealth

Automotive

Suspension

Firepower

Variants

Conclusion

CAV-ATD specifications

Sources

Commonwealth of Australia (1945) Moving Fortress – None Built

Design and Layout

The Official View

Specifications

Sources

Kingdom of Italy (1941)
Light Armored Car – 1 Prototype Built

Kingdom of Italy (1938)
Bridge Carrier – 3 Built

Canada (1988-2000)
Firefighting Vehicle – None Built

Kingdom of Italy (1941)
Armored Tractor – 2 Built

France (1915)
Armored Tractor – 10 Built

Kingdom of Italy (1930-1931)
Tracked Tractor – 1 Built

Kingdom of Italy (1929-1930)
Light Tank – 1 Built

United States of America (1992-1998)
Technology Demonstrator – 2 Built

Commonwealth of Australia (1945)
Moving Fortress – None Built