Kingdom of Spain (1921-1931) Heavy Tank – 6 Purchased Although the Schneider CA (or Schneider CA-1) was the French Army’s first tank during World War One, its legacy has largely been eclipsed by the Renault FT. In terms of impact on tank development and exports to other nations, the Schneider CA-1 pales in comparison to…
Kingdom of Spain (1976-1978) Armored Personnel Carrier – 3 Prototypes Built Although the Pegaso 3500 had been a failure, Spanish military authorities remained keen to develop a 6×6 wheeled armored personnel carrier. Eventually, this would become the BMR-600, perhaps one of the biggest success stories of the Spanish military-industrial complex. Between 1977 and 1978, three…
Spanish State (1973-1974) Armored Personnel Carrier – 1 Prototype Built Perhaps one of the biggest success stories of the Spanish military industrial complex, the BMR-600, has its origins in the Pegaso 3500. A single prototype was completed in 1973 using a combination of components bought from abroad and some built in the nascent Spanish heavy…
Spanish State (Late 1960s/Early 1970s) Armored Personnel Carrier – Paper Project The BMR-600 has been a massive success for Spain and its military industrial complex. It achieved the decades-long ambition of domestically developing and producing armored vehicles to suit the country’s needs. In addition, it had some modest export success. Before the six-wheeled BMR-600, there…
Spanish State (Early 1960s) Tracked Reconnaissance Vehicle – Paper Project Spanish military authorities have always strived to create military designs for the local production of armored fighting vehicles. Often, financial instability or political turmoil have prevented this from happening, as was the case with the Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería VBCI-E General Yagüe and…
Spanish State (Early 1960s) Armored Personnel Carrier/Infantry Fighting Vehicle – Paper Project Spanish military authorities have always strived to create military designs for the local production of armored fighting vehicles. Often, financial instability or political turmoil have prevented this from happening. Both, to different degrees, would condemn the Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería VBCI-E…
Kingdom of Spain/Second Spanish Republic (1921-1934) Armored Car – 31 Built Military setbacks often lead military authorities to take drastic measures. In 1921, with war in North Africa not going according to plan for Spain, the government ordered the armoring of several of the Army’s vehicles. Thirty-one lorries and trucks of five different types would…
Kingdom of Spain (1919-1931) Light Tank – 18 Purchased Debuting on the Western Front in 1918, the French Renault FT was a revolutionary weapon. Small and equipped with a fully rotating turret, it was deployed en masse in the later stages of the Great War, greatly impacting warfare and military thinking. In the post-war period…
Kingdom of Spain (1921-1922) Armored Car – 1 or 2 Built In terms of armored vehicles resulting from both public and private ventures, the years following the Great War saw major developments. This was even true for those not embroiled in conflict, as was the case of the Kingdom of Spain. One of the vehicles…
Second Spanish Republic (1936) Armored Car – ~160 Built Rightly or wrongly, the armored cars produced by both sides during the Spanish Civil War – the ‘tiznaos’ – have often been mocked and ridiculed. This may stem from their rudimentary and improvised appearance, which is a reflection of what they were. As the war progressed…
Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 (Schneider CA-1 in the service of the Kingdom of Spain (1919-1931))
Kingdom of Spain (1921-1931)
Heavy Tank – 6 Purchased
Although the Schneider CA (or Schneider CA-1) was the French Army’s first tank during World War One, its legacy has largely been eclipsed by the Renault FT. In terms of impact on tank development and exports to other nations, the Schneider CA-1 pales in comparison to the light, turreted Renault vehicle. One of the few countries to import the Schneider CA-1 was the Kingdom of Spain, where it was known as the Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 (or Modelo 1916) [Eng. Heavy Artillery Tank Model 1916]. As fate would have it, the Schneider CA-1 would also be the first tank to see combat with the Spanish Army, but once more, its impact and legacy in Spain is largely forgotten compared to the Renault FT.
Spanish Schneider CA-1 “ARTILLERIA Nº4” in full flow across the rocky terrain of eastern Morocco during the Rif War. This excellent photograph allows some of the main features of the tank to be distinguished– source: García, p. 1
Context – The Schneider CA-1
The Schneider CA-1 was the brainchild of Schneider engineer Eugène Brillié, who had already contributed to the design of Spain’s first ever armored car, the Schneider-Brillié. It made its combat debut in April 1917, becoming the first French tank to see active service. Colonel Jean Baptiste Eugène Estienne, more readily associated with the Renault FT, was also involved in the design and was a main proponent of its production. Throughout the Great War, 397 Schneider CA-1s were used by the French Army and one was evaluated by the Kingdom of Italy.
Like many of its contemporaries, the Schneider CA-1 was an armored box. Its main armament, a 75 mm Blockhous Schneider gun, was positioned in a sponson on the right of the vehicle, which provided very limited traverse. Secondary armament consisted of two 8 mm Hotchkiss machine guns on the rear sides. The tank’s overhanging front in the shape of a pointed nose was designed to destroy German barbed wire, allowing infantry to break through. The nose meant the 6.32 m-long Schneider CA-1 often ditched. Crew ergonomics were apparently not a priority in the design. Six crewmembers (commander/driver, main gunner, two machine gunners, loader, and mechanic) were crammed into an interior which was 1.5 m high and under less than 2 m wide and shared with the engine, making it hot and noisy when operating. The Schneider CA-1 was extremely slow, with a maximum speed of 8.1 km/h and a ‘practical’ speed of between 2 and 4 km/h. The riveted and bolted armor had a maximum thickness of 11 mm, though this was later improved by an additional 5.5 mm. With the added armor, the total weight of the tank was 13.5 tonnes.
The Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 Nº6 going across a ditch. The tank’s short track length and overhanging nose often resulted in the tank becoming ditched – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 13
The French Schneider CA-1s were first used during the Nivelle Offensive on April 16th 1917. Aside from a few noteworthy actions, in general, this first engagement proved to be quite disastrous. Sources put CA-1 losses at 76 out of 128 tanks, with 57 of them burning. With its rival, the Saint-Chamond tank also failing, and insufficient numbers of Renault FTs available, Schneider CA-1s continued to operate on the Western Front. They achieved recognition for their role in halting the German Spring Offensive, especially at the Battle of Soissons.
By early 1918, the Schneider CA-1 was already obsolete, and several never-to-materialize improvements, partly motivated by the April 1917 failure, had been considered. France had moved on to tactics which involved lighter and more maneuverable tanks which could be operated in large numbers to swarm the enemy. Just before the November 1918 Armistice, the order was given to phase out all Schneider CA-1s from operational units, putting an end to the Schneider CA-1’s service with France.
The Schneider CA-1 was France’s first tank. Throughout its short time in service, many deficiencies in the design were identified. In the end, a change in doctrine in the last year of the war, doomed the tank – source: The Tank Museum https://tankmuseum.org/article/french-first-world-war-tanks
A Second Chance – Spain and the Rif War
Spain had been fighting for control in northern Morocco for several decades. The Algeciras Conference of 1906, convened to resolve Franco-German colonial competition during the First Moroccan Crisis, granted Spain concessions in Morocco. Clashes with local tribes in July 1909, in what became known as the Melilla War, saw Spain victorious and control of the region was consolidated with the creation of the Spanish Protectorate in Morocco in 1913. Spain did not fight in the Great War, but it did have to deal with small scale rebellions, which continued to escalate until a full-blown conflict, known as the Rif War, broke out in September 1919. Spanish failures in the summer of 1921 gave the Schneider CA-1 a second chance.
Two Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 driving across the arid terrain of the Rif. Note the hoisted flag to signal orders and instruction on the vehicle on the right – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 10
Across the dry, mountainous territory, the Spanish military built a series of forts supplied by long convoy routes subject to constant ambushes. With the objective of occupying Alhucemas Bay, the General Commander of the Melilla military region, General Manuel Fernández Silvestre, stretched his troops too far from the supply lines and, in May 1921, pitched camp in Annual. The reinforcement troops sent to bolster Silvestre’s troops for the final pacification of the Rif were ambushed and massacred by tribesmen under the command of their famed leader, Abd el-Krim. This triumph led many to join Abd el-Krim’s forces, including part of the native contingent attached to the Spanish.
Driven by their success, Rifian forces advanced, taking different forts en route to Annual. Silvestre, whose forces were reduced to four days of supplies and ammunition for one day of combat and with over 6,000 Rifians ever closer, ordered the retreat back to Melilla on July 22nd. Chaos and disorder broke out when some of the native contingent decided to fire upon their Spanish officers as the Rifian columns arrived. Four hours later, 2,500 Spanish troops lay dead on the field of battle, including Silvestre, who, it is rumored, committed suicide. For the next month and a half, Abd el-Krim pressed his attacks, taking several other forts and massacring scores of retreating Spanish troops in the process. Over the next month and a half, between 8,000 and 10,500 Spanish troops died at the hands of the Rifians or as a result of the harsh conditions.
The events had severe political ramifications in mainland Spain and brought down the government, leading to the appointment of a national unity government headed by Antonio Maura, although it too would fall in March 1922. A report written by General Juan Picasso commissioned by the War Ministry found General Silvestre chiefly responsible for the debacle at Annual. The political instability was such that, in September 1923, General Miguel Primo de Rivera launched a coup and successfully took power with the King’s blessing.
The military solution to resolve the conflict in the Rif was to acquire modern equipment – tanks.
Map of the Spanish Protectorate in Morocco. Most of the fighting against the tribes from the Rif in the following decade would take place in the Kert region – source: Research Gate
Export Schneider CA-1s
As early as 1919, a Spanish Army commission inspected and considered the import of French tanks, namely the Renault FT and the Schneider CA-1, but apart from a single Renault FT, no vehicles were purchased. Spurred into action by the disastrous events of the summer of 1921, the Comisión de Experiencias de Artillería [Eng. Artillery Testing Commission] was tasked with coordinating the acquisition of modern armored vehicles. Part of the purchase included 10 Renault FTs, 1 Renault TSF, replacement parts, support trucks, and ammunition to form a Compañía de Carros de Infantería [Eng. Infantry Tank Company] in September 1921.
Another deal at the same time was agreed to form a ‘batería de carros de asalto’ [Eng. assault tank battery], which was to include: 6 Schneider CA-1s, 6 Latil TAR tractors, 6 tank transporter platforms, 6,000 rounds of 75 mm ammunition, and replacement parts. The purchase was authorized by Royal Decree on September 16th 1921, with a total cost of 1,367,303 Francs. Though the exact dates of the arrival of these tanks in Spain is unknown, the Renault FTs arrived in mid-December 1921, so it is not implausible to assume that the Schneider CA-1s, or Carro Pesado de Artillería M16, as they would be known, arrived at the same time.
A Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 on top of a tank transporter platform pulled by a Latil TAR tractor. Notice that the Latil TAR was painted in the same camouflage scheme as the tank – source: García, p. 19
The Schneider CA-1s sent to Spain had the thicker 16 mm armor and were re-armed with Spanish 7 mm Hotchkiss machine guns. Externally, the tanks were painted in the original French colors – a gray background with green and ochre ‘stains’, sometimes outlined in black, while the interiors were painted white. Initially, the vehicles were inscribed with “ARTILLERIA Nºx” [Eng. Artillery No. x] on the left side to identify individual tanks. In Spain, they were designated as Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 (M16 standing for Modelo 1916) [Eng. M16 (or Model 1916) Artillery Heavy Tank].
Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 “ARTILLERIA Nº3” behind the evacuation on stretcher of a Spanish soldier carried by members of the native contingent. This photo clearly shows the initial camouflage scheme – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 17
Organization
At some point in early 1922, the Proyecto de Reglamento provisional para la Artillería de Asalto [Eng. Assault Artillery provisional Regulations Project] was written. This document stipulated that a battery’s organization should be as follows: 1 command tank, 4 tanks, 5 Latil TAR tractors and tank transporter platforms, a tractor to carry ammunition, and a workshop truck. In the event of war, the battery size would be incremented by one tank, one Latil TAR tractor and tank transporter platform, a Pavesi tractor, four ammunition trucks, and a water tank truck. The document stated that an ‘assault artillery’ group consisted of three batteries and a reserve column, and a regiment was made up of two groups and a headquarters (HQ) company. If Spain had needed to equip a full regiment, it would have needed at least 30 Schneider CA-1s without considering those in the reserve columns or the regiment HQ. As it turned out, Spain did not purchase any more than the initial six tanks, limiting it to only being able to form a single battery.
Emblem created for the Batería de Carros de Asalto in 1924 – source: García, p. 14
Arrival in Melilla
The 6 Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 and their support equipment were sent to Melilla alongside three 45 hp Krupp trucks, a Hispano-Suiza water tank truck, a 15 hp Hupmobile automobile, and two Harley-Davison motorbikes. They arrived in the North African city on March 6th on board the Guillem Sorolla steamship and were inspected by the Commander General of Melilla, José Sanjurjo y Sacanell, as soon as they were unloaded.
A Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 being unloaded from the steamship Guillem Sorolla in the port of Melilla on March 6th 1922 – source: García, p. 2General José Sanjurjo y Sacanell, the Commander General of Melilla, inspecting the newly arrived Carros Pesados de Artillería M16. Later, he would be a key figure in the planning of the coup that brought down the Second Spanish Republic – source: García, p. 11Crowds gather to greet the Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 at the port of Melilla – source: García, p. 11
Command of the battery was assigned to Captain Carlos Ruiz de Toledo, who, in the future, would play a crucial role in the development of Spain’s first indigenous tank – the Trubia Serie A. Each Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 had a crew of seven: commander (with the rank of lieutenant), a second commander (with the rank of sergeant), a corporal, a driver/mechanic, a main gunner, and two machine gunners. It can be assumed that the sergeant and corporal acted as loaders for the main gun and the machine guns.
Tank
Commander (lieutenant)
Second Commander (sergeant)
Tank nº1
Francisco Goicoechea Valdés
Miguel Gallego
Tank nº2
Guillermo Vidal Cuadras (sometimes written as Vidal-Quadra)
Pablo Tudela
Tank nº3
Roque Reig Escalante
Manuel Pérez
Tank nº4
Francisco Roldán Guerrero
Gonzalo Fernández
Tank nº5
Manuel León
Juan Martínez
Tank nº6
Antonio Rexac Pargas
Rafael Astigarraga
In total there were 6 lieutenants, 6 sergeants, 6 corporals, and 24 artilleros [the equivalent to soldier or private for the artillery regiments]. It is unlikely that the crews received any training in how to operate the tanks, with the drivers having some experience in driving tractors at most.
On March 8th, the Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 battery departed Melilla towards Batel to join General Miguel Cabanella Ferrer’s column. On route was the first instance of what was to become a recurring problem during the Carro Pesado de Artillería M16‘s time in North Africa. The bridges in the region were unable to sustain the combined weight of a tractor, the tank carrying platform, and the tank at the same time, meaning the Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 had to be dismounted and cross the rivers (in most cases dry), by their own propulsion.
A Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 towing its own tank transporter platform across the bed of the Zeluan River in 1922 – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 17
The Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 in Action
The Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 made their combat debut on March 14th 1922, becoming the first ever Spanish tanks to see action. With accompanying infantry, atop of their tank transporter platforms, the Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 left Batel heading towards Kandoussi at 5:30 in the morning. After a stop in Aasel, they arrived on the bank of the River Kert opposite Kandoussi at 8:20. At this point, the Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 dismounted and attempted to cross the river bed to attack some Rifian trenches.
Whilst crossing the river, Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 nº5 got stuck and nº3 went to its rescue, with its crew exiting the tank to attach ropes to tow nº5. A similar fate befell nº6, leaving only three tanks to carry out the attack. Nº2 advanced to the right of Sbuch-Sba (a mountain near to the west of Kandoussi), whilst nºs 1 and 4 took the left, enabling the position to be occupied by infantry by 9:45. As a result of this first ever tank deployment, Lieutenant Vidal Cuadras was mentioned in dispatches.
Scenes of war, the “ARTILLERIA Nº3” Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 during the Rif War – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 16
The following day, March 15th, the battery returned to Batel and on March 17th, they occupied Chief. They then went to Driouch, from where, on March 19th, they joined the Renault FTs and a number of Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921. Over the next five days, they took part in camp protection duties and the engagements in Midar, Issen-Lassen, and Azrou Ntminta. On March 24th, the battery returned to Melilla by train.
The battery was soon back in the Driouch area, taking part in action alongside two banderas [the term used to denote a battalion] of the Tercio de Extranjeros [Eng. Foreign Legion], a battalion of the Regimiento de Infantería “Otumba” Nº 49 [Eng. No. 49 “Otumba” Infantry Regiment], and a squadron of the Regimiento de Húsares de Pavía [Eng. Pavía Hussar Regiment] on May 17th 1922.
Three native contingent troops in front of two Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 13
There is no information about their actions and engagements for the following year, but the Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 battery most likely took part in night and day guard duties, convoy protection, occupying settlements, and covering retreats. In most operations, because of the 75 mm gun and 16 mm of protection, the tanks were used as mobile forts.
Troops of the native contingent carry a wounded Spanish soldier and lead a horse, whilst in the background, a Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 uses its flags to communicate with other tanks – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 16
Between May 28th and June 7th 1923, the Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 battery took part in combat in the hills around Tafersit. Its distinguished actions across those two weeks resulted in the battery being awarded the Medalla Militar Colectiva [Eng. Collective Military Medal] by Royal Decree on April 30th 1925. The new commander, Captain Luís Ruano Peña, was also awarded the Medalla Militar Individual [Eng. Individual Military Medal]. However, according to the book Carro de Asalto Schneider CA-1, by this point in 1925, two Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 had been reportedly lost.
The six Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 13Photo taken during the ceremony to award the Medalla Militar Colectiva [Eng. Collective Military Medal] to the Batería de Carros de Asalto. The Battery’s commander, Captain Luís Ruano Peña, was also awarded the Medalla Militar Individual [Eng. Individual Military Medal] – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 11
Field Modifications
Based on combat experience, a series of field modifications were carried out on some or perhaps all of the Carros Pesados de Artillería M16. More often than not, because they were used as mobile forts, the tanks found themselves in close combat. Crews needed an increase in firepower, and to that end, a third 7 mm Hotchkiss machine gun was positioned on the rear access doors. Similarly, an opening cut into the front of the driver’s position added a fourth machine gun to be operated by the driver when the tank was stationary.
The two bracket-shaped structures, one at the rear and the other on top of the driver’s position, identified in some photographs, are thought to be antennas for radio equipment. This theory is supported by photographic evidence of crewmembers with what appears to be a primitive headset.
A Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 with the bracket-shaped structures which are speculated to be for radio equipment – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 23As this photo of four Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 indicates, the bracket-shaped structures were widely adopted – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 15
At some point during their time in the Spanish Protectorate in Morocco, the Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 were repainted with larger green and ochre ‘stains’ on top of the gray base color. Additionally, the “ARTILLERIA NºX” inscription was replaced by a large white number on either side denoting the number of the vehicle. Inside the numbers, the shapes of female figures were painted in gray.
Although unfortunately not the highest quality photograph, this image shows the new numbering system with the female figure painted in it. This vehicle was nº5 and commanded by Lieut. Federico Gomá Orduña. The photo was taken at Dar-Drius on October 16th 1923 – source: García, p. 20
End of Service?
Despite the best efforts of the crews and mechanics, the Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 were plagued by mechanical issues, putting their future in the Spanish Army at risk. In a communiqué to the Commander in Chief of the Ejército de África [Eng. Army of Africa] in August 1925, the Minister of War, Juan O’Donnell y Vargas, announced that due to the unreliability of the Carros Pesados de Artillería M16, and the concerns over the Trubia factory’s ability to deliver their new tank, the order of a Vickers tank was being processed. This new tank, presumably the Vickers Medium Mark I, was never purchased.
Carro Pesado de Artillería Nº6 smashing through a sandbag wall. Note the headlamp and cage added on top of the vehicle and not seen on other vehicles – source: García, p. 23
Although Spain’s victory in the Rif War was all but complete in 1925 and fighting would die down in 1927, the Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 battery remained in the Spanish Protectorate until 1929, when it returned to Spain. How many were left is subject to dispute, with some sources claiming only four and others affirming all six.
According to Marín Gutiérrez and Mata Duaso, on arrival, two tanks were sent to the Parque de Artillería of Madrid. The other four were dispatched to the Escuela de Automovilismo Pesado de Artillería [Eng. Artillery Heavy Motoring School] in Segovia for major repairs. García, on the other hand, claims that all the Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 were sent to Segovia, with two or four making their way to Madrid at a later date.
Stored in Madrid, the Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 would see service again in 1936 in defense of the Second Spanish Republic during the crushing of the coup in Madrid in July and later in the failed attack on Toledo. By this point, this antiquated vehicle was already twenty years old and had a limited impact during the chaotic early days of the Spanish Civil War.
Conclusion
The service of the Schneider CA-1 in Spain is quite comparable to its original use in France. In both cases, they were their first ever tank to see combat, but were surpassed by the more modern Renault FT. The Schneider CA-1 was a limited platform suited to slow, static warfare. Its low speed was a major drawback when fighting in the open spaces of the Rif.
Nevertheless, the Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 proved themselves. In a theater where Spanish troops were often outnumbered and surrounded, they were able to act as mobile forts, which Rifian troops could not defeat with their weaponry. Their worth was acknowledged with the award of the Medalla Militar Colectiva for their actions during the war.
All in all, the Carros Pesados de Artillería M16 hold an important place in Spanish armored history which has often gone unrecognized.
Carro Pesado de Artillería M16 ‘INFANTERÍA Nº3’ illustrated by David Bocquelet
Bibliography
Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española Teatro de Operaciones de Andalucía y Centro 36/39 (Valladolid: Alcañiz Fresno’s editores, 2009)
Dionisio García, Carro de Asalto Schneider CA-1 (Madrid: Ikonos Press)
Juan Carlos Caballero Fernández de Marcos, “La Automoción en el Ejército Español Hasta la Guerra Civil Española” Revista de Historia Militar No. 120 (2016), pp. 13-50
BMR-600 PP/A.1. Illustrations by Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.
Kingdom of Spain (1976-1978)
Armored Personnel Carrier – 3 Prototypes Built
Although the Pegaso 3500 had been a failure, Spanish military authorities remained keen to develop a 6×6 wheeled armored personnel carrier. Eventually, this would become the BMR-600, perhaps one of the biggest success stories of the Spanish military-industrial complex. Between 1977 and 1978, three prototypes were built and extensively tested. These received the designation Pegaso 3560 and each had a different turret and armament.
Context – A Changing Spain
The new geopolitical situation created by the Cold War had a fundamental impact on Spain. At that time, Spain was ruled by Francisco Franco, a far-right dictator who had gained power in a bloody civil war. Initially a pariah for its support of Hitler and Mussolini, Spain was brought into the Western sphere in 1953 by signing the Madrid Pact with the USA.
As a result, millions of dollars were pumped into the Spanish economy. In terms of military aid, the USA sent over 1,000 armored fighting vehicles, in addition to aircraft and warships. The USA also established four military bases in Spain and participated in the training and instruction of Spanish military personnel.
In spite of this close relationship, Spain was not allowed to join NATO and was excluded from the European Economic Community (EEC).
Internally, Spain was also changing. The economic policy of autarky was abandoned in the late 1950s, as widespread change to the regime was adopted, and technocrats were given positions of power.
During the 1960s, the technocratic government reversed the situation, giving rise to the ‘Spanish economic miracle’. Between 1960 and 1973, the Spanish economy grew at an average of 7% each year. The same period saw industry grow at an annual average of 10%, as Spain moved from an agricultural to an industrial economy and society. The economic miracle owed a lot to the growth of tourism, which remains one of Spain’s economic motors to this day. In 1960, there were 6 million foreign tourists, and just over a decade later, in 1973, this figure had leapt to 34 million.
Throughout this period, the Franco regime was becoming slightly less authoritarian in certain aspects. However, given Franco’s age and deteriorating health, some kind of transformation was inevitable. Within the regime, there were several factions vying for power. The more hard-line faction, headed by Admiral Carrero Blanco, ended up victorious, and the last years of the Franco dictatorship were marked by reactionary authoritarianism.
Although Franco had named the Bourbon prince Juan Carlos as his successor in 1969, it was expected that Carrero Blanco would call the shots and that the regime would not change significantly after Franco’s demise.
Spanish dictator Francisco Franco (right) and the future king of Spain Juan Carlos (left) preside over a military procession – source: Wikipedia
In December 1973, Carrero Blanco was killed by members of the Basque terrorist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) [Eng. Basque Homeland and Freedom]. Curiously, this was the same day as the Pegaso 3500 was tested for the first time. This coincided with a period of major internal and external pressure for Spain. The world economy was in recession, putting a stop to the Spanish Economic Miracle. Tensions with Morocco over the Spanish Sahara were at a boiling point. In Spain, students and workers launched mass protests and the international community put pressure on the regime for executing political prisoners.
Franco died in November 1975. The now King Juan Carlos I steered Spain towards democracy, although the process would not be plain sailing. In this context, the Pegaso 3560.00 was born.
The Pegaso 3560’s Predecessors
All the US aid and its own military developments were not sufficient for Spain to be able to prepare itself fully in the event of the kind of mechanized warfare that had emerged during the Second World War and which had become consolidated in the early Cold War years. Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs), able to transport an infantry squad in the relative safety of an armored hull, were tested towards the end of the Second World War and would appear in large numbers during and after the Korean War. In some instances, these vehicles also carried armament of their own to support the infantry dismounts.
Spain had the M-series half-tracks and the fully-tracked M113-based vehicles to perform these roles to different extents, but lacked the wheeled counterparts which would enable an even more rapid deployment of troops and quicker support across the battlefield.
During the 1960s and early 1970s, Spain considered several wheeled APC alternatives to overcome this deficiency in its arsenal.
DAF YP-408
From as early as 1953, Spanish companies had had dealings with the Dutch truck manufacturer DAF (Van Doorne’s Aanhangwagen Fabriek). In 1961, the Spanish state began to carry out business with DAF directly. The main aim of these contacts was to produce DAF military trucks under license, but armored vehicles were also thrown into the mix. In 1965, a single DAF YP-408, license plate ‘FS-83-64’, was sent for evaluation and testing.
The DAF YP-408 was a Dutch 8×6 armored personnel carrier. Developed in the 1950s, it was introduced into the Dutch Army in 1964 and remained in service until 1987. Like other APCs of the era, it was converted to fulfill many different roles, including ambulance, anti-tank, or command. A few also saw service with Portugal and Suriname.
Photographic evidence of the trials carried out at the Academía de Caballería de Valladolid [Eng. Valladolid Cavalry Academy] suggests they were mainly to test the vehicle’s ability over uneven terrain. Regardless, no further testing was carried out and the vehicle was returned to the Netherlands.
The DAF YP-408 during its tests in Spain in 1965 – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 53
In the late 1960s or early 1970s, INCOTSA created the VBTT-E4. The drawings would suggest some degree of inspiration from the Cadillac Gage Commando and the Portuguese Bravia Chaimite. Each of these had a number of derivatives or variants to carry out different tasks, such as mortar carrier or tank destroyer and the VBTT-E4 was to follow this example. It is not entirely clear why the VBTT-E4 was conceived nor how Spanish military authorities reacted to it, but what is clear is that it never went into production.
Rough drawing of the VBTT-E4, in which the shape of the front differs from the design drawings – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 34
Enter ENASA
In May 1962, the Spanish Army instructed Empresa Nacional de Autocamiones S.A. (ENASA) [Eng. National Truck Limited Company] to collaborate with DAF for the license production of the DAF YA-414 truck. ENASA had been founded in 1946, during the time of Spanish economic autarky. Pegaso was the ENASA brand in charge of building automobiles, including trucks for the Spanish Army.
ENASA’s DAF YA-414 truck production was to be overseen by a Spanish military commission. A department for military production was also to be created at ENASA. Two production stages were agreed for ENASA’s DAF YA-414, or Pegaso 3050, as it was known. The first, with a petrol engine, had 65% of components produced domestically. The second, with a diesel engine, had 86%. At this point, ENASA was producing fewer than 8,000 trucks, of all models, annually. A decade later, in 1973, they were producing over 20,000.
A Pegaso 3050 military truck, the Spanish version of the Dutch DAF YA-414 built by ENASA – source: Wikipedia Commons
ENASA’s military department was based just outside Madrid in Barajas, near the city’s airport. Its head was José Ignacio Valderrama Curiel, and Carlos Carreras was in charge of military design. Manuel Serdá was in charge of the military design sub-department located at the Pegaso’s La Sagrera factory in Barcelona.
Pegaso 3500
On March 7th 1969, the Estado Mayor Central (EMC) [Eng. Spanish Army General Headquarters] released document ‘nº6-1109’, calling for the creation of a wheeled armored vehicle. With several unrecorded proposals having been rejected, ENASA was given the task. The initial vague requirements set by EMC and the Alto Estado Mayor [Eng. Defense High Command] stipulated a family of 6×6 amphibious vehicles. 4×4 vehicles were rejected because of their limited mobility, whilst 8×8 vehicles were deemed too expensive. The priority was to use the fewest possible imported components in the vehicle’s construction. To this end, ENASA was to collaborate with Spanish civilian industries to develop components and solutions.
Momentum gathered in June 1972 with the creation of a mixed working group within the Spanish Army headed by Colonel Antonio Torres Espinosa. The mixed technical working group designed a vehicle before completing a full-scale wooden mock-up. Though the initial plans were to construct two prototypes, only one was assembled at some unspecified date in 1973 at the Pegaso factory in Barajas (Madrid) following the specifications of scope statement ‘V-05-E’.
The completed Pegaso 3500 prototype at Pegaso’s Barajas’ factory grounds – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 60
The first tests were carried out during the second half of 1973 on the grounds of the Pegaso factory. These were followed by tests outside the factory on December 11th 1973, when the Pegaso 3500 was put through firing and driving trials at La Marañosa, a hilly area south-east of Madrid. On December 17th, the prototype was shown to the Alto Estado Mayor.
On December 24th, disaster struck when the prototype sank during testing at the Buendía reservoir. Fortunately, all the crew members were able to evacuate the vehicle. Although the prototype was recovered not long afterwards, its fate was sealed.
In September 1974, a mixed committee evaluated it and submitted a report to the Alto Estado Mayor. Whilst mostly positive, the report did highlight the overly large size of the prototype. At the time, on Spanish roads, a vehicle wider than 2.5 m had to be accompanied by a Guardia Civil [Eng. Civil Guard] car. The report recommended a reduction in size and weight and noted the need for a redesigned interior.
The next step would not be taken until January 23rd 1976, when the Estado Mayor Central published document ‘6-0199’. It praised the efforts put into creating the prototype, but rejected it, as it had exceeded the original specifications. The document also ordered the creation of new prototypes along with an updated set of specifications.
In its appearance, the Pegaso 3500 was quite similar to other six-wheeled armored personnel carriers, albeit larger – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 47
Berliet VXB-170
Although the Pegaso 3500 had demonstrated that an armored personnel carrier could be developed and produced in Spain, foreign options were still under consideration. In 1975, a single Berliet VXB-170 was tested at the Academia de Infantería de Toledo [Eng. Toledo Infantry Academy]. The Berliet VXB-170 had only just entered service in France and would go on to see service mainly with military police and peacekeeping forces. Not much is known of the outcome of the tests.
A Berliet VXB-170 during its trial process in Spain in 1975 – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 54
New Orders and Requirements
Carlos Carreras, by this point chief engineer at Pegaso’s Barcelona’s plant, was put in charge of the program for the Pegaso 3500’s successor in 1975. Early in 1976, the design drawings were presented by a mixed commission with representatives of the Army and ENASA. The new design, called Pegaso 3560.00, was much changed compared to the Pegaso 3500. To begin with, width had been reduced to 2.5 m to be road compliant. There were also changes to the space between axles and to the engine’s position inside the vehicle.
In May 1976, General of the Cuerpo de Ingenieros de Armamento y Construcción (CIAC) [Eng. Armament and Construction Engineers Corps], Antonio Torres Espinosa, who was also the President General of the Comisión de Desarrollo de Vehículos Blindados [Eng. Armored Vehicle Development Commission], sent a letter to the head of ENASA with the Army’s position. They requested a series of modifications to the drawings and set out a calendar for development and assembly of prototypes.
Three of the armored personnel carrier version (V-09 configuration)
Two of a mortar carrier version (V-02 configuration)
One of a cavalry reconnaissance version
One of an anti-aircraft version (V-05 configuration)
One of a reconnaissance/combat version (V-05 configuration)
Of these, only the three original armored personnel carriers, one of the mortar carriers, and the cavalry reconnaissance prototypes would be completed. The last of the three armored personnel carrier prototypes was actually reconceived as an infantry section support vehicle.
The contract for the production of the three armored personnel prototypes, file number ‘2476’, worth 43,470,000 Pesetas, was signed in 1976.
The Three Prototypes
Over the following two years, the three prototypes would be completed and tested. These were called BMR-600 PP. ‘BMR’ stood for “Blindado Medio de Ruedas” [Eng. Wheeled Medium Armored Vehicle], the ‘6’ in ‘600’ for the number of wheels, and the ‘00’ to show they were the first prototype. ‘PP’, in this context, stood for “portapersonal” [Eng. personnel carrier].
The three armored personnel carrier prototypes
Official name
BMR-600 PP/A.1
BMR-600 PP/C.1
BMR-600 PP/T.1
ENASA name
ENASA 3560/00
ENASA 3560/01
ENASA 3560/02
Chassis number
1817.00001
1891.00005
1893.00001
Engine number
1793.00005
1793.00006
1637.00308
Prototype finished
September 1977
January 1978
May 1978 (?)
Tests
October 3rd 1977 to December 3rd 1977
January 1978
May 1978
The BMR-600 PP/A.1 during one of its initial tests. This was the simplest, and as a result, perhaps, cheapest, of the three prototypes – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 62
The three prototypes were presented to the EMC together for the first time on May 19th 1978. Later that month, on May 27th, at the Zarzuela royal palace, the Spanish monarch inspected them.
The three prototypes differed from each other. The main variation between them was their turret and armament.
BMR-600 PP/A.1 had an open fixed circular TE-1 turret armed with a 7.62 mm MG 3 machine gun
BMR-600 PP/C.1 had a closed MOWAG turret armed with a 7.62 mm MG 3 machine gun which was fired from the inside
BMR-600 PP/T.1 had a closed T-20/13 type C TOUCAN-1 turret with a 20 mm GIAT M693 autocannon and a 7.62 mm AAT-NF1 machine gun
Left-to-right: the BMR-600 PP/A.1 with a TE-1 turret armed with a 7.62 mm MG 3 machine gun; the BMR-600 PP/C.1 with a closed MOWAG turret armed with a 7.62 mm MG 3 machine gun; and the BMR-600 PP/T.1 with a closed T-20/13 type C TOUCAN-1 turret with a 20 mm GIAT M693 autocannon and a 7.62 mm AAT-NF1 machine gun – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 53
Additionally, there were a number of differences in terms of amphibious equipment, vision slits, etc.
Differences between the three armored personnel carrier prototypes
Prototype
BMR-600 PP/A.1
BMR-600 PP/C.1
BMR-600 PP/T.1
Turret
TE-1
MOWAG
T-20/13 type C TOUCAN-1
Armament
7.62 mm MG 3 machine gun
7.62 mm MG 3 machine gun
20 mm GIAT M693 autocannon
Secondary armament
None
None
7.62 mm AAT-NF1 machine gun
Hydrojets space
No
Yes
Yes
Hydrojets
No
Yes
Yes
Side hatches
Two right side
One left side
None
Two right side
One left side
Glass slits
None
Two right side
One left side
None
NBC capacity
No
Yes
Yes
NBC equipped
No
Yes
Yes
Winch space
No
Yes
Yes
Winch equipped
No
Yes
Yes
Rear door hatch
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rear door vision block
No
No
No
Radio
AN/VRC-64
Intercom
AN/VIC-1
Wheel arch (cm)
1,600
1,650
1,650
Distance from center of rear wheel to rear (cm)
1,350
1,400
1,400
Total length (cm)
6,000
6,124
6,124
Crew
2 (driver + assistant)
2 (driver + assistant)
1 (driver)
Infantry dismounts
11
11
11
After some modifications, the BMR-600 PP/A.1 was eventually used as the base for the serial BMR-600s. The design section below will broadly describe the BMR-600 PP/A.1 but provide details for the areas in which the other two prototypes were different.
Detailed dimensions 1:50 scale drawings for the BMR-600 PP/A.1 from February 1977. The modifications in red are from May 2nd 1977. There are additional annotations on the document for February and October 1978 – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 62The 1:50 scale drawings for the BMR-600 PP/C.1 from January 1978 – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 63The 1:50 scale drawings for the BMR-600 PP/T.1, here named BMR-600 PPA/C.2 from January 1978. The ‘PPA’ name may refer to “portapersonal asalto” [Eng. troop transport assault] – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 63
Design
External Appearance and Dimensions
The Pegaso 3560 was externally quite similar to other six-wheeled armored personnel carriers of the era. Somewhat smaller than its predecessor, the Pegaso 3500, it stood at 6 m long, 2.5 m wide, and over 2 m high.
Empty weight varied during the development and testing of the prototype. The BMR-600 PP/A.1, as of the February 1977 drawings, was estimated at 13,772 kg. The hull alone was 3,512 kg. The total volume of the vehicle was calculated at 17,723 dm3. When weighed in February 1978, the figure was 12,518 kg, reduced to 11,470 kg in October 1978.
The Pegaso 3560 compared to other 6×6 armored personnel carriers of the era
Length (m)
Width (m)
Height (m)
Weight (tonnes)
Pegaso 3560 (BMR-600 PP/A.1)
6
2.5
2
12.5
BMR-600
6.15
2.5
2
11.5
Pegaso 3500
6.93
2.98
2.6
19.2
E-11 Urutu
6.1
2.85
2.12
14
Véhicule de l’Avant Blindé
5.98
2.49
2.06
13.8
TPz Fuchs 1
6.8
2.98
2.5
17
Sisu XA-180
7.35
2.9
2.77
13.5
Armor
The Pegaso 3560’s armor was made of a lighter material than its predecessor. It consisted of 20 mm to 80 mm Al-Zn 4.5 Mg 1 prestressed aluminum capable of withstanding NATO 7.62 mm ammunition. To compensate for aluminum’s weaker resistance to potential enemy fire, the plates were sharply angled.
The front of BMR-600 PP/C.1 showing the driver’s vision hatch, rear mirrors, headlights, and winch compartment – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 64
Engine
The available secondary sources do not provide much detail about what engine components were used. It is unclear if the 352 hp diesel Pegaso 9156 engine of the Pegaso 3500 was retained or if the 306 hp Pegaso 9157, which would power the serial BMR-600s, was used instead.
The engine was positioned vertically in the front left, parallel to the driver’s position, inside a closed and soundproofed compartment. A large door on the front left of the hull gave access to the engine. The engine’s exhaust ran towards the middle of the right-hand side of the vehicle. A cover on the right side of the roof, parallel to the turret allowed for the emission of the engine’s fumes.
A Pegaso 352 hp 9156 diesel engine – source: Motor 9156 y derivadosThe Pegaso 9157 306 hp engine in a Pegaso sales brochure – source: Tractores Gama Pesada
Amphibious Components
The BMR-600 PP/A.1 was not designed with amphibious capabilities in mind, as it did not have a wave breaker or hydrojets. This was in contrast to the BMR-600 PP/C.1 and BMR-600 PP/T.1, which had both and were tested in reservoirs.
The BMR-600 PP/C.1 being tested in a reservoir. The use of the wave breaker can be quite clearly seen – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 68
Suspension
The suspension and running gear of the Pegaso 3560 remained the same as on the Pegaso 3500. There were three large wheels per side. The driver could let out air from the wheels down to 1.8 kg/cm2 to improve the drive over rough terrain. All wheels had independent steering.
To keep the impact on the steering to a minimum, the suspension consisted of parallel triangles with hydropneumatic cylinders, providing the maximum verticality of movement.
The steering was servo-assisted rack and pinion on the first and third axles, which also had cylinders that made it possible to make it rigid from any position. The height of each cylinder could be adjusted separately, although it complicated the driver’s work.
The cylinders allowed for the Pegaso 3560 to change its elevation depending on the surface it was driving on. There were four heights:
‘Maximum’ for traversing the most challenging obstacles
‘All-terrain’ for most rough surfaces
‘Driving’ for most roads
‘Minimum’ to facilitate entry and exit from the vehicle
Each side could be elevated independently, so that water that may have accumulated in the bottom could be drained out. The capability to elevate each individual wheel independently, such as when a tire or wheel became incapacitated, enabled the Pegaso 3560 to drive with as few as four wheels, two per side.
The BMR-600 PP/T.1 showing off its suspension – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 63
Turrets and Armament
The main variation between the three prototypes was their turret and armament.
BMR-600 PP/A.1 had an open fixed circular TE-1 turret armed with a 7.62 mm MG 3 machine gun
BMR-600 PP/C.1 had a closed MOWAG turret armed with a 7.62 mm MG 3 machine gun which was fired from the inside
BMR-600 PP/T.1 had a closed T-20/13 type C TOUCAN-1 turret with a 20 mm GIAT M693 autocannon and a 7.62 mm AAT-NF1 machine gun
BMR-600 PP/A.1
The small open fixed circular TE-1 turret on the BMR-600 PP/A.1 had eight daytime periscopes, made by ENOSA (Empresa Nacional de Óptica Sociedad Anónima [Eng. National Optical Limited Company]), around it. On top of the turret was a circular fitting that held the 7.62 mm MG 3 machine gun on the right. The MG 3 was a development of the WWII-era German MG 42, which had armed the Pegaso 3500. The Spanish company Santa Bárbara produced the MG 1A3, MG 3, and MG 42 under license.
The BMR-600 PP/A.1 during its time at the Regimiento de Instrucción Calatrava n.º 2 [Eng. Instruction Regiment Calatrava No. 2] in the Academia de Caballería [Eng. Cavalry Academy] in Valladolid. Notice the MG 3 machine gun on the turret fitting – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 63
BMR-600 PP/C.1
The BMR-600 PP/C.1 had a Swiss closed MOWAG turret. Vision was provided by periscopes. The MG 3 machine gun was fired from inside the vehicle. This turret and armament combination was used on some of the first serial BMR-600s. Nevertheless, most would end up with the TC-3 turret and 12.7 M2 Browning machine gun.
The BMR-600 PP/C.1 with its closed MOWAG turret and MG 3 armament during tests – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 68
BMR-600 PP/T.1
As it was intended for the role of squad support, not just armored personnel carrier, the BMR-600 PP/T.1 had stronger armor. The turret and armaments were of French origin and consisted of a closed T-20/13 type C TOUCAN-1 turret with a 20 mm GIAT M693 autocannon and a 7.62 mm AAT-NF1 machine gun.
The GIAT M693 was a relatively new weapon at the time. It was used as a towed anti-aircraft weapon and on warships. The French AMX-10P amphibious infantry fighting vehicle was armed with it. The 20 mm autocannon fired Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) and High Explosive (HE) rounds.
The AAT-NF1 was the version of the 7.5 mm AA-52 machine gun rechambered to fire the standard 7.62 mm NATO rounds. It had a rate of fire of 900 rpm and has been used on the French Leclerc main battle tank.
The BMR-600 PP/T.1, which had two in the turret, was the only of the three prototypes to be initially equipped with smoke dischargers.
The BMR-600 PP/T.1 with its T-20/13 type C TOUCAN-1 turret with a 20 mm GIAT M693 autocannon and a 7.62 mm AAT-NF1 machine gun – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 57
Crew and Dismounts
The BMR-600 PP/T.1 had a crew of one, a driver, but the other two Pegaso 3560 variants had a crew of two, a driver and a commander. The driver sat in the front left and had a hatch above the position for entry and access. For vision, the driver had a large openable hatch in front and a glass protected opening to the left. Behind the driver’s position, a small corridor connected the position to the fighting compartment in the middle of the vehicle. The commander’s station was at the end of this corridor.
All three prototypes carried an infantry squad of eleven dismounts who sat on two benches along each interior wall, with their personal weapons stored in the middle of the vehicle. The infantry dismounts could fire from inside the vehicles on the BMR-600 PP/A.1 and the BMR-600 PP/T.1, which had an openable hatch on the left and two on the right. The BMR-600 PP/C.1, in contrast, had vision slits instead of these hatches. On the BMR-600 PP/A.1 and BMR-600 PP/C.1, there were two large rectangular hatches on the roof for the infantry to fire from. On the BMR-600 PP/T.1, there was only one at the very rear, but there were two circular hatches not present on the other two prototypes.
The side of the BMR-600 PP/T.1 with its rear ramp open – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 66
Entry and exit of the vehicle for the infantry dismounts was primarily through a ramp at the rear. The ramp also had a smaller door cut into it.
The rear of the BMR-600 PP/T.1 showing the ramp with the door cut into it and the hydrojets – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 67
The onboard radio was an AN/VRC-64 of US origin, which weighed less than 20 kg. It is unclear if the radio was operated by the vehicle’s commander or the infantry dismounts’ squad leader. The crew communicated by using an AN/VIC-1 vehicular intercom system.
All three prototypes, alongside the mortar carrying prototype, BMR-625 A.1, were thoroughly tested between 1978 and 1979. Although there is not much information about the tests, it is known that the Army wanted to test them in the most extreme environment that could be found in Spain, so they were put through their paces in the mountainous Sierra Nevada and the deserts of Almería.
The BMR-600 PP/T.1 going through trials. Notice what appears to be the BMR-600 PP/A.1 in the background – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 64
In 1979, the Estado Mayor del Ejército (EME) [Eng. Spanish Army General Staff] produced dossiers ‘nº4012’ and ‘nº4052’, entrusting ENASA with the production of twelve pre-series BMR 600s. The twelve BMR-600s would be a slightly longer and wider version of the BMR-600 PP/A.1 with provision for hydrojets and NBC protection, even if the systems were not installed.
A year later, in 1980, ENASA was presented with dossier ‘nº4209’ to produce another 135 BMR vehicles:
106 BMR-600s
22 BMR-681 PM and BMR-612 MR
1 BMR-625 VEC prototype
4 BMR-625 VEC preseries vehicles
1 BMR-636 prototype [not completed]
1 BMR-620 prototype [not completed]
A 1981 request for ENASA to produce 120 BMR-600 (dossier ‘nº4479) was later modified to 90 BMR-600s and 30 BMR-625 VECs. This total initial order for 267 BMR vehicles was set to be constructed at Pegaso’s new factory in Valladolid.
In all, since the production of the three Pegaso 3560 prototypes, a total of around 700 BMR vehicles have been built in many variants. They have seen service with Spanish forces in peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Lebanon, and the former Yugoslavia. They have also been exported to Egypt, Peru, and Saudi Arabia.
All three Pegaso 3560 prototypes continued to see service:
BMR-600 PP/A.1 was assigned to the Regimiento de Instrucción Calatrava n.º 2 [Eng. Instruction Regiment Calatrava No. 2] and sent to the Academia de Caballería [Eng. Cavalry Academy] in Valladolid to be used during the instruction of future crews. It had ‘ET-VE43237’ as a number plate.
BMR-600 PP/C.1 was also initially sent to the Academia de Caballería before being sent to Toledo to the Academia de Infantería [Eng. Infantry Academy] for a similar purpose. At some point it was converted as a testbed for a missile launching system. It is possible that it was upgraded to an M1 standard command vehicle in the early 1990s.
BMR-600 PP/T.1 was given the number plate ‘ET-VE-4325-6’ and also assigned to the Regimiento de Instrucción Calatrava n.º 2 based at the Academia de Caballería. The T-20/13 type C TOUCAN-1 turret was removed and the whole vehicle was modernized to M1 EDEX standard.
BMR-600 PP/A.1 and BMR-600 PP/T.1 at the Academia de Caballería [Eng. Cavalry Academy] in Valladolid. Note that they have both received Wegmann smoke dischargers – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 66The BMR-600 PP/C.1 during a training exercise at some point in the 1980s or 1990s – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 62The BMR-600 PP/T.1 with the number plate ‘ET-VE-4325-6’ after it was modernized to M1 EDEX standard (even if externally it looked significantly different) and its turret and armament were removed – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 56The BMR-600 PP/C.1 prototype with HCT-2 turret – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 151
Conclusion
The three Pegaso 3560 prototypes were the last step before the highly successful BMR series could enter production. Conceived to massively modernize Spain’s armored forces, they coincided with a period in history during which Spain itself was undergoing extensive modernization. Having learned the lessons from the Pegaso 3500, the Pegaso 3560s were more in line with other 6×6 armored personnel carriers in service with other nations. Of the three prototypes, the BMR-600 PP/T.1 in particular demonstrated the flexibility of the platform, which has been a constant across the whole BMR series since their introduction.
The BMR-600 PP/T.1 during water trials – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 67BMR-600 PP/A.1. Illustrations by Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.BMR-600 PP/C.1. Illustrations by Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.BMR-600 PP/T.1. Illustrations by Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.
Pegaso 3560 (BMR-600 PP/A.1) Specifications
Length (m)
6
Width (m)
2.5
Height (m)
2
Weight (tonnes)
12.5
Armor (mm)
20 – 80
Crew
2 (driver + commander)
Infantry dismounts
11
Main armament
7.62 mm MG 3 machine gun
Bibliography
Francisco Marín Gutiérrez & José Mª Mata Duaso, Carros de Combate y Vehículos de Cadenas del Ejército Español: Un Siglo de Historia (Vol. III) (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 2007)
Francisco Marín Gutiérrez & José María Mata Duaso, Los Medios Blindados de Ruedas en España. Un Siglo de Historia (Vol. II) (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 2003)
José Mª Manrique García & Lucas Molina Franco, BMR Los Blindados del Ejército Español (Valladolid: Galland Books, 2008)
Spanish State (1973-1974)
Armored Personnel Carrier – 1 Prototype Built
Perhaps one of the biggest success stories of the Spanish military industrial complex, the BMR-600, has its origins in the Pegaso 3500. A single prototype was completed in 1973 using a combination of components bought from abroad and some built in the nascent Spanish heavy industry. Shortly after completion, the only prototype, quite unglamorously, sank. Although it was recovered, testing had shown that there were some serious shortcomings that needed to be addressed before production of a serial vehicle could begin.
The Pegaso 3500 during a driving trial – source: Unknown
Context – The Spanish Economic Miracle
Following his victory in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), General Franco went on to rule Spain for three and a half decades with an iron fist. The conflict had devastated the country, destroying agricultural production and the already limited industrial capacity. The human cost had been immense. Mass famine and political persecution in the post-war years further diminished the population and the prospects of the people.
To make matters worse for Franco’s Spain, due to its open support of the Axis powers during part of the Second World War, Spain was isolated by the Allied powers and was excluded from the Marshall Plan and the United Nations. The Spanish State imposed a policy of economic autarky with disastrous effects.
The new geopolitical situation created by the Cold War was to change Spain’s destiny. Given the country’s strategic location at the mouth of the Mediterranean and Franco’s vehement anti-communism, the US saw Spain as a new key ally. In 1953, this new relationship was cemented in the Madrid Pact. The economic policy of autarky was abandoned in the late 1950s, as widespread change to the regime was adopted, and technocrats were given positions of power.
The infamous ‘abrazo del oso’ [Eng. bear hug] between US President Dwight ‘Ike’ Eisenhower and Spain’s dictator Francisco Franco at Torrejón Air Base on December 21st 1959. Eisenhower had been a General of the US Army fighting Hitler in Europe and made efforts to ensure that Nazi war crimes and atrocities in the concentration camps were recorded on camera to prevent them from ever being denied and to facilitate the prosecution of their perpetrators. Franco, meanwhile, had risen to power with the support of Hitler and Mussolini, and it is paradoxical that the new geopolitical world situation of the Cold War should have led to this pragmatic embrace – source: Cervantes Virtual
During the 1960s, the technocratic government reversed the situation, giving rise to the ‘Spanish economic miracle’. Between 1960 and 1973, the Spanish economy grew at an average of 7% each year. The same period saw industry grow at an annual average of 10%, as Spain moved from an agricultural to an industrial economy and society. The economic miracle also owed a lot to the growth of tourism, which remains one of Spain’s economic motors to this day. In 1960, there were 6 million foreign tourists, and just over a decade later, in 1973, this figure had leapt to 34 million.
The Pegaso 3500’s Predecessors
Spain had successfully managed to modernize its armed forces with the large influx of US vehicles that had arrived as a result of the Madrid Pact. Between 1953 and 1970, Spain received: 31 M24 Chaffees, 42 M4 High-Speed Tractors, 84 M5 High-Speed Tractors, 24 M74s, over 166 M-series half-tracks, 411 M47s, 12 M44s, 28 M37s, 72 M41 Walker Bulldogs, 6 M52s, 16 LVT-4s, 54 M48s, 171 M113-based vehicles, 5 M56s, and 18 M578s.
In spite of this, Spain was unable to prepare itself fully for the kind of mechanized warfare that had emerged during the Second World War and which had become consolidated in the early Cold War years. Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) were tested towards the end of the Second World War and would appear in large numbers during and after the Korean War. APCs were, and are, able to transport an infantry squad in the relative safety of an armored hull. In some instances, these vehicles also carry armament of their own to support the infantry dismounts.
Spain had the M-series half-tracks and the fully-tracked M113-based vehicles to perform these roles to different extents, but lacked the wheeled counterparts which would enable an even more rapid deployment of troops and quicker support across the battlefield.
To overcome this deficiency in its arsenal, during the 1960s, Spain considered several wheeled APC alternatives.
DAF YP-408
From as early as 1953, Spanish companies had had dealings with the Dutch truck manufacturer DAF (Van Doorne’s Aanhangwagen Fabriek). In 1961, the Spanish state began to carry out business with DAF directly. Although the aim of these contacts was to produce DAF military trucks under license, armored vehicles were also thrown into the mix. In 1965, a single DAF YP-408 was sent for evaluation.
The DAF YP-408 was a Dutch 8×6 armored personnel carrier. Developed in the 1950s, it was introduced into the Dutch Army in 1964 and remained in service until 1987. Like other APCs of the era, it was converted to fulfill many different roles, including ambulance, anti-tank, or command. A few also saw service with Portugal and Suriname.
The DAF YP-408 tested in Spain had the license plate ‘FS-83-64’. The trials were carried out at the Academía de Caballería de Valladolid [Eng. Valladolid Cavalry Academy] and photographic evidence suggests they were mainly to test the vehicle’s ability over uneven terrain. Regardless, no further testing was carried out and the vehicle was returned to the Netherlands.
The DAF YP-408 during its tests in Spain in 1965 – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 53
In the late 1960s or early 1970s, INCOTSA created the VBTT-E4. The drawings would suggest some degree of inspiration from the Cadillac Gage Commando and the Portuguese Bravia Chaimite. Each of these had a number of derivatives or variants to carry out different tasks, such as mortar carrier or tank destroyer and the VBTT-E4 was to follow this example. It is not entirely clear why the VBTT-E4 was conceived nor how Spanish military authorities reacted to it, but what is clear is that it never went into production.
Rough drawing of the VBTT-E4, in which the shape of the front differs from the design drawings – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 34
Enter ENASA
In May 1962, the Spanish Army instructed Empresa Nacional de Autocamiones S.A. (ENASA) [Eng. Truck National Limited Company] to collaborate with DAF for the license production of the DAF YA-414 truck. ENASA had been founded in 1946 at the time of Spanish economic autarky. Pegaso was the ENASA brand in charge of building automobiles, including trucks for the Spanish Army.
ENASA’s DAF YA-414 production was to be overseen by a Spanish military commission. A department for military production was also to be created at ENASA. Two production stages were agreed for ENASA’s DAF YA-414, or Pegaso 3050 as it was known. A first with a petrol engine had 65% of components produced domestically. The second, with a diesel engine, had 86%. At this point, ENASA was producing fewer than 8,000 trucks, of all models, annually. A decade later, in 1973, they were producing over 20,000.
A Pegaso 3050 military truck, the Spanish version of the Dutch DAF YA-414 built by ENASA – source: Wikipedia Commons
ENASA’s military department was based in Barajas, outside Madrid and near the city’s airport. Its head was José Ignacio Valderrama Curiel, and Carlos Carreras was in charge of military design. Manuel Serdá was in charge of the military design sub-department located at the Pegaso’s La Sagrera factory in Barcelona.
A Vehicle is Ordered
On March 7th 1969, the Estado Mayor Central (EMC) [Eng. Spanish Army General Headquarters] released ‘nº6-1109’, calling for the creation of a wheeled armored vehicle. Having rejected several unrecorded proposals, ENASA was given the task. The initial vague requirements set by EMC and the Alto Estado Mayor [Eng. Defense High Command] stipulated a family of 6×6 amphibious vehicles. 4×4 vehicles were rejected because of their limited mobility, whilst 8×8 vehicles were deemed too expensive. The priority was to use the fewest possible imported components in the vehicle’s construction. To this end, ENASA was to collaborate with Spanish civilian industries to develop components and solutions to build what was then known as the VERCAA (Vehículo Español de Ruedas, de Combate, Anfibio, Acorazado [Eng. Armored Amphibious Wheeled Combat Spanish Vehicle]).
Its amphibious capabilities were prioritized. Spain’s many rivers and lakes would have to be negotiated, as pointed out in an article for the magazine Ejército by Infantry Commander Mariano Aguilar Olivencia, an advocate of the VERCAA. Aguilar Olivencia also argued in favor of wheels, as he felt that tracked vehicles would suffer on the unpaved hard terrain of most of Spain. Even before a single prototype was completed, Aguilar Olivencia envisaged export opportunities and the transfer of any developed technology to future vehicles.
More momentum was gathered in June 1972 with the creation of a mixed working group within the Spanish Army headed by Colonel Antonio Torres Espinosa. Captains Ernesto Bermúdez de Castro, Javier Azpíroz Calín, and Ernesto Segurado Cabezas and three other representatives from the Cuerpo de Ingenieros de Armamento y Construcción (CIAC) [Eng. Armament and Construction Engineers Corps] were members of the mixed group. Valderrama Curiel was initially ENASA’s representative and in charge of the design team, but he died and was substituted by Manuel Seco López.
Creating a Prototype
The mixed technical working group designed a vehicle before completing a full scale wooden mock-up. Despite initial plans to construct two prototypes, only one was assembled at some unspecified date in 1973 at the Pegaso factory in Barajas (Madrid) following the specifications of scope statement ‘V-05-E’. Sources do not indicate why plans for the second prototype were abandoned.
Components for the vehicle were produced in factories all around Spain before final assembly in Barajas. Some parts, however, did have to be imported. The prototype was mechanized at Kynos’ factory in Villaverde, a neighborhood in the south of Madrid. The completed prototype was given the registration plate V-001. By this time, the name VERCAA had been changed to Pegaso 3500 or Pegaso 3500.00.
The completed Pegaso 3500 prototype at Pegaso’s Barajas’ factory grounds – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 60
Design
External Appearance and Dimensions
Quite similar externally to other six-wheeled armored personnel carriers, the Pegaso 3500 was relatively large, at 6.93 m long, 2.98 m wide, and 2.6 m tall. Empty weight was a whopping 17.2 tonnes, increasing to 19.2 tonnes when fully loaded.
The Pegaso 3500 compared to other 6×6 armored personnel carriers of the era
Length (m)
Width (m)
Height (m)
Weight (tonnes)
Pegaso 3500
6.93
2.98
2.6
19.2
E-11 Urutu
6.1
2.85
2.12
14
Véhicule de l’Avant Blindé
5.98
2.49
2.06
13.8
In its appearance, the Pegaso 3500 was quite similar to other six-wheeled armored personnel carriers, albeit larger – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 47
Armor
The Pegaso 3500’s armor was made from Series 7017 reinforced armored aluminum offering protection against 14.5 mm rounds. The designers made a conscious decision to use aluminum over steel as it was lighter, more flexible, and offered more interior space. To compensate for aluminum’s weaker resistance to enemy fire, the plates were sharply angled.
The sources are unclear as to which company provided the aluminum plates. Spanish military historians José Mª Manrique García and Lucas Molina Franco state that “the plates were initially provided by ALCAN and then by ENDASA”*. ALCAN was the Canadian company Alcan Aluminum and ENDASA was the Spanish Empresa Nacional de Aluminio [Eng. National Aluminum Company]. The plates were welded together onto the superstructure at Pegaso’s Barajas factory.
*“Las planchas las proporcionó inicialmente ALCAN y posteriormente ENDASA”
The Pegaso 3500 had angled reinforced armored aluminum armor resistant to 14.5 mm rounds – Octavio Díez Cámara via Defensa.com
Engine
A diesel Pegaso 9156/8 352 hp engine is referred to in the sources. This same engine was proposed for the VBCI-E and VBRC-1E paper projects a few years prior. The 9156 was the main Pegaso engine. Used in different forms for varying purposes, Pegaso’s technical manual shows 22 different variants of the 9156, with horsepower ranging from 270 hp to 352 hp. None of these is named “9156/8”, but there are 3 which match the 352 hp: 9156.00, 9156.03, and 9156.00.25.11. Official ENASA nomenclature used full stops, not slashes for its factory designations. All three 352 hp engines were 6 cylinder diesels running at 2,200 rpm with some very minor differences in terms of fuel consumption. Sources mention that this was a variant of the commercial model that was modified to perform on steep inclines, the vehicle being designed to navigate slopes of 80%.
The engine was positioned vertically towards the front left, behind the driver’s position. The engine’s exhaust ran all the way to the rear on the left-hand side. The power to weight ratio was 18.33 hp/tonne. Maximum speed was 100 km/h and range was 1,000 km.
A Pegaso 352 hp 9156 diesel engine – source: Motor 9156 y derivados
The gearbox was one of the Pegaso 3500’s foreign-produced components. Sources mention it was manufactured by the West German RENK Company. However, the authors contradict themselves by stating that it was the same one as used on the Spähpanzer Luchs, which used the 4 PW 95 H 1 transmission produced by ZF Friedrichshafen AG instead. Given that the serial BMR-600 also used the 4 PW 95 H 1 transmission, it is likely that this was the one used on the Pegaso 3500 prototype.
Amphibious Components
The Pegaso 3500 was designed with amphibious capabilities in mind. At the front of the vehicle there was a trim vane.
Hydrojets were installed at the rear, on either side of the access ramp, which were made, according to the sources, by a French company named Messier. They were activated by using the third gear on the transmission. The driver could apply them both at the same time or individually, to turn. Speed in the water was 8 km/h and required no preparation.
The hydrojets can be identified on each side of the ramp in this image – source: Unknown
Suspension
The Pegaso 3500 had three large wheels per side with 13.00 R20 XL tires. The driver could let out air from the wheels down to 1.8 kg/cm2 to improve the drive over rough terrains. All wheels had independent steering.
Most of the suspension components were made at Farga Casanova S.A. in Barcelona. To keep the impact on the steering to a minimum, the suspension consisted of parallel triangles with hydropneumatic cylinders, providing the maximum verticality of movement.
The steering was servo-assisted rack and pinion on the first and third axles, which also had cylinders that made it possible to make it rigid from any position. The height of each cylinder could be adjusted separately, although it complicated the driver’s work. The whole suspension mechanism was the subject of a patent.
The cylinders allowed for the Pegaso 3500 to change its elevation depending on the surface it was driving on. There were four heights:
‘Maximum’ for traversing the most challenging obstacles
‘All-terrain’ for most rough surfaces
‘Driving’ for most roads
‘Minimum’ to facilitate entry and exit from the vehicle
Each side could be elevated independently, so that water that may have accumulated in the bottom could be drained out. Ground clearance on roads was 33 cm and 46 cm on rough terrain. The capability to elevate each individual wheel independently, when a tire or wheel became incapacitated, enabled the Pegaso 3500 to drive with as few as four wheels, two per side.
The Pegaso 3500 had a turn radius of 7.5-8 m.
Two photos, taken moments apart, showing the elevation extension provided by the Pegaso 3500’s suspension – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 48Although the Pegaso 3500’s suspension was designed to be lowered significantly to allow easier access and exit, during this trial it was not used, hence the gap from the ground – source: Unknown
Armament
The Pegaso 3500 was only lightly armed with a 7.62 mm MG 42 machine gun that could be fired from its position inside a cupola on the right side of the vehicle. This feature was not added until after the first tests in December 1973. The cupola had eight vision devices around it and an additional one at the front top, all designed by the state-owned small arms developer Centro de Estudios Técnicos de Materiales Especiales (CETME) [Eng. Centre for Technical Studies of Special Materials].
The Pegaso 3500 had a crew of just two: a driver, seated in the front left, and a machine gunner in the front right position. The driver had a large glass-protected opening in front, and two smaller glass-protected vision slits on either side. There were also two rear mirrors.
The Pegaso 3500 could carry a squad of eleven infantry dismounts. Entry and exit of the vehicle was primarily through a ramp at the rear. The ramp also had a smaller door cut into it. There was also a large rectangular hatch at the top, but this was mainly used to load and unload equipment. On either side, there were two firing slits for the infantry dismounts to fire from the inside.
Contemporary sources described the interior space as ample. There was also a radio on board, but it is unclear if it was operated by the machine gunner or one of the infantry dismounts.
Infantry enter the rear of the Pegaso 3500 prototype during a test – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 46The rear of the Pegaso 3500. The ramp, door, rear lights, hydrojets, and towing hooks can be appreciated – source: Octavio Díez Cámara via Defensa.com
Testing
The first tests were carried out during the second half of 1973 in the grounds of the Pegaso factory. The first tests outside of the factory were held on December 11th 1973, when the Pegaso 3500 was put through firing and driving trials at La Marañosa, a hilly area south-east of Madrid. On December 17th, the prototype was shown to the Alto Estado Mayor.
Journalists incidentally attending a motorbike presentation were able to view the Pegaso 3500 prototype for the first time on December 21st at the Jarama circuit. It was tested at high speeds and it easily outperformed a SEAT 1500 (a Spanish copy of the FIAT 2300 with a less powerful engine).
The Pegaso 3500 at the Jarama circuit – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 49
On December 24th, disaster struck. Early that day, the Pegaso 3500 prototype had been tested in the waters of the swimming circuit at the Pegaso factory. Later on, when carrying out a similar test at the Buendía reservoir, between the provinces of Cuenca and Guadalajara, the prototype sank. Fortunately, all the crew members were able to evacuate the vehicle.
The Pegaso 3500 shortly before sinking at Buendía reservoir – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 50Rough map with the locations the Pegaso 3500 prototype visited in December 1973: Pegaso factory -> La Marañosa (11th) -> Jarama (21st) -> Pegaso factory (24th) -> Buendía reservoir (24th) – source: Google Maps
Recovery and Rejection
Fortunately, on December 28th, sappers from the Regimiento de Pontoneros de Zaragoza [Eng. Zaragoza Sapper Regiment] recovered the vehicle. It was found at a depth of 17 m. The accident was attributed to one of the hydrojets breaking down because of a water leak into the hull.
It is unclear what happened to the Pegaso 3500 prototype in the following months. In September 1974, a mixed committee evaluated it and submitted a report to the Alto Estado Mayor. Whilst mostly positive, the report did highlight that the prototype was too large. At the time, on Spanish roads, a vehicle wider than 2.5 m had to be accompanied by a Guardia Civil [Eng. Civil Guard] car. The report recommended a reduction in size and weight and noted the need for a redesigned interior.
The next step would not be taken until January 23rd 1976, when the Estado Mayor Central published document ‘6-0199’. It praised the efforts put into creating the prototype, but rejected it, as it had exceeded the original specifications. The document also ordered the creation of new prototypes along with an updated set of specifications.
The lengthy period between decisions may be explained by events the Spanish military were involved with at the time. Pressure from Morocco in a bid to take over Spanish Sahara during the years 1974 and 1975 put the Spanish military on high alert, resulting in the deployment of a contingent should war break out. Additionally, long-serving dictator Francisco Franco’s health had deteriorated significantly prior to his death in November 1975. Given their high prestige within the regime, the Spanish military was concerned that whoever succeeded him would not maintain their status.
The next set of prototypes, the Pegaso 3560s, were ready towards the end of 1977 and the beginning of 1978. These would prove to be more successful and would lead to the BMR-600s, which entered into service in great numbers. However, these vehicles lost the amphibious capabilities that had been so important in the Pegaso 3500.
Two BMR-600s as part of NATO’s Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina – Source: Wikipedia
Fate
The Pegaso 3500 prototype, although rejected, was not scrapped. It remained at Pegaso’s Barajas factory until the company’s disappearance in 1990. After this, it was transferred to the installations of the Instituto Politécnico del Ejército nº1 (IPE1) [Eng. Army Polytechnic Institute No. 1] in Carabanchel, a southern suburb of Madrid. When tested, the engine still ran, but the transfer was done atop a transporter. It remained in Carabanchel until 2000. Although originally intended to be taken to a museum in Calatayud (Aragón), it ended up going to the Madrid neighborhood of Villaverde, more specifically the Escuela de Automovilismo del Ejército [Eng. Army Automobile School]. After a few years, it was once again moved to the Parque y Centro de Mantenimiento de Sistemas Acorazados nº1 (PCMSA 1) [Eng. Armored Systems Maintenance Grounds and Center No. 1], also in Villaverde, for refurbishment. Once this was done, it was to be sent to the Canary Islands.
It is unclear if the Pegaso 3500 did go to the Canary Islands, and if it did, how long it was there for. As of April 2023, it can be found at the San Jorge military base, north of Zaragoza.
The Pegaso 3500 prototype at the Parque y Centro de Mantenimiento de Sistemas Acorazados nº1 (PCMSA 1) [Eng. Armored Systems Maintenance Grounds and Center No. 1] Villaverde (Madrid) after its restoration – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 52The Pegaso 3500 prototype at its current location in the San Jorge military base, near Zaragoza. Two serial BMR-600s can be seen to its right – source: Octavio Díez Cámara via Defensa.com
Conclusion
The Pegaso 3500 was the first step towards one of the Spanish military industry’s greatest successes. Many projects had been conceived in the decade leading up, but few had materialized into even a prototype. The Pegaso 3500 showed that much work remained before serially produced vehicles could roll off the assembly line. Compared to its contemporaries, the vehicle was simply too large and heavy, with its size and weight offering no advantages. Fortunately, the future would be bright, and unlike the Pegaso 3500, it would not sink.
The Pegaso 3500 in all its glory – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 45Pegaso 3500 prototype. Illustration by Henry.
Pegaso 3500 Specifications
Length (m)
6.93
Width (m)
2.98
Height (m)
2.6 (2 top of hull)
Weight (tonnes)
17.2 empty
19.2 full
Armor (mm)
Unknown but resistant to 14.5 mm ammunition
Engine horsepower (hp)
352
Speed (km/h)
100
Range (km)
1,000
Crew
2
Infantry dismounts
11
Main armament
7.62 mm MG 42
Bibliography
Francisco Marín Gutiérrez & José Mª Mata Duaso, Carros de Combate y Vehículos de Cadenas del Ejército Español: Un Siglo de Historia (Vol. III) (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 2007)
Spanish State (Late 1960s/Early 1970s)
Armored Personnel Carrier – Paper Project
The BMR-600 has been a massive success for Spain and its military industrial complex. It achieved the decades-long ambition of domestically developing and producing armored vehicles to suit the country’s needs. In addition, it had some modest export success. Before the six-wheeled BMR-600, there was the VBTT-E4, a four-wheeled armored car envisioned nearly a decade earlier. Like the BMR-600, it was designed with variants to fulfill the different roles in mind. However, unlike the BMR-600, it never left the drawing board.
Rough drawing of the VBTT-E4, in which the shape of the front differs from the design drawings – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 34
Context – From Isolation to the Spanish Economic Miracle
Following his victory in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), General Franco went on to rule Spain for three and a half decades with an iron fist. The conflict had devastated the country, destroying agricultural production and the already limited industrial capacity. The human cost had been immense. Mass famine and political persecution in the post-war years further diminished the population and the prospects of the people.
To make matters worse, for its open support of the Axis powers during part of the Second World War, Spain was isolated by the Allied powers and was excluded from the Marshall Plan and the United Nations. The Spanish State imposed a policy of economic autarky with disastrous effects.
The new geopolitical situation created by the Cold War was to change Spain’s destiny. Given the country’s strategic location at the mouth of the Mediterranean and Franco’s vehement anti-Communism, the US saw Spain as a new key ally. In 1953, this new relationship was cemented in the Madrid Pact. The economic policy of autarky was abandoned in the late 1950s, as widespread change to the regime was adopted, and technocrats were given positions of power.
During the 1960s, the technocratic government reversed the situation, giving rise to the ‘Spanish economic miracle’. Between 1960 and 1973, the Spanish economy grew at an average of 7% each year. In this same period, industry grew at an annual average of 10%, as Spain moved from an agricultural to an industrial economy and society. The economic miracle also owed a lot to the growth of tourism, which to this day remains one of Spain’s economic motors. In 1960, there were 6 million foreign tourists, and just over a decade later, in 1973, there were 34 million.
The Military Context at Home and Abroad
Spain had successfully managed to modernize its armed forces with the large influx of US vehicles that had arrived as a result of the Madrid Pact. Between 1953 and 1970, Spain received: 31 M24 Chaffees, 42 M4 High-Speed Tractors, 84 M5 High-Speed Tractors, 24 M74s, over 166 M-series half-tracks, 411 M47s, 12 M44s, 28 M37s, 72 M41 Walker Bulldogs, 6 M52s, 16 LVT-4s, 54 M48s, 171 M113-based vehicles, 5 M56s, and 18 M578s.
In spite of this, Spain was not fully able to completely prepare for the kind of mechanized warfare that had emerged during the Second World War and which had become consolidated in the early Cold War years. Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) were tested towards the end of the Second World War and would appear in large numbers during and after the Korean War. APCs were, and are, able to transport an infantry squad in the relative safety of an armored hull. In some instances, these vehicles also carry armament of their own to support the infantry dismounts.
Spain had the M-series half-tracks and the fully-tracked M113-based vehicles to perform these roles to different extents, but lacked the wheeled counterparts which would enable an even more rapid deployment of troops and quicker support across the battlefield.
Early armored cars could more accurately be described as armored personnel carriers. In fact, the majority of Spain’s first armored cars, the Schnerider-Brilliè, the Camiones Blindados Modelo 1921, and the myriad of tiznaos of the first year and a half of the Spanish Civil War accurately fit this description. Their main purpose was to provide protection for an infantry component carried inside, who could fire their rifles and machine guns from within. Some were equipped with machine gun turrets.
Whilst there were certainly earlier examples of ‘modern’ wheeled APCs more akin to their tracked counterparts during the Second World War, such as the BA-64E, the concept really took off in the 1950s and 1960s. The first mass-produced examples were the Soviet 4-wheeled BTR-40 and 6-wheeled BTR-152, both introduced in 1950. These were followed in the Soviet Union by the 8-wheeled BTR-60 in 1961. Outside the Soviet Union, one of the first examples was the 6-wheeled British Alvis Saracen, first introduced in 1962.
The Soviet BTR-152 was one of the first mass-produced wheeled APCs. It shares similar design features with the US M-series half-tracks – source: Tankograd
The concept of wheeled APCs was further expanded by the introduction of the 4-wheeled Cadillac Gage Commando and MOWAG Roland in the early 1960s. Portugal, Spain’s neighbor, produced an unlicensed copy of the Cadillac Gage Commando, the Bravia Chaimite, in 1967.
A Cadillac Gage Commando V100 of the US Army Military Police – source: https://car-from-uk.com/sale.php?id=87692The Portuguese Bravia Chaimite, an unlicensed copy of the Cadillac Gage Commando – source: Wikipedia
Based on the drawings alone, it seems as though the Spanish company INCOTSA was aiming to follow a similar route with the VBTT-E4. Like the Cadillac Gage Commando and the Bravia Chaimite, the VBTT-E4 was to have a number of derivatives or variants to carry out different tasks, such as mortar carrier or tank destroyer. It is not entirely clear why the VBTT-E4 was conceived nor how Spanish military authorities reacted to it, but what is clear is that it never went into production.
INCOTSA
Almost nothing is known about Internacional de Comercio y Tránsito S.A. (INCOTSA) [Eng. Commerce and Transit International Limited Company], the company that designed what was to be the VBTT-E4.
According to Spanish military historians Jose Mª Manrique García and Lucas Molina Franco, in the early 1960s, INCOTSA collaborated with Material y Construcciones S.A. (MACOSA) [Eng. Material and Constructions Limited Company], which specialized in manufacturing railway rolling-stock, to design two vehicles. One was the Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería VBCI-E General Yagüe, an armored personnel carrier/infantry fighting vehicle. The other was the Vehículo Blindado de Reconocimiento de Caballería VBRC-1E General Monasterio, a cavalry reconnaissance vehicle. Their fellow historians, Francisco Marín Gutiérrez and José Mª Mata Duaso, on the other hand, make no mention of INCOTSA’s involvement. Regardless, neither vehicle gained the Spanish military’s attention.
MACOSA’s Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería VBCI-E General Yagüe. Its box-shaped design and flat angled front bore more than a casual resemblance to the US M75, M57, and M113 APC designs – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 32MACOSA’s other design, the Vehículo Blindado de Reconocimiento de Caballería VBRC-1E General Monasterio. Both vehicles would have had large parts commonality, including engine and turret – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 32
Name
The name VBTT-E4 is an acronym. ‘VBTT’ stands for Vehículo Blindado de Transporte Táctico [Eng. Armored Vehicle for Tactical Transport], defining its role. Neither the original drawings nor secondary sources clarify what the ‘E’ stands for, but it could well stand for Español [Eng. Spanish] or experimental. The ‘4’ could simply indicate the number of wheels on the vehicle.
Design
Appearance and Dimensions
Based on the design drawings, the VBTT-E4 would have had quite a similar appearance to the Cadillac Gage Commando and the Bravia Chaimite. The vehicle would have been 5.4 m long from the front peak to rear. The space between the center of the front and rear wheels on either side would have been 2.7 m. The distance between the frontal peak and the center of the first wheel would have been 1.65 m and 1.05 m between the center of the rear wheel and the rearmost point of the VBTT-E4. Excluding the turret, the VBTT-E4 would have been 1.85 m tall and, when fitted with the 45 cm high turret, 2.3 m. Width would have been 2.44 m. These dimensions would have made the VBTT-E4 shorter than its American and Portuguese counterparts, but wider.
Comparison of dimensions between VBTT-E4, V-100, and Bravia Chaimite
VBTT-E4
Cadillac Gage Commando V-100
Bravia Chaimite
Length (m)
5.40
5.69
5.60
Height (m)
2.30
2.40
2.39
Width (m)
2.44
2.26
2.26
The design drawings show an angled front, perhaps intended as a wave breaker. Two hatches on either side of the upper-plate would have provided the crew inside with visibility. Between them there would have been a grille for the engine. This was almost exactly replicated on the front top of the vehicle, with two hatches on either side of a large hatch giving access to the engine. Additional hatches on either side of the front would have afforded the crew a lateral view. The turret would have been in the top middle of the VBTT-E4. Positioned almost exactly in the middle half and opening towards the front, the main doors for entry and exit would have offered some potential protection to infantry exiting the vehicle in a combat situation. On the rear left side, there would have been stowage space, whilst the engine exhaust would have been on the right. Three hatches would have allowed entry and exit in the rear half of the roof, along with two pickaxes and two spades. Two additional outwards-opening doors would have been situated at the very rear.
Side view of the VBTT-E4, showing its dimensions – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 36Top view of the VBTT-E4’s drawing, which shows the two frontal hatches and engine grille, the frontal roof personnel and engine hatches, the turret, the sapper’s tools, and the three rear hatches – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 36
Armor and Protection
Armor would have been between 8 mm and 12 mm thick, with the thickest armor at the front and around key components and thinnest around the rest of the vehicle. Manrique García and Molina Franco indicate that the VBTT-E4 would have weighed a mere 2.3 tonnes. This estimation seems far too light, and is perhaps a typo, as the more lightly armored and slightly larger Bravia Chaimite was over 6.8 tonnes and the Cadillac Gage Commando V-100 7.37 tonnes. Marín Gutiérrez and Mata Duaso suggest a more realistic 8.5 tonnes fully loaded and 7.5 tonnes empty.
A set of three smoke dischargers would have been placed on the sides of the hull, around the same length as the first set of wheels.
Turret
The VBTT-E4’s cylindrical turret would have been 45 cm tall, the front part being taller than the rear. It would have had glass-protected vision slits in the front middle, off-center on either side, and at the center rear. Entry and exit would have been through a two-part hatch at the rear of the turret.
Frontal view of the VBTT-E4’s drawing, showing the frontal vision hatches, vision devices, and the turret with its armament – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 56
Armament
The main armament on the VBTT-E4 would have been a 7.92 mm German MG 42 machine gun placed on the left of the turret. Its depression/elevation would have been -8º to 55º.
The MG 42 was one of the most successful machine guns of the Second World War. Its main characteristic was its incredibly high rate of fire, around 1,200 rpm. After the Second World War, many nations copied its design, and examples of the machine gun have survived in service until the 21st century.
It was an air-cooled, belt-fed, open-bolt, recoil-operated machine gun. Its quick change barrel meant it was largely unsuitable for use on armored vehicles, making it an odd option for the VBTT-E4. Spain had only received a limited number of MG 42s during the Second World War and had no way of acquiring more, also making it a questionable choice. Had the vehicle been built, it may have been armed with a different machine gun. All things considered, some of the early BMR-600 prototypes had an externally mounted MG 42.
An MG 42 with its belt. It was one of the most iconic machine guns of the Second World War, with its impressive rate of fire, but it was largely unsuitable for use in armored vehicles, making it a curious design choice – source: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/mg-42-machine-gun
The VBTT-E4 would have also had a 40 mm grenade launcher on the right side of the turret. This armament’s depression and elevation is not marked in the drawings. This was an interesting design choice, as at the time, Spain had very little experience with using these weapons, especially in the turret of an armored vehicle. The available sources do not specify the exact model. The M75 Grenade Launcher and the Mk 18 Mod O Grenade Launcher were two American 40 mm grenade launchers of the era. Used in helicopters and on patrol boats, they would most likely have been too big for the VBTT-E4’s small turret.
The weapon selected might not have been a grenade launcher, but instead, a gun-mortar, such as the French Brandt Mle CM60A1. A gun-mortar is a hybrid weapon capable of engaging area targets with indirect high-angle fire and also specific targets, such as vehicles and bunkers, with direct fire. Around the same time the VBTT was designed, Spain acquired nearly a hundred Panhard AML-60s armed with the Brandt Mle CM60A1. Perhaps this kind of configuration is what INCOTSA’s designers had in mind.
A Spanish AML-60 armed with a Brandt Mle CM60A1 gun-mortar in Villa Cisneros, Spanish Sahara, in 1971 – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 30
Running Gear and Engine
The VBTT-E4 would have had four-wheel drive with four large 13,00×20-sized thick-tired wheels.
The engine would have occupied from the front central part of the VBTT-E4 to the mid-part of the vehicle.
Side section of the VBTT-E4 showing the engine – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 36
The VBTT-E4 would have been powered by a 6 cylinder diesel Pegaso 9100/40 engine producing 170 hp at 2,000 rpm. Pegaso, one the brand names of Empresa Nacional de Autocamiones Sociedad Anónima (ENASA) [Eng. National Truck Limited Company], specialized in trucks, but it would go on to produce the BMR-600 armored cars and VEC cavalry vehicles for the Spanish Army in the 1980s.
The Pegaso 9100 engine was marketed as powerful, reliable, small, light (625 kg), and easy to maintain.
The engine would have been connected to an ENASA gearbox with six forward gears and one reverse.
Technical drawings of the Pegaso 9100 engine – source: Pegaso Motor Diesel tipo 9100 170 CV
The sources put the maximum speed of the VBTT-E4 at 85 km/h and the maximum range 1,100 km. This would have made it slower than the Cadillac Gage Commando V100 and the Bravia Chaimite, but with more range.
Comparison of engines between VBTT-E4, V-100, and Chaimite
VBTT-E4
Cadillac Gage Commando V-100
Bravia Chaimite
Engine
Pegaso 9100/40
Chrysler 361
Cummins
Fuel type
diesel
petrol
diesel
Horsepower (hp)
170
210
155
Rotations per minute (rpm)
2,000
4,000
3,300
Maximum speed (km/h)
85
100
99
Maximum range (km)
1,100
644
804
Crew and Infantry Dismounts
It is thought that the VBTT-E4 would have carried 12 personnel, composed of 2 crewmembers (a driver and a commander), and up to 10 infantry dismounts.
The driver would have sat on the left side and the commander on the right, with the engine sandwiched between them.
Eight of the infantry dismounts, four on either side, would have been placed inside the main compartment in the center of the vehicle, on foldable seats. They would have used the side doors to enter and exit the vehicle. The remaining two infantry dismounts would have been placed at the rear and would have entered and exited the vehicle that way. This arrangement seems rather impractical, as the two rear positioned infantry dismounts would have been largely separate from the rest of the squad. The eight infantry dismounts in the center would have been exposed to enemy fire if they had to exit the vehicle in a combat situation.
Drawing showing the positions of the two crewmembers, the driver on the front left and commander on the right, and the ten infantry dismounts within the VBTT. Note the space occupied by the engine – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 36
In the available drawings, nobody is occupying the turret seat. This space would most probably have been occupied by a gunner or, alternatively, the commander. An additional crewmember to the right of the engine could have been a radio operator.
Cross-section of the VBTT-E4’s middle, showing the infantry dismount positions. Note the empty space in the turret, potentially occupied by a third crewmember, and the space occupied by the engine and driving components along the middle – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 56
Assessment
Seemingly inspired by a tried and tested design, the VBTT-E4, had it been built, would have been a competent and relatively fast vehicle. It certainly would have provided the Spanish armored forces with a type of vehicle they lacked.
Nevertheless, close inspection of the VBTT-E4’s drawings point to the INCOTSA’s design team’s inexperience. The armament options were curious. The MG 42 was not designed to fit into the turret of armored vehicles and the 40 mm grenade launcher or mortar was of questionable value. Furthermore, both would necessarily have been operated by a single crewmember in the restricted confines of the turret. The drawings make no allowance for an ammunition load inside the limited space of the vehicle. Two different armaments needing different ammunition would have complicated matters further.
The proposed separation of the infantry dismounts inside the VBTT-E4 was impractical. Two infantry dismounts exiting large doors at the rear and eight infantry dismounts using smaller doors in the middle was not a wise design choice. With more consideration, the internal arrangement of the vehicle could probably have been improved, even if this meant reducing the number of infantry dismounts.
The rear of the VBTT-E4, as shown by the drawings. Note the slightly inclined rear and the two large entry and exit doors – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 56
Variants
INCOTSA’s design team also proposed five variants of the VBTT-E4 to fulfill different roles.
VBTT-E4 Portamortero
The VBTT-E4 Portamortero [Eng. Mortar Carrier] was a variant which would have reorganized the interior of the vehicle to carry an unspecified mortar. It is easy to assume this would have either been the 81 mm Ecia modelo 1951 or the 81 mm Ecia modelo L. The latter was used on the later mortar-carrying BMR-600 version.
Side view of the VBTT-E4 portamoteros – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 57
The rear of the roof would have had a large circular hatch cut in it to allow the firing of the mortar. The rear would have seen the most modifications.
Top view of the VBTT-E4 portamoteros, showing the large circular hole cut into the rear and the hatches to close it off – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 57
The infantry dismounts would have been replaced by a crew of three with plenty of space to operate the 81 mm mortar. This variant was probably the one that resembled the regular VBTT-E4 the most.
The rear of the VBTT-E4 (left) and the VBTT-E4 portamoteros (right) would have differed because of their intended role – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, pp. 56-57
VBTT-E4 Contracarro (TOW)
In the 1980s, Spain armed some of its BMR-600s and M113s with a BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missile launcher. It appears that INCOTSA had anticipated this with the VBTT-E4 Contracarro (TOW) [Eng. Anti-tank]. Given that the BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missile only entered service in 1970, it is an educated guess that the whole VBTT-E4 project was actually conceived in the early 1970s, rather than the late 1960s, as some sources suggest.
Side profile of the VBTT-E4 Contracarro (TOW) – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 57
As on the VBTT-E4 portamoteros, the VBTT-E4 Contracarro (TOW)’s rear and interior would have undergone the most changes. The TOW launcher would have been housed in the right rear side of the vehicle. The drawings suggest it was to have been kept inside the vehicle most of the time and only taken out when in use. In this way, it would have differed from the BMR-600 and M113 variants. It would seem that the VBTT-E4 Contracarro (TOW) would not have had a full 360º of fire. It is unknown how many crewmembers would have been needed to operate the weapon.
Top view of the VBTT-E4 Contracarro (TOW), showing the rearranged roof and the hatch for the TOW launcher. The lines in the drawing show that the TOW launcher would have not had a 360º arc of fire, being limited instead to around 45º to either side from forwards. Note the single small rear hatch – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 57
The VBTT-E4 Contracarro (TOW) would have been the only VBTT-E4 variant without a turret. Even so, at 2.9 m high, it would have been the tallest of all the VBTT-E4 variants.
Frontal profile of the VBTT-E4 Contracarro (TOW), showing the height of 1.9 m and the lack of a turret. There is also no protection provided for the gunner when operating the TOW launcher. – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 57Rear side of the VBTT-E4 Contracarro (TOW). The hatch on the right would have protected the TOW launcher when kept inside the vehicle – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 57
VBTT-E4 de Recuperación
The VBTT-E4 de Recuperación [Eng. Recovery] would have been the recovery and engineer version of the VBTT-E4. For the most part, externally, the vehicle would have remained much the same as other versions, even keeping the turret.
A small crane would have been added at the front. Estimated lifting capacity is not given in the sources, but it would most likely have been low. In the middle of the front hull there would have been a winch, once more, probably with a low towing capacity. Additionally, a bulldozer blade would have been attached to the front to stabilize the vehicle when the crane was in use and to shift earth to create trenches.
Details regarding the interior are sketchy, but it seems that the front part would have been reworked to accommodate the mechanical components of the crane and bulldozer blade. Even so, the drawings show the two frontal crew positions. Inside, the infantry dismount squad would have been replaced with an engineer component or a small portable workshop.
Side profile of the VBTT-E4 de Recuperación showing the small crane and bulldozer blade. Aside from those, externally at least, this version would have remained the same as the regular VBTT-E4 – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 58The small crane and bulldozer blade can be fully appreciated in this frontal drawing of the VBTT-E4 de Recuperación – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 58
VBTT-E4 de Exploración y Combate
The most ambitious and different VBTT-E4 version was to have been the VBTT-E4 de Exploración y Combate [Eng. Reconnaissance and Combat]. Large parts of the vehicle would have been reworked. For instance, the engine would have been moved to the back and the whole rear side of the VBTT-E4 would have needed to be reworked to accommodate it. There would have been no rear entry and exit doors. Consequently, there would have been no infantry dismounts onboard either.
Rears of the regular VBTT-E4 (left) and the VBTT-E4 Exploración y Combate (right). Note the significantly reworked rear – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, pp. 56-58
The front of the vehicle would have required significant reworking. A large hatch would have been added where the engine ventilation grilles would have been on the regular VBTT-E4. As the frontal-placed engine would have been installed in the back, the frontal crew would have been repositioned. Instead of being placed on either side of the engine, one, most likely the driver, would have been placed in the center, with the other crew position remaining on the right.
Drawing of the top of the VBTT-E4 Exploración y Combate. Note the large inspection hatch at the rear for the engine. The frontal crew positions would have also been modified. Also note the large dimensions of the turret – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 58
Perhaps the most significant change would have been the new turret. Its similarity to the H-90 turret on the Panhard AML suggests that it would have been the same turret, as Spain had acquired 100 AML-90s in 1965. In fact, in the 1980s, as the final turret and armament for the VEC were being decided, H-90 turrets from out-of-service AML-90s were used as a temporary measure.
Front profile of the VBTT-E4 Exploración y Combate – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 58
The gun would have been a 90 mm gun. Following the logic that the VBTT-E4 de Exploración y Combate would have used the H-90 turret, the gun could have been the low-pressure 90 mm D921/GIAT F1. Nonetheless, the vehicle’s chassis may well have suffered significantly from the gun’s recoil. The gun would have had 15º of elevation and no depression, making it rather limited. No machine gun is shown in the drawings.
Side profile of the VBTT-E4 Exploración y Combate. Note the limited gun depression and the reworked rear – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 58
VBTT-E4 de Apoyo
The least well known VBTT-E4 variant is the VBTT-E4 de Apoyo [Eng. Support]. Its purpose would have been to provide support to infantry units. This variant would have undergone the same changes to the hull as the VBTT-E4 Exploración y Combate.
The differentiating factor would have been its unique turret and gun. Although not specified in the sources, the gun in all probability would have been a 20 mm autocannon of some description. Gun depression would have been -7º, whereas an elevation of 70º would have enabled firing at air targets.
Side drawing of the VBTT-E4 de Apoyo with its reworked turret, 20 mm gun, and changed rear – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 37Top view of the VBTT-E4 de Apoyo – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 37
There is no clear evidence as to the influence of the VBTT-E4 on the BMR-600. There are some visual similarities between the two designs, but these just may be a coincidence.
Since being introduced in 1979, around a thousand BMRs in all variants have been produced and some have even been exported to countries such as Egypt, Peru, and Saudi Arabia. The BMR variants which have been introduced into service have included mortar carriers, anti-tank missile launchers, recovery, and cavalry reconnaissance, among many others.
The Spanish BMR fleet was modernized in the early 1990s and has seen service with Spanish peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the former Yugoslavia. However, its future is in doubt and it is expected that it will be replaced by the VCR 8×8 Dragón over the next decade.
Two BMR-600s as part of Spain’s contribution to SFOR, NATO’s Stabilisation Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina – source: Wikipedia
Conclusion
The VBTT-E4 is a curious project. There is no conclusive evidence as to why it was conceived nor why INCOTSA became involved. Neither is it known if it was actually presented to the Spanish military and what was thought about it.
The VBTT-E4 certainly fitted in with the military thinking at the time. Spain wanted a wheeled APC which could also provide some support to its infantry dismounts. Spain would end up choosing the 6×6 BMR-600, not the 4×4 VBTT-E4.
The VBTT-E4 had some undoubtedly sound design components but the choice of armament and the positions for the infantry dismounts inside the vehicle left much room for improvement.
INCOTSA envisioned a family of vehicles on the basis of the VBTT-E4. These would have provided a great deal of flexibility. On the other hand, some of these variants demonstrated INCOTSA’s inexperience when it came to design choices.
VBTT-E4. Done by Brian Gaydos.
Estimated Specifications of VBTT-E4 and Variants
VBTT-E4
VBTT-E4 Portamortero
VBTT-E4 Contracarro (TOW)
VBTT-E4 de Recuperación
VBTT-E4 de Exploración y Combate
VBTT-E4 de Apoyo
Length (m)
5.4
~5.6
~5.9
~5.7
Width (m)
2.44
Height (m)
2.3
2.9
~2.4
~2.35
Weight (tonnes)
8.5
+8.5
?
Engine
170 hp Pegaso 9100/40 diesel
Speed (km/h)
85 km/h
Range (km)
1,100
Main armament
7.62 mm MG 42
81 mm mortar
TOW launcher
None
90 mm gun
20 mm autocannon
Secondary armament
40 mm grenade launcher
None
Crew
2-3
6
5
3
4
3-4
Infantry Dismounts
10
None
?
None
Sources
Francisco Marín Gutiérrez & José Mª Mata Duaso, Carros de Combate y Vehículos de Cadenas del Ejército Español: Un Siglo de Historia (Vol. III) (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 2007)
Francisco Marín Gutiérrez & José María Mata Duaso, Los Medios Blindados de Ruedas en España. Un Siglo de Historia (Vol. II) (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 2003)
John McDonald and Richard Lathrop, Cadillac Gage V-100 Commando, 1960–1971 (London: Osprey Publishing, 2002)
José Mª Manrique García & Lucas Molina Franco, BMR Los Blindados del Ejército Español (Valladolid: Galland Books, 2008)
Pegaso Motor Diesel tipo 9100 170 CV manual
Vehículo Blindado de Reconocimiento de Caballería VBRC-1E General Monasterio, illustrated by Ardhya 'Vesp' Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
Spanish State (Early 1960s)
Tracked Reconnaissance Vehicle – Paper Project
Spanish military authorities have always strived to create military designs for the local production of armored fighting vehicles. Often, financial instability or political turmoil have prevented this from happening, as was the case with the Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería VBCI-E General Yagüe and the Vehículo Blindado de Reconocimiento de Caballería VBRC-1E General Monasterio. The VBRC-1E would have been quite unlike any other Spanish vehicle before or since.
Context – A Country in Ruins, Economic Disaster, and Political Isolation
With his side’s victory in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), General Franco went on to rule Spain with an iron fist for three and a half decades. The conflict had devastated the country, destroying agricultural production and the already limited industrial capacity. The human cost had been immense, and mass famine and political persecution in the post-war years further diminished the population and the prospects of the people.
For its open support of the Axis powers during part of the Second World War, Spain was isolated by the Allied powers and was excluded from the Marshall Plan and the United Nations. The Spanish State imposed a policy of economic autarky with disastrous effects.
However, the new geopolitical situation created by the Cold War was to change Spain’s destiny. Given the country’s strategic location at the mouth of the Mediterranean and Franco’s vehement anti-Communism, the US saw Spain as a new key ally. In 1953, this new relationship was cemented in the Madrid Pact. The economic policy of autarky was abandoned in the late 1950s, as widespread change was adopted, and technocrats were given positions of power.
The Military Context at Home
Throughout Franco’s dictatorship, the military held great influence and power. In the 1940s and early 1950s, Spain maintained a large if badly equipped army. Many of its armored vehicles were of pre-Second World War vintage. In 1942, there were 144 Panzer Is and CV33/35s and 139 T-26s, in addition to around 150 armored cars, including Soviet BA-6s and former Republican Blindados tipo ZIS and Blindados modelo B.C.. In 1943, Spain’s partner, Germany, had supplied 20 Panzer IV Ausf.H medium tanks and 10 Stug III Ausf.G assault guns alongside aircraft, ammunition, artillery, and replacement parts.
Since 1932, Spanish cavalry units had been equipped with armored vehicles. Twelve Bilbao Modelo 1932s were assigned to the Grupo de Autoametralladoras Cañón [Eng. Cannon-Armed Self-Propelled Machine Gun Vehicle Group], a cavalry unit.
During the Spanish Civil War, the victorious rebel side aggregated its captured Soviet BA-6s and Republican Blindados tipo ZIS and Blindados modelo B.C. into the Escuadrones de Autoametralladoras-cañón [Eng. Cannon-Armed Self-Propelled Machine Gun Vehicle Squadrons] in the south of the country.
Of these three types of armored cars, approximately 150 survived the war and they continued to serve the role of reconnaissance vehicles in cavalry regiments afterwards. But, as the years passed, they became increasingly outdated and their numbers dwindled as spare parts became sparse. This was a general occurrence for the Spanish armored arsenal in the 1940s. However, geopolitics would step in to help Spain modernize.
Spain successfully managed to overhaul its armed forces with the large influx of US vehicles that had arrived as a result of the Madrid Pact and other agreements. Between 1953 and 1970, Spain received: 31 M24 Chaffees, 42 M4 High-Speed Tractors, 84 M5 High-Speed Tractors, 24 M74 Armored Recovery Vehicles, over 166 M-series half-tracks, 411 M47s, 12 M44s, 28 M37s, 72 M41 Walker Bulldogs, 6 M52s, 16 LVT-4s, 54 M48s, 171 M113-based vehicles, 5 M56s, and 18 M578s.
US vehicles acquired by Spain between 1953 and 1971
Model
Type
Number
M24 Chaffee
Light tank
31
M4 High-Speed Tractor
Artillery tractor
42
M5 High-Speed Tractor
Artillery tractor
84
M74
Armored Recovery Vehicle
24
M-series Half-Tracks
Half-tracks
166
M47
Main battle tank
411
M44
Self-propelled gun
12
M37
Self-propelled gun
28
M41 Walker Bulldog
Light tank
72
M52
Self-propelled gun
6
LVT-4
Amphibious landing vehicle
16
M48
Main battle tank
54
M113-based vehicles
Armored personnel carrier
171
M56
Self-propelled gun
5
M578
Light recovery vehicle
18
Although in a way replacing the Spanish Civil War era armored cars, the M24 Chaffees proved to be rather unpopular with crews and were only supplied in small numbers. To an extent, the same can be said of the around 20 M8 Greyhounds Spain obtained from France.
M24 Chaffees and M8 ‘Hércules’ driving side by side in Spanish North Africa – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso (2003), p. 25
Tracked Reconnaissance Vehicle Development
In the Interwar years, many nations used small, light tanks in cavalry reconnaissance roles. Noteworthy examples are the French AMR 33 and AMR 35, the American M1 Combat Car, and the Japanese Type 92. During the Second World War, armored reconnaissance missions had been mostly carried out by armored cars and half-tracked vehicles.
After the war, some nations experimented with the concept of fully-tracked armored reconnaissance vehicles again.
The first mass-produced example of this was the West German Schützenpanzer SPz 11-2 Kurz, introduced in 1959, after nearly a decade of development between the Federal Republic of Germany and France. The SPz 11-2 had a hybrid role, as it was also intended as an infantry fighting vehicle.
The USA followed suit with the M114, the M113’s unsuccessful ‘brother’. Introduced in 1962, it failed to impress during its early deployment in Vietnam and was soon removed from service. Another later example is the British Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) series, most notably the FV107 Scimitar.
These vehicles were lightly-armored and lightly-armed and were not actually that fast, but they could perform over all kinds of terrain in a way their wheeled counterparts could not.
Material y Construcciones S.A. (MACOSA) [Eng. Material and Constructions Limited Company] was a large company by Spanish industrial standards. It was created by a merger of the Valencian company Construcciones Devis [Eng. Devis Constructions] with the Sociedad Material para Ferrocarriles y Construcciones S.A. [Eng. Material for Railways and Construction Limited Company] of Barcelona in 1947. MACOSA specialized in the production of railway rolling stock in its Barcelona and Valencia plants. The company gained enormously from the Spanish economic miracle of the early 1960s and, benefiting from its close relationships with the US government and US companies, it produced General Motors railway locomotives under license.
During this period of growth, MACOSA ventured into military designs, one of which was for an armored personnel carrier, named Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería VBCI-E General Yagüe [Eng. Infantry Combat Armored Vehicle General Yagüe]. The similarity of its design to the US M75, M57, and M113 APCs suggests it was largely inspired by those vehicles.
MACOSA’s Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería VBCI-E General Yagüe. Its box-shaped design and flat-angled front had more than a casual resemblance to the US M75, M57, and M113 APC designs – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 32
MACOSA also designed the Vehículo Blindado de Reconocimiento de Caballería VBRC-1E General Monasterio [Eng. Cavalry Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle General Monasterio]. In a similar fashion, it has been suggested that the VBRC-1E drew inspiration from the American M114A1E1/M114A2. Sadly, only two drawings of the VBRC-1E are believed to exist.
It is unclear when exactly MACOSA drew up each design, presumably in the mid-to-late 1960s. Allegedly, both designs were submitted to the Spanish Army for approval. As neither vehicle progressed beyond the design stage, it must be assumed they were not given the go ahead.
MACOSA’s other design, the Vehículo Blindado de Reconocimiento de Caballería VBRC-1E General Monasterio. Both vehicles would have had large parts commonality, including engine and turret – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 32The US M114A2 may have served as inspiration for the VBRC-1E, with its similar shape, wheel distribution, and armament – source: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/459592-m114a2-crc-forgotten-recon/
According to Spanish military historians Jose Mª Manrique García and Lucas Molina Franco, another company, Internacional de Comercio y Tránsito S.A. (INCOTSA) [Eng. Commerce and Transit International Limited Company] collaborated on the project. Their fellow historians, Francisco Marín Gutiérrez and José Mª Mata Duaso, on the other hand, make no mention of INCOTSA’s involvement. Later that decade, INCOTSA drew up plans for a family of 4×4 armored vehicles named VBTT-E4.
Drawing of INCOTSA’s VBTT-E4 4×4 armored personnel carrier of the late 1960s – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 34
Name and Namesake
The Vehículo Blindado de Reconocimiento de Caballería VBRC-1E General Monasterio is not a name that rolls easily off the tongue. The Vehículo Blindado de Reconocimiento de Caballería part is a description of the vehicle’s role – Cavalry Reconnaissance Armored Vehicle.
‘VBRC’ were simply the initials for Vehículo Blindado de Reconocimiento de Caballería. Neither the original drawings nor secondary sources clarify what the ‘1’ stands for. It does not appear in the VBCI-E’s name, so it was probably used to distinguish the two. Similarly, it is unclear what the ‘E’ denotes, but it could well be Español [Eng. Spanish] or experimental.
This article will refer to the vehicle as simply the VBRC-1E.
The vehicle’s namesake was José Monasterio Ituarte. Like many other Spanish officers, he had cut his teeth in the wars in Morocco during the early 20th century. Monasterio Ituarte helped to plan the coup that would lead to the Spanish Civil War in July 1936.
He was a colonel in charge of the Regimiento de Cazadores «Castillejos» n.º 18 de caballería [Eng. ‘Hunters’ cavalry Regiment ‘Castillejos’ No. 18 [‘Hunters’, better known as chasseurs, are a type of light cavalry]] based in Zaragoza at the beginning of the coup. His unit was crucial in defeating the Loyalist forces in the city and the surrounding area. Early in the war, Monasterio Ituarte commanded forces which established Rebel control in the central-north of Spain and which advanced on Madrid.
In 1937, Monasterio Ituarte was named as Jefe de Milicias [Eng. Militias Chief]. Later, he was promoted to general and put in charge of the 1.ª División de Caballería [Eng. 1st Cavalry Division]. The unit famously carried out one of the last cavalry charges in history at the Battle of Alfambra, before participating in the Aragon, Levante, and Catalonia offensives.
After the Spanish Civil War, Monasterio Ituarte was promoted to lieutenant general and was put in charge initially of the V Región Militar [Eng. 5th Military Region] based in Zaragoza and then the III Región Militar in Valencia. An opponent of the Falange, the Spanish fascist party, he unsuccessfully demanded that Franco reinstate the monarchy in 1943. Monasterio Ituarte died in December 1952.
The VBRC-1E’s design was similar to other tracked armored reconnaissance vehicles of the time. It would have been 4.75 m long and 2.5 m wide, with a total height of 2.12 m, or 1.75 m without the turret. Ground clearance between the bottom of the hull and the ground is noted as 0.6 m.
The front would have been well-angled at 25º and was probably designed that way to act as a wave breaker on amphibious operations. The small lower-frontal plate would have had the transmission cover hatch and the upper-frontal plate had a trim vane to aid travel in water. From the drawings, it seems that, on each side of the transmission cover hatch, there would have been a metal fixture to attach cables, hooks, or ropes. The drawings also show a set of two headlights on either side of the front.
The roof of the vehicle would have been on two levels. A smaller frontal level had cupolas on either side. The second higher level would have had a triangular front, at the center of which would have been a turret. The engine deck with two grilles would have been at the back of the roof.
The rear would have also been angled, and it is hard to tell from the drawings if it would also have had a hatch to inspect and maintain the engine.
Top view of the VBRC-1E, showing the crew distribution and component placement – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 32
Armor
To keep weight down, the VBRC-1E would have had very thin armor, estimated at 10 mm of steel alloy. This would have been sufficient protection from small arms fire, but even some medium and certainly heavy machine guns would have had no trouble penetrating it. Weight has been estimated at 9 tonnes.
Cupola and Turret
The drawings show two very small cupolas, one each for two crewmembers on either side of the front roof of the vehicle. No dimensions are provided, but comparing it to other elements, such as the turret, the cupolas would probably have been 10 cm to 15 cm high. As can be seen in the drawings, they would have been so small that the crew’s head and eyes are another 10 cm to 15 cm below the vision hatches. This would suggest that the designers envisioned the use of hyposcopes to see through the vision ports. The drawings show 5 vision ports across the frontal 180º of the cupola, plus probably an additional one at the very top of the cupola giving the crew a very limited vision of the rear of the vehicle. The cupolas would have had hatches at the top for entry and exit. When not in combat, one of the crewmembers could have ridden standing up with their head outside of the cupola for increased vision.
The 40 cm tall turret in the drawings is shaped like a truncated cone. The armament is drawn on the right of the turret. Six vision slits around the turret would have given the commander/gun operator 360º vision. Like the cupolas, the turret would have had a hatch.
Armament
Apart from designating it as a 20 mm autocannon, neither the drawings nor secondary sources specify what armament the VBRC-1E would have carried. Analyzing 20 mm autocannons available at the time allows a speculative assessment of what this armament might have been.
Throughout the Spanish Civil War, Italy had supplied the Rebels with 143 Breda 20/65 mod.35s, used to arm the CV33/35 Breda and Panzer I Breda in 1937. The 20 mm Breda remained in service after the war. Nominally an anti-aircraft weapon, it was extensively used by the Italians to arm their armored vehicles in the Second World War.
Introduced in 1935, the Breda 20/65 was a fairly modern weapon for the Spanish Civil War. It was gas-operated and fitted the small confines of a turret or small tank well. Sources differ, but it had a maximum firing range of 5.5 km (though a much lower effective range), a rate of fire of 240 rpm, and could penetrate 40 mm of 90º angled armor from distances of 250 m and 30 mm of 90º angled armor from 500 m. The Breda was side-fed, meaning it would have fitted in the VBRC-1E’s turret.
The Breda 20/65 mod.35 operated by Italian soldiers in the North African desert – source: Robin via Pinterest
Similarly, Germany supplied the Rebels with 116 2 cm Flak 30s. This anti-aircraft gun was discarded from what would become the Breda projects because of its size. Although the Flak 30 performed similarly to the Breda, it had a disappointing 120 rpm rate of fire. A modified shortened variant, the 2 cm KwK 30, was added on later variants of the Panzer II, but this weapon was not supplied to Spain.
A German 2 cm Flak 30 at the Sammur Museum in France – source: Massimo Foti via Flickr
Another possibility is the Oerlikon 20 mm autocannon. During the Spanish Civil War, the Spanish Second Republic imported over 210 of the S and 1S versions from all over the world, including considerable numbers from Bolivia. Many were captured during and after the war by the victorious Rebels.
In 1943, Spain received a further 120 Oerlikon 20 mm autocannons from Germany as part of the Bär Program.
The Oerlikon S and 1S were developed specifically as anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, with an increased muzzle velocity of around 850 m/s at the cost of increased weight and decreased rate of fire of 280 rpm. Spain had both the single and double barrel configurations of the gun. With its side-fed magazine, it could have fitted in the VBRC-1E turret.
Two other 20 mm autocannons possibly available in Spain at the time were the Hispano-Suiza HS.404 and the Solothurn S-5/100. The Second Spanish Republic had imported 18 of the former before and during the Spanish Civil War. Only 4 of the latter are known to have been imported. Because of their small numbers and the obsolescence of the Solothurn S-5/100, they can, with all probability, be discounted.
It is also completely possible that other foreign models or even domestic or licensed production of a new autocannon were considered.
Based on the drawings, the short turret would have severely limited the gun’s depression all-round. There would have been no secondary armament, limiting the VBRC-1E’s ability in the event of meeting enemy infantry on a reconnaissance mission.
The ammunition would have been located in a 3×3 box on the left side of the gunner .A second box could well have been on the right side.
Running Gear and Engine
The VBRC-1E was drawn with a suspension consisting of 4 large wheels on each side, in addition to an idler at the front and a sprocket at the rear. The wheels in the drawings resemble those of the M114.
The VBRC-1E’s running gear – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 32
Sources mention a diesel Pegaso 9156/8 352 hp engine for the VBRC-1E and VBCI-E. Pegaso was a brand marketed by Empresa Nacional de Autocamiones Sociedad Anónima (ENASA) [Eng. National Truck Limited Company]. Though specializing in trucks, it would go on to produce the BMR-600 armored cars and VEC cavalry vehicles for the Spanish Army in the 1980s.
The 9156 was the main Pegaso engine and a range was produced to suit a variety of purposes. The technical manual shows 22 variants of the 9156, with horsepower ranging from 270 hp to 352 hp. None of these is named “9156/8”, but there are 3 which match the 352 hp: 9156.00, 9156.03, and 9156.00.25.11. ENASA nomenclature used full stops, not slashes for its factory designations. It is unclear if the “9156/8” was a new variation specifically for the VBRC- 1E and VBCI-E or just a mistake in the sources.
All three 352 hp engines were diesel 6 cylinders with 2,200 rpm. There were some very minor differences between the fuel consumption of these engines. They would have been positioned vertically in the engine bay at the rear of the vehicle, most likely separated from the fighting/crew compartment by a bulkhead. Sources have estimated a decent maximum speed of 70 km/h, which is realistic considering the low weight and relatively powerful engine.
Neither the drawings nor the sources give the position of the fuel tank(s) nor any indication of how much fuel would have been carried.
A Pegaso 352 hp 9156 diesel engine – source: Motor 9156 y derivados
Crew
The VBRC-1E would have had a crew of three: driver, commander/observer, and gunner. The driver would have been positioned on the front left, the commander/observer on the front right, and the gunner in the turret.
The gunner would have been tasked with firing and reloading the gun. The commander/observer may have been able to provide some assistance with reloading, but given the turret’s limited size, this may have been restricted to passing ammunition.
Comparison and Assessment
Its size, weight, armor, and armament mean that the VBRC-1E would have resembled other tracked reconnaissance vehicles and would have performed similarly. In that regard, the M114, with its impressive armor for a vehicle of this class, would have been the outlier. The VBRC-1E’s main advantages over other vehicles would have been its powerful engine, which would have provided a decent speed, alongside other performance indicators.
Vehicle
VBRC-1E
SPz 11-2
M114
M114A2
FV107 Scimitar
Length (m)
4.75
4.51
4.46
4.9
Width (m)
2.5
2.28
2.33
2.2
Height (m)
2.12
1.97
2.39
2.8(?)
2.1
Weight (tonnes)
9
8.2
19.3
20(?)
7.8
Armor (mm)
10
15
19-44
12.7
Engine horsepower (hp)
352
164
115 (net)
160 (gross)
190
Speed (km/h)
70
58
58
80.5
Range (km)
?
390
442
450
Crew
3
5
3
3
Main armament
20 mm autocannon
20 mm Hispano-Suiza 820/L85
.50 M2 Browning machine gun
20 mm Hispano-Suiza 820/L85
30 mm L21 RARDEN cannon
Secondary armament
None
7.62 mm M60 machine gun
7.62 mm L37A1 MG
Had it been built, the VBRC-1E would probably have performed its role adequately. In Spain in the 1960s and 1970s, before European Economic Community (EEC) funds had allowed the building of a road infrastructure, a tracked reconnaissance vehicle had advantages over a wheeled one. The VBRC-1E would have provided the Spanish military with a modern vehicle to perform reconnaissance duties, something it lacked at the time.
Some of the VBRC-1E’s design deficiencies may have been ironed out during the development and prototype stage. The small turret and limited gun depression, probably the VBRC-1E’s main drawbacks, may have been fixed as well.
A Wheeled Alternative
Developing a whole new vehicle, necessarily the case with the VBRC-1E and VBCI-E, would have been a costly endeavor, one which Spain could ill afford. In spite of the economic miracle of the 1960s, there were plenty of other areas where the country needed the cash injection more desperately. Furthermore, at that point, Spain did not have the expertise to mass-produce such vehicles. It would take nearly a decade for the Spanish-assembled AMX-30Es to start rolling out of the factories and not until around 1980-1981 for the first serially Spanish-produced vehicle, the BMR-600, to be produced in enough numbers. This would have been a pipe dream in the early-to-mid 1960s.
Whilst an alternative for the VBCI-E was found in the US-supplied M113s, no US vehicles really performed the VBRC-1E’s intended role. Instead, Spain’s cavalry would be equipped throughout the 1970s with the wheeled French Panhard AML. In 1966, Spain purchased 103 AML-60s and 100 AML-90s, which went on to equip cavalry units in Spanish North Africa. These would eventually be replaced in the 1980s with the Vehículo de Exploración de Caballería (VEC) [Eng. Cavalry Exploration Vehicle], a wheeled Spanish-designed vehicle.
The VBRC-1E and the VBCI-E were examples of a long-held Spanish ambition to produce vehicles domestically. The VBRC-1E would have provided the Spanish military with a vehicle quite unlike any before or after. Eventually, it would be unsuccessful, and cavalry reconnaissance vehicles were to be wheeled. The VBRC-1E was probably a more mature design than the VBCI-E, with fewer drawbacks, but this would not be enough. External factors would have probably doomed the projects regardless, but work like this by MACOSA contributed to Spanish serially produced vehicles introduced in the following decades.
Vehículo Blindado de Reconocimiento de Caballería VBRC-1E General Monasterio, illustrated by Ardhya ‘Vesp’ Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería VBCI-E General Yagüe, illustrated by Ardhya 'Vesp' Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
Spanish State (Early 1960s)
Armored Personnel Carrier/Infantry Fighting Vehicle – Paper Project
Spanish military authorities have always strived to create military designs for the local production of armored fighting vehicles. Often, financial instability or political turmoil have prevented this from happening. Both, to different degrees, would condemn the Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería VBCI-E General Yagüe and the Vehículo Blindado de Reconocimiento de Caballería VBRC-1E General Monasterio. More records exist for the VBCI-1, which would have been quite similar in appearance to the M113.
Context – A Country in Ruins, Economic Disaster and Political Isolation
With his sides’ victory in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), General Franco would go on to rule Spain with an iron fist for three and a half decades. The conflict had devastated the country, destroying agricultural production and the already limited industrial capacity. The human cost had been immense, and mass famine and political persecution in the post-war years further diminished the population and the prospects of the people.
For its open support of the Axis powers during part of the Second World War, Spain was isolated by the Allied powers and was excluded from the Marshall Plan and the United Nations. The Spanish State imposed a policy of economic autarky with disastrous effects.
However, the new geopolitical situation created by the Cold War was to change Spain’s destiny. Given the country’s strategic location at the mouth of the Mediterranean and Franco’s vehement anti-Communism, the US saw Spain as a new key ally. In 1953, this new relationship was cemented in the Madrid Pact. The economic policy of autarky was abandoned in the late 1950s, as widespread change was adopted, and technocrats were given positions of power.
The Military Context at Home and Abroad
Throughout Franco’s dictatorship, the military held great influence and power. In the 1940s and early 1950s, the Spanish Army continued to be large, though badly equipped. Many of its armored vehicles were of pre-Second World War vintage. In 1942, there were 144 Panzer Is and CV33/35s and 139 T-26s, in addition to around 150 armored cars, including Soviet BA-6s, and former Republican Blindados tipo ZIS and Blindados modelo B.C.. In 1943, Spain’s partner, Germany, supplied 20 Panzer IV Ausf.H medium tanks and 10 Stug III Ausf.G assault guns alongside aircraft, ammunition, artillery, and replacement parts.
Spain had no vehicles capable of carrying out the kind of mechanized warfare that had emerged during the Second World War and which had become consolidated in the early Cold War years. Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) were tested towards the end of the Second World War and would appear in large numbers during and after the Korean War. APCs were, and are, able to transport an infantry squad in the relative safety of an armored hull. In some instances, these vehicles also carry armament of their own to support the infantry dismounts.
In the US, the M75 APC was introduced in 1952, followed by the M59 APC in 1954, and finally, the M113 APC in 1960. The Soviet Union had the MT-LB and larger BTR-50, both introduced in the 1950s. Other nations began introducing their versions in the early 1960s.
MACOSA
Spain relied on a variety of trucks to transport its large land force. Trucks still had a role to play, as they were relatively cheap, largely available on the civilian market and easier to get from abroad. Nevertheless, at some point in the early 1960s, Material y Construcciones S.A. (MACOSA) [Eng. Material and Constructions Limited Company] drew up a design for an APC with comparatively heavy armament for its class.
MACOSA was a large company by Spanish industrial standards. It was created from a merger of the Valencian company Construcciones Devis [Eng. Devis Constructions] and the Sociedad Material para Ferrocarriles y Construcciones S.A. [Eng. Material for Railways and Construction Limited Company] of Barcelona in 1947 and specialized in the production of railway rolling stock in its Barcelona and Valencia plants. MACOSA gained enormously from the Spanish economic miracle of the early 1960s and, benefiting from its close relationships with the US government and US companies, it produced General Motors railway locomotives under license.
During this period of growth, MACOSA ventured into military designs, one of which was for their APC, named Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería VBCI-E General Yagüe [Eng. Infantry Combat Armored Vehicle General Yagüe]. The similarity of its design to the US M75, M57, and M113 APC designs suggests there was a large degree of inspiration.
MACOSA’s Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería VBCI-E General Yagüe. Its box-shaped design and flat angled front had more than a casual resemblance to the US M75, M57, and M113 APC designs – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 32A M75 APC. Production in the US began in December 1952, ending in February 1954. The M75 was used in the Korean War, but its weight, which meant it did not have amphibious or air transportable capabilities, and high cost limited its service – source: Eric Lohman via PinterestThe M59 APC of the Littlefield Collection. The M59 was cheaper and lighter than the M75 and had amphibious capabilities. Production began in 1953 and the first APCs entered service the following year. Its limited engine power and thin armor were its main drawbacks and it began to be replaced in 1960 – source: https://rmsothebys.com/en/auctions/lc14/the-littlefield-collection/lots/r0089-m59-armored-personnel-carrier-apc/574312The T113 proposal, one of the aluminum prototypes of what would become the M113 APC – source: Wikipedia
It is unclear when exactly MACOSA drew the design. It was supposedly submitted alongside the Vehículo Blindado de Reconocimiento de Caballería VBRC-1E General Monasterio [Eng. Cavalry Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle General Monasterio]. According to Spanish military historians Jose Mª Manrique García and Lucas Molina Franco, another company, Internacional de Comercio y Tránsito S.A. (INCOTSA) [Eng. Commerce and Transit International Limited Company] collaborated in the project. However, their fellow historians, Francisco Marín Gutiérrez and José Mª Mata Duaso, make no mention of INCOTSA’s involvement. Later that decade, INCOTSA drew a family of 4×4 armored vehicles named VBTT-E4.
MACOSA’s other design, the Vehículo Blindado de Reconocimiento de Caballería VBRC-1E General Monasterio. Both vehicles would have had large parts commonality, including engine and turret – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 32Drawing of INCOTSA’s VBTT-E4 4×4 armored personnel carrier of the late 1960s – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 34
Name and Namesake
The Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería VBCI-E General Yagüe is not a name that rolls easily off the tongue. The Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería part is a description of the vehicle’s role – Infantry Combat Armored Vehicle. The Spanish designation for tracked APCs is Transporte de Orugas Acorazado (TOA). The name Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería would indicate an infantry combat vehicle (IFV). IFVs were another recent addition to arsenals at the time of the VBCI-E, with the West German Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 entering service in 1960. This had a limited capacity of 5 infantry dismounts, whereas the Spanish design would have been able to carry 8.
‘VBCI’ were simply the initials for Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería. Neither the original drawings nor secondary sources clarify what the ‘E’ stands for, but it could well stand for Español [Eng. Spanish] or experimental.
For brevity, this article will refer to the vehicle as simply the VBCI-E.
The vehicle’s namesake was General Juan Yagüe Blanco. Yagüe made his military career during the Rif War as an officer in La Legión [Eng. Spanish Foreign Legion]. He was a friend of Franco, with whom he had studied at the Infantry Military Academy in Toledo. He was also a friend of José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the founder of Falange Española, the Spanish Fascist party, of which Yagüe was a member.
Yagüe achieved notoriety for his brutal repression of the miner’s uprising in Asturias in 1934. He disapproved of the Popular Front government elected in 1936 and joined the military conspiracy which would lead to the Spanish Civil War. Stationed in Ceuta, in Spanish North Africa, Yagüe’s troops were some of the first to rebel against the legitimate Republican government on July 17th 1936.
Yagüe’s legionnaires and North African native troops caused panic as they advanced through Andalucía and Extremadura. For his part in this early campaign, Yagüe would become known as El Carnicero de Badajoz [Eng. The Butcher of Badajoz], after his role in ordering the execution of between 2,000 and 4,000 prisoners in the city.
Yagüe clashed with Franco over military strategy and political leadership and would be removed from his commands in September 1936. Following a change of heart, in November 1937, he was put in charge of an army corps which took part in the Battle of Teruel, and the Aragón, Levante, Ebro, and Catalonia offensives over the next 18 months.
In the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War, Yagüe was promoted to division general and sent on a mission to Germany, where he interacted extensively with Hermann Wilhelm Göring and became a committed germanophile. He was appointed head of the Air Ministry and in charge of the Spanish Air Force, but was sacked in 1940 for opposing and conspiring against Franco. Even so, after the Allied landings in North Africa, he was given command of the defenses in Melilla. In 1943, Yagüe was appointed lieutenant general and fought against the Spanish Republican Resistance invasion and guerrilla campaign in northern Spain. He died in 1952, aged 60.
Like the US designs that most likely inspired it, the available drawings show the VBCI-E to be box-shaped, 5.8 m long and 2.8 m wide. It had a total height specified as 2.28 m, 1.88 m without the turret, and the hull itself at 1.44 m. Ground clearance between the bottom of the hull and the ground is noted as 0.44 m.
The front would have been angled, though the detailing is inconsistent. The front was probably designed that way to act as a wave breaker in amphibious operations. The bottom frontal plate would have had the transmission cover hatch and the upper frontal plate the engine cover hatch. From the drawings, it seems that, on each side of the transmission cover hatch, there would have been a metal piece to attach cables, hooks, or ropes. The drawings also show headlights on either side of the front and, in the middle of one of the drawings, a shovel.
The roof of the vehicle would have been on two levels. A smaller frontal level had a cupola to the left and an engine deck on the right. The second higher level would have had a triangular front, at the center of which would have been a turret, with railings on either side. Given the supposed height of the hull, 1.88 m, these railings would have been rather impractical to use to get onto the vehicle without a step or ladder, something which would most likely not be available in a combat situation. A large hatch is drawn at the rear of the roof.
The plans show mudguards all along the sides. They also show four small ports on either side to fire from inside the APC, roughly 0.5 m to 0.55 m apart. This is a major difference from US designs and seems to be a hangover from pre-Spanish Civil War designs, such as the Schneider Brilliè and the Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921.
The rear would have also been angled, and it is hard to tell from the drawings if it would have also had a ramp to allow the infantry dismounts to exit the vehicle faster and safer.
Side drawing of the VBCI-E, showing the proposed dimensions of the vehicle – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 31
Armor
To keep weight down, the VBCI-E would have had very thin armor, estimated at 10 mm of steel alloy. This would have been sufficient protection from small arms fire, but even some medium and certainly heavy machine guns would have had no trouble penetrating it. Weight has been estimated at 13 tonnes.
Cupola and Turret
The drawings show a very small cupola for the driver on the top left of the vehicle. No dimensions are provided, but comparing it to other elements, the cupola would probably have been 10 cm to 15 cm high. It would have been so small that, in the drawings, the driver’s head and eyes are another 10 cm to 15 cm below the vision hatches. This would suggest that the designers envisioned the use of hyposcopes to see through the vision ports. The drawings show 5 vision hatches across the frontal 180º of the cupola plus probably an additional one at the very top of the cupola. Even so, the driver would have had very limited vision of their right and none at all of the rear.
The 40 cm tall turret in the drawings is shaped like a truncated cone. The armament is drawn on the right of the turret. A 360º vision would have been provided for the commander/gun operator by the 6 vision slits around the turret.
Frontal view of the VBCI-E, showing dimensions, the engine and transmission cover hatches, the tiny driver cupola, and the turret – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 31
Armament
Other than saying it would have been a 20 mm autocannon, neither the drawings nor secondary sources specify what armament the VBCI-E would have carried. Analyzing 20 mm autocannons available at the time allows a speculative assessment of what armament this might have been.
Throughout the Spanish Civil War, Italy had supplied the Rebels with 143 Breda 20/65 mod.35s, which were used to arm the CV33/35 Breda and Panzer I Breda in 1937. The 20 mm Breda remained in service after the war. Nominally an anti-aircraft weapon, it was extensively used by the Italians as a weapon for armored vehicles in the Second World War.
Introduced in 1935, it was a fairly modern weapon for the Spanish Civil War. It was gas-operated and was ideal to fit in small confines, such as a turret or small tank. Sources differ, but it had a maximum firing range of 5.5 km (though a much lower effective range), a rate of fire of 240 rpm, and could penetrate 40 mm of 90º angled armor from distances of 250 m and 30 mm of 90º angled armor from 500 m. The Breda was side-fed, meaning it would have been able to fit in the VBCI-E’s turret.
The Breda 20/65 mod.35 operated by Italian soldiers in the North African desert – source: Robin via Pinterest
Similarly, Germany supplied the Rebels with 116 2 cm Flak 30s. This anti-aircraft gun was discarded from what would become the Breda projects because of its size. Although the Flak 30 performed similarly to the Breda, it had a disappointing 120 rpm rate of fire. A modified shortened variant, the 2 cm KwK 30, was added on later variants of the Panzer II, but this weapon was not supplied to Spain.
A German 2 cm Flak 30 at the Sammur Museum in France – source: Massimo Foti via Flickr
Another possibility is the Oerlikon 20 mm autocannon. The Spanish Second Republic imported over 210 of the S and 1S versions during the Spanish Civil War from all over the world, including considerable numbers from Bolivia. Many were captured during and after the war by the victorious Rebels.
In 1943, a further 120 Oerlikon 20 mm autocannons were provided by Germany to Spain as part of the Bär Program.
The Oerlikon S and 1S were developed specifically as anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, with an increased muzzle velocity of around 850 m/s at the cost of increased weight and decreased rate of fire of 280 rpm. Spain had both the single and double barrel configurations of the gun. With its side-fed magazine, it could have fitted in the VBCI-E turret.
Other 20 mm autocannons possibly available in Spain at the time were the Hispano-Suiza HS.404, of which the Second Spanish Republic had imported 18 before and during the Spanish Civil War, and the Solothurn S-5/100, of which only 4 are known to have been imported by the Second Spanish Republic. Because of their small numbers and the obsolescence of the Solothurn S-5/100, they should probably not be considered.
It is also completely possible that other foreign models or even domestic or licensed production of a new autocannon were considered.
Based on the drawings, the short turret and its position so far back would have severely limited the gun depression, questioning the utility of such a weapon supposedly providing support to infantry.
Running Gear and Engine
The VBCI-E was drawn with a suspension consisting of 5 large wheels on each side, in addition to a sprocket at the front and an idler at the rear. Visually, the wheels in the drawings are quite similar to the aforementioned US armored personnel carriers.
Sources mention a diesel Pegaso 9156/8 352 hp engine for the VBCI-E and VBRC-1E. Pegaso was a brand under Empresa Nacional de Autocamiones Sociedad Anónima (ENASA) [Eng. National Truck Limited Company] which specialized in trucks, but would go on to produce the BMR-600 armored cars and VEC cavalry vehicles for the Spanish Army in the 1980s.
The 9156 was the main Pegaso engine. Used in different forms for varying purposes, their technical manual shows 22 different variants of the 9156, with horsepower ranging from 270 hp to 352 hp. None of these is named “9156/8”, but there are 3 which match the 352 hp: 9156.00, 9156.03, and 9156.00.25.11. ENASA nomenclature used full stops, not slashes for its factory designations. It is unclear if the “9156/8” was a new variation specifically for the VBCI-E and VBRC- 1E or just a mistake in the sources.
All three 352 hp engines were diesel 6 cylinders with 2,200 rpm. There were some very minor differences between the fuel consumption of these engines. They would have been positioned vertically inside the engine bay, on the right-hand side of the front of the vehicle. Sources have estimated maximum speed at 60 km/h, realistic considering the low weight and relatively powerful engine.
Neither the drawings nor the sources give the position of the fuel tank(s) nor how much fuel it would have carried.
A Pegaso 352 hp 9156 diesel engine – source: Motor 9156 y derivados
Crew and Infantry Dismounts
The VBCI-E would have had a crew of two: commander and driver. The driver would have sat on the front left. The commander would have been positioned in the turret with the overburdening tasks of commanding the vehicle and operating the 20 mm autocannon.
The infantry component would have been a squad of 8 infantry dismounts sat on either side of a middle bench. Considering the VBCI-E’s interior, it would probably have been possible to seat more infantry dismounts with a different seating plan, as the drawing indicates a lot of wasted space.
It is unclear how they would have entered and exited the vehicle, as the drawings show only a large hatch on the top of the vehicle, which, if the sole point of access and exit, would have been a major drawback of the design. It is unclear if a ramp or a set of doors were available at the rear as well.
Top view of the VBCI-E showing the crew positions – source: Manrique García & Molina Franco, p. 31
Comparison
Compared to the US APCs, the VBCI-E would have been a longer, yet lower vehicle. The extra length would not have resulted in a larger infantry component, at least, according to the drawings, as the VBCI-E would have had fewer infantry dismounts than the other three vehicles. The VBCI-E’s weight would have been smaller than the M75 and M59, yet this came at the cost of much thinner armor, especially compared to the M113.
Although the VBCI-E had the most powerful engine, according to the sources, this would not have resulted in a considerably higher speed. The area in which the VBCI-E was superior to the US APCs was its armament, with the 20 mm autocannon compared to the .50 M2 Browning.
Vehicle
VBCI-E
M75
M59
M113
Length (m)
5.8
5.1
5.61
4.9
Width (m)
2.8
2.8
3.26
2.7
Height (m)
2.28
2.8
2.8
2.5 (over MG)
Ground clearance (cm)
44
45.7
45.7
41
Weight (tonnes)
13
18.8
19.3
10.4
Armor (mm)
10
13-25
10-25
29-44
Engine horsepower (hp)
352
295
127*
215
Speed (km/h)
60
70.8
51.5
64.4
Range (km)
?
185
193
322
Crew
2
2
2
2
Infantry dismounts
8
10
10
11
Armament
20 mm autocannon
.50 M2 Browning machine gun
*The M59 had two 127 hp engines
Assessment: an IFV or an APC?
Whilst the designers from MACOSA had some clear military credentials, they could not decide if the VBCI-E was an armored personnel carrier or an infantry fighting vehicle. In that sense, it was similar to some contemporary IFV designs, such as the Austrian Saurer 4K 4FA, Swedish Pansarbandvagn 301 and 302, and even the Soviet BMP-1. Whatsmore, like the Austrian and Swedish designs, the VBCI-E was to be armed with a 20 mm autocannon. On the other hand, the VBCI-E’s main armament would have been in a turret, which, based on the drawings, would have had very limited depression. The 20 mm autocannon in the Austrian and Swedish designs was its own mount providing it with significantly more maneuverability. Excluding the autocannon mount, the VBCI-E would have been a taller vehicle than the Austrian and Swedish counterparts, and certainly longer and wider. It would also have been significantly less armored and protected.
In spite of being better armed than most APCs, the VBCI-E carried fewer infantry dismounts and was seriously unprotected.
A fair, yet slightly cruel assessment would be that the VBCI-E would neither have been an APC nor an IFV. It could not carry enough infantry dismounts to be an effective APC, it was too big to be an IFV, and not armored enough to be either. In addition, the autocannon’s turret was too poorly designed to be effective enough in supporting any accompanying infantry, whether as an APC or IFV.
The VBCI-E’s biggest drawback, however, would probably have been the inability for the infantry dismounts to enter and exit the vehicle. The drawings do not clearly show a rear door or ramp. On the other hand, they do show a large hatch on the top of the vehicle. This would have slowed down entering or exiting the vehicle, making the infantry dismounts easy targets and vulnerable to enemy fire. Additionally, if the infantry dismounts were to use this hatch, they would have found it very difficult to get off the roof of the vehicle given its height.
An Austrian Saurer 4K 4FA. One of the fist IFV designs, able to carry 8 infantry dismounts and support them with a 20 mm autocannon – source: Wikipedia
No Need
Even if the VBCI-E Yagüe had been a competent design, the easy availability of free US military equipment would have made such a vehicle surplus to requirements. The relationship established between Madrid and Washington DC after the 1953 Madrid Pact saw the arrival in Spain of hundreds of US AFVs and equal, if not larger, numbers of utility vehicles, such as jeeps and trucks. Starting in 1956, the USA provided M series half-tracks to mechanize Spain’s infantry brigades.
Nonetheless, later on, one of the most important and successful Spanish imports from the USA in the 1960s was the M113, sometimes referred to as Transporte Oruga Acorazado (TOA) [Eng. Tracked Armored Carrier]. This designation also includes any variant of the M113. The first M113s arrived in Spain in 1964. Over the next six years, a total of 23 M113s, 120 M113A1s, 6 M125A1s, 18 M548s, and 4 M577A1 Command Post Carriers were incorporated into the Spanish Army.
A second more numerous batch of 200 M113A1s, M125A1s, and M577A1s and 70 M548s arrived in Spain in 1970. Since then, Spain has obtained, through various means and from various states, an additional 870 M113 based vehicles. Excluding those from the 1963 and 1970 agreements, Spain has also had M113A2s, M113A1 and M113A2 ambulances, M125A2s, M577A2s, M579 Fitters, and XM806E1s. In addition, Spain produced many of its own variants in the 1980s and 1990s. Many continue to be in service with the different branches of the Spanish armed forces.
An M113 on maneuvers. Since 1964, the M113 has been an ever-present vehicle in the Spanish armed forces – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso (2007), p. 7
Developing a whole new vehicle, necessarily the case with the VBCI-E Yagüe, would have been a costly endeavor which Spain could ill afford. In spite of the economic miracle of the 1960s, there were plenty of other areas where the country needed the cash injection more desperately. Cheaply available and proven US designs were the most realistic option at the time. Furthermore, at that point, Spain did not have the expertise to mass-produce such vehicles. It would take nearly a decade for the Spanish assembled AMX-30Es to start rolling out of the factories and not until around 1980-1981 for the first serially Spain-produced vehicles, the BMR-600, to be produced in enough numbers. This would have been a pipe dream in the early-to-mid 1960s.
Conclusion
The VBCI-E Yagüe was a courageous attempt to create an armored vehicle for Spain in the early-to-mid 1960s. Unfortunately, some aspects of the design perhaps revealed technical naivety and a lack of experience on the part of the MACOSA designers. The small turret was a poor design choice which would have considerably limited the VBCI-E’s performance. Additionally, the VBCI-E design sat between an APC and an IFV without satisfactorily being either.
In the end, regardless of the VBCI-E’s capabilities, or lack thereof, the project was destined to be a fruitless task. The development and production of such armored vehicles was too expensive and ambitious for the fragile Spanish heavy industries, which had no experience in the matter. At the same time, there were plenty of M113 APCs available from the USA to sufficiently fulfill the needs of the Spanish Army.
Spain did not actually acquire a tracked IFV until the mid-1990s, when the ASCOD Pizarro entered service.
Kingdom of Spain/Second Spanish Republic (1921-1934)
Armored Car – 31 Built
Military setbacks often lead military authorities to take drastic measures. In 1921, with war in North Africa not going according to plan for Spain, the government ordered the armoring of several of the Army’s vehicles. Thirty-one lorries and trucks of five different types would be converted and would receive the overall denomination ‘Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921’ [Eng. Protected Lorries Model 1921], or M-21 for short. These served with distinction in the Rif War and would be Spain’s only armored cars for over a decade.
Context – The War in Morocco
Following defeat by the United States in the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the loss of its Caribbean and Pacific colonies, Spain’s colonial attention shifted to North Africa. Tensions between Britain, France, and Germany and the 1906 Treaty of Algeciras had led to Spain being able to add part of northern Morocco, commonly known as the Rif, to the small enclaves it already had in the region.
Soon afterwards, profitable minerals were discovered in the area. French and Spanish companies rushed to exploit these riches and began to build railways to connect the mines and quarries to the coastal ports. This aroused local opposition, and on July 9th 1909, a series of assassinations of Spanish workers and citizens in the area began. In response, Spain declared war, and thus began the Melilla War (July-December 1909). By the end of November 1909, Spain had won the war but done so unconvincingly.
After a few more concessions and the creation of the Spanish protectorate in Morocco, hostilities broke out again in June 1911, a conflict which saw Spain’s initial use of their first armored vehicles, the Schneider-Brillié armored cars. Led by Abd el-Krim, the Rifian tribes in Spanish Morocco revolted. The situation was stabilized by 1914 at the onset of the Great War (1914-1918). Spain avoided the slaughter in Europe, but by 1920, fighting in Morocco resumed.
In June 1921, Spain suffered one of its most humiliating military defeats, the ‘Disaster at Annual’, at the hands of a numerically inferior force with antiquated equipment. As a result, the independent Rif Republic was created. This was a major contributing factor to the successful coup in Spain led by Miguel Primo de Rivera and his subsequent dictatorship. In this context, the Spanish military authorities had to take swift and decisive action.
Map of the Rif Republic. Most of the fighting the M-21s took part in was in the area around Melilla and Nador – source: Wikipedia
Development – A Vehicle for North Africa
The events in Annual in June 1921 sent shockwaves through Spanish society. The defeat by what were deemed inferior people threatened the position and prestige of Spain in the region and opened the possibility of radical and reactionary political instability in Spain itself. Shortly afterwards, the War Ministry ordered the artillery and engineering sections of the Army to design and construct armored cars based on vehicles already in use by the military. As time was of the essence, these had to be cheap and easy to build, and several such designs appeared during August 1921.
The Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921 were built by the Centro Electrotécnico y de Comunicaciones [Eng. Electrotecnic and Communications Center] (CEYC), the communications section of the Engineers within the Spanish Army, which would later operate the vehicles in Morocco. Most vehicles were built in Madrid. It is perhaps surprising that such a department within the army was requested to convert ‘civilian’ trucks for military use. The fact is that departments operating trucks suitable for conversion were few and far between in those days and one of the few was the department in charge of communications.
The artillery section of the army came up with a design known as the Blindado Landa, its automobile chassis being an obvious weakness. Four were built and sent to Morocco, where they performed poorly. Leopoldo Romeo, a journalist and politician, designed a similar vehicle, of which only one prototype was built. The Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921 were preferred instead.
The M-21s were based on the chassis of five different lorries or trucks, so each model differed from the others. Nevertheless, they were all built using the same principles: to provide armor all around the chassis in order to protect the crew and mechanical parts of the vehicle, slits on the sides to provide vision and firing spots, and, in most cases, a rotating turret armed with a Hotchkiss M1914 7 mm machine gun. It is worth noting that, like many similar vehicles in these early stages of mechanized warfare, the M-21s were not armored cars in the traditional sense. Whilst many were equipped with turrets, their main duties were to deter attacks on convoys, not pursue offensive operations, though these did also take place. The nature of the conflict and the terrain also played a part in their tactical use. Production began in August 1921 and the last ones were ordered in October 1925.
M-21 Models
Nash-Quad
The first vehicle was built on a 4×4 1½ ton (2 tonnes) Nash Quad tank transporter belonging to the Spanish Army (registration plate C.A.M. 195) in July-August 1921. The engine was a Buda 312 cu in (5.1 L) side-valve 4 cylinder with a 28 hp output. The truck had four forward gears and one reverse. At 5 m long, under 2 m wide, and around 2 m tall, it was one of the smaller vehicles to be converted.
The truck is better known as the Jeffery Quad, after the Thomas B. Jeffery Company which manufactured them until it was bought by Nash Motors in 1916. In Spanish sources, it is referred to as Nash-Quad. Several thousand were built until 1926, seeing service with many militaries in the world, especially during the Great War. The Spanish conversion was not the first carried out on such a vehicle, as the USA’s Jeffery Armored Car No. 1 used the same chassis in a very similar design in 1915. Subsequent designs were also used by the Canadians, by the British Empire in India, and by different factions during the Russian Civil War in what is now Ukraine.
A Nash-Quad truck which has survived into the 21st century – source: Landships
The CEYC conversion covered the vehicle with 7 mm stainless steel plates bolted into place. The sides of the vehicles had three slits for infantry to fire from and a hatch for the driver and commander’s lateral vision. The left side appears to have had a door for the crew’s entry and exit. The top right frontal part of the superstructure had a medium-sized hatch for the driver’s vision, indicating that the vehicle had right-hand drive. The armored structure included mudguards on top of the wheels, though only the rear two were half-covered by the armor. The 36-inch diameter wheels were made out of steel and the tires were of solid rubber. On top of the vehicle, housing a Spanish production 7 mm Hotchkiss machine gun, was a small turret and on top of that was a large hatch. It is worth noting that not all vehicles on a Nash-Quad chassis had a turret. Following the debut of the first vehicle (nº1) in Morocco, recommendations were made to allow for a larger turret or for it to be removed altogether, as there were issues with operating the machine gun in such cramped conditions.
The Camión Protegido nº1 on a Nash-Quad chassis. Notice the Spanish flag being flown – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 12
Inside the vehicle, there was a crew of four: a commander, a driver, a gunner, and a loader. In some cases, the crew was reduced to three, with the driver as the vehicle’s commander. The driver and commander sat at the front and the gunner was in the turret. The loader had to stand below the turret, due to its small size. In addition to the crew, the Nash-Quad carried four soldiers to fire from inside the vehicle.
The first Camión Protegido arrived in Melilla on August 17th, 1921, and was designated as nº1. After being used successfully for two months, the order was given to produce more vehicles. The following batch of two (nºs 3 and 4) arrived in Morocco on November 29th, 1921, with another two (nºs7 and 8) in April 1922. Further success led to an order for eleven more, but, due to economic constraints, only three (nºs 15, 16, and 17) would be constructed. It is possible that the other eight vehicles were only semi-armored, as there is mention in official documents of eight Nash-Quad ‘semiprotegido’ [Eng. semi-protected’] trucks in the Parque de Artillería de Melilla in 1923.
The bizarre-looking Nash-Quad nº15. Its armored superstructure differed significantly from some of the other vehicles in the series, including similar-looking Nash-Quads. For example, its single mudguard covers the whole length of the vehicle. According to García, this particular vehicle was assembled in Melilla – source: García, p. 23
Federal
The second vehicle (nº2) was built on the chassis of a Federal Motor Truck Company 4×2 2 ½ tons (3 tonnes) fuel truck (registration plate C.A.M 194). The author has been unable to identify the exact truck model. Spanish sources state that it had a Continental E4 4 cylinder petrol engine with a 29 hp output and four forward gears and one reverse.
The truck was completely covered with 7 mm stainless steel plates. The lack of extensive riveting seen in the available photographs would suggest that these were very large armored plates cut to size and shape and fixed to the frame. On each side were three small loopholes to fire from, as well as foldable hatches for lateral vision. At the front of the sides (at least the left side) was a door that appears to have opened to the back, offering no protection to a crew member exiting the vehicle. The top front had a small square hole on the right and a hatch that folded upward on the left for the driver, indicating that the vehicle had left-hand drive. The wheels were given large box-like mudguards. The Camión Protegido Federal did not have a turret, but there was a hatch at the top of the vehicle where a potential turret would most likely have been placed. The crew was made up of four: commander, driver, and two gunners, implying that two 7 mm Hotchkiss machine guns would have been carried inside. Due to its size, it is possible that one or two loaders or a small infantry section could also have been carried.
The Camión Protegido nº2 on a Federal chassis in its original configuration. Note the size compared to the men on the left and the horses on the right – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 11
Shortly after arriving in Melilla, The Camión Protegido nº2 was destroyed and removed from service. The chassis was reused but the new vehicle had a very different look to the original one. The overall size of the armored structure was reduced significantly, especially at the front and rear. In the middle, there was a box-like superstructure with a flat top. As in its original configuration, there was no turret, but there were hatches allowing for gunners to position their machine guns on this top platform. The former large box-like mudguards were replaced with semicircular ones.
After it was destroyed, the Camión Protegido nº2 on a Federal chassis was rebuilt. Whilst following the same concept, appearance-wise, the two versions bore little similarity – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 33
Benz
Following the first four vehicles, the next to be used were Benz 4×2 trucks. Very little is known about this truck. Spanish sources state that the original truck was heavier than the previous two models used. It also had a more powerful engine, with a petrol Benz 4 cylinder with a 45 hp output. The gearbox consisted of four forward gears and one reverse. The truck had a 170 l fuel tank. Once armored, the vehicles weighed 3,500 kg empty and 4,500 kg ready for combat. Speed was slow at 16 km/h and the range was limited to 100 km.
Two Camiones Protegidos were built using the Benz truck chassis. The original trucks had C.A.M. nº369 and C.A.M. nº370 registration plates, and were stripped of their cabin and bodies. The armored superstructure departed a little from the previous designs and was a forerunner of subsequent vehicles. It was also slightly better protected, with 8 mm stainless steel plates riveted onto the structure. Each side had two rows of three circular firing holes for the infantry carried inside. As in the Federal-based Camión Protegido, the door near the front opened to the rear, endangering exiting crew members. A covered opening at the front, on top of the engine compartment, not only served to ventilate the engine but also to provide limited forward vision for the driver. The wheels were covered by trapezoid-shaped mudguards. Atop of the vehicle was a large short enneagon-shaped turret thought to have been fixed in place. Every other side of the enneagon had a semicircular structure with three vertical firing slits. The remaining sides had two of these vertical firing slits. This allowed for a 360º angle of fire even from a non-rotating turret. The crew consisted of four: commander, driver, gunner, and loader. The driver would have sat at the front of the vehicle, with the gunner, loader, and their 7 mm Hotchkiss machine gun in the turret. Whether the commander sat next to the driver or accompanied the machine gun crew in the turret is unknown. In addition, there was an infantry complement of six troops.
The Camión Protegido nº5 on a Benz chassis. Notice the large turret with the vertical firing slits and the structure at the front for cooling the engine and providing vision to the driver – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 13
Latil Tipo I
Following increasing activity in Morocco and the expansion of operations to other points in the Spanish Protectorate, a new series of vehicles was ordered at some point from mid to late 1922. These new Camiones Protegidos were larger and are designated in Spanish sources as either Latil Tipo I or Latil Primera Serie [Eng. First Series Latil].
The truck chassis used were from French Latil TAR 4×4 heavy artillery trucks, an evolution of the Latil TH introduced in 1915. They were used extensively by the French Army during the Great War to tow large artillery pieces and tanks. The base vehicle was nearly 6 m long, 2.3 m wide, and around 2 m high. Without a load, the vehicle weighed 5,800 kg and could carry over twice that. The engine was a Latil petrol 4 cylinder 40 hp engine, which gave a speed of 18 km/h. There were five forward gears and one reverse.
A restored Latil TAR at the Berliet Foundation – source: Wikipedia
The Camión Protegido Latil I was a long vehicle with the usual 7 mm of stainless steel riveted onto the structure. Appearance-wise, it was an elongated Camión Protegido Benz without a turret. The trapezoid-shaped mudguards were very wide. Unlike in previous M-21 designs, the wheel frames were not given an armored cover. In the middle and at the rear, there were three firing holes that could be closed from the inside. It is unclear whether the liquid deposit at the rear left was for additional fuel or water, both of which were indispensable in the environment that the M-21s fought in. Sources state that 140 l of fuel was carried inside the vehicle. At the middle front, on top of the door, there was a lamp and, judging by the photographic evidence, the Camión Protegido Latil I nº9 was the first one to have been so equipped. On the front plate, which went from the top of the engine to the roof of the vehicle, there was a large foldable hatch for the driver’s vision. Unless this hatch had a vision slit, it would have put the driver in great danger when driving in combat operations. There was a small turret, probably only used for observation, on top of the majority of Latil I M-21s, while an open hatch on the turretless M-21 Latil I served the same observation purpose. Apparently, one Camión Protegido Latil I had a radio system.
Frontal-side view of an M-21 Latil tipo I. Note the hazardous foldable hatch for the driver’s vision, and also the liquid container on the rear of the vehicle – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 23
The first two Camiones Protegidos Latil Is, nºs 9 and 10, arrived in Melilla on January 5th, 1923, followed by nºs 11 and 12 on February 27th, 1923. The following two vehicles in the series, nºs 13 and 14, were sent to Melilla from Malaga on November 30th, 1923.
Camión Protegido nº14 on a Latil I chassis. This photo shows the length of the vehicle and the inscriptions (INGENIEROS AUTOMOVILISMO MILITAR CAMION PROTEGIDO Nº14 [Eng. Engineers Military Motoring Protected Truck No. 14] and insignia on the side of the vehicle – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 26
Latil Tipo II
The last and most frequently built Camión Protegido was the Latil tipo II or Latil Segunda Serie [Eng: Second Series Latil]. This was by far the most mature design, and it actually resembled a traditional armored car.
According to Spanish sources, this version of the M-21 also used a Latil chassis, either a Latil NTAR-4 or a NTAR-E. Even when cross-referencing, it is difficult to establish which vehicle this would be. It could have been either the TAR 2 or TAR 3, both improvements on the Latil TAR introduced in 1920 and 1924, respectively, with a radiator at the front. Not having been introduced until 1928, Latil TAR 4 was clearly not the basis for the Camión Protegido M-21 Latil tipo II.
The Latil TAR 3, which may have been the basis for the Camión Protegido M-21 Latil tipo II – source: Wikipedia
It seems as though the truck had a 4-cylinder 80-hp petrol engine, six forward gears, and one reverse. On the M-21 Latil tipo II, this gave speeds of 40 km/h, a substantial improvement on the earlier Camiones Protegidos. The truck had two 100 l fuel tanks, allowing for a range of 300 km, again vastly superior to previous iterations.
Whilst similar in appearance to previous models, the design of the Latil II was more refined. There were no large mudguards covering the wheels and, on some vehicles, the spokes and center disk of the wheels were protected by a metallic disk. The front of the vehicle had three sets of two openings to contribute to the cooling of the engine. The top two sets had covers to protect them. This was possible because the radiator was at the front, which was not the case in previous designs. There was a lamp on either side of the bonnet to facilitate night driving. A cover to protect the lamps dangled beneath them. Unlike in the previous designs, access was not through the door at the front of the vehicle, as would have been the case in the trucks the vehicles were based on. Instead, it was through a door in the middle on the left side. The door itself was also an improvement on earlier vehicles as it opened to either side, giving protection to exiting crew members. These three factors, openings for cooling the engine, lamps, and a middle door, contributed to the Latil II being a more professional design. However, the vision device for the driver was similar to the one on the Benz-based design, which substantially limited how much the driver could see. There was a turret at the top of the vehicle for a Hotchkiss 7 mm machine gun.
Rear view of Latil tipo II Camión Protegido M-21 nº22 with what appears to be its crew and two civilian women. Notice the open double door – source: Caballero Fernández de Marcos
The crew was made of four: commander, driver, gunner, and loader. In addition, there were six soldiers who fired out of the two rows of four firing holes on either side of the vehicle. Crew comfort was considered in the design, with wood covering of the floor and other parts of the interior and padded walls. There was also a ventilator to extract the fumes from inside of the vehicle.
CEYC built the first series of 5 Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921 on a Latil tipo II chassis in 1924. The construction of a second series of 9 was authorized the following year. One of them, nº29, was even built in Melilla.
Front side view of Latil tipo II Camión Protegido M-21 nº27. Notice the lamps, the lamp cover, the openings for cooling the engine, and the vision slot for the driver – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 28Front side view of Latil tipo II Camión Protegido M-21 nº30, one of the last vehicles produced. Notice the mature design and placement of the lamps much lower down than on other Latil tipo II – source: Museo Militar de Valencia
Vehicle Number
Denomination
Registration Plate
Arrived in Morocco
Nº1
Nash-Quad
ATM nº195
17/8/1921
Nº2
Federal
ATM nº1301*
17/8/1921
Nº3
Nash-Quad
ATM nº1301*
29/11/1921
Nº4
Nash-Quad
ATM nº1302
29/11/1921
Nº5
Benz
ATM nº1304
3/1/1922
Nº6
Benz
ATM nº1306
3/1/1922
Nº7
Nash-Quad
ATM nº1306
April 1922**
Nº8
Nash-Quad
ATM nº1307
April 1922**
Nº9
Latil I
ATM nº1308
5/1/1923
Nº10
Latil I
ATM nº1309
5/1/1923
Nº11
Latil I
ATM nº1310
27/2/1923
Nº12
Latil I
ATM nº1311
27/2/1923
Nº13
Latil I
ATM nº1312
30/11/1923
Nº14
Latil I
ATM nº1313
30/11/1923
Nº15
Nash-Quad
ATM nº1314
September 1923+
Nº16
Nash-Quad
ATM nº1315
September 1923+
Nº17
Nash-Quad
ATM nº1316
September 1923+
Nº18
Latil II
ATM nº188
1924++
Nº19
Latil II
ATM nº189
1924++
Nº20
Latil II
ATM nº190
1924++
Nº21
Latil II
ATM nº191
1924++
Nº22
Latil II
ATM nº192
1924++
Nº23
Latil II
ATM nº1629
1925
Nº24
Latil II
ATM nº1630
1925
Nº25
Latil II
ATM nº1631
1925
Nº26
Latil II
ATM nº1632
1925
Nº27
Latil II
ATM nº1628
1925
Nº28
Latil II
ATM nº1674
1925
Nº29
Latil II
ATM nº1673
1925
Nº30
Latil II
ATM nº1672
1925
Nº31
Latil II
ATM nº16711
1925
* After the destruction of M-21 nº2 on a Federal chassis, the registration plate ATM nº1301 was passed onto M-21 nº3 on a Nash-Quad chassis.
** Some sources state March 1922. These vehicles were the first vehicles sent to Ceuta, as previous vehicles had been sent to Melilla.
+ These vehicles were most likely assembled in Melilla.
++ Built in Madrid and sent to Ceuta.
A group of M-21s in Morocco. Pictured are a number of Latil tipo Is, the Federal nº2 and at least one Nash-Quad – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 18
M-21 Service
Service in the Rif War
The Early Days – Melilla 1921-1922
The debut of the M-21s came in August 1921, a week after Spanish troops had been massacred after surrendering in Monte Arruit, in the last event of the Annual debacle. Nash-Quad nº1 and Federal nº2 arrived in Melilla on August 17th 1921. They were organized into the Grupo Mixto de Automóviles y Radiotelegrafía [Eng. Automobile and Radiotelegraphy Mixed Group], under the command of Engineer Commander Andrés Fernández Mulero. Nº1 was commanded by Engineer Sergeant Francisco Rancaño Saville and nº2 by Engineer Sergeant Eusebio Fernández Escourido.
M-21 Nash-Quad nº1 after it arrived in Melilla – source: García, p. 13
The initial markings on the vehicles were “Cuerpo de Ingenieros” [Eng. Engineers Corps], “Sección de Automovilismo Militar” [Eng. Military Motoring Section], and “Camión Protegido nºx” [Eng. Protected Truck no.x] in three lines on the right side of the vehicles. These were later simplified to “Ingenieros” [Eng. Engineers], “Automovilismo Militar” [Eng. Military Motoring], and “Camión Protegido nºx” [across four lines and the insignia of the Engineer Corps. A further simplified version across two lines had “Ingenieros” and “Camión Protegido nºx” and retained the Engineers badge.
Insignia of the Cuerpo de Ingenieros which adorned the majority of Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921 – source: Wikipedia
A few days later, on August 22nd, both vehicles joined the fight against Rifian forces at Casabona (not too far west of Melilla), where they may have supported the bayonet charge of the Tercio de Extranjeros [Eng. Foreign Legion]. Their main role during the fighting, with the vehicles functioning individually or paired-up, was to protect the convoys leaving from Zoco el Had (Beni Chiker*). On August 31st, the Rifian forces laid a trap and Federal nº2 toppled into a ditch. Once immobilized, it was attacked by Rifian fighters leaving it so badly damaged that it was abandoned and not recovered till several months had passed. The driver, Corporal Sebastián Montaner, was killed, and the commander, Sgt Fernández Escourido, was wounded.
*Please note that most place names are spelt as by Spanish sources. These names have since changed. When possible, the current place name is provided in parentheses.
The sad state of Federal nº2 after its fall into a ditch – source: García, p. 18
In September, the Nash-Quad nº1, under the command of Sgt Rancaño, famed for his daring, was the only vehicle available. After protecting convoys from Zoco el Had to Melilla, and from Nador to Tahuima (Tauima), on September 29th, it arrived in the vicinity of Zeluán (Selouane) by rail. On October 2nd, under intense Rifian fire, it rescued a wounded soldier during an attack on Sebt. Two days later, on October 4th, it broke the enemy lines and captured Segangan (Zeghanghane).
The boldest of Sgt Racaño’s actions came on October 16th, when on board his vehicle, under intense fire, he rescued a Spanish soldier being held captive, taking three prisoners on the way back. An alternative version of the event has it taking place on December 7th while on board Nash-Quad nº3. On October 24th, nº1 joined a column to capture Monte Arruit (Al Aaroui). Earlier that year, in the aftermath of Annual, 2,000 Spanish prisoners of war had been massacred by the Rifian forces. After Monte Arruit was captured, nº1 took part in the collection of the corpses which littered the field. By this point in the war, Spanish forces had been able to recapture Nador and Zeluán and had been able to reestablish the ‘borders’ set in 1909.
M-21 Nash-Quad nº1 after another successful mission – source: García, p. 19
In November 1921, nº1 took part in a number of engagements in the vicinity of Melilla. In some of these operations it was joined by the recently arrived Blindados Landa. On November 29th, vehicles nº3 and 4, also on a Nash-Quad chassis, arrived in Melilla, though they were not ready for combat until December 5th. The three M-21s on Nash-Quad chassis and the Blindados Landa were sent south to Zaio on patrol. Nº1 and nº4 returned to Melilla on November 7th and 8th. Nº3 and the Blindados Landa took part in the capture of Tistutín (Testutin), Yarsan (Yarsar), and Batel (Batil). All three M-21s on Nash-Quad chassis were used in conjunction in the capture of Ras Tikermin.
The crew and infantry component of M-21 Nash-Quad nº4 pose next to their vehicle. Note the open rear door and what appears to be a towing hook – source: García, p. 29
On January 3rd 1922, the two Benz-based M-21s arrived in North Africa. Nº5 was commanded by Sgt Lorenzo Juanola Durán and Sgt José García Marcos was the commander of nº6. They arrived in Batel on January 8th, the same day elsewhere in the war Spanish forces had arrived at Dar Drius, and, with some of the other M-21s, were divided into two sections: nºs 3 and 6; and nºs 4 and 5. The following day, they took Dar Busada (Dar Boujaada) and Dar Azujag.
On February 4th 1922, nº2, which had been severely damaged in September the previous year, was finally recovered by nº1 and was then rebuilt in Melilla. On February 14th, nºs 3 and 4 captured Hasi Berkan, followed by Zoco el Arbaa on the 17th. At the end of the month, on February 26th, nº4 was badly damaged and was sent back to Melilla for repairs. Nº3 suffered a similar fate a few days later. The two M-21 Benz vehicles were now in need of reinforcements and nº1 was duly sent to join them.
What appears to be a military parade during the Rif War. From left to right: a Benz, a Nash-Quad, and a Latil I – source: García, p. 26
Following operations, such as seizing small hamlets and patrol duties, in mid-March, the M-21s supported the Renault FTs on their debut in North Africa in Anvar (or Ambar) and Imelahen. Between April 6th and 17th, nºs 3, 4, 5, and 6 occupied Chemorra (Chamorra), Laari Entuya, Dar el Quebdani, Timayast (Timajast), Tamasusit, and Chaif. On some of these operations, they were supported by Renault FTs and Schneider CA-1s.
Map of the Spanish Protectorate in Morocco, showing its extension at the end of the Rif War in 1927 in orange. Throughout the war, the M-21s were mainly operated around Melilla and Nador. They also saw service in Tetuán – source: Agencia EFE via Google Arts & Culture
The War Expands
Up to early 1922, most of the fighting had taken place to the east of the territory controlled by the Rif Republic, with the Spanish operations being centered around Melilla. To create a new front in the west, the Grupo Mixto de Automóviles y Radiotelegrafía de la Comandancia General de Ceuta [Eng. Ceuta General Commandancy Mixed Automobile and Radiotelegraphy Group] was created. Vehicles of a new model of M-21 on a Latil chassis made up this new group. Before those arrived, the new nºs 7 and 8 on a Nash-Quad chassis were incorporated as a stopgap in March or April 1922. Because of further delays to the Latil vehicles, in August, nºs 5 and 6 were sent from Melilla.
The Ceuta Sección de Blindados [Eng. Armored Section] had its first notable engagement on September 10th, protecting the approach to a bridge 10 km distance from Tetuán. Three of nº6’s crew members were wounded, and its commander, Sgt García Marcos, was mentioned in dispatches. At some point either in late August or September, nº5 got stuck in a ditch. Its crew and armament were recovered by the other three vehicles, with nº6 returning later to tow the vehicle to safety. For the remainder of 1922, the Ceuta Section took part in routine patrol and convoy protection missions.
By this stage in the war, Spain had been able to bribe several native chiefs, most notably El Raisuni, to withdraw from fighting and in some cases even join the Spanish forces. This freed up troops that could subsequently be used in offensive operations, such as Tizzi Assa and its port. However, Tizzi Assa was besieged by Rifian forces in June 1923, though they were defeated after reinforcements arrived.
In January 1923, the first M-21s Latil tipo I were delivered to Melilla. Sometime in 1923, a new Sección de Blindados was created in Larache. In total, there were 10 M-21s in Melilla, 3 in Ceuta, and 4 in Larache.
From left to right: a Nash-Quad, a Latil I, and either a Latil I or Nash-Quad– source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 18
Operations between September 1922 and November 1924 are not mentioned in the sources. Much did happen during this period though. In mainland Spain, General Miguel Primo de Rivera successfully carried out a coup on September 13th 1923. Ten days later, he ordered troops from Tetuán to go and relieve Xauen, which was under siege from Rifian forces. The siege was temporarily broken and the relief columns joined the defense of the city. However, the defense could not last, and over a year later, on November 15th, the order was given for 20,000 troops and civilians to leave Xauen and head towards Tetuán. At this moment there were serious fears of a repeat of the retreat of Annual, but this time, the Spanish troops kept their discipline. The Rifian capture of Xauen was the highlight of the short-lived Rif Republic and its peak of territorial expansion.
Reports on the M-21s whereabouts resumed during the actions to cover the retreat from Xauen. On November 19th 1924, nºs 6 and 8 covered the retreat of General Serrano’s troops in Zoco Arbáa, south of Tetuán. This continued until December 9th, by which point nº5 had also joined in the covering of the retreat to Taranes (Taranect). During intense rain on December 10th, nº6 got stuck in the mud and was surrounded by Rifian forces. Later that day, the same fate would befall nº5. On December 11th, Spanish aircraft located the stranded vehicles with their crews still holding on inside and offered aerial support. This would prove insufficient and on the night of the 11th, nº5’s crew abandoned the vehicle after destroying the armament, and made it back to Spanish lines, some having been wounded along the way. Nº6 held on until December 12th with only half of its crew and troop component remaining (four of the five were badly wounded). After destroying the weapons on board, they were taken prisoner. Both Benz-based vehicles were eventually recovered. The column from Xauen reached Tetuán on December 13th.
The crews of three Latil I M-21s and a M-21 Benz – source: García, p. 27
At the end of December 1924, during a convoy protection operation in the Melilla area alongside nº12, Latil I nº9 hit an early improvised explosive device which wounded five of the crew and troop complement and knocked out the engine. Nº9’s crew and troops boarded Latil I nº12, and, after some consideration, decided to abandon nº9. A few days later, Rifian forces set it on fire and laid booby traps around it. Unaware of this, a rescue mission involving M-21s nºs 1, 4, 11, and 12 alongside a number of Schneider CA-1s was dispatched. Upon encountering the booby traps, the engineers destroyed them but they were unable to fix nº9. An attempt to tow it with the Schneider CA-1 failed owing to the weather conditions and the Rifian rifle fire. The order was given to abort the mission, but M-21 nº12 and a machine gun section were left to protect the vehicle. On December 31st, a second mission with M-21s nºs 3, 4, and 11 and some Schneider CA-1s was able to salvage the vehicle and it eventually re-entered service after major repairs.
Two Latil tipo Is with their small turrets. The quality of the photograph does not allow us to be certain about the number. Between them is what looks like a Nash-Quad. The vehicle furthest to the right may also be a Nash-Quad – source: García, p. 26
Little is known about the operations in 1925 and 1926, but it is unlikely that the M-21s took part in the Alhucemas landings of September 7th 1925. These landings effectively ended the war, as they created a new front behind Rifian lines. Less than a month later, on October 2nd, Spanish troops captured Axdir, the Rifian stronghold. On September 9th 1925, the Grupo Mixto de Automóviles y Radiotelegrafía de la Comandancia General de Melilla was granted the highly prized Medalla Militar Colectiva [Eng. Collective Military Medal]. On an individual level, Sgt García Marcos was awarded the Cruz Laureada de San Fernando [Eng. Laureate Cross of Saint Ferdinand], the Spanish Army’s most prestigious medal, and Sgt Rancaño Saville and Sgt Juanola Durán received the Medalla Militar Individual [Eng. Individual Military Medal].
On February 7th 1927, with the Rif War over, the CEYC was transformed into the Regimiento deRadiotelegrafía y Automovilismo [Eng. Radiotelegraphy and Motoring Regiment] by royal decree.
The crew and infantry section of M-21 Latil II nº29. Note the wheel covers not present on other Latil II pictures in the article – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 28
The Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921 in times of the Republic
La Sanjurjada
As of March 31st 1931, the situation of the Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921 was as follows:
Vehicle Number
Chassis
Status on 31/3/1931
Grupo Mixto de Automóviles y Radiotelegrafía de la Comandancia General de Ceuta
Nº5
Benz
Awaiting repairs
Nº6
Benz
Awaiting repairs
Nº13
Latil I
In service
Nº14
Latil I
In service
Nº18
Latil II
In service
Nº19
Latil II
In service
Nº20
Latil II
In service
Nº21
Latil II
In service
Nº22
Latil II
In service
Nº23
Latil II
In service
Nº24
Latil II
In service
Nº28
Latil II
In service
Nº31
Latil II
In service
Grupo Mixto de Automóviles y Radiotelegrafía de la Comandancia General de Melilla
Nº2
Federal
In service
Nº3
Nash-Quad
In need of major repairs
Nº4
Nash-Quad
In need of major repairs
Nº9
Latil I
In need of major repairs
Nº10
Latil I
In need of major repairs
Nº11
Latil I
In need of major repairs
Nº12
Latil I
In need of major repairs
Nº15
Nash-Quad
In need of major repairs
Nº16
Nash-Quad
In need of major repairs
Nº17
Nash-Quad
In need of major repairs
Grupo Mixto de Automóviles y Radiotelegrafía de la Comandancia General de Larache
Nº25
Latil II
In reserve
Nº27
Latil II
In reserve
Nº29
Latil II
In reserve
Nº30
Latil II
In reserve
Before this, four vehicles had been removed from service, Nash-Quads nºs 1, 7, and 8, and Latil II nº26.
The veteran Nash-Quad nº1 before its removal from service – source: García, p. 32
On April 14th 1931, the Second Spanish Republic was formed. One of its first endeavors was to plan a reorganization of the Army. When it came to the Regimiento deRadiotelegrafía y Automovilismo, the plan was to reform it as the Agrupamiento deRadiotelegrafía y Automovilismo en África [Eng. Radiotelegraphy and Motoring Grouping in Africa]. The Grouping was to be divided into two companies, one in Ceuta with 12 M-21s, and one in Larache with 8, a plan which did not come to fruition.
The new Republican government would redistribute the remaining M-21s, which left only 21 in service or reserve. A report from November 31st 1931 put the situation as:
Vehicle Number
Chassis
Status on 31/3/1931
Grupo Mixto de Automóviles y Radiotelegrafía de la Comandancia General de Ceuta
Nº5
Benz
Proposed removal
Nº6
Benz
Proposed removal
Nº13
Latil I
Proposed removal
Nº14
Latil I
Proposed removal
Nº18
Latil II
In reserve
Nº19
Latil II
In reserve
Nº20
Latil II
In reserve
Nº21
Latil II
In reserve
Nº22
Latil II
In reserve
Nº23
Latil II
In reserve
Nº24
Latil II
In reserve
Nº28
Latil II
In reserve
Nº31
Latil II
In reserve
Grupo Mixto de Automóviles y Radiotelegrafía de la Comandancia General de Melilla
Nº3
Nash-Quad
In service
Nº9
Latil I
In service
Nº10
Latil I
In service
Nº11
Latil I
In service
Nº12
Latil I
In service
Nº15
Nash-Quad
In need of major repairs
Nº16
Nash-Quad
In need of major repairs
Nº17
Nash-Quad
In service
Grupo Mixto de Automóviles y Radiotelegrafía de la Comandancia General de Larache
Nº25
Latil II
In reserve
Nº27
Latil II
In reserve
Nº29
Latil II
In reserve
Nº30
Latil II
In reserve
Parque Central de Madrid
Nº2
Federal
In service
Nº4
Nash-Quad
In service
The moving of two vehicles to Madrid would prove fortuitous. On the morning of August 10th 1932, in Sevilla, General Sanjurjo, the former head of the Guardia Civil [Eng. Civil Guard], launched a right-wing coup known as La Sanjurjada against the Republic. In the Spanish capital, Madrid, only a Cavalry squadron rose against the government. Supported by about a hundred civilians, they marched south from their barracks in Tetuán de las Victorias in northern Madrid to the Ministry of War in the center of the city. The government had been forewarned about the coup and sent four companies of Guardias de Asalto [Eng. Assault Guards] and the Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921 nºs 2 and 4. It took three hours to defeat the coup in Madrid and, by the end of the day, the coup had also been defeated in Sevilla. Sanjurjo and his followers were arrested.
M-21 Federal nº2 in Cibeles in Madrid following General Sanjurjo’s failed coup on August 10th 1932. Note that the vehicle has not yet been incorporated into the Regimiento de Carros nº1, as it retains the “INGENIEROS” markings on its side –source: Vehículos Blindados de la Guerra Civil
In 1934, renewed plans to rearrange the M-21s saw the creation of the Servicio de Automovilismo de Marruecos [Eng. Morocco Motoring Service] with a Sección de Autoametralladoras [Eng. Self-propelled machine gun vehicle Section] with 18 M-21s. Based on this number, it might be deduced that perhaps one of the M-21s in Ceuta, Lareche or Melilla had been removed from service between November 1931 and 1934. Like the previous plan, this was not put into motion. At some point after their 1932 involvement in Madrid, the two M-21s (nºs 2 4) were incorporated into the Regimiento de Carros nº1 [Eng. Tank Regiment No. 1] which was equipped with Renault FTs.
Photographs of the era show a change in the markings on the sides of the M-21s belonging to the Regimiento de Carros nº1. As this Regiment was attached to the infantry section of the Army, the previous Engineer insignia and “INGENIEROS” markings were replaced by the badge of the Regiment and “INFANTERIA” [Eng. Infantry].
Asturias October 1934 Revolution
In 1934, the Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921 would see service again. Dissatisfaction with the new center-right and right-wing Republican coalition government led leftist elements to plan a revolutionary uprising. In October 1934, the Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) [Eng. Spanish Socialist and Workers Party] and Unión General de los Trabajadores (UGT) [Eng. General Union of Workers] trade union, along with the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist parties and trade unions, called for a general strike. The major centers of revolutionary activity were in Asturias and Catalonia. In Asturias, the socialist and anarchist miners were well organized and armed, even with improvized armored cars, and communes were formed. The government soon mobilized forces to counter the revolutionaries.
A week into the revolution, on October 14th, the Ministry of War ordered the Chief of the Fuerzas Militares de Marruecos [Eng. Military Forces of Morocco] to send the four available ‘camiones blindados’ [Eng. Armored trucks] in Melilla to Santander. Only two drivers were required, and they would receive orders from Santander’s military commander. The M-21s were put on steamships bound for Santander near midnight that same day. A second telegram was sent to the Regimiento de Carros nº1 of Madrid to send its two M-21s to León (south of Asturias) with all their crew members. The Regiment was also ordered to send crews for four armored trucks to Santander to crew the M-21s sent from Melilla.
Once in Santander with their crews, the four M-21s from Melilla drove to Oviedo and joined General Eduardo López de Ochoa y Portuondo’s column. The two M-21s sent from Madrid arrived in León on October 16th and headed north to join Lieutenant General Joaquín Milans del Bosch’s column in Campomanes, where earlier in the revolution there had been a pitched-battle between miners and government troops. More precise details of their operations in Asturias are lacking, but by this point, most of the revolutionaries had surrendered.
The M-21 Nash-Quad nº4 on Calle Oñón [Eng. Oñón Street] in Mieres following the conclusion of the Asturias October 1934 Revolution. The box-like structure of the armor resembles the original design of the Federal nº2. Note that this particular vehicle lacks a turret and, unlike the vehicles which fought in the Rif War, it has four-tone camouflage. The lamp at the top was also perhaps a post-war addition – source: Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 16The M-21s from Madrid and Melilla remained in Asturias until November 15th 1934. It was decided to send the Melilla M-21s to Madrid too, which was authorized by the Tetuán military authorities on the 21st. By the end of 1934, the Regimiento de Carros nº1 of Madrid had six M-21s.
Three M-21s – Federal nº2, Nash-Quad nº4 and an unidentified Nash-Quad during a parade in Madrid in the aftermath of the 1934 Revolution – source: Vehículos Blindados de la Guerra Civil
Service in the Spanish Civil War?
After their deployment in the October 1934 Revolution, the Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921 were gradually retired from service. They were no longer necessary in the Spanish Protectorate in Morocco, as the Rif had been pacified. Their role in Spain was supplanted with the introduction of the Bilbao Modelo 1932, a dedicated police and security vehicle.
It is possible that some vehicles may have survived until the early days of the Spanish Civil War. Unless the six M-21s of the Regimiento de Carros nº1 had been scrapped or repurposed between the end of 1934 and July 1936, it is entirely possible that they played a role in defeating the military coup that started the civil war in Madrid. However, without photographic evidence, it is impossible to tell if they took part in the attack on the Cuartel de la Montaña [Eng. Mountain Barracks].
A Nash-Quad-based M-21 at Cibeles, on the corner between Callé Alcalá and Paseo de Recoletos, near the center of Madrid. Some sources suggest that this was nº4, but photographs of said vehicle in Mieres in October 1934 show it did not have a turret and its upper structure was quite different from other vehicles based on the Nash-Quad chassis. Instead, the one in the picture above could well be one of the vehicles which joined the Regimiento de Carros nº1 in Madrid from Melilla via Asturias after November 1934 – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 32
There are accounts of the use of M-21s in different parts of Spain after the coup on July 17th 1936, though none have photographic evidence to corroborate them.
In San Sebastián, according to Javier de Mazarrasa, the troops of the Regimiento de Zapadores nº6 [Eng. Pioneer Regiment no. 6], stationed in the Loyola barracks, had the Nash-Quad nº4. On July 19th, the M-21 was used as a staff car on journeys through the city by different coup-supporting officers to protect them from civilian and militia fire. The troops in the barracks finally joined the coup on July 21st and nº4 was apparently used to intimidate the population, which was mostly loyal to the government. Having been defeated by loyalist civilians and militias, the troops in Loyola surrendered, and according to Mazarrasa, nº4 was used to transport the formal surrender documents. After the surrender of the rebel garrison, nº4 was incorporated into Commander Augusto Pérez Garmendia’s column, tasked with defeating the coup in the province of Guipúzcoa. Its supposed fate after this is even more convoluted. Mazarrasa states that it fought Colonel Alfonso Beorlegui’s rebel forces in the town of Oyarzun [Eusk. Oiartzun], before being captured near Tolosa on August 11th. On the other hand, a local San Sebastián newspaper stated that the vehicle had been destroyed in the city by a fire caused by a mortar.
Mazarrasa also speculates that, at the beginning of the coup, two Latil (no type specified) M-21s in the Maestranza de Artillería [Eng. Artillery Arsenal] were in Sevilla, where, in spite of the left-wing tendencies, the coup had succeeded. Shortly after securing Sevilla, apparently, one of the M-21s was used to protect the Sevilla-Huelva road, and the other to attack Jerez de la Frontera. After some repairs, on August 6th, according to Mazarrasa, they joined Commander Francisco Buiza’s column to capture Constantina (87 km north of Sevilla), which was achieved by the 9th. Mazarrasa states that, in September 1936, General José Enrique Valera’s troops had a damaged M-21. He goes on to say that the two M-21 Latils were considered to be in too bad a condition to join Lieutenant Colonel Carlos Asensio Cabanillas’ column, then heading north into Extremadura. Mazarrasa also claims that three M-21s survived until the 1950s.
It is difficult to assess the veracity of Mazarrasa’s claims. No supporting evidence has emerged that any M-21s were transported to San Sebastián or Sevilla prior to the coup, though there is no reason why this would not have happened. Sevilla was a major armored vehicle repair facility, so a vehicle sent for repairs could have ended up there. Mazarrasa also claims that 41 M-21s were built, but documents put that figure at 31. Without photographic evidence, it is difficult to attest to the participation of the M-21s in the days following the coup in San Sebastián or Sevilla.
Regarding the vehicles in Ceuta and Larache, if any were still in service or reserve by July 1936, they would not have been needed. The coup was backed almost unanimously in the Spanish Protectorate, so there would be no need to use the M-21s to intimidate opposition or take control of towns. Due to the Loyalist Republican naval blockade, the Rebel troops in North Africa had to be airlifted to the Peninsula by German and Italian aircraft. These would have been unable to transport the M-21s, and by the time the Strait of Gibraltar had opened up, more modern German and Italian equipment would have made the M-21s redundant even if they were still serviceable.
A vehicle said to have been in Melilla after the July 1936 coup. The pictured vehicle has many resemblances to the Latil tipo I series of M-21s. However, the armored superstructure seems to be too far off the ground – source: Vehículos Blindados de la Guerra Civil
Side Note – Camiones ‘Semiprotegidos’
As previously mentioned, there is evidence of 8 Nash-Quad trucks in the Parque de Artillería in Melilla in 1923 classified as ‘semiprotegidos’ [Eng. semi-protected or semi-armored]. It is possible that these were going to be converted into M-21s but funds were not available. The name would suggest that a full conversion was never carried out, but that the Nash-Quads had some protective armor, probably around the cabin.
Other ‘semiprotegidos’ did fight during the Rif War. A photo of a convoy carrying ammunition and provisions arriving in Xauen published in 1926 shows two Hispano-Suiza trucks with some armor. The sides and front of the cabin have been protected with the gun shield used for the infantry’s machine guns. This armor arrangement would not have offered much protection to the vehicle as a whole, just the driver. Although there is no photographic evidence, it is not outside the realm of possibility that other similar vehicles operated in the Spanish Protectorate in the turbulent years of the Rif War.
‘Semiprotegidos’ based on a Hispano-Suiza truck arriving in Xauen in 1926. These vehicles only had their cabin protected – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 26
Conclusion
The Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921 show the maturity and improvement in designs that Spanish engineers were able to achieve over the course of a few years in times of war. Budget restrictions forced the CEYC to make use of available trucks to convert into weapons able to wage war. Although some of the early M-21s were armed with a turret, they were best suited for convoy protection and patrol duties. At times, they were not too dissimilar to the tiznaos of the Spanish Civil War era. In contrast, the later M-21 designs, especially that of the Latil tipo II, with its powerful engine, were more akin to traditional armored cars.
In spite of the design progress and refinement, the M-21s were vehicles for the circumstances at the time. The fighters of the Rif Republic had very few modern weapons and certainly no armored vehicles. The Rif War itself had very few pitched battles and was mostly a war of small engagements and hit-and-run tactics.
Given the time and the war, the Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921 were a more than adequate vehicle, and the military awards received by M-21 commanders are a fitting testament to this.
Camión Protegido Modelo 1921 Latil tipo II nº27 3D model drawn and rendered by by Stoneheartisk
Vehicle
Nash-Quad
Federal
Benz
Latil I
Latil II
Chassis
4×4 1 ½ ton (2 tonnes) Nash Quad
Federal Motor Truck Company 4×2 2 ½ tons (3 tonnes)
Unclear
Latil TAR 4×4 heavy artillery truck
Unclear
Size (approx)
5 m long
1.9 m wide
2 m high
Not known
5 m long
1.9 m wide
2 m high
5.75 m long
2.3 m wide
2.5 m high
6.5 m long
1.8 m wide
2.9 m high
Weight (approx)
Not known
Not known
8 tonnes
8 tonnes
8 tonnes
Engine
Buda 312 cu in (5.1 L) side-valve 4 cylinder 28 hp
Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española. Teatro de Operaciones del Norte 36/37 (Valladolid: Alcañiz Fresno Editores, 2007)
Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española Teatro de Operaciones de Andalucía y Centro 36/39 (Valladolid: Alcañiz Fresno’s Editores, 2009)
Javier de Mazarrasa, Los Carros de Combate en la Guerra de España 1936-1939 (Vol. 1º) (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 1998)
Juan Carlos Caballero Fernández de Marcos, “La Automoción en el Ejército Español Hasta la Guerra Civil Española” Revista de Historia Militar No. 120 (2016), pp. 13-50
Renault FT 'INFANTERIA Nº10' used by Spain during the Rif War. Illustrated by Andrei Kirushkin, based on the work of David Bocquelet, funded by our Patreon Campaign
Kingdom of Spain (1919-1931)
Light Tank – 18 Purchased
Debuting on the Western Front in 1918, the French Renault FT was a revolutionary weapon. Small and equipped with a fully rotating turret, it was deployed en masse in the later stages of the Great War, greatly impacting warfare and military thinking. In the post-war period of instability and economic crisis, the small, cheap, and simple FT would be acquired by the militaries of many nations, and in most cases, was the basis on which their own tank development was born. One of these nations was the Kingdom of Spain, which used the Renault FT during the Rif War.
Context – Spain and the Great War
Following centuries of imperial decline culminating in defeat during the Spanish-American War of 1898, Spain’s place as a lower secondary world power was cemented.
Since the mid-Nineteenth Century, Spain had greatly expanded its influence and territory in North Africa, and, as a result, been in conflict with the local Rifian tribesmen. The Algeciras Conference of 1906, convened to resolve Franco-German colonial competition during the First Moroccan Crisis, resulted in concessions to Spain in Morocco. Lead and other metal deposits were soon discovered further inland in Rifian territory and, almost immediately, contracts were given to companies to mine the deposits and build railway links to the coast, further infuriating the locals.
These growing tensions resulted in an armed uprising by the Rifians, whose attack on railway workers in July 1909 started the Melilla War, which Spain won, gaining some new territory south of Melilla.
However, peace was not long-lasting. In 1911, widespread rebellions against the Sultan and Morocco threatened the Spanish and French possessions. To make matters worse, in what is known as the Agadir Crisis or Second Moroccan Crisis, Germany attempted to use gunboat diplomacy by sending the SMS Panther to the port of Agadir, hoping to gain colonial concessions from France in the Congo by further destabilizing the situation in Morocco. In the end, France made concessions in the Congo and both Spain and France gained more territory in Morocco.
In 1913, the Spanish Protectorate in Morocco was established, integrating the new territories. Small armed uprisings began the following year, though they lacked cohesion and there was little activity during World War I. Spain took no part in the Great War but kept a close eye on developments and, by observing, learned valuable lessons.
Map of the Spanish Protectorate in Morocco. Most of the fighting against the tribes from the Rif in the following decade would take place in the Kert region – source: Research Gate
Spain’s First Tank
Designed to break the deadlock of trench warfare, the tank was one of the Great War’s major developments. Even before the guns fell silent, on October 18th 1918, the Spanish Government had made a formal petition to their French counterparts to begin negotiations for the acquisition of a Renault FT. However, the French authorities proved to be uncooperative in sharing their newest ‘toy’ with the rest of the world and did not respond to the Spanish request until January 15th 1919, once the Armistice was in place.
At this point, the Comisión de Experiencias, Proyectos y Comprobación del Material de Guerra [Eng. Commission for the Testing of War Materiel], a commission within the Spanish Ministry of War for the testing, trialing and acquisition of war materiel, fleshed out their request to the French Government by asking for a Renault FT equipped with the 37 mm Puteaux SA 18 cannon, followed a few days later by one for three more tanks equipped with the cannon and one with the Hotchkiss M1914 machine gun. This was authorized by Spanish authorities on March 5th 1919.
The petition was then amended to include two additional cannon-equipped tanks. This amended order for a total of seven tanks (six with a cannon and one with a machine gun) was rejected by the French Government on March 20th, leading to the negotiation of a new petition on April 12th. After tough talks, the French Government authorized the sale for F52,500 (Francs) of one machine gun armed FT in May 1919. The longed-for vehicle finally arrived in Madrid from the Centre d’Approvisionament de Materiel Automobile [Eng. Center of Automobile Provisioning] in Paris on June 23rd 1919. The vehicle’s serial number was ‘68352’ and it was equipped with an octagonal or ‘omnibus’ turret. It would be the only Renault FT with this type of turret which ever served in Spain.
The first Renault FT (‘68352’) to arrive in Spain – source: García, p. 4
After the vehicle’s arrival in Madrid, it was sent from the Estación del Norte train station (modern day Principe Pío) to either the Campamento military barracks or the Escuela Central de Tiro [Eng. Central Target Practice School] in Carabanchel. This journey was undertaken without the assistance of a truck or lorry. Two days later, the new tank was presented to the monarch, Alfonso XIII, and the Infantes with considerable attention from the press, which at the time, incorrectly claimed that the Renault FT had been a present to Alfonso XIII. Over the next few days, it was vigorously tested and was inspected by a military and political commission headed by Colonel Ramón Acha.
The new Renault FT being presented to a royal and military commission – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 10
More pictures from the presentation to the royal and military commission – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, pp. 17-20
During testing, by order of the commission, the machine gun was replaced by license-built Hotchkiss machine guns to allow the use of the Spanish Army’s standard 7 mm Mauser ammunition. These tests were so satisfactory that, on August 13th 1919, the Spanish Government ordered a further ten tanks, eight armed with a machine gun and two with cannon, priced at F533,400. The machine gun-armed Renault FTs were to be delivered with Spanish Hotchkiss machine guns and 500 rounds of ammunition per tank. Unfortunately for the Spanish Government, the French Government refused this request, claiming there were no surplus tanks to sell, and later refused any sales at all. It is possible that French feathers had been ruffled by Spain’s having replaced the machine gun on the vehicle which had arrived in 1919. As a result, Spain decided to look elsewhere in their search for more tanks, though nothing came of this.
During another presentation organized by the Ministry of War in April 1920, the vehicle was given an “ARTILLERIA” inscription, denoting that it belonged to the artillery, the section of the army that had carried out the purchase. On the vehicle’s redesignation to the infantry, this inscription was removed.
The only known picture of the Renault FT with the “ARTILLERIA” inscription – source: Molina Franco, p. 9
The Disaster at Annual
After September 1919, Spain made an effort to assert military control over its protectorate in Morocco and to quell the small scale rebellions which were taking place. This conflict is known as the Rif War. Across the dry, mountainous territory, the Spanish military built a series of forts supplied by long convoy routes subject to constant ambushes. With the objective of occupying Alhucemas Bay, the General Commander of the Melilla military region, General Manuel Fernández Silvestre, stretched his troops too far from the supply lines and, in May 1921, pitched camp in Annual. The reinforcement troops which were supposed to aid Silvestre’s troops for the final pacification of the Rif were ambushed and massacred by tribesmen under the command of their famed leader, Abd el-Krim. Krim’s triumph led many to join his forces, including part of the native contingent attached to the Spanish.
Driven by his success, Krim advanced, taking different forts en route to Annual. Silvestre, whose forces were reduced to four days of supplies and ammunition for one day of combat and with over 6,000 Rifians ever closer, ordered the retreat back to Melilla on July 22nd. Chaos and disorder broke out when some of the native contingent decided to fire upon their Spanish officers and the Rifian columns arrived. Four hours later, 2,500 Spanish troops lay dead on the field of battle, including Silvestre, who, it is rumored, committed suicide. For the next month and a half, Krim pressed his attacks, taking several other forts and massacring scores of Spanish troops in the process. Over the next month and a half, between 8,000 and 10,500 Spanish troops died at the hands of the Rifians or as a result of the harsh conditions.
The events had severe political consequences in mainland Spain and brought down the government, leading to the appointment of a national unity government headed by Antonio Maura, although it too would fall in March 1922. A report written by General Juan Picasso commissioned by the War Ministry found General Silvestre chiefly responsible for the disaster. The political instability was such that, in September 1923, General Miguel Primo de Rivera launched a coup and successfully took power with the King’s blessing.
On the military front, it was felt that more modern equipment was needed to defeat the Rifians. In August 1921, France agreed to sell 6 Schneider CA-1 tanks. Negotiations continued and, on September 14th, an agreement was reached between Spanish representatives and Renault for the acquisition of 10 Renault FTs, a Renault TSF (command and radio vehicle), spare parts for repairs and 11 Renault FU-25 lorries to transport troops. The tanks were equipped with the rounded ‘Berliet’ turret and were either unarmed but built to take a machine gun, or armed with the modified Spanish 7 mm Hotchkiss machine gun. The deal with Renault was worth 31 million pesetas (31,135,098.75).
The Renault TSF was used as a command vehicle – source: Caballero Fernández de Marcos, p. 42
The vehicles were transported from their factory to the border, arriving in Hendaye on December 17th, 1921, and the order to urgently transport them to the Escuela Central de Tiro in Madrid was given.
Once in Madrid, along with the Renault FT that had arrived in 1919, they were attached to the infantry section in the Escuela, where the infantry familiarized themselves with the new vehicles and tank-infantry operations. The tanks and infantry were amalgamated to form the Compañía de Carros de Asalto de Infantería [Eng. Infantry Tank Company] under the command of Captain Vicente Valero and this was divided into two sections with five tanks apiece and a command section with the Renault TSF.
A column of Renault FTs – Source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 21
The Renault FT Lands in Africa
On March 5th, 1922, even before instruction in Madrid was complete, the order was given to transport the tanks, their personnel, and instructors to Melilla with the utmost urgency. Two days later, on the 7th, eleven tanks (one had been left in the Escuela Central de Tiro), fourteen support vehicles, and thirty-seven personnel (four captains, eight sergeants, and twenty-five soldiers) departed Madrid by train towards the southern city of Málaga.
On March 12th, the tanks embarked the steamship Guillém Sorolla to cross the Strait of Gibraltar, docking in Melilla the following morning. On arrival, the Commander in Chief of Melilla asked Captain Valero to compile a report on the preparedness of the company and to assess if it was ready to enter combat on March 14th. The report found that two of the tanks had been slightly damaged on the journey from Madrid, that the company had only half of their intended drivers (of the required 40 drivers, there were only 22; 9 for the tanks, 11 for the trucks, and 2 for the fuel trucks), and that the commander and machine gun operators had not been fully instructed. The training was so incomplete that three of the Escuela’s instructors were sent from Madrid to continue the instruction whilst on campaign. Captain Valero concluded that eight more days would be needed to carry out the necessary repairs, to await the arrival of more personnel, and to complete training. The instructors even volunteered to cover for the missing and less experienced tank drivers so that the unit could enter combat as soon as possible, but their offer was refused by the Melilla commander.
A number of Renault FTs forming a circle around the Renault TSF company command vehicle – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 21
The Compañía de Carros de Asalto de Infantería set up a base in Dar Drius (Driouch*) on March 14th 1922. One source, Carro de Combate Renault FT-17, states that the decision was made to leave one of the tanks in Melilla for training purposes, though this is not corroborated by other sources. Just 24 hours later, the order was given to join a column under the command of General Dámaso Berenguer in Itihuen (Ichtiuen).
*Please note that place names are spelled as by Spanish sources. Most place names have since changed. When possible, the current name is provided in parentheses.
Two Renault FTs (no. 3 in the background) and their crews and support staff before their baptism by fire – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 17
On March 18th, the Renault FTs of the Compañía saw their baptism by fire. At 6 a.m., the Tercio de Extranjeros [Eng. Spanish Foreign Legion], with 7 tanks leading the column, advanced on a Rifian position in Tuguntz (Tougount). The tanks moved into the Anvar (or Ambar) settlement under heavy fire. Soon, 800 m ahead of the infantry, they became surrounded by the Rifian forces, who, lacking the knowledge of how to destroy tanks, climbed onto them, began throwing rocks at them, and tried to stick their knives through vision slits.
Due to the hasty departure, some of the components had not been checked, including the machine guns, some of which jammed, leaving tanks and crews defenseless. Surrounded, and without the means to properly defend themselves, the order came to retreat. Three tanks, either immobilized or without fuel, were abandoned by their crews. Two crew members were killed and a tank driver was wounded.
Two of the tanks (nº 3 and nº4) had been abandoned on the battlefield and Rifian forces destroyed them with explosives on March 23rd. On March 29th, the remaining tanks and infantry managed to capture the positions of Anvar and Tuguntz and recover the damaged tanks. Repairs to tank nº3 by the Maestranza de Artillería took until April 1923, just over a year later.
The Renault FT ‘Infantería nº 3’. It is unclear if this picture is before or after its repair at the Maestranza de Artillería – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 5
Whilst their baptism by fire had been disastrous, the mission itself was successful in capturing the hamlets of Anvar and Yebel-Imelahen. The Army HQ set up a commission to investigate the tanks’ lackluster performance but concluded that this was due to the lack of cooperation between tanks and infantry, which could be explained by a lack of proper and lengthy training.
A typical operation in Morocco. Renault FT nº11 followed by troops of the Tercio de Extranjeros – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 17
Over the ensuing months, the Spanish FTs would be in the heat of battle on a regular basis, most often supporting columns to protect them from ambush, but also covering retreats. On March 29th, 1922, they protected a retreat at Chemorra (Chamorra). Between May 23rd and 26th, they protected Dar Drius from night attacks. They protected a column in Tamassin on May 29th and one in Tizzi-Azza (Tafersit) on October 18th and carried out small attacks near Cheik in August. From their debut in Morocco to the end of August 25th, at least 21 operations of this kind have been recorded, most, if not all, taking place in the modern-day Driouch province of Morocco.
Two Renault FTs behind a Tercio de Marruecos machine gun position. This rocky, hilly terrain was the usual environment in which the tanks operated – source: Bruña Royo, p. 28
The most notable engagement involving the Renault FTs in the early stages of the Rif War took place on June 5th, 1923. Colonel Ruiz del Portal’s column was tasked with relieving a besieged position in Tizzi-Azza (Tafersit). The lead tank, nº9, commanded by Sergeant Mariano García Esteban, who had taken command of the whole section when Lieutenant Francisco Sánchez Zamora became a casualty, broke the Rifian positions under intense fire. García Esteban lost his left eye and his right eye was also damaged, though that did not stop him from advancing across the enemy trenches, before turning around and continuing to fire his machine gun from the rear. Wounded, but refusing to be evacuated, the sergeant fought on for 20 hours. Tizzi-Azza was liberated for the time being and García Esteban was awarded the Cruz Laureada de San Fernando [Eng. Laureate Cross of Saint Ferdinand], Spain’s highest military decoration for gallantry.
Diorama of the rescue of Sergeant Mariano García Estaban after his heroics at Tizzi-Azza which can be found at the Museo de los Medios Acorazados – source: Caballero Fernández de Marcos, p. 41
To make up for losses, an additional six machine gun-armed tanks were purchased in 1925, along with their truck transports and 12,000 rounds of ammunition for a total cost of over one million Francs*. The tanks arrived in Madrid on August 20th and would soon be used to take the war to the enemy.
* 1,036,052.85 F
From Alhucemas to the End of the War
In April 1925, Krim had advanced his operation to the French Protectorate, inflicting a humiliating defeat on French forces at the Battle of Uarga. After this, the Spanish and French governments began to collaborate to defeat Krim and his Rifians. It was decided to strike behind Rifian enemy lines in Alhucemas and, as a result, a massive naval invasion with air support was planned to be led by Miguel Primo de Rivera. This would be the first time in history that air forces, naval forces, and army were deployed under a unified command.
A number of the surviving tanks from the operations in the vicinity of Melilla and the 6 new tanks were transported to Ceuta to prepare for the landings. Prior to their arrival in Ceuta, landing practice was undertaken at Medik. Part of General Leopoldo Saro y Marín’s column, the 11 or 12 tanks involved in the operation were commanded by Captain Juan de Urzaiz.
On the late morning of September 8th, 1925, the first of the 13,000 Spanish troops were landed on the beaches of Alhucemas Bay (Gulf of Hoceima) supported by covering fire from bombers, battleships, cruisers, and even a seaplane tender. 26 barges (named ‘barcazas K’ [Eng. K barges] in Spanish sources) bought from the British and used in the failed Gallipoli campaign in 1915, transported troops, and for the first time in combat, tanks. Each barge carried three tanks, though, due to the tides leaving the barges 50 m off the beach, it was impossible to disembark them until the early hours of the 9th with the assistance of some wooden structures. Once landed, the Renault FTs, with support from the 6th and 7thbanderas [Eng. Battalions] of the Tercio de Marruecos, were used to secure the right flank of the beach and the advances on Malmusi. The heights controlling the Bay were captured by the end of September. After Alhucemas, a Spanish victory was finally in sight.
Scenes from the landing at Alhucemas. In this photo it is possible to identify the distance between the barges and the shore, but also the wooden structures used to land the tanks – source: Molina Franco, p. 15Two Renault FTs getting ready for action after landing at Alhucemas. The vehicle in the foreground belongs to the circle section, though the number (possibly 4) is difficult to make out – source: Molina Franco, p. 16Eleven Renault FTs after landing at Alhucemas – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 28
In November 1925, the tank forces were reorganized into the newly created Grupo de Carros Ligeros de Combate [Eng. Light Tanks Group] and would prove their worth throughout 1926 in the sieges of Iberloken and Tafrás and the recapture of Xauen (Chefchaouen or Chaouen). The war would dwindle to pacifyin some stubborn Rifians still holding out in 1927. After a rocky start, the Renault FTs had proved themselves.
The Renault FT in Times of ‘Peace’
The order for the Grupo de Carros Ligeros de Combate to return to Spain was published on October 31st 1926. Sources indicate that between 15 and 17 tanks that had survived the constant fighting were sent back to the Escuela Central de Tiro in Carabanchel. Shortly afterward, the Grupo de Carros Ligeros de Combatewas disbanded. On November 22nd 1926, the Renault FTs were reorganized into Grupo de Carros de Asalto [Eng. Tank Groups] of the 3rd section of the Escuela Central de Tiro under the command of Captain Marcos Nieto Malo and were mainly used for training personnel. The Grupo de Carros de Asalto was supposed to be made up of a HQ Company, a Renault Company, and a Trubia Company. The Renault Company had a command tank, two sections with 5 tanks apiece, and a reserve section with 4 tanks for replacements, a total of 15 tanks. The Trubia Company was to have had the same structure except that it would have only had two tanks in the reserve section. However, the Trubias were never built in the anticipated numbers.
After a few years of being limited to training and maneuvers, the tanks would be used again at the end of 1930. By this point, Miguel Primo de Rivera had resigned his position as dictator and had been replaced by General Dámaso Berenguer. The military dictatorship, which was supported by the monarch Alfonso XIII, was very unpopular among the political establishment, the general population, and even elements within the armed forces.
On December 12th, 1930, two Army Captains in the northeastern town of Jaca revolted and proclaimed a republic. Following their early success, they marched on Huesca, where they were defeated. The coup attempt was not able to count on the support it had expected. On December 15th, by which time the two Army Captains had been executed for rebellion, General Gonzalo Queipo de Llano and Air Commander Ramón Franco (the brother of General Francisco Franco, future dictator of Spain), took control of the Cuatro Vientos airbase in Madrid and flew planes over Madrid to incite workers and the general population to go on strike against the monarchy and in support of the Republic. This is somewhat curious given Queipo de Llano’s role in the coup against the Republic less than six years later.
A column incorporating a number of Renault FTs under the command of General Luis Orgaz Yoldi was sent to recapture the base but before they arrived, Queipo de Llano and Ramón Franco fled to France, where they would remain in exile until the proclamation of the Republic a few months later in April 1931. The Renault FTs continued to serve under the Second Spanish Republic and were active on both sides during the Spanish Civil War.
Influence and Legacy
As with many of the other nations which bought the Renault FT, the tank would serve as the basis from which indigenous tank development was born.
In 1925, three men, Commander Victor Landesa Domenech, Captain Carlos Ruíz de Toledo and Rogelio Areces came up with the idea of working together to design and build an indigenous tank for the Spanish Army. Given the lack of tank technology information available, it should come as no surprise that they based their design on the Renault FT. The project was a private venture paid for out of their own pockets with no state supervision or finance.
The only known photo of the Trubia prototype. Note the overlapping turrets, frontal nose ‘ram’ and general resemblance to the Renault FT – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 42
The prototype vehicle resembled the Renault FT, with an almost identical tail and suspension. To surmount the firepower concerns which had led the Renault FT to be extremely vulnerable when its main and only machine gun jammed, two overlapping turrets with independent movement and each armed with a Hotchkiss 7 mm machine gun were adopted. There were plans to substantially improve the Renault FT’s armor and engine, but due to financial and technological constraints, these were only marginally improved.
The success of the prototype in tests inspired the team to create a new tank, the Modelo Trubia Serie A; Spain’s first indigenous tank. Only 4 were built and they saw limited action in the Asturias Uprising of 1934 and the early stages of the Spanish Civil War.
The first Trubia Serie A still inside the Trubia arms factory with its impressive array of armament – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 44
The legacy of the Renault FT in Spain lives on. When the Regimiento de Infantería Acorazada «Alcázar de Toledo» n.º 61 [Eng. Mechanized Infantry Regiment ‘Alcázar de Toledo’ No. 61] was formed in December 1943, it was decided that the regiment’s emblem should feature a Renault FT. Additionally, when the regiment was incorporated into the newly formed Brigada de Infantería Acorazada«Guadarrama» XII [Eng. ‘Guadarrama’ Mechanized Infantry Brigade No. 12] in 1966, the Brigade would also choose the Renault FT as its emblem. Fate would have it that the Brigade would be one of the last units to serve in Morocco when, as part of Spain’s last imperial foray on mainland Africa, it was deployed without seeing action during the Green March in 1975.
Badge of the Regimiento de Infantería Acorazada «Alcázar de Toledo» n.º 61 with a Renault FT in the center of it – source: WikipediaBadge of the Brigada de Infantería Acorazada «Guadarrama» XII with a Renault FT featuring prominently in the center – source: Wikipedia
Camouflage and Markings
The first Renault FT arriving in Spain in 1919 had a three-tone camouflage, the light base color being khaki and the other two colors dark green and brown, which may have been applied in the French factory. Apart from its period with the “ARTILLERIA” insignia, no other insignia or unit marking was present on this vehicle.
Because of the poor quality of some of the photos, it is difficult to tell what camouflage was painted onto the 1921 batch of Renault FTs. Whilst some photos would suggest just a two-tone camouflage, possibly khaki or sand and dark green, this was probably not the case and the contrast in the photographs is not the best. A grey-green and dark green camouflage combination has also been suggested by some artist’s interpretations, but this may not be the case. In some better contrast pictures, the two tones of camouflage appear to be separated by a thin dark line, maybe black.
A collection of Renault FTs and a Renault TSF. Note the camouflage – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 22
Based on photographic evidence, individual tank markings seem to be inconsistent. Without accurate dating of said photographs, it is almost impossible to tell when different aspects were introduced. However, vehicles are often seen with an “INFANTERIA Nº” [Eng. Infantry No.] inscription on the left side.
To distinguish between the two sections of the Compañía de Carros de Asalto de Infantería, a system of circles or triangles on the rear sides of the tank was developed. Some photos of the vehicles atop of trucks, presumably taken as the vehicles arrived in the Protectorate, show the circles and triangles empty. The tank numbers and the number in the circle or triangle were not necessarily the same, as the number in the circle or triangle denoted the number within each individual section. In other photos, it is possible to distinguish a number 1, number 2, and number 5 (tank no. 10) in a triangle and number 4 in a circle.
Photo of three tanks with a blank triangle symbol (left) and four with a circle (right) – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 22A closer view of the Renault FTs of the circle section before a number was applied. The picture also shows the variety of uniforms of early Spanish tank crews – source: Molina Franco, p. 11Tank no.10 (see suspension beam), and fifth vehicle of the triangle section. A two-tone with dark lines camouflage scheme appears to have been used on this particular vehicle – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 29
One photograph shows a confusing vehicle with a circle with a number crossed out and a number 4 written on the suspension beam. Other photos depict Spanish Renault FTs with a small white number inconsistently painted on the suspension beam.
Whilst this tank was nº 4 (see suspension beam), the number in the white circle in the rear has been crossed out. This perhaps may imply it is a section leader, though there is no evidence that confirms it – source: Molina Franco, p. 9
The FU-25 trucks purchased to transport the tanks had a similar camouflage pattern. Each truck was assigned to an individual tank and would have the relevant “INFANTERIA Nº” insignia on the side.
Renault FT ‘Infantería Nº12’ atop a FU-25 truck. Notice the camouflage duplicated on the two vehicles and the inscription on both – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 18
The vehicle which was left in Carabanchel had an “ESCUELA CENTRAL DE TIRO INFANTERIA” insignia instead of the infantry insignia. It also had an “ATM 1080” inscription on a white rectangle on the suspension beam. A similar numbered inscription on a white background was given to vehicles at some point between 1926 and 1931. By this later point, the Renaults’ three-tone camouflage had been replaced by single-tone camouflage.
Renault FT ‘ATM 1080’ with the “ESCUELA CENTRAL DE TIRO INFANTERIA” insignia on its slide – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 32
The Renault TSF
With the summer 1921 purchase from Renault came a Renault TSF (Télégraphie Sans Fil [Eng. Wireless Telegraphy]). This vehicle differed from regular Renault FTs in that it was turretless and unarmed. In place of the turret was a superstructure that housed an E 10 radio system with possibly other radios. The top of the superstructure had a tall pole used for flag communications with other vehicles. Instead of the Renault FT’s crew of two, the Renault TSF had three – driver, commander, and radio operator.
In Spain, the vehicle was known as Renault TSH (Telegrafía Sin Hilos) and was used as the command vehicle for theCompañía de Carros de Asalto de Infantería. This was indicated by the “CARRO DE MANDO” [Eng. Command Tank] inscription at the front of the superstructure. Additionally, the vehicle was designated as “INFANTERIANº1” [Eng. Infantry No 1] with the inscription being present on either side of the superstructure.
The different inscriptions on the Renault TSF are apparent in this picture – source: Molina Franco, p. 13Division General José Sanjurjo standing atop a Renault TSF in Imelhagen in March 1922 – source: Mortera Pérez, p. 29Division General José Sanjurjo (left) and General Dámaso Berenguer (center) discuss tactics. Sat atop the Renault TSF, Captain José de Alfaro, commander of the Compañía de Carros de Asalto de Infantería – source: Bruña Royo, p. 27
Once it was in North Africa, the vehicle was given a lamp fixed to the left side of the superstructure. In a number of photos in Morocco, the vehicle has a light circle with a dark triangle inside it painted on either rear side. As has been explained, the two sections of the Compañia either had a circle or a triangle in this position, so being a command vehicle for both sections, a combination of the two makes sense.
The lamp on the left side of the superstructure of the Renault TSF is plainly visible in this picture – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 35
The tank was painted in a two-tone camouflage with a light base (possibly light grey) and thick dark vertical lines (possibly dark grey or green). After its use during the Rif War, the fate of this particular vehicle is unknown.
The Renault TSF overcoming an obstacle – source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 35
Conclusion
As occurred in many other nations worldwide, the Renault FT was the first step in the armored history of Spain. It was sent straight into battle without much preparation or training. After an underwhelming start, it proved its worth time and time again as Spanish forces fought for a hard-earned victory against well-organized and motivated resistance in the Spanish Protectorate in Morocco. Its continued legacy to this day is testament to the high esteem the small tank was held in. Whilst a number of Renault FTs remain in Spain, these are all Polish imports dating from the Spanish Civil War.
Renault FT ‘INFANTERIA Nº10’ used by Spain during the Rif War. Illustrated by Andrei Kirushkin, based on the work of David Bocquelet, funded by our Patreon Campaign
Bibliography
Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española Teatro de Operaciones de Andalucía y Centro 36/39 (Valladolid: Alcañiz Fresno’s editores, 2009)
Juan Carlos Caballero Fernández de Marcos, “La Automoción en el Ejército Español Hasta la Guerra Civil Española” Revista de Historia Militar No. 120 (2016), pp. 13-50
The Blindado Romeo. Illustrated by Yuvnashva Sharma.
Kingdom of Spain (1921-1922)
Armored Car – 1 or 2 Built
In terms of armored vehicles resulting from both public and private ventures, the years following the Great War saw major developments. This was even true for those not embroiled in conflict, as was the case of the Kingdom of Spain. One of the vehicles to emerge from this period was the Blindado Romeo designed and funded by the Spanish journalist and parliamentarian Leopoldo Romeo in 1921. The vehicle was envisioned to be used in North Africa in the colonial war Spain was fighting and losing there.
Context – Disaster in the Rif
With the loss of its other overseas colonies in 1898, North Africa had become the focal point for Spanish military expeditions and it created the opportunity for career military officers to progress up the ranks. The initial expansion in the Rif area of Morocco, a mountainous region in the north along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, was slow and peaceful. However, by 1909, Rif tribesmen had begun to ambush Spanish rail workers and settlers. To stop the Rifians who operated over the vastness of the mostly inhabited Rif, the Spanish turned to the new weapon of war, the armored car. Just before the beginning of the war in Europe, Spain had been one of the pioneering states in the use of armored vehicles in military conflicts, with the use of the French-built Schneider-Brillié.
In the summer of 1921, General Manuel Fernández Silvestre, without first securing his rear, led his troops far into enemy-controlled territory until they arrived at the village of Annual. Here, on July 22nd, they met a superior force of Rif fighters under Abd el-Krim. Facing these odds, Silvestre then ordered a month-long retreat to Melilla, 120 km away, during which Silvestre’s forces were constantly ambushed and 14,000 men, including Silvestre (he allegedly committed suicide), died. Furthermore, 14,000 rifles, 1,000 machine guns, and 115 cannons were lost. Shortly afterwards, the Republic of the Rif was created.
Arming the Troops
Despite having a large land army, the Spanish forces in Morocco were not equipped to fight a modern war. The main aim was to acquire a number of the relatively new weapons of war – tanks. In the end, 10 machine gun armed Renault FTs and 6 Schneider CA-1s were bought from France and deployed to the Rif.
Additionally, a number of armored cars were developed in Spain to be sent to North Africa. These included the Blindado Landa and the far more successful series of Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921.
A lesser-known armored car of this period was the Blindado Romeo. This vehicle was financed, designed and produced by Leopoldo Romeo y Sanz and was presented for the first time on August 22nd 1921.
Leopoldo Romeo proudly stands next to his invention outside the Madrid royal palace – source: Mundo Gráfico via Biblioteca Nacional de España
Who Was Leopoldo Romeo?
The history of Leopoldo Romeo, also known as ‘Juán de Aragón’, is as interesting as that of the vehicle he created. Born on November 15th 1870 in Zaragoza, he did a degree in Law, Philosophy and Humanities in his local university. He dedicated most of his life to journalism, becoming an editor at Ranocés shortly after leaving university. He then moved to El Evangelio before becoming chief editor at the prestigious La Correspondencia de España in 1902. He also served as Spanish correspondent for the French newspaper Le Temps and the British Daily Telegraph. For the latter, he covered the Second Hague Conference of 1907 and the Spanish war in Melilla before the outbreak of the Great War. Based on these experiences, he developed a moralistic, anti-militaristic approach which landed him in prison in Madrid in 1909. It is somewhat ironic that, eleven years later, he would design a vehicle of war.
Leopoldo Romeo, as photographed by the famous Danish photographer Christian Franzen – source: Wikipedia
Leopoldo Romeo was also a politician, first being elected as a member for Santa Cruz de Tenerife in the Canary Islands in 1905. At the time, his profession was listed as lawyer. In 1907, he returned to his main role as a journalist before returning to politics as a member for his native Zaragoza in 1910. He returned as a member of the Spanish Parliament in the 1914, 1916, 1918, 1919, 1920, and 1923 elections representing Belchite, in the province of Zaragoza. Initially an Independent Liberal, by the 1914 election, he was a representative of the Partido Liberal [Eng. Liberal Party], one of Spain’s two largest parties, which alternated power in a system known as ‘turnismo‘ [Eng. taking turns]. He was considered to be part of the most liberal wing of the party and had a great friendship with Álvaro Figueroa y Torres, the Conde de Romanones, leader of the Partido Liberal between 1913 and 1918 and Prime Minister of Spain in 1912. Due to his friendship with Romanones, Romeo was appointed as Civil Governor of Madrid, the capital. During his time in the role, he had to deal with workers’ movements in Madrid during a period known as ‘el trienio Bolchevique’ [Eng. the three Bolshevik years].
Romeo died of pneumonia on March 26th 1925, four years after his military invention and with the war in the Rif still ongoing.
Section of the El Sol newspaper announcing the death of Leopoldo Romeo on March 27th 1925 – source: El Sol via Biblioteca Nacional de España
Design
As with many Spanish armored wheeled designs of the time, the Blindado Romeo was not an armored car in the conventional sense, but rather an armored transport vehicle, most of its offensive power being offered by the infantry it carried. In its essence, the ‘Blindado’ (Spanish for ‘armored’) was a car with an armored cover meant to withstand enemy rifle fire.
Chassis and Engine
There is some confusion over the chassis of the vehicle. Spanish military authors Francisco Marín Gutiérrez and José Mª Mata Duaso, the only ones to have covered the Blindado Romeo, point towards a Spanish Landa Landaulette 1920 automobile as the basis for the chassis of the vehicle. They claim the vehicle had a gasoline 4 cylinder 15 hp engine. They also state that the vehicle had right-hand drive.
There is not much information about the vehicles produced by the Spanish manufacturer Landa, but, based on the available information, some of Marín Gutiérrez and Mata Duaso’s claims seem questionable. Landaulette is an alternative spelling of Landaulet, which is a car body style where the rear passengers are covered by a convertible top, a popular design at the time. Landaulette may just be the style of the car rather than the type or model, and Landa are known to have produced landaulets at that time. Landa had a limited number of chassis designs, but advertised itself as producing any car body style upon request.
Photographic evidence demonstrates that the vehicle had left-hand drive though. Up until 1921, Landa had produced a number of cars with 2 cylinder engines manufactured by the same company and producing a maximum of 9 hp. Curiously, these had right-hand drive. Although today Spain drives on the right, until 1924, the city of Madrid drove on the left. In 1921, Landa moved to using the more powerful American 4 cylinder 15/35 hp Lycoming engines, which were positioned at the front.
Regardless, even with a meager maximum of 7 mm of all-round armor, which would have probably added around 2 tonnes, the weight would have proven too much for a chassis designed for an automobile. Similarly, the engine would have been underpowered.
The 1921 Landa chassis model using a 4 cylinder 15 hp Lycoming engine. This was most likely the base of the Blindado Romeo – source: Autopasión18Rear-side view of the Blindado Romeo with its creator, Leopoldo Romeo. This photo demonstrates that the vehicle had left hand drive. The photo also demonstrates how the foldable armored side plates worked – source: Mundo Gráfico via Biblioteca Nacional de España
Armor
One of the distinctive, though by no means unique, features of the vehicle was its armor. The armor itself was far from impressive, probably around 5 to 7 mm thick and made from chromium-nickel steel, more simply known as stainless steel, but considering the period and the opposition it would have faced, it was most likely sufficient. The entire vehicle was armored, including the wheels, with the tires being made from solid rubber. The sides of the vehicle though could be open like a parapet. At its maximum extension using both sides, this extended to 5 m in width.
The Blindado Romeo being demonstrated with both sets of foldable panels at their maximum extent of 5 m– source: Mundo Gráfico via Biblioteca Nacional de España
To remain in position, the armored parapets had to be fixed in position in several parts. On their furthest extents to the sides, they were fixed into the ground with a latch. There were four metallic bars (two on each side) that attached the folding doors to the body of the vehicle near the rear wheels.
The idea is that one of these vehicles could provide enough cover for a squad of infantry soldiers from their shins upwards. Using several, these could provide cover for bigger units of infantry or even artillery pieces. However, for several reasons, it was a flawed design for its intended purpose. To pick up the metal bars at the front of the vehicle, a crewmember or a soldier would have had to expose themselves to enemy fire. Whilst the armor protection was enough to withstand anything that would be found in the Rif, the sides and rear were vulnerable and the parapets could only be deployed statically. In spite of his awards and being an excellent journalist, Leopoldo Romeo had not understood what kind of war was being fought in the Rif. The Spanish had continuously lost to Abd el-Krim because his forces outmaneuvered them, thus a static vehicle would have been of very limited use in open warfare. Had the vehicle been intended for urban policing, which was something very common in Spain at the time, its design would have been of more use. Deploying the parapets, one vehicle could block a whole street. Even today’s riot control vehicles use a very similar system.
Side-view of the Blindado Romeo. The blue circles show the metal bars to hold open the parapet and the latch to fix it to the ground– source: Mundo Gráfico via Biblioteca Nacional de España with added modifications by author
Crew and Armament
The vehicle could have been operated by just one crew member, fulfilling the roles of driver and commander. Given the space at the front, it is likely that the vehicle would have had an actual commander in addition to the driver. The rear of the vehicle could have carried a maximum of four soldiers, who would have most likely sat on benches.
From the inside, the commander and driver had two slits in front of them and two each on the sides of the vehicle. These would have mainly been used to see their surroundings, but also probably to fire from, especially when the vehicle was static. The foldable parapet side armor had three slits for each panel, as did the rearmost side armor. The rear of the vehicle also had two slits. From the photographic evidence, it seems that these slits could have had a protective cover. This would suggest that the vehicle was also designed for the infantry complement to fire from the interior when in motion. Contemporary sources (Mundo Gráfico) suggest that inside the vehicle, two machine guns could have been carried. These would most likely have been Hotchkiss 7 mm light machine guns recalibrated to fire Spanish-made Mauser ammunition. Given the narrowness of the vehicle, operating two of these would have been difficult and uncomfortable.
At the front of the vehicle, between the wheels, was a single headlamp. It was fixed at a very low position, meaning it would not have illuminated a great distance forward, but also that it would have been prone to being damaged or falling off when not driving on good roads, which were not common at all in the Rif.
Frontal view of the Blindado Romeo showing the majority of the vision and firing slits and also the headlamp between the wheels – source: Mundo Gráfico via Biblioteca Nacional de España
Service and Possible Inspiration
Save for the photographs of the vehicle during its presentation on August 22nd 1921 at the Palacio Real, very little is known of the vehicle. At the time of its presentation, the weekly illustrated magazine Mundo Gráfico claimed that a hundred could be built in three or four weeks. This claim is rather ridiculous, as Landa was never able to build many vehicles in the first place and Spain did not have the industrial base to produce that amount of armor, even if only 5 mm thick. Marín Gutiérrez and Mata Duaso suggest that this was a mistake and they meant months, not weeks, but this is still a very non-realistic number. Reading the article by Mundo Gráfico, they stated that ‘they supposed the Minister for War was aware of the vehicle, but that if he was not, they offered to provide him the information which they considered to be of interest and importance at a time when its soldiers were fighting with limited weaponry’.* It is speculation, but it is likely that Leopoldo Romero used his contacts in the liberal media to promote his vehicle and tried to gain a contract to equip the troops in the Rif.
*Original Spanish text: “Suponemos que el Ministro de la Guerra tendrá conocimiento de tan importante obra; pero por si no lo tuviese, nos apresuramos a ofrecerle esta información, de interés y trascendencia en los momentos actuales en que nuestros soldados luchan con tan escasos elementos de guerra”.
The vehicle is only mentioned once again in an official telegram dating from November 27th, 1921, which stated that two Blindados Romeo had been received in Melilla on the boat A. Lázaro, which had departed from Málaga. This telegram raises the possibility of a second vehicle, indicating that the Blindado Romeo had some success or that Leopoldo Romeo commissioned a second vehicle. It could also well be the case that the telegram confused the vehicle with the very similar-looking Blindado Landa, which were also being shipped to Melilla in November 1921, though documents would suggest this predated the November 27th date.
On the topic of the Blindado Landa, Marín Gutiérrez and Mata Duaso have speculated that the Blindado Romeo was the source of inspiration for it. On inspection, this seems to be very probable, as the vehicle also used a Landa chassis, had a similar shape, including the shape of the cabin, and the presence of a metal bar behind the front wheel would suggest it also used a parapet.
The Blindado Landa, potentially inspired by the Blindado Romeo – source: Marín Gutiérrez and Mata Duaso, p. 17
Conclusion
The Blindado Romeo has had quite an unremarkable history, being ignored or forgotten even by Spanish armor military historians. Its design was flawed and would have been near useless in the Rif. In addition, the chassis, which was meant for an automobile, would not have been able to carry the weight of the armor on the rocky Rif roads and terrain and the engine was underpowered. In the end, the solution Spain would find would be Renault FT tanks and Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921, armed with fully rotatable turrets. However, the Blindado Romeo also deserves some recognition as the first fully Spanish armored vehicle design, predating the Blindado Landa by a month or so. Its long-term legacy can perhaps be seen in the Blindados tipo ZIS and modelo B.C. of the Spanish Civil War and the Blindados Medio sobre Ruedas (BMR) and the Vehículos de Exploración de Caballería (VEC) which are part of the Ejército de Tierra to this day.
The Blindado Romeo. Illustrated by Yuvnashva Sharma.
Francisco Marín Gutiérrez & José Mª Mata Duaso, Los Medios Blindados de Ruedas en España: Un Siglo de Historia (Vol. I) (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 2002)
Second Spanish Republic (1936)
Armored Car – ~160 Built
Rightly or wrongly, the armored cars produced by both sides during the Spanish Civil War – the ‘tiznaos’ – have often been mocked and ridiculed. This may stem from their rudimentary and improvised appearance, which is a reflection of what they were. As the war progressed and foreign material became harder to come by, the Republican forces started to manufacture better thought out vehicles which could be produced in series. The most widespread of these vehicles is the often mistakenly designated UNL-35, correctly known as Blindado tipo ZIS, Blindado tipo 3HC, or Blindado Ford Modelo 85.
Context – Spain divided
Spain’s tumultus political situation eventually reached boiling point in July 1936, when a group of conservative minded generals would rise up against the democratically elected government of the Second Spanish Republic. Whilst the coup was mainly a failure, both sides, which were influenced by set ideological grounds, would fight out a bloody civil war which still has consequences to this day.
The view that the Spanish Civil War was a conflict between two cohesive camps, Communism versus Fascism, is totally misguided though. In Catalonia, the anarchists of the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo- Federación Anarquista Ibérica (CNT-FAI) [Eng. National Confederation of Labour-Iberian Anarchist Federation] had been instrumental in defeating the 1936 military coup and had since then been the powerbrokers in Catalonia. However, their methods did not match the centralized ambitions of the Republican Government, the Communist Party (PCE), and the Soviet military and its political advisors.
After the enormous losses suffered by the Republic during 1936, the first months of 1937 could, in contrast, be considered a relative success for them. At the turn of the year, the Republican forces defeated the last Nationalist attempts to fully surround Madrid from the north in the Battles of Corunna Road. Throughout February, Republican forces defeated the Nationalist and Italian Corpo Truppe Volontarie (C.T.V.) [Eng. Volunteer Corp Troops] at the Battle of the Jarama and then again a month later at the Battle of Guadalajara. However, Málaga was lost in February and in March, the Nationalists began the slow occupation of the North.
By this point, the Italian and German arms shipments to Franco’s Nationalist forces were tipping the balance in their favor. Of course, the Republic was also receiving armaments as well. Theirs were coming from the Soviet Union, and included T-26 and BT-5 tanks, and BA-6 and FAI armored cars. Whilst, in general, these proved to be superior to the Italian and German vehicles, not enough were available.
Politically, at this time, the situation in Republican Spain had changed. The initial revolutionary spirit had somewhat died out, and the makeshift and often disunited militias were being merged to form the Ejército Popular de la República (EPR) [Eng. People’s Army of the Republic]. Also, the factories which had independently been producing the makeshift ‘tiznaos’ – a name originating from the blackish color given by the iron and other metallic plating from the adjective tiznado (sooty) – were put under the centralized control of the Comisaría de Armamentos y Municiones [Eng: Commissariat of Arms and Ammunition] to help with the overall war effort on December 20th 1936. One of these was the Valencian shipyard of Unión Naval de Levante (UNL) [Eng. Naval Union of Levante], which was renamed Fábrica Nº22. UNL had already provided for the war effort with the construction and assembly of several ‘tiznaos’ for the Valencian columns which went to aid Madrid and its surroundings in the late summer and autumn of 1936. Among these were the two-turreted behemoths of the UNL-2.
A Soviet supplied BA-6 and the large UNL-2 assembled at Unión Naval de Levante during the defense of Madrid in 1936. This photo is testament to the disparities between the kinds of equipment available to the Republican forces – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 108
Development
At the beginning of 1937, under orders from the Comisaría de Armamentos y Municiones for the homologation of production, UNL had built 10 vehicles at its facilities in Valencia. Photographic evidence shows us that there were two different types of vehicle among them, a lighter armored car, which at a glance, looked similar to the Soviet FAI or BA-20, and a heavier vehicle, the ‘Goliat’. The lighter vehicles, sometimes known as UNL Prototipo II, had two cupolas very similar to the one on the FAI, which would later be substituted by a single less prominent one. Similar cupolas were on top of the driver and machine gunners positions, though these would later be removed. The fronts of the vehicle would also change to a wider less pronounced V-shape and the sponsons on each side would disappear altogether. These were the result of several months of experimentation with different designs until a satisfactory one was found. However, the serial production, overseen by Soviet Colonel Nicolai N. Alimov, would have a slightly different design taken from modified Soviet blueprints. As of February 12th 1937, four vehicles were ready to deliver to the front while the assembly of the other six was being completed. There was also a planned series of 150 vehicles for the lighter model. At this point, the project was christened ‘Trabajo nº 35’.
The four light armored cars produced by Unión Naval de Levante which were ready for delivery on February 12th 1937 pictured in front of the company’s factory – source: Mortera Pérez (2011), p. 95Close-up of one of the four light armored cars produced by Unión Naval de Levante which were ready for delivery on February 12th 1937. Note the FAI-like cupolas on the turret and top of the fighting compartment – source: Mortera Pérez (2011), p. 95The two Goliat heavy armored cars built by UNL. They were intended to carry a cannon in the turret, but here they are armed with a machine gun. Notice that the vehicle on the right is built on a British chassis, as the driver’s position is on the right hand side of the vehicle – source: Mortera Pérez (2011), p. 97
Not much is known about what happened to the pre-series vehicles. However, photographical evidence exists of two of them parked inside a maintenance garage in Madrid (according to Artemio Mortera Pérez) at some point during the war, meaning that at least some of the pre-series vehicles were sent to Madrid to fight in the late spring and summer of 1937. In addition, some sources claim that in the south of Spain, the Nationalist used a captured pre-series vehicle. However, on close examination, the vehicle could be unrelated and is equipped with a FAI armored car turret.
Two photos showing the preseries Blindados in a workshop in what is thought to be Madrid – Source: Mortera Pérez (2011), p. 99
Initially, General Motors Corporation (GMC) trucks were identified as being suitable for the chassis. In January 1937, UNL requested the Autonomous Catalan government, the Generalitat, to ‘send at least 100 of the GMC 1 ½ and 3 tons chassis’. The Generalitat had managed to get round the Non-Intervention Agreement and the USA’s resolution banning the export of arms to Spain by purchasing non-military vehicles, which they would then use as the chassis for military vehicles, after the acquisition of trucks from Chevrolet. It can be assumed that the GMC trucks were either the T-11 ½ ton powered by a Pontiac 200 60 hp engine or the 3 ton T-44 with the Buick 257 80.5 hp engine. Whatever was the case, these GMC trucks were never sent to Valencia. Instead, the first vehicles were built on the chassis of the venerable Soviet 4×2 ZIS-5 or other available vehicles, including some British vehicles which would have had right-hand drive. Later on, vehicles would be built on the elusive 1 ½ ton ‘Ford modelo 85’. This may not refer to a specific model of Ford, but to the 85 hp engine. Other vehicles are known to have used GAZ-AA chassis (the Soviet license build of the Ford Model AA) and Chevrolets. The 8 mm steel for the armor was provided by the Compañía Siderúrgica del Mediterráneo [Eng. Siderurgical Company of the Mediterranean], renamed Fábrica nº 15, under the command of A. Vorobiov, based in Sagunto, 30 km north of Valencia, and it is possible that final assembly for some vehicles took place there rather than at Fábrica nº 22.
The right-hand side drive Blindado indicates that this particular vehicle, pictured in Teruel during Christmas 1937, is based on a British-made truck. This vehicle has taken some damage on the mudguards and headlight. Notice the second vehicle in the rear also has right-hand side drive – source: Mortera Pérez (2011), pp. 145
Apart from the technical problems related to it being an unprecedented endeavor, the biggest problems UNL had were bureaucratic. Shortly before his return to the USSR, on March 10th 1937, Colonel Semyon Krivoshein, the commander of the Soviet tank forces in the early stages of the Battle of Madrid, sent a report to Moscow. In that report, he stated that, whilst some vehicles may have been ready since February, because authorization for the stock-up of fuel had not been approved by the Ministry of War, delivery had been delayed by one month. Later that month, on the 23rd, G. Dimitrov sent another report to Moscow highlighting the delay in deployment of this new vehicle and how this was causing unrest among the mainly anarchist workforce at Fábrica nº 22. If the delays were caused by political differences between the Socialists and Communists with regards to the Anarchists is impossible to tell, but seeing how the situation would combust in Barcelona in May later that year, it is definitely within the realms of possibility. Dimitrov also highlighted that the vehicles, from a technical point of view, were splendid and could be very useful in combat.
Name Controversies
The vehicle is often misnamed as the ‘UNL-35’, with ‘UNL’ standing for Unión Naval de Levante (which, at that point, was already renamed as Fábrica nº 22) and 35, which according to the military historian Artemio Mortera Perez, may result from the projects designation, ‘Trabajo nº 35’. However, according to the work of historians Josep María Mata Duaso and Francisco Marín Gutiérrez (Blindados Autóctonos en la Guerra Civil Española), this designation was never officially used during the war.
The vehicles had a variety of names and all related to the type of chassis used as the base. Thus, most vehicles were named ‘Blindado tipo ZIS’, in reference to the ZIS-5 truck chassis. An alternative was the Latin script for the Cyrillic name of the ZIS-5, ЗиС, thus becoming ‘Blindado tipo 3HC’. The ‘3HC’ designation was used in official documents of the Republican 3ª Compañía of the 2ª Brigada de Blindados dated July 24th 1938 during the fighting in Extremadura. Blindado simply means armored in English, whilst tipo is type. For those on Ford chassis, they were known as Blindado tipo Ford mod. 85 or a variation of that. Throughout the article, the vehicle will be referred to as Blindado tipo ZIS unless the exact chassis type is known. Some secondary sources use autoametralladora instead of blindado, or just autoametralladora. This term simply means machine gun vehicle.
Design
External Appearance
As has been said, the Blindado tipo ZIS was heavily based on already existing Soviet designs, most notably the FAI and BA-20. As the engine compartment was at the front, there was a plate angled at around 20º at the front of the vehicle serving as the engine cover. It had two small doors to access the engine. The front bumper had the hand crank to start the engine. Each side of the armor covering the engine compartment had a two-part hatch to access the engine for repairs and maintenance. The wheels had unpuncturable solid rubber tires.
Frontally, the slightly inclined top armor of the engine compartment turned upwards around 25º-30º to form a short plate with two openings: the one on the right was round and was for a machine gun, whilst the one on the left was a hinged plate to allow for better vision for the driver behind it. This hinged plate had a thin slit to allow vision through it at all times. Each side of the main structure had a prominent door which opened to the left. All four wheels were covered by straight flat armored mudguards, contrary to the curved ones on Soviet vehicles. The tires were Airsless. On top of the front two mudguards was a headlight or on the sides of the front, depending on the chassis used.. The rear of the vehicle had fittings for pioneer equipment.
At the rear top of the vehicle was the short, nine-sided turret. The frontal plate was flat and had a hole in the center for a machine gun. The sides, which were the larger of the turret’s plates, had a small slit, which by its size would probably not have been for vision, but rather a fume evacuator. The top had a small dome at the rear which allowed the commander to stand upright inside the vehicle, and a circular hatch which opened to the front. Unless the turret machine gun operator was making use of the hatch, they would have had a hard time firing, as the frontal plate had no slit to see through.
The riveted steel armor plate used was 8 mm thick all round and was produced by Compañía Siderúrgica del Mediterráneo, renamed as Fábrica nº 15.
The Blindado tipo ZIS was nearly 4 m long, over 2 m high and just under 1 m wide. Vehicle weight is often estimated at 2.3 tonnes, though considering the weight of the original chassis, this figure may be a very low estimation.
Whilst it is likely that the Blindado tipo ZIS’ weight would have allowed it to be carried on the back of a truck, its length means it had to be transported on a tank transporter. This Blindado tipo ZIS has just been captured by Nationalist forces north of the Ebro in March 1937 during the Aragón Offensive. Notice the ammunition trailer being towed – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 13
Armament
The Blindado tipo ZIS was armed with two Soviet machine guns. Initially, these were the gas-operated Degtyaryova Tankovy (DT) machine guns, the armored vehicle variant of the Degtyaryov machine gun. Due to shortages, the majority of models were armed with the older and heavier Maxim–Tokarev machine gun. Both fired the 7.62 mm rimmed (7.62 x 54R) cartridge.
One of the machine guns was housed in the turret, whilst the second was placed on the right hand side of the frontal plate. In Blindados en España, author Javier de Mazarrasa speculates that each vehicle carried 1,500 ammunition rounds. However, due to the chaotic state of weapons procurement and distribution of the Spanish Republic, it is unlikely that there was a standard load.
A Blindado tipo ZIS of the Escuadrón de Blindados [Eng. Armored Vehicles Squadron] of the Nationalist Ejército del Sur [Eng. Army of the South] (note the red-yellow Spanish flag on the front of the vehicle) with a third Maxim–Tokarev machine gun in an anti-aircraft mount on the turret. This is an odd arrangement, as, considering this photo was most likely taken in late 1938 or 1939 in the Andalucía theatre of operations, there would not have been much of a Republican aerial threat. Additionally, given the placement of the commander’s hatch on the turret, in this mount, the anti-aircraft machine gun would have been very difficult to operate – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 248
Interior
The frontal section of the vehicle housed the engine. Without evidence to the contrary, it should be presumed that the engine on board depended on the chassis used. When using the ZIS-5 truck as a basis, the engine would have been the 6 cylinder ZIS petrol engine capable of producing 73 hp at 2,300 rpm with a maximum torque of 279 Nm at 1,200 rpm. It can be estimated that the Blindado tipo ZIS would have had a speed of possibly as fast 60 km/h. The original ZIS-5 truck had a 60 l fuel tank. It is unknown what fuel capacity the Blindado tipo ZIS would have had, and an assumption would be that whatever its capacity, it would have been placed behind the engine. The transmission on the ZIS-5 built vehicles would have been mechanical and produced by ZIS, with four forward gears and one reverse.
The crew compartment occupied the rear half of the vehicle. The front left position was for the driver, whilst the front right position was for the hull machine gunner. Behind them was the position of the turret machine gunner, who, it can be assumed, also fulfilled the role of commander. It is unlikely that any radio equipment was carried.
The Blindado tipo ZIS and its competitors
In a way, the Blindado tipo ZIS was a step forward in regards to the Soviet light machine gun armored cars, such as the FAI and the BA-20. The Blindado tipo ZIS had sturdier armor, its wheels were more effectively protected, and it had superior firepower with the inclusion of two machine guns. Additionally, the Blindado tipo ZIS was built on a sturdier, more reliable and more advanced platform than the FAI, which used an older truck chassis, and the BA-20, which used a car chassis.
The Blindado tipo ZIS’ main shortcomings were the same for the rest of these relatively large, weakly armed and armored interwar armored cars, that is, that its armor was ineffective against anything which packed more of a punch than a machine gun and that its armament could only effectively deal with infantry, cannon and machine gun emplacements, and soft-skin vehicles.
However, when it was first introduced in May 1937, the Blindado tipo ZIS was superior to any light machine gun armored car in the Republic’s arsenal and also that of the Nationalist forces, with the elderly Great War era Italian 1ZM being its closest competitor, though the gap was significant, even if, on paper, the Italian vehicle had thicker armor and was more potently armed.
Production
As of September 1937, a total of 130 vehicles had been completed, with another 30 to be manufactured before the end of the year. By February 1938, production at Fábrica nº 22 switched to the heavier cannon-armed Blindado Modelo B.C.. It is not known with certainty how many vehicles were built between September 1937 and February 1938, but the number may be around 50 based on Fábrica nº 22’s estimates.
A selection of stills from Roman Karmen and Boris Makasséiev’s documentary for Studio Moscow showing the production of the Blindado inside the Unión Naval de Levante factory. The recording confirms that a selection of different chassis were used during the serial production – source: Mortera Pérez (2011), p. 99
In the spring of 1938, the Nationalist advance on Valencia and Castellón meant that Fábrica nº 22 was to be moved further south. By July-August, the factory began work in Elda and Petrel, in Alicante, though it is not clear if by this point they were still building Blindado tipo ZIS.
Another collection of stills from Karmen and Makasséiev’s documentary showing a number of Blindados leaving the Unión Naval de Levante factory. This event was marked with a political rally – source: Mortera Pérez (2011), p. 101
Service
Barcelona May 1937
Unsurprisingly for anyone who has studied the Spanish Civil War, the debut of the Blindado tipo ZIS would be an internal security matter. Tensions within the Republic intensified over the winter of 1936-37 and, in April, there would be altercations between government forces and anarchist militias for the control of road control posts and custom houses. On May 2nd, a telephone conversation between the President of the Republic, Manuel Azaña, and Lluis Compayns, President of the Generalitat, was cut by an anarchist phone operator. Anarchists had controlled the telephone exchange since the summer of 1936 and their handling was considered to be detrimental to the war effort.
On May 3rd, a force of police officers was sent to take over the telephone exchange in Barcelona. The anarchists resisted and soon, barricades would be raised all over the city – a civil war within a civil war. On the one side were the government and Catalan forces, and on the other the CNT-FAI, the Trotskyist Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista (POUM) [Eng. Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification] and other revolutionary far-left forces. Whilst fighting on the streets of Barcelona continued, the central Republican government decided to send troops from Madrid and Valencia to end the violence and regain control of the crucial region of Catalonia. Lieutenant Colonel Emilio Torres was put in charge of the 4.ª División which arrived in Barcelona on May 7th and consisted of 5,000 assault guards and at least 6 Blindados tipo ZIS. By this point, the May Events were almost over, but some vehicles may have taken part in the clean-up operations the following day. Hundreds had died in less than a week and the political consequences were monumental. Shortly afterward, the POUM leadership would be arrested and disappear, the CNT-FAI was weakened, and the PCE, backed by Moscow, rose to prominence. The Blindados tipo ZIS sent to Barcelona would be taken over by the newly formed Ejército del Este [Eng. Army of the East].
At least six Blindados tipo ZIS on Avenida Marqués de l’Armentera in Barcelona, circa May 7th 1937. These were sent as part of a column to restore order in the Catalan capital during the May Events – source: Mortera Pérez (2011), p. 83A close-up photo of the lead vehicle in the above photo showing some of the Blindado tipo ZIS’ features in great detail – source: Mortera Pérez (2011), p. 83
Córdoba, Madrid, Segovia and Huesca Offensive
It is possible that some Blindados tipo ZIS were sent to the Ejército Sur and may have seen combat on the Frente de Córdoba [English: Cordoba Front]. Others may have been sent to Madrid to replenish the losses suffered during the battles of Jarama and Guadalajara and could have seen action in the combats around Casa de Campo in May, though how many were used or during which particular actions are unknown at this time. It is also possible that Blindados tipo ZIS were used during the Republican offensive around Segovia in late May and early June 1937.
A Blindado tipo ZIS somewhere in Madrid, Castilla La Mancha or Andalucía. Notice that the camouflage is meant to resemble the vast areas of olive groves in these regions and that even the tire sidewalls have been painted – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 176
At the beginning of the second week of June 1937, the Nationalist forces began their siege of the defensive perimeter surrounding Bilbao. As the northern Republican region had been cut-off from the onset of the war, the only way of aiding it would be by conducting attacks elsewhere with the aim of drawing out troops and resources. General Sebastián Pozas Perea was put in charge of the Ejército del Este, and on June 12th ordered his forces to attack the city of Huesca with the intention of capturing it. Pozas’ forces were divided into two groupings each split into two columns. Coordination and communication between the different columns proved troublesome.
The 4th column under the command of Major Enrique Oubiña Fernández-Cid was composed of the 123ª Brigada Mixta, an engineering company, and 5 armored cars. It is unclear what these may have been, though based on the fact that the Blindados tipo ZIS which had been sent to Catalonia in May were then aggregated to the Ejército del Este, they could well have been those and photographic evidence goes a long way to back this. Nevertheless, the testimony of Avelí Artís would suggest that the vehicles in question may be the ‘tiznao’ Torras. A mix of these two types of vehicles is also a possibility.
On June 10th, the southern grouping left Huerrios to attack Chimillas at 05:30, with the support of T-26s and Blindados tipo ZIS. The attack was repulsed and a second attack with more armor in the afternoon or evening also failed. The next three days saw lower intensity confrontations before a final major push on the 14th, which, having captured some of the objectives, ran out of momentum and soon lost all gained territory. The offensive had failed.
On June 15th, an abandoned Blindado tipo ZIS was pictured at Chimillas whilst it was being towed to the Nationalist lines. The vehicle seemed in good shape, so it must have had a mechanical failure. It is unknown if the vehicle was lost on the 15th or in the days prior and that only when the fighting calmed down did they bother to recover it. The Nationalists would end up capturing and making use of many Blindados tipo ZIS.
Three pictures of the Blindado tipo ZIS captured by the Nationalist at Chimillas. Notice that the machine guns have been removed to avoid capture and that the left-hand headlight has fallen off from its fitting – source: Mortera Pérez (2011), pp. 87-88
Battle of Brunete
In mid-May 1937, Francisco Largo Caballero’s government would fall and give way to the premiership of Juan Negrín López, who was much closer to the PCE and Moscow. In an effort to gain credibility on the world stage and to try to convince France that the Republic could win the war, along with the need to delay the Nationalist advance in the north on Santander, a major offensive was set in motion. After much discussion over where to launch the offensive, through Soviet pressure, the area around the town of Brunete, west of Madrid, was chosen. The Battle of Brunete would be one of the biggest of the war and saw a large deployment of armor.
Map showing the deployment and advances of Republican (red) and Nationalist (blue) armored vehicles at the Battle of Brunete. Whilst any exact actions of the Blindado tipo ZIS are unknown, the map gives some indications as to where they may have fought – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 198
Republican forces in the Ejército de Maniobra [Eng. Maneuver Army]had ‘150 tanks and 50 armored vehicles’ (Mortera Pérez, 2009, p. 193). It is almost impossible to identify exactly what vehicles these would be, but certainly, some Blindados tipo ZIS were used. The 50 armored vehicles were divided into five groups of ten and were part of the attack on the towns of Brunete and Quijorna that began on the night of July 5th. Over the next few days, Republican forces would advance but fail to properly break the Nationalist line. Armor, according to Enrique Líster, commander of the Republican 11.ª División, was used disastrously, with vehicles being used as mobile artillery pieces in support of infantry. Most vehicles did not even reach the enemy lines and were lost in the open. By July 11th, the Republican offensive was at a standstill and armor losses were major. With reinforcements from the north, the Nationalists launched a counteroffensive on July 18th, which also soon ran out of steam. A new offensive with much more limited objectives was able to recapture Brunete for the Nationalists between July 24th and 26th. The battle was inconclusive, as the Republicans had captured some territory and slowed down the Nationalist advance on Santander, but, overall, they had failed to achieve an overwhelming victory and had much higher casualties and losses, especially regarding aircraft, than the Nationalists. The limitations of the tactical usage of armored vehicles as mobile artillery and infantry support were especially highlighted in Brunete.
One of the many destroyed Republican vehicles at the Battle of Brunete, this knocked-out Blindado tipo ZIS is inspected by Nationalist forces. Note the red star painted on the left mudguard. Also note the KhPZ Komintern artillery tractor in the background of the first picture – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 202
Zaragoza Offensive and Battle of Teruel
It is likely that the Blindados tipo ZIS saw action during the August-September 1937 Zaragoza Offensive, but there are no known testimonies or photographs. However, their involvement in the Battle of Teruel, popularly known as ‘the Spanish Stalingrad’, is well documented.
After the loss of Asturias, the last Republican position in the north, and in the hope of preventing the planned Nationalist offensive on Guadalajara and Madrid, the Republican military authorities planned an attack on the city of Teruel. To do so, they amassed a significant force, the Ejército de Levante, which was expected to easily topple the weak Nationalist forces at the Frente de Aragón.
Blindado tipo ZIS at the Frente de Teruel in December 1937. Notice that the machine guns have been covered in a protective coat to shield them from the frigid temperatures – source: Mortera Pérez (2011), pp. 139Two Blindados tipo ZIS in one of the many villages near Teruel in December 1937 – source: Mortera Pérez (2011), pp. 140
Republican forces were divided into 3 columns: north, center, and south. The central column, or the XX Cuerpo de Ejército [Eng. XX Army Corp], was under the command of Colonel Ledopoldo Menéndez López and was composed of the 40.ª and 68.ª infantry divisions, a regiment of ‘heavy’ tanks made up of a depleted force of Soviet BT-5s, two artillery groups, and an armored cavalry squadron with a dozen Blindado tipos ZIS. Starting from Mora de Rubielos, the offensive would begin on the night of December 15th with elements of the central column reaching the towns outside Teruel on the 17th and the outskirts of the city itself the following day. On the 19th, Republican forces would break through most of the Nationalist defensive perimeter in Teruel but the resistance was proving to be much tougher than expected. On that same day, Nationalist General Francisco Franco decided to send reinforcements to the besieged city.
On December 22nd, the 40.ª Division, supported by Blindados tipo ZIS, broke into the center of Teruel and would take part in bloody street-to-street combat for the whole evening.
Rear shot of a Blindado tipo ZIS inside Teruel on December 22nd 1937 – source: Mortera Pérez (2011), pp. 142
Further shots of a Blindado in Teruel after it was captured by Republican forces on December 22nd, 1937. This particular vehicle was not on a ZIS chassis, as it has right-hand side drive, indicating it was based on a British-made truck – source: Mortera Pérez (2011), pp. 145
After the capture of Teruel by Republican forces and before the impending Nationalist counterattack, French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson recorded a Blindado tipo ZIS for his pro-Republican film documentary Victoire de la vie, which provides many images of the vehicle. The Hungarian photographer Endre Ernő Friedmann, aka ‘Robert Capa’, was also present in Teruel at this time. This may be the reason why there are so many surviving pictures of the Blindado tipo ZIS in Republican service for the Battle of Teruel. Most other pictures of the Blindado tipo ZIS in other theatres of the conflict are in Nationalist service or showing them knocked-out or being towed to Nationalist lines.
Stills from Henri Cartier-Bresson’s pro-Republican film documentary Victoire de la vie show a Blindado tipo ZIS running through the streets of Teruel. Despite the sub-zero temperatures, the side doors and engine hatches are open, perhaps indicating that the Blindados tipo ZIS suffered from engine overheating. These stills also provide us some indication as to what color schemes and camouflage would have been used. A dark olive green color similar to the Soviet 3B would have been the base, with a lighter green being the secondary color and the shapes on the turret, rear of the vehicle, and behind the door, could have been a shade of brown – source: Mortera Pérez (2011), pp. 146
By December 29th, there were enough reinforcements for the Nationalists to carry out their counterattack. By the 31st, they advanced to the outskirts of Teruel themselves and the units originally assigned to the central column began to abandon the city they had fought so hard to occupy before the situation was controlled and they returned to their positions at the end of the day, with the Blindados tipo ZIS occupying the center of the city.
The front would stabilize for two and a half weeks until the Nationalists launched a major attack on January 17th, 1938, which was followed by Republican counterattacks the next two days and a major attack on the 25th. These would fail at a very high cost in tanks and personnel, and by the end of the month and beginning of February, the Nationalists had the initiative again. With the situation nearing criticality, Republican forces planned a major attack on the small town of Vivel del Río, north of Teruel, roughly halfway to Zaragoza. The attack of February 15th was able to count on three infantry divisions, three T-26 tank companies, and the Blindado tipo ZIS company, and was initially successful before receiving a Nationalist counterattack. However, this attack was poorly timed, as it took a considerable force away from Teruel, which the Nationalists were about to attack and try to re-occupy. Once the attack on Teruel proper began, some of the forces employed on the attack on Vivel del Río, alongside reinforcements, were dispatched south. These consisted of three infantry brigades, three T-26 tank companies, one BT-5 tank company and 2 Blindado tipo ZIS sections. The advance through the rocky and hilly countryside north of Teruel was met with fierce resistance from Nationalist anti-tank cannons, aircraft, and their own tanks, captured T-26s and Panzer Is. These actions on February 21st saw the loss of four T-26s and three BT-5s. Teruel would fall back into Nationalist hands between February 22nd and 23rd, bringing the battle to an end.
The Aragón Offensive and the Rush to the Sea
With momentum on their side and the majority of units already in the region, the Nationalists decided to abandon plans to strike Madrid and attack the tired and depleted forces in Aragón. The attack began on March 9th, with the Nationalists capturing town after town over the following few days and the Republican defenders, many young and inexperienced, retreating in disarray. Among the Republican reinforcements were a number of Blindados tipo ZIS. The Blindados tipo ZIS fought on the front north of the River Ebro.
Among the first reinforcements for the Republican forces were the Blindados tipo ZIS aggregated to the 16.ª División – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 13
The offensive cut through the Republican defense like a knife through butter and, by the end of March and beginning of April 1937, Nationalist forces began capturing towns in Catalonia. The advancing forces captured a multitude of Republican vehicles, which they quickly pressed into service, including a number of Blindados tipo ZIS. One of these may have been captured by the Corpo Truppe Volontarie (C.T.V.) in very early April in Gandesa, but the company’s reports are far from conclusive.
A knocked-out Blindado tipo ZIS (see the prominent hole in the rear of the hull, most likely caused by an anti-tank cannon) with Nationalist soldiers posing on it. Notice the soldier inside the vehicle posing through the hole – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 14
At this point, what seemed the logical step for the Nationalist forces was to press on with the attack on Barcelona, but Franco, fearful that this attack would encourage France to join the war on the Republican side, surprised his generals by ordering them to turn south and advance on Castellón and Valencia, the Republican capital. By mid-April, the Republican forces were offering no resistance and on the 15th, Nationalist troops reached the Mediterranean coast, cutting the Republican territory in two.
Two shots of abandoned Blindados tipo ZIS encountered by Nationalist forces during the Aragón Offensive. As per usual, the machine guns were removed to avoid their capture. The presence of many other vehicles could suggest that the Blindados tipo ZIS were moved from where they were found by Nationalist forces to a depot of captured vehicles – Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 24
Balaguer Offensive
Whilst the Nationalist troops advanced on Castellón and to counter the territorial losses over the previous months, Republican command planned an offensive on the Nationalist positions along the River Segre and Lleida. The initial main objective was to capture the bridges over the Segre at Tremp and Balaguer. Whilst the Republican offensive on the Segre has often been forgotten in historical accounts of the Spanish Civil War, the Republican forces for this attack were larger in number than those at Brunete or Teruel and included around 150 armored vehicles, including some Blindados tipo ZIS. The offensive began on May 22nd, but due to poor tactics, Republican forces were unable to fully defeat the stretched and vulnerable Nationalist forces. On the 24th, Republican forces captured Tremp, though Nationalist forces would try to retake it. On the 26th, the Republicans made one last attempt to capture Balaguer and lost some armor on the road between Bellcaire and La Rápita. Overall, short of capturing some territory, the offensive was a failure with a high cost in men and materiel.
A knocked out Blindado tipo ZIS on the Bellcaire-La Rápita road at the end of May 1938 – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 54
Levante Offensive
As soon as the Aragón Offensive was over, Franco launched his offensive south on Castellón and Valencia, which would soon become known as the Levante Offensive. The defense presented by the newly reformed Republican Grupo de Ejércitos de la Región Central (G.E.R.C.) [English: Army Groups of the Central Region] proved to be superior to what was anticipated, and by April 25th, the second day of the offensive, Nationalist forces were halted. The Nationalists pushed on, but had to stop every couple of days, as the rocky and mountainous terrain favored the defenders, who had dug well-defended trenches along the route.
By the beginning of June, the Nationalist advance had overcome the rocky and mountainous terrain and had their eyes set on Castellón de la Plana. Defending Castellón was the Agrupación Toral, with 8 BT-5s, 14 T-26s, and 34 other armored vehicles, among which were a number of Blindados tipo ZIS. This grouping saw action towards the end of May and the beginning of June around the town of Ares del Maestre. During the first two weeks of June, they continued to see action as they fell back on Castellón, potentially engaging enemy forces on the 10th near La Pelechaneta and La Barona. On June 11th, a force of 17 Republican armored vehicles, most likely including some Blindados tipo ZIS, tried to attack Nationalist forces between Villafamés and La Pobla Tornesa, which had captured a number of Republican artillery pieces. Whilst the attack was unsuccessful and was repulsed with anti-tank cannon fire, the Nationalist forces were forced to destroy the captured equipment. By June 12th, Nationalist forces began to occupy parts of Castellón, which was defended by a contingent that included around 30 armored vehicles. Castellón would fall to Nationalist forces on June 14th, though Republican armor would try to recapture it with an offensive on Villarreal, a town just south of Castellón.
Knocked out Blindados tipo ZIS outside Castellón, June 1938 – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 40
Once Castellón had fallen, Nationalist command set course on the offensive’s prime objective, the Republic’s capital, Valencia. The advance, which was launched from the south of Teruel through very rocky and mountainous terrain, was halted several times by repeated Republican counterattacks with armor. Towards mid-July, Nationalist forces reached the last major defensive position before Valencia, the XYZ Line. Between July 18th and 23rd, Nationalist forces failed in their repeated attempts to break the defensive line, suffering many casualties. However, by the 24th, with news of a major Republican offensive on the Ebro, troops were pulled out to counter this new major threat. Valencia had been saved.
Two Blindados captured by the Nationalists during their advance on Valencia. The lack of camouflage and the fitting behind the engine hatch may suggest that these were later models not on a ZIS chassis, which had been sent straight from the factories in Valencia or Alicante – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 46
Andalucía and Extremadura Summer 1938
The southern front in Andalucía had remained quiet after the first year of the war and the capture of Málaga by Nationalist forces in early 1937. Nevertheless, in the late spring-early summer of 1938, a Nationalist offensive was launched to close a defensive pocket in the province of Córdoba. Given the relative lack of importance of this front, the armor available for either side was second-rate, with the Nationalists mainly using captured equipment and the Republican forces relying on Blindados tipo ZIS aggregated to the 2.ª Brigada de Ingenios Blindados.
Two Republican Blindados tipo ZIS advance through a mountain road in Andalucía in 1938 – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 236
Throughout June 1938, the Nationalist forces broke the front and advanced, securing several objectives. At the end of June, Republican reinforcements were sent from other fronts to mount a counterattack. The fighting would extend for another few weeks, but without any major breakthroughs.
After some weeks with no major fighting, on July 20th, 1938, the Nationalists launched an offensive to capture the La Serena pocket near Badajoz. Between July 23rd and 24th, with the Nationalist capture of the towns of Castuera and Campanario, the Republican 37.ª División was almost completely enveloped. There was also the 3ª Compañía of the 2.ª Brigada de Ingenios Blindados equipped with at least 10 Blindados tipo ZIS in the same pocket. Fearing they would be totally surrounded, they requested permission to retreat to Puebla de Alcocer, but this was rejected by Major De Blas, who instead ordered them to attack, threatening to shoot the company’s commander for insubordination. The attack was an absolute disaster, with the 1st and 3rd sections of the 3ª Compañía losing nine Blindados tipo ZIS, which were either knocked out or abandoned, and 12 crew members. The one surviving Blindado tipo ZIS of the 3ª Compañía, No. 27, had been previously sent away for repairs and thus survived the bloodbath.
Battle of the Ebro and the Catalan Offensive
There is scant information regarding the deployment and usage of Blindados tipo ZIS during the Ebro Offensive of the summer of 1938. Even so, given the high number of these vehicles present in the subsequent Catalan Offensive, they were undoubtedly present, even if only used in reserve. The Ebro Offensive was meant to be a massive Republican assault across the River Ebro, an ‘all-or-nothing’ scenario with which Juan Negrín, the President of the Republican Government, hoped to convince France and Britain to intervene as a prelude to the imminent European conflict with Hitler’s Germany. Whilst initially successful, logistical issues and a ferocious Nationalist defense halted the offensive in early August. The Nationalists counterattacked throughout the following two months and pushed back to the original lines before the battle in mid-November 1937. The remaining Republican forces were tired, ill-equipped, and lacked experience. Furthermore, the results of the Munich Accords in late September sealed the fate of the Republic by putting an end to any hope of French or British intervention.
With the momentum from the Battle of the Ebro, Franco set his sights on Barcelona. On December 23rd, 1938, the Nationalist offensive on Catalonia began with the crossing of the Segre River. Initially, the weather and a courageous Republican defense held up the advance, but by the end of the first week of January 1939, the Republican line began to crumble. With the materiel losses in the Aragón and Ebro offensives, the 1.ª División de Ingenios Blindados of the Republican forces of the Grupo de Ejércitos de la Región Oriental (GERO) [Eng. Army Groups of the Eastern Region] consisted of a limited number of armored vehicles. According to Ramón Salas, author of Historia del Ejército Popular de la República, these consisted of 63 autoametralladoras (Blindados tipo ZIS and domestically produced machine gun-armed armored cars from Catalan factories, such as the Torras or Hispano-Suiza 3TS), 27 autoametralladoras-cañón (Blindados B.C. and possibly BA-6s) and 90 carros de combate (T-26s and BT-5s). A more conservative estimate from J. M. Martínez Bande (La Campaña de Cataluña) places the number at 40 tanques (T-26s and BT-5s) and 80 blindados (Blindados tipo ZIS, Blindados B.C. and other armored cars). Given the chaotic state the Republic was in, very little is known of the use of their forces in Catalonia at this time.
The Republican crew of a Blindado tipo ZIS – missing the frontal machine gun – surrendering during the early weeks of the Catalan Offensive – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 103
Following the breaking of the front in early to mid-January 1939, Republican forces, seriously lacking ammunition and equipment and very low on morale, were unable to offer any kind of resistance, and Nationalist forces spent the following month occupying the whole of Catalonia. On January 15th, a Nationalist dispatch stated that, up to that point of the campaign, 33 tanks and 11 armored cars had been captured, including without doubt a number of Blindados tipo ZIS. Over the following weeks, more vehicles would be captured.
Nationalist troops encounter an abandoned Blindado tipo ZIS on the side of a road somewhere in Catalonia January-February 1939 – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 119
On January 14th, Tarragona fell, sending the whole of the region into chaos. As a result, civilians and military personnel headed north towards the French border to escape Franco’s forces. A week and a half later, on the 25th, the Nationalist forces began occupying the surrounding areas of Barcelona, marching into the semi-abandoned city the following day, encountering no resistance.
A sabotaged Blindado tipo ZIS abandoned during the flight from Barcelona to prevent it from falling into Nationalist hands. The remains of the vehicle are pictured outside the Gran Garage Universal on the corner of Albareda and Carreras streets. Notice the other sabotaged cars behind the Blindado – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 123
On the night of January 27th, 1939, France opened the border with Spain, allowing thousands of Republican refugees, civilians, and military personnel, to cross into France. Among these were the remaining armored vehicles in Catalonia, most numerous of which were the Blindados tipo ZIS and Blindados B.C.. All the vehicles that crossed the border were interned by French authorities. It is estimated that at least 22 Blindados tipo ZIS crossed into France in late January early February 1939. Due to the massive bottleneck to enter France, many vehicles were abandoned and captured by the pursuing Nationalists. On February 8th, Figueres, the last major town before the French border, fell, with Nationalist troops reaching the border two days later. On the 11th, Llivia, a Catalan town surrounded entirely by France, was taken by Franco’s forces, putting an end to the Catalonia Offensive.
The defeated. Two Republican soldiers, with a Blindado tipo ZIS in the background, head towards the French border. Note that the Blindado has its turret facing backward in the sign of surrender – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 125A column of 3 Blindados tipo ZIS and a Blindado Modelo B.C. (bringing up the rear) on La Junquera road, awaiting authorization to enter French territory – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 128A Blindado with its turret facing backward shortly after crossing the border into France. Notice that this vehicle had the right-hand drive and was thus built on a British truck chassis – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 128
Battle of Valsequillo/Peñarroya
On the morning of January 5th, 1939, whilst Catalonia was falling, the Republic launched its last offensive of the war in the Peñarroya sector in Córdoba. A large army of soldiers and armored vehicles (including Blindados tipo ZIS) was assembled for this operation, and after three days, 500 km2 of territory, the most extensive of the war, had been captured. After a few days, the Nationalist defense and the downpour of rain slowed the Republican offensive to a halt. On January 24th, after hurrying in numerous reinforcements, the Nationalists counterattacked, making use of a number of Blindados tipo ZIS of the Escuadrón de Blindados of the Ejército del Sur. The counterattack finished on February 4th, with the Nationalists pushing back to almost the original frontline at the beginning of the battle and destroying or capturing many Republican vehicles.
By the final stages of the war, the Nationalists had as much Republican armor as the Republic itself. Here, a T-26 tows a Blindado tipo ZIS which has fallen off the road. These vehicles were most likely reinforcements from the Escuadrón de Blindados of the Ejército del Sur to counter the Republican offensive in Córdoba in January 1939 – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 244
The Blindado tipo ZIS in Nationalist service
Throughout the war, the Nationalists made good use of captured Republican vehicles, with the Blindado tipo ZIS no exception. The first Blindados tipo ZIS captured were taken at Chimillas (Huesca) in June 1937, with potentially more falling at Brunete and Teruel later that year. Whilst some were used in the Aragón front, as with many of the second-rate captured equipment, they were sent south to Sevilla. Sevilla was the major repair and workshop facility for the Nationalists during the war. The armor used by the Nationalist Ejército del Sur in the Andalucía front was mainly captured equipment. These saw service at the Battle of Valsequillo/Peñarroya and during the final offensive.
Towards the end of the war, the Agrupación de Carros de Combate [Eng. Fighting Vehicles Grouping] of the Ejército Sur under the command of Miguel Cabanellas Torres was mainly composed of Blindados tipo ZIS. The grouping was composed of two groups with three squadrons each. Two squadrons were ‘light’, with 8 Blindados ZIS and 2 FAIs each. The other squadron of each group was ‘heavy’, with 8 BA-6s and 2 FAIs. This was a total of 32 Blindados tipo ZIS in the Agrupación. This unit took part in the military victory parades in Sevilla (April 17th 1939) and Valencia (May 5th 1939).
Whilst unconfirmed, it can be assumed that the Blindados tipo ZIS continued to be used to different degrees by Franco’s forces after victory in the civil war. The most likely destination would have been the Spanish protectorate in Morocco or even Spanish (Equatorial) Guinea for colonial duty. The ones that remained would have been scrapped when more modern American equipment started arriving in the mid-50s.
A Blindado tipo ZIS which has been captured by Nationalist forces and has been assigned to Escuadrón de Autoametralladoras-cañón de Caballería [Eng. Cavalry Squadron of gun-armed Armored cars] of the Ejército del Sur. Notice that the forward-facing DT machine gun has been removed and the position sealed, the red-yellow flag painted on the front of the turret, and what seems to be a black and white aerial identification marking, though it is impossible to tell if it is a Cross of Saint Andrew. The vehicle seems to be towing a trailer or cannon. Some sources have misidentified this as a second rear wheel and incorrectly state that the vehicle is a Blindado B.C. – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 219Three Blindados tipo ZIS of the Escuadrón de Blindados of the Nationalist Ejército del Sur. In the rear, still on its transport wheels, a T-26. The vehicle furthest to the left is an unidentified vehicle. Artemio Mortera Pérez has speculated that it is an early pre-standardization Blindado tipo ZIS, though it could also be a completely unrelated vehicle. The turret is almost certainly a FAI turret, and it is currently unknown if the vehicle was designed like that or if the chassis and the turret were mated by the Nationalists – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 240
A congregation of all the vehicles (minus the Panzer Is) of the Agrupación de Carros de Combate of the Ejército del Sur at the Estadio de la Exposición (modern day Estadio Benito Villamarín) before the victory parade in Seville on April 17th 1939. Pictured are 4 FAIs, 8 BA-6s, 15 (though most likely 16) Blindados tipo ZIS and a large number of T-26s. Additionally, the vehicles at the back of the second picture are most probably more Blindados tipo ZIS. All of these vehicles were of course captured, a testament to the Nationalists’ reliance on captured materiel, especially at the least important fronts – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 253A group of requetes (Carlist militias) pose alongside a captured Blidado tipo ZIS of the Ejército Sur. Note the black St. Andrew’s cross painted on a white background on top of the vehicle – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 257Blindados tipo ZIS and B.C. in what seems as a post-Civil War parade. Notice the darker colors of the vehicle’s camouflage and the white on the tires which are not present in Civil War eras photos. Additionally, the vehicles have number plates and unit or regimental markings on the side of the turret and behind the door – source: Defensa
Blindado tipo ZIS of the Corpo Truppe Volontarie (C.T.V.)
During their push through Aragón, Catalonia and Castellón throughout 1938 and the early parts of 1939, the C.T.V. came across plentiful abandoned or knocked out Republican armor. As the Nationalist forces they were fighting alongside, they did not waste any chance to incorporate these vehicles into the Raggruppamento Carristi [English. Tank Grouping]. This was done out of sheer necessity, too. The Lancia 1ZMs were not just a few in number but also unreliable. Designed during the Great War, by the mid-30s, they were showing their obsolescence and performed poorly. Their main shortcoming was their limited off-road driving, which, with the lackluster road network in Spain, was a major problem. For reconnaissance duties, the C.T.V. used captured BA-6s, Blindados tipo ZIS, and Blindados B.C.. These were put together in an armored car grouping attached to the Raggruppamento Carristi and saw service on the Aragón, Levante and Catalan offensives and possibly at the Battle of the Ebro. It is known that one BA-6 was transported to Italy for tests, but the most likely outcome for the rest of the C.T.V.’s captured armor, including the Blindados tipo ZIS, was that they were passed on to Franco’s forces.
A Blindado tipo ZIS of the C.T.V. during the Catalonia Offensive, circa January 1939 – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 111A Blindado tipo ZIS – followed by a Blindado B.C. – belonging to a C.T.V. column in Catalonia in January or February 1939 – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 116A C.T.V. column during a stop in a village in Catalonia during either the Aragón or Catalonia offensive. Pictured are two Blindados tipo ZIS, a Blindado B.C., a Lancia 1ZM and a Lancia 1Z with two turrets – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 116
From the frying pan into the fire – The Ford in French service
With the flight from Catalonia in early 1939, many vehicles crossed the border into France and were subsequently interned, among them, several Blindados tipo ZIS.
Twenty-two of these, which may have been all the vehicles seized, were given to the Ministère des Colonies [Eng: Ministry of Colonies] in April 1939, suggesting the blindado may have been considered for colonial service. In French sources, the vehicle is referred to as ‘Ford’, regardless of what chassis was used. There is photographic evidence that at least one of the vehicles that crossed the border into France in late January 1939 was built on a British chassis, as it had right-hand drive. What happened to the vehicles later is unclear, with reports of some having been used in the campaign of France and later captured and pressed into service with the Wehrmacht, though no photographic evidence appears to support such suggestions. These claims may be confusing the Blindado tipo ZIS with the Blindado B.C., which was used in combat by France and then used by Germany on the Eastern Front. All known photos of Blindados tipo ZIS in France show them in storage, suggesting they were never sent to the colonies.
At least five ‘Fords’ in French storage, 1939 – Source: Vauvillier, p. 116
Replicas
No Blindados tipo ZIS survived the conflict, but some replicas have been made since. One with a running engine sits at the Museo de los Medios Acorazados (MUMA) [Eng. Museum of Armored Vehicles] at the El Goloso military base, north of Madrid. Housed in the Spanish Civil War section, it sits between a T-26 in Nationalist colors and an Opel Blitz truck.
At least two (though possibly just the one) other replicas exist which are used for military reenactments, exhibitions and films. However, one, possibly yet another replica, is currently listed for sale on Milanuncios (a popular website for online classified advertisements in Spain).
A collection of pictures of the Blindado tipo ZIS replicas as posted on the Atrezzo website, a company specialised in providing historical vehicles and weapons for films, TV shows, adverts, etcetera – source: Soldier Satrazzo
Conclusion
All things considered, the Blindado tipo ZIS was a remarkable achievement for the inexperienced and often disjoint Republican workforce. Whilst the design and production of the vehicle would have been impossible without Soviet assistance, the armored car was a considerable improvement on what was available. Its widespread use on almost all fronts by Republican, Nationalists, and C.T.V. forces is testament to the vehicle. However, Spain’s most produced armored vehicle until the AMX-30E in the 1970s and the Pegaso 3560 Blindado Medio sobre Ruedas (BMR) in the 1980s is little known in the wider AFV community. Its role in the Spanish Civil War is often overshadowed by Soviet, Italian, and German vehicles and even the heavier Blindado modelo B.C. which went on to see service during the Second World War in French and German hands.
Pre-production Blindado, sometimes known as UNL II, as pictured outside the Unión Naval de Levante factory and in a Madrid workshopBlindado armed with Maxim machine guns as pictured outside Fábrica N22 where it was builtBlindado with camouflage pattern as seen in Barcelona, Chimillas and Castellón between May 1937 and 1938. This was the main camouflage scheme on Republican BlindadosBlindado as seen at the Battle of Brunete in July 1937Rare Republican camouflage pattern believed to have been used somewhere in Madrid, Castilla La Mancha or Andalucía. The camouflage was meant to resemble the vast areas of olive groves in these regionsBlindado of the Escuadrón de Blindados of the Nationalist Ejército del Sur during the victory parade in Sevilla on April 17th 1939A Nationalist Blindado based on the one in a picture with Carlist requetes. All illustrations by Pavel ‘Carpaticus’ Alexe
Blindado tipo ZIS specifications
Dimensions (L-w-h)
3.87 x 1.90 x 2.39 m
Total weight, battle ready
2.3 tonnes
Crew
3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Propulsion
6 cylinder ZIS engine 73 hp
Speed (road)
55 km/h
Range
230 km
Armament
2 x DT 7.62 mm machine gun (or Maxim–Tokarev machine guns)
Armor
8 mm
Total production
~160
Bibliography
Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española Teatro de Operaciones de Andalucía y Centro 36/39 (Valladolid: Alcañiz Fresno’s editores, 2009)
Francisco Marín Gutiérrez & José María Mata Duaso, Los Medios Blindados de Ruedas en España. Un Siglo de Historia (Vol. I) (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 2002)
Blindado tipo ZIS destined for the Ejército de Andalucía of the Ejército Popular de la República on board a flat truck – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 183Blindado tipo ZIS with its crew somewhere in Andalucía – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 183Austrian International Brigadiers under the command of Sepp Mittermaier posing in front of their Blindados tipo ZIS – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 225 A column of at least six Blindados tipo ZIS in Andalucía in 1938 – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 236Blindados tipo ZIS knocked out outside of Castellón in June 1938 – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 41Condor Legion personnel inspect a knocked out Blindado tipo ZIS as the approach Castellón, June 1938 – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 42Several captured Blindados tipo ZIS now fighting for the nationalist cause mounted on flat trucks – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 247Captured Blindados tipo ZIS and BA-6s at Las Quemadas (Córdoba), the group’s headquarters – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 253Several Blindados tipo ZIS of the Escuadrón de Blindados of the Nationalist Ejército del Sur during the victory parade in Sevilla on April 17th 1939. Note that a red-yellow Spanish flag has been painted across the front – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 241A Blindado tipo ZIS captured by the Nationalist being prepared to be put on a flat truck to be transported elsewhere – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 247Blurry picture of a Blindado tipo ZIS being used by the C.T.V. in the Mediterranean town of Benicarló in mid-April 1937 – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 28The rear of two Blindados tipo ZIS of the C.T.V. during a military parade celebrating the second year of the Nationalist uprising in the Plaza del Castillo in Pamplona (Navarra), October 31st 1938 – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 86C.T.V. servicing an abandoned Blindado tipo ZIS to join its ranks alongside the two Lancia 1ZMs – source: Mortera Pérez (2011a), p. 119A very rare camouflage on this C.T.V. Blindado. Note the white tires. Also note the text: “Flechas Negra! Agredir Para Vencer” [Eng. Black Arrows! Attack To Win”] – source: DogsWar
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Kingdom of Spain (1921-1931)
A column of at least six Blindados tipo ZIS in Andalucía in 1938 – source: Mortera Pérez (2009), p. 236
