Category: Cold War Spanish Prototypes

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.

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.

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.

VBTT-E4

Almost nothing is known about Internacional de Comercio y Tránsito S.A. (INCOTSA) [Eng. Commerce and Transit International Limited Company], the company that designed the VBTT-E4. They may have also previously been involved in the design of the unsuccessful Vehículo Blindado de Combate de Infantería VBCI-E General Yagüe, an armored personnel carrier/infantry fighting vehicle, and the Vehículo Blindado de Reconocimiento de Caballería VBRC-1E General Monasterio, a cavalry reconnaissance vehicle.

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.

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.

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.

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

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”

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.

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.

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.

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].

Crew and Dismounts

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

Octavio Díez Cámara, “BMR V-001, cincuenta años del blindado 6×6 del Ejército de Tierra: ¿llegará el BMR 2 español?”, Defensa.com (15 April 2023) https://www.defensa.com/espana/bmr-v-001-cincuenta-anos-blindado-6×6-ejercito-tierra-llegara-2

Spanish State (Late 1960s/Early 1970s)
Armored Personnel Carrier – Paper Design

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The BMR-600

The VBTT-E4 proved unsuccessful, but, less than a decade later, work began on what would eventually lead up to the BMR-600, or Blindado Medio sobre Ruedas. The BMR-600 would be larger, better armored, and six-wheeled.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

MACOSA

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 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.

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.

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

Appearance and Dimensions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Conclusion

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.

VBRC-1E Specifications
Length (m)	4.75
Width (m)	2.5
Height (m)	2.12
Weight (tonnes)	9
Armor (mm)	10
Engine horsepower (hp)	352
Speed (km/h)	70
Range (km)	?
Crew	3
Main armament	20 mm autocannon
Secondary armament	None

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)
R. P. Hunnicutt Bradley, A History Of American Fighting and Support Vehicles (Novato: Presidio Press, 1999)

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.

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.

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.

The VBCI-E’s Design

Appearance and Dimensions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)
R. P. Hunnicutt, Bradley, A History Of American Fighting and Support Vehicles (Novato: Presidio Press, 1999)