Category: Fake Tanks

Twin-Turret BT Tank “BT-4” or “BT-VT” (Fake Tank)

Post author By Christopher Janusas
Post date July 5, 2023
No Comments on Twin-Turret BT Tank “BT-4” or “BT-VT” (Fake Tank)

BT-4. Illustration by Pavel Alexe.

Soviet Union (1932)
Light Tank – Fake

Multi-Turreted Madness: The “BT-4” or “BT-VT”

Multi-turreted tanks and Interwar tank development are subjects that go hand in hand. Armored vehicles of the era, both large and small, often sported multiple armaments in multiple turrets. It would seem quite surprising, then, that a multi-turreted variant of the mass-produced Soviet BT “fast tank” was never created.

A “BT-4” in a column. Source: https://fox3000.com/BT.htm

Floating around the internet are images and diagrams purporting that such a tank was, at the very least, built as a prototype. The images are of relatively decent quality, and a few websites recite design figures for the vehicle. The question is: Did the so-called “BT-4” really exist?

The Straight Answer: No, the “BT-4” Did Not Exist

The twin turreted “BT-4” did not exist. The few websites that mention its existence regurgitate the same information first seen in an April 2002 edition of a Russian magazine, and all of the photos provided as proof have subsequently been proven to be doctored. In reality, the BT-4 designation was sparingly used for an allegedly limited run of three tanks from the Kharkov Factory that were built with welded hulls in 1932. The order was apparently not even officially sanctioned by the Soviet Union. The tanks did not have twin-turrets; they had a single turret layout, as did every other BT variant. There are no serious sources that ever claim that a twin turreted BT tank was ever designed or built. This raises the next question: could the BT tanks have even supported the installation of twin-turrets? This article will reveal the components that could have been used to fabricate this armored vehicle if it had been real, as well as shed light on whether it was even possible to install multiple turrets on the BT series of vehicles.

The original photograph of a BT-2 featured on the top-left betrays the authenticity of the edited photo. Every photo of the multi-turreted BT tank has been proven false. Source: https://fox3000.com/BT.htm

The “Source” of the Twin Turret BT or BT-VT:

As stated, the first “source” purporting the existence of a multi-turreted BT tank was the April 2002 No. 2 issue of the Russian publication “Polygon”. The article was allegedly amended later to rectify its false claims, admitting that it was intended as an April Fools joke, and that readers should not be so gullible. This apparently was not, however, before further attempts to validate the magazine’s bogus claim were published. The article addresses the naysayers, admitting that the BT-4 was indeed not a multi-turreted BT, but rather that the official designation was known as the “BT-VT” (the “VT” allegedly comes from the name of a division within the design bureau).
This excerpt from the April 2002 “Polygon” article claims the following about the name and origin of the twin-turreted BT tank (translated from Russian):

My father-in-law’s father, Vladimir Volfovich Durnygin, during the early 1930s, got a job at the Kharkov Tank Plant (KhTZ) in the Special Design Bureau No. 6 (SKB-6). You will hardly find information about this design bureau in open literature, because its personnel were assembled from designers who were sentenced to different terms as enemies of the people in the Industrial Party case in 1929. And so SKB-6 had a two-letter index “VT” in brackets – an internal prison.
SKB-6 (VT) was led by a former military engineer of the first rank A.A. Morozenkov, who, judging by the notes of his father-in-law, was the author and developer of the two-turret version of the BT tank, as well as many other more famous Soviet tanks.

And I want to emphasize once again for today’s authors that write about BT tanks that there was a double-turret tank! And at the same time, I want to confirm that it has nothing to do with the BT-4 tank. They are absolutely right that the BT-4 was supposed to carry one turret. The tank in question appeared even before the start of production of serial BT-2s. According to the notes of Vladimir Volfovich, it turns out that this tank was created to a certain extent by accident.

A clear sign that the article is not based in reality was the claim that the tanks were also to be fitted with wings, meant to be towed behind bombers:

The former engine builder V.D. was engaged in adjusting the mechanisms. Gorlopanov also managed to switch the power of the tank from gasoline to kerosene, moreover, with a slight increase in power. Former engineer Lgunov even developed folding wings for the tank, which made it possible to tow it behind a bomber on a trailer. But these wings were not made, since they required a very scarce metal – duralumin.

Further argued are the extensive modifications required to create the tank:

I had to hastily make completely new roofs of the tank hull on the spot. I also had to change the location of the suspension arms so that they do not interfere with the rotation of the turrets. The first tank was assembled on October 1, 1931 and, under the control of the former engineer Khapugin, made a test trip around the Kharkov Tank Plant.

The full article can be seen here.

Soviet Parts Bin: The Basis of the “BT-4”’s Design

A Brief History of the BT:

The fake twin-turret BT, as the name implies, is based off of the hull of a “Bystrokhodnyy Tank” or “fast moving tank”, specifically an early model BT, such as the BT-2, BT-3, or BT-5.

The earlier BT models, such as this BT-2, had a different frontal hull shape compared to later models. Source: https://www.warlordgames.com/profile-evolution-of-the-soviet-bt-tank/

The BT series of tanks had quite the origin story, with their designs originating in the United States. Engineer J. Walter Christie, known for his work on race cars, had designed a few tanks for the U.S. Army. His model M1928 had some impressive capabilities for the time; it could run on tracks or wheels, its mobility was good for the period, and its top speed was stellar.

The apparent capabilities of Christie’s M1928 impressed many during testing. The similarities to the BT series are more than apparent. Source: https://twitter.com/yoshi96365617/status/1382420690842755072

A key design factor that contributed to its good performance was its suspension. Known today as the “Christie Suspension”, the design was actually rather straightforward. Large coil spring and shock absorber assemblies were individually mounted to each suspension arm, connecting to large road-wheels. This setup is not much different from how a coil/shock system functions in a car. These springs do end up taking up a lot of internal space within the hull sides of the tank.

This diagram shows the basic internal layout of the Christie suspension. Source: https://en.topwar.ru/90994-proekt-dvuhbashennogo-tanka-bt-byl-i-nebyl.html

Contrary to popular belief, Christie’s designs were not refused by the U.S. Army due to poor relations between the stubborn engineer and the powers that be. The military actually bought the rights to his designs, and tested them thoroughly, but in the end decided to go in another direction for a multitude of reasons that are beyond the scope of this article. Other countries, however, were also keenly interested in the suspension design and Christie’s tanks. Among them were Great Britain and the USSR, both of whom would purchase tanks from Christie himself, although both countries would complain that Christie never sent them all the components they paid for. Nonetheless, “BT” tanks began to appear which were very similar to Christie’s designs but with some significant modifications for Soviet use.

A Brief History of the T-26:

Also of international origin was the T-26, based off of the Vickers 6-ton. The Vickers tank was very popular as an export model, with many variants being sold to countless countries during the interwar period. Of these variants, a twin-turret model also existed. The Soviets produced a few variants of the twin-turreted T-26 starting in 1931, the turrets of which appear to also be mounted on the “BT-4”.

This T-26 is a twin-turret variant mounting the 37 mm B-3 cannon in one of the turrets. Source: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/T-26_1.htm

The turrets found on the multi-turreted T-26 are similar in design to many other small turrets found on subsequent Soviet tanks, such as the T-28 and T-35. Some twin-turreted T-26 variants housed small cannons, while others carried only machine guns.

This T-26 only has machine guns. Source: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/T-26_1.htm

Furthermore, it would appear as though multiple turret types lifted from the twin-turreted T-26 were used in the creation of the “BT-4”.

Allegedly captured “BT-4” tanks. Source: https://henk.fox3000.com/BT.htm

Why a Twin-Turret BT?

The role of a twin-turret BT tank may not be as ludicrous as it seems. Having two turrets that can acquire targets separately was seen as a viable design choice by many nations throughout the interwar period and even into World War 2. Although America had dropped Christie’s designs, it would develop speedy twin-turreted light tanks in the 1930s, in the form of the M2A2/M2A3 series.

A “BT-4” on parade. Source: https://henk.fox3000.com/BT.htm

A fast light tank, used to exploit gaps in the enemy line or to encircle a foe, would likely be concerned mostly with facing infantry and soft targets. For this reason, small cannons and machine guns in separate turrets could be deemed adequate.

Speed is Armor: Design Characteristics of the “BT-4”

Armor:

The “BT-4” would have shared armor values with the tanks it was based off of. The BT series was known to have light armor, which was somewhat acceptable, as its intended role relied on speed and maneuverability in place of thick armor. The BT-2’s armor was riveted, and its maximum frontal thickness was 13 mm at a 31 degree slope, with a small, boxy, vertical protrusion that was the driver’s vision port. The side armor ranged from 10 to 13 mm thick. The floor armor was 10 mm thick, while the roof armor was only 6 mm thick, later increased to 10 mm and finally 15 mm.

A “BT-4” technical diagram. Source: http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/istoriya-sozdaniya/dvuglavaya-salamandra/

The two turrets of the fake BT-4, derived from those of the T-26, were also riveted, and would have been even more lightly armored, with a frontal thickness of only 5 mm, and the sides only being 6 mm thick. Interestingly, the turret roof was slightly thicker, at 10 mm. This armor was so thin that even rifle caliber armor piercing ammunition may have been able to penetrate it. Even with this dubiously thin armor, conditions for the crew were tight. The turret hatches consisted of a one piece door that was hinged to flip out to the front of the turret. The hinged door was actuated via a small lever and a spring. A portion of the turret roof was raised to provide the crewmember with a rectangular frontal vision port that could be flipped open. When closed, there were two slits to provide some level of vision.

The interior of a cannon armed double turreted T-26 reveals its riveted construction and limited working room. Source: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/T-26_1.htm

Drivetrain:

As the hull was of early BT origin, the “BT-4” would likely have retained the 400 horsepower M-5-400 V12. The engine design was also of American origin; the “Liberty”, as it was known in the USA, was a liquid-cooled 27 liter V12. Power was sent to a transmission that had four forward speeds and one reverse. It was located in the rear, behind the engine.

Suspension and Running Gear:

The running gear of the BT series remained largely the same throughout production. Most notably, four large rubber rimmed road wheels were connected to bell cranks which sat on the large internal coil springs that formed the Christie suspension. At the front was the idler; at the rear, a unique drive wheel was present. Unlike a toothed sprocket, this wheel had circular pads which intermeshed with the track guide teeth. Every other track had a guide tooth, the others were bare. A similar system, along with the Christie suspension, would be found on the T-34. The rear drive wheel could also be connected to the rearmost road wheel via a chain (later tanks had a gear drive), and, with the tracks removed, the BT tanks could drive on wheels. At the frontmost wheels was a steering linkage which allowed the tank to steer without tracks.

Armament:

The existing doctored photos of the “BT-4” show a few different configurations, congruent with the small turrets found on the aforementioned early T-26 tanks. Both machine gun and cannon armed turrets appear on the multi-turret BT photos. As for the machine gun models, the T-26A mounted a DT machine gun in each turret. It fired a 7.62×54 mm cartridge.

Of greater interest perhaps, is the cannon-armed turret. Some multi-turreted T-26 tanks actually had one machine gun turret, and one cannon armed one. The 37 mm “PS-1” tank gun was a domestically improved version of a Hotchkiss naval design dating back to the 1880s. Author Valeri Potapov notes:

“Its ballistics were already considered mediocre by the beginning of the 20th Century; in the 1920s, its ballistics were significantly inferior to those of other guns of the same class. The performance of the round was ineffective against both armored and soft targets.”

It should be mentioned that this design was so antiquated that ballistic data exists for “Hotchkiss cast iron cannonball” ammunition. HE and Canister rounds were also produced.

The PS-1 was a diminutive cannon, here mounted in one of the T-26’s turrets. This turret is missing its gun shield. Source: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/T-26_1.htm

The other cannon found in some multi-turreted T-26 tanks was the 37 mm B-3 gun. This was a proper 37 mm anti-tank weapon, which could penetrate 30 mm of armor at 30 degrees from 500 meters away. It can be differentiated from the PS-1 armed turrets due to its noticeably longer barrel. While alleged photos of the “BT-4” show both cannon armed and machine gun armed turrets, it would seem the only cannon shown to be mounted was the B-3 anti-tank gun.

This “BT-4” appears to sport a B-3 cannon. Source: https://en.topwar.ru/90994-proekt-dvuhbashennogo-tanka-bt-byl-i-nebyl.html

Crew:

The “BT-4” would have had a crew of three. Each of the small turrets would only fit one crewmember, with the duties of loading and firing of the guns as well as the acquisition of the targets falling on them. Each turret had its own hatch. The driver was positioned in the frontal hull, with a two piece hatch for egress. Some dual turret T-26 tanks were photographed mounting a No. 7N radio transmitter, which would have been utilized to aid in communication. No such transmitter, or any radio equipment for that matter, was ever shown mounted to the multi-turreted BT tanks in the doctored photos.

This T-26 has the No. 7N transmitter, resembling a cage around the hull. Source: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/T-26/T-26M31.htm

The Crew Won’t Fit: Why Two Turrets Likely Wouldn’t Work

As aforementioned, the Christie suspension of the BT tanks took up a lot of space in the hull sides of the vehicles. Unlike the T-26, which did not have any internal suspension components to encroach on interior space, the BT hull was narrower on the inside than it appeared. In addition to this, the BT tank’s hull had a smaller width than the T-26. The T-26 hull was 2.44 meters wide, while the BT series was 2.23 meters wide. Even on the T-26, the two turrets can be seen protruding slightly over the side. Considering these factors, it is entirely possible that there literally was not enough space in the hull to mount two turrets side by side while retaining enough room for the crew. In fact, attempts to recreate the tank through the use of to-scale components have necessitated the use of extended turret rings – which are not present in the “photographs” of the twin-turreted BTs. While the original source mentions in passing that extensive modifications to the roof and suspension were required to fit the turrets, in reality, this was not something that could be easily done, and even if it was, there likely was still not enough room to fit the turrets.

The internal space taken up by the Christie suspension can be clearly seen here. Source: https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-American-Army-adopt-the-Christie-tank-suspension-system

As seen with this scale model, extended turret rings that protrude over the hull sides are necessary to fit the turrets. This would likely be impossible to implement due to the suspension compartments. Source: https://fox3000.com/BT.htm

BT-4. Illustration by Pavel Alexe.

Conclusion: The Danger of April Fools.

The twin-turreted BT tank was in-fact invented by Polygon magazine in 2002, apparently as an April Fools joke. The article was referenced again by Polygon with a warning heeding readers to not believe everything they see. Unfortunately, this seems to have not been effective enough of a disclaimer, as multiple sources on the internet now claim the BT-4 as a twin-turreted BT with reckless abandon. Perhaps Polygon’s April Fools joke was a bit too effective.

Gallery of Photoshopped Photos (credit: fox3000.com):

All above images sourced from: https://fox3000.com/BT.htm

Sources

Alex aka AMVAS. “Double-turreted T-26.” Armchair General Magazine, 20 February 2006, http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/T-26_1.htm. Accessed 25 January 2023.

“BT-2 (Bystrochodnij Tankov).” Military Factory, https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.php?armor_id=592. Accessed 25 January 2023.

Epachev, T.R. “Two-Headed Salamander.” Courage, 10 August 2022, http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/istoriya-sozdaniya/dvuglavaya-salamandra/. Accessed 25 January 2023.

“henkofholland mastermodelling military vehicles scale 1/72-1/76.” henkofholland mastermodelling military vehicles scale 1/72-1/76, https://henk.fox3000.com/BT.htm. Accessed 25 January 2023.

Kirill, Ryabov. “The project of the two-turreted tank BT: profit and non-profit.” Military Review, 18 February 2016, https://en.topwar.ru/90994-proekt-dvuhbashennogo-tanka-bt-byl-i-nebyl.html. Accessed 25 January 2023.

“Liberty 12 Model A, V-12 Engine.” National Air and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/liberty-12-model-v-12-engine/nasm_A19731563000. Accessed 25 January 2023.

Milsom, John. “FINNISH ARMY 1918 – 1945: BT-5, BT-7 AND T-50 TANKS.” JAEGER PLATOON, 17 October 2020, https://www.jaegerplatoon.net/TANKS5.htm. Accessed 22 February 2023.

Moran, Nicholas. “The US Army’s Christie Tanks, and why they failed to take hold.” YouTube, 1 August 2020, https://youtu.be/0APcEvupuiA. Accessed 25 January 2023.

Potapov, Valeri. “37mm Hochkiss and PS-1 Tank Guns – THE RUSSIAN BATTLEFIELD.” BATTLEFIELD.RU, 21 September 2005, http://battlefield.ru/en/tank-armament/35-small-calibres/111-hochkiss-ps1.html. Accessed 25 January 2023.

Rickard, J. “T-26 Light Tank.” T-26 Light Tank, 11 September 2008, http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_t-26_light_tank.html. Accessed 22 February 2023.

“T-26.” Military Factory, https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.php?armor_id=254. Accessed 25 January 2023.

Vuorela, T., and Maksym Kolomyjec. “FINNISH ARMY 1918 – 1945: CAPTURED T-26 TANKS.” JAEGER PLATOON, 4 October 2020, https://www.jaegerplatoon.net/TANKS3.htm. Accessed 25 January 2023.

Cold War Soviet Fake Tanks Fake Tanks

K-1 Krushchev (Fake Tank)

Illustration of the K-1 Krushchev produced by Phantom_25_Sniper.

Soviet Union (1956)
Medium Tank – Fake

The K-1 Krushchev is a fake Soviet tank that was presented in an article titled “Russia’s Secret Weapons”, written by Donald Robinson and published in the June 1956 edition of the American magazine True, The Man’s Magazine. Only five pages long, the bulk of the article is dedicated to Cold War fear mongering, telling the American people of the enormous number of newly designed Soviet weapons which ostensibly vastly outclassed those used by the United States.

The image that led the article showed the then-newly revealed 180 mm S-23 cannon, which True presents as a 203 mm cannon expressly designed to fire nuclear shells. While the S-23 had a nuclear shell designed for it, its primary function was as conventional artillery. The assumption that the S-23 was 203 mm in caliber was not unique to True and was a mistake shared across all Western sources.

Other weapons briefly covered in the article, in mostly correct detail, include the AK-47 rifle, Yakovlev Yak-24 helicopter, 240 mm M240 mortar (which the article also presents as a pure-nuclear weapon, though in reality it was conventional with a nuclear option, as with the S-23), 130 mm KS-30 heavy anti-aircraft gun (which the article misidentifies as 122 mm), 57 mm S-60 medium anti-aircraft gun, and 14.5 mm ZPU-4 light anti-aircraft gun.

The third page of the article gives us a drawing and an illustration of what the magazine describes as a “Killer Tank”. A top-secret new medium tank that was being shown to the free world for the first time, thanks to many men risking their lives to smuggle the information out of the Soviet Union. The K-1 Krushchev [sic], named after First Secretary of the Communist Party Nikita Khrushchev, was said to outclass the American M48 Patton in every way. It had a more powerful engine and greater speed, wider tracks which gave it better flotation, twice the operational range of the M48, a shorter silhouette, at only 9 feet (2.7 m) tall, and it had a more powerful cannon — 100 mm, as opposed to the M48’s 90 mm. The only downside to the K-1 was that it did not exist.

“This tank is so hush-hush that not one photograph of it has ever appeared…” Source: True, The Man’s Magazine, June 1956 Issue

Buried Origin

Bad intelligence has produced a great number of fictional super-tanks, from the 100-ton Landships the Japanese believed the Germans and Soviets were using, to the British-imagined “Adolf Hitler Panzer”, with a casemate in the front and a turret in the back. Was the K-1 Krushchev just another case of hearsay and overactive imagination, or was it more deceitful? Based on the evidence available, or rather total lack thereof, and the fact that the K-1 only ever appeared in True and nowhere else, it is almost certain that it was fabricated for the magazine.

Most tank designs borne out of incorrect intelligence in the United States come from the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), not, as True claimed with the K-1, the Department of Defense (DoD). It is conceivable that intelligence information collected by the CIA could make its way through channels to end up at the relevant authority within the DoD (even though an official structure for this did not exist in 1956), but there is no record of this ever happening for the K-1. The CIA chose not to share with other branches, as far as we are aware, far more detailed intelligence items than a “super-tank” whose only specifications are “9 feet (2.74 m) tall, 100 mm cannon, operational range ~150 miles (~240 km)”.

We will likely never know the exact origin of the K-1 design. Based on the mostly factual information presented for the other weapons in the article, it does not seem likely that the K-1 was a deliberate fake meant to deceive. At worst, it was an earnest — yet incompetent — attempt to provide a glimpse behind the Iron Curtain. At best, it was a sensationalist rendition of a real design, most likely the Object 416, which was only known through rumor at the time. The artist of the drawing of the K-1 was Sam Bates, an employee of True. It is likely he who was responsible for the design, and did his best based on the information provided to him.

The Design

Source: True, The Man’s Magazine, June 1956 Issue

As practically no hard data was given for the K-1, not much can be said about the design other than from a visual perspective. It is a handsome design, with surprisingly few flaws as far as fake tanks go. It has the roadwheel spacing arrangement of the T-34, with a larger gap between the 1st and 2nd, and 2nd and 3rd roadwheels than between the rest, rather than the roadwheel spacing of the T-44 and T-54, which had a larger gap between only the 1st and 2nd roadwheels.

As it is a rear-turreted design, it would follow that the transmission is at the front, however, the sprockets at the front of the hull are mounted too far forward to be inline with the transmission, and could only be powered through unnecessarily spindly final drive units. The sprockets at the front of the tank are also smaller in diameter than the sprockets at the rear, which would indicate that they are idler wheels. The rear sprockets are better positioned to be the drive sprockets, but if this was the case, then the power from the engine would have to be transmitted to the rear-mounted transmission via a drive shaft running underneath the turret, which Soviet tank designers were averse to doing. Regardless of which was the drive sprocket, the drawing of the K-1 shows it to have a toothed idler wheel, a feature practically unheard of among Soviet tanks.

Visible at the rear of the tank is a set of exhaust pipes, the routing of which makes no sense for a front-mounted engine, which would exhaust over the side. The rear of the hull is unnecessarily flared, as it would be to provide ventilation for a rear-mounted engine. Finally, the location of the driver’s hatch places him right in the middle of the engine compartment, rather than behind or in front of it, as would be expected. We must be generous and assume the driver’s compartment is offset to the side, otherwise, there would be no space for the engine at all. With all of these peculiarities in mind, it is obvious that the person who designed the K-1 did not have an understanding of the automotive changes that must accompany a rear-turreted tank design. The K-1 seems to want to fit the engine and transmission in the impossibly small area rearward of the turret, and give the driver a bourgeois helping of legroom.

Atop of the fenders is the usual Soviet arrangement of stowage bins, and in the side-on illustration, a gun travel lock is shown mounted to the upper glacis. Uncharacteristic for a Soviet design, the front of the hull is rounded and apparently riveted. The presence of the line of rivets above the fender at the front of the hull serves no apparent purpose, other than possibly holding on a rounded sheet metal guard extension over the fender. The usefulness of such a feature would be negligible.

The turret of the K-1 resembles a combination of the turrets of the T-54 Model 1949 and M48 Patton. It is slightly taller than most Soviet turrets, which tend to be squat. It has at least one large coaxial machine gun. Literal interpretation of the images would indicate that it has two, one on either side of the cannon, as the drawing mirrors the illustration in almost all respects except for the antenna and smoke discharger. Having two machine guns would leave no space for the gunner’s optics, so we must assume there is only one. The machine gun would likely be on the right-hand (starboard) side, as Soviet tanks traditionally place the gunner on the left. This means that the drawn picture of the K-1 is the “correct” representation out of the two images.

Likewise, both images seem to place the commander’s cupola on the far side of the tank, and if taken in conjunction that places the cupola in the center, above the cannon breech. As Soviet tanks usually place the cupola on the left, the drawn picture is again a better representation. The cupola itself is a woefully outdated design with no vision blocks and a vertically-opening hatch that is sure to draw attention. On the left-hand (port) side of the turret is a 5-barrel smoke discharger in a “forward, backward, sideways” arrangement that would only deploy smoke to the direct left of the tank, not in front of the tank, as would be desirable. At the rear left of the turret is a radio antenna.

Based on the only measurement provided, namely the tank being 9 feet (2.74 m) tall, we can calculate rough measurements for the rest of the design. If from the bottom of the track to the top of the cupola is 9 feet, then the man shown in the illustration is 5 feet 11 inches (1.8 m) tall. The hull of the K-1 is 25 feet (7.63 m) long and 5 feet 7 inches (1.7 m) tall. The barrel of the cannon is 18 feet 10 inches (5.75 m) long, and the tank has an overall length of 34 feet 3 inches (10.44 m). The roadwheels are about 32.6 inches (830 mm) in diameter, the drive sprocket 29 inches (740 mm), and the idler wheel 23.6 inches (600 mm).

The K-1’s 100 mm cannon’s barrel is slightly longer than the standard D-10 family of Soviet tank guns, and with its pepperpot muzzle brake, more closely resembles the 100 mm T-12, however that gun only entered service in 1961 and was never mounted on a vehicle.

A political cartoon made by Victor Weisz for the 5 November 1956 edition of News Chronicle, a British newspaper. Nikita Khrushchev is depicted commanding a tank remarkably similar to the K-1. Is it possible that the artist of this cartoon was a reader of True and took inspiration from the next-generation Soviet super-tank.

Similar Real Designs

Although the K-1 was fake, there are a number of very similar real Soviet projects from the same era. In 1949, the OKB IC SV (Design Bureau of the Engineering Committee of the Armed Forces) produced several concepts for a heavy tank called the K-91, one version of which placed the turret in the rear. The K-91 shares almost no commonality with the K-1, and even the similarity in names is coincidental. The K-91 was a heavy tank with a very squat hull and numerous small roadwheels. It would have been armed with the 100 mm D-46T, a short-lived development of the D-10T (used on the T-54) that in turn gave rise to the D-56T (used on the T-62A).

K-91 rear-turreted version blueprint. Source: Technic and Weapons No. 9, 2013, M.V. Pavlov, I.V. Pavlov Domestic Armored Vehicles of 1945-1965

Later in 1949, Factory No. 75 (Kharkov) began work on a light tank/self-propelled gun armed with a 100 mm M-63 cannon in a rear-mounted turret. The vehicle was designated Object 416, and a prototype was completed around the end of 1952. The Object 416 was too much of an oddball for the Red Army, and was passed over in favor of better designs for the role. If the K-1 Krushchev has any basis in reality, it was most likely inspired by the Object 416.

The Object 416 prototype, recently restored and on display at Patriot Park, near Moscow. Source

At the same time Factory No. 75 was wrapping up work on the Object 416 in 1953, another project was begun to design a replacement for the T-54. Kharkov’s offering for this project was the Object 430, during the early designing of which a rear-mounted turret was considered, but was not pursued.

Another submission for the program to replace the T-54 came from an engineer named Gremyakin. It is not currently known where Gremyakin was employed, though it is possible that he worked at Factory No. 75 and that his proposal and the rear-turreted Object 430 are one and the same. Gremyakin’s medium tank resembled the rear-turreted K-91, and was armed with a 122 mm D-25T.

The unifying feature across all of these projects was that they all placed the driver in the turret. Placing the driver within the turret ring has long been a dream of tank designers, as it saves a great deal of room in the hull and allows the entire tank to be made smaller. Unfortunately, due to the fact that the turret moves, a complex system is necessary to keep the driver’s seat facing forward, and even the most successful driver-in-turret designs do not prevent him from getting motion sickness. Were the K-1 a real Soviet design, the driver would likely be in the turret, as it was with all its rear-turreted brethren, and like them, the design would not have gone very far.

Illustrations of the K-1 Krushchev produced by Phantom_25_Sniper.

Sources

True, The Man’s Magazine, June 1956 Issue — Russia’s Secret Weapons by Donald Robinson

Cold War Soviet Fake Tanks Fake Tanks

K-91 World of Tanks Fake Version

Post author By Pavel Alexe
Post date November 15, 2021
9 Comments on K-91 World of Tanks Fake Version

Reproduction of the K-91 fake tank in WoT by Pavel Alexe.

Soviet Union (1949)
Heavy Tank – Fake

In the years that followed the end of the Second World War (Great Patriotic War), the Soviets designed a vast amount of armored vehicles. Some were mass produced in the tens of thousands, while some never left the drawing board and were buried in archives and drawers for decades. An example of the latter are the K-91 tanks designed by OKB IC SV (Design Bureau of the Engineering Committee of the Armed Forces) in 1949. These were only rediscovered in the late 2000s, and published in a magazine for the world to see in 2013.

When searching for vehicles to fill up a third line of medium tanks for their game World of Tanks (WoT), video game company Wargaming decided to take a controversial approach for their tier 10 vehicle, mashing up two different K-91 designs.

Background

There were three proposals designed simultaneously by OKB IC SV. Development started after the Council of Ministers of the USSR released decree No.701-277§ on 18th February, 1949, which requested the termination of all development and production of heavy tanks weighing 50 tonnes and above. This allowed OKB IC SV, headed by Anatoly Fedorovich Kravtsev, to design a set of vehicles aiming to take advantage of this opportunity. They were supposed to be lighter than 50 tonnes and be able to replace both existing and future medium and heavy tanks. Lead engineer was I.T. Levinov and the designer was Matyukhin. They designed three vehicles: a classical heavy tank, with a front mounted turret; a rear mounted turret heavy tank featuring an autoloader; and a rear mounted casemate self-propelled gun.

The front-mounted turret K-91 heavy tank.
Source: Technic and Weapons No. 9, 2013, M.V. Pavlov, I.V. Pavlov Domestic armored vehicles of 1945-1965, page 34

Rear-mounted turret K-91 heavy tank, which had an autoloader.
Source: Technic and Weapons No. 9, 2013, M.V. Pavlov, I.V. Pavlov Domestic armored vehicles of 1945-1965, page 35

K-91 SPG, which had a rear-mounted casemate.
Source: Technic and Weapons No. 9, 2013, M.V. Pavlov, I.V. Pavlov Domestic armored vehicles of 1945-1965, page 35

World of Tanks Hybrid

In the summer of 2018, the company Wargaming announced a new line of Soviet medium tanks for their game World of Tanks. It started with the A-43 at tier VI, and moved up to the A-44, Object 416, Object 430 II and finally, at tier X, the K-91. This line was set to have as the main feature rear-mounted turrets. The Object 416 was, in fact, a tank destroyer (also called the SU-100M).

One of the biggest offenses present in this new line is the mashup of the K-91 variants. The vehicle is identical to the first K-91 variant, but has the turret moved to the rear, just like the second K-91 variant. Why this was done is bizarre, as the second K-91 variant would have fit well as the tier X vehicle.

The U.S.S.R. tech tree in WoT, showing the medium tank lines. Note the bottom line that leads to the K-91.
Source: WoT

Video Game vs Reality

World of Tanks provides a short paragraph on the supposed history of their K-91:

“The vehicle was developed by the Design Bureau of the Army Engineering Committee under the supervision of A. F. Kravtsev from March through August 1949. The tank was supposed to position a driver in the fighting compartment, as well as feature a 100 mm gun with an automatic loading system, and coaxial large-caliber machine gun. The plan was to mount the 12-cylinder opposed-piston turbo-diesel engine. The mounting brackets with ski-shaped supports were used as support rollers. Development of the project was discontinued at the blueprints stage in December 1949.”

While the text does not have any particular inaccuracies, it clearly describes the rear-mounted turret K-91 and avoids the fact that the vehicle is a mashup. They do state that the engine was turbocharged, which cannot be verified.

Wargaming’s K-91 mashup.
Source: WoT EU

Wargaming got the details and statistics right for the most part. Since there are very few drawings of the K-91s, and they were never built, it is hard to prove when something is accurate or not.

In-game, the K-91 has a 100 mm D-46T. This is historically accurate. The gun was intended as a replacement for the wartime D-10T. Development of the gun began on 28th May 1948 and two prototypes were ready by 1949. However, the program was canceled that same year. Its ammunition weighed between 16 to 17 kg and had a muzzle velocity of 1,000 m/s. In-game, however, it has a muzzle velocity of 1,700 m/s, and the tank can carry 50 of them. In-game, it has +20° of elevation and -9° of depression. In contrast, the real drawings show that it had +20° of elevation and -3° of depression.

Most of the model is a historically accurate render of the rear turret-mounted K-91 heavy tank. The turret matches the original blueprints, as in it has a conical shape, with a bulge for the driver that sat in the turret, to the right of the gun. The driver had a pivoting driving station, so that he would always face the front of the tank, regardless of the position of the turret. This does pose some mechanical problems, so it is unclear if the turret could fully rotate. This has been replicated in WoT, as the turret can only turn 110° in each direction. The loader is placed right behind the driver. On the left side of the gun is the gunner and the commander. The commander has a small bulge in the turret roof for better vision across the turret. A DShK heavy machine gun is mounted to the right of the gun and on the roof, as per the blueprints of the original K-91 with a frontal mounted turret.

The hull also matches the blueprints of the real K-91, but that with a frontal turret and not the rear-turreted one. A large sprocket drives the tracks, which are guided by a set of skids under the hull. The suspension is unique compared to other Soviet medium and heavy tanks. It features small steel-rimmed wheels, individually sprung by torsion bars. Only the first and last torsion bars have two wheels, with dependent suspension, via a pivoting bogie.

To move the turret to the rear, the designers at Wargaming had to make some slight changes to the hull. Mainly, the entire engine compartment was moved to the front, with a direct connection to the final drive, essentially a swap between the engine and turret.

Rear view of Wargaming’s hybrid.
Source: WoT EU

In terms of propulsion, Wargaming states that it used a V-64 engine outputting 860 hp. While the specific power of the V-64 is unknown, Wargaming’s claim is in the upper limit of what the engine could have given. The V-64 was a 12-cylinder boxer diesel engine. The term boxer comes from the layout of the pistons, which are placed horizontally. This allows for a shorter engine and a lower hull, but the engine is also wider.

The armor was significantly lightened from the real blueprint. In-game, the upper frontal plate is 140 mm compared to 200 mm, while the lower plate is 120 mm in-game versus 150 mm on paper. The turret is 160 mm at the thickest and 40 mm at the thinnest, while on paper it was actually 200 mm all around. This was most likely done to fit the medium tank narrative in the game, but the weight remains at around 45 to 50 tonnes.

Wargaming could have easily added the real K-91 rear turreted heavy tank, instead of the current mashup. While it did have a different hull and turret shape, it was very similar. The main difference was the use of an autoloader for the 100 mm gun. Wargaming already exploits a variety of autoloading systems within their game, and since there is no information on the speed of the autoloader, they could have easily played around with the rate of fire data, for a balanced vehicle in-game. This variant does also have slightly thicker armor, but Wargaming has already taken the freedom to downgrade the armor of the in-game K-91 compared to the real thing.

The historical rear-turreted version of the K-91 had a very peculiar hull shape, with a bullet-like shape when seen from above and no vertical angling. Wargaming completely did away with that, preferring to keep the more conventional hull from the front turreted K-91 proposal.

The K-91 with a rear-mounted turret, cutout view.
Source: Technic and Weapons No. 9, 2013, M.V. Pavlov, I.V. Pavlov Domestic armored vehicles of 1945-1965, page 35

K-91-2

Strangely, Wargaming decided to add the real K-91 frontal mounted turret as a Tier VIII premium medium tank (premium tanks are tanks that can be bought with real money or alternative currency within their game) with a fully rotating turret. Fortunately, it is accurate to the real original design, and it is a good representation of what the real project might have looked like.

One of the real K-91s made their way into the game.
Source: WoT EU

K-91 PT

In March of 2021, Wargaming announced the introduction of the K-91 PT, which is the K-91 SPG variant. The acronym ‘PT’ comes from the romanized version of the Russian word ‘protivotankoviy’, meaning anti-tank. This is not entirely historical, as such vehicles were mostly called SU or SAU, from Russian ‘Samokhodnaya Ustanovka’, essentially meaning self-propelled gun.

The K-91 PT, with some bizarre additions, such as a superstructure-mounted machine gun.
Source: The Daily Bounce

Conclusion

While it is amongst one of the least offensive fake tanks in World of Tanks, the version of the K-91 in-game is still a fake that could have been relatively easily avoided if they just used the second historical K-91 version. Other than that, Wargaming kept the vehicle fairly historically accurate, with the exception of removing large amounts of its armor to make it a medium tank.

Reproduction of the K-91 fake tank in WoT by Pavel Alexe.

K-91 Fake tank specifications
Total Weight, Battle Ready	45 to 50 tonnes
Crew	4 (Commander, Gunner, Driver, and Loader)
Propulsion	V-64 engine, 860 hp
Speed	ca 50 km/h
Armament	100 D-64T
Armor	200 mm frontal turret, 140 mm turret cheeks 140 mm UFP 60 mm hull sides

Sources

Technic and Weapons No. 9, 2013, M.V. Pavlov, I.V. Pavlov Domestic armored vehicles of 1945-1965
Yuri Pasholok on the Soviet STG – Status Report (ritastatusreport.live)
https://military.wikireading.ru/56371
K-91 – World of Tanks – tanks.gg
K-91 – Global wiki. Wargaming.net

Fake Tanks Has Own Video WW2 German Fake Tanks

Jagdpanzer E 100 (Fake Tank)

Post author By Pavel Alexe
Post date June 14, 2021
3 Comments on Jagdpanzer E 100 (Fake Tank)

The Jagdpanzer E100 as commonly represented. Illustration by Pavel Alexe.

German Reich (1944)
Tank Destroyer – Fake

The E 100 super heavy tank is one of the most fascinating tanks of Nazi Germany. While it does not have near-mythical combat legends of the Tigers or the sheer weight of the Maus, its partially built hull was impressive enough to cement it into tank history for decades to come. The obscurity and nature of the project have resulted in a vast number of speculatory conversions and what-if modifications. One of these gray areas is the Sturmgeschütz E 100, a short-lived plan of converting the E 100 into an assault gun. Unfortunately, there are no remaining blueprints of the layout, which has left the appearance of this vehicle up to much debate. The most well-known representation is that with a rear-mounted casemate, made famous by Wargaming’s game, World of Tanks (WoT).

Wargaming used the Sturmgeschütz to fill in their Tier X German tank destroyer line in WoT. Due to the popularity that the game enjoyed throughout the 2010s, WoT quickly became a centerpiece of information and an introduction to tanks for most amateur tank enthusiasts, making the wrongly-named Jagdpanzer E 100 what most think of when mentioning an E 100 based self-propelled gun.

History

WoT provides a short but somewhat inaccurate bit of historical information on the vehicle:

“The E100 was conceived as the basis for a self-propelled gun, an antiaircraft vehicle, and a tank destroyer. However, development was never started.”

There were never any plans to build an anti-aircraft vehicle based on the E 100 hull (or the Maus, for that matter). Many such designs have appeared online, but they are fake.

Likewise, there were never any plans to make an artillery self-propelled gun based on the E 100, although that fake vehicle also made it into the game in the form of the Geschützwagen E 100.

There was work made by Krupp and Porsche on an enclosed direct-firing self-propelled gun, but that particular vehicle was meant to be a Sturmgeschütz (an assault gun) and not a Jagdpanzer (tank destroyer). This was called the 15/17 cm Sturmgeschütz auf E 100 Fahrgestell (15/17 cm Assault Gun on E 100 Chassis). The project started on 9th May, 1944, when Porsche and Krupp representatives met to discuss the issue of a new heavy assault gun. Krupp showed plans for mounting either a 15 cm L/63 or a 17 cm L/53 gun inside a fixed casemate on a Maus chassis. This was in competition to what another firm, Adler, had planned, which was to mount these guns inside a fixed casemate, but on an E 100 chassis. The production quota officer, Obering Hendel, preferred the E 100 design over the Maus, as the Maus hull was significantly taller, and with a casemate mounted, would not fit through the standard railway tunnels of the time.

On 28th May 1944, it was requested that Krupp should build a 1:5th scale wooden mock-up of the E 100 chassis Sturmgeschütz, with both gun variants.

Unfortunately, the only surviving blueprints from this program is the one showing the 150 mm gun mount, leaving the position of the casemate to much debate.

The plans for mounting the 15cm L/63 gun on the E 100 chassis. Source: Warspot

The possibility that this program would have transformed into a Jagdpanzer E 100 is not at all lacking if the program would have continued. While the name is unhistorical, many German Jagdpanzers started their life as Sturmgeschütz, such as the Ferdinand, Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger. The difference between a Sturmgeschütz and a Jagdpanzer was not a matter of construction or shape, but a matter of deployment and doctrine. However, the Sturmgeschütz E 100 project was terminated before the Panzerwaffe could steal it from the arms of the Sturmartillerie.

HD model of the Jagdpanzer E 100 in WoT. Source: FTR

In World of Tanks

In WoT, the Jagdpanzer E 100 has a large, thickly armored superstructure at the back of the hull, in a similar fashion to that of the Ferdinand, with the engine compartment being moved towards the middle of the vehicle. The crew consists of 6 men, a commander, a driver, a gunner, a radio operator, and 2 loaders. It is armed with a 17 cm Pak, most likely inspired by the real 17 cm Stu.K. L/53 gun. It can carry 24x 170 mm rounds and reload a shell in around 25 seconds. The engine is a “Maybach Neues Projekt” with a 1,200 hp output, allowing the 134-tonne vehicle to reach a maximum speed of 30 km/h. It is crucial to note that these numbers always change in attempts by the game developers to balance the vehicle within the game environment, and are often quite far from reality, but understandable from a gaming point of view.

The Maybach Neues Projekt name is most likely fictional, but there was actually a 1,200 hp engine for the E 100. This was called the HL 234, a supercharged variant of the HL 230. It was to be coupled to an 8-speed Mekydro transmission. However, with these components, Adler moved the transmission and drive sprocket to the back, meaning that, on the E 100 tank version, the turret was moved forwards, requiring a longer hull – a very different look to the original E 100. Sadly though, Adler destroyed their plans at the end of the war to avoid capture. A rear transmission would also make it incompatible with the rear-mounted casemate possibility for the Sturmgeschütz. On the Jagdpanzer E 100, the engine has been moved to the middle of the vehicle in order to make room for the superstructure at the rear.

At the rear left on top of the superstructure, a small turret was added, with what seems like a lower caliber autocannon or heavy machine gun. Within the game, it does not operate. Such an idea is sensible for a fixed casemate vehicle its size in order to protect the vulnerable rear and left side. On the side of the casemate, small pins can be seen. These would have held up track links. The 1,100 mm wide track links would be impossible to be mounted/dismounted by hand from that position. Therefore, a small crane would be required, often shown on different models.

The tank destroyer in WoT is extremely well armored, with 250 mm at the front of the superstructure, and 150 mm towards the sides and rear. However, this, along with the heavy gun breach and ammunition, would have placed considerable strain on the rear suspension. While the real armor thickness for the Sturmgeschütz are unknown, the surviving mantlet blueprints indicate that the rounded ball mount behind the mantlet was around 120 mm thick. The thick, angled frontal plate of the casemate would be around 200 mm thick. Side and rear armor of the casemate is up to speculation, but they would likely have been rather thin (around 80 mm) to keep the weight down and eliminate stress from the rear wheels, as was done on the real E 100 turret.

Jagdpanzer E 100 as seen is WoT, rear view.
Source: Ilya Lezhava

Armament

In WoT, the Jagdpanzer E 100 has a 17cm PaK, inspired from the 17cm StuK L/53 gun. Krupp wanted to avoid using this gun as much as possible on the heavy Sturmgeschütz design, mainly because of its weight, but also the size of the breech and ammunition, which required a large casemate. On 29th April 1944, General Heinz Guderian requested that the penetration should be 200 mm at 4,000 meters. Essentially, this would have meant being able to knock out even the heaviest of Allied tanks from 4 km! Unfortunately, because most of the information around the 17cm L/53 is based on salvaged papers, data about its performance and shells is scarce.

Mechanical aspects

The placement of a rear casemate on the E 100 would come with a host of mechanical challenges, none of which would be possible for Germany to manage at the time. According to former Wargaming historian, Yuri Pasholok, the Combined Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee (CIOS) claimed that the transmission and drive sprockets were moved to the rear.

Moving the engine to the middle of the tank would be a complex task, but not impossible.

The placement of a well-armored casemate so far back would have moved a great deal of weight towards the rear wheels, but due to the heavy gun and thick armor resting on the center wheels, this might have balanced out. This did have the advantage of shortening the overhang of the gun over the hull, reducing problems in narrow spaces, such as streets and forests. The Soviet SU-100, a much smaller vehicle, experienced such issues.

The heat from the engine would distort the view of the gunner and could potentially warp the gun, another issue found with many rear casemate tank destroyers.

There would be a host of mechanical changes to the E 100 hull that had to be made, increasing production time and cost. These would be adjusting transmission and drivetrain, adjusting the suspension to the different balance points, changing air intake and exhausts positions, etcetera.

This entire process had already been encountered in the Jagdtiger program. There was actually a proposal of having the Jagdtiger casemate in the rear of the hull and the engine in the middle, the Tigerjäger B, but the issues stated above, among others, led to a central casemate for the Jagdtiger to be chosen.

In recent years, model kit companies have even released models in 1:72 or 1:35 scale of the Jagdpanzer E 100, further cementing the rear-mounted casemate alternative as the most popular one.

Conclusion

Veteran historians and casual tank enthusiasts have been discussing this vehicle for years and we may never know for sure how a tank destroyer or assault gun based on the E 100 would have looked like. It remains one of the many fascinating and impressive projects to come out of Germany in the Second World War, alongside a similar project for the Maus and vehicles such as the Kugelpanzer. It is the simple fact that so little is known about it that allows one’s imagination to open up. The details that are known are also simply sensational, from the large gun to the heavy armor of the E 100. However, it should be remembered that, behind these impressive numbers, equally impressive mechanical and engineering problems lay, which were not solved by the Germans even for their lighter vehicles. The Sturmgeschütz E 100’s appearance in Wargaming’s video game, even under a false name, only boosted its fame within the tank community.

TheJagdpanzer E 100 as commonly represented. Illustration by Pavel Alexe.

Jagdpanzer E 100 specifications
Total Weight, Battle Ready	over 134 tonnes
Crew	6 (Commander, Gunner, Radio Operator, Driver and 2x Loaders)
Propulsion	Maybach Neues Projekt or HL 234
Speed	30 km/h
Armament	17 cm StuK L/53
Armor	250 mm max

Sources

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Tank:G72_JagdPz_E100
https://tanks.gg/tank/jgpz-e-100/model
https://warspot.ru/4351-sverhtyazhyolye-bumazhnye-istrebiteli-tankov
Frohlich, M. (2015). Schwere Panzer der Wehrmacht. Motorbuch Verlag, Germany
Jentz, T., Doyle, H. (2008). Panzer Tracts No.6-3 Schwere Panzerkampfwagen Maus and E 100.
https://warspot.ru/5659-bronetehnika-iz-taynyh-podvalov

Cold War French Fake Tanks Fake Tanks Has Own Video

Panhard EBR 105 (Fake Tank)

Post author By Marisa Belhote
Post date April 12, 2021
4 Comments on Panhard EBR 105 (Fake Tank)

Wargaming's mish-mash of EBR parts with an anachronistic, modified TS 90 turret. Illustration by Ardhya 'Vesp' Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.

France (1970s)
Armored Car – Fake

The French company of Panhard was and remains perhaps the largest provider of wheeled armored vehicles of the French military ever since the interwar era. The manufacturer of many of France’s most successful armored cars, such as the Panhard 178 or AML, one of the company’s most peculiar armored vehicles for its time was the 8-wheeled Panhard EBR. It was developed as a response to a program initiated as early as March of 1945 by the French Military, looking for a 75 mm armed, high-mobility, long-range wheeled reconnaissance vehicle.

Panhard’s vehicle was adopted in December of 1949 and mass-produced in two major variants all the way up to 1960. Notable for its quite heavy firepower for a wheeled vehicle (particularly the model fitted with the AMX-13’s FL-10 turret, produced from 1954 onward), 8-wheel configuration with two metallic side-wheels being used to improve the vehicle’s cross-terrain capacities (the vehicle using just the 4 front and rear wheels on good terrain), and dual driving post guaranteeing equal speed forward and backward, the EBR served as a mainstay of the French military’s reconnaissance force for most of the Cold War. The vehicle was finally retired in 1985.

In comparison to many other French military vehicles of the era, the EBR was long excluded from most popular video games focusing on armored vehicles, due to those, for a time, almost exclusively including only tracked vehicles. In recent years, though, the progressive diversification of these games, and notably Wargaming’s ‘World of Tanks’ (‘WoT’), has lead to the inclusion of French wheeled vehicles in WoT’s update 1.4, on the 6th of February 2018. As part of that upgrade, six French wheeled vehicles were added to the game; of those, one was Hotchkiss’ EBR prototype, the unlucky competitor to the Panhard EBR in the late 1940s, and two variants of the Panhard EBR: the EBR 90, and the so-called ‘EBR 105’, armed with a 105 mm gun in a turret that has never been seen on the EBR. (The model 1954 EBR, fitted with the FL-10 turret, would also be added a premium at a later date)

A render of Wargaming’s EBR 105. Source: Wargaming

Historical upgrades to the EBR’s firepower

Historically, the Panhard EBR went through two major upgrades to its firepower during its service.

A column of Model 1951 EBRs – the first production model – of France’s 8th Hussars Regiment during military exercises. Source: Char-français

As it first entered service, the EBR was fitted with the 75 mm SA 49 main gun; a medium-velocity 75 mm gun, offering anti-armor performances more along the lines of the 75 mm guns used in vehicles the likes of the Panzer IV during the Second World War – so quite outdated by the 1950s. This gun was fitted in the FL-11, a fairly small oscillating turret, featuring no autoloader but a manual loader instead.

The first concept for improving the EBR’s firepower was straight up giving the vehicle the FL-10 turret used on the AMX-13, which featured the longer 75 mm SA 50 with an autoloader, and was much larger and higher. This concept was first considered in 1951; an EBR prototype first received the FL-10 turret in 1952, and after an order in July of 1953, the first examples would be delivered in the last days of 1954. This model would be known as the EBR model 1954.

An EBR mle 1954 during cross-country exercises. The larger, heavier, and higher FL-10 turret gave the vehicle a much higher silhouette and center of gravity, though the 75 mm SA 50 main gun was vastly more potent than the original 75mm SA 49. Source: char-français

The 75 mm SA 50 offered much more firepower than the SA 49, but the addition of the FL-10 turret made the EBR heavier (from 12.5 to 14.9 tonnes) and higher (from 2.33 to 2.58 m). Therefore, the FL-10 armed model only supplemented the FL-11 armed one, with only about 280 FL-10 equipped EBR manufactured, while about 900 FL-11 equipped ones were produced.

The 1960s saw considerable evolution in anti-tank gun technology, and notably lower-pressure guns firing HEAT projectiles. These new guns could offer performances similar or even superior to older low-velocity guns at a fraction of the weight (albeit typically at a reduced maximum effective range). For the EBR, this resulted in the D.921A gun, the same as on Panhard’s lighter AML being adopted for the FL-11 equipped examples in 1964. With the Panhard EBR being out of production by four years at this point, 650 FL-11 equipped EBR were refitted with the 90 mm gun, and all remaining EBRs equipped with the FL-10 or FL-11 were phased out of service.

A 90 mm-armed Panhard EBR, with the side wheels retracted for road circulation. This model can be quite hard to differentiate with the original model 1951, seeing as the turret is the same and the main guns can be quite similar in length. Source: char-français

No major firepower upgrade appears to have been considered on the EBR following the refitting of the 90 mm D.921A, with the vehicle quickly appearing to be, by most measures, quite obsolete (lacking in NBC protection notably). While a replacement was considered as early as the 1960s in the form of the ERAC, its final development, the AMX-10RC, would only enter service in the late 1970s – leaving the last EBRs soldiering on until 1985 in France.

Wargaming’s EBR 105

In Wargaming’s World of Tanks, the EBR 105 stands as the pinnacle of French wheeled vehicles in the game, as a Tier X; it serves as the conclusion of the branch.

Wargaming’s description of the vehicle is as follows: “A variant of the Panhard EBR armored vehicle with more powerful armament. It featured improved suspension and the two-man GIAT TS 90 turret, upgraded to accommodate a 105 mm gun. The vehicle never saw mass production, nor entered service.”

Nothing is mentioned in the way of dates, however, a quick examination of the vehicle would show the vehicle would at least be a late 1970s development, due to its turret being first mounted on an armored vehicle in 1977.

The inaccurately-modeled TS 90 turret

The turret mounted on the EBR 105 is a modified version of the NEXTER TS 90 turret, mounted on the old hull of the EBR.

Introduced by Nexter in 1977, this is a welded two-man turret with a manually loaded 90 mm anti-tank gun in its historical configuration. This fairly light turret (2.5 tonnes with ammunition but without crew) could theoretically be mounted on any vehicle that could accommodate a sufficiently large turret ring as well as weigh at least 7.5 tonnes. In practice, however, it is mounted on the ERC-90 for the French army and export, VBC-90 for the French gendarmerie and Oman, and on the AMX-10 tracked chassis, creating the AMX-10P PAC 90 for export. A variety of other vehicles, such as the Mowag Piranha or even the M113 were modified to mount the turret but never went beyond the prototype stage with it.

A French Army ERC-90, the most common user of the TS 90 turret, in maneuvers near a river. In comparison to Wargaming’s modified model, the smaller dimensions of the actual TS 90 turret are obvious. Source: char-français

However, Wargaming did not straight up take the historical TS 90 turret and mount it on the EBR. This would already be an unhistorical combination; by the time the TS 90 was around, the EBR was on its way out, with its straight-up replacement, the AMX-10RC, beginning to enter service; the sometimes more than 25 years old hulls were worn out by years of intensive use, and there was little will or need to keep using them for long. Wargaming designed its own heavily modified version of it. It is referred to as the ‘Panhard EBR 105’ turret.

In real life, the TS 90 is a two-man turret with a manually loaded 90 mm gun. In this form, it is already quite cramped. Wargaming, however, swapped out the turret’s 90 CN-90 F4 for the older but larger 105 mm D.1504 or CN-105-57 – the 105 mm gun featured, for example, on the Israeli M51 Sherman, the AMX-13-105 or the SK-105 Kürassier. This gun is manually loaded on the EBR 105, however, it ought to be noted that another fake vehicle produced by Wargaming, the Batignolles-Châtillons “Bourrasque” which uses the same modified TS 90 turret, is fed by a two-rounds autoloader.

Wargaming’s 105 mm-armed version of the TS 90 is visibly extended towards the rear, most likely in order to simulate the larger breech. Unlike on the Bourrasque, in which the presence of both an autoloader and the larger breech would likely make the turret extremely cramped, the EBR’s version of the modified TS 90 may be somewhat plausible in terms of internal space; however, this turret having a two-man crew means the commander would also assume the role of loader, for the fairly large 105 mm rounds used by the CN-105-57 – making his task more complex and harder to perform. Historically, there are no known projects aiming to mount a 105 mm gun in the TS 90 turret. Light vehicles contemporary with its development (though they would have to be somewhat heavier to mount such a turret) typically used the TK 105 three-man turret featured in the AMX-10RC. This turret mounts a more modern 105 mm MECA F2 L/48 low-pressure gun, a far more modern gun than the CN-105-57 featured on the fictional EBR 105.

A view inside the TS 90 turret of an ERC-90. Source: World of Tank forums

Weight increase and mysteriously improved engine

Wargaming’s EBR 105 is stated to have a weight of 17 tonnes – whether the vehicle would actually feature such a weight with Wargaming’s fictional version of the TS90 turret is not known. This is, however, a considerable addition of weight onto the EBR, weighing slightly more than 2 tonnes more than the FL-10 equipped model 1954 EBR, and 4.5 tonnes more than the original, FL-11 equipped production model. While Wargaming does mention the vehicle as having a reinforced suspension in its short description, the EBR’s capacity to reasonably operate at such a weight is unknown.

What is almost certainly unimaginable though is that the vehicle received the tremendous upgrade in powerplant Wargaming gave the EBR 105. Historically, all models of the EBR used the Panhard 12H 6000S engine. This 12-cylinder air-cooled engine could produce up to 200 hp at 3,700 rpm, which was sufficient to give the EBR a quite admirable maximum speed for the time. The model 1951 FL-11 equipped model could peak at 105 km/h on a good road, and despite receiving no power plant upgrade, the heavier FL-10 equipped model 1954 was reported to be able to reach this speed as well.

The engine used in Wargaming’s EBR 105 appears to be a development of the original Panhard engine used in the EBR – being referred to as the ‘Panhard 12H 6000 X’, but it has been boosted to an implausible 720 hp. It is unlikely such a powerful engine could be derived from the 12H engine to begin with and combined with the idea that it may be fitted in an EBR hull is stretching the bounds of plausibility to the limit, seeing as this likely would result in a much larger power plant.

Wargaming’s EBR 105 did receive some notable changes to its design. Notably, the rear no longer features any form of driving post, but instead what appears more along the line of an engine compartment, which raises the question of where the vehicle’s fourth crew member, which Wargaming refers to as a ‘radio operator’, would be located. However, the idea that this hull change would be enough to fit such a powerful and likely larger engine is very unlikely (and in any case, nothing suggests the increased size of a largely boosted up version of the EBR’s engine was taken into account when designing the vehicle). This engine gives Wargaming’s vehicle a power-to-weight ratio of 42.35 hp/ton, far higher than the EBR model 1951’s mere 16 hp/ton. However, despite this, Wargaming’s EBR 105 is still appreciably slower than all other EBRs, at ‘merely’ 91 km/h. In general, all that surrounds its automotive capacities and upgrades can be described as quite nonsensical.

A rear view of the early render of the EBR 105; it is substantially different from that of a standard EBR, where the rear is very similar to the front in overall shape. However, it is unlikely this would be enough to accommodate the new 720 hp engine. Source: Ritastatusreport

A view of the general configuration of the EBR (though this is the FL-10 model, this can apply to all): with Wargaming’s vehicle featuring a likely very large engine at the rear, where the fourth crew member would sit is unknown. Source: char-français

Conclusion – Another kitbashed fake tank

The EBR 105 that Wargaming introduced into World of Tanks is obviously a fake vehicle. While it may take inspiration in the fact the EBR was mass-produced with two different turrets and received considerable firepower upgrades during its service life, this does not change the fact that, as it is presented, the vehicle makes little sense. The use of components such as the TS 90 turret would suggest the EBR 105 would have been a late 1970s project, and by that time, the far superior AMX-10RC would have been on its way to replace the EBR – 105 mm-armed or not. This is particularly underlined by the fact a vehicle such as the EBR 105 would have been very close to a complete rebuild; with a new engine, new turret, new hull rear, and reinforced suspension, there would, in the end, be little but the mere shell of the original EBR left, a most likely very costly upgrade.

The EBR 105 is far from the only fake tanks featured in World of Tanks; another French fake vehicle, the ‘Batignolles-Châtillon Bourrasque’, is quite closely linked to it, being a kitbash of the modified TS 90 turret modeled for the EBR 105 and the hull of the BatChat 12t light tank. It can be argued to be somehow even more nonsensical than the EBR 105, combining a modified version of a turret produced from the late 70s onward with a hull on which no developments are known after 1951. In general, WoT, particularly its higher tiers, contains a quantity of fake vehicles: one could, for example, cite most Chinese tank destroyers, or the FV215b, Conqueror Gun Carriage, and Caervanon Action X. As for unhistorical configurations of vehicles that did actually exist, those are legion, though some are more shocking than others; within French vehicles, the famous AMX-40 stands as a notable example.

French army AMX-10RCs preparing for a 14th of July parade in Paris in the late Cold War, with gendarmerie Berliet VXBs may be seen in the background. The existence of the AMX-10RC, which entered service in 1981 and was already at the prototype stage since 1973, makes any kind of significant upgrade of the EBR performed after this date redundant. By this time, the about 30-year old design would still be very much outdated, even with a more powerful engine and a completely new turret. Source: char-français

Wargaming’s mish-mash of EBR parts with an anachronistic, modified TS 90 turret. Illustration by Ardhya ‘Vesp’ Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.

EBR 105 specifications
Total weight, battle-ready	17 tonnes
Engine	720 hp ‘Panhard 12H 6000 X’
Power-to-weight ratio in hp/tonne	42.35
Top road speed	91 km/h
Turning angle	33°
Main armament	1 x 105 mm D.1504/CN-105-57 main gun (36 rounds)
Rate of fire	5 rounds per minute
Secondary Armament	None featured in WoT specifications but possibly the same 7.62 mm AANF1 as on the standard TS90 turret
Turret traverse speed	66 deg/s
Hull Armor	40 mm (front & rear), 16 mm (sides), 20 mm (bottom), 10 mm (roof)
Turret Armor	15 mm (front & mantlet), 10 mm (sides & rear), 8 mm (top)
Total production	None

Sources:

Char-français:
http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/engins-blindes/blindes-a-roues?task=view&id=710
http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/engins-blindes/blindes-a-roues?task=view&id=708
http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/engins-blindes/blindes-a-roues?task=view&id=41
http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/engins-blindes/blindes-a-roues?task=view&id=782
http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/engins-blindes/blindes-a-roues?task=view&id=726
Army-guide
AMX30 Main Battle Tank Enthusiast’s Manual, Haynes editions, M.P Robinson & Thomas Seignon, 2020

Cold War French Fake Tanks Fake Tanks Has Own Video

Batignolles-Châtillon Bourrasque (Fake Tank)

Post author By Marisa Belhote
Post date March 31, 2021
1 Comment on Batignolles-Châtillon Bourrasque (Fake Tank)

France (1940-1970s)
Light Tank – Fake

From the 1930s to the 1950s, the French company of Batignolles-Châtillon, based in Nantes, on France’s western coast, had several tries at designing tanks for the French army. In the 1930s, the company produced a light infantry tank prototype as well as the DP2 amphibious light tank. After the end of the German occupation of France, the company again produced a light tank for the program which would result in the AMX-13 – this being the Batignolles-Châtillon 12 tons – and, ultimately, created the Batignolles-Châtillon 25 tons, a lightweight medium tank prototype, in the 1950s.

None of Batignolles-Châtillon’s tanks were adopted by any military, with their most notable influence on service French vehicles being experience gained in the 25t project being used for the development of the AMX-30. In recent years, though, Batignolles-Châtillon’s designs (though almost exclusively the post-WW2 ones) have received newfound attention due to the inclusion of first the 25t, and later the 12t, to Wargaming’s popular online game World of Tanks, with the 25t notably being praised for its peculiar gameplay for years.

Wargaming’s care about the historical accuracy of the Batignolles-Châtillon vehicle is, however, very lackluster to say the least, with the recent Bourrasque premium tank being the worst offender – combining real elements of the 12 tons project, of which development ended in September of 1951, with an inaccurately-modeled turret from the 1970s.

A view of the Batignolles-Châtillon Bourrasque in the hangar within World of Tanks. Source: WIKIWIKI.jp

Bourrasque or 12T modèle 1954 ?

In December of 2019, a new premium French light tank was added to Wargaming’s supertest servers. It was then marketed as the “Bat.-Châtillon mle. 54”. After a few minor tweaks, the vehicle, identical in appearance, was added to all servers in May of 2020, under the new name of “Bat.-Châtillon Bourrasque”. This vehicle features a modified version of the GIAT TS90 turret used on vehicles such as the ERC-90 Sagaie, mounted on the hull of a Batignolles-Châtillon competitor to the project which would become the AMX-13.

The 12T modèle 1954 designation which was used at first, while it may seem in accordance with the French army designation system, is absolutely ahistorical. Development did not continue on the Batignolles-Châtillon 12T following the end of its trials in September of 1951, and seeing as AMX’s project ended up being adopted, becoming the AMX-13, continued developments on Batignolles-Châtillon’s hull would have been redundant.

Wargaming’s fake description of the Bourrasque:
“A project of a French tank developed by Batignolles-Châtillon. The vehicle was to receive a two-man turret upgraded to accommodate a 105 mm gun. Existed only in blueprints.”

The Hull: Batignolles-Châtillon 12t

The Batignolle-Châtillon 12t hull which was actually manufactured. Though the suspension type it uses is different from Wargaming’s, the 12t hull present in WoT at least exists in blueprints. Source: Char-français

The hull used for Wargaming’s Bourrasque was taken straight from Wargaming’s already existing Bat-Chat 12t. It ought to be noted that, while a prototype of the 12t was manufactured, it does not match the one present in WoT; the 12t prototype used four large road wheels, two return rollers, and a torsion bar suspension.

Wargaming’s hull is instead based on one which existed only on paper, though it was projected both for a light tank and a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun. This hull uses seven interleaved road wheels, in a fashion that reveals the considerable German influence on France’s first postwar designs. An idler and drive sprocket are also present, but there are no return rollers; the type of suspension used would most likely be torsion bars.

The Bat-Chat 12t in the configuration used in WoT. This suspension type never left the drawing board. Source: char-français

The TS 90 Turret: Back to the Future

On this hull project, dating from the late 1940s and early 1950s, Wargaming decided to mount an absolutely unrelated turret; the GIAT TS90.

Introduced by GIAT in 1977, this is a welded two-man turret with a manually loaded 90 mm anti-tank gun, in its historical configuration. This fairly light turret (2.5 tons with ammunition but without crew) could theoretically be mounted on any vehicle that could accommodate a sufficiently large turret ring as well as weigh as least 7.5 tons; in practice, it is mounted on the ERC-90 for the French army and export, VBC-90 for the French gendarmerie and Oman, and on the AMX-10, creating the AMX-10P PAC 90 for export. A variety of other vehicles, such as the Mowag Piranha or even the M113, were modified to mount the turret, but never went beyond prototype stage with it.

In itself, the basic characteristics of the TS90 turret would likely make it compatible with a modified Bat-Chat 12t hull, but it is obviously highly anachronistic. The turret, as well as the CN 90F4 anti-tank gun that features as its main armament, were a 1970s development, using technologies that did not exist or were not widely in use at the time when the 12t was developed.

French Army ERC-90s on maneuvers in the Alps; the ERC-90 remains the most prolific vehicle using the TS90 turret. Source: Char-français

An Inaccurate Turret

However, while the turret Wargaming mounted on their “Bourrasque” is based on the GIAT TS90, it was added to the game in a modified form that obviously favors gameplay over historical accuracy.

In real life, the TS90 is a two-man turret with a manually loaded 90 mm gun. In this form, it is already quite cramped. Wargaming, however, swapped out the turret’s 90 CN-90 F4 for the older but larger 105 mm D.1504 or CN-105-57 – the 105 mm gun featured, for example, on the Israeli M-51 Sherman, the AMX-13-105 or the SK-105 Kürassier. This new gun is fed by a two-round autoloader, the type of which Wargaming did not care to specify. One could note that, while being older in comparison to the TS90 turret, this gun would still have been anachronistic if Wargaming kept the “mle 1954” designation, seeing as it was first introduced in 1957.

Wargaming’s 105 mm-armed version of the TS90 is visibly extended towards the rear, likely to model the 2-round autoloader that features ingame. Though the large turret extension towards the rear would likely be large enough for an autoloader, particularly a small 2-rounds one (though the type of autoloader has never been specified by Wargaming), the larger breech of the 105 mm CN 105-57 in comparison to the 90 mm CN-90 F4 would likely reduce the space available to the crew. Historically, there are no known projects that aimed to mount a 105 mm gun in the TS90 turret. Light vehicles contemporary with its development (though they would have to be somewhat heavier to mount such a turret) typically used the TK 105 three-man turret featured on the AMX-10RC. This turret mounts a more modern 105 mm MECA F2 L/48 low-pressure gun, a far more modern gun than the CN-105-57 featured on the Bourrasque.

A view inside the TS90 turret of an ERC-90. Source: World of Tank forums

A side view of the Bat-Chat Bourrasque in WoT; the turret has been extended towards the rear, and the position of the smoke dischargers has been changed accordingly. Source: MMOWG.net

French Army ERC-90 Sagaie on parade, Bastille Day 2015. The turret is obviously smaller, with the rear compartment that likely models the autoloader in Wargaming’s turret being absent from the real one. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Interestingly enough, Wargaming does not call its turret by TS90 or a variation of this designation, such as TS105; instead, it is called “Panhard EBR S-105”. This likely is linked to the fact that the same fake turret was mounted in another French mish-mash present in WoT, the EBR 105; it misses the fact that Panhard rarely if ever designed turrets, with its vehicles instead using turrets from Fives-Lilles in the early Cold War and GIAT or Nexter after the 1970s.

A Theoretically Identical Weight

Officially, the Bourrasque does not have any specified weight; due to being a premium vehicle, it has a set of components with no need to progress and change some of them, and as such, the weight mechanic present in other WoT vehicles would be useless there. Nonetheless, seeing as we know the specified power of the Bourrasque’s engine as well as its horsepower-to-weight ratio, one can easily deduce the weight of the vehicle.

The Bourrasque has a 310 hp engine (A “Mathis 300-2”; though Mathis is an actual engine producer, no 310 hp model is known to exist, with the closest being either 200 or 500 hp engines), and a power-to-weight ratio of 25.8 hp/ton, giving it a weight of 12.01 tons – almost exactly 12 tons. It ought to be noted that the actual weight of the Batignolles-Châtillon 12t is unknown – even more so for the one using the same hull as Wargaming, seeing as it stayed on paper. However, it is quite likely that, equipped with the FL10 turret, it would have exceeded the requested weight of 12 tons, as did the AMX project that became the AMX-13. Fitted with an enlarged TS90 turret that features a larger 105 mm CN-105-57, it is impossible that the Bourrasque would realistically have a weight of almost perfectly 12 tons. The maximum speed achieved by the Bourrasque in WoT is 62 km/h.

Conclusion: Another Unhistorical Mish-Mash

In short, the Bourrasque featured in World of Tanks can be described as a mish-mash of a late 1940s-early 1950s hull, with a modified late 1970s turret that mounts a late 1950s gun. The historicity of such a combination is non-existent; even the turret and gun are not known to have ever been considered together, and mounting them on the hull of a vehicle that was out of consideration for years by the point they were developed could be described as nonsensical. As for why Wargaming created such a vehicle, while no official answer has been given, one could imagine that a very easy to make vehicle (seeing as both its hull and turret already existed within the game) that uses the name of Bat-Chat, which has quite the reputation in World of Tanks, may have seemed very attractive to Wargaming when they were considering a French high-tier premium tank.

The Bourrasque is far from the first fake vehicle featured in World of Tanks though; many such fabrications are present in the game. One could, for example, cite most Chinese tank destroyers, or the FV215b, Conqueror Gun Carriage and Caervanon Action X. France has not been spared either, with another fake mish-mash in the form of the EBR 105 that uses the same turret as the Bourrasque (though it can be argued as slightly less shocking, seeing as the EBR hull was at least used up to the 1970s and not discarded in 1951) as well as many vehicles been given very much unhistorical components, the famous AMX-40 being a notable example.

The fake marriage of the paper design of the Bat.Chat.12t, the ERC-90’s turret modified with an autoloader and an anachronistic 105 mm gun. Illustration by Ardhya ‘Vesp’ Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.

Specifications
Total weight, battle-ready	12.2 tonnes
Crew	3 (Driver, Gunner, Commander)
Propulsion	310 hp “Mathis 300-2”
Top road speed	62 km/h
Power-to-weight ratio in hp/tonne	25.8
Armament	105 mm D.1504/CN-105-57 main gun with a two-round autoloader (36 rounds) Rate of fire 5 rounds per minute
Secondary Armament	None featured in WoT specifications but possibly the same 7.62 mm AANF1 as on the standard TS90 turret
Hull Armor	20 mm (upper front) 40 mm (front) 30 & 20 mm (Iower front) 20 mm (sides & rear) 10 mm (bottom)
Turret Armor	15 mm (front & mantlet) 10 mm (sides & rear) 8 mm (top)
Turret rotation speed	55°/second
Total production	None

Sources:

Char-français: http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/2-archives/engins/2642-1947-batignolles-12t
http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/engins-blindes/blindes-a-roues?task=view&id=782
Army-guide:
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3558.html
AMX30 Main Battle Tank Enthusiast’s Manual, Haynes editions, M.P Robinson & Thomas Seignon, 2020

Cold War British Fake Tanks Fake Tanks Has Own Video

Conqueror Gun Carriage (GC) (Fake Tank)

Post author By Mark Nash
Post date July 15, 2020
3 Comments on Conqueror Gun Carriage (GC) (Fake Tank)

United Kingdom (1950s)
Self-Propelled Gun – Fake

The British FV214 Conqueror Heavy Gun Tank was developed in the early 1950s in answer to the increasingly hostile Soviet Union, and its newly developed heavily armored tanks, such as the IS-3. The 120 mm gun-armed Conqueror was the first and last Heavy Gun Tank produced and operated by the British Army. It had a short service life of just 11 years, from 1955 to 1966. While the Conqueror was based on a hull that was designed to be adaptable, no Self-Propelled Gun was ever built using this hull.

Decades later, the popular online game World of Tanks (WoT) – published and developed by Wargaming (WG) – was preparing a new British tank line. Due to poor research or possibly completely intentionally, the top of the artillery tech tree appeared as the ‘Conqueror Gun Carriage’ or ‘GC’, a completely fictional adaptation of the Conqueror chassis which utilizes an archaic 9.2 inch (234 mm) ‘siege gun’ placed in a fixed superstructure.

That being said, elements of this tank did exist in one form or another.

The Conqueror Gun Carriage (GC) as it is presented in World of Tanks. Image: Wargaming.net

The WoT Representation

A small ‘History’ is provided for this vehicle by Wargaming:

“A proposal to mount a 234-mm howitzer on the chassis of the Conqueror. The power unit was placed in the front. Existed only in blueprints.”

– WoT Wiki Extract

Despite not being given its ‘Fighting Vehicle (FV)’ number, the Conqueror GC is presented as a vehicle of the FV200 series produced in the early 1950s, in the early years of the Cold War. The FV200s date back to the final stages of the Second World War, when the British War Office (WO) was looking for a ‘Universal Tank’. The ancestor of today’s Main Battle Tanks (MBTs), the idea of the Universal Tank was that one chassis would spawn many variants, thus reducing costs, development and making maintenance and supply far easier. The first in the series was the FV201. Despite a long development period, the FV201 project was canceled in 1949, with development moving onto the FV214 Conqueror. As such, only four vehicles of the FV200 series were ever produced and entered into service. These were the FV214 Conqueror and FV221 Caernarvon gun tanks, and the FV219/FV222 Conqueror Armoured Recovery Vehicles (ARVs).

The ‘Conqueror GC’ as it appears in ‘World of Tanks’. While clearly fake, the vehicle is based on a real chassis. Photo: Wargaming.net

Self-Propelled Gun (SPG) variants of the FV200 were planned. These were based on the FV201. The SPGs were designated the FV206 and FV207. The FV206 was classed as ‘Self-Propelled Medium Artillery’ while the FV207 was ‘Self-Propelled Heavy Artillery’. While it is unknown what gun the FV206 would have used, it is known that the FV207 was to mount a 155 mm howitzer. Neither of these vehicles made it further than plans, and no drawings of them exist today.

A representation of the FV207 exists in World of Tanks, but as no official documents remain, it is hard to believe that this representation is in any way accurate. Neither the ‘blueprints’ mentioned in WG’s claim to the historicity of the vehicle ‘Conqueror Gun Carrier’ nor this FV207 have ever been publicly presented either. The FV207 appears to be based solely on the real FV3805 instead. Either way, there is no way to confuse the alleged and invented FV207 with an even more invented Conqueror GC.

The FV201-based FV207 as it appears in World of Tanks. Image: Wargaming.net

Cold War British SPGs

For much of the Cold War, the Royal Artillery – the part of the British Army responsible for this kind of vehicle – relied on one Self-Propelled Gun, the FV433 Abbot. The Abbot was built on the hull of the FV432 Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) and was equipped with a 105 mm Howitzer in a fully traversable turret. The Abbot appeared in the late 1950s, but before this was in development, there were experiments with other SPG designs.

After the Second World War, the United Kingdom was still using the Sexton as its primary SPG. A long development program was launched to find a replacement and, while ultimately resulting in the Abbot, other vehicles also went through development. The design that came closest to completion was the BL 5.5 inch howitzer-armed FV3805 which was based on the Centurion. While this made it to prototype trials, it never entered service. The Abbot would serve as the UKs front line SPG until the early 1990s, when it was finally replaced by the 155 mm gun-armed AS-90.

Left, the FV433 Abbot and, right, the experimental Centurion-based FV3805. Photos: Author & Ed Francis

In-Game Design of the ‘GC’

‘Gun Carriage’ is a uniquely British term used to describe Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs). Although this fake one is labeled as being based on the FV214 Conqueror, the layout of the hull suggests that it is actually based on the FV215. The FV215 never entered service, but it was designed to be the Conqueror’s replacement and, while sharing many components, had a narrower hull, a rear-mounted turret, and a centrally mounted engine. This layout is shared by the fake ‘GC’ with a fixed fighting compartment at the rear and centrally mounted engine.

The FV214 Conqueror (left) and its intended replacement, the FV215 (right). Photos: Author & Tankograd Publishing respectively

This fixed compartment, or casemate, holds the 9.2 inch main armament. The design of the compartment seems to take a lot of cues from the FV3805, featuring the same cylindrical, ‘limited traverse turret’ and a similar layout of periscopes, sights, and hatches. There is also a large hatch and recoil spade installed on the rear of the vehicle. Real SPGs, as they are operated in pre-arranged fixed positions, usually operate with the large rear hatch, or ‘tail-gate’, open. It provides easy access for resupplying ammunition during a fire-mission and also, by being open to the elements, provides ventilation by letting smoke and fumes from the gun escape. The spade is used to transfer recoil forces from the chassis directly to the ground, easing the strain on the suspension. When the vehicle was in position, it would be lowered to the ground. When the gun is fired, the spade provides a back-stop by digging into the ground.

Left, the real FV3805 prototype. Right, the fake Conqueror GC. Note how similar the casemates are, as well as the layout of hatches and periscopes/sights. It is likely that the game designers took a lot of inspiration from the real vehicle. However, they added one more hatch than they needed to. The hatch closest to the gun, on the wall of the casemate, was for the driver of the FV3805. The hatch is also present on the ‘GC’, but as the driver is in the hull, this would be redundant. Images: Ed Francis & Wargaming.net respectively

Armor on the hull is listed as 130 mm (5.11 in) for the front of the hull, 50.8 mm (2”) on the sides, and 76.2 mm (3”) on the rear. This is not too far off the armor thicknesses of the Conqueror, however, it is tricky to pin-point the exact thickness of the hull armor due to conflicting sources. The upper hull was between 4.7 and 5.1 inches (120 – 130 mm) thick, sloped at 61.5 degrees from vertical. This would give an effective thickness of either 11.3 or 12.3 inches (289 – 313 mm). Side armor was 2 inches (51 mm) thick. This is not the same for the more similar FV215 however, with planned thicknesses of 4.9 inch (125 mm) sloped at 59 degrees on the upper glacis and just 1 ¾ (44.5 mm) on the sides and rear.

The crew is also closer to that of the FV215, being made up of a 5-man team. This consists of the commander, gunner, driver, and 2 loaders. It must be said though, that two loaders would be expected in a vehicle such as this due to the scale of ordnance. As with all FV200s, the driver of this fake SPG sits at the front right of the hull.

Mobility

Despite the closer similarity to the FV215 which would have used a Rover engine, this fictional SPG is listed as having the same engine as the Conqueror, consisting of the Rolls-Royce Meteor M120. This was a water-cooled, petrol-injection engine developing 810 horsepower at 2,800 rpm. It was a derivative of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, famous for powering the British Spitfire and American Mustang fighter aircraft of World War 2. In-game, this propels the SPG to a top speed of 34.3 km/h (21 mph) forwards, and 10 km/h (6 mph) in reverse.

The Rolls-Royce Meteor M120 engine installed in the Conqueror. User Handbook for Tank, Heavy Gun, Conqueror Mk.1 & 2 – 1958, WO Code No. 12065

The Horstmann suspension of the ‘GC’ is one of the accurate parts of this vehicle. On the FV200s, the suspension system had 2 wheels per-bogie unit. The wheels would be made of steel, measuring approximately 20 inches (50 cm) in diameter, and constructed from 3 separate parts. These consisted of an outer and inner half, with a steel rim in contact with the track. Between each layer was a rubber ring. The Horstmann system consisted of three horizontal springs mounted concentrically, guided by an internal rod and tube. This allowed each wheel to rise and fall independently, although the system did struggle if both wheels rose at the same time. Four bogies lined each side of the hull of the vehicle, giving it 8 road-wheels per side. There would also be 4 return rollers, 1 per bogie. The drive sprockets were relocated at the rear of the running gear, with the idler wheel at the front.

Left, a schematic drawing of the Conqueror’s four Horstmann suspension bogie units. Right, this view of a Mk.2 Conqueror being unloaded from a flatbed trailer shows how the suspension actuates. Sources: User Handbook for Tank, Heavy Gun, Conqueror Mk.1 & 2 – 1958, WO Code No. 12065 & Rob Griffin

Archaic Armament

One of the most illogical choices in the design of this spurious gun carriage is its armament consisting of the BL 9.2 Inch Howitzer Mk.II. The BL (Breech Loading) 9.2 inch (234 mm) Howitzer was a ‘heavy siege howitzer’ designed in 1913. It saw service with the Royal Artillery in the First World War as a counter-battery weapon.

Period line-drawing of the BL 9.2-inch Howitzer Mk.II. Image: Landships.info

In its day, this howitzer was an extremely powerful weapon, firing a high explosive shell that weighed up to 290 pounds (130 kg). These shells could vary from 28 to 32 inches (71 – 81 cm) long, with a High-Explosive (HE) payload – of either Amatol, Lyddite, or Trotyl (TNT) – weighing anywhere from 25 – 40 pounds (11 – 18 kg). There were two versions of the 9.2-inch howitzer – the Mk.I and the Mk.II. It is the Mk.II that was chosen for this fake SPG.

Artist’s representation of the 28 & 32 inch (71 – 81 cm) long shells of the 9.2-inch (234 mm) Howitzer showing their scale against a 6-foot (1.83 m) man. Produced by Tank Encyclopedia’s own Mr. C. Ryan.

With a 13 ft 3 in (4 m) barrel, the Mk.II appeared in late-1916 in response to a request for greater range. The Mk.I had a range of 5.7 miles (9.2 km) while the Mk.II had an increased range of 7.9 miles (12.7 km) with a muzzle velocity of 1,600 ft/s (490 m/s). The complete gun weighed around 6 long tons* (6.1 tonnes) and had a maximum elevation of 55-degrees. The in-game depiction limits it to 45 degrees, probably due to internal space limitations. On this fake SPG, the gun is mounted in a thinly armored cylindrical housing – known as a ‘limited traverse turret’ – that gives it a horizontal traverse arc of 60 degrees. The exposed parts of the gun, such as the recoil-buffer, are also covered in a representation of protective armor.

*Long tons are a unit of mass unique to the United Kingdom; for ease, it will be shortened to ton. 1 long ton is equal to about 1.01 metric tonnes, or 1.12 US ‘Short’ tons.

Just over 500 BL 9.2-inch Howitzers were produced. While there is no question that it was a powerful weapon, the howitzer would have been completely obsolete in the early-Cold War era that this vehicle is set in. The weapon was officially retired during the Second World War, and was replaced by much more accurate and advanced weaponry.

Head-on view of the Conqueror GC showing the large Howitzer in its armored cylindrical ‘limited traverse turret’. Note also the armor wrapped around the recoil buffer and the area above the barrel. Image: Wargaming.net

God Save the Truth

The Conqueror Gun Carriage is, without doubt, a fake vehicle. It is not the worst of Wargaming’s fake tank crimes, as at least a few of the components used in its design did exist in one form or another. In reality, there would not have been a need for this ‘Gun Carriage’. Had there been a need, it is highly unlikely that designers would turn to an almost-antique weapon to arm it, especially as the gun was officially retired almost 10 years before this vehicle would have ‘existed’.

Rear-view of the Conqueror GC showing the recoil-spade and rear ‘tailgate’. Image: Wargaming.net

Illustration of the fake Conqueror Gun Carriage (GC) produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.

Sources

British Artillery Guns of WW2
arcaneafvs.com
wiki.wargaming.net
www.landships.info
Rob Griffin, Conqueror, Crowood Press
Maj. Michael Norman, RTR, Conqueror Heavy Gun Tank, AFV/Weapons #38, Profile Publications Ltd.
Carl Schulze, Conqueror Heavy Gun Tank, Britain’s Cold War Heavy Tank, Tankograd Publishing

Cold War British Fake Tanks Fake Tanks Has Own Video

FV215b (Fake Tank)

United Kingdom (1950s)
Heavy Gun Tank – Fake

The need for a heavily armed tank was highlighted for the British Army in 1945, when the Soviet Army unveiled its newly developed heavy tank – the IS-3 – at the Berlin Victory Parade. The Armies of Britain, France, and the USA realized they had nothing to counter this new threat. In later years, the IS-3 would prove to be a far less threatening tank than originally thought. At the time, however, these armies were concerned. In response, the US would develop the M103 while the French would experiment with the AMX-50. Great Britain would develop the FV214 Conqueror and FV215 Heavy Gun Tanks.

Decades later, the popular online game World of Tanks (WoT) – published and developed by Wargaming (WG) – was preparing a new British tank line. Due to poor research or possibly completely intentionally, the top of the tree appeared as the Heavy Gun Tank FV215b, a fictional marriage of a FV215 chassis with the FV214 turret and gun with a fictional engine. Fortunately, Wargaming has withdrawn this fake vehicle, although they replaced it with an equally questionable one.

That being said, elements of this tank did exist in one form or another, so those shall be explored.

In-game render showing a profile view of the FV215b. Image: Wargaming.net

The WoT Representation

A small ‘history’ is provided for the vehicle by Wargaming:

“A proposed plan for a heavy tank based on the Conqueror Mk. II. Unlike the production model, this modification featured rear placement of the fighting compartment. Never saw production or service.”

– WoT Wiki Extract

The FV215b is presented as a vehicle of the FV200 series. The FV200s date back to the final stages of the Second World War, when the British War Office (WO) was looking for a ‘Universal Tank’. The ancestor of today’s Main Battle Tanks (MBTs), the idea of the Universal Tank was that one chassis would spawn many variants, thus reducing costs, development and making maintenance and supply far easier. The FV215b is also presented as a variant of the planned FV215, or to give its officially long-winded title, the ‘Tank, Heavy No. 2, 183mm Gun, FV215′. This tank was set to be the replacement of the FV214 Conqueror (Tank, Heavy No. 1, 120mm Gun, FV214).

In-game render of the FV215b showing a top-down view. Image: Wargaming.net

Reality: Heavy Gun Tanks

The term ‘Heavy Gun Tank’ is a uniquely British designation. It refers to the size and power of the gun, not the size and weight of the tank. Heavy Gun Tanks were specifically designed to destroy enemy tanks and/or fortified positions.

Tank, Heavy No. 1, 120 mm Gun, FV214 Conqueror. The Conqueror was Britain’s answer to the Soviet IS-3. It served from 1955 to 1966. Photo: Author’s own

The Conqueror was the first and only ‘Heavy Gun Tank’ that Britain would build and put into active service. Based on the FV200 chassis, the Conqueror was an imposing vehicle. It measured 25 feet (7.62 meters) long – not including the gun, 13.1 feet (3.99 meters) wide and 11 feet (3.35 meters) tall. It weighed 65 long tons* (66 tonnes), had armor up to 13 inches (330 mm) thick and was armed with the powerful L1 120 mm gun. Firing Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) rounds, this gun was able to punch through up to 17.3 inches (446 mm) of 55-degree angled steel armor at 1,000 yards (914 meters). Entering service in 1955, the Conqueror had a short service life, being retired in 1966 after just 11 years of service. It was replaced by the FV4201 Chieftain.

*Long tons are a unit of mass unique to the United Kingdom; for ease it will be shortened to ton. 1 long ton is equal to about 1.01 metric tonnes, or 1.12 US ‘Short’ tons.

The next step would have been the FV215. This was in development just as the Conqueror entered full-scale production. This vehicle used a modified chassis that was slightly narrower than the FV214 at 12 feet (3.6 meters) compared to 13.1 feet (3.99 meters). The FV215 would also have had a rear-mounted turret, and would have been equipped with a powerful L4 183 mm Gun. To accommodate the rear-mounted turret, the powerplant was moved to the center of the vehicle. It would appear that this fake ‘FV215b’ is based on the hull of the real FV215.

‘Tank, Heavy No. 2, 183mm Gun, Fv215’, the planned replacement for the FV214. Developed in the early 1950s, it was armed with the powerful L4 183 mm Gun. It never entered service. Photo: Rob Griffin, Conqueror

In-Game Design of the FV215b

The ‘FV215b’ is basically a rear-turreted Conqueror, although it is based on the real FV215 chassis as stated above. There was never a ‘b’ variant of any description planned for the FV215. In-game specifications record the vehicle as weighing 70 tonnes or 68 long tons. This is heavier than both the FV214 and the real FV215 by about 4 long tons (4.06 tonnes). Hull armor is listed as 152.4 mm (6 inches) on the front, 101.6 (4 inches) on the sides, and 76.2 (3 inches) on the rear. This is nowhere near accurate. On the real FV215 hull, armor was planned to be 4.9 inch (125 mm) sloped at 59 degrees on the upper glacis and just 1 ¾ (44 mm) on the sides and rear.

Despite errors like this, the FV215b does share some accurate parts of its design with both the FV214 and FV215 respectively. These include the 4-man crew (commander, gunner, loader, driver), Horstmann suspension system, the turret and integral ‘Fire Control Turret’, and the 120 mm L1 gun.

In-game render of the FV215b. Image: Wargaming.net

Engine

In-game, the FV215b is equipped with the Rolls-Royce Griffon. This is, in reality, an aircraft engine. While Rolls-Royce aero engines have been adapted for use in armored vehicles, there is no evidence at all to suggest that there was ever a plan to make an AFV variant of the Griffon. An example of a converted Rolls-Royce aero engine is the Meteor – as used in the Conqueror. This was an adaption of the Merlin, an engine famous for powering the British Spitfire and American Mustang fighter aircraft of World War 2.

The Griffon was a 37-liter, 60-degree V-12, liquid-cooled engine. It was the last V-12 aero engine built by Rolls-Royce, with production ceasing in 1955. It was used on such aircraft as the Fairey Firefly, Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Sea Fury. The engine produced over 2,000 hp in its plane configuration, but in game it is listed as producing just 950 hp. This is not far fetched, as converted aero-engines were often de-rated for use in armored vehicles. Meteor is an example of this. As the Merlin, it produced up 1,500 hp depending on the model. When de-rated as the Meteor, it produced just 810 horsepower.

The Rolls-Royce Griffon V-12 Aero-engine. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

The real FV215 was set to be propelled by the Rover M120 No. 2 Mk.1 producing 810 hp and propelling the vehicle to a top speed of just under 20 mph (32 km/h). In this fake tank, the installed Griffon engine is recorded as propelling the vehicle to a top speed of 21 mph (34 km/h). While faster than the real FV215, this is the same top speed as the Conqueror which was propelled by a less powerful engine. As with the real FV215, the engine is mounted centrally, separating the Driver (located in the right front corner of the hull) from the rest of the crew in the turret.

Suspension

The Horstmann suspension of the FV215b is one of the accurate parts of this vehicle. It has been used on all the FV200s including the Caernarvon and Conqueror, but also on the Centurion. On the FV200s, the suspension system had 2 wheels per-bogie unit. The wheels would be made of steel, measuring approximately 20 inches (50 cm) in diameter, and constructed from 3 separate parts. These consisted of an outer and inner half, with a steel rim in contact with the track. Between each layer was a rubber ring. The Horstmann system consisted of three horizontal springs mounted concentrically, guided by an internal rod and tube. This allowed each wheel to rise and fall independently, although the system did struggle if both wheels rose at the same time. Four bogies lined each side of the hull of the vehicle, giving it 8 road-wheels per side. There would also be 4 return rollers, 1 per bogie. The drive sprockets were relocated at the rear of the running gear, with the idler wheel at the front.

Turret & Armament

Both the turret and main armament of the FV215b were taken straight from the FV214 Conqueror.

The main armament of the FV215b consists of the 120mm L1A1 ‘A’ gun. While there were two versions of the 120 mm Gun – the L1A1 and L1A2 – there was never an ‘A’ subvariant. Maximum penetration in-game is listed as 326 mm (12.8 inches).

To give it its full name, the ‘Ordnance, Quick Firing (QF), 120 mm Tank, L1 Gun’ was an extremely powerful weapon with dimensions to match. Muzzle to breach, it measured 24.3 ft (7.4 m) and alone weighed 2.9-tons (3 tonnes). The gun was designed to fire both Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) and High-Explosive Squash Head (HESH) ammunition. The in-game penetration of 326 mm is far lower than that of the real gun. Firing the APDS round at a muzzle velocity of 4,700 fps (1,433 m/s), the L1 could penetrate up to 17.3 inches (446 mm) of 55-degree angled steel armor at 1,000 yards (914 meters). Elevation is listed as +15 to -7 degrees. This is accurate to the Conqueror, although a limiter prevented the gun from depressing past -5 degrees.

The impressively long 120 mm L1 gun, seen here on a surviving Conqueror Mk.2. Photo: Author’s own

The turret is a fairly accurate representation of the one designed for the FV214 Conqueror. Even so, the armor values are way off. In game, it is listed that the turret is protected by 254 mm (10 inches) of armor on the face, 152.4 mm (6 inches) on the sides, and 101.6 mm (4 inches) on the rear. In reality, it is hard to pin-point the exact armor thicknesses on the Conqueror’s turret, thanks largely to conflicting sources. We do know that armor on the turret was between 9.4 – 13.3 in (240 – 340 mm) sloped at 60 degrees on the face, with a 9.4 in (239 mm) mantlet. The sides were 3.5 inches (89 mm) thick, while the rear was 2 inches (51 mm) thick.

A couple of features unique to the Conqueror turret also remain present. One of these is the Fire Control Turret (FCT) – located at the rear of the turret. This replaces the traditional commander’s cupola, and is a self-contained unit that can rotate independently of the main turret. The FCT features an integral range-finder for use by the commander. He would scan around looking for targets, range it, and then pass the data onto the gunner who would then engage.

The other feature is the hatch on the right wall of the turret. This hatch is the ejection port for spent main-gun casings. They were ejected from the turret via the troublesome ‘Mollins gear’, a piece of equipment that frequently broke down on the Conqueror.

In-game render of the FV215b showing the rear-mounted turret. Image: Wargaming.net

99.9% Non-Existent

The FV215b is, without a doubt, a fake vehicle. It is not the worst of Wargaming’s fake tank crimes, as many of the components used in its design did exist. In reality, there would not have been a need for this tank. The real FV215 was designed to replace the Conqueror and have more firepower, so a tank created by mating the FV215 and FV214 would have been completely pointless.

The Tank was introduced to ‘World of Tanks’ in 2014 just to fill the British ‘Tier X’ heavy tank role. In 2018, it was replaced by another less-than-authentic tank, the ‘Super Conqueror’, at least on PC. The FV215b remains in the console and Blitz versions of the game.

Quite remarkably, this photo of a Mk.1 Conqueror with the turret traversed over the engine deck has often been mistaken for an FV215b. Such mis-identifications are a clear result of Wargaming introducing fake tanks and trying to pass them off as real. Photo: Profile Publications

Illustration of the fake FV215b Heavy Gun Tank produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.

Sources

wiki.wargaming.net
Rolls-Royce Engines: Griffon
Rob Griffin, Conqueror, Crowood Press
Maj. Michael Norman, RTR, Conqueror Heavy Gun Tank, AFV/Weapons #38, Profile Publications Ltd.
Carl Schulze, Conqueror Heavy Gun Tank, Britain’s Cold War Heavy Tank, Tankograd Publishing
David Lister, The Dark Age of Tanks: Britain’s Lost Armour, 1945–1970, Pen & Sword Publishing

Cold War British Fake Tanks Fake Tanks Has Own Video

Caernarvon ‘Action X’ (Fake Tank)

Post author By Mark Nash
Post date May 11, 2020
12 Comments on Caernarvon ‘Action X’ (Fake Tank)

United Kingdom (1950s?)
Medium Gun Tank – Fake

The ‘Tank, Medium Gun, FV221’, otherwise known as ‘Caernarvon’, appeared in the early 1950s and was a mating of an FV200 series chassis and the turret of an Mk.III Centurion. It was designed as an interim vehicle to fill the gap while Britain’s first Heavy Gun Tank, the FV214 Conqueror, was in the final stages of development.

Decades later, in 2018, and despite the real FV221 Caernarvon already being present, the popular online game World of Tanks (WoT) – published and developed by Wargaming (WG) – was looking for a new premium tank (a vehicle bought with real money that provides special in-game benefits) to add to the British ‘tech tree’. The result was a ghastly blend of 4 separate parts (engine, turret, armor plates and hull), all to create a fake tank with a double fake name. It is known in-game as the Caernarvon ‘Action X’.

While all of the constituent parts used to make this tank did exist in one form or another, they were never put together in this way.

The ghastly ‘Caernarvon AX’ as it appears in ‘World of Tanks’. Photo: ritastatusreport

The WoT Representation

A small ‘history’ is provided for this vehicle by Wargaming:

“A further development of the vehicles designed by the English Electric company under the “universal tank” concept (FV200). The project was discontinued in favor of the A41 tank (Centurion). No prototypes were built.”

– WoT Wiki extract

The Caernarvon ‘Action X’ is portrayed as a variant of the real FV221 Caernarvon, which is in turn part of the FV200 series of vehicles. Despite not being given its ‘Fighting Vehicle (FV)’ number, this fake is presented as a vehicle of the FV200 series produced in the early 1950s, in the early years of the Cold War.

The FV200 dates back to the final stages of the Second World War, when the British War Office (WO) was looking for a ‘Universal Tank’. The ancestor of today’s Main Battle Tanks (MBTs), the idea of the Universal Tank was that one chassis would spawn many variants, thus reducing costs, development and making maintenance and supply far easier. The first in the series was the FV201.

Despite a long development period, the FV201 project was canceled in 1949, with development moving onto the FV214 Conqueror, and in turn, the FV221 Caernarvon. As such, only four vehicles of the FV200 series were ever produced and entered into service. These were the FV214, and FV221 gun tanks, and the FV219/FV222 Conqueror Armoured Recovery Vehicles (ARVs).

The Caernarvon ‘Action X’ in-game. Image: WoT player & TE Community member, Nisstro.

Reality: FV221 Caernarvon

In 1950, the gun and turret of the FV214 Conqueror was still in the development phase. The hull and chassis, however, were already in the final stages of development. The chassis was a simplified variant of the FV201 series. The main simplification was in the engine bay, where the power take-off for the additional devices that the FV200 series was to have been fitted with was removed. This simplification meant the tank was slightly shorter. Both of these factors reduced the weight and these savings in weight were reinvested in the tank’s frontal protection, with the glacis being thickened and sloped back slightly more.

With this part of the FV214 complete, the Tank, Medium Gun, FV221 Caernarvon project was launched. The aim of this project was to speed up the development of the Conqueror, while giving crews experience in the operation of the vehicle. The FV221 consisted of an FV214 hull mated with a Centurion Mk.III turret armed with a 20-pounder gun.

With an initial prototype built in April 1952, just 10 of these vehicles were built, the last one in 1953. These had a brief career, nonetheless, seeing extensive trial service in the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) and the Middle East Land Forces (MELF).

The FV221 Caernarvon, an amalgamation of the FV214 hull and Centurion Mk.III turret. Photo: Tankograd Publishing

In-Game Design of the Caernarvon ‘AX’

This fake tank is simply a fictional ‘upgrade’ to the FV221 Caernarvon ‘Medium Gun Tank’. As this vehicle is also equipped with a 20-pounder (84 mm) gun, it also fits the ‘medium gun tank’ designation. The term ‘Medium Gun Tank’ is a uniquely British designation. It refers to the size and power of the gun, not the size and weight of the tank. The role of a ‘Medium Gun Tank’ was to provide support for assaulting infantry by the sheer volume of fire and engaging lighter enemy armored vehicles. The role of engaging heavily armored vehicles and defensive positions fell to the ‘Heavy Gun Tank’, such as the Conqueror.

The hull armor for this vehicle is listed by WG as 130 mm on the hull front, 50.8 mm on the sides, and 38.1 mm on the rear. This is not too far off reality, however, it is still unclear as to just how thick the upper glacis of the tank was due to conflicting sources. That said, it is believed that the upper glacis is between 4.7 and 5.1 inches (120 – 130 mm) thick. The side armor is accurate, at about 2 inches (50 mm) thick, while the rear plate is actually around 0.7 inches (20 mm).

Despite the countless falsehoods present on this vehicle, the Caernarvon ‘AX’ does share some accurate parts of its design with the real FV221. These include the 4-man crew (commander, gunner, loader, driver), Horstmann suspension system, and the layout of the hull.

In-game profile shot of the Caernarvon ‘Action X’ showing the Horstmann suspension, one of the only realistic parts of this vehicle. Photo: WoT player & TE Community member, Nisstro

The ‘Action X’ Turret

The ‘Action X’ turret is where this mutated tank gets its name. In its own right, the ‘history’ of this turret is a comedy of errors but, nonetheless, it must be clearly stated that the turret, by itself, WAS a real project. Unfortunately, the history of this turret is long lost, leading historians to piece together its history from fragments of files. The following information has been compiled by amateur military historians and TE members, Ed Francis and Adam Pawley.

The first falsehood to tackle is the name ‘Action X’. The official name for this turret was the ‘Centurion Mantletless Turret’, so called because it was a design for a new turret for the Centurion. The name ‘Action X’ appeared in a book published in the early 2000s, after the author cited seeing the name written on the back of a photo of the turret. What he fails to mention is that this was written in the 1980s, and does not appear in any official material.

Centurion fitted with the Mantletless Turret undergoing trials in the 1960s. Photo: ritastatusreport

Evidence suggests that the turret was developed alongside the Centurion and Chieftain, as a means of creating a method for poorer countries to upgrade their Centurion fleets if they could not afford to invest in the Chieftain. Despite popular belief, its development had nothing to do with the FV4202 project. The design was quite different from the standard Centurion design.
Where the standard Centurion turret had a large mantlet that covered the majority of the turret face, this design was mantletless. A large sloped ‘forehead’ replaced the mantlet, with the coaxial machine gun being moved to the top left corner. The rest of the turret remained rather similar to the standard turret. The bustle stayed the same basic shape, the commander’s cupola remained at the back right, with the loader’s hatch on the back left. Unfortunately, the real armor values are currently unknown. In-game, they are listed as 254 mm (10 inches) on the front, 152.4 mm (6 inches) on the sides, and 95.3 mm (3 ¼ inches) on the rear.

Other than the fact that just 3 of these turrets were made, with 2 of them fitted and tested on Centurion chassis and 1 destroyed in a firing trial, little more official information remains on the project. One of these three originals still survives, and currently sits in the car park of The Tank Museum, Bovington, England.

The surviving ‘Centurion Mantletless Turret’ in the car park of The Tank Museum, Bovington. Note the position of the coaxial machine gun at the top left. Photo: Adam Pawley

Second to the name, the next error is the fact that this turret was never intended to be installed on any member of the FV200 series of vehicles. For one thing, this turret was developed almost a full decade after the FV221 Caernarvon. Another issue is the addition of the additional armor on the turret cheeks. The design of these has been taken straight from another WoT fake, the ‘Super Conqueror’. No such name was ever used. The tank was, in fact, a mere static test vehicle, a guinea pig that was pummeled by High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) and High-Explosive Squash Head (HESH) ammunition to test their effects on armored vehicles. For this, the vehicle was covered with additional 0.5 – 1.1 inch (14 – 30 mm) armor plates over its bow and turret cheeks. There was never any intention – or even a need – to place these plates on the ‘Mantletless Turret’. In the World of Tanks game, a single Browning M1919A4 .30 caliber (7.62 mm) machine gun was also added to the commander’s cupola on the turret roof. This was known as the L3A1 in British service.

On the left, the real Conqueror target vehicle, on the right, the fake Caernarvon AX. Photos: themodellingnews and WoT player & TE Community member, Nisstro, respectively

The Caernarvon ‘Action X’ is not the only vehicle in WoT to use the false name. The other vehicle is the Centurion ‘Action X’, which is based on the Centurions which were tested with the ‘Mantletless Turret’.

Armament

The armament installed on this spurious vehicle is the Ordnance Quick-Firing (QF) 20-pounder Gun with ‘Type B’ barrel. There were two types of 20-pounder: the ‘Type A’ without a fume extractor, and the ‘Type B’ with a fume extractor. The gun is, at least, an accurate choice, as the ‘Mantletless Turret’ was tested with both the 20-pounder and L7 105 mm gun. The 20-pounder was the successor to the 17-pounder gun of the Second World War and had a 3.3 inch (84 mm) bore. A range of ammunition was available to it. When firing an Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (A.P.D.S.) round at a muzzle velocity of 4,810 ft/s (1,465 m/s), the gun could penetrate up to 13 inches (330 mm) of armor at 1,000 yards (914 m). In-game, maximum penetration is listed as just 10 inches (258 mm).

The Caernarvon ‘AX’ in-game showing its ‘firepower’. Photo: Wargamming.net

Despite the accurate selection of a gun, there remains an error in the presentation of it in that there is a thermal sleeve around the barrel. Thermal sleeves are used to provide consistent temperature to the barrel, in turn preventing distortions due to thermal expansion caused by the temperature fluctuations around the tube. There were no such sleeves added to the barrels of the 20-pounder gun (either A or B) or the 105 mm until the 1960s.

The 20-pounder gun – both ‘A’ & ‘B’ types – was installed on multiple vehicles. It served on the Centurion from the Mk.3 to the Mk.5/2, after which it was replaced by the 105 mm L7. It was also the main armament of the FV4101 Charioteer Medium Gun Tank and, of course, the real FV221 Caernarvon.

The 20-pounder-armed Centurion Mk.3 (left) and FV4101 Charioteer (right). Both of these are equipped with the ‘Type A’ 20-pounder. Photos: acemodel & peda.net

Erroneous Engine

As with the equally fake FV215b, the Caernarvon ‘AX’ is equipped with the Rolls-Royce Griffon. This is, in reality, an aircraft engine. While Rolls-Royce aero engines have been adapted for use in armored vehicles, there is no evidence at all to suggest that there was ever a plan to make an AFV variant of the Griffon. An example of a converted Rolls-Royce aero engine is the Meteor, as used in the real FV221 Caernarvon. This was an adaption of the Merlin, an engine famous for powering the British Spitfire and American Mustang fighter aircraft of World War 2.

The Griffon was a 37-liter, 60-degree V-12, liquid-cooled engine. It was the last V-12 aero engine built by Rolls-Royce, with production ceasing in 1955. It was used on such aircraft as the Fairey Firefly, Supermarine Spitfire, and Hawker Sea Fury. The engine produced over 2,000 hp in its plane configuration, but in-game it is listed as producing just 950 hp. This is not too far fetched, as converted aero-engines were often de-rated for use in armored vehicles. Meteor is an example of this. As the Merlin, it produced up 1,500 hp depending on the model. When de-rated as the Meteor, it produced just 810 horsepower.

The Rolls-Royce Griffon V-12 Aero-engine. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

On the real FV221, the Rolls-Royce Meteor M120 No. 2 Mk.1 produced 810 hp and propelled the vehicle to a top speed of 22 mph (35 kph). In this fake tank, the engine is listed as propelling this vehicle to a top speed of 36.3 km/h (22.5 mph).

Suspension

The Horstmann suspension of the Caernarvon ‘Action X’ is one of the accurate parts of this vehicle. On the FV200s, the suspension system had 2 wheels per-bogie unit. The wheels were made of steel, measuring approximately 20 inches (50 cm) in diameter, and constructed from 3 separate parts. These consisted of an outer and inner half, with a steel rim in contact with the track. Between each layer was a rubber ring. The Horstmann system consisted of three horizontal springs mounted concentrically, guided by an internal rod and tube. This allowed each wheel to rise and fall independently, although the system did struggle if both wheels rose at the same time. Four bogies lined each side of the hull of the vehicle, giving it 8 road-wheels per side. There would also be 4 return rollers, 1 per bogie. The drive sprockets were relocated at the rear of the running gear, with the idler wheel at the front.

Fake, Pure and Simple

The Caernarvon ‘Action X’ is just one of a litany of convenient or lazy fakes by Wargaming. Not only do they erroneously mate a turret with a hull that was never intended to carry it, they also use a completely false designation for said turret. To cap it all, they then adorn the turret with false additions, such as the armor plate.

Had this tank ‘existed’, it would have been completely redundant. The turret itself was not developed until the 1960s, after the Caernarvons had all been retired or turned into Conquerors. By this time, the FV4201 Chieftain was in development, and the Conqureor was about to leave service, showing just how obsolete the chassis was, not to mention the 20 pounder gun.

The Caernarvon ‘Action X’ was released into ‘World of Tanks’ with this optional gaudy ‘Fearless’ camouflage scheme. A fake camouflage scheme for a fake tank. Photo: Wargaming.net

Illustration of the fake Caernarvon ‘Action X’ produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.

Sources

Wargaming.net
WO 194/388: FVRDE, Research Division, Trials Group Memorandum on Defensive Firing Trials of Centurion Mantletless Turret, June 1960, The Tank Museum, Bovington
WO 185/292: Tanks: TV 200 Series: Policy and Design, 1946-1951, The National Archives, Kew
FV221 Caernarvon – Instructions for User Trials – REME aspect, September 1953, The Tank Museum, Bovington
Maj. Michael Norman, RTR, Conqueror Heavy Gun Tank, AFV/Weapons #38, Profile Publications Ltd.
Carl Schulze, Conqueror Heavy Gun Tank, Britain’s Cold War Heavy Tank, Tankograd Publishing

Fake Tanks WW2 German Fake Tanks

Panther II mit 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 (Fake Tank)

Post author By Louis Mendoza
Post date May 2, 2020
21 Comments on Panther II mit 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 (Fake Tank)

German Reich (1940s)
Medium Tank – Fake

During World War Two, the German war machine created some of the largest and most powerful tank designs of that time.

Nonetheless, a design that is often incorrectly cited as being one of these is the ‘Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71’ (Eng: Panther II with 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71). Featured prominently in popular video games such as ‘World of Tanks‘- published by Wargaming – and War Thunder – published by Gaijin, the Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 has been fooling not only video gamers, but, for decades, many historians too.

The Real Panther II

The Panther II’s origins can be traced back to 1942. There were concerns that the Panther I did not have sufficient armor for protection against the anti-tank weapons that would be encountered on the Eastern Front in 1943. Of particular concern were Russian 14.5 mm anti-tank rifles, as they could penetrate the flat 40 mm lower hull sides of the Panther I at close ranges. These concerns lead to the development of a new Panther design, the Panther II, featuring a single piece 100 mm frontal plate and 60 mm side armor.

As revealed by a report from 22nd January 1943, the Panther II was originally to be identical to the Panther I except in armor and weight. Source: Jentz and Doyle.

At a meeting in Nuremberg on 10th February 1943, the chief design engineer of Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nürnberg (MAN), Dr. Wiebecke, stated that the current Panther design (the Panther I) did not meet specifications derived from experience on the Eastern Front. Therefore, the Panther I would be thoroughly redesigned and incorporate components from the Tiger, such as the final drives. The suspension and turret would also be redesigned and modified. This newly designed Panther was to be the Panther II. A week later, on the 17th, it was decided that the VK45.03(H) Tiger III (later redesignated as Tiger II) would become standardized along with the Panther II.

A table drawn up by Thomas L. Jentz from a Wa Pruef 6 (the German ordnance department) report from 1st November 1943 comparing the armor thickness and angles of the Panther I and the Panther II. Source: Jentz and Doyle.

The Panther II would meet its end in May 1943, largely at the hands of 5.5 mm armored plates called ‘Schürzen’ (Eng: Skirts). Schürzen were fitted on the sides of German Panzers in order to provide protection against Soviet anti-tank rifles and these would be fitted onto the Panther I in April 1943. As Thomas Jentz and Hilary Doyle put it in their book Panther Germany’s Quest for Combat Supremacy, “the invention of Schürzen saved the Panther I. If the Panther I hadn’t been able to cope with anti-tank rifles, production would have been converted to the Panther II.”

With the fitting of Schürzen onto the Panther I, there was no longer much need for the Panther II and further development and work was largely ended. While no versuchs turm (Eng: experimental turret) for the Panther II was ever completed, a single versuchs Panther II hull was completed by MAN in Nuremberg. After the war, without access to supporting documents, when questioned if any Panther II were ever used in combat, MAN stated: Two experimental Panther 2 were ordered, although only one experimental chassis was completed. It is possible that this single experimental chassis could have been employed in combat.

As for the fate of this single versuchs Panther II hull, after the war, it was shipped to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA without a turret, just test weight rings. With these test weights still in place, the Panther II was sent to Detroit, Michigan, USA for testing, after which it was shipped back to Aberdeen Proving Ground where a turret from a Panther Ausf.G (Serial Number 121447) was mounted on the vehicle. The Panther II was then given to the Patton Museum in Fort Knox, Kentucky, USA. At the Patton Museum, the Panther II underwent a restoration which involved switching out the turret from Panther Ausf.G 121447 with that of Panther Ausf.G 121455. As of now, the Panther II is located at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA with the turret from Panther Ausf.G 12455.

A drawing of the only Versuchs Panther II hull by Hilary Doyle. Source: Jentz and Doyle

A photograph of the Versuchs Panther II hull with the Panther Ausf.G turret mounted. Source: Jentz and Doyle

A photograph of the Panther II at its current home at Fort Benning with the turret from Panther Ausf.G 121455. Source: Rob Cogan

The Real Panther mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71

In a meeting on 23rd January 1945, Oberst (Eng: Colonel) Holzäuer of Wa Pruef 6 reported that development of a Panther mounting the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 gun in a heavily modified Schmalturm was to be accomplished by Daimler Benz.

The Schmalturm (Eng: Narrow Turret) was a narrow turret design by Daimler Benz for the Panther Ausf.F designed to increase armor protection, provide a smaller target, and eliminate the shot trap of the previous curved mantlet design of the Panther.

Daimler Benz’s design called for a turret ring that was 100 mm larger than the current Panther turret ring to allow for the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 gun to fit. Ammunition stowage in this Panther would also decrease to 56 rounds due to the larger size of the 8.8 cm rounds as compared to the smaller 7.5 cm rounds. A wooden mock-up of the Daimler Benz design had been completed.

Krupp had previously drawn a sketch (drawing number Hln-130 dated 18th October 1944) of the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 gun mounted in a Panther Schmalturm with as little modifications as possible, the most notable of which was the moving of the trunnions for the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 gun back 350 mm, meaning the gun was moved forward 350 mm. This would allow for the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 gun to fit in the turret. Krupp had been awarded a contract by Wa Pruef 6 to develop this design further on 4th December 1944.

A cross-section of Krupp’s proposal for a Schmalturm mounting the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 gun as drawn by Hilary Doyle. Notice the distinct bulge in the front of the turret to account for the trunnions being moved. Source: Jentz and Doyle.

At a meeting on 20th February 1945 Wa Pruef 6, Wa Pruef 4 (a sister department to Wa Pruef 6 in charge of the development of artillery), Daimler Benz, and Krupp compared both Daimler Benz’s and Krupp’s 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 Schmalturm proposals. It was decided that a new proposal was to be developed that featured design aspects from both Daimler Benz’s proposal, such as increasing the turret ring diameter, and Krupp’s proposal, such as relocating the trunnions. Daimler Benz was put in charge of developing the turret and Krupp was put in charge of the gun.

However, by the war’s end, all that was completed was a wooden mock-up which was still located at the Daimler Benz assembly plant in August 1945.

The Fake Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71

The Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 was born out of a mistake made by the German tank historian, Walter J. Spielberger.

In a report on the previously mentioned 10th February 1943 meeting, it was stated how experience on the Eastern Front had shown that the Panther I did not have sufficiently thick armor. Seeing how the Panther I had yet to make its famous debut at Kursk in July 1943, Walter J. Spielberger had thought that the report was misdated and should have read 10th February 1944. Missing crucial documents that had yet to be discovered, Walter J. Spielberger then made the assumption that the Panther II project was still very much active into early 1945 despite its cancelation in May 1943. This would lead him in making the claim that the Panther II project was linked with the Panther mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 project, ergo the Panther II was meant to mount the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 in a Schmalturm.

While there was a Panther II turret design in a Rheinmetall Borsig drawing (drawing H-Sk A 86176 dated 7th November 1943,) which showed a 7.92 mm M.G. 42 machine gun mount in a Panther II turret with a schmale blendenausführung (Eng: narrow gun mantlet model), this was completely separate from the Daimler Benz Schmalturm design for the Panther Ausf.F or the Daimler Benz Schmalturm design for the Panther mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 for that matter. Also of note was that this turret design came months AFTER the cancelation of the Panther II project in May 1943.

A drawing of Spielberger’s Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 by Hilary Doyle. Note that the turret used in this iteration would not have been capable of fitting the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 gun as no modifications have been made to it, such as relocating the trunnions and or increasing the turret ring diameter. Source: Walter J. Spielberger

The Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 was essentially impossible, as the Panther II project was killed off in May 1943, whilst the earliest known drawing for a Panther fitted with an 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 gun is Krupp’s drawing (drawing number Hln-130) which was from 18th October 1944.

The Myth Spreads

Despite correcting his mistake in the 1999 edition of his book Panther and Its Variants, Spielberger’s Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 was still being touted as fact by some historians, for example, Thomas Anderson in his book Panther. The Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 would further spread as a result of numerous modeling companies producing models of it, such as DRAGON, as well as its inclusion in the popular tank video games World of Tanks and War Thunder.

The Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 as seen in the video game War Thunder. Note that the turret used in this iteration would not have been capable of fitting the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 gun as no modifications have been made to it, such as relocating the trunnions or increasing the turret ring diameter. This particular model is also fitted with German infrared devices such as the F.G. 1250 Ziel- und Kommandanten-Optik für Panther (Eng: Infrared Sight and Commander’s Scope for a Panther), a Kampfraumheizung (Eng: Crew Compartment Heater), and Schürzen, features that the real Panther II never had. Image: Gaijin

The Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 as seen in the video game World of Tanks. This particular model is fitted with Krupp’s 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 Schmalturm, meaning that the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 gun could fit as the trunnions would have been relocated. Also of note is the external travel lock fitted onto the upper glacis plate for the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 gun, a feature the real Panther II never had. Image: Wargaming.net

The Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 as modeled by the DRAGON model company. The turret used in this iteration of the Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 would not have been capable of fitting the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 gun, as no modifications have been made to it, such as relocating the trunnions and or increasing the turret ring diameter. Source: kingkit.co.uk

Conclusion

While having parts from very real German tank designs, the Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 is ultimately fake. This beast of a Panther tank was merely the result of a misunderstanding of a single sentence, not of any actual German design efforts. Despite the lack of evidence supporting its existence and its subsequent removal from further editions by Walter Spielberger, the one behind the Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71, the Panther II mit L/71 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 has been propagated repeatedly in media and literature.

Also, despite repeated attempts to clear this myth, its continued presence in games such as World of Tanks and War Thunder, in certain books, and in the shape of modeling kits that present it as fact will ensure that this fake will live for years to come.

The fake Panther II mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71. Note that the turret used in this iteration would not have been capable of fitting the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 gun as no modifications have been made to it, such as relocating the trunnions or increasing the turret ring diameter. Illustration produced by Andrei Kirushkin, funded by our Patreon campaign.

Sources

Panther and Its Variants by Walter J. Spielberger.
Panzer Tracts No. 5-4 Panzerkampfwagen Panther II and Panther Ausfuehrung F by Thomas L. Jentz and Hilary L. Doyle.
Panzer Tracts No. 20-1 Paper Panzers by Thomas L. Jentz and Hilary L. Doyle.
Germany’s Panther Tank The Quest for Combat Supremacy by Thomas L. Jentz and Hilary Doyle.
Thomas Anderson, Panther, Osprey Publishing

Cold War Italian Fake Tanks Fake Tanks Has Own Video

Progetto M35 Mod. 46 (Fake Tank)

Post author By Andrew Hills
Post date December 5, 2019
16 Comments on Progetto M35 Mod. 46 (Fake Tank)

Italian Republic (1946)
Medium Tank – Fake

The popular online game World of Tanks (WoT) published and developed by Wargaming (WG) has many tens of thousands of players and a wide variety of historical and semi-historical armored vehicles to play. It also has a few ‘fake’ tanks as well, that is, tanks that never existed in either drawings or material. The Progetto M35 mod.46 Medium tank is one from the latter category. The tank is very handsomely represented with a 3D model, but it is a fake, as the tank never existed. However, the vehicle in-game is not wholly fabricated, as it has a minuscule basis in fact.

WoT Representation

In WoT, the Progetto M35 mod.46 is, as might be expected from its name, represented as a project dating from 1946 for a 35 tonne (hence the ‘M35’) medium tank. There is even a short ‘history’ provided:

“Conceptualization of a draft design developed at the request of General Francesco Rossi who believed that only light vehicles weighing up to 35 tons would be effective in a new war. Such an innovative design was not approved; development was discontinued when Italy joined the Standard Tank project.”

– WoT Wiki extract.

This ‘history’ is a half-truth at best.

Progetto M35 mod.46 as represented by Wargaming in its World of Tanks game. Source: Wargaming

In-Game, the Design is as follows

Engine

The engine for the Progetto M35 mod.46 in the WoT game is given as a 652 hp ID36S 6V CA engine. Although the manufacturer’s name is not provided, the Italian firm of Isotta Fraschini did make a series of engines known as ID-36. These were 9.72 litre marine diesel engines with 6 cylinders arranged in a ‘V’ shape (hence the 6V in the name for a V6 engine) and producing 500 hp. Measuring just 92.5 cm high, 92 cm wide, and 137.2 cm long, this engine weighs just 890 kg. In WoT, the engine module weight is given as 1,200 kg, more than the actual engine. With an output of 652 hp, the engine in-game it is also much more powerful than the real engine, although static-engine versions of the ID-36 are available which produce in excess of 700 hp, like the Fire-pump version (725 hp)

Isotta Fraschini ID-36 series marine diesel engine. The particular model produced 500 hp. Source: mfc-ve on ebay.it

The engines have only been around since the early 1980s, although the company itself dates back to the early years of the 20th century. Whilst the engine is neither for tanks and was not available in 1946, the engine is essentially genuine. They are still in use today for motorboats for example, as they are valued for their compact size and reliability. Their most notable use is in the Italian Lerici-class minesweeper ships of the Italian Navy. Other versions of this engine with 8 and even up to 16 cylinders are available producing up to 2200 bhp. The ‘CA’ added to the end of the WoT module in-game is simply to denote Carro Armato (tank use), although as already stated this engine was never used for tanks.

Suspension and Tracks

The suspension for the WoT Progetto M35 mod.46 is given in the game as ‘Progetto M35 mod.46’ suspension, although what sort of suspension this is open to question. With six evenly spaced road wheels on each side and a noticeable offset between the wheels on the left and right, it appears to be suggesting the adoption of torsion bar suspension for the tank. No such mention of this type of suspension or any other type of suspension is mentioned by General Rossi so this choice is entirely fictional/speculative on the part of WoT.

Secondly, the choice of tracks for the model is very odd too, as, with three rectangular rubber pads across each link, the tracks bear an uncanny resemblance to the British ‘hush puppy’ type of tracks as used on the British Centurion tank. There is no evidence that Italy ever operated a Centurion tank or the ‘hush puppy’ tracks for it either. Further, those types of tracks were not introduced on the Centurion until the 1960s in an effort to reduce the damage to paved roads. Therefore, even if Italy ever did get some of these tracks for some purpose, they would clearly be unsuitable to model on a tank from 1946.

Front view of the tracks on the Progetto (left) bear a striking resemblance to the British ‘hush-puppy’ (right) tracks. Source: WG WoT & Mark Nash

Armament

In WoT, the Progetto M35 mod.46 is shown using what is described as a 90/50 T119E1 main gun. This is a 50-caliber long 90 mm gun with a cylindrical muzzle brake/blast diffuser. The gun is a very interesting choice, as the history of the T119 gun makes it clear that it is entirely inappropriate as an option for this design.

For a start, the gun is American, not Italian. The T119 gun originated from the development of the US T42 Medium Tank which did not even reach the wooden mockup stage until March 1949. When it did, it was fitted with the M3A1 90 mm gun, but this was considered substandard and had to be improved with revised specifications for an improved pressure breech capable of withstanding 47,000 psi (324 MPa) instead of 38,000 psi (262 MPa). It was this revised 90 mm gun which became the T119.

T119 90 mm tank gun fitted with a single baffle muzzle brake. Source: Hunnicutt’s Patton

This T119 gun was able to fire the 90 mm ammunition of the M3A1 90 mm gun, but not the other way around, as it was a higher pressure (the cases were even modified to prevent an accident loading on the lower pressure gun with the higher pressure rounds).

The T119 gun fired the T33E7 AP-T shell (mounted in the T24 case) at 3,000 ft/s (914 m/s) as well as the M71 HE round (in the T24 case). At 177.15 inches (4,500 mm) in length, the T119 had a length of 50 calibers.

Manufacture of the T119 90 mm gun was not even authorized by the Ordnance Technical Committee for production at Watervliet Arsenal until 20th October 1948. This gun was still considered ‘new’ and experimental (hence the ‘T’ designation) in January 1950, when it was modified into the T119E1 and finally became the T125 gun (later standardized as M36) as part of the development of the M56 Scorpion (then the ‘Carriage, Motor, 90 mm Gun, T101). This T119 gun was originally fitted with a single baffle muzzle brake, but this was later replaced with a cylindrical blast deflector by the time it was mounted on the T42 Medium Tank. The gun on the Progetto M35 mod.46 is certainly a real gun, but it is neither an Italian gun nor in existence at the time of the vehicle. This is before even taking into account considerations of when a brand new and experimental American gun could even have got to Italy and certainly not an autoloader for that gun for Italy.

Other points of consideration for the Progetto M35 mod.46 include the armor. Data given by WoT states that the hull armor is supposed to be 60 mm thick frontally with 30 mm on the sides and rear for the hull, and 80 mm, 60 mm, and 25 mm on the turret front, sides and rear respectively. These figures are not based on any design but are purely a function of balance for the game.

Francesco Rossi

Having dissected the tank as claimed by WG, it is important to consider the man, General Franceso Rossi, claimed as the source and what he really wrote. General Rossi is certainly a real person. Born on 6th December 1885, Rossi was a professional soldier who was a Lieutenant Colonel by 1926. Through the 1930s, he rose through the senior ranks with appoints in Rome as Chief of Military Transport and then as the Commanding officer of various artillery regiments. By 1939, he was the Commanding Officer of an Artillery Corps and then Intendant of the Italian 1st Army. Through World War Two, he continued his rise going from the Commander of II Corps to Deputy Chief of the Army General Staff in March 1941. He was made a Lieutenant General in October 1942 and, in March 1943, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Chief of the Supreme General Staff of the Italian Royal Army (Regio Esercito – RE). It was in this capacity that Gen. Rossi was to play a crucial role during the Italian Armistice of September 1943 (the Armistice of Cassibile).

General Franceso Rossi. Source: Generals.dk

The Source of the Claim

The origin for the WoT claim is from a book written by Gen. Rossi, published in 1946, entitled “La Ricostruzione dell’ Esercito” – the reconstruction of the army. Written in 1946, this paper predates the Paris Peace Treaty of February 1947 and was outlining how a new Italian Army should be organized and the sort of equipment it needed. WW2 had been utterly devastating for Italy with a large but ill-prepared and usually rather poorly led army suffering severe defeats at the hands of the British and Americans. Germany, Italy’s ally in WW2, was not a particularly gracious ally at times either and, following the armistice with the Allies in September 1943, Italy basically collapsed into a civil war with some of the military remaining loyal to the Axis and the rest joining the Allies. This second half had suffered harsh reprisals from the Germans, who from then on had acted as an occupying power. Such a split in Italy required a lot of mending after the war. In this sense, Gen. Rossi’s short book was very well-timed. The Army was totally broken by the war and was still operating a few Italian vehicles left over from the war along with a mishmash of tanks and armored cars provided by the British and Americans. A total reorganization was certainly required. It is worth bearing in mind though, that Article 54 of the Paris Treaty of February 1947 strictly limited the Italian military to not more than 200 heavy and medium tanks and, through Article 61, a total of 250,000 personnel (Army and Carabinieri combined). The likelihood of authorizing the expensive and time-consuming development of a home-grown tank by Italy was simply neither likely nor realistic. It is hard to imagine that Gen. Rossi, from his senior position in the Italian military, would not have been aware of the parlous state of the Italian economy and military post-war.

Article 54 of the Paris Peace Treaty 1947 limiting Italy’s tank strength. Source: US Dept. of State

In his book, “La Ricostruzione dell’Esercito” Gen. Rossi wrote:

Italian Original:

“Accenno anche alle caratteristiche che dovrebbe avere un carro armato di produzione nazionale, unicamente per completare la visione dei mezzi meccanici, per il caso sia giudicato possibile ed opportuno, come io ritengo, procedere a studi ed anche all’approntamento del prototipo.”
“Carro armato veloce, ben corazzato, non mastodontico, perchè resti nei limiti consentiti dalle nostre ferrovie e dalle nostre opere d’arte, ma tale da tener testa ai più progrediti carri esteri: peso dalle 30 alle 35 tonn., cannone di calibro intorno ai 75 mm, motore di 5-600 H.P. di tipo appositamente ad iniezione per la minor facilità di incendio del gasolio rispetto alla benzina.
Dal carro armato potrà trarsi il cannone semovente, utilizzando lo stesso scafo per un cannone da 90, od un obice di calibro maggiore”

– La Ricostruzione dell’Esercito, 1946

English translation:

“I mention the characteristics a national production tank should have solely to complete the vision of the mechanic vehicles, if it is considered viable and appropriate, as I think, proceed to studies and the preparation of a prototype.
Fast tank, well armored, not too big and heavy [like an elephant], provided it stays within the limits allowed by our railway and artwork [bridges, tunnels, etc.], but able to stand up to the most advanced tank of foreign countries: weight between 30 to 35 tons, cannon of a calibre around 75 mm, 500/600 HP engine specifically of injection type due to lower risk of fire compared to a gasoline engine.
From the tank, a self-propelled gun might be derived using the same hull for a 90 mm cannon or a howitzer of a larger caliber”

General Rossi’s book and dust jacket cover binder, 1946. Source: Author

Despite the obviously weakened state of the Italian economy in 1946, Gen. Rossi was still hoping, perhaps vainly, for a new nationally produced tank at least to the level of the production of a prototype. To this end, he outlined the features it should have.

Firstly, powered by a fuel-injected diesel engine (due to the lower fire risk than a petrol engine) producing between 500 and 600 hp. The vehicle had to be quick, able to keep up with the most advanced foreign tanks. At the time of writing, the primary foreign tanks Rossi was likely familiar with would be the American Sherman, British Cromwell, Russian T-34-85, or even the German WW2 Panther with top speeds under ideal conditions of about 48 km/h, 64 km/h, 38 km/h, and 55 km/h respectively. Quite how much Gen. Rossi might have known about the most modern tanks from Britain, American, and Russian though is questionable, but he would certainly have been familiar with at least these WW2 tanks.

Weight-wise, Rossi was very clear, a tank of between 30 and 35 tonnes in weight and of sufficiently modest dimensions to be transported by rail. Armor-wise, the tank was supposed to be well armored yet not too large, hardly a thorough description but then that is because this was not a design – it was a concept of what tank Italy needed for a new army.

At 35 tonnes, this would still be heavier than the heaviest tank Italy produced during the war, the 26-tonne P.26/40 and around 10-tonnes lighter than the German Panther. The weight range given actually closely matches that of the American M4 Sherman. This is not the only similarity either. The gun called for by Gen. Rossi was one of a caliber of 75 mm or thereabouts. The British Cromwell was using the QF 75 mm gun, the American M4 used the M3 75 mm gun or the 76 mm M1A1 series. The British Comet had the 77 mm HV, whilst the German Panther had used the 75 mm KwK 42. Which, if any of these, Gen. Rossi might had been considering is unknown – perhaps he was considering an Italian gun in that caliber range, but he was clear on what he considered a suitable caliber – 75 mm or thereabouts. Bigger guns, like a 90 mm piece, were destined to be on a tank destroyer preferably based on the same chassis.

One of the more unusual elements of General Rossi’s book completely unrelated to its content is that the pages were actually printed and folded before being bound meaning that the majority of pages were still bound along at least one outer edge. Source: Author

That then, is literally ‘it’. There is no design, no model or plans and not a lot of specifics. This was 1946 too, so options were very limited for Italy. Gen. Rossi may have wished for a new tank to be produced in Italy- it would, afterall, be very good for Italian industrial rebuilding as well as for an independent army, but in 1946 this was wishful thinking. WoT’s “such an innovative design…” claim is simply false. There is no design and none of the features he mentioned were in any way innovative.

There was also no need at all for a new and expensive tank for Italy, especially a tank which, after all, would offer nothing that existing available and cheaper designs did not already offer. By the end of the 1940’s, the Italian Army had tanks and tank destroyers which matched what Gen. Rossi had been calling for in the form of Sherman tanks of various types armed with 75 mm, 76 mm and 105 mm guns, Sherman Fireflys armed with the British 17 pounder gun, and the American-supplied M36 Jacksons as tank destroyers armed with a 90 mm gun – a tank destroyer based on the chassis of a Sherman tank, just as Gen. Rossi had wanted back in 1946.

Conclusion

The Progetto M35 mod.46 is a fake. Not a completely made-up-from-nothing fake, but without doubt still a fake. The call from Gen. Rossi for a new tank made it clear that the 90 mm gun was not for this tank, but for a different vehicle. Not only that, but the 90 mm gun selected by WoT was simply not possible to be fitted to a tank in 1946, let alone one in Italy. The tracks, assuming they are ‘hush puppy’ tracks are neither Italian nor available in 1946. The engine certainly is a real thing, but it was not used in tanks and was not around in 1946. All this predated the attempts to develop a single tank as a ‘standard panzer’, sometimes known as the ‘Europanzer’ project.

Whatever Gen. Rossi might have been considering as a tank is unclear, but certainly what he wrote cannot be described as a design. The vehicle, as represented in the WoT game is simply not possible and purely invented.

Illustration of the Progetto M35 Mod. 46, produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.

Sources

Agarossi, E. (2000). A Nation Collapses: The Italian Surrender of September 1943. Cambridge University Press, UK
Data Sheet ‘Motore termico/ciclo Diesel/a quattro tempi/6 cilindri a V a 90: Isotta Fraschini Motori
Dunstan, S. (1980) Centurion. Ian Allen, England
Estes, K. (2016). M50 Ontos and M56 Scorpion 1956-1970. Osprey Publishing, England
Hunnicutt, R. (1971). Pershing: A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series. Feist Publications, California, USA
Hunnicutt, R. (1984). Patton: A History of the American Medium Tank . Presidio Press, California, USA
Isotta Fraschini. (1985). Industrial Diesel Power for Military Applications by Isotta Fraschini (advert)
Pettibone, C. (2010). The Organization and Order of Battles of Militaries in World War II, Volume VI – Italy and France. Trafford Publishing, USA
Rossi, F. (1946). La Ricostruzione dell’Esercito. Editrice Faro. Rome, Italy.
Symth, H. (1948). The Armistice of Cassibile. Military Review, 28(7). Command and General Staff College, Kansas, USA
US Bureau of Naval Personnel. (1990). Manual of Navy Enlisted Manpower and Personnel Classifications and Occupational Standards. US Dept, of the Navy
US Dept. of State. (1947). Treaties of Peace with Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Roumania and Finland. US Dept. of State, Washington D.C., USA
World of Tanks Wiki
Biography of Lt. General Rossi

Cold War Soviet Fake Tanks Fake Tanks

Soviet “Turtle” Tank (Fake Tank)

Post author By Andrew Hills
Post date November 26, 2019
3 Comments on Soviet “Turtle” Tank (Fake Tank)

Soviet Union (1951)
Self-Propelled Gun – Fake

There is no doubt that working in the field of espionage is a difficult occupation. Human intelligence sources are often unskilled or untrained and their information requires vetting and assessment. Even technical intelligence from eavesdropping or copying of documents is fraught with errors, counter-intelligence, mistakes, and, sometimes, complete fabrications. Experts in one field may not be experts in others and ‘fake’ information can be obtained even from an honest and reliable source who has been ‘fed’ fake information by the other side. This interplay of espionage and counter-espionage intelligence work can produce its fair share of false intelligence and the ‘Turtle’ tank of 1951 is certainly a contender in this category.

Side view of the Turtle tank. Source: Central Intelligence Agency

Verification

Before a substantive discussion on the technical elements of the Turtle tank, it is worth examining the one and only source for this information. It comes from the reading library of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and, whilst still heavily redacted to protect the identity of the source, it provides some data on which to vet the information.

The source of the data is a group of unnamed ‘German experts’ examining a report from an informant. The German experts are not identified and it is not known in which field they have expertise. It is a reasonable assumption, however, that their expertise is in the arms industry, as not only do they provide a technical evaluation of the ‘Turtle’ but also relate some information that this relates to improvements of a design first identified in 1943, during the war. Further, the CIA would have no reason to hand a report from an informant to some experts if they were not specialised in armored warfare in some capacity.

The expert analysis states categorically that the design shown is impractical and not in keeping with either modern armored warfare or Soviet doctrine describing the original informant as “a rank amateur on the question of armored vehicles”. With that said, it is worth noting the characteristics relayed to these German experts on this new and secret Soviet tank.

Plan view of the Turtle tank showing crew positions. Source: CIA

Armament

The first and most obvious sign that something appears to be wrong with the informant’s data on this Soviet tank is that the primary armament is given as being an ‘8.8 cm L/56 type gun’. This was a German gun, most famously in the form of the Kw.K. 36, as mounted on the German Tiger I. Although the experts stated that it was possible that the tank described could be improved with an L/70 version of that gun (as fitted to the Tiger II), this was still a German gun. In 1951, there is simply no reason to suppose that the Soviet army would need to use, reuse or produce their own clones of this WW2-era German gun for their own purposes.

The secondary armament is also unusual as it is described and shown as consisting of two machine guns; one firing forwards and another to the rear. Each is mounted in a ball-joint capable of 90 degrees of movement left and right.

Front view of the Turtle tank showing a somewhat non-tanklike, but very curvy-looking front profile. Source: CIA

Layout

The layout and shape of this tank are unusual and quite unlike any Soviet tank known to have existed at this time. The dimensions of the vehicle given by the informant are 7 m long, about 3 m wide and about 2 m high, with a weight of just 30-35 tonnes. The entire body is made from a giant curved structure with a single entrance hatch on top and with the gun in the front and center of the hull. There is no turret but, with the gun mounted towards the mid-point of the tank and with a machine gun at both ends, there is little room inside in which to squeeze the gun recoil, crew, and ammunition. At least five crew positions; commander (top left), front gunner (front left), driver (front right), loader (rear center), rear gunner (rear right) are provided for within the design, although there is no mention of a gunner for the primary weapon. An arrow on the sketch with the report indicating either the position of the engine or gunner is redacted. Unless the commander is also doubling-up as the gunner, a sixth crew member would be needed to operate the primary weapon. All of them, apart from the rear gunner, are provided with a forward facing vision slit for observations and the top positions for the commander and possible gunner have sideways facing observation slits. If indeed there were only five crew, as indicated by the informant, then there would be no crew member in the top right and there would be no need for a vision slit. The predominant feature of the design is the heavily curved body extending about half-way down the suspension of the vehicle. Where the body goes over the tracks this is described as an “armored” or “chain” apron (chain as in the tracks).

Automotive

The engine is described as lying between the driver and rear gunner, which would place it approximately underneath the center of the vehicle with the commander, loader and gunner sat over it. The engine itself is rather implausibly listed as being a 600 hp petrol engine of US manufacture rather than of Soviet origin, although the make and type are not specified. The informant gave the top speed as 25 km/h, although the German experts reviewing the data from the informant suggested that an 800 hp engine could be substituted instead to provide up to 50 km/h for the tank.

Armor

Despite the shape of the Turtle tank indicating a cast body, the informant provided data that the body was of welded steel. The data provided for the armor gave a value of 80 mm for the front, 50 mm for the sides, 30 mm for the rear, and 20 mm for the floor. In light of that, the informant’s claim that even 105 mm and 180 mm shells had no effect on the armor was justifiably considered to be ‘nonsense’ by the German experts.

One further suggestion of note regarding the analysis of the armor was that the German experts considered it possible that the vehicle could use a protective coating 12.7 mm to 25 mm (½” to 1”) thick over the surface which would remove all the seams and make it invulnerable to limpet-type mines. This reference to limpet-type mines and protective coatings is an interesting reference to anti-magnetic coatings, the most famous of which is the German Zimmerit of WW2.

The informant seems to have suggested some new type of steel alloy was used for armor but this was discounted by the German experts on the basis that there were so many German scientists ‘honeycombed’ within Soviet industry post-war that such a development would have become known.

Nonetheless, the assessment was that the tank with this shape would benefit from being able to deflect armor-piercing and delayed-action high explosive shells fired at close range but parts would remain vulnerable to shells fired from an 8.8 cm L/56 or those with a shaped charge.

Conclusion

The Turtle Tank is not even a tank, it is instead clearly an assault gun with a fixed, forward-facing gun in a casemate. The Soviets made some very competent assault guns based upon the hulls of existing tanks like the T-34 or IS-series with a roughly similar arrangement, but nothing like this Turtle Tank. The date is 1951, so there are not a lot of possible candidates for what real vehicle the informant might have been referring to and this presupposes that the informant actually saw a real vehicle. If it is something genuine then perhaps the best candidate is something related to the ASU-85 assault gun which was in the early design phase at around this time but even so, the resemblance is terrible.

Perhaps it was/is some kind of top-secret Soviet assault gun which has been hitherto undiscovered by Soviet and Western tank historians, perhaps the informant was simply mistaken, or lying, or perhaps the experts were subject to a counter-intelligence ruse by the Soviets.

The German experts were unconvinced by this informant’s information. It was not that the vehicle was not possible, but that it was not plausible, with the experts stating that it would “constitute a complete departure from known Soviet policies”. The idea that this vehicle, so totally different from the Soviet assault guns of the day such as the SU-100 or ISU-152, has subsequently gone undiscovered is somehow unimaginable.

That said though, the German experts assessing the information from this informant seem to have agreed on the most likely outcome being the latter of the possible options, a counter-intelligence ruse. Namely, Soviet intelligence deliberately supplying false intelligence to a suspected informant or double agent, and, to back this up, they compared it to “similar methods used by the Nazi regime”, probably referring to the ‘Panzer X’.
Nevertheless, regardless of how or why this information got to the West, it was given a proper examination, by experts, and assessed to be implausible.

The informant’s claim that a pilot model of this vehicle was actually built, and demonstrated to the East German paramilitary police is also unlikely. Whilst a design which may never have left the scribblings of an engineer’s notebook might have gone unnoticed for nearly three-quarters of a century, the existence of such an unusual vehicle, with such unusual features, and departing as it does from Soviet experience, means that the Turtle tank can be fairly assessed to be a fake tank.

What it does do though is provide an excellent case in point as to the difficulties of gaining intelligence of the latest weapons from an adversary (in this case the US spying on the USSR) and the caution which should be exercised post-script in reviewing these historic documents.

Illustration of the ‘Turtle’ Tank produced by Jarosław Janas, funded by our Patreon campaign.

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	7 x ~3 x ~2 meters
weight	30-35 tonnes
Crew	6 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, Front Hull Machine Gunner, Rear Hull Machine Gunner)
Propulsion	600 hp American petrol engine (possible to fit an engine up to 800 hp)
Suspension	Independant torsion bar
Speed (road)	25 km/h (up to 50 km/h with 800 hp engine)
Armament	.8cm L/56 gun (possible to substitute 8.8 cm L/70) and two machine guns (1 forwards facing and 1 rearwards facing)
Armor	welded steel 80mm front, 50mm sides, 30mm rear, 20mm floor
Total production	7 prototypes

Source

CIA Report ‘German Experts’ Analysis of the Alleged Soviet ‘Turtle Tank’ dated 4th April 1951.

Cold War Chinese Fake Tanks Fake Tanks

Type T-34 (Fake Tank)

People’s Republic of China
Medium Tank – Fake

Fake Until Proven Real

“Type T-34” is a made-up designation for the T-34/76 in Chinese PLA (People’s Liberation Army) service. The only suggestion of the PLA operating the T-34/76 comes from the video game, World of Tanks, and their Chinese client company, Kongzhong. It is claimed that these tanks were supplied to the PRC (People’s Republic of China) in the early 1950s by the USSR, along with thousands of other tanks. Whilst it is true that the PRC was sold as many as 3000 AFVs in the years 1950-1955, neither company can provide any proof for the T-34/76 being included in these arms sales. As such, the use of the T-34/76 by the PLA can only be concluded to be a hoax, intended as a credible means of filling up the World of Tanks “Chinese tech tree”, which is riddled with both historical inaccuracies and pure fantasies but remains presented as historical fact, rather like the rest of the game.

Supposed History

World of Tanks gives the following information for historical background to the “Type T-34”:
“Among the 1,800 T-34 tanks supplied by the U.S.S.R. to China in the early 1950s, there was a number of T-34-76s. After the tanks saw service in the PLA, almost all of them were sent to North Korea. The usefulness of these tanks was extended by Chinese-designed upgrades, including a new engine and modernized suspension.”

Reality

Known T-34 Exports

The T-34/76 was a fairly rare export compared to the T-34-85 but still made its way to various countries including (but not limited to) North Vietnam, East Germany, (who used theirs mainly for training), Poland, Czechoslovakia, and North Korea. As such, it is plausible that other countries, such as the PRC, received the T-34/76.
However, arms sales from the USSR that took place between 1950 and 1955 are not recorded as including the T-34/76. Dr. Martin Andrew (a historian of the PLA) reports that the PRC received 1837 T-34-85s, 82 IS-2s, 40 ISU-122s, 67 ISU-152s, 99 SU-100s, and 704 SU-76s between 1950-1954, as well as 89 ARVs at least some of which (possibly even most) were based on the T-34 chassis (some others were based on the ISU chassis – at least two; almost certainly more). These numbers are estimates, and other sources have slightly different figures. For example, Zhang Zhiwei (author of The Tank Division of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army 1945-1949) claims that the PRC received as many as 1964 T-34-85s by 1955. Regardless of exact figures, Dr. Andrew advises that there is no evidence of the PLA receiving the T-34/76, or any suggestion predating World of Tanks that he is aware of.
Furthermore, if “almost all” of the alleged PLA’s T-34/76s were sent to North Korea, then this raises two questions: ‘Where are the implicit rest of these tanks?’ and ‘Why has no evidence of these tanks (which were “later given new engine[s] and modernized suspension[s]“) come to light?’
In reality, North Korea received all of its tanks directly from the USSR in February 1950, when a military advisory group was sent along with small arms, aircraft, artillery, and other military equipment types. This was enough to equip eight field divisions and other combat units consisting of 100,000 men. A such, the idea that all North Korean T-34/76s are actually ex-Chinese T-34/76s falls flat.

Chinese Upgrades?

The suggestion of the T-34/76 receiving Chinese-designed upgrades sounds highly dubious, too. The only known Chinese upgrade to the T-34 is the Type 58 upgrade standard of the T-34-85, and this did not include a suspension upgrade. The context of the World of Tanks description does not make clear if the Chinese designed upgrades were done to the remaining Chinese T-34/76s, or North Korea’s T-34/76s. Some images of North Korean T-34/76s in the post-Korean War era indicate that some modernization features were added such as sidesaddle fuel tanks, starfish roadwheels (first introduced by the Soviets in 1969), and perhaps some other smaller details. It is plausible that these upgrades were designed with Chinese assistance, which might be the source of this suggestion, but very little is known about the post-1953 service of North Korean T-34/76s, and there is nothing to suggest that their suspensions have been upgraded based on the highly limited evidence that there is.
Furthermore, in World of Tanks, the “Type T-34” can be fitted with a 57mm gun designated “55-57FG”, which appears to be a copy of the Soviet 57mm ZiS-4. Without a doubt, this is not real because the Soviets abandoned the 57mm gun for tank use in 1943, as it was considered obsolete. Having said this, the PLA is known to have fitted an unknown number of LVT(A)-4s and LVT-4s with 57mm ZiS-2 and 76mm ZiS-3 field guns in the 1950s, but details around these conversions are lacking. Regardless, these LVT conversions were done using Soviet-supplied field guns and should not be used as even circumstantial evidence of the Chinese developing their own 57mm tank guns, which, again, would have been totally obsolete by the 1950s for anti-tank duties. As such, the LVT conversions were most likely a means of having mechanized artillery as opposed to tank destroyers.

Name

The name “Type T-34” seems rather dubious as no sources pre-dating World of Tanks make reference to this name. It is likely that name was made up by World of Tanks and/or Kongzhong to distinguish the vehicle from the Soviet T-34/76 in their video game.
For reference, the designation “T-34/76” is also a fairly modern designation. The USSR used “T-34” to refer to the /76 variant, and “T-34-85” to refer to the 85mm gun variant in Divisional records. However, sometimes these are not differentiated in historical documents. In such documents, unless a reference is made to ammunition type, it is difficult to be sure which variant is being referred to. Therefore, documents with “T-34” written are not sufficient proof enough of a Chinese T-34/76 unless guns and/or munitions are also explicitly referenced, or other contextual details suggest the /76 variant.

Korean War museum T-34/76, Liaoning Province

There is a widely circulated photograph of what appears to be a Factory 183 built T-34/76 in the Korean War Memorial Hall in Dandong city, (Liaoning province, PRC) which is sometimes cited as evidence of PLA T-34/76s. In short, the vehicle’s provenance is somewhat unclear, but its construction suggests it to be a modern rebuild for museum purposes as opposed to a former PLA-operated vehicle.

A T-34/76 (most likely Factory 183 built) in the Korean War Museum in Dandong, Liaoning Province, PRC. The tank is made from a mixture of odd parts and is clearly not original. The SU-100 may actually be Chinese, as 99 were sold to China by the USSR in 1954. This SU-100, like the T-34, does not have any apparent PLA markings. Source: ‘T-34 Interest Group’ on Facebook.
The vehicle is made from a mixture of odd parts such as T-34-85 modernization wheels (almost certainly modern acquired, as they were made in 1969 at the height of the Sino-Soviet Split), the tracks are T-55 style, the sprocket is also from a T-55, the engine deck handrails are non-standard (probably handmade), and there is also a T-55 searchlight cage on the glacis plate (next to the driver’s hatch). Most tellingly, the tank has a pressed turret’s gun mantlet, but the tank is a soft-edge turret – this indicates that the tank is an inaccurate museum restoration, and may be simply a Type 58 made to look like a T-34/76 using parts which (may) have been acquired recently. That said, the handrails on the hull are typical of T-34/76s (although they may be handmade), and the hull machine gun position may also be that of a T-34/76 tank (this is not entirely clear, as the only indicator of this would be the casting nubs, not visible in these photos). It is therefore also possible that the hull is a T-34/76 hull that was acquired recently but has nevertheless been restored inaccurately. It is even possible that this tank was acquired from North Korea, as some modern footage shows a North Korean T-34 to have very similar production features to this T-34.
Most tellingly of all, the vehicle also does not have any PLA markings on it, thus suggesting that the tank is not intended to portray a PLA T-34/76, but may instead be intended to portray a North Korean T-34/76.
It can therefore be concluded that this tank is a post-Korean War acquisition that underwent an inaccurate restoration for museum purposes and should not be seen as evidence of the PLA operating T-34/76s.

The Historiographical Problem

As indicated, the crux of the issue is that there is no credible evidence (be it photographic or literary) to suggest any T-34/76s being used by the PLA that is available for scrutiny by non-Chinese historians. As mentioned, Soviet evidence for arms sales to China which indicates T-34/76s being sold is also lacking.
Kongzhong are reportedly able to access Chinese military archives and report what they find to Wargaming in order to make Chinese tanks for the video game. It is said that Kongzhong’s researchers are only allowed to take personal handwritten notes whilst researching, and materials found in the archive cannot be reproduced (which is the case with many archives). As such, the existence of the “Type T-34” hinges on the word of Kongzhong, which is highly problematic.
Kongzhong is known to frequently take substantial creative liberties, or even to totally make up Chinese tanks (for examples of this, see the Type 59-Patton, 121B, WZ-132A, WZ-132-1, and the ‘tank destroyer tree’ which is filled with imaginary riffs on existing or semi-existing chassis), meaning that their credibility as a historical source is completely lacking. World of Tanks, too, is infamous for being jam-packed with fake tanks (a jarring example being the G.W. E-100, amongst many others), and having tanks operated by the wrong country (for example, the 10.5cm leFH 18/3 (Sf) auf Geschützwagen B2(f) being in French service). Given that World of Tanks also has this reputation, they cannot be trusted as a credible source either. Such imaginations are not in of themselves an issue, but their presentation as real tanks is.
In sum, no credible evidence to suggest the existence of the “Type T-34”, or any of these supposed Chinese upgrades, is available to non-Chinese historians, and with the claim being made by two companies of dubious reputations as historical sources, it can only be concluded that the “Type T-34” does not exist until further evidence is put forward and evaluated.

Artist’s interpretation of a T-34/76 (produced by Factory 174, Omsk) painted in regular PLA colors based on T-34-85s as seen on National Day parades in the 1950s.

Artist’s interpretation of a T-34/76 (produced by Factory 174, Omsk) painted in typical PLA camouflage as seen on Chi-Ha Shinhotos and a T-26 M1937 on the 1st October 1949 foundation of the PRC parade. The same scheme has been seen on Type 59s in the early 1960s on National Day parades.
Both tanks were illustrated by Tank Encyclopedia’s own Jaycee ‘Amazing Ace’ Davis based on technical drawings by Mark Rethoret.

The ‘Type T-34’ as it appears in World of Tanks.

T-34/76 (an inaccurate rebuild of a Factory 183 tank) in the Korean War Museum in Dandong, Liaoning Province, PRC, albeit at a different point in time to the other photo in this article. The tank is wrongly labelled as a T-34-85. Unfortunately, the plaque gives no hints as to the tank’s origin, but merely generic (if somewhat inaccurate) information about the T-34. Put simply, this tank is not proof of the Chinese PLA operating a T-34/76 because it is a modern restoration and rebuild for the museum. Source: ‘Surviving T-34/76 Tanks.pdf‘

‘Type 58’ ‘404’ in the Beijing Tank Museum. To its right is a Type 59, followed by two M3A3 Stuarts. Source: ‘T-34 Interest Group’ on Facebook.

A still from a North Korean propaganda film, reportedly from the 1960s, showing two T-34/76s. The tank in the foreground has a turret manufactured at Factory 112 (Krasnoye Sormovo), but also shows signs of T-34-85 modernisation such as sidesaddle fuel tanks (112 did issue some tanks of this type with this fuel tank arrangement, but most were post-WWII upgrades) and starfish roadwheels which were first introduced in 1969. The tank in the background has a ‘hexagonal’ style turret and also sidesaddle fuel tanks. The North Koreans are believed to have been supplied their T-34/76s by the USSR via China as an intermediary. Source: wwiiafterwwii.wordpress

A Soviet-made T-34T Armored Recovery Vehicle (ARV) in the Beijing Tank Museum. Up to 79 ARVs were supplied to the USSR between 1950 and 1954, most of which were T-34-based. Source: militaryreview.su
The museum’s information panel reports the following:
“T-34 Tank Recovery Vehicle is a technical support vehicle produced in 1940s by the former Soviet Union. This vehicle began to enter service with Soviet Army in 1940, and was withdrawn from service in the late 1960s. T-34 Tank Recovery Vehicle, as a support vehicle for T-34 tank, is used for towing and recovering the trapped, toppled, or damaged tanks in the war. In 1950s, China began to buy this vehicle and put them into service with PLA, now all the vehicles are phased out of service. The vehicles bought by China went into the front line of Korean War together with Chinese volunteer troops, and played a significant role in the technical support in the war.
Specifications: Combat weight: 22-25 tonnes. Max speed: 55km/h. Max range: 300km. Max traction: 1584N(14t). Armament: 1 x 7,62mm machine gun.”
Source: Beijingman.blogspot

One of Kongzhong’s blatant imaginations – the so-called ‘T-26G FT’ as it appears in the video game ‘World of Tanks’. World of Tanks reports that “during the 1946–50 civil war, a number of vehicles were captured by the People’s Liberation Army in eastern China in 1949. In 1950, they were used as a basis for the creation of at least two modifications of tank destroyers.” In reality, three T-26s were captured from the Kuomintang (Nationalists) during the Huai Hai Campaign (6th November 1948 – 10th January 1949) one of which was pressed back into service and was photographed on the October 1st 1949 Victory Parade in Beijing. It is likely that this tank was phased out shortly after, seeing as though Soviet arms sales of more modern tanks began in 1950. Some other T-26s were captured during the Civil War, but appear to have been lost before October 1949. The other two vehicles may have been wrecked beyond repair. There are other vehicles that World of Tanks suggests the PLA used but there is no proof for, such as the Renault NC-31.
Discussion with Francis Pulham regarding T-34 production variants.
Discussion with Dr. Martin Andrew regarding Chinese T-34s and Soviet arms sales to the PLA.
Special thanks to Leo Guo for providing translations.
Special thanks also to the members of the “T-34 Interest Group” on Facebook for their comments.
“Tuo Mao: the Operational History of the People’s Liberation Army“, PhD dissertation by Martin Andrew, submitted to Bond University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2008.
“The Tank Division of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army 1945-1949” by Zhang Zhiwei, Humanism Print.
Worldoftanks.eu
Beijingman.blogspot
“Chinese Tanks Q&A with Will Kerrs” – thearmoredpatrol.com
“KongZhong: WG’s Certified Fake Tanks Provider” – thearmoredpatrol.com

Fake Tanks Fictional Tanks WW1 British Fake Tanks

H.G. Wells’ Land Ironclads (Fictional Tank)

Post author By Pete
Post date July 19, 2018
10 Comments on H.G. Wells’ Land Ironclads (Fictional Tank)

United Kingdom (1903)
Tank – Fictional

A Story Ahead of its Time

Few people have influenced the world through works of fiction like Herbert George Wells. Through his famous classics like The War of the Worlds and The Time Machine, he has set the foundations for the genre of science-fiction. He, along with other early science-fiction greats like Jules Verne foresaw many technologies that would shape the 20th century. One of his lesser-known works is ”The Land Ironclads”, a short story from 1903 published in “The Strand” magazine. It was a story written in the time when the next great European war loomed over the minds of many people and speculative stories exploring possible European conflicts of the future were as popular as they were provocative. H.G Wells’ story served as inspiration for Winston Churchill, one of the people that helped establish the Landships Committee. In the story, two sides find themselves locked in a trench warfare stalemate which is broken with the use of the titular Land Ironclads, 30 meter long heavily armed and armored behemoths powered by steam. This early vision of a future battlefield not only helped inspire the development of tanks but also foresaw the style of trench warfare in which real tanks would be fighting 13 years after it was written.

Summary

The story, told from the point of view of a war correspondent, begins in the middle of a war between two nations. Neither nation is named, instead, they are referred to as “the invader” (devitalized townsmen pressed into the role of a soldier) and “the defender” (tough soldiers and old-school patriots). The invader had attempted to march straight for the defender’s capital but was stopped by a prepared defensive line of trenches. The invasion ground down to a stalemate as both sides attempted to beat the other back. This stalemate was soon changed as the invader brought 14 Land Ironclads. With the use of these massive landships, the invader had assaulted the defender’s trenches. Having no artillery immediately available, the defenders could only plink the ironclads with their rifles as they got cut down by automatic fire. The defending forces relied on these machines being unable to cross the gap of their trench network, but they were proven wrong as the ironclads effortlessly crossed the gap and continued onwards. Eventually, the defenses were overrun and the heavy guns of the defender destroyed before they could be a serious threat. The entire defending army was reduced to ruin by a technologically superior force.

He looked at his watch. “Half-past four! Lord! What things can happen in two hours. Here’s the whole blessed army being walked over, and at half-past two——

Tactics of the Near Future

The disparity between the opposing forces was notable. The defenders were professional soldiers, the invaders were civilians pressed into the military. This disparity is noted by one of the defenders the war correspondent talks to before the attack. This, as well as the use of trenches, comes unsurprisingly as Wells drew a lot of notes from the Second Boer War for the story.
“Their men aren’t brutes enough: that’s the trouble. They’re a crowd of devitalized townsmen, and that’s the truth of the matter’ They’re clerks, they’re factory hands, they’re students, they’re civilized men. They can write, they can talk, they can make and do all sorts of things, but they’re poor amateurs at war. They’ve got no physical staying power, and that’s the whole thing. They’ve never slept in the open one night in their lives; they’ve never drunk anything but the purest water-company water; they’ve never gone short of three meals a day since they left their feeding-bottles. Half their cavalry never cocked a leg over a horse till it enlisted six months ago. They ride their horses as though they were bicycles—you watch ’em! They’re fools at the game, and they know it. Our boys of fourteen can give their grown men points….”
The invaders are devitalized townsmen, very much like the Boers who stood in stark contrast to the professional British army.
However, despite their lack of skills with war, the invading forces and their ingenuity proved more than a match for the less advanced but more skilled defender. H.G Wells vividly showcased modern war as a place where science and technology triumph, over strength and martial prowess.
Trench warfare is another very critical element of the story. While trenches have been used in warfare for far longer, mostly in sieges, in Wells’ story they took on a much more important role. Here too he drew notes from the Second Boer War which saw the use of trenches. However, in his fictional war, trenches take on a much more notable role, very reminiscent of the one they played in the Russo-Japanese war and World War 1 on many fronts. Furthermore, the Land Ironclads, like tanks in WWI, were used in the role of breakthrough, being able to cross trenches with ease and resist small arms fire. In the later parts of the story, invader cyclists and cavalry can be seen following the Ironclads after the breakthrough was made, taking care of the surrendered defenders and securing the advance. This too is very similar to the planned way that tanks were to be utilised on the Western Front. British commanders envisioned cavalry being used to exploit the gaps that tanks would create. In reality, that idea never materialized but it did reflect upon post-war tank tactics with fast tanks of the Russians and cruiser tanks of the British.
The Land Ironclads

“The daylight was getting clearer now. The clouds were lifting, and a gleam of lemon-yellow amidst the level masses to the east portended sunrise. He looked again at the land ironclad. As he saw it in the bleak grey dawn, lying obliquely upon the slope and on the very lip of the foremost trench, the suggestion of a stranded vessel was very great indeed. It might have been from eighty to a hundred feet long—it was about two hundred and fifty yards away—its vertical side was ten feet high or so, smooth for that height, and then with a complex patterning under the eaves of its flattish turtle cover. This patterning was a close interlacing of portholes, rifle barrels, and telescope tubes—-sham and real—-indistinguishable one from the other.” -The first full sighting of the tank in The Land Ironclads
The Land Ironclads were 14 large landships built by the devitalized townsmen to assault the defender positions. The machines consisted of a large steel framework borne upon eight pairs of pedrail wheels, a predecessor to tracks which actual tanks would use. On top of the iron-armored roof was a retractable conning tower with vision ports for the ironclad’s commander.
The ironclad’s armament consisted of rows of sponson cabins which were crewed by riflemen. The cabins were slung along the sides, rear and front of the ironclad. There is a notable absence of heavy weapons on such a large vehicle, however, considering it wasn’t designed to fight against anything but infantry and an occasional gun battery its armament is more or less suitable. Each gun was magazine fed and operated by a rifleman. They featured an optical sight that projected into the gunner’s cabin a camera obscura picture he would use to aim. The Rifleman would fire the gun using an electronic trigger. Each porthole had a dummy gun and optic to minimize the risk of damage to the real ones. In case an optic or a gun was damaged, the rifleman could repair either. From the text it can also be presumed that the ironclad carried spare guns and optics to replace damaged ones.
There are no solid values on the ironclad’s armor, however, the adjustable skirt is noted as being 12 inches (304.8mm) thick iron plating. Thus it can be assumed that the rest of the ironclad is equally if not better protected. It should be noted this was probably for dramatic effect. If this would have been the case, in reality, the ironclads would have had a hard time moving at all and would have sunk into the ground due to their incredible weight. Not to mention iron is not a good material for this purpose, steel would have been a lot better choice.
The land ironclads were pushed forward by compact steam engines which allowed them to travel at the speed of at least 6 mph (9.66kph). The entire thing moved on eight pairs of pedrail wheels. The pedrail wheels consist of a series of “feet” connected to pivots on a wheel. Each of the eight pedrail wheels was driving wheels set free to swivel upon long axles all around a common axis. According to Wells, this system allowed them to cross very rough terrain and keep moving steadily even on large slopes. This too is rather far-fetched if we take their supposed weight into consideration, they would stand a better chance plowing through a hill rather than crossing it.
The gunner cabins opened up into the central gallery which was like a long corridor running through the ironclad. On each side were the steam engines that ran it, together with various engineers maintaining them. The captain was located in the middle, with a retractable ladder that led to the conning tower. He raised and lowered the ladder via a wheel to climb into the conning tower which he could then raise and scout the surroundings.
Overall, the land ironclads can be considered more akin to wheeled naval warships on land then they would be to even the earliest tanks. However, some of the concepts and ideas behind them, like gun ports on all sides and large heavyweight chassis, can be found present in designs of actual landships some nations experimented upon. Perhaps the most similar real-life counterpart could be the Flying Elephant, a design made by the British Landships Committee.

The Technologies

There are a number of technologies featured in the story. To skim over more minor ones, there’s the idea of bicycles being used alongside cavalry, and indeed bicycle units did exist in armies of the time albeit on a smaller scale. Notable is also the presence of large guns and howitzers in the defender’s ranks, artillery pieces that would come to later define the battlefield.
The ironclads themselves feature three different technologies which ranged from mere prototypes to (at the time) complete fiction.
“It had humped itself up, as a limpet does before it crawls; it had lifted its skirt and displayed along the length of it—feet! They were thick, stumpy feet, between knobs and buttons in shape—flat, broad things, reminding one of the feet of elephants or the legs of caterpillars”

The most striking of these is the pedrail wheel which was mentioned earlier. It was invented by Bramah Joseph Diplock in 1903 sometime before the story was written.
“Mr.—Mr. Diplock,” he said; “and he called them Pedrails…Fancy meeting them here!””
The wheels were designed to aid in the crossing of muddy or otherwise treacherous terrain. Some more advanced versions even had suspension for every individual ‘foot’. However, the pedrail wheels never saw use in armored fighting vehicles (save perhaps a few prototypes, like the Orionwagen). Diplock abandoned this design in 1910 and went on to develop chain tracks which were the first to demonstrate advantages tracks hold over wheels.
The weapons the ironclads were armed with were, on their own, technologically ahead of their time. In 1903, self-loading magazine-fed rifles were mostly prototypes with the exception of the 1902 Madsen which, by that time was in production. The automatic weapons of the period were few and mostly either pistols or belt fed heavy weapons.
The way the guns were aimed is interesting in its own right. The sight through a camera obscura picture onto a table that the rifleman stood next to. The picture had a cross in the middle that indicated where the gun was aimed. The rifleman had a divider which he used to adjust for elevation and a knob with a button on it, the knob would rotate the gun and the button would fire the gun by sending an electric charge to it through two copper wires. Overall, the system worked by using a projected image for the gunner to observe and an electronically triggered magazine-fed automatic rifle, which suffices to say well ahead of its time.

“These were in the first place automatic, ejected their cartridges and loaded again from a magazine each time they fired, until the ammunition store was at an end, and they had the most remarkable sights imaginable, sights which threw a bright little camera-obscura picture into the light-tight box in which the rifleman sat below. This camera-obscura picture was marked with two crossed lines, and whatever was covered by the intersection of these two lines, that the rifle hit. The sighting was ingeniously contrived. The rifleman stood at the table with a thing like an elaborately of a draughtsman’s dividers in his hand, and he opened and closed these dividers so that they were always at the apparent height—if it was an ordinary-sized man—of the man he wanted to kill. A little-twisted strand of wire like an electric-light wire ran from this implement up to the gun, and as the dividers opened and shut the sights went up and down. Changes in the clearness of the atmosphere, due to changes of moisture, were met by an ingenious use of that meteorologically sensitive substance, catgut, and when the land ironclad moved forward the sites got a compensatory deflection in the direction of its motion. The riflemen stood up in his pitch-dark chamber and watched the little picture before him. One hand held the dividers for judging distance, and the other grasped a big knob like a door-handle. As he pushed this knob about the rifle above swung to correspond, and the picture passed to and fro like an agitated panorama. When he saw a man he wanted to shoot he brought him up to the cross-lines, and then pressed a finger upon a little push like an electric bell-push, conveniently placed in the center of the knob. Then the man was shot. If by any chance the rifleman missed his target he moved the knob a trifle, or readjusted his dividers, pressed the push, and got him the second time.”

Influence on reality

H.G Wells was a great thinker and, before war broke out in 1914, he had written many wars of his own, mainly global in scale, and Land Ironclads is no different. He always believed that we have overdone war and that the march of technology will create such powerful weapons that could obliterate mankind.
But he wasn’t the only one. As a matter a fact, he was but a part of the entire wave that came out of the Franco-Prussian war in 1871. The mind of Europeans was abuzz with possibilities of future large-scale European conflicts. The first of its kind was Battle of Dorking, made in 1871 by George Tomkyns. Many soon followed, notably Sir William Laird Clowes speculating naval warfare of the future in “The Captain of ‘Mary Rose’”. In France, Henri De Nousanne’s “La Guerre Anglo-Franco-Russe” was notable, and in Germany, the “Der Kriege gegen England” proved popular after The Navy Bill of 1900. In England, between 1903 and 1914 when Wells wrote the story, speculative war stories of a war against Germany were becoming even more common, some simply inflammatory while others were more comedic in nature. The Land Ironclads is one of the high-quality works of that time, Wells didn’t put emphasis on nationality. While he did try to hint at certain things, his combatants were merely dubbed the Invader and the Defender. The focus of the story was the machines.
The dimensions and design aspects of ironclads were not very realistic, but the idea they presented was. The Land Ironclads did indeed inspire the British Lord of Admiralty, Winston Churchill. He read the story and was convinced it could work in reality. He was an important figure in pushing the Landships Committee into action in 1915. First tanks rolled out in 1916 and, in 1925, during the Royal Commission testimony, Churchill testified under oath that the first person to foresee tanks was H.G Wells.
Churchill’s claim can be put to the question, however. There were authors before Wells that envisioned an armored vehicle of sorts, akin to a tank. It should be noted that Sir Ernest Swinton, an important driving force behind the creation of the first tank also wrote for “The Strand” at the same time as H.G Wells wrote his story. An inventor, James Cowen, half-a-century earlier, had envisioned armored vehicles with repeating weapons and, on the French side, Albert Robida envisioned his own armored vehicles in 1883.

Small armored vehicles with large lumbering ones, not too dissimilar to the ironclads in the background from Robida’s works.
In retrospect, while Wells’ predictions were not the most accurate, and there were stories of tanks before it, The Land Ironclads definitely benefited towards the creation of the very first tanks, which sparked a new way to fight wars that lives on in modern Main Battle Tanks.

Resources & Links

gutenberg.net.au
PDF copy of The Land Ironclads By H.G. Wells.
www.troynovant.com
H.G Wells: Traversing time by W. Warren Wagar

A reconstruction of H.G.Wells’ Ironclads based on contemporary drawings and its description within the novel. Illustrated by Mr. C. Ryan, paid for by DeadlyDillema through our Patreon Campaign!

Fake Tanks WW2 Polish Fake Tanks

CP Armoured Tractor (Fake Tank)

Post author By Tadeusz Pakula
Post date April 17, 2018
3 Comments on CP Armoured Tractor (Fake Tank)

Republic of Poland (1939)
Artillery Tractor – Fake

The CP armored tractor is a plastic model kit produced by the Polish RPM company. According to the story mentioned in the model instruction:
“When reinforcing the armored units with heavy weapons, the Polish army planned to design cannon-armed vehicles able to provide direct support during an attack. The result was the TKD. It was based on the TK chassis, armed with a 47mm “Pocisk” cannon mounted in a half-armored emplacement. After performing trials of the prototype, a small series was produced. As the “Pocisk” cannon was not used by the Polish army, in order to standardize the armament, the guns were dismounted and, according to unconfirmed information, sold to China. The vehicles were converted to tractors for the wz.1897 field cannons with a modified chassis (rubber wheels).”
During the Second World War, a number of tanks and other armored vehicles were disarmed and used as carriers. The best examples are the Allied ‘Kangaroo’ vehicles used as tracked APCs or German ammo carriers (like the Munitionsträger Hummel) which were just disarmed self-propelled guns. The CP armored tractor is such a converted tractor, but fictional. It is based on the real TKD self-propelled gun but without armament. The disarmed TKDs are claimed to have been slightly modified and assigned to tow the 75mm wz.1897 cannons (the version with rubber wheels).

The box art of the RPM model kit of the CP armored Tractor.
The wz.1897 was actually a French mle. 1897 gun that was used by the Polish army – it was one of the most popular cannons in the army of Second Polish Republic. Some of these guns were improved with tyred wheels, however, most of them had wooden spoked wheels. These guns were towed by horses or by C4P half-tracks. The wz.1897s were used in the September Campaign during all significant battles, frequently in an anti-tank role.
There is no reliable source that confirms the existence of a vehicle called “CP”. Also, no such conversions of TKDs are mentioned in literature. However, TKD self-propelled guns were used in 1938 (during the annexation of Zaolzie) and later probably in the September Campaign (in defense of Warsaw). Moreover, a photo from September 1939 show an abandoned TKD without its cannon – so it is possible that some TKDs were really disarmed and used as tractors or carriers. However, they also might have just been disarmed to prevent the invading Germans from using them. Also, the kit shows a plate being bolted or riveted over the gun aperture, which is also missing from the vehicle in the picture. This plate would have been hard to remove (and for little gain) or to have been blown out if the vehicle was destroyed.

A TKD self-propelled gun abandoned on the side of a road with its gun missing, probably in September 1939. However, it doesn’t look like the fake CP armored tractor – Source: odkrywca.pl.
Thus, a second life of the TKDs as disarmed carriers is possible. Nevertheless, the existence of the claimed “CP” type vehicles can be declared as fiction, as nothing confirms the other changes shown in the model kit, apart from the cannon disarmament.

Modifications

The main difference from the TKD is, of course, the lack of a gun. Its place in the frontal armor is covered with a riveted armor panel. The vehicle has two headlights, one on each side, not only on the left (like on the TKD). Moreover, the CP has a hook at the back of hull, used to tow the cannon. However, this hook looks a little too fragile for something destined for towing a cannon weighing about 1.5 tonnes.
The only armament of the CP is a machine-gun placed on the left side of the hull for self-defense, on the standard stand, known from regular Polish tankettes (TK-3 and TKS). It is a 7.92mm wz.25 machine gun, however, the kit also includes a 7.92 wz.30 machine-gun. Both of these were used in Polish vehicles against aircraft or infantry attacks.

In Retrospect

The CP is certainly a fictional vehicle, however, its design could have been pretty successful. The similarity to the British Universal Carrier or French Renault UE tankette is clearly visible. These vehicles were very useful support vehicles, being used until late in the war. The CP, as the Polish counterpart of Universal Carrier, could have been a good multi-role support vehicle, as the TK3 on which it was based was a decent vehicle. The German army kept using captured TK vehicles even in 1944 – and mainly as tractors and carriers.
It is uncertain if the CP could have been a suitable tractor for the wz.1897 cannon. Unlike the real C4P, the fictional CP had no space for the wz.1897 cannon’s crew nor for its ammo. Also, it was certainly underpowered if it was meant to tow a 1.5 tonne gun. The specialized C2P tractor was able to tow wz.1897, but it was a purpose-built tractor – the CP is portrayed as an improvised vehicle. The C2P had a strengthened chassis and a solid towing hook.

A built model of the CP armored tractor – Source: karopka.ru

Illustration of the fake CP tractor by Tank Encyclopedia’s own Bernard “Escodrion” Baker

Sidenote: Tractors in the TK family

The Polish specialized tankette-based tractor was the C2P. Designed in 1932 and based on the TKS tankette, it had an improved chassis with new side clutches and bigger wheels at the back. Initially, the Polish army rejected this machine (in favor of a horse rig). However, it was later used especially for the 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft gun. Unfortunately, the low budget of the Polish army hindered modernization effort and precluded the C2P from being used with other types of cannons. The production that started in 1937 was stopped by the war. The German army gladly used captured C2Ps. These tractors were used on all fronts to the end of the war.

C2P tracked tractor – Source: Public domain, taken from Wikipedia
During 1930s, Polish engineers designed special trailers to be towed by tankettes. One type of trailers – with tracks – was designed for spare parts. The second type – wheeled – was designed for barrels of fuel and oil. Another trailer was designed for the RKD long-range radio and a crew of 4 men. The actual use in service of these trailers is barely known.

TK3 tankette with a tracked trailer – Source: Derela Republika
The German army used captured TK tankettes for reconnaissance, against guerillas and sometimes just as support vehicles. These vehicles were used on all fronts until the end of the war. Sometimes, they were further modified by Germans. Some photos show a TKS with a simplified gun mount or a TK-3 reworked into a tractor very similar to the C2P.

A very interesting vehicle, this is not a C2P armored tractor. It is a TK3 tankette that has had its armor cut out and a windshield installed by the Germans – Source: Derela Republika

Specifications
Dimensions L-W-H	3 x 1.7 x n/a m
Crew	2
Propulsion	Polski-FIAT 122AC 6 cyl, 42 hp
Speed	40 km/h
Armament	Wz.25 or wz.30 (both 7,92mm) machine gun

Links, Resources & Further Reading

www.super-hobby.com
derela.republika.pl (1)
derela.republika.pl (2)
Wrzesień 1939 magazine, nr. 3, FIRST TO FIGHT Sp.z o.o., Warsaw
Wrzesień 1939 magazine, nr. 33, FIRST TO FIGHT Sp.z o.o., Warsaw

Fake CP Armored Tractor prints

By Bernard “Escodrion” Baker

Prints of the Fake Polish CP Armored Tractor

Buy this print on RedBubble!

Tracked Hussars Shirt

Charge with this awesome Polish Hussars shirt. A portion of the proceeds from this purchase will support Tank Encyclopedia, a military history research project. Buy this T-Shirt on Gunji Graphics!

Cold War French Fake Tanks Fake Tanks

Projet Tigre (April Fools)

Post author By David Lister
Post date April 1, 2018
4 Comments on Projet Tigre (April Fools)

France (1959)
Light SPG – Fake

This article has been published on Tanks Encyclopedia on the 1st of April 2018, as part of our April’s Fools Day celebrations. The information contained is mostly fictional but with some parts that are actual truth, like the German use of Renault UEs and the Wurframen conversion.

A German Idea

After the fall of France in 1940, some 3,000 Renault UE’s were captured by the German forces. As the Germans always needed more items to equip their under-mechanised army, they started to use these Beute vehicles for their own purposes. Indeed, the Renault UE became one of the more common small armored vehicles in German service for a time.

As the threat of the Allied Invasion loomed, German forces began to modify some of these captured vehicles into self-propelled rocket launchers mounting Wurfrahmen 40 28cm rockets on both the Renault UE and Hotchkiss H35. These saw service during the Invasion of Normandy.
After the war, the French began to look at re-equipping their army, and in some cases used captured German tanks such as the Panther as a stop gap. It’s during this time that a French designer working for Renault, Mr. Rennie Neufpierre, came across a German UE fitted with the Wurfrahmen 40. Its layout sparked an idea, and he began working on a concept which he presented to Renault. In 1959, the French Government became involved and the project received official funding for a study into the idea under the Finabel No. 83T86 requirement. Renault named this study Project Tigre.

Mr. Neufpierre’s original sketch of Tigre

Tigre Description

The Tigre copied the layout of the UE, with just two crewmen seated under separate domed cupolas that could rotate. The crew consisted of a Driver and a Commander who acted as a layer as well. Some of the bad ideas from the French armor development were copied over to this, such as the French insistence on having the entrance hatch on the rear of the dome, unlike contemporary vehicles which had the hatch on the roof of the cupola. Equally, the early war French tanks had incorporated binocular sights into their cupolas for the tank commander to use. This was also applied to Project Tigre. Communication between the two crew was again directly copied from the Renault UE, a series of colored lights were controlled by the commander to transmit movement orders to the driver’s position.

The model of the Tigre. The weapon system on Project Tigre was a unique design, consisting of a rack of eighteen cut-down Brandt Mle CM60A1 guns. Only one round was loaded in each gun, however, a full set of reloads was stored under the weapons rack. The breaches of the gun mortar were exposed on the lower side of the weapon rack. Thus, they could be reloaded by the crew sheltering behind the vehicle.The inspiration for this was tied to a French-Canadian improvised weapon system deployed in 1945. They mounted fourteen PIAT’s in a rack on the back of a Universal Carrier, which were discharged in two volleys of seven by pulling on a lanyard. In Project Tigre, the mortars could gimbal through a few degrees allowing the layer to aim his salvo, whereupon he could select either 3, 6, 9 or 18 rounds to be fired. This adherence to multiples of three was imposed on the project by the Renault management citing the French Tricolour and the Fleur-de-lis as both having ties to the number three, and thus was seen as a patriotic number.
The mortars themselves were fairly low-velocity weapons, only firing at 127 m/s, thus a three round burst was needed to help hit the target. Rounds provided were either HE or HEAT.

The End of the Tigre

After completing the study, Renault presented its findings to the Government in 1961. During the course of the study, they had created a model, even placing it into a short film to promote the idea. However, the French army was concerned about several features carried over from the pre-war tanks, the lack of modern communications and the excess weight required for the 18 guns, which limited the amount of armor that could be fitted to just 10mm, even if it was highly sloped.

A still taken from the promotional film of the Tigre
In addition, the Tigre had a large overhang on the front of the tank, which previous French experience on the St Chamond had shown was an undesirable trait. Therefore, no further work was done and Project Tigre was buried in an archive. The exact fate of the model is currently unknown, however, the recent find of three wheels and one of the tracks of the models at the Saumur museum appears to indicate the model may have ended up there.

Sources

French documents probably

Fake Tanks WW2 Soviet Fake Tanks

T-26s with Kremlin Armory Cannons (April Fools)

Post author By Willkerrs
Post date April 1, 2018
10 Comments on T-26s with Kremlin Armory Cannons (April Fools)

Soviet Union (1941)
Self-Propelled Gun – Fake

April Fools

This article was originally published on Tanks Encyclopedia on 1st April 2018, as part of our April’s Fools Day celebrations. The information contained within is mostly fictional but some parts are actually true, such as the use of the prototype vehicles from Kubinka in combat, or the use of an antique cannon in the Syrian Civil War. Some other things are partly true, such as improvised AT mines made from tin cans, which actually happened at the siege of Odessa, 1941.

Old Weapons, New Invaders

Since the opening up of Soviet archives following the collapse of the USSR, all fields of history have been enriched by the flood of esoteric knowledge. In the field of military history, archival access has proven invaluable to those studying tank prototypes and concepts. In February 2018, Russian historian, Iourii Kasholot, announced he had found evidence of a previously unknown Soviet endkampf plan, regarding the fear of Moscow being entered by the Wehrmacht in 1941.
Among other things, the documents he found revealed that all of Moscow’s citizens, regardless of age and sex, would have been conscripted to fight in the Red Army and armed using archaic weapons of the Kremlin armory museum. Moreover, another suggestion of the plan was that if tanks began to run out of munitions, a new battalion should be formed of tanks equipped with gunpowder cannons from Kremlin armory stocks. As a result, the concept of T-26s with Kremlin Armory cannons was suggested. Even today in the Syrian Civil War, evidence of gunpowder cannons being used can be found, proving that archaic weapons are still relevant.
Fortunately, the plan was never implemented due to the German halt on 5th December 1941.

The Documents

The documents in question are the minutes and transcripts of a secret meeting of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and some Marshals of the Soviet Union which took place on October 22nd 1941. This meeting took place following various early defeats around Moscow, such as the Red Army’s 21st Tank Brigade’s failed assault on Kalinin.
Unfortunately, the documents from the meeting themselves cannot be reproduced, rather like other secret documents such as those on Chinese prototype tanks destroyed in nuclear testing or blueprints of Japanese superheavy tanks. However, Kasholot provided some summaries with some direct quotes.
A basic outline of key points of this endkampf plan is thus:

All factories are to continue production of war materiel until they are captured or ‘turned to rubble’ (Rus: гребаный разбитый) and will be subordinated to a specific battalion’s needs. Reference here was made to avoiding supply problems as witnessed in Kiev in 1939, during mobilizations for the invasion of Poland.
All soldiers are to initially stand their ground in Moscow’s suburbs, fighting building by building.
If the suburbs of Moscow are captured, all remaining units must withdraw into the center.
Discussions were made on the possibility of total conscription of all civilians and arming them with weapons from the Kremlin armory, but no plans were agreed.
All armored vehicles were to withdraw to the Kremlin and fight from there.
A suggestion was made about equipping tanks with cannons from the Kremlin armory, but this appears to have been rejected in the meeting.
Scrap and prototype tanks from the Polygon were to be put into service (Note: this part of the plan was actually enacted in December 1941)
The destruction of all bridges and railway lines leading away from Moscow should take place following any Soviet withdrawal as part of a scorched earth policy.
Discussions of partisan operations following the capture of Moscow.
The relocation of the capital city to Kazan.
The possibility of negotiating a treaty with Hitler was mentioned but quickly dismissed by Stalin.

Mobilizing the People

During the Battle of Moscow, an estimated 250,000 women and teenagers had already been conscripted to build anti-tank fortifications and dig trenches at the Mozhaisk defense line, protecting the west of Moscow as far as Kalinin. All civilian production centers had long since been converted to wartime production. By the start of October, twenty smaller factories were producing (or were at least organizing production of) weapons and munitions. Many of the weapons produced by these factories were improvised, such as trench flamethrowers made from soda water cylinders, and even AT and AP mines, made from tin cans (thus, somewhat humorously labeled ‘Caviar’, ‘Khalva’, etc). However, this was not seen as enough. 660,000 Red Army soldiers were already encircled at the towns of Vyzama and Briansk, approximately half of the Red Army’s overall manpower at the Battle of Moscow, meaning that more manpower might be necessary if the Wehrmacht were to advance further into Moscow.
According to transcripts provided by Kasholot, there was talk of ‘total conscription’ (Rus: каждый человек для себя) of all peoples in Moscow, regardless of age and sex. When Marshal Zhukov asked Stalin what the people were to be armed with, Stalin replied: ‘We had to find our own weapons in the civil war, now we have an entire armory [meaning the Kremlin armory] here in Moscow – find some old rifles and cannons – everything can be mobilised against the Fascists!‘

T-26s with Kremlin Armory Cannons

Discussions then went on to talk about the effectiveness of such a move and whether it was really worth risking the lives of civilians armed with outdated weapons against Panzer armies. After a while, Stalin suggested that if Moscow’s suburbs were breached, the citizen conscripts would not be fighting alone because tanks should be pulled back to the Kremlin walls to fight using indirect fire methods. Marshal Vasilevsky then replied that if the tanks pull back to the Kremlin, they would be useless because they would not have any munitions besides some machine guns.
Stalin replied that these tanks, too, can be armed with weapons from the Kremlin armory, suggesting that ‘If a huge blunderbuss is good enough for a small boy, then a great licorne is good enough for a T-26. We will defeat the invaders with the weapons that the last ones [IE, Napoleon, thus referring to Napoleonic war cannons] used!‘ Kasholot suggests that this caused a moment of silence at the meeting, before Stalin continued that such tanks could be converted even now, and form an independent battalion. However, the conversation was quickly moved on by Zhukov’s suggestion of taking prototype tanks out of the Polygon testing ground, and fielding them instead. This was agreed upon, and further matters were discussed.
Fortunately for the Politburo, and indeed, the citizens of Moscow, this endkampf plan as a whole came to nothing because the German advance was halted on 5th December. Soviet resistance and counter-offensives had managed to stave off attempted further German advances from mid-November. By this time, the cold weather had set in, and the winter of 1941-1942 was the coldest winter of the 20th century. As a result, no further German advances were attempted, and the Soviets began their successful counterattacks.

Prototypes in Combat

Despite the plan coming to nothing, one part was enacted. Between November and December 1941, various tanks were taken from the Polygon and were then pressed into service. This included regular vehicles in the scrapyard such as T-26s, which were reassembled from discarded parts, but also various prototype / experimental vehicles.
The T-100Y and SU-14 prototypes were used for indirect fire roles as part of an ‘Independent Artillery Division for Special Duties’ to the west of the Polygon at Kubinka. At least one SU-14 is believed to have engaged targets from a long range, but no further information on their combat is known. The T-100Y and one of the SU-14 prototypes stand today in Kubinka Tank Museum (the other SU-14 prototype was scrapped in 1960).
The T-29 medium tank, as well as the A-32 and A-20 (T-34 prototypes) are reported to have been fielded in 1942 as part of a special detachment, also. Information is limited, but the T-29 was last photographed at Zavod 100 in Chelyabinsk in 1942. It was recycled in 1943 along with several other experimental vehicles, including the KV-7.

Artist’s interpretation of a T-26 with a cannon from the Kremlin armory by Tank Encyclopedia’s own Amazing Ace.

Example of a cannon at the Kremlin Armory, as used in the Napoleonic Wars. Source: russianreport.wordpress
Female Muscovite volunteer workers digging trenches for the defence of Moscow. Source: wikipedia.

The T-29 at Zavod 100, 1942. Source: Tankarchives.blogspot

Syrian Civil War antique cannons

The Rahman Corps, a Syrian rebel group in Damascus, was seen operating an antique cannon strapped to the rear of a lorry. Videos show the vehicle in use between July and November 2016. This proves that despite weapons being antiquated, they can still be viable for a war effort.

Rahman Corps footage of their antique cannon SPG, Damascus, July 2016.
Sources:
A summary of the transcript from a meeting of the Politburo of the CPSU, October 22nd 1941, provided by Iourii Kasholot
“The Greatest Battle: Stalin, Hitler, and the Desperate Struggle for Moscow That Changed the Course of World War II” by Andrew Nagorski
“Battle of Moscow 1941–1942: The Red Army’s Defensive Operations and Counter-offensive Along the Moscow Strategic Direction” by Richard W. Harrison
Rukkas, Andriy, ‘The Red Army’s Troop Mobilization in the Kiev Special Military District during September 1939’, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies 16 (2003), 105-136.
Barnes, Steven, ‘All for the Front, All for Victory! The Mobilization of Forced Labor in the Soviet Union during World War Two’, International Labor and Working Class History 58 (2000), 239-260.
tankarchives.blogspot
Note: The views expressed in this article do not reflect those of the Tanks Encyclopedia team, or reality.

Fake Tanks WW2 Polish Fake Tanks

Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39 (Fake Tank)

Post author By Stan Lucian
Post date September 11, 2017
18 Comments on Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39 (Fake Tank)

Republic of Poland (1939)
Medium/Cruiser Tank – Fake

A Fake More Famous than the Real Thing

The 14TP is a little known Polish tank project of the late 1930s. While the information regarding it is vague and no photos have survived, some pieces of information about the project remain. The 14TP was based on the previous 10TP, but with more frontal armor, without the ability to run on its wheels alone and with a different engine.
However, the image most widely associated with the 14TP on the internet looks nothing like the lighter and better-known 10TP. It is the ‘Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39.’

A sketch of the Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39, as presented in an article written by Janus Magnuski – Nowa Technika Wojskowa nr 6/1996

A Historical Fake?

The Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39 was first published by Janus Magnuski, a Polish historian, in his articles in the Nowa Technika Wojskowa 6/1996 and the Poligon 1/2009 magazines.
According to Magnuski, after the war, the sketch of a tank named the “Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39” (“Polish Tank T-39”) was found in the documents of the Abwehr (Nazi German intelligence service). According to Magnuski, this tank looked like a cruiser-medium tank with a Christie-like suspension, similar to the 10TP, it was assumed that this was the German interpretation of the 14TP, based on whatever intelligence the Germans could get about it before or after the invasion.
While this story is plausible, no evidence was offered to support it and the original document, if it existed, has not emerged.

A ‘what-if’ drawing showing a Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39 in action – Source: User bartekd on the odkrywca.pl forum
The Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39 bears little resemblance to the 10TP, on which the real 14TP project was based. While it is often used to represent the 14TP, it most certainly bears no relationship to the real thing.
Of course, intelligence services are not infallible, and it possible that the T-39 was based on very poor-quality information obtained by the German agents in Polish territory. Alternatively, it is also widely postulated that this was a deliberate fabrication deliberately planted by the Poles in order to fool the Germans.
It is also possible that the Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39 is a more recent fabrication, produced by Magnuski or supplied to him by somebody else. Until the original document will be found, it is hard to tell.

The Design of the Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39

The feature that brings the Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39 closest to the 10TP and 14TP is its Christie-like suspension. The T-39 has five large rubberized road wheels on each side, which also supported the track return. In the case of the real vehicles, each wheel would have been connected to a large coil spring sandwiched between two layers of armor.

‘What-if’ illustration of the Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39, presented as the real 14TP – Source: WW2 Drawings, illustrated by V.Bourguignon.
The Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39, as shown in the outline from Magnuski, was significantly longer than the 10TP, with one more road wheel. Most of the lengthening seems to have gone to the engine bay. This partially relates to the real 14TP, which was meant to have a more powerful engine.
The front part of the lower hull extends significantly in front of the superstructure, a feature that is common to frontal transmission vehicles.
The rather large turret is mounted centrally in the vehicle, between the rear engine compartment and the front driver compartment. It does not resemble any Polish turret in use at that time. The front of the turret has a very pronounced curvature.
It is noteworthy that the Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39, as shown, does not have any machine-gun visible, either in the turret or in the hull.

Illustration of the Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39 by Jarosław Janas.

Another illustration of the 14TP, done “Escodrion” Bernard Baker

The Fake Document

Since the appearance of the Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39 in the 1996 article by Magnuski, a document has appeared and widely circulated on the internet, often purported to be the original Abwehr document from which the T-39 project was ‘discovered’ by Magnuski.
However, a careful look reveals several problems with this document. First off, it is extremely clean, both in its writing and in its preservation. While this does not necessarily mean it is fake, it is a warning sign.
It must be noted that a large part of the original Abwehr documents was methodically destroyed during the war, to prevent their capture by the enemy.
Furthermore, the German used in the document is full of grammar and phrasing mistakes. Whoever produced it was clearly not a native speaker, especially not one writing official intelligence documents!
The drawing in the document also perfectly matches the T-39 drawing widely available on the internet. This might mean that Mister Januski was very thorough in reproducing it or that whoever produced this document used the image available online.
Another interesting thing to note is that German documents did not feature drawings in them. The drawings were usually attached as annexes, and not present along with the text.

Conclusion

The ‘Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39’ is not the 14TP. However, it has become widely mistaken for the real 14TP. Many websites and magazines, when writing about the little-known 14TP, use this fake tank to illustrate their pieces, often omitting to make any distinction between the two.
Also, some people have tried using the ‘Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39’ to spin the 14TP into a far more advanced vehicle than it was, one that would be on par or superior to anything else of the time. New information, however, indicates it was not such a super-vehicle.
It is possible that Magnuski indeed saw the ‘Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39’ in a German document, but until such a document appears, it should be treated with care. There is also no source where this ‘document’ was found or by whom or even when.

The supposed document showing the Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39. It is almost assuredly a fake – Photo: As taken from a post by Raznarok on the World of Tanks forums

Links, Resources & Further Reading

Polish forum thread discussing various designs, including the 14TP
Poligon magazine 2010/1
Modern Drawings

Tracked Hussars Shirt

Fake Tanks WW2 Hungarian Fake Tanks

Tas rohamlöveg (Fake Tank)

Post author By Karika
Post date June 26, 2017
9 Comments on Tas rohamlöveg (Fake Tank)

Kingdom of Hungary (1944)
Assault Gun – Fake

Tas rohamlöveg mockup by Á. Bíró.

Introduction

After the end of the Second World War, under the soon established communist regime in Hungary, it was unwise (and unrequested) to publicly talk about any involvement in the military developments of the previous, condemned era. Therefore, the designers of the Hungarian 44M. Tas heavy/medium tank also chose to remain silent and its history soon faded away.
Nobody bothered to research the history of the Hungarian tanks and armored fighting vehicles until the late 1970’s, the time when most of the primary sources, the key people involved in it had already passed away. This made it even harder for the new generation of historians to form a coherent story because most of the time they had to rely on the few remaining, sometimes contradictory written documents or on the memories of the people who only played a minor role in the stream of events.
Consequently, because of the lack of primary sources, some outdated books and articles falsely claim that a self-propelled gun on a Tas chassis would also have been designed in parallel with the 44M. Tas development.

Historical authenticity issues

The ‘myth’ of the Tas rohamlöveg (literally ‘Tas assault gun’) dates back to the 1980’s when the son of the former chief engineer of the Weiss Manfréd factory, Pál Korbuly, first started to collect data about the almost completely forgotten 44M. Tas. His study was mostly based on oral sources, the memories of those who were involved somehow in the Tas project.
When Korbuly found out that in some cases two sets of Tas components were manufactured, he suspected that one set was for the prototype of the 44M. Tas and the other set must have been made for something else, e.g. for an assault gun variant of the Tas, based on the same chassis. This would have been a logical assumption considering how successful the – at that time of the Tas development recently deployed – 40/43M. Zrínyi II was. Without any knowledge about the little surviving documentations in the archives, Korbuly jumped to the conclusion that the designers of the Tas must have copied that proven idea on the basis of their vehicle as well. The result would have been similar to the German Jagdpanther.

Tas and Tas rohamlöveg cardboard mockups made by P. Korbuly as illustrations for his research results in the early 1980’s. Both of them were made before the first photographs or blueprint parts had been found and were only based on the reminiscences of the people involved in the Tas development. Both of these mockups are completely outdated by now.
Nevertheless, the most recent studies have found evidence contradicting Korbuly’s theory. According to some original documents – which have been found in the Hungarian archives only in the late 2000’s – both sets of components were intended to be used in the 44M. Tas development. It turned out that the Hungarian Ministry of Defense ordered two Tas prototypes from Weiss Manfréd instead of just one and there are no mentions about an assault gun variant anywhere. There is no physical evidence that supports Korbuly’s claim. Therefore, it must be assumed that no such thing ever existed in the first place or only as a vague proposal at the very best.

Alleged characteristics

As the Tas rohamlöveg most likely never existed in the first place, its characteristics are only limited by the fantasy of the authors who wrote about it.
In the old articles about this vehicle, it was assumed that the armor and mobility of the assault gun variant would have been more or less the same as on the controversial Tas.
In turn, most of the debate was about its would-be armament. The invented options ranged from the 7.5 cm (2.95 in) Kw.K. 42 L/70 (the gun used on e.g. the German Panther tank) to the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 (the gun used e.g. on the Tiger II heavy tank). In any case, it was agreed that the gun must have come from abroad because the most powerful, domestically manufactured, dedicated anti-tank gun of the time, the 43M. 75 mm L/43 gun would not require such large and expensive platform when it could be fitted in the Zrínyi I.
Anyhow, the question of how would Hungary acquire any of these German guns in adequate quantities has been conveniently ignored in these articles.

Reality

The designers of the 44M. Tas were struggling to finalize the blueprints and finish prototypes even for the conventional tank variant because of the lack of resources, raw materials and, most importantly, the lack of time during the end stages of the Second World War. Even if they thought about creating such a self-propelled gun variant, they probably could not afford to waste time or energy to design something nobody asked them to.
Up until any valid proof of its existence will be found it must be assumed that the Tas rohamlöveg never existed.

Tas rohamlöveg by Jarja – Jarosław Janas.

Artistic impression of how the Tas rohamlöveg could have been looked like (if it would have been designed properly at all) by I. Bajtos. Created in the early 1990’s based on P. Korbuly’s works. The armament on this drawing is the German 8.8 cm (3.46 in) Kw.K. 43 L/71. Note how little the gun could depress if this assault gun would have been looked like this.

Another artistic recreation of how the Tas rohamlöveg could have been looked like by Á. Bíró.

Á. Bíró’s artistic illustration how the 7.5 cm Kw.K. 42 L/70 anti-tank gun could be fitted in his Tas rohamlöveg model.

3D model of the Tas rohamlöveg based on Á. Bíró’s articles.

Sources and further read

Bíró, Ádám – Sárhidai, Gyula: A Magyar Királyi Honvédség hazai gyártású páncélos harcjárművei 1914–1945. 264.
Bíró, Ádám: A Tas nehéz rohamlöveg I. rész. In: Haditechnika 2009/3. 27-31.
Bíró, Ádám: A Tas nehéz rohamlöveg II. rész. In: Haditechnika 2009/4. 59-63.
Bombay, László – Gyarmati, József– Turcsányi, Károly: Harckocsik 1916-tól napjainkig. 112.
Bonhardt, Attila – Sárhidai, Gyula – Winkler, László: A Magyar Királyi Honvédség fegyverzete. 102-103.
Hajdú, Ferenc – Sárhidai, Gyula: A Magyar Király Honvéd Haditechnikai Intézettől a HM Technológiai Hivatalig 1920-2005. 49
Poór, István (editor): Harckocsik és páncélozott harcjárművek típuskönyve. 163.
Turcsányi, Károly: Nehézharckocsik – Összehasonlító értékelések, műveleti alkalmazások és a magyar TAS tervezése. 233-234.

Fake Tanks WW2 Polish Fake Tanks

PZInż. 126 (Fake Tank)

Republic of Poland (1940)
Command Tank – Fake

Model kit

The PZInż. 126 (PZInż – Państwowe Zakłady Inżynieryjne – National Institution of Engineering) is a fictitious tank invented by the model-kit firm RPM. It was a part of a series of model kits of vehicles based on the British Vickers Mark E light tank (7TP, T-26, etc.)

The cover art for the PZInż. 126 model kit from RPM.
The description of the vehicle from the model kit instructions reads: “The plans of modernizing the armored branch did not encompass only the production or purchase of a new tank, but also trials to upgrade the vehicles already in service. According to the Polish leadership, the Vickers E tank was too weakly armoured, and its armament was downright symbolic. Arming the TKS tankette with a 20 mm FK wz.28 cannon markedly increased the battle value of these obsolete vehicles, and made them able to fight with a potential enemy (their capability was proven during the invasion in September 1939). The small dimensions of these tanks did not allow the installation of a high power radio required to create command vehicles for the armored formations. This is where the retired Vickers E entered the fray. It was planned to remove the original turrets and replace them with the turret of the PZInż. 130 tank with a 20 mm gun. In place of the second turret, a radio station with essential accessory was to be installed. This potent command vehicle was created on the chassis of the old vehicle. However, the September invasion ruined these plans.”
The PZInż. 126 is pictured as a “what if” plan, a tank designed by the Polish engineers and meant to be built in 1940 – if the war had not happened. However, the model kit description doesn’t mention the fact that no plans of the PZInż. 126 were ever created. The number “126” is not included in the list of PZInż. projects/products. This project is not recorded in any historical documents. This tank is a fictitious invention.
Unfortunately, the RPM firm has disappeared, and it was impossible to contact them for comments.

Supposed design

The following section talks about the design of a fictitious vehicle. The information presented is inferred from the model kit description and analyzing the kit itself, along with some historical context.
The PZInż. 126 would have been a scout and command vehicle for the Polish armored formations. The crew would have probably consisted of three people, situated in the middle placed crew compartment. These were the driver on the right side of tank, the radio station operator on the left side, in place of the original left turret and the gunner on the right, in the turret. The crew is not specifically mentioned in the description, but is easy to infer from the vehicle layout. The gunner or the radio operator should have also acted as the commander.
This vehicle is meant to represent a conversion of the British Vickers Mk. E Type A light tank. In 1931, Poland bought this design and started to improve its construction, leading to the 7TP. However, the Polish-built tanks had considerable improvements in construction, that do not appear in the design of the PZInż. 126.
The original British vehicle was powered by an Armstrong-Siddeley “Puma” engine. This engine had a capacity of 6.67 liters and a power of 91 horsepower. The Vickers tank did not have large enough air intakes, which led to problems with cooling the engine.
In effect, this vehicle would have looked very similar to another tank based on the 6-ton Vickers: the Soviet HT-26 flamethrower tank. On both vehicles, the right-hand turret was changed with a new one, and the left-hand one was removed.

A view of the left side of a PZInż. 126 model – Source: cmorrismodels
The turret would have been derived from that of the experimental TKW tankette. That turret was also used on another prototype tank, the PZInż. 130. It had a top hatch and two rear doors. The turret would have contained the only weapon of this vehicle, a 20 mm gun. In the model kit description it is identified as the NKM wz.38 FK-A light cannon, but the model and the illustrations seem to represent the Solothurn S18-100. This gun had a shorter barrel and was placed lower in the turret than the NKM wz.38.
The wz.38 gun was never mounted in this turret, although it was planned for the PZInż. 130. Another model kit shows this gun mounted on the TKW, but this is also a fake.
The place of left turret was taken by a hatch, periscope, antenna and the radio stations. The radio type is not mentioned.

Retrospect

The idea of a vehicle that is meant to house a unit commander and provide him with mobility and protection while also allowing him to control his troops is a tested and verified one – German command vehicles, like the Sd.Kfz.265 or Pz.Bef.Wg.35(t), were very useful for the Panzer Divisions.
However, in order to make use of a vehicle analogous to the German Panzerbefehlswagens, the Polish army needed a change in structure. Such vehicles were highly useful inside the German Panzer Divisions, which were dedicated tank units. The Polish army, on the other hand, perceived tanks as infantry support weapons, split into small units and working in close cooperation with the foot soldiers. The infantry command structures also had control over the Polish tanks. Thus, tanks meant as a liaison between other tanks (like the PZInż. 126) were redundant. The Polish engineers did start a project to design a tank with a powerful radio, but this concept was not perceived as essential.

Wireless sets in Polish tanks

The main Polish vehicles used for mobile long-range communications were trucks, but the idea of wireless equipped command tanks was not totally foreign. However, there was a problem. The wireless sets that could have been used in these command tanks were rather weak and did not have a long range.
The first Polish tank equipped with a radio was the French Renault TSF – a converted Renault FT with a radio set inside a large box-structure on top of the hull instead of the turret. In 1926, the Polish engineers swapped the French radio sets with Polish ones with a range of 20 km. In August 1931, all the TSFs were reworked to normal FTs. Before 1936, a single Renault FT was equipped with a radio set as an experiment but unfortunately, there is no further information available about this particular conversion.
After 1936, the Polish Army equipped a few TK3 and TKS tankettes with short-range RKBc radio sets. These would have been operated by the vehicle commander. Nevertheless, these vehicles were not meant to command other tankettes, but to keep in contact with the local headquarters and possibly relay scouting information. In September 1939, Poland had around 50 TKS tankettes. The number of tankettes with the RKBc radio set is unknown, but it was at least 5. Converted tankettes are easy to identify; they had two boxes with accessories on the back (left and right sides) of the hull and a long antenna.

A TK3 with the RKB-C radio. Notice the two large boxes at the rear and the large antenna – Source: derela.republika.pl
In 1936, one Vickers E (twin turret; number 1359) was converted to carry a large radio set as an experiment. However, when the new single turret 7TP version, which had a radio set, appeared, the radio-equipped Vickers Mark E project was rejected. The intended prototype was never equipped with a radio set.
In 1938-1939, four Vickers E Mark A tanks were converted into radio vehicles (probably with the type N2/C radio set). These vehicles had a big antenna with two brackets on the hull. The specifications of this type of vehicle are unknown. However, the Vickers Mark B (single turret), which were issued to commanders, had low-power Marconi SB4a radio sets.

A row of Polish Vickers Mark E tanks. The last vehicle seems to have an antenna and might be one of the radio equipped vehicles – Source: derela.republika.pl

Illustrations of the PZInż. 126 Polish Fake tank.

A twin turreted Vickers Mark E, for comparison

When the single turret version of the 7TP was made, the engineers decided to mount a Type N2/C radio set (type N2/C) in the tank from the get-go. The back of the prototype’s turret was enlarged in order to accommodate the radio set. This arrangement became a standard on the single-turret 7TP. There were 7TPs that lacked the radio set, and used this extra space for ammunition stowage. The range of the radio set could be improved by means of a 6 metre long antenna – Source: derela.republika.pl

A Polish 7TP with the antenna visible on the roof. It is the thin white line going from the turret roof to the upper edge of the photo – Source: derela.republika.pl

The first page of the PZInż. 126 instruction sheet.

Rear right side view of a PZInż. 126 model – Source: mojehobby.pl

A twin-turreted Polish Vickers Mark E. This was the supposed base vehicle for the PZInż. 126 – Source: Derela.Republika.pl

The PZInż. 130 amphibious tank. This vehicle had the same turret as the one shown on the fictional PZInż. 126. The prototype remained unarmed, but it was envisioned to mount a 20 mm wz.38 FK-A cannon at some point – Source: Derela.Republika.pl

The later version of the TKW tankette prototype. This is the same turret as the one used on the PZInż. 130 and the fictional PZInż. 126. It was only armed with a machine-gun – Source: Derela.Republika.pl

Links

The TKW tankette on Derela Republika
The PZInż. 126 kit on Super Hobby

PZInż. 126 specifications
Dimensions	4.88 x 2.41 x 2.00 m 16.37×7.9×6.74 ft
Crew	3 (driver, gunner, radio operator )
Propulsion	Armstrong Siddeley Puma, 80-92 hp
Suspension	Leaf sprung bogies
Speed	35 km/h (21 mph)
Range road/off-road	160/90 km (100/55 mi)
Armament	20 mm NKM wz.38 FK-A light cannon
Armor	Front hull – 13 mm Side hull – 13 mm Back hull – 8 mm Top hull – 5 mm Bottom hull – 5 mm Turret (all sides) – 8 mm

Twin-Turret BT Tank “BT-4” or “BT-VT” (Fake Tank)

K-1 Krushchev (Fake Tank)

K-91 World of Tanks Fake Version

Jagdpanzer E 100 (Fake Tank)

Panhard EBR 105 (Fake Tank)

Batignolles-Châtillon Bourrasque (Fake Tank)

Conqueror Gun Carriage (GC) (Fake Tank)

FV215b (Fake Tank)

Caernarvon ‘Action X’ (Fake Tank)

Panther II mit 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 (Fake Tank)

Progetto M35 Mod. 46 (Fake Tank)

Soviet “Turtle” Tank (Fake Tank)

Type T-34 (Fake Tank)

H.G. Wells’ Land Ironclads (Fictional Tank)

CP Armoured Tractor (Fake Tank)

Projet Tigre (April Fools)

T-26s with Kremlin Armory Cannons (April Fools)

Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39 (Fake Tank)

Tas rohamlöveg (Fake Tank)

PZInż. 126 (Fake Tank)

Soviet Union (1932) Light Tank – Fake

Multi-Turreted Madness: The “BT-4” or “BT-VT”

The Straight Answer: No, the “BT-4” Did Not Exist

The “Source” of the Twin Turret BT or BT-VT:

Soviet Parts Bin: The Basis of the “BT-4”’s Design

A Brief History of the BT:

A Brief History of the T-26:

Why a Twin-Turret BT?

Speed is Armor: Design Characteristics of the “BT-4”

Armor:

Drivetrain:

Suspension and Running Gear:

Armament:

Crew:

The Crew Won’t Fit: Why Two Turrets Likely Wouldn’t Work

Conclusion: The Danger of April Fools.

Gallery of Photoshopped Photos (credit: fox3000.com):

Sources

Soviet Union (1956) Medium Tank – Fake

Buried Origin

The Design

Similar Real Designs

Sources

Soviet Union (1949) Heavy Tank – Fake

Background

World of Tanks Hybrid

Video Game vs Reality

K-91-2

K-91 PT

Conclusion

K-91 Fake tank specifications

Sources

German Reich (1944) Tank Destroyer – Fake

History

In World of Tanks

Armament

Mechanical aspects

Conclusion

Jagdpanzer E 100 specifications

Sources

France (1970s) Armored Car – Fake

Historical upgrades to the EBR’s firepower

Wargaming’s EBR 105

The inaccurately-modeled TS 90 turret

Weight increase and mysteriously improved engine

Conclusion – Another kitbashed fake tank

EBR 105 specifications

Sources:

France (1940-1970s) Light Tank – Fake

Bourrasque or 12T modèle 1954 ?

The Hull: Batignolles-Châtillon 12t

The TS 90 Turret: Back to the Future

An Inaccurate Turret

A Theoretically Identical Weight

Conclusion: Another Unhistorical Mish-Mash

Specifications

Sources:

United Kingdom (1950s) Self-Propelled Gun – Fake

The WoT Representation

Cold War British SPGs

Soviet Union (1932)
Light Tank – Fake

Soviet Union (1956)
Medium Tank – Fake

Soviet Union (1949)
Heavy Tank – Fake

German Reich (1944)
Tank Destroyer – Fake

France (1970s)
Armored Car – Fake

France (1940-1970s)
Light Tank – Fake

United Kingdom (1950s)
Self-Propelled Gun – Fake

United Kingdom (1950s)
Heavy Gun Tank – Fake

United Kingdom (1950s?)
Medium Gun Tank – Fake

German Reich (1940s)
Medium Tank – Fake

Italian Republic (1946)
Medium Tank – Fake

Soviet Union (1951)
Self-Propelled Gun – Fake

People’s Republic of China
Medium Tank – Fake