Kingdom of Sweden (1947-1951)
Heavy Tank – 1 Tested
Not many tanks in history have achieved the legendary status of the Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.B or ‘Königstiger’. Despite all the research on this tank, not many know that after the war, several nations, among them Sweden, acquired examples to evaluate and test.
The Swedish Mission
During World War Two, Sweden had declared neutrality but was sandwiched between the invading Germans in Norway and the Soviet offensive in Finland, the latter probably being of more concern to Swedish authorities. Sweden aided both the Axis and the Allied powers during the conflict. For example, Germany was allowed to transport the whole 163rd Infantry Division, along with all its equipment and supplies, from Norway to Finland across Sweden to fight the Soviets in June-July 1941 and iron reserves continued to be sold all the way up to 1944. On the other hand, military intelligence was passed on to the Allies, and Danish and Norwegian clandestine resistance groups were trained on Swedish soil. From 1944 onward, Swedish air bases were open to Allied aircraft. In spite of its neutrality, Sweden was always afraid of a potential invasion, and as a result had developed a number of indigenous tanks in the period leading up to the war and during the war itself. Along with this, Sweden possessed a powerful navy which could have discouraged an invasion.
After the end of the war, sometime between 1946 and 1947, Swedish military authorities sent personnel across Europe to acquire intact or semi-intact German tanks for the purpose of testing. One of the main aims of these tests were to see how anti-tank mines and other weaponry in the Swedish arsenal fared against heavily armored tanks.
The first tank they acquired was a single Panzer V Panther at a tank depot outside Versailles, with a Königstiger as their next objective. Finding one of these famed tanks proved to be harder than anticipated until August 1947, when one was found in Gien, south of Paris.
Another burnt-out example, allegedly having belonged to sPz.Abt. 503, 1.Kompanie, was found near the town of Vimontiere (Normandy) and was rejected in October 1946, as it did not meet the requirements of the Swedish authorities. Both the Panther and the Gien Königstiger were handed to the Swedish by the French authorities free of charge.
Skandinavisk Express was commissioned to provide transport for the tank to Stockholm as soon as possible. However, it would not be until 27th November 1947 that the Königstiger would be unloaded at Stockholm docks.
Initial Testing and its Journey
The Königstiger was transferred to the P 4 Regiment, also known as Skaraborgs regemente, in Skövde, 265 km (164.7 miles) west of Stockholm. There is no indication as to how the vehicle was transported to Skövde. After some time in which the tank was left in poor condition outside a workshop, work began to put the tank in running order, during which a German grenade was found within its hull. It would seem that the German crew or personnel in charge of the vehicle had in mind to destroy it rather than allow it to fall into Allied hands when they abandoned their tank. Once the engine was re-assembled, a short test run around the workshop grounds proved the vehicle was still capable of moving.
The vehicle was further tested in Skövde, being subjected to several terrain driving tests. In one of them, the swing arm of one of the end-wheels broke. It was soon welded back together, but the testing team had to be more careful in subsequent tests.
After its restoration, some sources suggest that the L/71 KwK 43 8.8 cm gun was removed for testing, provided that suitable ammunition could be found. However, later photographic evidence suggests otherwise, and that unless the gun was removed, then re-fitted and then removed for one last time, the gun remained attached until early 1949.
In late 1948, it was decided to move the tank to the Karlsborg testing area, roughly 60 km to the east. There, the Königstiger would fulfill its intended role as a guinea pig for gun tests. This operation proved to be of a gargantuan scale and full of complications. The transport had originally been planned for between 24th and 29th September 1948, but the swing arm incident postponed the transport indefinitely. Due to the weight of the vehicle, the easy option, to transport it by train directly to Karlsborg and then tow it to the facilities, was not plausible, as the line crossed a canal bridge which would not support the extra weight of the tank. In the end, the tank was transported by train to Finnerödja and then transported by a convoy to its final destination in Karlsborg, 60 km away. The convoy needed to transport it was made up of a turretless M4A4 Sherman, the tractor unit of an M26 Dragon Wagon, a terrängdragbil (tdgb) m/46 (a Swedish Brockway B666), a 10-tonne (11 tons) recovery vehicle, a fuel truck, two cars for personnel and four motorbikes. The roads, not having been built to take this kind of weight, and the abundance of forest meant that the journey took between November 10th and 15th and cost a staggering SEK10,000 and a total consumption of 6,000 liters of gasoline. Once in Karlsborg, testing could resume.
Tests in Karlsborg
Throughout 1949 and up until 1951, the vehicle was subject to mine detonations and barrage tests to gauge the strength of the Königstiger’s armor and the effectiveness of Swedish ammunition. As far as can be confirmed, there were seven tests:
Tests no. 1, 1st-2nd December 1948: The Königstiger and Sherman armor were fired upon by a variety of weapons and calibres, among which were: a 8 cm raketgevär m/49 bazooka, 8.4 cm granatgevär m/48 ‘Carl Gustaf’ recoilless rifle, 10.5 cm pansarskott m/45 and m/46 disposable recoilless rifles, 10.5 cm infanterikanon m/45 and 7.5 cm pvkan m/43 onboard a pvkv m/43. The Könisgstiger was fired upon seventeen times and it was found that the majority of weapons could not penetrate it frontally, with the exception of the disposable recoilless rifles, which could disable the tank with just one or two hits. However, when fired upon from the side, the damage was noteworthy. After this first test, the engine and gearbox were removed.
Test No. 2, 7th-21st November 1949: The vehicle was shot at 26 times to test different 8 cm and 12 cm HEAT ammunition and 10.5 cm ‘Wallburster’ HESH rounds. The latter rounds were discarded for future tests due to their limited success, despite creating some splits in the hull.
Test No. 3, 25th-27th January 1950: This test studied the effects of sub-calibre projectiles on heavy armor and were overall disappointing, with several projectiles breaking on impact. This was attributed to the use of sub-standard materials in their construction and production method.
Test No. 4, 1st-2nd March 1950: Artillery pieces firing HE, two 10.5 cm and one 15 cm, were tested against the front of the vehicle and the side and front of the turret. HEAT mines were also tested. The 15 cm rounds caused ‘considerable but not serious’ damage to the welds, though this was put down to faulty construction, not to the merits of the gun firing. Some sources suggest that, after this test, the main gun was removed.
Test No. 5: No details are known.
Test No. 6, 12th December 1950: This test was carried out to assess the damage different shells, grenades and launched projectiles had on a vehicle’s mobility from which the testing crew could calculate the average repair time. They found that, of the weapons, at the very least, a 57 mm HE round from a 57 mm pvkan m/43 was useful for stopping a vehicle such as the Königstiger, as long as the detonation happened near the tracks or at the front.
Test No. 7, 10th-11th May 1951: Again, for this test, a Sherman was used alongside the Königstiger to test different ammunition of the 7.5 cm lvkan m/37 anti-aircraft gun and the 15.2 cm fältpjäs M/37 coastal artillery cannon.
By the end of testing, this intense firepower turned the vehicle into a small pile of scrap that would have fitted into “the backseat of a Volkswagen Beetle” and what was left of the hull was scrapped.
The turret was sent to the firing range in Kråk to be used as target practice, becoming a popular target for the crews of the newly arrived Strv 81 (Centurion Mk. 3). It was common to use training rounds for the 20 pdr (84 mm) gun armed Strv 81 which penetrated the turret all the time.
Final Fate
The gun was kept for some time in Karlsborg until it was sent to the Bofors HQ in Karlskoga, where it remained until eventually being scrapped in the late 80s. Unfortunately, two weeks later a member of the Swedish Armor Historical Society arrived enquiring about the gun. Had they arrived a fortnight earlier, the Kwk 43 would quite likely be found today at Arsenalen. The only pieces remaining are the original engine, the gearbox and the rear hatch, which was found lying about Kråk firing range in the 1970s. The engine and gearbox can now be found at the Swedish Tank Museum, though they have an exciting yet mysterious and confused story themselves. Allegedly, after having been removed and stored at the Garrison Museum Skaraborg in the tiny town of Axvall, under dodgy circumstances and poor communication, the engine and gearbox were lent to Kevin Wheatcroft, a collector in the UK. When the return package from the UK arrived, a shell and a scrap engine were found inside. Eventually, the original engine and gearbox were found by British police in 2010 in the workshop of Mr Wheatcroft, who denies any wrongdoing and has collaborated with the authorities. Contrary to what some internet sources have claimed, Mr Wheatcroft has at no point been trialed or convicted of any crime. The intermediary between the museum and the collector, Daniel Misik, was convicted of fraud and embezzlement.
Origins
It is unusual to have an origins story after the fate section. For decades, there was a debate over which German unit the Swedish Königstiger had previously belonged to or what exact model it was and there was no general consensus in the historiography.
It would not be until the excellent work of Herbert Ackermans and Per Sonnervik that the mystery would finally be solved, finding that the Swedish Königstiger was a test vehicle marked 211 from Kummersdorf, which was the sixth series-produced King Tiger tank with chassis number ‘280 006’.
The Swedish Königstiger had three main characteristics:
It had a pre-production turret: The first 50 vehicles were produced with the pre-production turret (the incorrectly termed ‘Porsche turret’), while the subsequent tanks were equipped with the production turret (again, often incorrectly referred to as the ‘Henschel turret’).
The gun was a single-piece barrel tube: The first version of 8.8 cm KwK 43 (L/ 71) consisted of an integral one-piece barrel tube with a larger muzzle brake (taken from the Tiger I). In May 1944, it was replaced by a two-piece barrel tube, which was easier to produce in quantity without deteriorating firing capabilities. According to production statistics, eleven tanks were produced before the barrel was changed and during the month when the barrel tubes were changed, 19 tanks were manufactured, so it is possible that some of these also had the single-piece barrel. So between 11 and 30 King Tigers had the early barrel.
The turret had ‘two-eyed’ sights: The Swedish Königstiger had the early ‘two-eyed’ Turmzielfernrohr 9b/1 sight. This type of sight was changed in May 1944 to a newer model, the type Turmzielfernrohr 9d, which used only one opening in the frontal turret armor.
This allows the identification of the Swedish Königstiger as one of the first 50 tanks with the pre-production turret. With a one-piece gun barrel, the number of potential tank individuals is further reduced and production time can be set to May 1944 at the very latest.
Additionally, the Swedish Königstiger had eleven details which make it such a fascinating example:
Two Flammenvernichter mit AbsatzKrümmer (flame suppressor with a bend): One of the most striking features at first glance on this tank are the horizontally placed flame suppressors, as these, on the Panther, were placed vertically.
‘Kgs 73/800/152’ track links and the 4th version drive sprockets: sPz. Abt. 506 unit had tested these new track links in the Winter of 1944-45 before they were standardized in March 1945. It is also likely that pre-production turret tanks in Germany could have been modified in a similar way. The drive sprocket is of the version 4 variant which was not introduced until March 1945, meaning that it was replaced from the original version 1 at some point.
Armor protection over the snorkel: this was only seen in the first 11 vehicles before February 1944.
Rain drainage at the loader’s hatch: a common feature in the first series vehicles.
Zimmerit on both turret and chassis.
Pistol ports on both sides of the turret (welded shut) but not the port for discarding empty shells.
No turret ring protection.
No opening for the pre-heating of the engine cooling system: This featured in tanks built after February 1944, so cannot be found in the first eleven vehicles.
No fittings to lock the front flat track guards: Prototypes V1, V2, and V3 featured this, so this is firm evidence the Swedish Königstiger was not one of the three prototypes.
No center mount on rearmost side mudguard: the prototypes and some early production vehicles lacked this feature.
No recess in the front armor on the right hand side at the machine gunner’s periscope: There is evidence this featured on vehicle ‘no. 280 009’, so the Swedish Königstiger predates this.
A combination of all these details means a few long-held theories on the origin of this vehicle can be discarded.
One such theory is that the vehicle had belonged to s.Pz.Abt. 503 (schwere Panzerabteilung 503 [trans. 503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion]) which was equipped with Königstigers and had fought in Normandy during Operation Overlord and the subsequent Allied push inland. However, this can easily be discounted as the unit would not have had access to the late tracks, gear ring, and muzzle brake because these had not been manufactured at that time. It is unlikely that, for some bizarre reason, French military authorities would have made these modifications on an abandoned vehicle. For similar reasons, the theory suggesting it belonged to Fkl 316 (PanzerKompanie Funklenk 316) can be rejected
Another theory suggests that it had belonged to s.Pz.Abt. 506 (schwere Panzerabteilung 506 [trans. 506th Heavy Panzer Battalion]), a unit that never fought in France. It is unlikely that a vehicle from this unit would have been moved to Gien from either the Netherlands or Germany. Even so, the muzzle brake could hardly have been in the field at the time when s.Pz.Abt. 506 was active with these tanks as the muzzle brakes had only just been fitted to the factory tanks.
Lastly, one theory points out that it was of the prototype (V1-3) tanks, though, as has been explained, this is not possible as it lacked an opening for pre-heating of the engine cooling system and it did not have the fittings to lock the front flat track guards.
A combination of factors sets this Königstiger as an early vehicle (pre-production turret, single-piece barrel, ‘two-eyed’ sights, etcetera) with some late modifications (version 4 sprocket and late-war track links). This means the vehicle was an early vehicle kept in Germany throughout the war for tests and modifications which explains the late-war features. As a result, it is safe to conclude that the Swedish Königstiger was a test tank marked with number 211 from Kummersdorf which was the sixth series-produced tank with chassis number ‘280 006’. The vehicle was sent to the winter testing facility in Sankt Johann (Austria) at some point, probably late-1944.
After the end of the war in Europe, the vehicle was transported to a ‘gathering place’ in Gien.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, the Swedish Königstiger is a product of a bygone era when the heritage of armored vehicles was hardly at the forefront of anyone’s agenda. Despite its peculiarities, the vehicle did not stand out among the scores of destroyed and abandoned vehicles and debris which occupied most of Europe in 1945. The vehicle served its purpose: first as a German fighting vehicle, and secondly, as a target for Sweden to test its weapons.
Swedish Königstiger based on the tank shown in the available photos. Illustration by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.
Czechoslovakia/Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1938)
Tankette – 1 Built
As the Yugoslav Royal Army was in a search of new armored equipment, the Czechoslovak Škoda company was more than willing to offer its armored vehicles products. During the thirties, a few tankettes were presented to the Yugoslav Royal Army but performed poorly on testing so a new vehicle was requested. The following Š-I-D tankette achieved some success and eight were bought, but even this vehicle was deemed insufficient and future improvements were requested. This would lead to the development of the Š-I-j, which was presented to the Yugoslav Royal Army but for unknown reasons was never adopted.
History
In the early 1930s, the Yugoslav Royal Army began a process of reforming and reinforcing with additional equipment and armor for its two cavalry divisions. Each cavalry division consisted of two to three cavalry brigades with two regiments, one artillery squadron, a cycling battalion and other supporting units. It was planned to attach a motorized regiment to each division, supported with armor like light tanks or tankettes.
From the start, there was an issue as to where to acquire this new equipment from. While France and Yugoslavia had good military cooperation, France was unwilling to sell its latest tanks, as it wanted to dispose of the older surplus models first. Through the French, Yugoslavia had at its disposal around 56 older Renault-Kegresse M-28 and FT tanks, some having been bought and some received as military aid in the 1920-30s. By April 1940, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia managed to acquire 54 relatively modern R35 light tanks from France. The Yugoslav Royal Army had even considered acquiring some Soviet tank designs, such as the T-26 or BT series. However, mostly due to political reasons, this was not possible.
Yugoslavia negotiated with Poland and Czechoslovakia about acquiring new equipment. The negotiations with Czechoslovakia were somewhat successful and delivery of only eight Škoda Š-I-D (T-32 in Yugoslav service) was agreed.
The Š-I-D was perhaps the most modern armored vehicle in the Yugoslav Royal Army. Its general performance, however, proved to be disappointing. While the 37 mm gun was one of the best for its time for its size, the running gear proved to be unreliable, with a poor design that needed constant repair and was easy to break. Another issue was its armor thickness, which the Yugoslav Royal Army never deemed sufficiently strong and required to be improved. For these reasons, the Yugoslav Royal Army officials demanded from Škoda a new tankette with improved running gear, armor and main weapon. Škoda developed a much improved Š-I-j tankette. The prototype, without the gun, was completed in May 1938.
Name
The Š-I-j designation is an abbreviation, with ‘Š’ standing for the manufacturer, Škoda, ‘I’ (Roman number for 1) representing the vehicle category (category I for tankettes, category II for ‘light’ tanks and category III for ‘medium’ tanks) and ‘j stands for ‘jugoslávský’, Yugoslav. Depending on the source, it was also marked with a capital ‘J’. But, if we take into account that the previous Š-I-D prototype was also marked with a minuscule ‘d’, we can assume that the Š-I-j designation is correct.
Škoda began changing its naming system for its production vehicles in 1940 (or in 1939 depending on the sources) and this included the Š-I-j. There are some disagreements between different authors about its later designation. According to B. Nadoveza and N. Đokić (Odbrambena privreda Kraljevine Jugoslavije), the name was changed in May 1939 to T-I-D, where the capital ‘D’ stands for Diesel. Author D. Predoević (Oklopna vozila i oklopne postrojbe u drugom svjetskom ratu u Hrvatskoj), mentioned that the name was changed to T-3D. To complicate the matter more, authors H. C. Doyle and C. K. Kliment (Czechoslovak armored fighting vehicles 1918-1945) state that the T-3D designation was used for the previously built Š-I-D tankette.
Technical Characteristics
The new Š-I-j tankette had many visual similarities with the previously built Š-I-D. The most obvious change was the redesigned and improved suspension, which had proved to be highly problematic on the previous version. It consisted of two pairs of larger road wheels (on each side), suspended by leaf-spring units. There were two front drive sprockets, two rear idlers and eight return rollers in total (with four on each side).
The vehicle was equipped with (sources do not give us a precise type or name) a 3.77 liter diesel engine giving 44 kW (59 hp)@2200 rpm. The vehicle’s maximum speed was 31 km/h, but the cross-country performance is unknown. While tested with the Yugoslav Royal Army, the operational range was listed as 6 hours not in usual km.
The main armament was the Škoda A9J 47 mm gun with 42 rounds of ammunition. The gun could elevate between -10° to +25° and traverse 15° on both sides. The secondary weapon was a ZB vz.30J machine gun with 1000 rounds of ammunition.
The superstructure consists of a simple rectangular armored casemate with a commander’s cupola on top. The armor plates were held in place with rivets. The front armor thickness was 30 mm, the sides 15 mm and the rear was 12 mm thick.
The Š-I-j had two crew members: the driver who also used the machine gun, and the commander, who was at the same time the gunner and loader of the main gun. This was far from ideal, but for tankette standards of the era, it was completely normal. To gain access to their battle positions, the commander entered through the command cupola and the driver through the hatch next to it. The crew could observe the surroundings through two larger observation hatches in front, with an additional smaller one located on the driver side. For the commander, there was no need for a side observation hatch, as he had the cupola for all-around view of the surroundings.
Fate
The Š-I-j prototype was presented to a Yugoslav military delegation during March 1939. After examining the vehicle, the delegation had shown interest in the potential purchase of some 108 vehicles. By the end of 1939, the sole prototype was transported to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia for future examination. It is not clear what happened during the examination but no production orders were placed by the Yugoslav Royal Army. Possible reasons for this were that it was either deemed unsatisfactory or that more modifications were required, but the sources are not clear on the matter. It is also possible that the Yugoslav army officials simply lost interest in tankettes and wanted a ‘proper’ tank. In either case, the vehicle was returned to Škoda, where it was taken over by the Germans. Its final fate is unknown, but it can be assumed that it was probably scrapped during the war
Conclusion
While the new Š-I-j had many improvements regarding the armor, the armament, the running gear and the engine, for unknown reasons, it was never adopted by the Yugoslav Royal Army. Had it been put in service it may have been one of the best such very light vehicles in the world mainly due to its armor and armament, as most other similar vehicles were only lightly armored and armed with only machine guns.
Illustration of the Škoda Š-I-j produced by Brian Gaydos, funded by our Patreon Campaign
Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
3.58 x 2.05 x 1.8 m
Total weight, battle ready
5.8 tons
Crew
2 (commander, driver)
Propulsion
Unknown diesel type with 44 kW 2200 rpm, 3.77 liter
Speed
31 km/h
Armament
47 mm A-9J Gun
7.92 mm Vz.30J Machine Gun
.
Armor
front plate 30 mm, sides 15 mm, rear 12 mm, floor 20 mm
Kingdom of Norway (1975-1993)
Light Tank/Tank Destroyer – 72 Converted
After the Second World War, as part of the United States-led Military Aid Program (MAP), Norway received around 130 M24 Chaffee light tanks to help rebuild its military. In the early years of the Cold War, the Norwegian Military (Forsvaret, Eng: “The Defence”) was happy with the M24 Chaffee, as it fitted its needs. Its small size made it perfect for operations in the harsh Scandinavian terrain.
By the 1960s, however, it was apparent that the 75 mm gun-armed Chaffee was in need of an upgrade if it was to combat the threat represented by the USSR. The 75 mm gun would be no match for the thick armor of Soviet tanks such as the T-54/55 or T-62. It was decided that the vehicle needed a new, more powerful gun, as well as many other new internal and external components.
An upgrade program began in the late-1960s, with the first prototype of what would be designated the ‘NM-116’ being unveiled in 1973. The vehicle would enter service under that designation in 1975. This new variant of the M24 would be used in an anti-tank role, leading it to be unofficially called the ‘Panserjager’ (armor hunter/armor chaser). It would serve the Norwegian Army well into the late 1990s.
Foundation: The M24 Chaffee
The M24 Chaffee, named after Lieutenant General Adna R. Chaffee., entered service in 1944, largely replacing the M3 and M5 Stuarts. It was a small tank at 16 foot 4 inches (5.45 m) long, 9 foot 4 inches (2.84 m) wide, and 5 foot 3 inches (2.61 m) tall. It was also light at just 20.25 tons (18.37 tonnes). Armor on the vehicle was ¾ inch to 1 ½ inch (19 – 38 mm) thick. It was armed with the 75 mm Lightweight Tank Gun M6. It was operated by a 5 man crew, consisting of the commander, gunner, loader, driver and assistant driver/radio operator.
It was a very maneuverable vehicle, powered by a Twin Cadillac 44T24 8 cylinder petrol engine producing 220 hp. The transmission and drive wheels were located at the front of the vehicle. The Chaffee rolled on 5 roadwheels attached to a torsion bar suspension. The fifth road wheel was attached to the idler wheel at the rear of the running gear. This is because the idler was of the compensating type, meaning it was attached to the closest roadwheel by an actuating arm. When the roadwheel reacted to terrain, the idler was pushed out or pulled in, keeping constant track tension.
Norsk Chaffees
Norway received its first Chaffees from the US under the ‘MAP’ in 1946. The ‘Military Aid Program’ benefited the war-ravaged countries of the Second World War by providing them the means to rebuild their military and defenses. Norway was one of these countries that was rebuilding after a lengthy Nazi Occupation of the country. Other countries that benefited from the MAP included France, Portugal, and Belgium, but also former enemy nations such as West Germany and Japan. In April 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed, and NATO was born with Norway a founding member. This resulted in the United States prolonging their Military Aid Programs.
The initial 1946 delivery consisted of just 9 vehicles. These were sent directly to Trandum leir, a Norwegian Army Camp (now closed) near Ullensaker. From 1946 until the early 1950s, Norway received a total of 125 M24s.
Norwegian Chaffees also have a royal connection. From 1955 to 1957, Prince Harald (now King Harald V) served in a Chaffee crew during his conscription years. The M24s gave the Norwegian Army (Hæren) excellent service for many years, but come the late-1960s, the M24 was obsolete, and the upgrade program began. Just 72 tanks would be upgraded to NM-116 standard. Some of the remaining vehicles were turned into NM-130 Bergepanser recovery vehicles, while 4 unmodified M24s were given to the Heimevernet (Eng: Home Guard) which operated them well into the late 1970s.
The majority of tanks that remained from this were scrapped, though it is believed at least one was taken by the Navy and turned into a static turret placed on a fort. (Further information on this escapes the Author at the time of writing.) The last use of the Chaffee came in 2002, when it featured in a rather risqué Norwegian commercial for mineral water.
Upgrade Program
Due to the poor economic strength of Norway, funding was limited in the early parts of the Cold War, forcing the government to make incremental modernizations to its military equipment. As such, rather than invest millions of Kroner (the currency of Norway) in the development or purchase of a brand new tank, the Forsvaret began working with the far-cheaper idea of upgrading the Chaffee fleet. Thune-Eureka A/S, based in the country’s capital, Oslo, was chosen to develop an effective upgrade solution. At first, the company was given just one of the Hæren’s M24s to experiment with. Certain new features were prioritized in the program, including a new main armament, a new engine, and a new transmission.
Automotive Upgrades
The Chaffee’s Twin Cadillac 220 hp petrol engine was replaced by a Detroit Diesel 6V-53T two-stroke diesel engine that was liquid-cooled and equipped with a turbocharger. This was the same engine used in later models of the Swedish Strv 103 ‘S-Tank’. Diesel engines perform better in cold temperatures and are also somewhat safer as diesel is less volatile than petrol (gasoline). The engine gave the tank more power, as it produced 260 hp, but slowed the tank down to a top speed of 47 km/h (29 mph). This was not too big of an issue as the increased torque gave it the power to navigate Norway’s tough terrain. Two 208-liter (55 gallons) fuel tanks also gave it a greater range of 300 kilometers (186 miles) compared to the 160 kilometers (100 miles) of the original powerplant. Four heat exchangers were also installed to cool the engine’s oil.
The original ‘Hydramatic’ transmission was also replaced with an Allison MT 650/653 pre-selector 6-speed (5 forward, 1 reverse) gearbox. An additional gearbox was installed to control the speed transferred to the differential housed at the front of the tank.
The heat exchanger for the transmission and differential were installed in the engine compartment, while the exchanger for the additional gearbox was incorporated into an existing radiator. This presence of additional heat exchangers in the engine compartment resulted in the addition of larger ventilation intakes being installed on the engine deck, close to the turret ring.
Armament Upgrades
One of the most crucial aims of the upgrade program was to increase the Chaffee’s lethality – the old 75 mm gun was now obsolete. The Norwegian military wanted more punch but understood that the small chassis of the M24 probably wouldn’t stand up to the punishment of the recoil force produced by a large 90 mm (3.5 in) – or larger – gun. As such, the Norwegian Military turned to the French and decided upon their D/925 Low-Pressure 90 mm Gun. This 90 mm (3.5 in) gun was similar to that installed on France’s own Panhard AML 90, which was equipped with the D/921. To accommodate this new weapon, the gyrostabilizer had to be removed. The original concentric recoil system (this was a hollow tube around the barrel, a space-saving alternative to traditional recoil cylinders) from the 75 mm gun was retained. The muzzle of the barrel was equipped with a single baffle muzzle brake to further reduce the force of recoil. The gun could be elevated from +15 to -10 degrees.
The D/925 was capable of firing three ammunition types: High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT, Nor: Hulladingsgranat M62), High-Explosive (HE, Nor: Sprenggranat MF1) and Smoke (Nor: Røykgranat MF1). All of these shells were fin-stabilized, so they would all have the ‘-FS’ suffix. The Hulladingsgranat round had a velocity of 750 m/s (2460 fps), and a maximum effective range of around 1,500 meters (1,640 yards). It could penetrate 320 mm (12.6 in) of vertical armor, or 120 mm (4.7 in) of armor sloped at 65-Degrees from vertical. In total, 41 rounds of 90 mm ammunition were carried.
Changes also came for the tank’s secondary armament. The coaxial Browning M1919 .30 Cal (7.62 mm) machine gun was replaced by a Browning AN/M3 .50 Cal (12.7 mm) machine gun. These were reportadly recycled from F-86 Saber Fighter Jets, around 180 of which were operated by the Royal Norwegian Air Force (No: Luftforsvaret) from 1957 to 1967.
Dag Rune Nilsen, a former NM-116 commander, recalled that they were…
“great fun to shoot with due to the extremely high rate of fire and [were very] precise since they were fixed in the turret.”
The roof-mounted Browning M2HB .50 Cal machine gun was retained for ‘air defense’, however, an additional position for it was installed in front of the Commander’s cupola. The bow .30 Caliber machine gun position was completely deleted, reducing the crew to four-men and making room for 90 mm ammunition stowage.
Other Changes
Numerous other upgrades were incorporated into the NM-116. Gunnery was further improved with the addition of an NM128 (otherwise known as Simrad LV3) laser rangefinder which was installed atop the barrel of the 90 mm, at the mantlet’s end. The NM-116 was the first tank in Norwegian service to incorporate such a device. Provision was also made for the installation of passive-night vision/infrared sights for the commander, gunner and driver positions.
Eight smoke-grenade launchers or Røykleggingsanlegg (Smoke Laying Device) were added to the left and right side of the turret in two banks of four tubes. These German-made devices were electrically fired, and were used to launch the 76 mm (3 in) Røykboks (smoke grenades) DM2 HC grenade. In total, 16 smoke grenades were carried and, if necessary, all loaded grenades could be fired at once.
Another improvement to the operation of the tank came with the introduction of new radios. NM-116’s assigned to platoon leaders were equipped with an AN/VRC44 unit, while other tanks were equipped with the AN/VRC64. A new intercom system for the crew was also installed.
The NM-116 was also given two types of new tracks, which could be switched between depending on terrain. The tanks were initially equipped with the original US T85E1 rubber chevron tracks. In the upgrade program, the tanks were equipped with new split rubber block tracks made by the German company, Diehl. With the T85E1 tracks, there were 75 links per-side, but with the Diehl tracks, there were 73 per-side.
Crew comfort was not ignored in the program, with a new internal heating system being installed to keep them warm in the cold Norwegian climate. Also, the original 4 shock absorbers per-side were replaced with 2 more effective shock absorbers per-side. These were made by the Swedish company Hagglunds.
Further Upgrades?
It would appear that throughout its service, the NM-116 went through a number of ‘incremental improvements’. Exact details are currently unavailable, but there are some features that can be discussed. At some point, the single-baffle square muzzle brake of the 90mm gun, installed on the prototypes, was exchanged for a tubular ‘T’ shaped muzzle brake, similar to those used on US tanks such as the M48 Patton. As Norway operated a fleet of 90 mm gun-armed M48s, it is not too outrageous to say that they could’ve been recycled from them. The 90 mm M48s were upgraded between 1982 and 1985 to 105 mm gun-armed M48A5 standard, so there would’ve been a surplus of 90 mm parts.
Another change saw the addition of a new sprocket wheel with smaller and fewer teeth. The original had 13 teeth while the newer one had 12. This was likely done to improve the compatibility with new track types.
Another addition was an infantry or ‘Grunt’ phone, installed on the right rear fender of the NM-116. A protective frame was also built around it. This phone would allow infantry outside of the tank to communicate with the vehicle commander and give him fire directions or other important messages. It is possible that this piece of equipment was also recycled when the M48 fleet was upgraded.
Further upgrades included the installation of equipment racks on the rear of the turret. A common field addition was the installation of stowage boxes to the tanks hull and fenders.
Service
The single upgraded M24 prototype began trials in January 1973. After a lengthy trial period, the Hæren accepted the vehicle and a contract for the conversion of an additional 71 tanks was signed with Thune-Eureka A/S. The tank finally entered service in January 1975, with the last units delivered in October 1976.
With the new upgrade came a new role for the tank, now designated the NM-116. It was decided that the vehicle would operate as a tank destroyer with the capability to act as a light reconnaissance tank. This lead the vehicle to be unofficially designated the ‘Panserjager’. The NM-116’s small size made it perfect for both roles, as it could conceal itself in hidden positions to either engage an enemy or provide overwatch and intel for friendly forces.
The only full-time operator of the NM-116 was the Panserverneskadron, Brigade Nord (PvEsk/N, Eng: “Tank Squadron, Northern Brigade”). This squadron operated both the NM-116 and the M113 APC-based NM-142 (TOW) Rakettpanserjager, and was the only squadron that was permanently operational. All other NM-116 equipped units were kept in reserve for rapid mobilization or for use by reservist troops. Each Panserjagr Company (Eskadron) had 2 NM-116 platoons, 2 NM-142 (TOW) Rakettpanserjager platoons, a CSS platoon with several M113 and a single NM-130 Bergepanser. There was also a Command element with 2 M113s, as well as a Logistics element with some M621/Scania lorries and MB240 jeeps.
In 1983, a new 4-tone ‘Splinter’ camouflage was introduced that replaced the original olive-drab paint scheme on many of the tanks. Vehicles belonging to Brigade Nord used the same pattern as Norway’s Leopards as, at the time, there was no official pattern provided for the NM-116.
Dag Rune Nilson describes that…
“during wintertime, we applied a thick white cover of chalky paint over the light green and brown areas of the camouflage. The chalk was then washed off at springtime.”
NM-116s were organized into Panserjager platoons with 4 vehicles per platoon. Only 3 vehicles were manned at all times.
The fourth vehicle of the platoon was left in reserve, and would only be mobilized (by reservist troops) in an emergency – eg, an enemy attack. These reserve vehicles were never painted in the ‘Splinter’ scheme, and were only painted in light olive green.
The NM116 was an ‘ambush predator’. And would use its small size and good maneuverability to outflank the enemy, engage, and then withdraw along pre-arranged lanes of engagement. Here, Dag Rune Nilsen describes how the vehicles were employed:
“The NM-116 wasn’t regarded as much of a tank and there were many jokes about it. However, none of us who actually used it were under any illusions and knew that we had to be smart when using it. Especially when considering fighting positions so that we could fire effectively and at not too long range, and then move quickly to the next planned fighting position. Most of the time our task was to delay an approaching enemy, fire a few rounds and then pull back to reposition. I do honestly believe that we could have caused some damage due to the tactics. The NM-116 was very easy to maneuver and we managed several times [on excercise] to trick Leopards battle tanks into short-range traps in wooded areas where their overconfident crews were unable to turn their turrets due to trees making them extremely vulnerable!”
To augment the ambush tactics used with the NM-116, the vehicles would be covered in ‘live’ camouflage. This consisted of layers of moss and peat, with shrubbery applied over the top. The moss and peat would last for at least 3 weeks, but the shrubbery would be replaced every other day. Thor Christoffersen, another ex-tanker, inherited command of Dag Rune Nilsen’s NM-116. Here he describes how effective the camouflage was:
“Our vehicles were almost invisible to the naked eye, and also to thermal sights [thanks to the peat and moss]. On one exercise, a Canadian Recon Patrol Unit stopped in front of my vehicle and made a brief sweep of the area. A couple of them took the chance to have a piss. Unknown to one of the Canadians, the whole time he was there, there was a very anxious gunner with a .50 caliber MG pointing at him. One of the Canadian Recon soldiers actually pissed on the vehicle’s tracks without noticing! What was more impressive, is that the Canadian Recon Patrol left our position without noticing the other 9 armored vehicles (6 NM-116 + 3 NM-142) sat alongside us! There was hell to pay the next day…“
The NM-116 was a successful conversion, but by the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the tank was becoming obsolete. Its gun simply did not have the penetrative power to combat modern armored fighting vehicles. This led to the NM-116 receiving the nickname ‘Pansernager’, literally meaning ‘Armor Nibbler’ due to the weapon’s lack of killing power. Nevertheless, the tank served the Norwegian Army well for 18 years, finally being retired in 1993.
The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (also known as the CFE Treaty, signed in 1990, effective as of 1992) also played a big part in the retirement of the NM-116, as it mandated comprehensive limits of conventional military equipment in European states. This included the destruction of excess weaponry. It is likely that because of this, most NM-116s were scrapped after they were retired.
Foreign Interest
The US firm of NAPCO Industries Incorporated – a producer of military vehicles – were impressed with the Norwegian upgrade program. So much so, that they bought the rights to produce the vehicle for the international arms market.
NAPCO demonstrated the NM-116 to Greece and Taiwan. However, neither country invested in the vehicle, opting instead for less complicated upgrades for their respective M24 fleets.
Variants
NM-130 Bergepanser
To support the new NM-116, it was also decided by the military that a new Armored Recovery Vehicle (ARV) be developed. For this, four Chaffees were separated from the 116 projects.
The hulls of the tanks went through much of the same changes as the NM-116 (new engine, transmission, shock absorbers, etc.). The turret, however, was completely removed and replaced by a large folding crane. A small dozer blade was also installed on the lower glacis.
This ARV was designated the NM-130 ‘Bergepanser’ (Eng: Armored Recovery Vehicle). It entered service around the same time as the NM-116 and left service with its tank-killing brother. There is a possibility that it stayed on in service a little longer to serve Norway’s fleet of M48s and Leopard 1s, but concrete evidence of this cannot be found.
Driver Trainer
Two NM-116s were converted into driver training vehicles. For this, the entire turret was replaced by a large, hexagonal protective cab. This cab featured four large windows, the front two fitted with wiper blades. There was room in this cab for two trainees and one instructor.
According to former Commander Nilsen…
“The removed turrets were used for the basic training of gunners and loaders. These two turrets could be easily mounted on the trainers in case of mobilization.”
Conclusion
The NM-116 is a good example of an under-equipped and underfunded nation finding a solution to a critical dilemma: how do you equip a military with effective weapons while dealing with a tight budget? The Norwegians took what was – at the time – an almost 30-year-old piece of World War 2 technology and turned it into an effective tank killer for the late-20th century. This extended the service life of the M24 Chaffee to around 50 years. Having operated the Chaffee and NM-116 from 1946 to 1993, the Norwegian Army is one of the longest operators of the tank in the world, surpassed only by countries like Chile.
Unfortunately, these tanks are now something of a rarity, with not many surviving today. Some survivors can be found in Museums, however. One can be found in the Rogaland Krigshistorisk Museum, Norway. The tank in the Splinter camouflage pattern featured in this article remains on static display at the Rena Military Camp in eastern Norway. Another tank can be found in the Musée des Blindés, France.
Personal Connection
Much of the detail in this article was provided by Dag Rune Nilsen and Thor Christofferson, former NM-116 Commanders of Panserverneskadron, Brigade Nord (PvEsk/N). Thor took over Dag’s tank when he was promoted. Below, Dag outlines some personal history with the tank…
“The NM-116 was the first tank I commanded in the cavalry. I served as a sergeant after completing the Norwegian cavalry academy at Trandum from 1986-1987. From 1987 to 1988, I served at a combat unit in the northern parts of Norway (Setermoen, Troms). From 1989 to 1990, I served as a 2nd lieutenant and instructor at the academy. Around this time, I was retrained to serve in the Leopard 1A5NO as a reservist. I also had some experience in the NM-142 (TOW) Rakettpanserjager.”
In the collection of pictures below, note that one of the tanks has the cartoon character ‘Snoopy’ painted on it. Dag explains why:
“That was actually my NM-116, callsign 11, named ‘Atilla’. The squadron commander did not like the Snoopy icon and wanted us to remove it. He changed his mind when a delegation of US Marine officers found it hilarious to see Snoopy being a mascot on a Norwegian tank!”
In this quote, Dag describes what equipment NM-116 crews would carry, and how it was stowed on their tanks:
“There were detailed plans [of] what each unit should have equipment-wise, and where the equipment was to be packed on the vehicles. However, during my years at (PVEsk/N), these plans were amended locally. The reason being that this unit could be described as a “field unit” and spent lots of time on exercise, far more than any other NM-116 unit previously. Some example of improvized equipment on the NM-116s at PvEsk/N was the turret racks added by our mechanics and the way we packed the vehicles with gear that was not included in the packing instructions made in the 70s. On the NM-116 driving off the landing ship,* one can see a large tent, rolled up and attached to the front. This type of tent was not included in the original plans and if you never served in my unit, one would not know of the use. The same goes for the additional storage boxes, tent oven, firewood, extra oils and other things that we brought with us. The point is that all tank crews will regularly amend the tanks for comfort and for practical purposes.”
*pictured above in ‘Armament Upgrades’
An article by Mark Nash, assisted by Steffen Hjønnevåg, Dag Rune Nilsen, & Thor Christofferson
The initial NM-116 ‘Panserjager’ as it appeared in 1975 during the prototype phase. At this time, the vehicles remained in the same Olive Drab scheme used on the M24 Chaffees. The .50 Cal (12.7mm) Browning machine gun is placed in the added position infront of the commander’s cupola.
The NM-116 in the later years of its service during the mid-1980s. It is adorned with the ‘Splinter’ camouflage pattern introduced at that time. Note also, the other upgrades that appeared such as the ‘T’ muzzle brake and the new sprocket wheel.
These illustrations were produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon Campaign.
Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
5.45 (without gun) x 2.84 x 2.61 meters (16’4″(without gun)x 9’4″ x 5’3″)
Total weight, battle ready
18.3 tonnes (20 tons)
Crew
4 (driver, commander, gunner, loader)
Propulsion
Detroit Diesel 6V-53T, 260hp
Max Road Speed
47 km/h (29 mph)
Range
300 kilometers (186 miles)
Armament
D/925 low-pressure 90mm gun, 41 rounds
Browning AN/M3 .50 Cal (12.7 mm) machine gun
Browning M2HB .50 Cal machine gun
Kingdom of Sweden (1953-1984)
Medium Tank – 225 Built
After the Second World War, Sweden was in urgent need of modern tanks. Their current medium tank, the strv m/42, was horribly outdated, being armed with a short-barreled 75 mm gun. The Swedish military was certainly impressed by French AMX-13’s and considered buying them, but eventually they concluded that their armor was too weak to fulfill their needs, along with several other flaws pointed out by General Swedlund. The deal with the French was cut-off and the Swedes eventually decided to buy the British Centurion, which offered significantly better protection against nuclear weapons and conventional weapons.
However, the need for a light tank still persisted. Designing a completely new tank would take too long, around seven years, so instead the Swedes chose to reuse the chassis of the wartime strv m/42.
The idea of upgunning the strv m/42 had been proposed earlier, in 1944. The design would feature a new turret complete with a new gun and autoloader. The turret was named “delat torn”, meaning “split turret”, because the autoloading mechanism would split the turret into two separate compartments. The gun was placed far back in the turret in order to reduce the barrel overhang. A mockup of the turret was made and tested in 1944 and was later prototyped in 1945, but tests in 1946 proved that the design was flawed.
The idea to overhaul the strv m/42 to improve its performance was brought up again in 1953. To revive this old chassis, a new turret was needed in order to fit a more capable gun. Firstly, it was considered to put the turret of the recently studied AMX-13 onto the chassis, but this was not deemed possible as the turret ring was too small. Therefore, a completely new turret was designed. The gun of choice was the 7,5 cm lvkan m/36, one of the most effective Swedish heavy anti-aircraft guns. Modified as a tank gun, it was capable of penetrating 260 mm armor at an angle of 90 degrees at point-blank.
In early 1954, two prototypes were ordered by the Swedish military. One of the main reasons this project was ambitiously supported by the military was the fact that the new turret modification was cheaper than buying a foreign tank. Because the old strv m/42 turrets would later be used as fortification turrets, the new turret could not reuse any of the old parts. As the strv m/42 EH was only available in small numbers and suffered reliability issues because of its Volvo engine, the double-engined strv m/42 TH and TV variants were chosen to mount the new turret on.
Turret
The new turret had a futuristic look, being heavily sloped on all sides. Crew conditions were certainly improved over the Strv m/42, with the roomier turret making operating the tank a lot more comfortable. In order to keep production simple, many of the Centurion’s components were used, such as the turret traverse override, the sights, smoke dischargers, sextant and many more. The back of the turret was occupied by an industrial Volkswagen engine, providing power through an electric generator for ventilation and heating. The unique design of the turret, with a specialized gun mantlet, enabled the gun to depress up to an impressive -15 degrees. However, the armor protection was quite disappointing, only 20 mm at best. The armor was kept modest in order not to add any additional stress on the already heavily overloaded suspension.
Armament
The original recoil system for the gun had to be replaced, as it was far too big to be mounted in a turret. Besides replacing the old recoil system with a new one, the barrel was slightly cut down as well. A new balancing component for the gun, invented by engineer Sven Berge, who would design the strv 103 later in his career, was also tested and proved to be satisfactory. New APDS (Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot) ammunition further improved the anti-armor capabilities of the gun. The hull machine gun placed on the right side of the driver was removed in order to create more room for the ammunition, as the new shells were much longer than the shorter shells the strv m/42 used. An 8 mm ksp m/39B strv machine gun was stationed on top of the turret and another one was placed coaxially.
Chassis and Body-on-Frame
The heavier turret meant that the chassis had to be revised. The expected weight increase was calculated at 1.5 tonnes, an estimation far from reality. In fact, the increase turned out to be more than double the planned weight increase, 3.5 tonnes. As a result, the front was reinforced, the shock absorbers were replaced with improved ones and the steering mechanism was changed. The tracks were slightly widened, making the ground pressure 25% less, a much needed improvement. Changes to the driver’s hatch were also made. The hatch received a double prism periscope, but the driver did have a harder time getting in and out of the tank. This was because the turret traverse blocked the hatch and prevented it from fully opening up. Plates were put (Note: not welded, they were apparently attached to hinges) over the steering gear hatches in order to make the vehicle NBC proof.
Engine and Other Driving Mechanics
The engines were replaced by the more powerful Scania-Vabis 607 engines, which themselves were improved as well by replacing the carburetor with direct injection. They now delivered 340 hp as opposed to the 325 hp on the original strv m/42. This also resulted in much lower fuel consumption and allowed the engines to function properly at temperatures as low as -25º C.
Radio Equipment
The radio equipment consisted of 3 independent radios: one for internal communication, one for communication within the battalion and one to communicate with the infantry. Just like most German wartime vehicles, a laryngophone (throat microphone) was used for local communication.
Trials
Tests at Särna proved to be successful and more modifications were added to the turret, such as a spare road wheel, smoke dischargers and a turret basket. The idea of attaching a fuel trailer to the tank was abandoned after it was made possible to hang 10 jerry cans at the back of the vehicle, as it was much more practical. This would give it a wider range during mobilisation, but it was eventually decided not to add the jerry cans at all.
Tests were conducted with three different caliber weapons in order to measure the effectiveness of the turret armor:
Firstly, a 20 mm “tubkanon” (a smaller caliber gun inserted into a larger caliber one, usually used during practice in order to reduce costs) was fired, using 20 mm slppjr m/42 rounds. It proved unable to penetrate the turret front, however, the sides were consistently penetrated from a distance of less than 300 m.
Secondly, a Bofors 37 mm pvkan m/34 anti-tank gun was fired, using 37 mm slppjr m/49 rounds. It was able to penetrate the armor at all sides at a distance of less than 750 m.
Lastly, the 75 mm gun of another strv 74 was fired, using 75 mm slppjr m/49 rounds. It was able to penetrate the turret mantlet from a distance of 1,400 m and cause significant damage to the interior. Its effective distance could quite possibly be more, but this was not tested.
Production
After the design was completed, the production of the two prototypes could begin. The first prototype had a wooden mockup turret, roughly presenting how the strv 74 would look like. The same ammunition as on the pvkv m/43 was used, which made production even cheaper.
After satisfactory tests, manufacturing the production series of strv 74 began in 1957. 225 vehicles were ordered, and the orders were equally spread among the companies Hägglunds & Söner and Landsverk which produced military equipment. Two variants of the strv 74 were produced: the H-variant and the V-variant. The H-variant was based on the strv m/42 TH and the V-variant on the strv m/42 TV. The differences between these versions being only minimal. The gearboxes differed from each other, one being mechanical and the other hydraulic. The order was fully completed in 1960.
Active service
The strv 74, just like all other Swedish Cold War tanks, never saw combat. They were dispersed among 4 armored brigades, each receiving 48 tanks. The crew consisted of 4: a commander, a gunner, a loader and a driver. Even though the strv 74 was originally designed as a light tank, the military decided to turn them into infantry support vehicles in the 1960s. Their numbers started to decline when the new ikv 91 entered service, as it was much more efficient in its role of infantry support. The new 90 mm gun it was equipped with provided significantly better anti-armor capabilities than the 7,5 cm kan strv 74. The remaining strv 74s were either stored and kept as reserves or dedicated to other secondary roles. The very last of the strv 74 was retired in 1984. Some of the turrets were recycled and placed on bunkers along the coastline (the so-called ‘värntorn’), staying there up until the late-90s
.
Conclusion and Fate
The Swedish military considered the project to be a success. Had they bought the French AMX-13 instead, their expenses would have been SEK 80 million (roughly 8.5 million USD) higher, quite a considerable amount. Opinions on the tank however still remain mixed. The profile of the vehicle was quite high and the torsion bars were heavily stressed under the turret’s weight. Many crew members had positive reflections about the vehicles, maintaining that as soon as you ‘had come to know their personality’, they would function properly.
A few Strv 74s have survived to this day and are currently stored or on display at the Arsenalen Museum, the Föringen P5 Museum, Försvarsmuseum Boden, the Kubinka tank museum, the Hässleholms Museum, the Gotlands Försvarsmuseum, the Saumur Museum and the American Armored Foundation Museum. Some were also used as targets on firing ranges.
Illustration of the Stridsvagn (strv) 74, produced by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.
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.”
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)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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”
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.
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
In 1956, the French Army and the Direction des Etudes et Fabrications d’Armements (Directorate of Studies and Manufacture of Armaments, DEFA, an institution within the French Military) were looking into affordable methods of modernizing their fleet of aging M24 Chaffee light tanks. One method was to somehow combine France’s new domestic light tank, the AMX-13, with the M24.
The officially designated AMX-US was a result of this. It would ‘mate’ the turret of the M24 with the hull of the AMX-13. The AMX-13 would become one of the world’s most popular light tanks to come out of the Cold War era, appearing in the early 1950s. While this particular variant goes by the official name of ‘AMX-US’, there are many other unofficial names, including ‘AMX-13 Chaffee’ – as it was known by troops – or ‘AMX-13 Avec Tourelle Chaffee (with Chaffee Turret)’.
Just a small number of these vehicles were produced. They initially found service in French Military Units tasked with policing colonies such as Algeria. They eventually found use as driver training vehicles once they were discharged from frontline service.
French Chaffees
After the Second World War, France’s armored force consisted, almost entirely, of US-built vehicles, such as the M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing, and M24 Chaffee (among others). France received these vehicles as aid as part of the Marshall Plan and the Mutual Defense Assistance Act (MDAA). These aid pacts also financed the reconstruction of France’s economy and armed forces from 1948 until the late 1950s. In April 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed, and NATO was born, resulting in the United States extending the MDAA. This resulted in France receiving newer vehicles, such as the M47 Patton II tank.
In total, France would operate around 1,250 M24s which were identical to their US counterparts. It was a small tank at 5.45 meters (16 ft 4 in) long, 2.84 meters (9ft 4in) wide, and 2.61 meters (9ft 3in) tall. It weighed 16.6 tonnes (18.37 tons), utilized a torsion bar suspension, and was armed with a 75 mm gun. The tank had a 5 man crew: Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, Bow Gunner. The ‘Chaffee’ was named after WWI US Army General, Adna R. Chaffee Jr.
The French Army deployed its M24 in both the 1954-1962 War in Algeria, and the 1946-1954 First Indochina War. It served with distinction in both theatres but would ultimately end up being fully replaced by the AMX-13.
The AMX-13
Designed and built by Atelier d’Issy les Moulineaux or ‘AMX’, the officially titled Char de 13 tonnes 75 modèle 51 (Tank, 13 tonnes, 75mm gun, model of 1951) – often shortened to Mle 51, was more commonly known as the ‘AMX-13’. The tank was designed in the late 1940s and appeared in service in the early 1950s. It was designed to be a lightweight, highly mobile tank destroyer that could also perform the reconnaissance tasks of a light tank.
It was lightly armored, with the toughest plates being just 40 mm (1.57 in) thick. Its main armament consisted of the 75 mm Canon de 75 S.A. Mle 50, often known simply as the CN 75-50 or SA-50. The design of this gun was derived from the powerful Second World War German KwK 42 gun mounted on the Panther. The gun was mounted in an innovative oscillating turret and was also fed via an autoloading system.
The AMX weighed in at around 13 tonnes (14 tons) and was 6.36 m (20 ft 10 in, with gun) long, 2.51 m (8 ft 3 in) wide, and 2.35 m (7 ft 9 in) tall. It was operated by a 3-man crew consisting of the Commander, Driver, and Gunner. The tank went through many upgrades with many variations based on its highly adaptable chassis. The French Military only retired the AMX in the 1980s, but many other nations retain it in service.
Char Meets Chaffee
In 1956, DEFA and the French Military were investigating ways to efficiently upgrade the aging Light Tank M24. Initially, this led to the mating of the Mle 51’s FL-10 oscillating turret to the hull of the Chaffee. While cheap and feasible, this configuration never went further than trials. This was largely due to a perceived safety issue with the High-Explosive (HE) rounds fired by the CN 75-50 cannon. Inside the FL-10 turret, the CN 75-50 gun was fed via an automatic loading system, which was reloaded externally. If an alternate shell-type needed to be fired, HE, for example, it had to be loaded into the breach manually by the Commander. This was a tricky task in the tight confines of the turret on the standard AMX, made worse by the notoriously sensitive fuze of the HE rounds. This process would be even more dangerous on the smaller hull of the Chaffee. As a result, the inverse of this mounting was decided upon, mounting the Chaffee’s turret on the Mle 51’s hull.
Avec Tourelle Chaffee
By 1957, work on the inverse of mounting the Chaffee turret to the AMX hull had begun. This was seen as a safer and easier alternative. It was also a convenient way of recycling useful Chaffee turrets by separating them from their worn hulls. It also created a vehicle lighter than the regular Chaffee, meaning it was easier to transport.
The M24 turrets went through very little modification for their installation, retaining all the same main features. The only modification necessary was the introduction of an adapter or ‘collar’ to the AMX hull’s turret ring. This was needed as the Chaffee turret had quite a deep basket. The collar granted the basket clearance from the hull floor for uninterrupted, full 360-degree rotation.
Turret Details
The Chaffee turret was a standard design with a typical 3-man crew of the time: Gunner, Loader, and Commander. The Commander sat at the left rear of the turret under a vision-cupola, the gunner sat in front of him. The loader was located at the right-rear of the turret under his own hatch. Armor on the turret was 25 mm (.98 in) thick on all sides, with the gun mantlet being 38 mm (1.49 in) thick. Armament consisted of the 75 mm Lightweight Tank Gun M6 which had a concentric recoil system (this was a hollow tube around the barrel, a space-saving alternative to traditional recoil cylinders). Variants of this gun were also used on the B-25H Mitchell Bomber, and the T33 Flame Thrower Tank prototype. The shell velocity was 619 m/s (2,031 ft/s) and had a maximum penetration of 109 mm. The elevation range of the gun was around -10 to +13 degrees. Secondary weapons were also retained. This included the coaxial .30 Cal (7.62 mm) Browning M1919 Machine Gun, and the .50 Caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning Heavy Machine gun which was mounted on the rear of the turret roof.
The AMX Hull
Apart from the adaptor or ‘collar’, the AMX hull went through no alterations. It retained the same dimensions, and forward-mounted engine and transmission. The tank was powered by a SOFAM Model 8Gxb 8-cylinder, water-cooled petrol engine developing 250 hp, propelling the tank to a top speed of around 60 km/h (37 mph). The vehicle ran on a torsion bar suspension with five road-wheels, two return rollers, a rear-mounted idler, and a forward-mounted drive-sprocket. The driver was positioned at the front left of the hull, behind the transmission and next to the engine.
Service
Trials with what would be designated the ‘AMX-US’ were undertaken between December 1959 and January 1960. The vehicle was well received, with an order for 150 conversions being placed by the French military in March 1960. Conversion work was carried out at a plant in Gien, North-Central France.
The AMX-US was operated by a four-man crew, as opposed to the three-man crew of the standard Mle 51, due to the three-man turret of the Chaffee. The AMX-US saw brief service in the War in Algeria – otherwise known as the Algerian War of Independence or Algerian Revolution. They served well, but a few were lost in combat. One known operator was the 9e Régiment de Hussards (9th Hussar Regiment) based in Oran. There is no evidence to suggest they served in any other location with the French military, such as in France or West Germany based regiments.
After the conflict in Algeria, the vehicles were returned to France. They did not last long in active service after this, with many vehicles being repurposed into driver trainers. For this, the vehicles were disarmed, with the 75 mm gun and mantlet removed from the turret face. In its place, a large plexiglass windscreen was installed. In this capacity, the AMX-US stayed in service until the 1980s, when they were finally completely retired. After this, many were ‘sentenced to death’ as range targets or simply scrapped.
Conclusion
The AMX-US is an example of an effective improvisation. It ‘mated’ old technology with new technology, creating a cheap yet effective light tank that did its job without issue. It also solved the problem of what to do with useful surplus and excess material. An interesting observation is that this is the only AMX-based upgrade or conversion that resulted in the hull being used and not the turret – apart from the AMX-13 (FL-11). The M4/FL-10 is a successful example of this.
Due to the AMX-US’ fate, the vehicles are now extremely rare, with almost none surviving. Some, however, do still sit rusting away on military ranges.
AMX-US ‘Lamarck’ during the Algerian Conflict of the early 1960s. The combination of the Mle 51’s hull with the M24 Chaffee’s turret was achieved with a simple adaptor ‘collar’ placed on the turret ring.
When they were retired from active service, many AMX-US’ were turned into driver trainers. They were completely disarmed, with a large window on the front of the turret replacing the gun and mantlet.
These illustrations were produced by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.
Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
6.36m (4.88m without gun) x 2.5m x 2.3m
(20’9″ (16’0″) x 8’2″ x 7’5″ ft.in)
Total weight, battle-ready
Aprx. 15 tons
Crew
4 (Commander, Loader, Gunner, Driver)
Propulsion
Renault gasoline, 8-cylinder water-cooled 250 hp
Suspension
Torsion arms
Maximum speed
60 km/h (40 mph)
Range (road)
400 km (250 mi)
Armament
75 mm Lightweight Tank Gun M6
.30 Cal. (7.62 mm) Browning M1919 Machine Gun
.50 Caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning Heavy Machine gun
Armor
Hull 40 mm (1.57 in), turret 38 mm (1.49 in)
Production
150
Sources
M. P. Robinson, Peter Lau, Guy Gibeau, Images of War: The AMX 13 Light Tank: A Complete History, Pen & Sword Publishing, 2019.
Olivier Carneau, Jan Horãk, František Kořãn, AMX-13 Family in Detail, Wings & Wheels Publications.
Steven J. Zaloga, New Vanguard #77: M24 Chaffee Light Tank 1943-85, Osprey Publishing
Jim Mesko, M24 Chaffee in Action, Squadron/Signal Publications www.chars-francais.net
German Reich (1944-1945)
Medium Tank – Project Only
By 1944, the fate of the Großdeutsches Reich (English: ´Greater German Reich´), more colloquially known as Nazi Germany, started becoming clearer and it was certainly not in the favor of the Germans. However, the German nation was not ready to surrender. As a result, the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther, one of the armored staples of the Wehrmacht at the time, continued to see development and upgrades until Germany’s eventual defeat in May of 1945.
While the 7.5cm Kw.K.42 L/70 main gun on the Pz.Kpfw. V Panther was a formidable tank gun capable of engaging any armored vehicle the Allies were able to field at the time, it was felt that the gun lacked enough future-proofing. In retrospect, these sentiments may not have been completely unjustified seeing as how vehicles developed by the Soviet Union near the end of the Second World War, like the T-54 and the IS-3, managed to be frontally resistant to the 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 as mounted on the Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.B. Other vehicles, such as the United States’ Heavy Tank T32 and Heavy Tank T32E1, could also be theoretically frontally resistant to most of Germany’s anti-tank arsenal.
This IS-2 Mod.1944 was tested against the 8.8cm PaK.43 L/71 and 7.5cm Kw.K.42 L/70. The upper hull was impervious to the 7.5cm at any ranges while the 8.8cm could defeat it at 450 m, making it a great example as to the difference that an 8.8cm could have made in a real combat situation. Source: warspot.ru
During mid to late 1944, the firm of Daimler-Benz was in the midst of developing the Schmalturm (English: ‘narrow turret’), a replacement for the regular Rheinmetall-designed Panther turret. The Schmalturm was supposed to be used on the Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf.F. Considering that the Schmalturm was set to replace the original Rheinmetall turret and presumably Krupp thought that turret would be more accepting of a larger gun, Krupp designed an up-gunned version of the Schmalturm with a minimal amount of modifications. Krupp´s drawing Hln-130 (also referred to as Hln-B130), called ‘8.8cm L/71 I, Panther, schmal’ in at least one of the drawings, shows the Schmalturm mounting a modified version of the 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 dating back to October 18, 1944. Faded drawing of Hln-130 showing the internals of Krupp’s proposal from a top-down point of view with the turret facing left. (Source: Yuri Pasholok.) Hln-130 modified to show major components of the turret. The red outline shows the armor structure, turret ring in orange, cupola in purple, bulbous turret extension in yellow, 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 gun breech in brown, and 8,8cm round in green.
The gun was able to be accommodated by creating an armored bulbous extension at the front of the turret. The trunnions on the 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71´s gun carriage were moved 350 mm rearwards along the length of the gun, or the gun itself was moved 350mm forwards on the trunnions depending on how one wants to interpret it. The new gun mantlet was entirely different compared to the pot-shaped mantlet used on the regular Schmalturm. The installation of this new, larger gun compromised internal space and would mean that the loader would have a tough time loading rounds into the breech due to the limited amount of space between the gun breech and the rear of the turret. The round had to be loaded at an angle going upwards from the base of the turret, where there was enough room to squeeze in the round to the breech. One further modification was that the aperture for the main gun differed from the regular Schmalturm, although the apertures for the gunsight and machine gun were to remain identical.
Krupp´s Hln-E142 drawing, called ´Pz.Kpfw. “Panther” mit 8.8cm L/71 (Kw.K.43)´, dating back to November 17, 1944, shows the turret from drawing Hln-130 or the Schmalturm mounting the 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 mounted onto a regular Panzerkampfwagen V Panther chassis. Here it is revealed that the gun has a depression angle of -8 and elevation angle of +15. The whole length of the vehicle with the turret and gun facing forward is 9,250 mm (9.25 m) with the length from the very front of the chassis to the end of the gun being 2,650 mm (2.65 m) and the vehicle (excluding gun) being 6,600 mm (6.60 m) long. On December 4, 1944, Wa Prüf 6, the department of the Waffenamt in charge of the development of armored and motorized vehicles, awarded Krupp a development contract.
Drawing Hln-E142 showing Krupp’s proposal for mounting an 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 onto a Pz.Kpfw. V Panther chassis. Source: Yuri Pasholok
Krupp was curious about Wa Prüf 6’s opinions on some of the aspects of the proposal and whether further development was worthy of advancing forward. Krupp asked Wa Prüf 6 these three following questions, which are taken verbatim from Germany’s Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy.
Is there sufficient space for the loader?
Is the shape of the armored cover in the turret front plate acceptable?
Is relocating the center of balance about 200 mm forward plus a weight increase of 900 kg bearable?
For the first question, Krupp proposed mounting a wooden model of the 8.8cm Kw.K.43 onto a “Panther turret” in order to test the loading of the main gun. For the third question, Krupp proposed a test turret with the load being off-center. Wa Prüf 6’s exact responses are not known.
For the sake of brevity, Schmalturm mounting the 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 on a Panzerkampfwagen V Panther will be referred to as ‘Panther-Schmalturm-8.8cm’ although it is important to note that this is not an official name and used here solely for clarity.
Renditions of Krupp’s Panther-Schmalturm-8.8cm proposal. Source: Doyle and Jentz
Daimler-Benz Joins In
A meeting by the Entwicklungskommission Panzer (English: ‘Tank Development Commission’) was held on January 23, 1945, in which Colonel Holzäuer from Wa Prüf 6 reported that development of the Panther-Schmalturm-8.8cm project was to be completed by Daimler-Benz. In addition, a wooden model is said to have been completed. Earlier, on December 12, 1944, Daimler-Benz had displayed a wooden model of the vehicle, but it is not known if it was the same wooden model Colonel Holzäuer reported or an unknown previous iteration.
The turret ring of the Daimler-Benz Panther-Schmalturm-8.8cm was to be enlarged by 100 mm, making it 1,750 mm compared to the turret ring on the regular Rheinmetall-designed turret on the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther (Ausf.D to G), which was 1,650 mm. In doing so it gained a single tonne of weight. It also carried 56 rounds for the main gun.
On February 20, 1945, Krupp and Daimler-Benz representatives, Wa Prüf 6, and Wa Prüf 4 (a sister department to Wa Prüf 6 in charge of the development of artillery) held a meeting comparing both Daimler-Benz and Krupp’s Panther-Schmalturm-8.8cm designs. One large difference was the gun itself. Daimler-Benz used a ‘8.8cm Kw.K.’ with the recoil cylinders installed underneath the gun and the turret ring widened by 100 mm, while Krupp opted to use, for the most part, a regular 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 with repositioned trunnions in a mostly unchanged Schmalturm turret as mentioned earlier. Wa Prüf 6 recognized that Krupp’s design was an expedient one meant to save time, however, their representatives did not much appreciate the idea.
In the end, it was proposed that Daimler-Benz and Krupp would work together on a project involving the 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 with relocated trunnions and a larger turret ring with Daimler-Benz tackling the turret and Krupp the gun, unsurprisingly. This would have lead to the creation of a more complex project, but also combine the best elements of both designs and create additional space inside the turret.
On February 27, 1945, it was decided by Wa Prüf 6 that Daimler-Benz would continue development of the Panther-Schmalturm-8.8cm and was slated to produce a soft steel prototype of the turret to the specifications listed. Some of the specifications listed below reflect Krupp’s Panther-Schmalturm-8.8cm design which might indicate their involvement.
Needed to depress -8 degrees and elevate 15 degrees, which Krupp’s design was able to achieve.
The turret ring diameter was to be enlarged to 1,750 mm which was designed to give the loader more room to do his duties. Daimler-Benz’s previous design had already accomplished this.
The vehicle had to use only the 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 as its main gun. The bore evacuation cylinder was to be placed in the middle of the recoil cylinders above the gun.
The trunnions were relocated and the muzzle brake was removed similar to Krupp’s Panther-Schmalturm-8.8cm.
Interestingly, the trunnions were to be located on the “forward edge” of the turret front plate, implying that it lacked any turret front extension like Krupp’s design.
The turret front was to have a “smooth armor plate” with the apertures being as small as possible but including an aperture for the main gun, presumably with the coaxial machine gun included. It is not clear if the turret was to be equipped with a telescopic gunsight or a coaxial machine gun
Mounting the S.Z.F.2 or S.Z.F.3 stabilized gunsight was to be considered.
The turret traverse gear and the cupola were to stay the same as on the regular Schmalturm.
The design was to use either a 1.32 m or 1.65 m stereoscopic rangefinder. It should be noted that the regular Schmalturm could already mount a 1.32 m stereoscopic rangefinder.
The turret was to feature ready racks which would make ammunition easily accessible.
Emphasis was placed on a low turret height.
Lastly, the rear turret plate was to be sloped instead of “upright” as it was on the first wooden model of the Daimler-Benz Panther-Schmalturm-8.8cm. The wooden model might be the one showed off on December 12, 1944, but this is just speculation.
Krupp’s Return and Wa Prüf 6’s Variant
Krupp appears to have returned to the project under the request of Colonel Crohn from Wa Prüf 6 on March 8, 1945. They were to design an “armor shell” of the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F turret (otherwise known as a Schmalturm) mounting the 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 by March 12, 1945. Speculatively, considering that they were given four days to design, it might be the case that they simply took their previous design, such as like Hln-130 or a similar iteration around the same time, and adapted it to the existing Schmalturm design of the time.
On March 14, 1945, during a discussion of further developing the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther in the Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen, the Waffenamt is said to have done an excellent job designing the ‘8.8cm Kw.K. L/71’ onto a Panzerkampfwagen V Panther, with Wa Prüf 6 being thanked specifically. If the Waffenamt’s ‘8.8cm Panther’ was to be put into production, existing Panthers that received major overhauls would also be subject to mounting a turret with the 8.8cm. A ‘Versuchs-Panther’ or a prototype of the 8.8cm Panther was to be built out of soft steel and completed by early June. Mass production was to begin in the last quarter of 1945 if the “necessary support” was given.
This significantly improved vehicle with the new turret and increased firepower would weigh just one tonne more than the “current Panther”. Armor was to protect the rangefinder and it featured a stabilized gun sight “about the same as the Panther-Schmalturm”. Fifteen rounds were to be stored and be accessible in the turret and fifty to fifty-four more rounds were to be stored in the hull, meaning a total of 65 to 69 rounds could be carried.
Wa Prüf 6 was requested by the Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen on March 14, 1945, to build a Versuchs-Panther mounting an 8.8cm Kw.K. L/71 based off the wooden model Daimler-Benz had shown off on December 12, 1944. The turret was to be made out of soft steel and the superstructure of the hull was to be modified in an unspecified way. Wa Prüf 6 was to complete the Versuchs-Panther quickly and display the vehicle on time.
Albert Speer, who was the Reich Minister of the Reichsministerium für Bewaffnung und Munition (English: ‘Reich Ministry of Armaments and Munitions’), requested on March 23, 1945, a display of a Panther armed with an 8.8cm Kw.K. gun, along with other weaponry, to be viewed by Adolf Hitler some time in mid-April. Hitler, however, was never able to see the vehicle as it was never built.
Daimler-Benz representatives were interrogated by the Allies after the Second World War had ended. They claimed that they had made plans to mount the 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 onto a Schmalturm equipped with a stabilized gun sight with the project still being early in development. A wooden mockup of the project apparently existed up to June of 1945, three months after the German defeat, but after that it was lost to time.
Conclusion
The Panther-Schmalturm-8.8cm isn’t one homogenous project as it is sometimes depicted. It is a series of unrelated and related projects from various different firms and organizations. In the end, arming the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther with an 8.8cm L/71 in a Schmalturm became little more than a fantasy. The war was nearing its end when actual progress was made and such a turret would have made no difference to the outcome of the war. Krupp’s proposal though would have been the most feasible when compared to the design from Wa Prüf 6 and Daimler-Benz’, since it was simply a regular Schmalturm with the 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 stuffed inside. The Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf.F was already placed into production and at least two mostly finished Schmalturms were made by the end of the war, one of which was captured and analyzed by the United States and the other captured and analyzed by the United Kingdom before ending up as a range target. However, there would have been issues with this design. Along with the bigger gun, the design was, in general, worse ergonomically for the crew and the cramped interior would have hampered the crews’ ability to carry out their tasks. There is no real surprise as to why Wa Prüf 6 was not fond of this design.
On the other hand, it is rather difficult to judge the Daimler-Benz or Wa Prüf 6 designs as very little is actually known. It appears, though, that the Daimler-Benz design would have required significant changes to an already existing design (Schmalturm) which would cause even further delays. In the case of Wa Prüf 6’s design, not only was the design of the turret changed, but existing Panthers would have to have their turret rings widened by 100 mm which would cause even more significant delays.
Despite the technical challenges of fitting an 8.8cm L/71 gun into a space smaller than that which had previously accommodated a 7.5cm gun, all designs managed to come up with workable solutions. Undoubtedly, had the final design for the compromise Schmalturm come to fruition, it would have made the new Panther a more powerful vehicle on the battlefield with a smaller silhouette, smaller profile, more firepower and improved protection, but at the expense of the crew ergonomics in the turret and their ability to carry out their tasks.
Sources
Jentz, T.L. 1995. Germany’s Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy. 1st ed. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
Jentz, T.L. & Doyle, H.L. 2001. Panther Tracts No. 20-1: Paper Panzers.1st ed. Boyds, Maryland: Panzer Tracts
Specifications for Krupp’s 8.8cm Schmalturm turret
Crew
3 (commander, loader, and gunner)
Armament
8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71
-8/+15 gun elevation
Armor
Armor: Presumably identical to Schmalturm with the exception of the mantlet and bulbous turret extension
Turret front: 120 mm (20 degrees)
Turret sides and rear: 60 mm (25 degrees)
Roof: 40 mm (horizontally flat)
For information about abbreviations check the Lexical Index
Krupp’s proposal for mounting an 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 onto a Pz.Kpfw. V Panther chassis according to drawing Hln-E142. Illustration by Andrei “Octo10” Kirushkin. Funded by our Patreon campaign.
Soviet Union (1939)
Heavy Tank – 1 Prototype Built
The More Turrets, the Merrier?
Right from the very beginning of the development of the tank concept, the idea that tanks could have multiple turrets to do multiple tasks at the same time was one that was very popular. Japan, Germany, the USA, and Poland all experimented with multi-turreted tanks, but none so much as the USSR and Great Britain. In the early 1930s, the UK produced the A1E1 Independent, Medium Mark III, Vickers 6 ton, and A.9 Cruiser multi-turreted tanks. The Soviet Union had produced the T-26 (a Vickers 6-ton copy), T-28 (based from the Medium Mark III), and the T-35A multi-turreted heavy tank, perhaps the most impressive multi-turreted vehicle to be manufactured in the Soviet Union.
T-35A chassis number 196-94, after being captured by German forces on June 24th, 1941. This vehicle was a prototype that was given some ‘updates’ to try to improve the longevity of the T-35 series. Source: Francis Pulham Collection.
The T-35A was, on paper, an impressive vehicle, but in reality, the vehicle was seriously flawed. It was too long, leading to major structural and mechanical problems, especially when turning, also being too tall and therefore dangerously overbalanced (during WWII, two T-35s would topple over due to the high center of gravity), and too many turrets which left the commander unable to adequately control the numerous crewmen and guns. It became clear that the T-35A was in desperate need of modernizing. T-35A chassis number 183-5 (the twenty-sixth T-35A manufactured) was taken to the testing grounds at Kubinka, near Moscow in 1936 and extensively trialed. After a year of these trials, it was decided that the T-35A was generally unfit for service. In the short term, the T-35A was moderately ‘updated’, but design bureaus were soon busily at work drawing up the Soviet Union’s new multi-turreted heavy tank.
Shaking up the Red Army
Dmitry Grigoryevich Pavlov was the Soviet commander in Spain during the Spanish Civil War during 1936 and 1937, and his experience fighting the Nationalist forces there had quickly seen him gain power within the Red Army. Eventually, in 1937, he found himself in charge of the ABTU (Armor and Automobile Management Bureau). Pavlov was very important in establishing the groundwork for a total overhaul of the Red Army’s tanks, some of which he had seen to perform poorly during the Spanish Civil War. While the main Soviet tank sent to Spain, the T-26, was highly regarded, it was often knocked out by light guns due to the thickness of its armor. The T-26’s armor plates were no thicker than 12 mm, almost no better than the tanks of World War One. This proved to be a major flaw with not only Soviet tanks but tanks all over the world.
In 1937, Resolution 94ss was passed. This was a general order from Pavlov for a total review of the entirety of Red Army stocks. Factory KhPZ 183 (Kharkov Locomotive and Tractor Works) was ordered to begin prototyping for a new multi-turreted heavy tank to replace the T-35A, and a new fast convertible tank to replace the BT-7. Despite this, KhPZ 183 found itself out of its depth developing two new tanks and was busily focusing on the BT tank replacements, the eventual A-20 and A-32, which led to the T-34.
Due to KhPZ 183’s inability to begin designing a new heavy tank, the project was partly handed over to Factory 185. After this, the Kirov Works was also invited to design a new multi-turreted heavy tank for the Red Army. On paper, three factories were now designing a multi-turreted heavy tank, these being KhPZ 183 (which had still technically had not pulled out of this race), Factory 185, and the Kirov Works.
By May 1939, Factory 185 had drawn up the T-100 heavy tank, and the Kirov Works had named their vehicle the SMK, after Sergey Mironovich Kirov, the short-lived chairmen of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) in 1934, who was assassinated not too long after. Much can be said on the death of Kirov, such as whether it was under the orders of Stalin himself, but nevertheless, after his death, Kirov became a much-celebrated figure in Soviet mythology. KhPZ 183’s project had not begun, and therefore at this stage, it became a two-horse race.
‘We are building a tank, not a department store!’
The SMK was originally designed with the T-35’s suspension, but this was deemed inadequate. Therefore, testing was conducted with a T-28 that had its suspension replaced by torsion bars. While not a total success, the potential was not lost on the engineers, and it was decided to implement this into the design.
There were now two tanks on the table, and both vehicles had a very similar internal layout. At first glance, the T-100 and SMK looked similar, but there were very different vehicles. The T-100 had coil spring suspension with rubber-tired road wheels, a different engine, turret shape and design, armor thickness, and even main armament in the shape of the L-10 76.2 mm gun.
Both the SMK and T-100 had three turrets. The SMK prototype originally had two small turrets, one forward and one behind a central pedestal. The main turret was perched upon this central pedestal. The smaller turrets had a 45 mm Model 1934 gun, capable of semi-automatic fire (the breach automatically locked when a shell was inserted, and the spent shell casing was automatically ejected once fired) when shooting armor-piercing projectiles, and quarter automatic fire (the breach automatically locked when a shell was inserted, but the spent shell casing had to be manually removed) when firing High Explosive projectiles. The main turret was equipped with an L-11 76.2 mm gun. The three guns were accompanied by coaxial 7.62 mm DT-29 machine guns, and the main turret had a rear ball mount that was given a 12.7 mm DShK machine gun.
The chassis of the original SMK prototype was octagonal, with a substantial overhang of the upper hull over the tracks and running gear, much like the earlier T-24 tank. The forward turret was placed off-center to the right, whereas the rear turret was off-center to the left, with a large armored radiator intake to the right of the rearmost turret.
The tank was powered by an 850 hp GAM-34T liquid-cooled diesel engine housed in the rear portion of the tank. The drive sprocket was also to the rear. The prototype, on paper, had eight road wheels and four return rollers.
Prototype drawings of the three turreted version of the SMK, with the top image featuring T-35 suspension, and the lower depicting torsion bar suspension. Interestingly, the torsion bar version still retains a track tensioning wheel between the idler and the first road wheel, something not seen on the prototype. Source: https://www.dieselpunks.org
On 9th December 1938, the two prototypes were presented to the ABTU, with wooden mock-ups of the two vehicles. Both prototypes were approved, but the design of both vehicles was requested to change, and the rearmost turret was to be removed from both tanks, reducing the turrets to two, one turret with a 76.2 mm weapon, and one with a 45 mm weapon. Some sources claim that Stalin himself requested this, and the mythology of the incident describes Stalin inspecting one of the two wooden mock-ups, and snapping off one of the sub turrets, exclaiming ‘We are trying to build a tank, not a department store!’ This is not verified anywhere and is highly apocryphal of Soviet doctrine at the time. As it was, the Kirov Works was well aware of the limitations of multi-turreted tanks and was already designing a single-turreted version of the SMK.
Prototypes
From this point, the prototype was approved for production. The tank was now to only have two turrets, instead of three, and due to the weight saved from this, the desired 70 mm thick glacis was able to be introduced into the design.
Now that the chassis was shorter, the prototype was given eight cast road wheels with internal shock absorbers and four rubber-rimmed return rollers. An adjustable front idler wheel was provided for the tank.
The frontal armor was 70 mm thick, and the sides and rear plates were 60 mm thick. The floor plate was 30 mm thick, and the hull and turret roofs were 20 mm thick. The hull no longer extended over the tracks, and therefore a fender was placed along the length of the chassis.
The SMK was an imposing tank, however, the design had some flaws, including a dangerously high and exposed turret ring, a flaw that was exploited during the combat trials in Finland. Source: TSAMO via Maxim Kolomiets
The hull was split into three compartments, not including the main turret. These were the forward fighting compartment, the central fighting compartment, and the engine/ transmission compartment. The crew consisted of seven men: driver, engineer/ radio operator, 45mm gunner, 45mm loader, main turret gunner, main turret loader, and, finally, a commander.
The main turret was given a P-40 anti-aircraft mount with a station for a DT-29 7.62 mm machine gun. The radio in the hull was a TK-71-3, standard in all Soviet heavy tanks. This radio had a rage of 15 km on the move, and 30 km when stopped.
The prototype entered the construction stage in spring 1939, but the design team at the Kirov Works was not happy with the outcome. Engineers knew that the tank was too heavy, limiting its combat capability. Due to the height and weight of the SMK, the vehicle was too cumbersome to be an effective fighting machine. Ultimately, the engineers knew that the multi-turreted tank concept was fundamentally flawed. Therefore, under their own initiative, they began working on a single-turreted version of the SMK.
A cutaway of the SMK prototype as produced. The turret displays features of the vehicle when it was deployed in Finland, the rear turret-mounted DsHK 12.7 mm gun has been replaced with a DT-29 7.62 mm machine gun. Source: vesna-info.ru
Kliment Voroshilov
The Kirov Works began to design a new single-turreted version of the SMK, and the tank they designed was similar to the SMK. Instead of two turrets, the smaller turret was removed from the design, and therefore there was no need for a turret pedestal. The turret ring was now flush with the hull roof plate. The new main turret was similar to that of the SMK, with an L-11 76.2 mm gun, but this prototype, named KV-U0, was given a coaxial 45 mm gun, so as not to reduce the firepower compared to the SMK. The engine of this prototype was a 500 hp V2 diesel that had been designed for the BT series. In this case, it was supercharged. The engine was also used in the T-34, known as the V-2-34, and the version used on the KV series was known as the V-2K. The V-2K was seriously strained when powering the KV-1, but it was completely overworked when powering the KV-2, with its much larger and heavier turret.
The new tank was named after Kliment Voroshilov, who at the time was a prominent figure in the Soviet Union, being one of the five Marshals of the Soviet Union. This new KV (Kliment Voroshilov) tank was submitted with the SMK for trials at Kubinka in the late summer of 1939.
The first KV tank prototype, KV-U0 during WWII. The similarities to the SMK are striking, with the main obvious differences being the lack of the smaller turret with a 45 mm gun. Other differences include a shorter chassis, thicker armor and a different engine. Source: Francis Pulham Collection.
Kubinka trials
The T-100, SMK, and KV tanks were all taken to the Kubinka training ground to conduct trials. The SMK had an advantage over the T-100, being three tonnes lighter than the T-100, and having better cross-country capabilities, but itself was at a disadvantage to the KV tank, the surprise entry for the new role.
Front view of the SMK. Notice the off-centered front 45 mm gun turret. This was to allow for an escape hatch for the driver on the hull roof. Notice the fabric on the front fenders hanging down almost to the tracks. This was likely some measure to curb debris being kicked up. Source: TSAMO via Maxim Kolomiets
The rear view of the SMK during Kubinka trials. The engine deck was very high from the ground, with a large air intake hidden under the upper portion of the hull. At the rear of the turret is a 12.7 mm DShK machine gun. During the combat trials in Finland in 1940, this gun was replaced with the standard 7.62 mm DT-29 machine gun. Source: TSAMO via Maxim Kolomiets
The trials did not go smoothly for either the SMK or the T-100. The SMK suffered from transmission failures during the trials, which were one of the major issues that were desired to be eliminated when replacing the T-35A. It did, however, perform marginally better than the T-100. The vehicle was able to ascend an escarpment of 37 degrees and travel at 35.5 km/h.
The tank that performed best during the trials was the KV. The weight and length saved by removing the secondary turret proved most advantageous. Additionally, the commander had a much easier time controlling the actions of the tank. The KV did not completely win over the crowd, however. The V2K engine (the name for the new V2 engine) was working at its absolute limit, and the vehicle had serious trouble crossing a moat.
This testing was done in early September 1939. This was too late for combat trials in Poland, but for the Soviet Union, another conflict was on the horizon that was a prime testing ground for the new vehicles.
The left side of the SMK at Kubinka trials. The swing arms for the road wheels can be clearly seen and was one of the major improvements over earlier Soviet heavy tank designs. The two turrets are conical in shape, with the main turret consisting of four main plates, and a pressed and shaped roof to maximize space inside. Source: TSAMO via Maxim Kolomiets
Opportunity in Finland
The Winter War was a major conflict between the USSR and Finland. The war was caused by Soviet expansionism, as the USSR wanted a bigger land buffer between Leningrad and the Finnish border 20 km to the north. Initially, a peaceful territory renegotiation was held in Moscow, but Finnish diplomats were understandably unwilling to give away Finnish land in exchange for less strategic positions.
Hostilities opened on 30th November 1939, when forces of the USSR began an invasion of Finland across the entire border. However, the greatest concentration was on the Karelian Isthmus, north of Leningrad. Molotov had promised that a peace settlement between the USSR and Finland would be complete by Stalin’s birthday, 12th December. However, this did not happen, as the Finnish defenses and defensive strategy were highly effective against a Red Army that had suffered greatly from the Purges.
As the war dragged on, it became apparent that the new prototype tanks could be used in real combat situations, a real trial by fire. The three tanks, T-100, SMK, and KV, were given to a special experimental tank unit, the 91st Tank Battalion of the 20th Heavy Tank Brigade.
This unit, despite being a heavy tank brigade, was primarily made up of T-28 tanks, with 105 T-28s (which was one-fifth of the total number of T-28s manufactured), but also 21 BT-7 tanks and 8 BT-5 tanks. Additionally, 11 BMH-3 experimental flame-throwing T-26 tanks were deployed with the unit. The BMH-3 was a conversion for a regular T-26 with two turrets, converted to shoot fire from one or both turrets. It had two tanks of kerosene and compressed gas placed onto the engine deck.
The SMK arrived with the brigade after a major overhaul. One of the minor changes was that the rear-mounted DShK was replaced with a DT-29 machine gun.
The crew of the tank was mostly made up of very experienced members. The commander of the SMK was Senior Lieutenant Petin, the main turret gunner was Senior Lieutenant Mogilchenko, and other members were taken from the Kirov Works, and were generally veterans of driving and operating heavy machinery. The driver was I. Ignatiev, the mechanic was A. Kunitsyn, and the transmission specialist attached to the repair team was A. Teterev. The radio operator in the hull was pulled from regular tank units and is not named in sources.
As can be seen, the crew was a very serious roster, all being high ranking or experienced enough to be mentioned in testing reports.
Combat Trials
The 20th Heavy Tank Brigade was deployed on the Karelian Isthmus, which was the most hotly contested portion of the Soviet-Finnish frontline. This piece of land was the primary concession requested by the Soviet government, as they felt that the Finnish border was too close to the strategic port and major industrial hub of Leningrad (nowadays Saint Petersburg). It was on the Karelian Isthmus that the strongest Finnish defenses were organized, which included the famous Mannerheim Line.
The Mannerheim Line was a cleverly designed series of limited fortifications that used the harsh terrain of the Isthmus to force Soviet forces to rely on the few poor roads throughout Karelia. Anti-tank and anti-personnel traps were interwoven with trenches, pillboxes, small forts, and even deep covered ditches to trap tanks trying to cross.
One of these concrete forts was known by the Soviets as ‘Giant’ and, on 17th December, the 91st Tank Battalion, along with other battalions of the 20th Tank Brigade, were committed to the attack.
The only known photographs of the SMK during operations in Finland are these stills from a Soviet propaganda film. The SMK is moving at speed towards the front. Notice that the tank is still 4BO green, but it has had snowfall accumulate on the nose of the tank. Source: Youtube.com
‘Giant’ was in a stony wooded sector of the front, quite unsuited to tank warfare, but the tanks committed themselves to the assault nonetheless. Contrary to standard practice, the KV was separated from the SMK and the T-100, and was assisting a company of T-28 tanks in the assault, following a tree line to the bunker. The T-100 and SMK were ordered to assist the infantry in crossing the stony open ground.
This attack did not go according to plan, and the T-100 and SMK were forced to call off the attack. Conflicting reports claim that the SMK did or did not get hit that first day. One account states that the vehicles were under intense machine-gun fire while supporting the attack, but remarkably did not suffer any hits. Finnish machine gunners were very well trained, and were likely concentrating their fire on the massed infantry accompanying the SMK.
Another combat report from AP Kunitsyn reads: ‘To test the fighting qualities of the new tanks, a rather difficult sector of the front was chosen. The front lines were between Summajärvi Lake and the non-freezing Sunasuo swamp. On the left of the height was an enemy camouflaged pillbox armed with 37-mm Bofors guns and machine guns. BOT (Armored Firing Points) covered two trenches, an anti-tank ditch and several rows of wire obstacles. Granite anti-tank racks stood in four rows. Together with the T-100 and KV tank, the SMK was to attack the enemy fortifications and capture the height at which the observation tower of the ‘Giant’ sat, which apparently served as a command and observation post. The actions of the three experimental tanks were observed by the commander of the North-West Front, commander of the 1st rank, S. K. Tymoshenko, commander of the Leningrad Military District, commander of the 2nd rank, K.A. The hour of the attack arrived. A series of red rockets soared into the sky. The artillery preparatory bombardment was carried out in such a way as to not only suppress enemy defences, but also to break through passages in anti-tank barriers and minefields. With the last volleys of the artillery, the infantry went on the attack, and soon the tanks received orders to start moving forward. The commander of the SMK and the whole group, Senior Lieutenant Petin, buttoned down the hatch of the turret and, through an intercom, gave a command to the crew: “Forward!” Ignatiev, the driver, clearly distinguished the road through the viewing gap. The tank, crushing trees and sprawling debris from thick, specially felled trunks, moved forward. Then, it broke through a number of wire barriers, crawled across the ditch and went to the granite dragon teeth. With slow movements from side to side, Ignatiev began to swing and push the massive granite teeth. Finns methodically fired from anti-tank guns. Inside the tank was a terrible roar. The shells hit the armor with a terribly loud and painful noise, but the crew did not find any holes. The enemy intensified the fire, but not a single shell could penetrate the body of the vehicle. It was extremely difficult for the commander and driver to control the tank under fire on such a difficult road. Smoke from firing the gun irritated the throats and eyes of the crewmen. But the crew continued to fight and boldly led the tank straight to the height of the enemy pillbox. Using the two turret guns, tankers fired at embrasures, and fired from machine guns.’
Mechanic, AP P. Kunitsyn, one of the crew of the SMK recalled ‘The battle was terrible. Our tank, so thick-skinned, completely impenetrable. But we received a dozen and a half slug hits from the bunker, mostly small-caliber artillery.’
The two combat reports suggest that the SMK did in fact see intense action on the first day of fighting, but more was still to come.
The next day, 18th December 1939, the SMK, T-100, and KV were involved in still heavier fighting. This time, however, the SMK was involved in direct fighting. The three vehicles advanced down a road towards the bunker and were engaged directly with Finnish 37 mm Bofors guns. The SMK was hit at least a dozen times by 37 mm rounds, and successfully engaged Finnish positions, firing its main guns in anger. This, however, did not last long, as a shot from one of the 37mm guns jammed the main turret of the SMK, causing the crew of the main turret to become preoccupied with fixing this problem rather than fighting.
As the SMK traveled down the road, what the crew thought to be Finnish stores were stacked to one side of the road, and the SMK proceeded to roll over this equipment. It is claimed by the driver that he did not notice this debris, but the boxes and stores were hiding a Finnish anti-tank mine.
The mine detonated on the tank’s forward left track. The explosion was enormous, and ripped apart the SMK’s track, buckled the chassis, and broke the torsion bar suspension. The blast had also damaged the transmission, shut off electrics to the tank, and part of the floor plate had been knocked downwards.
One crewman, the driver, I.I. Ignatiev, was knocked unconscious by the blast, but was not seriously wounded.
In the T-100, EI Roshchin, a tester from the Kirov Plant, recalled that: ‘Going to the damaged SMK, our tanks (T-100 and KV) covered him with their armor. The T-100 stood in front and to the right, a KV was also in front, but a little to the left, so a triangular armored fortress was formed from three cars. In this configuration, we not only lasted for several hours, but also tried to put the SMK on the course, connecting the broken tracks. We were well-dressed in new coats, felt boots, fur helmets, mittens and the severe frost was easily tolerated, but the damage was too great – except for the tracks, the rollers suffered and the heavy machine could not be moved.’
Attempts were made to recover the SMK, but the track of the T-100 and SMK slipped on the heavy snow, and therefore the vehicle had to be abandoned. The crew of the SMK were evacuated by the T-100, which had more than enough room to accommodate the now 15 strong group in the tank.
Interestingly, D.A. Pavlov had been observing this engagement unfold. Upon the return of the SMK crew, they were personally de-briefed by Pavlov, and were given awards. But the question remained what to do with the wrecked SMK? The Soviets could not simply allow the Finns to capture the USSR’s newest heavy tank prototype.
Fate and Cancelation
On 20th December 1939, special orders were given by Pavlov to remove the SMK, and recover it to the Soviet lines. Seven T-28 tanks, two 45 mm guns, and an infantry battalion were given the task of recovering the SMK. This, however, was not successful. One T-28 was knocked out by artillery fire near the SMK, 43 infantrymen were injured, and two killed. Therefore, the SMK sat in the snow. Soviet crews had left many hatches open to the elements, and snow and water got inside the tank, further damaging the vehicle.
The vehicle sat where it was lost until February 1940. The Finns had shown little interest in the behemoth, though the vehicle was photographed. The T-28 lost near the SMK was harvested for spares, as the Finns had captured a number of T-28s in working condition, and were in the midst of pressing them into Finnish service.
While this was happening, the ABTU was finishing up the job of choosing a successor to the T-35. This was given to the KV tank, which had proved the best of the three vehicles tested. The designers of the T-100, Factory 185, tried for a while longer to have their design accepted, but to no avail. A second KV prototype was ordered in December, and KV-U0 returned to Kirov to have a new, ‘big turret’ fitted to hold a direct fire 152 mm support weapon.
As for the SMK prototype, the vehicle was cut up and scrapped after February 1940. Interestingly, the crew who served in the SMK were very fond of the vehicle, and spoke warmly of its survivability.
The last photograph of the SMK known to have been taken by Finnish authorities. A T-28 can be seen in front of the SMK, one of the vehicles sent to help recover it. Source: Aviarmor.com
The SMK was a vehicle too late to be practical, as its replacement was essentially designed in tandem with it. The flaws in multi-turreted tanks had been adequately displayed. Despite this, the SMK was a fine vehicle, being heavily armed and armored. Strictly following the ABTU’s specifications for a new multi-turreted heavy tank, the SMK was the vehicle the Red Army was looking for, but not the one it actually needed. However, the single-turreted version of the SMK, the KV, became one of the most important and influential vehicles in the history of armored warfare.
Interestingly, despite the flaws in multi-turreted tanks, engineers at the Kirov Plant drew up plans for a future KV tank with multiple turrets. This was the KV-5, with a 107 mm gun in a main turret, and a small sub-turret equipped with a DT-29 machine gun. This vehicle never left the drawing stage.
While the SMK was scrapped, the T-100 was converted into a heavy assault gun and renamed the T-100Y. This vehicle has survived to the present day, and resides at Patriot Park in Moscow. The KV prototype, KV-U0, was deployed on the Western Front (from the Soviet perspective) when the German attack came on 22nd June 1941, and was captured intact by German forces. It was likely scrapped by the Germans.
The Finns took at least one official photograph of the SMK, and handed it over to their allies. One such ally was Germany, which was busy categorizing Soviet tanks (both before and during WWII). The Germans were well aware of the T-35A. German categorisation called the cylindrical-turreted tanks T-35A, the conical-turreted tanks T-35B (though the Soviet T-35B was an entirely different product) and, interestingly, they called the SMK the ‘T-35C’. Despite the tanks having little in common beyond having more than one turret, the Germans thought that there was enough of a similarity to call it a T-35.
The official name for all T-35s was T-35A. This includes conical-turreted tanks. The T-35B was a version of the T-35 with a V2 diesel engine, which was planned but not produced.
The right side view of the SMK. The chassis has eight road wheels and four return rollers. This would be cut down two six road wheels and three return rollers on the KV tank. This was ultimately more successful and less cumbersome than the SMK’s layout. Source: TSAMO via Maxim Kolomiets
Sources
Tanks of the Winter War – Maxim Kolomiets
T-35 Heavy Tank. Land Dreadnought of the Red Army – Maxim Kolomiets Aviarmor.com
SMK specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
8.75 x 3.4 x 3.25 m (28.7 x 11.1 x 10.9 ft)
Total weight, battle-ready
55 tons
Crew
7 – driver, engineer, 45 mm gunner, 45 mm loader, 76.2 mm gunner, 76.2 mm loader, commander
76.2 mm L-11 gun
Model 1934 45 mm gun
4 х 7.62 mm DT machine guns
12.7 mm DsHK model of 1938
Armor
Frontal: 75 mm (2.95 in)
Side and rear: 55-60 mm (2.16- 2.3 in)
Turret side: 30 mm (1.81 in)
Bottom: 30 mm (1.81 in)
Top: 20 mm (0.7 in)
Production
1 prototype made
Illustration of the SMK Heavy Tank Prototype by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.
Red Army Auxiliary Armoured Vehicles, 1930–1945 (Images of War), by Alex Tarasov
If you ever wanted to learn about probably the most obscure parts of the Soviet tank forces during the Interwar and WW2 – this book is for you.
The book tells the story of the Soviet auxiliary armor, from the conceptual and doctrinal developments of the 1930s to the fierce battles of the Great Patriotic War.
The author not only pays attention to the technical side, but also examines organizational and doctrinal questions, as well as the role and place of the auxiliary armor, as it was seen by the Soviet pioneers of armored warfare Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Vladimir Triandafillov and Konstantin Kalinovsky.
A significant part of the book is dedicated to real battlefield experiences taken from Soviet combat reports. The author analyses the question of how the lack of auxiliary armor affected the combat efficacy of the Soviet tank troops during the most significant operations of the Great Patriotic War, including:
– the South-Western Front, January 1942
– the 3rd Guards Tank Army in the battles for Kharkov in December 1942–March 1943
– the 2nd Tank Army in January–February 1944, during the battles of the Zhitomir–Berdichev offensive
– the 6th Guards Tank Army in the Manchurian operation in August–September 1945
The book also explores the question of engineering support from 1930 to the Battle of Berlin. The research is based mainly on archival documents never published before and it will be very useful for scholars and researchers. Buy this book on Amazon!
Tanks Encyclopedia Magazine, #2
The second issue of the Tank Encyclopedia magazine covers the fascinating history of armored fighting vehicles from their beginnings before the First World War up to this day! This issue covers vehicles such as the awe-inspiring rocket-firing German Sturmtiger, the Soviet SMK Heavy Tank, the construction of a replica Italian FIAT 2000 heavy tank and many more. It also contains a modeling section and a feature article from our friends at Plane Encyclopedia cover the Arado Ar 233 amphibious transport plane! All the articles are well researched by our excellent team of writers and are accompanied by beautiful illustrations and period photos. If you love tanks, this is the magazine for you! Buy this magazine on Payhip!
Federal Republic of Germany/Switzerland/Kingdom of the Netherlands (2002)
Armored Engineering Vehicle – 43 Built + 44 On Order
The AEV 3, nicknamed ‘Kodiak’, is an armored engineering vehicle currently in service with four armies in modest numbers. The vehicle, being based on the Leopard 2 MBT chassis, offers a high level of protection, combined with good mobility. With the use of different modules, the Kodiak has a variety of uses, including breaching minefields and destroying or erecting obstacles. It was the Swiss Army which initiated the development process and a consortium was set up between the German company Rheinmetall Landsysteme and the Swiss company RUAG Defence. The first prototype, funded by both companies, was well received and ordered by Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Singapore, and Germany. The vehicle is being marketed with current Leopard 2 users as potential buyers.
The Leopard 2
The Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank was developed by Krauss-Maffei during the 1970s and succeeded the Leopard 1. The tank, armed with a 120 mm gun and powered by a V-12 twin-turbo diesel engine, is currently in service with eighteen countries. Since the first tank entered service in 1979, it has seen many upgrades and improvements. Over time, the Leopard 2 chassis was used to develop other vehicles as well, like an armored recovery vehicle and an armored vehicle launched bridge. An armored engineering vehicle was not initially developed, however, around the turn of the century, several armies started to feel a need for such a vehicle.
Early development
The development of the Kodiak started in April 2002 when Switzerland initiated its Armored Engineer Vehicle 3 (AEV 3) program. The strategic technology partner of the Swiss Army, RUAG Defence, committed to a consortium with Rheinmetall Landsysteme, based in Kiel, Germany. Rheinmetall, with future sales in mind, nicknamed the project ‘Kodiak’ for marketing purposes, referring to the Kodiak bear, one of the two largest bear species. A team of experts from both companies worked closely together developing and manufacturing the new vehicle. The prototype was developed and completed using private industrial funds.
After Armasuisse, the procurement agency of the Swiss Army, handed over a surplus Leopard 2 chassis from Swiss army stock, construction of the prototype could be initiated. It would be completed shortly after, in May 2003. The vehicle was ready for its first trials and handed over to the Swiss Army for a two month trial period. The vehicle passed these tests successfully. In 2004, the AEV was shown at Eurosatory in Paris Nord-Villepinte, France, a biennial Defense and Security Exhibition. The vehicle sparked interest by several Leopard 2 MBT operating armies, including Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden, so the vehicle underwent trials with these countries. An important series of trials was conducted at a Spanish Army base in Zaragoza, where the vehicle proved to be well capable of operating in a warmer environment than northwest Europe.
In early 2005, the AEV3 prototype was sent to Sweden and leased to the Swedish armed forces procurement agency (FMV, Försvarets Materiel Verk) to be tested at Boden in northern Sweden in harsh winter conditions. Beforehand, a Swedish crew was trained by Rheinmetall employees. The tests confirmed that the vehicle met Swedish requirements for an armored high-performance multiple purpose engineering system. After the successful trials, the vehicle was returned to Rheinmetall and the test results were shared with the International AEV Coordination Group which then consisted of Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Spain. This group was specifically established to harmonize national AEV requirements and programs. Despite the successful trials, Spain backed out of the program and chose to acquire the domestically-built Pizarro CEV instead. Denmark backed out of the program as well, deciding it did not need an AEV yet, but later went to acquire the Wisent 1 AEV/ARV based on the older Leopard 1 chassis.
Design
Powered by the MTU-MB873 V-12 twin-turbo diesel engine, producing 1475 hp, the Kodiak can reach a top speed of 68 km/h (42 mph). Weighing in at 62 tonnes, the vehicle falls in the MLC 70 class (Military Load Class, NATO vehicle classification system based on weight) and has a power to weight ratio of 23.8 hp/t. The weight is spread over seven road wheels on each side and the tracks are guided by four return rollers. The tracks can be tensioned with the idler wheel at the front and are driven by the drive sprocket at the rear.
Although a large part of the chassis remained unchanged compared to the Leopard 2, the front armor plate and turret were removed to make place for a superstructure. This superstructure, with a heavy slope on the front and slight sloping on the sides and rear, extends to roughly the middle of the vehicle. The superstructure is split in two, to accommodate the hinged-arm excavator being placed front center, unlike many other AEVs which have their excavator arm located on the side of the vehicle. A centrally placed excavator, however, offers a major advantage to the crew as they have a better view of what they are doing. Furthermore, it eases operation in confined spaces.
The excavator bucket has a volume of one cubic meter and, when in continuous use, it can move up to 200 cubic meters of earth per hour. The arm has a horizontal operational range of 9 meters and a range of 8.2 meters vertically. The arm can also be used to lift objects up with a weight of up to 3.5 tonnes (2.6 tonnes when the bucket is attached). These objects include things like logs and fascines. The bucket is attached to the arm with a hydraulically actuated quick coupling device, so it can easily be detached and replaced by another kind of tool. These tools include a universal gripper, a hydraulic hammer, an earth drill, a fascine launching system, and a concrete crusher. Two of these tools can be transported on the rear rack of the Kodiak, above the engine deck, while additional ones can be transported separately by a truck. The crew can perform all these actions without having to exit the vehicle.
Furthermore, the vehicle is equipped with two capstan type Rotzler winches which can pull 9 tonnes each at a speed up to 90 meters per minute and with a cable length up to 200 meters. Although the vehicle is primarily designed to be used during military operations on the battlefield, it can also be used during disaster relief or civil-military operations due to its wide array of equipment.
Crew
The vehicle is manned by a crew of three: a commander, a driver, and an engineer, but the vehicle is also fully operable when only manned by the commander and driver. As the crew compartment consists of two halves, the crew members are separated from each other, with the commander sitting in the right half, the driver in the left front, and the engineer behind him. The chairs, equipped with 4-point belts, are mounted on the roof so, when the vehicle is hit by an explosive charge like a land mine or Improvised Explosive Device (IED), less of the force of the blast is imparted to the crew. Together with a reasonable amount of space and air conditioning, the crew conditions are rather good.
Six cameras provide a panoramic surrounding view which allows the crew to fully operate the vehicle with no problems.
Armament
To defend itself against near threats, the Kodiak is equipped with a weapon station on top of the right side of the superstructure. This station, which can be operated both manually and remotely, is armed with a 12.7 mm machine gun, but can also be equipped with a 40 mm grenade launcher. Furthermore, the vehicle is equipped with a smoke grenade launcher system which is mounted on the front.
Mine Plow Capabilities
Besides the conventional dozer which has a width of 3.42 meters or 4.02 meters with side extensions, the Kodiak can be equipped with a mine plow. This mine plow was developed by the British company Pearson Engineering and is marketed under the name Full Width Mine Plough (FWMP) which clears mines and explosives down to thirty centimeters underground. With this mine-breaching method, a path of 150 meters can be cleared within a minute. It also features an integrated electromagnetic system, meaning that explosives with electrical ignitions explode immediately. When equipped, the plow adds 4 meters to the total length of the vehicle.
To mark the breached path, the Kodiak is also equipped with a Pearson Lane Marking System. This system features two devices per side, containing fifty marker poles each. They are pneumatically fired into the ground at either timed or distance based intervals and have enough power to penetrate asphalt as well. The poles are equipped with LEDs so that a breached path can also be recognized during bad weather or nighttime.
Both systems are not unique to the Kodiak, for example, they are also used on the American M1150 ABV and the British Trojan AVRE, among others.
Swiss Order
On 9th January 2007, Rheinmetall announced that the Swiss procurement agency had signed the first contract for the delivery of twelve Kodiak AEV 3, in Swiss army parlance known as Geniepanzer. The deal had a value of CHF 95 million (US$76 million), an earlier CHF 129 million (US$103 million) offer had been rejected in 2005 by the Swiss parliament. The first vehicles were planned to be delivered over the course of 2009. Construction was to take place in Switzerland by RUAG, assisted by Rheinmetall Landsysteme Gmbh in Kiel, a subsidiary of Rheinmetall AG of Düsseldorf. Production took longer than anticipated, and the delivery date was postponed to the end of 2010, however, this was further delayed.
A further setback was encountered in January 2011 when it became apparent that the hydraulic arm became heated up within a short time of use, which meant that it had to cool down before returning into action. Fortunately, the issue could be resolved, but the last AEV was only delivered just before the end of 2011. Although twelve vehicles were ordered, only six Pearson mine-clearing modules were ordered. The twelve Leopard 2 chassis, designated Panzer 87 in Swiss use, came from Swiss army stocks with turrets removed. Since delivery, the vehicles are in use with the Panzersappeurbataillon 11, 11th Battalion Combat Engineers.
Swedish-Dutch Cooperation
In 1999, Sweden initiated a procurement program for a combat engineering vehicle and after deciding against using the Leopard 1 chassis as a base for this new vehicle, the Leopard 2 chassis, in Sweden known as the Stridsvagn 121, was chosen. To reduce costs, the Swedish procurement agency tried to collaborate with other agencies participating in the coordination group. An initial collaboration with Switzerland was set up but had to be terminated in December 2001 due to lack of funding from the Swedish government. While production of the Kodiak prototype started in Switzerland, Sweden was approached by Denmark, but during the final negotiations, Denmark backed out of the program altogether. After these initial difficulties, Sweden eventually initiated their AEV 3 S program in 2005, with the Dutch Army joining in 2006. In the Netherlands, the need for a new AEV had already emerged during the mid-’90s. On January 16, 2008, the procurement agencies of both Sweden and the Netherlands placed a combined order for sixteen vehicles, six for Sweden and ten for the Netherlands for a total amount of €100 million (US$147 million, roughly €60 million from the Netherlands and €40 million from Sweden or US$88.2 million and US$58.8 million respectively). As a result, costs could be reduced by 20% because it created the possibility to substantially reduce non-recurring costs and brought advantages in production and purchasing. Delivery period was set for 2011-2012.
Delivery to Sweden
Sweden provided six Stridsvagn 121 chassis for conversion. Their turrets were removed by Markverkstaden in Skövde and the chassis were upgraded to Stridsvagn 122 standards. After the preparations were completed, the chassis were shipped to Germany after which they were converted into AEV 3 S (Swedish). In November 2011, the first out of six AEV3 S Kodiaks was handed over to the Swedish armed forces procurement agency (FMV, Försvarets Materiel Verk). The symbolic keys were handed over during an official ceremony in Kiel, the home base of Rheinmetall Landsysteme GmbH. Known in Sweden as Ingenjörbandvagn 120, the vehicles are operated by the two Engineering Battalions which received three vehicles each.
Delivery to the Netherlands
The Netherlands used Leopard 2A4 chassis from their own stocks as well. Ten vehicles were completely overhauled by Instandhoudingsbedrijf Landsystemen (Conservation company Land systems) in Leusden, and the turrets were removed. After these were converted in Germany and returned as Kodiaks, the vehicles were intensively tested. During these tests, several teething problems were resolved, including some major issues with the hydraulics. At the end of 2017, the vehicles were banned from driving on roads because a control cable had snapped in one vehicle. Eventually, on 31st May 2018, the vehicles could finally be transferred into active service, as all problems had been resolved. The ten vehicles replaced fourteen Leopard 1 engineer vehicles, which were heavily worn out. Its projected service life is set to be around thirty years. In 2019, some Dutch Kodiaks were made available to be used by the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) of NATO.
The Swedish and Dutch Kodiaks are roughly 95% percent identical to each other, with differences being the camouflage patterns, markings, the smoke grenade discharge arrangements, some tools, and the Dutch vehicles feature a bomblet protection package.
Operation by Singapore
When the Army of Singapore decided to buy Leopard 2 MBTs, a total of fourteen Kodiaks were ordered and delivered in 2014-2015, replacing the aged US-built M728 CEVs. The Kodiaks, in Singapore Army parlance mainly known as L2-AEV, are operated by the 38th Battalion, Singapore Combat Engineers (38 SCE), together with the Leopard 2 AVLB. This armored engineer battalion is specifically trained to operate together with other armored forces. The vehicles are painted in a green color and feature a white on black registration plate on the front left side.
Ordered by the Bundeswehr
Since 1989, the German Army used Leopard 1-based Pionierpanzer 2A1 Dachs armored engineering vehicles. During the 2010s, the need emerged for a new vehicle, based on the Leopard 2. Rheinmetall entered the competition with the Kodiak while Flennsburg-based FFG offered the Wisent 2. According to the original planning, a decision was to be made near the end of 2020, but this deadline was not met.
Eventually, the Kodiak was chosen in early 2021 and on 14th April 2021, the Budget Committee of the German Parliament approved an order for 44 vehicles, worth roughly 295 million euros. After approval, the final contract was signed between Rheinmetall and the Federal Office for Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support, BAAINBw for short. The new vehicles will be based on surplus Leopard 2A4 chassis from German Army stocks. It is planned that all 44 vehicles will be delivered from 2023 until 2029.
The future of the Kodiak
The Kodiak is still marketed by Rheinmetall and RUAG. Its main competition is the more recently developed Wisent 2, an AEV/ARV developed by the German company FFG, also based on the Leopard 2 chassis and already in use with the Canadian and Norwegian armies and on order by the Army of Qatar. Whether Rheinmetall will manage to secure future sales of the Kodiak remains uncertain, but potential buyers include Austria, Chile, Greece, Indonesia, Poland, Portugal, and Turkey, as these countries all operate Leopard 2 MBTs and are either operating older or no armored engineering vehicles. Countries which are most likely not going to operate Kodiaks, while fielding Leopard 2 tanks, are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Qatar, and Spain, as these countries are already operating, or going to operate, other modern AEVs.
Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
10.2 (14.02m with plow, 11m with dozer blade) x 3.54 x 2.6 meters
Total weight, battle-ready
62,000 kg, MLC70
Crew
2-3 (Commander, Driver, Engineer)
Propulsion
MTU-MB873 diesel engine, 1,100 kW (1475 hp).
Maximum speed
68 km/h (42.3 mph)
Suspensions
High-hardness-steel torsion bars with rotary shock absorbers
Armament
12.7 mm machine gun or 40mm grenade launcher
Ballistic Protection
STANAG 4569 edition 1 annex A/level 4
Mine Protection
STANAG 4569 edition 1 annex B/level 3B and 4A
Production
42 + 1 prototype + 44 on order by Germany
Sources
AEV 3 Kodiak – Technology for Combat Engineers, RUMAG Brochure, PDF.
World’s first Leopard 2-based armoured engineer vehicle, Press release Rheinmetall Defence, May 8, 2003. (LINK)
AEV 3 Kodiak stands up to extreme Arctic conditions in Sweden, Press release Rheinmetall Defence, March 23, 2005. (LINK)
Swiss Army orders new Armoured Engineer Vehicle from Rheinmetall, Press release Rheinmetall Defence, January 9, 2007. (LINK)
Rheinmetall to supply Kodiak armoured engineer vehicles to Sweden and the Netherlands, Press release Rheinmetall Defence, January 17, 2008. (LINK)
Converted Leopard with claws, FMV press release, March 14, 2008. (LINK)
Rheinmetall transfers first Kodiak armoured engineering vehicle to Sweden, Press Release Rheinmetall Defence, PDF, November 21, 2011.
RUAG supplies Leopard Armoured Engineer and Mine-Clearance vehicles for the Swiss Armed Forces, Press release RUAG Defence, December 23, 2011. (LINK)
Trotz Panne fliegen die Funken, Berner Zeitung, January 14, 2011.
Ingenjörbandvagn (Ingbv) 120, Jan Forsberg, Pansar Nummer 1, 2012, PDF.
En tysk försvarsjätte, Slagfjädern Nummer 4, 2012, PDF.
Wehrtechnischer Report, issue 2/2015.doz
Allgemeine schweizerische Militärzeitschrift Band 169 Heft 5, 2003, Andreas Renker, p.16-17, Neuer Geniepanzer auf der «Leo-2»-Plattform. Defensie Krant, Prototype genie-/doorbraaktank doorstaat testen, January 17, 2008, Dutch Ministry of Defence. Defensiebeer beschermt bemanning tegen explosieven, Materieel Gezien 04, May 22, 2014.
Nieuwe Kodiaktank van de Landmacht krijgt rijverbod, Reformatorisch Dagblad, 22 November, 2017. (LINK)
Een beer van een tank als grommende gereedschapskist, Reformatorisch Dagblad, 22 November 2017. (LINK)
Landmacht krijgt krachtpatser met Kodiak-geniedoorbraaktank, Dutch Ministry of Defence press release, May 31, 2018. (LINK)
The Kodiak on the official Dutch Defence website.
The Kodiak on the official Swedish Defence website.
The Kodiak on the official Singapore Defence website and Facebook.
Full Width Mine Plough description on Pearson-eng.com.
Numbers of delivery on SIPRI trade Registers.
Gepanzerte Pioniermaschine – Beschaffung des Pionierpanzers 3 Kodiak gebilligt, 14 April 2021, soldat-und-technik.de.
Rheinmetall Kodiak to be the Bundeswehr’s new combat engineer vehicle, Press release Rheinmetall Defense, 12 May 2021, rheinmetall.com.
A Swedish AEV 3 Kodiak in its standard configuration with a dozer blade at the front.
A Dutch AEV 3 Kodiak equipped with a Pearson mine plow and lane marking system.
These illustrations were produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
Republic of South Africa (1962)
Armored Car – 1,600 Built
“Eland” The African Antelope
The Eland armored car, more affectionately known by its nickname, “Noddy Car”, (with reference to the popular Noddy in the Toyland TV program of the time) takes its Afrikaans name from the African Eland, the largest antelope in the world. Similar to its namesake, the Eland evolved to adapt to the tough Southern African environment. Its design, adaption, and production happened just before South Africa became the subject of international embargoes (1977) because of its racial segregation policies (Apartheid). Against the backdrop of the Cold War in Southern Africa which saw a steep rise in liberation movements backed by Eastern Bloc communist countries such as Cuba and the Soviet Union.
Eland 90 Mk7 troop – Grootfontein mid-1980s, with permission from Eric Prinsloo
Development
Up until the late 1950s, the Union Defence Force (UDF), which would become the South African Defence Force (SADF), made use of the Ferret armored car. A subsequent macro environmental study in the early 1960s showed that the most likely conflict South Africa would become involved in would take the form of expeditionary missions and counter insurgencies for which the Ferret was not suited. This shortcoming necessitated the acquisition of more modern lightweight, lightly armored, well-armed, long-range reconnaissance vehicle. Initially, three armored cars were considered namely the Saladin, Panhard EBR (Panhard Engin Blindé de Reconnaissance: Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle), and Panhard AML (Auto Mitrailleuse Légère: Light Armoured Car). Ultimately, the four-wheeled AML was deemed the most appropriate to fulfill the desired role South Africa had in mind.
Eland 90 Mk6 troop – Grootfontein mid-1980s, with permission from Eric Prinsloo
The initial testing of the AML 60 with it’s 60 mm Brandt Mle CM60A1 breech-loading was deemed lacking in firepower and South Africa requested more firepower. This led Panhard to design a new turret which would accommodate a DEFA 90 mm low-pressure quick-firing gun. South Africa purchased 100 AMLs as well as additional turrets, engines, and parts for the assembly of 800 more armored cars. The manufacturing of the AML 60 and 90 (rebranded the Eland 60 and 90) would become one of South Africa’s most ambitious weapons manufacturing programs, post-World War 2. Production by the South African industrial firm Sandrock-Austral of the AML 60 and 90 subsequently began in 1961 with the first batch entering service trials in 1962 as the Eland Mk1. In essence, they were still French AML 60 and 90s. These armored cars contained 40% local content, with the majority of parts being purchased from Panhard.
South Africa acquired the licenses to produce the vehicle chassis and turret independently from Panhard in 1964. The turret was manufactured by Austral Engineering in Wadeville and the hull by Sandock-Austral in Boksburg and Durban. What followed was a series of improvements which would make the armored car more suited for the African terrain. The Eland Mk2 featured an improved steering system and brakes, of which 56 were delivered. The Eland Mk3 saw the installation of a new custom-built fuel system. The Eland Mk4 incorporated two more modifications which included the replacement of the electric clutch with a more reliable conventional model and the movement of the fire control from the gunner’s feet to the turret hand crank. Additional smaller improvements were made, such as replacing the chain holding the fuel cap with a cable which made less noise. By 1967, the South African manufactured armored cars resembled their French counterparts externally while making use of 66% South African produced parts.
Eland 90 Mk6 outside Grootfontein 1977. With permission from Neville Bowden
From 1972, 356 Eland Mk5 armored cars would be built. They featured a new Chevrolet 153 2.5 liter, water-cooled four-cylinder inline petrol engine which was mounted on rails to facilitate quicker replacement in the field (40 minutes) and reduce maintenance. Additional improvements included new communication equipment, spring shock absorbers, wheels, and run-flat tires.
In 1975, the Mk6 upgrade brought 1,016 (all the previously produced Eland Marks) up to the Mk5 standard. The final version of the Eland, the Mk7, was put into production in 1979 and featured a new raised commander’s cupola derived from the Ratel ICV, movement of the headlamps from the lower glacis to a raised position, new power brakes, improved transmission, and a lengthened frontal section to make the drivers station more comfortable for taller than average South African soldier.
The Eland 60 and 90 became the standard armored car for the SADF`s (South African Defence Force) armored car regiments and served in a reconnaissance role when assigned to the tank regiment. The SADF deployed the Eland with the permanent forces at the School of Armour, 1 Special Service Regiment and 2 Special Service Regiment. With the reserve forces, the Eland was used by Natal Mounted Rifles, Umvoti Mounted Rifles, Regiment Oranje Rivier (Cape Town), Regiment Mooirivier (Potchefstroom), Regiment Molopo (Potchefstroom), Light Horse, President Steyn, Prince Alfred Guards, 2 Armoured Car Regiment, 8th Division (Durban), Head of the Armed Forces Mobile Reserve and Armed Forces Mobile Centre (formerly 7th Division) . In South-West Africa, the Eland was used by the South West Territorial and 2 South African Infantry Battalion Group (Walvisbay) Forces.
The Eland was removed from frontline service in the late 1980s, when its indigenously produced replacement, the Rooikat 76 armored car, began to enter service. The Eland was officially retired from South African National Defence Force( SANDF) service in 1994. In South Africa, the Eland can be found at most military bases as gate guards and several pairs, in working condition, are preserved at military museums which includes the SA Armour Museum in Bloemfontein. Several Elands have also found their way into the hands of private collectors and foreign museums.
By the end of its production, more than 1600 vehicles were built. The Eland family of armored cars which also includes a 20 mm quick-firing cannon are still in service with foreign armies which include, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Gabo, Ivory Coast, Malawi, Morocco, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Senegal, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
Eland 90 Mk7 Ditsong National Museum of Military History. S. Tegner
Design features
The Eland saw continued design improvements over the original AML throughout its production, making it more adept to the African battlespace. In line with its role as a lightweight, heavily armed reconnaissance vehicle, the Eland could pack a decisive punch when needed, making it a versatile weapons platform for its time. The following sections will specifically cover the Mk7 variant unless otherwise stated.
Mobility
The Southern African battlespace favours a wheeled configuration, in which the Eland’s permanent 4×4 configuration is well suited. It is fitted with four split rims 12:00 x 16 track grip tubeless run-flat Dunlop tyres (designed to resist the effects of deflation when punctured) which resulted in more reliability and mobility. The Elands suspension consists of fully independent trailing arm type, single spiral coil springs and double action hydraulic shock absorbers on each wheel station.
The Eland has a manual transmission with a constant mesh gearbox. The gear selection range consists of both low and high range, with six forward, one neutral, and one reverse gear. For off-road use, the two low gears, one top gear, and reverse are used. When in low range, the normal drive’s four ratios of the high range are used for the three upper gears of the range (4-6). The high range is used for road driving and has three low gears and overdrive.
The Eland is not amphibious, but it can ford 82 cm of water with preparation (fitting plugs in the floor). It is powered by a General Motors 4-cylinder, 2.5- litre petrol engine, which can produce 87 hp (65 kW) at 4600 rpm. This provides a 16.4 hp/t power to weight ratio for the Eland 60 and 14.5 hp/t for the Eland 90. The maximum road speed is 90 km/h (56 mph) with a recommended safe cruising speed of 80 km/h (50 mph). Over terrain, it could achieve 30 km/h (18.6 mph).
A 0.5 m wide ditch can be crossed at a crawl, and it can climb a 51% gradient. On the front of the vehicle are two ditching crossing channels which allow the Eland to cross a ditches up to 3.2 meters wide when using four channels. The Eland is equipped with fully independent active trailing arms, coil springs, and shock-absorbers. Steering is via a steering wheel with rack and pinion assisted power gearbox. The mechanical power steering box improves the drivers steering ability on rough terrain. Steering is controlled with the front two wheels and foot pedals for acceleration and braking. The Eland 90 has a ground clearance of 380 mm and the Eland 60 400mm which in combination with only four wheels sometimes resulted in it becoming stuck when travelling off-road, which is far from ideal.
Eland 90 Mk6 outside Grootfontein 1977. With permission from Neville Bowden
Endurance and logistics
The fuel capacity of the Eland is 142 liter (37.5 US gallons) which allows it to travel 450 km (280 miles) on road, 240 km (149 miles) off-road and 120 km (74.5 miles) over sand.
The Eland 90 and 60 are equipped with two 7.62 mm BGM, one mounted co-axially and the other on top of the turret structure, above the commander’s station for close protection from ground threats. The Eland 90 carries 3,800 rounds for the machine gun, and the Eland 60, 2,400 rounds. It should be noted that creative stacking would allow for more machine gun rounds to be carried. The co-axial machine gun is mounted on the left side of the main armament in both variants.
At the rear right-hand side of the turret, behind the gunner, is a B-56 long-range and B-26 short-range radio set for tactical communication which allows for reliable command and control, enhancing the armored car’s force multiplier effect on the battlefield. This communication combined with well-trained crews resulted in co-ordinated (but nail-biting) attacks on T-54/55 MBTs during various Border War operations (mentioned later).
The Eland Mk7 received a much-needed storage bin at the rear of the turret. Pre-Mk7 Elands did not have a built-in drinking water tank and crews subsequently had to carry water in a 20 litre (5.2 gals) jerry can which is carried on the outside of the driver’s left entry door in a bracket. Crews improvised and kept non-drinking water in the used ammunition boxes and spent main gun casings on the outside of the hull. The Mk7 featured a built-in 40 litre (10.5 gals) drinking water tank which is installed at the rear of the vehicle from where the crew could access it via a brass push tap.
The crew of an Eland 90 Mk7 at work freeing their vehicle, after it bogged down in a flooded shona (flood plain) during the annual rainy season in Owamboland – South West Africa/Namibia. With permission from Chris van der Walt.
Vehicle layout
The Eland carries a standard complement of three crew members, consisting of the commander, gunner, and driver.
The commander’s station is located on the left side of the turret while the gunner is seated on the right. Visibility for both is achieved through four L794B episcopes which provide all-round visibility. The gunner can also use the M37 sighting episcope which provides x6 magnification. Entry and exit for the commander and gunner of an Eland 90 are via a single-piece hatch cover for each which opens to the rear. The Eland 60 had one elongated hatch for both commander and gunner which also opened to the rear. In case of emergency, the gunner and commander can escape through the driver’s entry doors located on either side of the hull in-between the forward and rear wheel. Of interest is the pistol port located in the front left side of the hull through which the commander could shoot if necessary.
Eland 90 Mk7 view from commanders seat, facing forward. Visible on the left is where the co-axial BMG would be. In the middle is the main armament. S. Tegner.
Eland 90 Mk7 view from gunners seat, facing forward. Visible on the left is the main armaments breech block. The crank on the right side of the breechblock is called the vertical aim drive and on the right is the gunner`s turret hand crank and firing switches. S. Tegner.
The driver’s station is situated in the front center of the hull and is accessible through the side entry doors as mentioned above or a single-piece hatch which opens to the right above the driver’s station. The driver’s station has limited adjustability making it difficult for tall drivers to operate. The single-piece hatch contains three integrated periscopes for enhanced visibility and situational awareness. The central periscope can be replaced with a passive night driving episcope (manufactured by Eloptro) allowing full day/night capability.
Eland 90 Mk7 driver’s station. S. Tegner
Main armament
The Eland 90 is armed with a GT-2 manufactured by Denel Land Systems. For combat, it could fire a low-velocity High Explosive (HE), High Explosive Anti-Tank Tracer (HEAT-T) round, White Phosphorus Smoke (WP-SMK), and Canister rounds. The HE was accurate up to 2200 m and the HEAT-T 1200 m and could penetrate up to 320 mm of Rolled Homogeneous Armor (RHA) at zero degrees and 150 mm at a 60-degree angle. The penetration and after armor effect of the HEAT-T round was devastating against the T-34/85 the South Africans faced in the early stages of the South African Border War. When the T-54/55 entered the conflict, South African Eland 90 crews had to make full use of their vehicles small size and speed to flank them. Multiple shots by the Eland 90 were necessary to disable and destroy the new tanks.
The HE round weighed in at 5.27 kg and was very effective against lightly armoured vehicles, trenches, and bunkers. To control the recoil of the main gun a single-cylinder with permanent stress spring and a hydropneumatic recuperator is used to return the main gun to its original position after firing. A well-trained crew could fire the main gun either when static or at a short halt every 8-10 seconds. The turret could be rotated a full 360 degrees in under 25 seconds although the standard practice was not to exceed 90 degrees left or right of centre. The main gun can elevate from -8 degrees to +15 degrees. Due to its small size, the Eland 90 carries 29 main gun rounds. A total of 16 is stored in the rear of the turret, five behind the vehicle commander and gunners seat respectively and a further three at the bottom right of the turret basket.
Eland 90 Mk7 view from gunners seat, facing back. Visible on the left and right are two sets of six ammunition racks. On the far right is other rack which holds 4 gun rounds. The empty space in the middle was where the radio equipment was kept. Photo with permission from S. Tegner.
The Eland 60 retained the original AML 60 turret and made use of the South African manufactured 60 mm M2 breech-loading gun-mortar. It could fire a 1.72 kg bomb at 200 m/s up to 2000 m in the direct role. A total of 56 bombs are carried which consisted of a combination of bombs and illumination rounds. The main armament can elevate from -11 to +75 degrees. The rate of fire was on average 6-8 bombs a minute. It was primarily used in the counter-insurgency and convoy protection role as its main gun was devastatingly effective against infantry and dug in positions such as bunkers and trenches. It primarily served in South West Africa (SWA) (Namibia) northern operational areas.
Fire Control System
The gunner makes use of an Eloptro 6x gunner’s day sight. Laying the Eland 90s gun is accomplished via hand-crank while sighting by the gunner is done via telescopic sight which was linked to the main gun. The Eland 90s main gun was not stabilized due to the lack of a turret drive. This required exceptionally skilled Eland 90 crews who had to work in concert to engage enemy targets as quickly as possible while minimizing their exposure and then withdrawing before they could be shot at.
Protection
The Eland consisted of a welded steel plated hull which is between 8 and 12 mm thick providing all-round protection against rifle fire, grenades, and medium artillery velocity fragments. It is, however, susceptible to anything bigger than 12.7 mm. Two banks of two electrically operated 81 mm smoke grenade launchers are located on the rear left and right side of the turret and are used for self-screening in an emergency. There are two tubes to the rear of the left smoke grenade launchers which are often confused with the former. These tubes are however used to house the main gun cleaning brush. The frontal headlamps are under armoured covers and located on the frontal glacis where they are raised to protect against damage when driving through the bush. Due to its small size, it was never equipped with a fire suppression system. Crews had at their disposal several hand-held fire extinguishers, one on the front right exterior of the vehicle, above the right wheel and one inside the crew compartment.
Variants
Eland 20 In 1971, the SADF placed the requirement for an Eland fitted with a 20 mm main gun. An Eland 60 (named Vuilbaard [Dirty beard]) was fitted with a Hispano-Suiza 20 mm as a feasibility test. The results were not satisfactory and, in early 1972, the same was done but by fitting a F2 20 mm (imported for the Ratel 20 ICV project) to a turret. Both turrets were tested in a shoot-off against one another and the F2 came out on top. By that time, the SADF dropped the requirement and focused on the Eland 60 and 90. The Eland 20 made use of the exact same turret as used on the Ratel 20. The 20 mm F2 cannon can fire on single, single-automatic (80 rounds per minute) and automatic (750 rounds per minute). It had the added advantage of being dual fed, which meant that the gunner could switch between HE and AP with the flick of a switch. It also retained the co-axial 7.62 mm machine gun and could also mount an additional 7.62 mm machine gun on its roof. Morocco purchased several vehicles. Ultimately, Morocco purchased several Eland 20 armored cars around 1980-1982.
Eland ENTAC During the late 1960s, the SADF conducted a war game simulating an invasion of SWA. One of the shortcomings identified was that the Eland 90 lacked the punch necessary to engage potential enemy MBTs. To overcome this shortcoming, two external rails were added to the Eland turret, each of which could accommodate an ENTAC wire-guided anti-tank missile. The plan never went past the testing phase.
Eland 90TD With the Eland phasing out of SADF service, Reumech OMC saw an opportunity to further improve the Eland Mk7 with the aim of achieving foreign sales. The Eland 90TD was fitted with a turbocharged, water cooled 4 cylinder diesel engines which produced similar HP to the petrol engine but was much more reliable and much less flammable. It is unclear if any Eland TD variants were ever sold.
The Eland served with distinction in the SADF for nearly three decades, the majority of the time spent during the South African Border War. As predicted, the conflict took the form of cross border insurgency and the Eland was subsequently deployed to the northern part of SWA in 1969 to counter the threat. People’s Liberation Army of Namibia (PLAN) insurgents then began a campaign of mine warfare to disrupt the South African transportation and logistics network which lasted for two decades. Elands were tasked with escorting convoys and it soon became apparent that they were vulnerable to landmines. This resulted in South Africa’s drive to develop mine-resistant vehicles such as the Buffel Mine Protected Vehicle (MPV) and Casspir Armoured Personnel Carriers (APC), which would take over the patrol and counter-insurgency role. This need for mine-resistant vehicles inadvertently led South Africa to become a world leader in the field out of necessity.
The Eland 90 played a valuable role as a reconnaissance, anti-armor, and fire support platform during the conventional phase (1975 onwards) of the Border War. It was involved in various SADF operations which include Savannah (1975-1976), Reindeer (May 1978), Sceptic (June 1980), Protea (August 1981), and Askari (December 1983). It was during Operation Askari that the limitations of the Eland 90s were reached. The introduction by People’s Armed Forces of Liberation of Angola (FAPLA) of T-54/55 MBTs stretched the Eland 90 crews to their limit, as the MBTs required multiple hits from several armored cars to set them ablaze. The limited number of main gun rounds carried made such engagements problematic and hastened the fatigue of the main gun’s recoil system. Additionally, the Elands 90 could not match the cross country performance of the Ratel 90. A review panel post-Operation Askari noted the advancing age of the Eland 90 among the shortcomings of the operation. The subsequent anti-armor role was passed on to the Ratel 90, which made use of the same turrets as the Eland 90 but who’s height advantage gave it better situational awareness in addition to its better overall performance. The Eland 90 was subsequently withdrawn from front line service in Angola and gradually placed in the role for which it was intended, counter-insurgency. The Eland 60 and 90 were again relegated to escorting convoys, conducting joint patrols, guarding strategic installations, man roadblocks, and conducting search and destroy operations in SWA. The Eland 90 was also used as training vehicles for Ratel 90 crews.
The last major use of the Eland took place at the height of the Border War during Operation Modular (August 1987). On 5 October, Eland 90s supported by infantry equipped with anti-tank weaponry set up an ambush north of Ongiva. The ambush was a success and the SADF forces ambushed and destroyed a FAPLA motorized contingent consisting of BTR-60, BTR-40 APCs, and truck-mounted infantry as they advanced to Ongiva.
Conclusion
With the conclusion of the Border War in 1989 and subsequent peace, defense spending was drastically cut. Having been succeeded by the Rooikat 76, the Elands’ end was on the horizon. The SADF, for a brief period, considered keeping at least one squadron of Elands active, should the need arise for an air-portable armor capability. This was however quickly set aside as the need for deploying forces outside the border was very remote and the continued pressure to reduce the number of older equipment. Subsequently, the new SANDF retired the Eland from service in 1994. This decision would be proven wrong, as the SANDF would deploy across Africa as part of UN peacekeeping missions. The Eland is still in service with various African countries.
Eland 90 Mk7 Specifications
Dimensions (hull) (l-w-h)
4.04 m (13.2 ft)– 2.01 m (6.59 ft)– 2.5 m (8.2 ft)
Total weight, battle-ready
6 Tons
Crew
3
Propulsion
Chevrolet 153 2.5 liter, water-cooled four-cylinder inline petrol engine which produces 87hp @4600 rpm. (14.5 hp/t)
Suspension
Fully independent active trailing arms
Top speed road / off-road
90 kph (56 mph) / 30 kph (18.6 mph)
Range road/ off-road
450 km (280 mi) / 240 km (149 mi)
Armament
90 mm GT-2 quick-firing gun
1 × 7.62 mm co-axial Browning MG
1 x 7.62 mm in front of commanders hatch
Armor
8 and 12 mm thick providing all-around protection against rifle fire, grenades, and medium artillery velocity fragments
Eland 60 Mk7 Specifications
Dimensions (hull) (l-w-h)
4.04 m (13.2 ft)– 2.01 m (6.59 ft)– 1.8 m (5.9 ft)
Total weight, battle ready
5.2 Tons
Crew
3
Propulsion
Chevrolet 153 2.5 liter, water-cooled four-cylinder inline petrol engine which produces 86hp @4600 rpm. (16.4 hp/t)
Suspension
Fully independent active trailing arms
Top speed road / off-road
90 kph (56 mph) / 30 kph (18.6 mph)
Range road/ off-road
450 km (280 mi) / 240 km (149 mi)
Armament
60 mm M2 breech-loading gun-mortar
1 × 7.62 mm co-axial Browning MG
1 x 7.62 mm in front of commanders hatch
Armor
8 and 12 mm thick providing all-around protection against rifle fire, grenades, and medium artillery velocity fragments
Eland Videos
Eland 90 Armoured Car
Eland 60 Mobility track
The author would like to give a special thanks to the curator of the South African Armour Museum, Seargent Major Sieg Marais, for his assistance with the Eland research.
SADF Eland 60 Mk7
Eland 90 Mk7, Rhodesian camouflage
Eland 20 Mk6
Eland 90 of the FAR (Royal Moroccan Armed Forces) dealing with Polisario, 1979. All Illustrations are by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.
Bibliography
Abbot, P., Heitman, H.R. & Hannon, P. 1991. Modern African Wars (3): South-West Africa. Osprey Publishing.
Ansley, L. 2019. Eland 20 armoured car. Facebook correspondence on Pantserbond/Armour Association. 30 Jun. 2019
Bowden, N. 2019. Cpt SANDF. Eland armoured car. Facebook correspondence on Pantserbond/Armour Association. 12 Jun. 2019
Camp, S. & Heitman, H.R. 2014. Surviving the ride: A pictorial history of South African manufactured mine protected vehicles. Pinetown, South Africa: 30° South Publishers
Combat and Survival. 1991. On Externals with the Eland. Volume 23. Westport, Connecticut: H.S. Stuttman Inc.
Foss, C.F. 2004. Jane’s Armour and Artillery. Volume 25. Macdonald and Jane’s Publishers Ltd.
Gardner, D. 2019. Lt (Ret). Eland hull and turret development. Facebook correspondence on Pantserbond/Armour Association. 12 Jun. 2019
Heitman, H.R. 1988. Krygstuig van Suid-Afrika. Struik.
Marais, S. 2019. Sgt Maj SANDF. Curator SA Armour Museum. Eland armoured car. Telephone correspondence. 14 Jun. 2019.
Moukambi, V. 2008. Relations between South Africa and France with special reference to military matters, 1960-1990. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.
Oosthuizen, G.J.J. 2004. Regiment Mooirivier and South African transborder operations into Angola during 1975/76 and 1983/4. Historia, 49(1): 135-153.
Savides A. 2019. Brig Gen (Ret). Eland hull and turret development. Facebook correspondence on Pantserbond/Armour Association. 12 Jun. 2019
Selfe, A. 2019. Eland lights. Facebook correspondence on Pantserbond/Armour Association. 12 Jun. 2019
Schenk, R. 2019. SSgt (Ret). Eland turret rear tube uses. Facebook correspondence on Pantserbond/Armour Association. 12 Jun. 2019
Steenkamp, W. & Heitman, H.R. 2016. Mobility Conquers: The story of 61 mechanised battalion group 1978-2005. West Midlands: Helion & Company Limited
Yugoslav Partisans/Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1944-1960)
Light Tank – 56-100+ Received
The Yugoslav communist Partisans, or National Liberation Army, were one of the largest resistance movements against Germany in occupied Europe, fighting many hard battles against the Axis forces during WWII. The Allies, seeing the importance of this struggle (as large number of Axis troops were sent to the Balkans to quell the Partisans), decided to supply the Partisans with a number of American Stuart light tanks and other military equipment, such as armored cars, trucks, military uniforms, and small arms etc. These Stuart light tanks were not first to be operated by the Partisans (they had used tanks such as the Italian L3 or the French Hotchkiss H35 and SOMUA S35 tanks among others) but were provided in enough numbers to equip a Tank Brigade. This Brigade would see heavy fighting from late 1944 until the end of the war in Yugoslavia in May 1945. The Stuart tanks were important not just for the Partisans, but they represented the nucleus from which the future JNA (Yugoslav People’s Army) armored force would be created. The Stuart tanks would remain in operational service into the beginning of the 1960s.
Prelude
After the Italian defeats in North Africa and Greece, Mussolini had no choice but to seek help from his German ally. Hitler, unwillingly, decided to send German military aid to help the Italian conquest of Greece. For the planned occupation of Greece, Hitler counted on the neutrality of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
The government of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia joined the Tripartite Pact of Germany, Italy, and Japan on 25th March 1941. Two days later, Air Force General Dušan Simović, with the support of other military officers, staged a coup d’etat and overthrew the government (and the Regent Prince Paul) which had intended to join the Axis forces. The new government under Simović did not ratify the Tripartite Pact and commenced negotiations with Britain and the USSR. Due to these events, and in preparation for the attack on Greece and the Soviet Union, the German High Command decided to occupy Yugoslavia and create a safe environment for further operations. Thus began the ‘April War’ (codenamed Directive 25); the Axis invasion of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia on 6th April 1941.
After the end of the April War, Yugoslavia was divided amongst the Axis forces. Mostly because of the brutality of the occupying forces, the discontent of the occupied nations grew more and more. Very quickly in the territory of the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia, two liberation movements were formed, the Royalist Chetniks (Četnici/Четници) and the communist Partisans (Partizani/Партизани). The communist side would form the NOV (National Liberation Army) (Narodno-oslobodilačka Armija/Народно-ослободилачка Армија) but are more commonly and simply known as the ‘Partisans’.
These two groups at first cooperated together against the common enemy. In October 1941, joint Partisan and Chetnik forces attacked (with some captured German Beutepanzer SOMUA S35, Renault R35, and Hotchkiss H35/39 ) the city of Kraljevo (in southern-central modern-day Serbia). This attack failed and soon after, conflicting ideology would lead the former partners into an open civil war which would last until the end of WWII.
Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941. The Axis forces used the southern parts of Yugoslavia, to quickly attack Greek positions. Source: Wikipedia
Forming of the First Tank Brigade
1943 was an important year for the Partisan movement for several reasons. Italy capitulated and the south of the country was occupied by the Allies. After the capitulation and withdrawal of Italian forces in September 1943, large parts of what was once Italian occupied Yugoslav territory were left undefended and abandoned. Partisans succeeded in capturing large quantities of weapons, including Italian tanks, self-propelled guns, armored vehicles, and trucks. The withdrawal of the Italians directly influenced the increase in the number of people who joined the Partisan side.
The communication and supply link between the German forces in Greece with the rest of Germany came under risk. The Germans were forced to send a large number of troops (14 division and 2 partly equipped divisions). The remaining German allies, the Hungarians and Bulgarians, were also heavily involved, with a total of 9 Divisions and 2 corps, with all available NDH forces (Independent State of Croatia/Nezavisna Država Hrvatska) and a number of Chetniks and Serbian collaborationist units also committed. In total, this combined force numbered some 1.1 million men (soldiers, support units and others).
Due to the fact that the Partisan movement was increasing in size and was tying down such a large number of enemy soldiers and equipment, they became an important factor in any future Allied war planning for this theatre of Europe. This was one of the many reasons why by the end of 1943 and early 1944, the Allies decided to support the Partisan movement only. Although they had also helped Chetniks in the past, due to the lack of Chetnik actions against the Axis forces in the Balkans (and many other factors which are under contentious and heated debate even to this day), they stopped any further assistance to this group. Thanks to the fact that the southern part of Italy was under Allied control, the possibility of closer cooperation with the Partisans opened up.
From 1943 and 1944 onwards, the Partisans liberated large territories that now had to be defended from any Axis attack. This led to the change of guerrilla-style fighting to a more direct one, but due to the increasing number of Axis forces, and more importantly the lack of a sufficient number of heavier equipment, these open battles were costly and not always successful.
The Allies decided to help the Partisans by training them and equipping them with much needed heavy weapons, such as tanks and aircraft. Many Partisan fighters that had some experience with this kind of equipment were transported to Italy to be used to form future training camps and centers. For the creation of the first tank unit with Allied equipment, 94 soldiers and officers in total from the 4th Tank Battalion (a unit that had been operating in Croatia and was equipped with captured Italian light tanks) were used. In April 1944, this group was transported by the Allies by sea to El Katadba in Egypt (near the city of Cairo). This group was reinforced with some 200 members of the Royal Yugoslav Army in Africa. This number would increase to 1,200, as most soldiers of the Royal Yugoslav Army would join this unit. By May 1944, it was moved to Chenifa (a training camp in Egypt), where the training of the crews would commence. The training was mostly carried out by British instructors and great attention was given to driving and firing. For training purpose, Stuart tanks and AEC armored cars were used. After some demanding and exhausting exercises, the training process was considered complete, and by late June, the unit was shipped to Italy once more. There, at Gravina Di Puglia (a village near the city of Bari), the First Tank Brigade was formed on 16th July 1944.
The British provided all the necessary materials needed to equip this brigade. At the very beginning, the Brigade had only 10 Stuart tanks. The British were at first reluctant to supply more tanks, as they did not believe that the Partisans could efficiently operate and maintain a larger number of armored vehicles. There were no more tanks available and the British could not provide personnel for maintenance of these vehicles. In order to discuss this issue, a meeting between the Supreme Allied Commander for the Mediterranean, General Sir Henry ‘Jumbo’ Wilson, and Josip Broz Tito (leader of the Partisans) took place on 10th August 1944. These negotiations were successful for the Partisan side and an agreement was made to supply a sufficient amount of armored vehicles to equip at least one tank brigade.
Stuart tanks and their crews prior to their transportation to Yugoslavia. The photograph was taken at Gravina Di Puglia in 1944. Source
Brigade organization
The original planned organization structure of this brigade was the following: It consisted of a headquarter company (with additional support staff), an ambulance company, four tank battalions, an engineering battalion, a company of armored cars, a mechanics company, and a unit for crew training (this unit was removed from the brigade very early on). Each of these four tank battalions was further divided into two tank companies (there is no precise information on how many tanks each had), an anti-tank battery, and a rear support company.
The Brigade unit’s fighting strength consisted of 56 light tanks, mostly M3A3 Stuarts (though there were a small number of M3A1’s and possibly even few M5’s), 24 AEC Mk. II Armored Cars, and two M3A1 ‘White’ Scout Cars (to be used as command vehicles). Support elements consisted of 21 Ford 3t trucks, 21 Chevrolet 3t trucks, 2 1.5t trucks, 8 Jeeps, 6 fuel trucks, two unidentified tracked vehicles, and 9 motorcycles. There is a chance that other vehicles were included, but these are not listed in the sources. This speculation is based on the fact that when the Brigade was transported to Yugoslavia it had 59 tanks, more than the official documented (which also complicates the task of determining the exact number of tanks used).
As there were not enough tanks to equip all four tank battalions, a decision was made to use only three tank battalions and one armored car battalion. This armored car battalion was never used as a whole unit, but was instead divided into smaller groups and given to the tank battalions to be mostly used in an anti-tank role, as the QF 6-pdr (57 mm) gun on the AEC provided strong firepower.
The anti-tank battery was equipped with towed 6-pdr AT guns, which was the same gun as on the AEC Mk.II Armored Car, allowing for ammunition crossover. For the purpose of towing these guns, trucks and two unidentified tracked vehicles (possibly Bren Gun Carriers) were used. The engineering battalion was only mechanized after the Partisans captured a number of vehicles, mostly German.
For supplies necessary for the functioning of the Brigade, the Allies supplied the Partisans with 29,000 liters of fuel (with additional 35,000 liters requested by the Partisans official), 12,000 liters of oil, 19,000 rounds for the 37 mm and 6-pdr guns, and some 220,000 machine gun rounds.
In total, the Brigade had some 1,619 men. The remaining soldiers that were not included in the Brigade were instead sent to the Soviet Union to be a part of the Second Tank Brigade.
The Light Tank M3 ‘Stuart’
The M3 light tank was designed in 1940 to replace the older and outdated M2 tanks that were in service with the American armored forces. The M3 had many improvements over the M2, including thicker armor, stronger (due to the increase in weight) vertical volute spring suspension with a rear idler wheel, increased speed, and improved firepower consisting of four .30 machineguns and a 37 mm cannon. The first series was powered by the gasoline-fueled (petrol) Continental seven-cylinder four-cycle radial aircraft engine, but after 1942, a new four-stroke diesel radial Guiberson A-1020 engine was used. It had a crew of four (driver, driver assistant, gunner, and commander). From March 1941 to August 1942, some 5,811 Stuart (with petrol engine) and 1,285 (diesel engine) were built.
The much improved M3A1 version was produced from April 1942 onwards. The first batches of M3A1 tanks were built by using riveted armor, but later models had welded armor. The changes that were made were: improved turret design (the small commander cupola was removed) with two hatch doors, reducing the number of machine guns to three on later built vehicles, and the addition of a turret basket. Some 4,621 M3A1 tanks were produced by February 1943, including a small number of diesel-powered tanks (around 211).
Soon after the M3A1, a new model, the M3A3, was made (the M3A2 was only a paper project) as a result of poorly designed frontal armor and small fuel capacity. The front and side armor of the Stuart M3A3 was angled and the front viewing hatch for the driver and his assistant were replaced by new overhead ones. The radio was moved from the hull to the turret rear. Due to extra space that the Stuart M3A3 now had, it was possible to increase the fuel capacity. This version was produced until August 1943 (when the production of the Stuart was finally canceled) with a total of 3,427 vehicles being built.
The Stuart series saw extensive operational service throughout the war on many different fronts. The USA supplied the Stuart series to other nations through Lend-Lease, including 5,532 (of all variants) to the British Empire, 1,676 to the USSR, 427 to Brazil, with several other hundreds going to China, France, the Netherlands, and many Latin American nations. Britain would subsequently give some of their Stuart’s to Yugoslav Partisans. By 1943, however, the M3 was already outdated, due to its weak gun and feeble armor.
Partisan Stuart tanks in combat
Author’s note: as the sources often do not specify the exact model of M3 tank used by the Partisans (it could be either M3A1 or M3A3 or even M5), this article will use the Stuart designation for the sake of simplicity, unless the sources specify which model or version. Also, note that the Partisans and later in JNA documents designation Stuart was wrongly written as ’Styart’ or ‘Stuard’.
The Brigade was transported by British ships to the island of Vis (off the Yugoslav Adriatic coast) in early September 1944. This operation was successfully completed by October. Immediately after, all elements of the Brigade were transported onto Yugoslav mainland and were divided into two groups: Northern and Southern.
The Northern Group
The Northern Group (the 2nd Tank Battalion and half of the 3rd Tank Battalion, in addition to AEC Mk.II armored cars which were equally divided to reinforce the 3rd Battalion in both groups) was tasked with helping other Partisan units in fighting and expelling the German (118th Jagerdivision) near the island of Brač (in the south of modern day Croatia). For this operation, 34 Stuart tanks and 12 AEC Mk.II armored cars were chosen. The transportation process on behalf of the British was slow, and by the time the 2nd Battalion was ready for action, the Germans forces had been driven-off. The next step was to transport these units to the mainland, but there was a problem due to the insufficient number of adequate Partisans transport ships. The British refused to help because of enemy coastal artillery. The Partisans however, decide to attempt to land by using all ships they could find. By late October, most tanks were transported onto the mainland, with only one tank being lost as a consequence of heavy German artillery fire. This group, along with other Partisans forces, pursued the retreating German forces. The progress was slow due to obstacles and mines which had been placed by the Germans. By late October, Partisans broke through the German defense line (Solin-Kaštel-Sučurac). In the night of 27th-28th October, a group of four Stuart tanks were sent to attack retreating enemy forces, but in this attack one Stuart tank was lost to enemy fire.
Transportation of a M3A3 tank by a British ships. Source: https://www.znaci.net/arhiv/fotografija/12063
After securing the coastline, the Northern group was moved toward the city of Šibenik (in central Dalmatia). It was planned by the Partisan high command to attack the city from two sides. Expecting a larger attack on the city, the German began withdrawing their forces (there was some number of Chetnik forces helping defend the city). During the advance on the city, elements of the Second Battalion unexpectedly came across a German force, and after some fierce fighting, lost four Stuart tanks with most of their crews being killed. The Germans had a battery of 75 mm PaK 40 anti-tank guns which could easily destroy Stuart tanks. There were other skirmishes with both German and Chetnik forces. A group of Chetniks came across a column of Stuart tanks, incorrectly thinking they were German tanks. The Partisan tanks immediately opened fire, killing many while the rest surrendered. Some German forces were left behind during the retreat and were surrounded. All available tanks and armored cars in the region were sent to destroy this group, but after some intense fighting, they failed and lost four tanks in the process, with one falling off a cliff. Consequently, the Germans managed to fight through the Partisans lines and escape. Regardless of this, the city of Šibenik was captured on 3rd November 1944.
Before the war, Šibenik had been a large naval shipyard and possessed a number of workshops. For this reason, the Partisans (despite some heavy sabotage made by the German) chose to make a repair and maintenance facility there. The Partisans managed to salvage some facilities and trained personnel in repairs and maintenance. As there was no reserve of new tanks, all tanks were considered important. Vehicles which had been destroyed or damaged were transported to Šibenik (how this was done is unknown, though possibly other tanks were used for towing) to be repaired if possible or to be used for spare parts. Those with turrets damaged beyond repair were used for different modifications equipped with captured German weapons. Šibenik would remain the main base for repairs and maintenance until the end of the war. In November, a tank school was moved to Šibenik from Gravine in the south of Italy to train new personnel. Training was mostly carried out on captured vehicles such as French and Italian tanks.
Šibenik was an important repair facility for the Partisans. Here we can see an M3A3 being repaired. As a number had lost their turret, they were reused for mounting captured German guns. The photographed vehicle could be one of those. Source
Collection of tanks of the Northern group at Šibenik, Winter of 1944/1945. Source
The next vital city to capture was Knin (on the Zagreb-Split road in inner Dalmatia). It was defended by a large force of entrenched German troops supported by Croatian Ustasha (Ustaše/Усташе), and Chetnik units, consisting of some 20,000 men, 20 tanks ( French Hotchkiss H35/39 and Italian FIAT (possibly) L6/40 tanks – under German flag). The Brigade’s Northern group was tasked in supporting other Partisan units (26th and 19th Divisions) in taking this city. The Brigade was further divided, with 13 tanks and 6 armored cars being assigned to the 26th Division and 12 tanks and 5 armored cars being assigned to the 19th Division. On 25th November, the first attacks using tanks and armored cars were unsuccessful, resulting in the loss of one tank and one armored car. The Brigade’s vehicles were not used as a single entity, but were instead divided into even smaller combat groups to support infantry units, which limited their offensive power. Furthermore, due to their tactical usage, the vehicles were easy targets for the defending forces. The armored vehicles were withdrawn and sent to support the attack of the 1st Dalmatian Proletarian Brigade on the city. The attack began on 2nd December, and after some heavy fighting, the Partisans managed to break the German resistance, which forced them to abandon Knin. By 4th December, all retreating German forces were destroyed or forced to surrender. The battle for Knin had been bitter and bloody, with the Partisans losing four Stuart tanks and one AEC armored car.
Actions of the Southern Group
The second Southern group (1st Battalion and the remaining elements of the 3rd Battalion) was tasked with the liberation of the Mostar region, which was vital to the Germans, as this was the main line of retreat for their remaining forces in Greece. Prior to the arrival of the Stuart tanks, Partisan forces had been stopped at the village of Buna (modern-day Bosnia). It was well defended, and the Neretva River flew through it, giving an extra obstacle that the Partisans had to overcome. Partisans with support of Stuart tanks and anti-tank guns attacked these positions but were not able to break through. The Stuart crews had great problems with the unknown terrain, with two being bogged down and a third falling on its side, forcing the crews to abandon the vehicles. Even though there was a danger that the Germans would destroy them, the Partisans went to great effort to salvage them. The Germans then launched a counterattack using Italian tanks which drove the Partisans back and brought a local Partisan hospital into danger. To save the situation, a tank company was quickly sent to try to stop the German advance. The counterattack was successful and drove the German back, with the loss of a single Stuart tank.
The next Partisan move was to attack the city of Široki Breg, which was a strong forward defense position defending Mostar. For this attack, 3 Stuarts and 3 AECs were chosen. But this attack proved unsuccessful, as the commander of the leading tank ran into (what he assumed was) a minefield. Instead of moving to another position, the commander decided to wait for infantry to clear the way for him. His tank was spotted by the Germans who immediately opened fire, hitting the tank, which caught fire, forcing the rest to withdraw. The next attack was also unsuccessful.
Using another similar force, the Partisans attacked another strong point at Nevesinje. The attack began on 30th November with three Stuart tanks and one AEC armored car with infantry support. The attack started well, but it was stopped as the Germans had six tank (four Italian, and two German tanks which the Partisans identified as ’Panthers’) and a number of Flak 3.7 cm guns. In the following battle, the Stuarts proved to be no match against the German tanks and one was lost, with one AEC receiving three direct hits, but miraculously, despite the damage, managing to pull back. The Germans lost one of their FIAT tanks. These actions were mostly unsuccessful due to the inexperience of the crews and commanding officers, poor positioning, insufficient scouting, and the use of tanks individually in a fire support role.
The fighting for Mostar continued until January 1945, when the Germans and their allied Croatian forces launched attacks on two bridges over the Neretva river in the hope that their destruction would slow down any future Partisan attack. One bridge near the city of Čapljina was briefly captured, only to be recaptured by Partisan forces with the help of several Stuart tanks (the bridge was damaged but still in use). Three Stuarts were damaged, though the Germans claimed five or more had been damaged. Two were captured by the Germans and used against the Partisans, with one later being destroyed in February and the second being recaptured. This indicates that the Partisans lost more than three tanks.
Unification of the Two Groups
As the Southern group alone proved insufficient to take down Mostar, the Northern group was called in to help in the upcoming planned offensive. Total Partisan strength was around 40,000 men, while the Germans (with Chetnik, Ustasha and a small numbers of Italians) had some 20,000. The Northern group made a 186 km long journey to reach its destination. On this journey, five Stuart tanks had to be abandoned due to mechanical breakdowns but would later be recovered.
At this time, the Brigade was reformed. As both groups had used the armored cars to reinforce the split 3rd Battalion, the Brigade HQ made the decision to rename the 3rd (Northern Group) into the 4th Battalion, as it was deemed that its dissolution would affect the battalion’s efficiency given that it had proved to be an effective force. As there were no spare British vehicles to equip this unit, enemy captured vehicles were used (exact models are unknown but possibly French – one Panhard 178 was used – or Italian).
The first attack with the reunited Brigade was launched against Široki Breg (6th February 1945), which was defended by a force of between 6,000 and 7,000 men equipped with different caliber anti-tank guns (37 mm to 75 mm). The attack was led by a group of Stuart tanks, while the AEC armored cars provided fire support against pillboxes and anti-tank guns, both being supported by Partisan artillery fire. But there was confusion as to how to proceed when the leading tanks ran into a minefield. Five tanks were lost to enemy fire and the attack was called off. All tanks were recovered, but at a great loss of life (eight killed and twenty-two wounded). Partisan high command decided to attack from the south with the 3rd Tank Battalion. Fortunately for them, due to the uneven terrain, this part of the defensive front was poorly defended and there were fewer mines and anti-tank guns. The attack was successful, which led to Germans leaving the first line of defense and pulling back into Mostar. A number of enemy armored vehicles were captured (at least one Somua S35 and one Semovente 47/32).
One Stuart M3A3 during the fight for Široki Breg in 1945. Source
The main attack began on 13th February with the support from the tanks from the 2nd and 3rd Battalions. After some fighting and navigation through bad terrain, they finally managed to cross three bridges and enter the city. Partisans also attacked from Nevesinje, with progress being slow due to the terrain, but they eventually managed to enter the city. German forces managed to escape toward Sarajevo, but with great losses. The Brigade had only lost one Stuart in addition to four damaged tanks.
At the battle for Široki Breg, even the Stuart M3A3 armed with the German 7.5 cm PaK 40 was used. Source: https://znaci.net/arhiv/fotografija/14367
The First Tank Brigade was later involved in supporting a large Partisan force of some 70,000 men against German and Croatian forces (20,000 men and 20 tanks) located in western Bosnia and the Croatian coast. The Brigade was again divided into two groups: the 1st and 3rd Battalions were given to the 26th Division and 2nd and 4th Battalions to the 19th Division. This was done by the Partisan HQ due to previous experience and cooperation of these forces. The 19th Division was tasked with capturing the city of Bihać (modern-day northern Bosnia). This Division was supported by Stuart tanks which made good progress, and after a few days of fighting, forced the German to pull back to the city. Two tanks were damaged, one by mine and one by a grenade. The advance was temporarily stopped as the Germans placed many mines and obstacles in the way, so the tanks had to wait for pioneers to clear the way. After the road was cleared, the advance carried on. As they approached the city, two AEC armored cars were sent to capture an intact bridge, but as they were crossing it, the Germans blew it up. One AEC dropped into the river, with the second one being destroyed by the Germans. The Germans, not willing to lose the city, sent reinforcements. To counter this, the 1st and the 2nd Tank Battalions were sent into the fight. The enemy was stopped at the cost of two Stuarts from the 2nd Tank Battalion. The 1st Battalion engaged heavy enemy resistance and lost 3 Stuarts with an additional one being damaged. As the battle was turning against them, the German and Croatians began a withdrawal. During the battle and retreat, they lost nearly 14,000 men. The First Tank Brigade suffered heavy losses. Out of the original 43 tanks, 8 Stuarts and 2 AEC’s were lost with an additional 7 Stuarts being damaged. Partisan mechanics worked day and night to repair as many of them as they could.
The Partisans continued to move towards the west, reaching the city of Gospić in what is today southern Croatia. On 4th April, the attack lead by the First Tank Brigade and five infantry divisions began. To counter this advance, the German sent 10 tanks (Italian L6-40). The Germans lost two tanks and had to pull back. After that the German defense was breached, they began to withdraw. One Stuart was destroyed and another damaged by enemy anti-tank fire. German and Croatian forces sent to stop them were beaten back. The Germans and the Croatian allies lost some 4,000 men, 40 guns and 20 armored vehicles.
The 2nd Tank Battalion was sent to capture Tounj (a small town southwest of Zagreb). Capturing this city would prevent German withdrawal from western Bosnia. The attack began on 13th April, and after a few days of heavy fighting, it was captured. Only one Stuart was damaged. Allegedly, one ‘Panther’ tank was destroyed by two AEC armored cars. This vehicle was proven later to be in fact a StuG III.
The final operations were the battles for Rijeka and Trieste, in the very west of Yugoslavia. The German positions were heavily defended with three defense lines consisting of a large number of old and new bunkers with 88,000 men, 338 guns, 60 tanks and 15 armored cars defending it, supported by Italian, Croatian and Chetnik forces. The total strength of the Partisan 4th Army (which had charged name before the attack) was 90,000 men, 366 guns, and 80 armored vehicles, counting with the support of the British RAF. The 4th Tank Battalion was the first to see action (17th April) in an unsuccessful attempt to subdue the defenders of the city of Sušak. The tanks proved useless in the attack on the well-defended city. The city was liberated on 21st April. In following days, two Stuarts were destroyed in addition to another one being damaged. By end of April, four Stuart tanks were cut-off and surrounded by German forces. The crews dismounted their tanks and used the Stuart’s machine guns to make a defensive perimeter whilst the gunners fired the main guns in support. The next day, Partisan infantry broke the German line and the Stuarts were saved. Due to bad terrain, tank use was limited, and one Stuart was lost on 28th April. Finally, by 3rd May, the line was broken and the city Rijeka was taken.
The city of Trieste was one of the last German resistance lines in this region. For its taking, the 2nd and 4th Tank Battalions were chosen to support the infantry divisions. The attack was carried out in two directions (each supported with one Tank Battalion). The 4th Battalion advance was successful, which led to the capturing of large stockpiles of ammunition and other war materiel near the village of Sežana. The second column was stopped as the bridge leading to Škofije was destroyed. This column was instead moved to Sežana to join forces with the 4th Battalion. This force managed to destroy many German units which were retreating in that direction. The battle for Trieste began on 30th April. German resistance was heavy and the first Partisan attack was repelled. On the same day, the 2nd Tank Battalion fought for the village of Basovizza, which was defended by 12 German tanks (including unknown numbers of captured Soviet T-34/76’s). During the following skirmishing, the Germans lost two tanks, with one T-34/76 being destroyed by an AEC armored car.
Advance on Trogiro of the First Tank Brigade in 1945. Source
The war for the Germans was all but lost. They continued to fight stubbornly to defend their last defense line at Trieste. The 2nd and 4th Tank Battalions were involved in liberating Trieste. As the Partisan attack was too strong, many Germans tried to flee by boat to Venice. Most boats were sunk by the guns of the Stuart tanks. By 2nd May, the battle was mostly won bar a few pockets of German resistance, which, with the help of the Stuart tanks were eliminated. By 3rd May, the last German resistance was crushed.
The last action of the First Tank Brigade was at the city of Rijeka, near Trieste, where large numbers of Germans were retreating to Austria. The 1st Tank Battalion was the only battalion available, but its tank forces had been depleted. The first attack on the German positions was unsuccessful, with the loss of four Stuart tanks. The Partisan HQ’s, after the capture of Trieste, moved large forces to this area. By this time, the 1st Tank Battalion had only a few operational tanks, and was not able to stop the German advancing forces. The 2nd and the 4th Tank Battalions arrived, but even they were hard pressed by the now desperate Germans. Two Stuart were lost on the night of 6th-7th May. Seeing that there was no hope of breaking out, the German Commander, General Kibler, unconditionally surrendered to the Partisans.
Small numbers of the obsolete M3A1 Stuart light tank were sent to the Yugoslav Partisans.
Most of the Stuarts supplied to the Partisans were the improved M3A3 version with sloped armor.
One M3A3 Light Tank which had a damaged turret had it replaced with a 20 mm Flakvierling.
Another M3A3 Light Tank that had its turret or its armament damaged was modified to carry the potent 75 mm Pak 40 AT gun.
Fictional illustration of a Partisan 15 cm sIG 33 gun mounted on an M3A3 chassis. Such a vehicle was allegedly converted, but there is no proof to back this claim.
Fictional illustration of a Partisan M3A3 Stuart armed with a 120 mm Granatwerfer 42 mortar. While some sources claim this vehicle exists, there is no proof to back its existence. Illustrations by David Bocquelet with modifications by Leander Jobse.
Even though most tank used by the 1st Tank Brigade were M3A3’s, smaller numbers of older M3A1 (second tank in the column) were also used. This photograph was taken near Molmino in early 1945. Source
Total losses and reasons for them
By the end of the war, the First Tank Brigade had suffered heavy losses, with 33 tanks and 5 armored cars being destroyed, with a further 31 tanks and 2 armored cars being damaged. The Partisan tank losses were high as the Germans were using well-trained infantry (especially in the use of anti-tank weapons, such as the Panzerfaust and explosives), a lack of coordination with infantry, the inexperience of the crews, lack of adequate scouting, and difficult terrain. Poor and inadequate coordination with infantry were the reason why many tanks were lost. The infantry often lied to the Stuart tank crews of the presence of German anti-tank positions. They were hoping that the tank crews would somehow spot enemy anti-tank weapons and destroy them. This practice forced the Partisan High Command to give special orders forbidding this kind of actions. Another problem was lack of reconnaissance, as the ordinary infantry reports were not always the most reliable as seen earlier.
After the war
In June 1946, the total number of Stuart tanks was 54 (two of which were locally converted Flak Stuart’s). The First Tank Brigade was (from 1946) equipped with Soviet T-34/85 tanks and the Stuart were passed on to the 6th Tank Brigade. In later years, they were used mostly in military parades or as training vehicles. They remained in use by the Yugoslav People’s Army until 1960.
When they were finally withdrawn from operational use most were scrapped. Because of the historical significance these tanks had for the JNA, it was decided to preserve a certain number of them. Two Stuarts (one M3A1, serial number ‘8770’, and one M3A3, serial number ‘8776’ ) were placed at the Belgrade Military Museum (Serbia). One was placed as a monument in the Serbian city of Kraljevo. Three can be found in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH): one M3A1 in Sarajevo and two (M3A1 and M3A3) in Banja Luka. Two others (M3A1 and M3A3) are in Slovenian Military Museum in Pivka. The M3A1 in Pivka was bought from the Brazilian Army by a private collector before being given to the museum in 2008.
The M3A1 at the Belgrade Military Museum Source: Wikipedia
The M3A3 at the Belgrade Military Museum Source: Wikipedia
The M3A1 and M3A3 in the Pivka Museum Slovenia. The M3A1 (to the left) was originally in the Brazilian army. Source
Color and Markings
The Stuart tanks supplied to this Brigade had the original British continental green color, though a small number of tanks were painted in desert yellow or even combinations of both camouflage schemes.
Marking-wise, all tanks had the Yugoslav tricolor Flag (red, white and blue) with a red star in the middle painted on the hull side. Sometimes, a small red star was also painted on the turret. Political slogans (Za Zagreb-toward Zagreb) and the names of some cities (Beograd-Београд, Ljubljana-Љубљана etc.) were often written on the tanks, especially towards the end of the war.
How Many Were Supplied?
Although at first glance it seems that the number of Stuarts supplied can easily be determined, this is not the case. What is known with certainty is the fact that the British forces during the foundation of the First Tank Brigade supplied it with 56 M3A1/A3 tanks. It is possible that a few M5 were also included in this, but there is little or no evidence of this.
Authors Bojan B.D. and Dragan S. cited that on 6th March 1945, additional 36, mostly older, M3A1’s were supplied to the Partisans, with a few more in April. Additionally, three more tanks (abandoned by the Allies) were repaired by members of this brigade before their shipment to Yugoslavia.
According to Aleksandar R., some 51 tanks were supplied to replace the damaged and destroyed during the war. It is a possibility that an unknown number of tanks were supplied in small quantities by the end of the war.
The author Dinko P. presents several interesting facts:
When the Brigade was transported to the island of Vis, it had 59 tanks (here he agrees with Bojan B.D. and Dragan S.).
He also found information for additional M3A1/A3 tanks supplied on several occasions in Yugoslav official documents, but the exact number of vehicles are not mentioned.
The author was able to talk to a soldier from the First Tank Brigade (who had been part of it since the very beginning of the Brigade). According to him (the name of this soldier is not mentioned), all vehicles that were given by the Allies were operated in this unit, including the ones used for training. These (that were used for training) were transported by Partisan ships after the original transfer (by the Allies) of the Brigade to the territory of Yugoslavia. Also, an unknown number of tanks were ’obtained’ in various (and suspicious) ways, aka they stole them intact or slightly damaged from Allied army depots. In these cases, the Allies decided to turn a blind eye and did not prevent the Partisans from doing this.
On 31st January 1945, the total number of M3A1/A3 is listed to be 60 tanks, which is a bit more than the original number of 56 tanks.
Registration numbers and British labels (which were not removed in most cases) on a number of tanks give some indications that these vehicles were not originally intended to be supplied to the Partisans, but somehow these tanks found themselves in Yugoslavia.
According to Leland N., the British had supplied the Partisans with 52 M3A3 tanks with an additional 40 in the first half of 1945. Author Steven J, Zaloga writes that one M3A1 and 56 M3A3 were supplied.
Determining the exact number of supplied vehicles is more complicated given the fact that a fairly large number of damaged tanks were salvaged and put back into action. These vehicles could possibly be mistaken as newly supplied ones, and thus give a wrong impression of the total numbers. So, according to these facts, the total number may range from the original 56 to 100, or even more.
Partisan Stuart modifications
During the heavy fighting for the liberation of Yugoslavia, several Stuart tanks were damaged. Given that the caliber of the main gun on the Stuart tank was inadequate for a successful anti-tank role, the partisans decided to try to mount some captured German weapons in order to increase their firepower.
By the end of 1944, in Šibenik, the Partisans set up a workshop to repair their vehicles. In addition to the workshop, a collection office (also located in Šibenik) for captured, damaged, and destroyed vehicles was set, which also served as a source of spare parts. There, damaged M3A3 tanks were modified and armed with German weapons, such as the 75 mm PaK 40 anti-tank gun and 20 mm Flak 38 Flakvierling. It is also alleged that the Partisans rebuilt two more tanks and armed one with a mortar and the other with a 15 cm sIG 33 heavy infantry artillery gun, but the existence of either of these vehicles cannot be ascertained at this time. It is also worth mentioning that a single Somua S35 was rearmed with the 6-pdr gun taken from a damaged AEC armored car.
A final note is that most, if not all, British supplied Stuart tanks had track mudguards. The Partisan tank crews began removing them early on as they were a hindrance during tracks repairs.
Light Tank M3A3 with 7.5 cm PaK 40
As the 37 mm main gun was almost useless against stronger armored vehicles, the powerful 75 mm PaK 40 was installed on three Stuart tanks. The upper structure mounted the 75 mm PaK 40 anti-tank gun with its twin layer gun shield of 4 mm (0.16 in.) thick steel and a small armor plate between the gun and the tank hull in addition of two side armored plates.
One such armed Stuart managed to destroy a German T-34/76 in April 1945. Installing this gun made these vehicles capable of destroying any tank on this front. Drawbacks of these modifications include, among several others: slim armor, high recoil when firing the gun, low ammunition capacity.
One 75mm PaK 40 armed Stuart during the Battles for Trieste and its surroundings in May 1945. Source
Light Tank M3A3 with 20mm Flak 38 Flakvierling
On two damaged M3A3 tanks, the German 20 mm Flak 38 Flakvierling anti-aircraft gun was installed. The only armor protection for the gun operators was the front gun shield, with no side or rear armor. This vehicle would be mainly used in the role of fire support for ground troops. The immense rate of fire of their Flakvierling armament was used to suppress enemy infantry, unarmored vehicles, and anti-tank positions.
The reasons for building these two modifications are not clear, as there were only a limited number of German and their allied planes flying over Yugoslavia by the end of 1944 and in early 1945. Both vehicles survived the war and continued in use for some time, possibly as long as up until the sixties.
Two Stuarts were armed with German 20mm Flak 38 Flakvierling anti-aircraft gun. They were possibly used in combat but there is no information about their actions. Both vehicles would survive the war. Source
M3A1/A3 Mortar
Allegedly, during the war, one or two mortars were mounted on a Stuart chassis. The caliber of these mortars could be either 81 mm or 120 mm. One of the main ‘culprits’ for this confusion is a picture published (possibly after the war or just before its end) that shows Partisan crews using a vehicle which is assumed to be an M3A1/A3 as the base armed with two 120 mm mortars. However, this is not true, as the vehicle was, in fact, a German Sd.Kfz. 251 Ausf. D half-track armed with twin 120 mm Granatwerfer 42 (which is basically a direct copy of the Soviet M1938 without any changes to it). It is not known whether it was a Partisan modification or if they had captured this vehicle from the Germans (the second option is the most likely). So it is very likely that such a vehicle based on the M3A1/A3 did not exist.
Both pictures are taken in Šibenik. The first allegedly shows the M3A1 armed with two mortars, while the second picture shows that it is actually a German Sd.Kfz. 251 Ausf.D half-track. Source
M3A1/A3 with 15 cm schweres Infanterie-Geschütz 33 (15 cm sIG 33)
The existence of the 15 cm schweres Infanterie-Geschütz 33 (15 cm sIG 33) armed version, sometimes (mostly online) called SO-150, is also under question. There are only a few mentions (in different mostly online sources) of an M3A1/A3 being modified with such a weapon It was allegedly destroyed in its first combat mission. In addition, there is no information on its exact characteristics. It is unknown if the whole gun (with wheels or without them) was used, and there is no known pictures or document that exist to prove it. This modification was probably impractical, because it would have put a lot of stress on the tank’s chassis, especially when firing, but also because of the weight of the gun itself. Limited ammunition storage in this vehicle would also be a problem. The biggest drawback though would be the low-level protection for its crew, an important fact as this vehicle was supposed to be involved in close combat operations. If it ever existed, this vehicle could very likely have similar characteristics and problems as the similar German vehicle based on the Panzer I Ausf. B.
Conclusion
The Stuart was rated as a good vehicle compared to other captured enemy vehicles used by the Yugoslav Partisans. The positive side was the availability of a more than adequate number of spare parts (and there were enough numbers of Stuart tanks that could in case of necessity, be reused for spare parts) and ammunition. In contrast, captured tanks were available in smaller quantities or even only as individual examples, which complicated the maintenance and ammunition logistics. Availability of at least 59 Stuart tank offered great offensive punch, but in most occasions, Partisans used them in smaller groups and often supporting infantry in attack, reducing their offensive power. The 37 mm main gun was by 1944-1945 standards obsolete, and ineffective in its role as an anti-tank weapon. But as on the Yugoslav Front most enemy tanks were older types (such as the L6/40 and H35/39), it was not that much of a problem. But on several occasion, modern German tanks (and self-propelled vehicles) were almost immune to this gun, which forced Partisans to use the 6-pdr gun of the AEC armored cars. This was the main reason why the Partisans modified a number of damaged Stuarts and armed them with German captured weapons in an attempt to increase their firepower, proving they had the skill and imagination necessary to do such modifications effectively so that they could be used in combat. The Stuart proved to be very important to the Partisans and was involved in many hard-fought battles for the liberation of Yugoslavia.
A column of Stuart tanks preparing for an attack on Mostar in 1945. Source
Light Tank, M3A3 Specifications
Dimensions
Length 5.03 m, Width 2.52 m, Height 2.57 m,
Total weight, battle ready
14.7 t
Crew
4 (driver, driver’s assistant, gunner and commander)
Propulsion
Continental W-670
Speed
58 km/h, 32 km/h (cross-country)
Range
217 km
Armament
37 mm M6 gun, with three 7.62 mm machine guns
Armor
10-44.5 mm
Sources
The Stuart light tank series, Bryan Perrett, Osprey Publishing London. Tanks of the world, George Forty, Hermes House, Zbornik dokumenata i podataka o Narodnooslobodilačkom ratu naroda Jugoslavije, Beograd 1975. Armored units and vehicles in Croatia during WW II, part I, Allied armored vehicles, Dinko Predoević, Digital Point Rijeka 2002, Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu 1941-1945, Bojan B. Dumitrijević and Dragan Savić, Institut za savremenu istoriju, Beograd 2011. Modernizacija i intervencija, Jugoslovenske oklopne jedinice 1945-2006, Institut za savremenu istoriju, Beograd 2010. World War II Tanks and Fighting Vehicles, Leland Ness, HarperCollins Publishers 2002.
https://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/m3/opis.htm Magazine Arsenal No. 15, Aleksandar Radić, Beograd 2008,
Naoružanje drugog svetsko rata-USA, Duško Nešić, Beograd 2008.
https://www.znaci.net/arhiv/fotografije?slika_po_strani=50&fraza=&stranica=3
https://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_M3_M3A1_Stuarts.pdf
United States of America (1984-2000)
Main Battle Tank – 890 Built
The Improved Performance M1, often referred to as IPM1 or M1IP, was a stopgap before the introduction of the M1A1 upgraded standard. It was intended to implement some of the features being added on the M1E1 prototype and rush it into a production Abrams while some of the other planned features were undergoing further testing, such as the Rheinmetall 120mm cannon. There were also studies that indicated the increasing lethality of Soviet ammunition, which led to the requirement for the M1E1 project to also increase the protection of the vehicle to withstand these new threats. This stop-gap vehicle featured a new turret based on the one intended for the M1E1, sometimes referred to as the ‘long turret’. This turret offered greater protection and a rear turret bustle rack for more stowage space for the crew’s personal gear and to secure their gear better. There were also some improvements to the suspension and powerpack to accommodate the heavier turret and the rear side skirts were adjusted from field feedback. This resulted in about 890 of these M1IP’s were produced between 1984 and 1986.
Fresh Production M1IP, note no unit markings. Source: N/A
The M1 Abrams Design
The M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, named after General Creighton Abrams, entered service in 1980 and remains the United States’ front line tank as the M1A2 (from 1992). The original M1 Abrams was armed with a 105 mm M68A1 rifled cannon and was the US military’s first vehicle that was deployed with base composite armor.
Weighing in at 55 tons, it had a high degree of mobility with a Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine, generating 1500 hp and giving the tank a top speed of 45 mph (72.5 km/h). The tank rolled on a torsion bar suspension with seven road wheels, with the drive sprocket at the rear and idler at the front.
Orthographic view of an M1IP. Source: Hunnicutt’s Abrams
Armor Changes
The turret armor of the M1IP was one of the main upgrades over the standard Abrams, however, it is not easy to distinguish between the standard and upgraded versions. The frontal thickness of the turret was increased by the addition of a larger armor module. This larger module not only changed the visual features of the tank turret but also provided additional protection, improving it over the existing M1 standard. In gross terms, this supposed an increase from 400mm RHAe (Rolled Homogeneous Armor equivalent) protection against Kinetic Energy (KE) ammunition to about 450mm, and from 700mm RHAe protection against Chemical Energy (CE), better known as HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) ammunition, to about 900mm RHAe.
This additional armor increased the total weight and altered the weight distribution, which lead to a need to reinforce the suspension and make adjustments to the powerpack in order to accommodate the roughly extra ton from the armor and new turret design. These changes reduced the tank’s top speed performance by roughly 3.5 mph (5.6 km/h) down to 41.5 mph (67 km/h) from the original 45 mph (72.5 km/h).
Quality of Life Improvements
The first generation side skirts on the Abrams covered roughly half the rear drive sprocket. This allowed mud to build up in the area and cause the tracks to come out of alignment. Several field modifications were done to alleviate the issue, ranging from cutting a portion of the rear skirt off or just fully removing the rear skirt segment. The final solution was what we see on the current model Abrams, with the familiar smooth blended cut out around most of the drive sprocket.
Rear side skirt comparison, illustrated by Perry Manley
The original M1 Abrams also had issues with crew gear stowage, with limited space inside and the unpopular rear turret storage straps. This lead to the M1E1 project adding a rear turret bustle rack. This was also passed on to the M1IP and is probably one of the most recognizable features of the tank. Following the M1IP and M1A1, the basic M1’s would receive a field kit to install a rear turret bustle as well.
Identification
One of the easiest ways to distinguish between the first generation M1 Abrams and an M1IP had originally been the turret bustle but, as time went on and a retrofit kit was distributed to standard M1’s, the M1 and M1IP became difficult to differentiate using this method. The M1IP does retain the 105 mm M68A1 cannon from the M1’s along with the ability to field and fire the same ammunition as the previous.
However, the one key feature that was not shared over time was the gun mantlet. With the armor increase to the ‘long turret’, the mantlet was also thickened. This resulted in previous features being adjusted. The lifting bracket above the gun was originally a straight piece of metal, but on the M1IP, it featured a gooseneck shape. This is still seen today on the modern Abrams. There was also the Gunner’s Auxiliary Sight (GAS) port, which was now split between two faces of armor instead of on a single face which looks ‘cut off’ on the bottom half of the port.
Diagram of the M1 vs M1IP mantel. Source: Vodnik on armorama.com
Along with these was an adjustment of the tow cables on the turret side, now positioned further back from the sloped frontal cheeks. The removal of the retainer ring off the drive sprocket was thought to also be a feature of the M1IP, but this is not entirely true, as there are images contradicting this claim. This feature could simply be due to production changes from early to later models.
Deployment
The M1IP was deployed to various US Army units around the globe, primarily in the continental United States and then to West Germany.
M1IP on exercise in West Germany. Source: N/A
The M1IP would achieve fame during the 1987 Canadian Army Trophy. The Canadian Army Trophy (CAT) was a tank gunnery competition between NATO members dating back to 1963 being sponsored by the Canadian government and held in West Germany. This contest was intended to bring out excellence, camaraderie, and competition between the members of the alliance. The competition would slowly evolve from just stationary gunnery to a more realistic simulation of combat conditions, including driving skills and the ability to fight as a combat unit. Each nation was invited to place a team (or several) of what would be equal to a tank company of four platoons of three vehicles (12 vehicles in total) as their representatives. The scoring of the competition was based on a formula that used main gun hits on targets, machine gun hits on targets, time it took to complete a run, ammunition remaining, and shots off target. The winner of the competition, based on the highest score, would receive the Silver Centurion Trophy (based off a Canadian Centurion) and would host the trophy the next time around (usually every 2 years). The last of these competitions was held in 1991.
Early production M1IP’s were used by the 4/8th Cavalry during the Canadian Army Trophy (CAT) shoot in 1987, and used the mascot ‘Bill the Cat’. This would be the first time an American team would come first and bring home the Silver Centurion in the competition, beating the German 124th Panzerbataillon platoons equipped with Leopard 2’s.
M1IP’s partaking in CAT 87 competition.
“Bill the cat” as seen on one of the M1IP’s from 4/8th Cavalry at the CAT87 competition with crew members. Source: N/A
The M1IP would see deployment during the US-led coalition to Saudi Arabia and Operation Desert Shield in 1990. However, fearing the Iraqis had modern Soviet ammunition for their T-72’s, many units had their M1IP’s (and even M1A1’s) replaced with Depleted Uranium reinforced M1A1HA’s right before Operation Desert Storm was launched. It remains, however unclear, exactly how many of the 105 mm armed Abrams did see combat, as most were replaced by 120mm Abrams before hostilities commenced. If any did see combat the numbers would be fairly low. Although one could judge they would have been lethal enough based off the performance of USMC M60A1’s that saw combat around the Kuwait International Airport, where the 105 mm M68 cannons took out Iraqi armor at an on par efficiency to that of the 120 mm on the M1A1’s.
M1IP on maneuvers in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield note the markings belonging to the US Army 24th infantry division. Source: N/A
They would continue to see use as front line units throughout the early 1990s, most notably in South Korea. By the 2000s, most M1IP’s and standard M1’s were relegated to the Army reserves. However, in the mid-2000s, a program was started to upgrade some of these old 105mm armed Abrams to the M1A2 standard through a total plant refit, resulting in a cheaper solution to totally new M1A2’s at almost the same quality. So, although the M1IP was phased out of service along with the original M1’s that mounted the 105 mm cannon, around 1,000 of them had their lives extended by being converted up to the standard for the modern-day M1A2
Conclusion
The M1IP Abrams has been often an overlooked model of the Abrams series, although it was one of the first steps towards today’s Abrams tanks. From the simple addition of a turret basket to the increase of the area for the armor array, it would set forth the steps that we still can see in the design of the Abrams in today’s M1A2’s. Although it may not have seen combat anywhere near the scale of the M1A1 and M1A2, the M1IP was still a solid tank for its crew and the U.S. Army. Even to this day, the M1IP is still in service, for some of the modern M1A2’s in their hearts and souls are that of an M1IP built in the mid-1980’s.
Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
32′ (gun forward) 25′ (without gun) x 9.5′ x 9.4′
(9.77m (7.92m) x 3.66m x 2.89m)
M1IP ‘Boogie Men’ in desert camouflage and operational markings, Operation Desert Shield, 1990-1991.
M1IP with a 3-tone camouflage at the National Training Center (NTC).
M1IP of the 4/8th Cavalry unit during the CAT87 competition, 1987.
What-if winter camouflage of an M1IP based on color schemes present on M1 vehicles during exercises.
M1IP in a 3-tone camouflage serving with the California National Guard.
Front, rear, top and side views of an M1IP in the base forest green color.
All illustrations were done by Cut_22. Funded by Christian Henle through our Paypal.
Tanks Encyclopedia Magazine, #1 Republished
The first issue of the Tank Encyclopedia Magazine has been remastered and rereleased. It covers vehicles ranging from the French WWI Frot-Turmel-Laffly Armoured Road Roller up to the Salvadoran Cold War Marenco M114 converted vehicles. The star of this issue is a full article on the Improved Protection version of the famous M1 Abrams – the M1IP.
Our Archive section covers the history of the Mephisto A7V tank, the only one of its kind that still survives to this day in Queensland museum in Australia.
It also contains a modeling article on how to create Weathering and Mud Effects. And the last article from our colleagues and friends from Plane Encyclopedia covers the story of the Sikorsky S-70C-2 Black Hawk in Chinese service!
All the articles are well researched by our excellent team of writers and are accompanied by beautiful illustrations and photos. If you love tanks, this is the magazine for you! Buy this magazine on Payhip!
People’s Republic of China (1950-~1990)
Medium Tank – 1800+ Supplied (T-34-85), Unknown Number Converted (‘Type 58’)
The Chinese Upgrade of the T-34-85
‘Type 58’ is an unofficial name which refers to the mysterious Chinese upgrade package to the T-34-85. All T-34-85s in operational service with the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) came to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from the USSR between 1950-1955, along with all types of military materiel as part of the Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance (1950). These were briefly the PLA’s most numerous tank, but once license production of the T-54 MBT began in 1958 (I.e. the Type 59), the T-34-85 appears to have been relegated over time to lesser roles, especially in the late 1970s and 1980s. Nevertheless, seeing as though the majority were still in active service even by that time, it appears as though most T-34-85s were given an upgrade package which has come to be known as the ‘Type 58’. Little is known about the details of this package, and what is confirmed is only obtained through photographic evidence. What is evident, despite varying stories from different sources, is that the PRC never produced the T-34-85 or any sort of variant of the design. However, it is more than evident that the T-34-85 had a long and varied service life in the PRC.
Chinese T-34-85 ‘406’ in the Beijing Tank Museum, 2013. On the left are two IS-2s. Source: Wikipedia
Context: Tanks of the PLA as of 1st October 1949
The PLA held a major victory parade to mark the foundation of the PRC on 1st October 1949 in Beijing (with lesser parades in other major cities). All types of military materiel took part in this parade, including tanks. However, by 1949, most of these tanks were outdated and were in need of replacement. Perhaps the majority of these tanks were ex-Japanese which were mostly captured by the NRA (National Revolutionary Army – the army of the Nationalists – the Kuomintang / Guomindang, KMT / GMD) during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), and then captured by the PLA during the Chinese Civil War (1946-1949). Most of these Japanese tanks were the Chi-Ha, Chi-Ha Shinhoto, and the Ha-Go, but other types were in service in lesser numbers such as the Type 94 TK, Type 95 So-Ki, and so on.
The PLA also captured many of the NRA’s M3A3 and M5A1 Stuart tanks, along with other American vehicles such as the LVT(A)-4, LVT-4, M3A1 Scout Car, and many others. These were originally supplied via Lend-Lease to the Chinese Expeditionary Force (CEF) during the Burma Campaign (1942-1945) but were retained and used in the Civil War. The CEF’s M4A4 Shermans were all confiscated by the USA after the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War for fear that they may be used aggressively and not defensively, thus sparking a civil war (a war which came nonetheless).
The PLA also fielded some rarer vehicles, such as an M4A2 Sherman, and at least one T-26 M1937, to name just a couple of examples.
As such, one can understand just how desperate the Chinese PLA was to obtain new tanks. Therefore, the PRC turned to its Communist ‘ally’, the USSR, for aid. Despite ideological differences and a chequered history of relations between the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) and the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), under the Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance (1950), the USSR agreed to supply the PRC with all the assistance that a new Communist state would need to prosper (although this fell short of nuclear weapons technology, despite persistent Chinese demands).
Context: Soviet Arms Sales to the PRC, 1950-1955
In the years 1950-1955, the PRC purchased a huge variety of weapons and military equipment of all types from the USSR to replace their outdated weapons. Over 3000 vehicles are reported to have been supplied to the PLA from the USSR 1950-1955.
1950 – 300 T-34-85s, 60 IS-2s and 40 ISU-122s (to be clear, the original model armed with the 122mm A-19S, not the later ISU-122S with the 122mm D-25S), which were organized into 10 regiments (30 T-34-85, 6 IS-2 heavy tanks, and 5 ISU-122s in each).
1951 – 96 T-34-85s, and 64 SU-76s, which were organized into 4 regiments.
1952 – 312 T-34-85s, and 208 SU-76s, which were organized into 13 regiments.
1953 – 480 T-34-85s, and 320 SU-76s, which were organized into 13 regiments (based on a total number of 40 regiments at this point).
1954 – 649 T-34-85s, 320 SU-76s, 22 IS-2s, 99 SU-100s, 67 ISU-152s, and 9 ARVs (at least 2 of which were based on the ISU chassis, the others likely being based on the T-34).
1955 – No figures are available, but there were known shipments in 1955. Based on varying estimates for the number of T-34-85s in China, 127 T-34-85s might have been included in this shipment, but this is not confirmed.
72 additional ARVs and engineering vehicles were also supplied in this period.
Total 1950-1954: 1837 T-34-85s (some estimates suggest as many as 1964 by 1955), 82 IS-2s, 40 ISU-122s, 67 ISU-152s, 99 SU-100s, and 704 SU-76s. This gives a total of 2829 tanks, (excluding ARVs and engineering vehicles) organized into 67 regiments between 1950 and 1954, although some estimates suggest that 3000 armored vehicles were sold to the PRC between 1950 and 1955. No T-34/76s are known to have been supplied to the PRC, even though many were supplied to North Korea.
These T-34-85s were a huge mixture of tanks from different factories including Krasnoye Sormovo 112, Omsk 174, and UTZ 183. No Czechoslovak or Polish T-34s were supplied to the PRC via this set of programmes.
These arms sales were not without some controversy. If not from the outset, then from early on, the PRC’s leadership was aware that they were being sold outdated weapons at very high costs. This is typical behaviour of the USSR, as one need only look at Soviet arms deals to the Spanish Republicans (1936-1939) or the Chinese Nationalists (1937-1941) to see examples of this. In fact, the PRC’s leadership would later, during the Sino-Soviet Split in the mid-1950s / early 1960s allege that the USSR had scammed them.
Chinese Production of the T-34-85?
Whilst sources on early PRC tanks are sketchy (and likely untrustworthy), there is a story which circulates across various modern Chinese sources that suggests T-34-85 was intended for production in the PRC before the T-54 was accepted instead. This is not the same story as typically derived from western sources, which suggest the ‘Type 58’ was a Chinese copy of the T-34-85. There are multiple versions of this story, two of which will be reproduced below and then critiqued. One version of the story is as follows:
Story One
In 1954, the PRC asked the USSR for permission to produce the T-34-85 indigenously by 1958. This is because the Chinese leadership felt that the PRC should be self-sufficient in producing its own military materiel, as well as maintaining it. The USSR agreed to this request, seeing as though they had superior replacements for the Soviet Army in production anyway (namely the T-54 and its variants). The PRC had managed to translate all the documents of the vehicles provided to them and therefore began to organize license-production of the T-34-85 in the same year with the designation ‘Type 58’ [this is a highly dubious claim]. However, production was slow to start.
The simple fact is that the PRC was unprepared for any form of large scale industry in the years following the Communist victory in 1950 because industry across the country was heavily disrupted and damaged due to the war. In many respects, it was also never ready for serious tank production beyond a few workshop conversions.
Despite the poor state of the Chinese industry, some workshops had managed to produce a set of tracks in 1955. By May 1956, a gearbox was also successfully made. Finally, in February 1957, a prototype V2-34 diesel engine was made, meaning that the PRC was ready to organize production lines for the T-34-85 and was due to begin manufacture of the tank in 1958.
However, as the trials for manufacturing T-34 parts had gone on for so long, negotiations for the licenses and relevant documents to produce the T-54 had come to fruition and the T-54 was accepted for production instead. This is supposedly just shortly before a completely Chinese-made T-34-85 prototype was produced, OR just before trials of Chinese-made prototype T-34-85 were complete (evidence for which is lacking), OR just after a short production run of Chinese-made T-34-85s had been complete (evidence for which is certainly lacking). There is even a suggestion that ‘Type 58’ was to be the name for the indigenously produced T-34-85, but evidence for this is lacking. Whatever the case may be, once production of the T-54 (or more accurately, ‘Type 59’, as the locally-produced Chinese variant was known) began, Chinese production of the T-34-85 was abandoned and only replacement parts were made for their repair facilities.
Story Two
Another version of the story is thus (Source: Weibo):
The PRC began considering production of its own tanks in the years 1953-1954 but these were not fruitful experiments. As a result, the PRC decided, after long negotiations with the USSR, to produce the T-34-85 indigenously. It was expected that they would be able to fully produce the T-34-85 by 1956, with mass production able to commence by 1958. The PRC also began to assemble Soviet-produced spare parts, but into what is unclear seeing as though the USSR is unlikely to have supplied spare hulls.
In 1955, Plant 674 (a military factory in northeastern China) was able to fully overhaul T-34-85s. By 1956, the plant had produced the main components of the tank including the hull and turret. However, it became increasingly obvious that the T-34-85 was an obsolete design. From this, the PLA began to develop other designs based on the T-34-85 design. These, supposedly, include designs called the ‘T-34-1’, ‘T-34-2’, and ‘T-34-3’. Some redesigns of the turret and engine were proposed. However, these designs never left the drawing boards. These developments supposedly led to the ’59-16′ light tank (of which scale models existed, and possibly one full scale prototype), but development was scrapped when the USSR supplied the rights to produce the T-54A as license production, thus leading to the Type 59 MBT series.
Reality?
Whether these stories of the PRC producing T-34-85s are true or not remains a mystery. However, it is the author’s belief that sources with this story have, at best simply confused various true events, and at worst circulated pure rumors and inaccuracies. One could argue that the story of Chinese T-34-85 production has too many variations and inconsistencies between sources to be true – for example, there is dispute over whether a T-34-85 prototype was nearly produced, produced and partially trialed, or whether a short production run of T-34-85s was made. Nonetheless, it is the author’s belief that some reality can be salvaged.
Factory 674
It is certain that the Chinese wanted repair facilities for the T-34-85, and it is known that major repair centres were set up in Beijing, Baotou (in Inner Mongolia, where the Type 59 was later produced), and Plant 674 at Harbin (as referred to in Story Two) is also real. According to Engineering Communist China: One Man’s Story By Youli Sun and Dan Ling, in 1952, Harbin First Machinery Factory (Factory 674) (Heilongjiang Province, northeastern China) was organised to produce tanks (probably T-34-85s), with 3000 workers employed in the complex. Thirty Soviet Russian advisors, some ranking as high as Colonel (Polkovnik), were also stationed there and helped run the workshops on a day to day basis. They were apparently very arrogant, constantly chasing after Russian women in the town, and were much envied by locals. Despite being intended to produce tanks, all that the factory did at that time was repair T-34s damaged in Korea. The damage often concerned repairing large holes in the glacis plate. The Chinese workers at this factory sometimes only had two hours of sleep and worked overtime frequently, with tanks coming in and out at night, but did so willingly because they genuinely believed that they were building a new socialist society that would bring them prosperity. By contrast, Soviet advisors at the plant only worked eight hour shifts, which one worker believed was because they had already achieved communism in the USSR.
Repairs with Spares or Local Production?
These repair facilities would have needed spare parts to function. It is known that the USSR supplied most of these parts, although it is reported by Weibo, and proven through photographic evidence that some parts, such as radios, were locally produced. However, it is unclear just how many types of parts were produced locally. For full repairs, parts including replacement tracks, engines, lights, electronics, gearboxes, and so on, would need to be produced. This is close indigenous production of the T-34-85 but is, of course, not the same thing.
It is highly plausible that the production of these parts began as early as 1956, seeing as though some tanks would have been in service for over six years and would need replacements, especially those damaged in Korea. It is also likely that it took until 1956 or 1957 for all to be ready, seeing as though Chinese industry needed rebuilding after the civil war – something which took time. Thus, it is perfectly plausible that the PRC began producing its own replacement parts for the T-34-85. Thus, it is very believable, almost certainly true, that the PRC produced all kinds of its own spare parts for T-34-85s.
However, the question remains as to whether the PRC actually produced, or began consdering production of the T-34-85. These are separate points which must be dealt with.
Story Two is fairly plausible regarding the former, but only up to a certain point. Again, despite the PRC’s leadership being aware of the T-34-85 being outdated, it was, indeed, their best option for production. Local Chinese designs had, if they existed (see Sidenote II below), fallen flat. The difficulty with Story Two is that it refers to designs such as the ‘T-34-1’, ‘T-34-2’, and ‘T-34-3’ and accepts their historicity uncritically. If these are the designs presented in infamous videogame, World of Tanks, this detail can be immediately dismissed (see Sidenote II). In fact, the source makes many claims which are now widely rejected (see Sidenote V below). The result is that it is difficult to accept any assertion made in the story without corroborating evidence (such as contemporary photographs). Nonetheless, it is plausible that the PRC had locally produced a prototype hull and turret, but this remains to be proven by photographic or literary (such as an army document) evidence.
There are three key reasons to doubt the PRC ever produced a full T-34-85:
Most sources, both western and Chinese, suggest that an agreement with the USSR was made as early as 1956 to produce the T-54 in the PRC. The first batch of these ‘Type 59s’ was delivered in 1958 using Soviet-supplied kits, and was accepted into service in 1959, hence the designation ‘Type 59’. Thus, it makes no sense for any work on full-scale T-34-85 production to take place in the PRC as late as 1957. Whether the PRC intended to produce the T-34-85 back in 1954 or 1955 remains unclear, but plausible. If any work on the T-34-85 was taking place by 1958, it must have been stopped in favor of Type 59 assembly and production.
Yuri Pasholok, a famous Russian tank historian, reports that all the ‘Type 58s’ and T-34-85s he studied whilst in the PRC had Soviet serial numbers.
Stories of Chinese T-34-85 production proliferated in the post-World of Tanks era, which is a video-game full of historical inaccuracies. (See Sidenote II below).
Therefore, without further evidence, the story of Chinese T-34-85 production (beyond major overhauls using some indigenously produced designs) is perhaps best regarded as nothing more than a rumor until more evidence can be found. Nonetheless, the following is a reconstructed history of Chinese T-34-85 production:
Chinese T-34-85 Production: The Likely Story
At some point around 1952, the PRC had begun experimenting with its own tank production. The PLA had created its own armored cars during the Civil War, and there is some tentative evidence to suggest tank production was considered in the years following the Civil War. When these projects fell flat, the PRC decided, sometime around 1952 and 1954, that it would be best to produce its own T-34-85s. This was for a variety of reasons such as the sheer cost of Soviet imports, and the desire to be self-sufficient (as the Sino-Soviet relationship was largely expedient, and the two only had a veneer of ideological unity). The USSR agreed to allow the PRC to begin license production of the T-34-85, seeing as though they were producing more modern vehicles such as the T-54 MBT. It was thought that the PRC could produce their first prototype T-34-85 by 1956, and begin mass production by 1958.
However, production was plagued by teething problems. Whilst the PRC is likely to have produced parts such as tracks, wheels, and other smaller components at Factory 674 by 1956 it is unclear if they actually produced a turret and hull (although highly possible that they did). Factory 674, nonetheless, remained the most important repair station for T-34-85s, and chiefly made repairs using Soviet-supplied parts. However, all this progress was quickly dashed because in 1956, the PRC had reached an agreement with the USSR to produce the T-54 MBT, starting with assembly of Soviet parts (rather like kits), with a gradual shift towards indigenous production as the Type 59.
T-34-85s were repaired in the PRC even after the Type 59 entered production because the PRC did not produce enough modern MBTs or light tanks (such as the Type 62 light tank, starting officially from 1962, with prototyping taking place from 1958) to fully replace the T-34-85. The Sino-Soviet Split of the 1960s meant that the PRC no longer received Soviet-made spare parts and therefore, some components from the Type 59 and Type 62 are believed to have been used for repairs. This is likely where the idea of Chinese T-34-85s being given new diesel engines comes from, seeing as though the Type 62’s 12150L-3 V-12 was a diesel engine, although the use of this engine on T-34-85s is not confirmed.
The so-called ‘Type 58’ was a totally separate upgrade, to which this article now turns.
‘Type 58’ Upgrade Package
Photographic evidence clearly shows that Chinese T-34-85s were fitted with an upgrade package, perhaps beginning in 1958, although the exact date cannot be ascertained. In any case, throughout the 1950s and 1960s, this package, widely known as the ‘Type 58’, became increasingly common. The difficulty with understanding this upgrade is that no official military documents are available to corroborate stories told in Chinese internet sources, and it is difficult to discern what exactly the package consisted of, seeing as though period photos are too few and not detailed enough to show characteristics. It is also clear that some other upgrades took place on a local scale, meaning that these, too, must be separate from the ‘Type 58’ design. To complicate matters further, many ‘Type 58s’ in Chinese museums today have been modified and often inaccurately restored for display purposes, which means that some technical details are not original.
In any case, ‘Type 58’ does not refer to Chinese-produced T-34-85s because, as related above, such tanks did not exist.
Design Features
Photographic evidence suggests that this ‘Type 58’ package consisted of:
A hard point for stowing a Type 54 12.7mm machine gun, always on the right cheek of the turret, which appears to be a copy of the stowage mount as seen on the rear of the T-54 and Type 59 turret. The machine guns would be covered with a canvas for foul weather. The machine gun, when stowed, would face the rear.
A distinctive second ‘cupola’ in place of the original loader’s hatch. The original hatch was removed and a simple steel cylinder fitted over the hatch hole. Some of these cupolas had crudely made vision slits (apparently without optics or even simple glass) although others did not feature vision slits (meaning these are more accurately described as ‘superstructures’). On top was a crude hatch door, and a mount for a Type 54 machine gun, apparently a copy of the T-54’s mount. Some ‘Type 58s’ also had a small ‘V’ shape (as viewed from above) piece of metal welded at the front, connecting both cupolas, but not all have this feature.
A new rear transmission-rear hull plate hinge system. This was an exterior rod type, and essentially strengthened the joint when opening the rear of the tank for inspection, making it superior to the stock factory hinge system. Chinese SU-100s and T-34-based ARVs were also given this upgrade. However, the reader should note well that some seemingly non-upgraded T-34-85s (IE, non-‘Type 58s’) feature this hinge system also, possibly meaning that this hinge system was a separate but equally as popular upgrade. However, there do not appear to be any ‘Type 58s’ without the hinge system, casting doubts onto such a conclusion.
‘Type 58’ turret detail, showing the new 12.7mm Type 54 stowage hardpoints. The ‘8-1’ star was not often painted on this side of the turret, and the small size indicates it to be an inaccurate museum addition. Source: ‘T-34 Interest Group’ on Facebook.
‘Type 58’, with the new rear hinge detail. The exhaust pipes have been cut short, likely by museum staff. Source: chinesearmory.blogspot
Some internet sources also suggest that the ‘Type 58’ package included a new Chinese-produced diesel engine, but this cannot be confirmed. As related above, this is likely the result of using Type 62 parts to repair T-34-85s. Furthermore, it is reported that the ‘Type 58’ package included a new belly escape hatch, but photographic evidence for this is lacking.
There are other details which may have been included in the package, but are either internal (and therefore not noticeable with current photographic evidence) or are difficult to discern from inaccurate museum restorations. These features include: new optics (chiefly headlamps), removed Type 54 stowage hardpoints, new fenders, new fuel tanks, new or non-standard handrails, removed engine covers, and so on. Most of these changes appear to be museum conversions, but due to the mysterious nature of the package, not everything should be taken as totally confirmed. Local repairs, upgrades, and modifications to the T-34-85, likely taking place on a regional level are a certainty.
History
As explained above, the history of the package is incredibly sketchy. According to Weibo, the Jinan Military Region is believed to have been the first region to upgrade T-34-85s with the so-called ‘Type 58’ package. The reason was simple – it was felt that the vehicle needed greater anti-aircraft protection. As a result, work began to install a mount for a 12.7mm machine gun on a new cupola. The machine gun chosen was an upgraded version of the Type 54 featuring a set of high-altitude sights known as the Type 58 (although this remains unconfirmed). Is is believed by Weibo that this is where the unofficial name ‘Type 58’ comes from for upgraded T-34-85s, but others suggest that it is because the package was created in 1958. (See Sidenote I below).
What is believed to be an example of the ‘Type 58 12.7mm machine gun’, albeit in an infantry-use mount. Source: sadefensejournal.com
Only around forty or fifty T-34-85s in Jinan were upgraded with the package, but it is obvious that countless more T-34-85s, the majority of them outside Jinan, were upgraded, too. Weibo reports, and the author is inclined to agree, that the ‘Type 58’ package was copied over time by other military regions, perhaps taking place over a long time between the 1950s and 1970s. This accounts for many slight differences in the package, such as the style of hinges used, the cupola’s crudeness (some had vision blocks, others did not), and the use of joining plates on the cupolas on some but not all examples. This also accounts for the existence of some non-upgraded T-34-85s in the PRC in the 1960s and even preserved in museums today.
Operational History
1950 – 1966
Some question why no ‘Type 58’ was ever recorded or photographed as part of offensive units operating during the Korean War. The simple and straightforward answer is that they did not exist at this time. Many T-34-85s were fielded by the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army (PVA), along with reports suggesting that SU-76s, and even IS-2s were fielded (the latter almost certainly did not see combat). The story of T-34-85 ‘215’ is, of course, mythical, and on par with CCP myths such as ‘Gongchen Tank’, or ‘Comrade Lei Feng’.
Regardless, by sheer numbers, the T-34-85 formed the bulk of the Chinese armored divisions until being replaced over time by the newly-built Type 59s and Type 62s starting from the 1960s. However, this was a process which took thirty years.
1966 – 1980
Photographic evidence seems to suggest that the ‘Type 58’ was gradually phased out, especially from the 1970s and were used instead as gate guardians, training vehicles, and in other lesser roles. This is likely due to the replacement of T-34-85s with Type 59s and Type 62s. However, it also reported that the ‘Type 58’ could not return to repair facilities at Baotou due to the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution in 1966 (although no more specific reason is given), which might contribute to the abandonment of stocks of T-34-85s.
According to Weibo, during the 1960s the PLA transferred many of its WWII-era vehicles for militia anti-tank training purposes, and such efforts were accelerated in 1969 as a result of the Sino-Soviet Border Conflict. Despite this, dummy tanks – of varying quality (some were made from mud, some from scrap metal, some from real tank wrecks, and some were real tanks) – were more common for training purposes.
A Chinese anti-tank training booklet dated to 1965. Source: Weibo.
Whilst it is believed that the ‘Type 58’ never saw combat, although T-34-85s (or, possibly, ‘Type 58s’) were reportedly issued to the Tank Regiment attached to the 54th Army Corps (likely the 11th Armored Brigade) during the Sino-Vietnamese War (1979). However, these T-34-85s are not believed to have seen active combat during the war. Weibo reports that the unit was the only unit equipped with T-34-85s at that time, but such a detail is unlikely.
1980 – 1990
In the 1980s, the PRC’s economy had significantly improved and it was able to produce more MBTs to replace the T-34-85. Weibo reports that in 1981, the 28th Army conducted exercises in Yuncheng, Shanxi Province, simulating a Soviet attack on the area. This exercise prompted major reforms of the PLA, with a desire for infantry fighting vehicles, gunship helicopters, and the need to retire older vehicles such as the T-34-85. As a result, most T-34-85s and SU-100s were retired shortly after.
The fate of a retired T-34-85 or ‘Type 58’ was one of the following:
Sent to a museum or memorial.
Cannibalised for parts for the few T-34-85s which remained in service.
Test vehicles for new technologies such as an automatic fire extinguisher, laser ranging devices, and night vision sights. The latter features would be used on the Type 69 MBT.
Sent to scrapyards and destroyed.
Abandoned on the spot.
Note that this T-34-85 (or ‘Type 58’) apparently was used to test laser sights, which can be seen above the gun barrel. Source: Weibo.
According to Weibo, in the 1980s, some T-34-85s belonging to the marines were placed on shore defence duties until they were replaced with the Type 59. These were likely the last T-34-85s in active service, although some sources report that the last to be retired were stationed on the Sino-Russian border.
1990 – Present Day
In May 1987, the so-called Black Dragon Wildfire broke out in the Greater Khinghan Range. This was the largest wildfire to hit China in over three-hundred years, and the flames spread into the USSR. A drought had caused dry vegetation around the Amur River, and due to a sparse population, the flames were left to spread at first, and Chinese reports suggest that the fire was caused by a careless worker who spilt oil from a brush cutter. Conventional firefighting vehicles could not be used to enter the area because the fire was so immense that the oxygen supply in the air was cut off, and burning projectiles were raining down across roads. Weibo repots that as a result, the Shenyang Military Region gave firefighters twenty T-34-85s, and water cannons were added to them in place of their main guns.
However, according to the Liaoshen evening news, the idea came later in 1994 from firefighting engineer and captain of Shenyang Firefighting Squadron (1969-1983), Chen Songhe. Chen was inspired by a chemical fire in the 1970s, saying:
“Once, a truck full of gas tanks was on fire, and two gas tanks exploded in the air. The heat radiation [forced] the firefighters to slam [onto] the ground. I saw with my own eyes that the fragments of the cylinder that exploded later would flatten trees more than three meters high [up to] twenty or thirty meters away. While fighting the oil fires, the firefighters generally could only stand outside the danger [zone] because of their outdated equipment. [However,] If a tank rushes into the sea of fire, you are not afraid.”
In 1994, Chen obtained permission for the project and went to a tank repair centre in Shijiazhuang (Heibei Province) where he found many old T-34-85s. The T-34-85 in the best condition was chosen, and testing showed that even this old vehicle could still reach 60 km/h. The vehicle was converted and tested by 1996. It features two 1.5m long water cannons, one 50mm and another 100mm in diameter, in place of the main gun. However, the tank did not have an internal water supply, so it had to have a support vehicle pump water into it. To control the worst effects of the heat, the tank tracks were sealed together, and water sprinkler systems were added to the side of the hulls in order to control the immediate outside temprature. A dozerblade was also added to the front of the tank to tackle obstacles and push down walls. Since then, more firefighting tanks have been built using more modern chassis such as the Type 69.
Another view of Chen Songhe’s firefighting T-34-85. Source: Liaoshen Evening News.
Some T-34-85s participated in flood fighting operations in the June-September floods. These were later handed over to Heilongjiang province and were replaced with Type 63 and Type 62-based firefighting vehicles. Some bulldozer conversions were reportedly used both militarily and commercially for construction projects.
The ‘Type 58’ and the remaining few T-34-85s are believed to have only been totally retired in the 1990s, when some were still stationed along the Soviet (later, Russian) border.
T-34-85s or ‘Type 58s’ being used in 2016 as target practice by the airforce for guided missiles. Source: Weibo.
Conclusions
The ‘Type 58’ appears to be nothing more than a fairly standardized upgrade package applied to most of the PLA’s Soviet-supplied T-34-85s. It probably originated shortly after the Type 59 entered production as a local upgrade which was copied by most regions operating the T-34-85. There is no concrete evidence to suggest that the PLA started work on producing the T-34-85 indigenously or any sort of copy or variant based on the chassis save for their own unique version of the SU-100T and the flamethrower-carrying prototype. Whilst many Chinese T-34-85s saw combat in the Korean War, the so-called ‘Type 58′ never saw combat and was likely retired by no later than the early 1990s, having mostly been in lesser roles for years. Evidence on the T-34-85 and ‘Type 58’s’ history in the PRC is scant, and many sources make dubious claims. Nonetheless, some historical fact can be tentatively pieced together.
‘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.
Different view of the above. Source: ‘T-34 Interest Group’ on Facebook.
Chinese T-34-85s on a parade to mark the one year anniversary of the founding of the PRC, 1st October 1950. Source: Wikipedia
A mixture of Chinese tanks, unknown location. On the right is a ‘Type 58’, as discerned by the new ‘cupola’, but the tank on the far left is a T-34-85, as discerned by the lack of cupola and DShK stowage hardpoints. Source: chinesearmory.blogspot
‘Type 58’ cupola detail. This type does not feature vision slits in the new cupola (left), but does feature a ‘V’ shaped piece of armor connecting the two. Source: ‘T-34 Interest Group’ on Facebook.
A supposed ‘T-34-85’ at the Korean War Museum in Dandong, Liaoning Province. In reality, the museum has taken a ‘Type 58’ and reconverted it to look like a Korean War era T-34-85 by removing the new cupola and the turret DShK hardpoints. Tellingly, the upgraded torsion bar hatch has been kept on the engine access hatch. Source: ‘T-34 Interest Group’ on Facebook.
T-34-based ARV in the Beijing Tank Museum. Although not visible in this photo, the engine access hatch also had the improved torsion bar hinge system. Source: net-maquettes.com
T-34-85s, SU-76s, and a Type 62 in Nankou, 1964. Note that these vehicles appear to show no upgrades, thus suggesting that the ‘Type 58’ was, indeed, a local upgrade which spread out to other regions of the PRC over time. Note well that these vehicles have been fairly well-maintained, as discerned from the fresh coats of paint.
Most T-34-85s and ‘Type 58s’ had three-digit tactical markings in white, but these tanks from a women’s battalion in 1952 have four-digit ones. It is also noted that T-34-85s belonging to the marines had ‘H’ followed by a three-digit number. Source: Weibo.
A ‘Type 58’ with a 12.7mm machine gun stowed in the turret and tarp deployed to protect the machine guns. To see a machine gun stowed on a ‘Type 58’ is quite rare. Source: Weibo.
Splashboard Upgrade?
It is reported by Weibo that after the Korean War, many Chinese T-34-85s were damaged and needed major overhauls. From 1952, Plant 674 began organising their repairs using imported Soviet-made parts. By spring 1956, the factory began organising local production of the T-34-85 (supposedly – see earlier comments) and began to modify the design based on combat experience and Soviet consultancy.
One particular issue to be dealt with was adding a splashboard to protect the driver and DT machine gun from mud and water. This was essentially a thin strip of metal held in place by two mounts below the DT mount and driver’s hatch, but above the spare track fasteners.
It is reported that all T-34-85s in the PRC had this upgrade, but this does not appear to be the case. Only T-34-85s on the 1955 National Day Parade can be seen with this feature, so if true, it is likely that only T-34-85s of the Beijing military region were upgraded with this feature.
Another, more complicated difficulty with this assertion is that the addition of a splashboard was a standard Soviet post-war production feature as proven by photographic evidence. However, Soviet production ended in 1946, long before the addition of splashboards to the PRC’s tanks was raised, so one can rule out the splashboard development being a joint PRC-USSR development. Furthermore, whilst Soviet splashboards varied from tank to tank (indicating local, not national upgrades), none of the examples on Chinese T-34-85s look different from ones seen on Soviet T-34-85s.
Therefore, on the balance of evidence, one can rule out the idea that the Chinese upgraded all of their T-34-85s with a new splashboard design. The difficulty is working out if all of this story about splashboard upgrades is untrue or not. Additionally, this conclusion only casts more doubt on the validity of Weibo’s other claims.
Chinese T-34-85s on parade in Tiananmen Square in 1955. Note that all of these have splashboards, and are also a mixture of factory subtypes, as discerned from the turrets. Source: Weibo.
Exhaust System Changes
One serious problem with the T-34-85 is that owing to the Sino-Soviet Split, the PRC was unable to receive spare parts for repairs for the vehicle. The air filter and exhaust systems were in dire need of replacing by the mid-1960s. One problem was that the fighting compartment would fill with exhaust gases meaning that the crew would suffer from carbon monoxide poisoning. Another was that water would enter the tank, especially when fording rivers or other water obstacles.
According to Weibo, the Nanjing Military Region hit upon a crude but effective solution. The original exhaust system was removed entirely, welded over, and replaced with a new system at the top of the engine deck extending from the cooling grills. They also installed a set of water-fording equipment.
In 1967, one vehicle was successfully tested with this design, so by 1968 all their ‘Type 58s’ (and likely other T-34-based vehicles) had been modified. However, in September 1969, the region was transferred a batch of Type 62s, so their Type 58s were transferred to Wuhan.
This exhaust upgrade was apparently quite rare, with only a handful of examples of the type known to exist today. The design has also been seen on at least two SU-100s and an ARV T-34 at the Beijing Tank Museum.
A ‘Type 58’ with the replacement exhaust system. Source: Weibo.
SU-100 at the Beijing Tank Museum with the exhaust upgrade and the new torsion bar hinge system.
Sidenote I: ‘Type 58’ name
There is a debate as to whether the designation ‘Type 58’ is an unofficial name or not. Modern Chinese sources only use the name ‘T-34-85’ and state that it is difficult to declare with certainty that ‘Type 58’ was ever officially used. One source reports that the name came from the 12.7mm Type 54 machine gun being upgraded in the late 1950s to feature high-altitude sights, with such upgraded models being known as ‘Type 58’ (although this is unconfirmed), and these were installed as part of the ‘Type 58’ package. Other sources say that the name comes from the package being created in 1958. Others, still, suggest that it is because the T-34-85 was intended to be locally produced in the PRC in 1958.
Without any firm conclusion on the origin, if only for the sake of differentiation, tanks with the upgrade package will be referred to as ‘Type 58’, and those without as ‘T-34-85’.
Sidenote II: Supposed Chinese Variants
The video-game, World of Tanks, is infamous for featuring fake tanks and designs which have had serious creative liberties taken. Seeing as though the PRC is a major market for the game, Wargaming (the creators of World of Tanks) contracted a client company, Kongzhong, to do ‘historical research’ for them to help create tanks to put into the game. Unfortunately, it appears as though Kongzhong have invented many tanks for the game, some of which were based on the T-34 design.
It should be made clear that there is no evidence for the PRC ever experimenting with T-34-based designs such as the so-called ‘T-34-1’. With regards to the ‘T-34-1’, World of Tanks gives a very inconsistent historical synopsis:
“In 1954, the Chinese government considered the possibility of launching production of the T-34-85 in China. At the same time, Chinese engineers proposed an alternative project: the T-34-1. While based on the T-34-85, the T-34-1’s transmission compartment and suspension were to be rearranged, reducing the overall weight and lowering the hull. In 1954, several designs of the vehicle, with varying turrets and armament, were developed. However, a prototype was never built.”
Such a design is ludicrous because it would be impossible to lower the silhouette of the T-34-85 without giving it a much smaller engine. However, World of Tanks suggest it featured a Type 12150L engine (a copy of the T-54 engine), the same engine as used on the Type 59 – not only a much larger tank, but one which was produced four years later in 1958 – thus making the design impossible. The suggestion of a design featuring a Type 62-like turret as early as 1954 is also ludicrous.
It is likely that the so-called ‘T-34-1’ design was inspired by an inaccurate identification or training drawing which attempts to depict a T-34-85 but is squatter than in reality.
Sidenote III: The ‘Chinese OT-34-85’
According to Weibo, in November 1955, to test the PLA’s combat capabilities, especially regarding amphibious landings, the PRC organised a field exercise at the Liaodong Peninsula. Here, it was found that one of the greatest weaknesses of the T-34-85 was its inability to deal effectively with bunkers. A Soviet adviser offered to sell the PRC OT-34-85s, but this was rejected by Defence Minister Peng Dehuai. Instead, the PLA developed its own design. This featured twelve TPO-50 flamethrowers, with six mounted either side of the turret in boxes. Whilst it is reported that it passed trials, the design seems to have been rejected and prototype remains in tact at Oriental Oasis Park in Shanghai to this day.
This story is the only reported explanation of this mysterious tank and the reader should be careful of this claim, as there is no evidence that this it is true. (See Sidenote V below).
The only example of the experimental Chinese ‘OT-34-85’. Note well that the searchlight cage on the right side of the hull is likely a feature from a restoration. Source: reddit.
T-34-85s at the Liaodong Peninsula exercices, 1955. Source: Weibo.
Sidenote IV: A Chinese-made SU-100T ARV
According to Weibo, when the USSR handed over the Lushun base to PLA control it left behind three SU-100T ARVs and these vehicles were very popular with the PLA. At the Museum of the War of Chinese People’s Resistance Against Japanese Aggression in Beijing stands an SU-100 which has been converted into an ARV. Special features include winches, a redesigned radio station, replacement of the periscopes, and a firing port for Type 56 submachine guns. This vehicle appears to be a unique Chinese conversion of an SU-100.
The locally-produced Chinese ‘SU-100T’. Note at the top right of the superstructure the two pistol ports for the Type 56 machine guns. Source: Weibo.
Sidenote V: The Weibo Article’s Plausibility
The article by Weibo relates some exceptionally useful details about the T-34-85 in the PRC, but it also relates some fantastical details, too. These are as follows:
The uncritical acceptance of the story of T-34-85 ‘215’ from the Korean War, which is widely regarded as a PLA myth.
The ‘Type 63/65 SPAAG’ is reported to be a Chinese design, despite the current consensus being that it was a local NVA upgrade.
The apparently false assertion of the splashboard upgrade being a Chinese design.
The possible uncritical acceptance of tanks presented in World of Tanks as historical.
The apparent false reporting on the Chen Songhe’s firefighting tank.
The result is that one must engage hypercritically with any claim made in the article. Where Weibo was the source of a claim, this has been clearly stated in the article. Some details it relays are quite plausible, if not likely.
Sidenote VI: Polish T-34-85s in the PRC
The PRC captured at least one (but possibly two) Polish T-34-85 during the Sino-Vietnamese War (1979). The PLA never operated any Polish or Czechoslovak-built T-34-85s, however.
A Polish-built T-34-85M1 formerly operated by the NVA on display at the Tank Museum, Beijing. This was captured by the PLA during the Sino-Vietnamese War (1979). Fittingly, it is on display next to T-62 “545”, which was captured by the PLA during the Sino-Soviet Border Conflict (1969). Source: Zack Vincent Sex via the ‘T-34 Interest Group’ on Facebook.
Sidenote VII: T-34-85 “215” in the Korean War
The PRC make quite bold claims about their use of armour during the Korean War. Perhaps the most famous story is of T-34-85 “215”, of which variations exist, but is generally as follows: T-34-85 “215” and two other T-34-85 belonging to the 2nd Tank Division of the 2nd Tank Regiment (of the PVA) were deployed along with elements of the 200th Infantry Regiment on 6th July 1953. Their task was to fortify positions on Hill 346.6 (known as 石砚洞北山 to the Chinese) against the advancing American 7th Infantry Division. Upon arriving at the hill on 7th July, the T-34-85s were tasked to find and destroy three M46 Patton tanks reported in the area. The T-34-85s took up ambush positions around the hill but unfortunately the Americans were able to hear their engines roar as they were approaching, thus ruining the element of surprise for the PVA. The Americans began to barrage the Chinese positions with artillery and as a result, “215” was inadvertently entrenched between two artillery craters and was unable to get out. The Chinese were met with a serious dilemma. Would they abandon the tank and lose a large part of their firepower or would they concentrate manpower on digging the tank out? In the end, the crew of “215” spent half the day attempting to dig the tank out with help from infantry but were unsuccessful. It was only until the day got dark when the crew gave up and instead decided to make do with their current situation by camouflaging the tank with mud and foliage. The following day, the Chinese began their assault and three American M46 Pattons appeared to fend off the Chinese infantry. Upon revealing themselves the Pattons immediately came under fire from “215”. At a range of approximately 1,450m, the first Patton was reported to have been taken out with a single armour piercing shot which caused an ammo rack explosion. The second Patton was seemingly also reported to have been taken out with a single shot at approximately the same range. The third Patton, however, was taking cover behind a hill which prevented “215” from hitting it. As such, “215” fired twelve high explosive rounds at the hill which exposed the Patton. A couple of these shells supposedly hit the Patton and crippled it. Having somehow not attracted any attention, “215” waited for night to fall, at which point it began revving its engine in such a manner as to make it sound as though the tank was reversing away. A PVA artillery unit then rescued “215” from the crater and the tank escaped down a road. At this point, “215” encountered another column of three Pattons. Cunningly, the crew waited in a nearby woods until the column was close, and then somehow stealthily joined the column as the second tank. “215” stayed with the column until the convoy reached a US checkpoint, at which point “215” destroyed the Patton behind it (thus trapping the rearmost Patton), chased down and destroyed the leading Patton, and also proceeded to destroy a number of US bunkers and supply lorries. “215” escaped and the crew were celebrated as heroes, with the tank still standing today in the Tank Museum, Beijing. Undoubtedly, this story is untrue because there are no records of these Pattons being lost at this stage of the war (although in a private conversation with the authors, Steven Zaloga advises that US records were poorly kept). In fact, the story fits in well with other CCP myths such as ‘Gongchen Tank’ and the more famous (although non-tank related) story of ‘Comrade Lei Feng’ and should therefore be dismissed as fake.
Chinese volunteers with T-34-85 ‘215’ during the Korean War. This tank was famous for having reportedly destroyed five UN tanks, nine artillery pieces, a command post, a staff car, and twenty-six bunkers. This story, however, is regarded as somewhat fantastical and a typical piece of PLA propaganda. Source: ‘T-34 Interest Group’ on Facebook.
Sidenote VIII: Camouflage and Markings of Chinese T-34-85s
Chinese T-34-85s and ‘Type 58s’ appear to have had mostly standardized markings.
The first T-34-85s in the PRC appear to have been repainted by the PLA into a dark green (darker than Soviet 4BO), and were given what appear to be large stickers or decals on the turrets (although it is difficult to tell, they may have been painted on. These consist of a red and yellow 8-1 star with a broken border, and a three-digit tactical number in white behind it. Later photos show for certain painted emblems and tactical markings. These were apparently the most common and perhaps even standard marking system throughout the operational history of T-34-85s and ‘Type 58s’. Some repainting of tanks must have taken place multiple times throughout their service lives, so some variation in colours, dimensions of markings, and marking systems are certain. However, one must be cautious when using examples of T-34-85s or ‘Type 58s’ in museums as being painted in accurate military markings, as it is clear that many have been repainted by museums.
Most ‘Type 58s’ do not appear to have the 8-1 star painted onto the side with the machine gun stowage hard points, but some examples do. Chinese PVA T-34-85s in the Korean War did not have any 8-1 stars at all.
Some variation on the white three-digit marking system is noted. For example, a photograph, reproduced above, shows a T-34-85 in 1952 with a four-digit white tactical marking. ‘Type 58s’ belonging to the Marines had no 8-1 star, but had a white H preceding the three-digit tactical marking.
Some examples exist of T-34-85s and ‘Type 58s’ with no markings on them at all well until the 1960s and 1970s.
It is believed three-tone camouflage schemes seen on a few T-34-85s and ‘Type 58s’ were painted on after their retirement, especially ones used as museum exhibits or gate guardians. Such a three-tone scheme matches ones used by the PLA on its Japanese tanks during the 1949 founding of the PRC parade, and on other tanks such as the Type 59.
‘Type 58s’ of the Chinese Marines, circa 1980s. Note the tactical markings. Source: Weibo.
Additional Photographs
‘Type 58s’ which had been used for construction projects. Note that the vehicle in the foreground has been converted into a bulldozer. Source: Weibo.
Sources
“The Tank Division of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army 1945-1949” by Zhang Zhiwei.
“Decisive Encounters: The Chinese Civil War, 1946-1950” by Odd Arne Westad
“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. Tieda.baidu.com Liaoshen Evening News weibo.com
The author also extends his tanks to the members of the ‘T-34 Interest Group’ on Facebook for their discussions with the author on the T-34-85 in the PRC and the ‘Type 58’, especially Francis Pulham, Tim Roberts, Yuri Pasholok, and Saúl García. Article originally published on 9th November 2014, rewritten by Will Kerrs on 3rd February 2019.
Type 58 illustration by Jaycee ‘Amazing Ace’ Davis, paid for by our Patreon campaign.
T-34 Shock: The Soviet Legend in Pictures by Francis Pulham and Will Kerrs
‘T-34 Shock: The Soviet Legend in Pictures’ is the latest must have book on the T-34 tank. The book was authored by Francis Pulham and Will Kerrs, two veterans of Tank Encyclopedia. ‘T-34 Shock’ is the epic story of the T-34’s journey from humble prototype to so-called ‘war-winning legend’. Despite the tank’s fame, little has been written about its design changes. While most tank enthusiasts can differentiate between the ‘T-34/76’ and the ‘T-34-85’, identifying different factory production batches has proven more elusive. Until now.
‘T-34 Shock’ contains 614 photographs, 48 technical drawings, and 28 color plates. The book begins with the antecedents of the T-34, the ill-fated BT ‘fast tank’ series, and the influence of the traumatic Spanish Civil War before moving to an in-depth look at the T-34’s prototypes. After this, every factory production change is cataloged and contextualized, with never-before-seen photographs and stunning technical drawings. Furthermore, four battle stories are also integrated to explain the changing battle context when major production changes take place. The production story is completed with sections on the T-34’s postwar production (and modification) by Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the People’s Republic of China, as well as T-34 variants.
The book price is a very reasonable £40 ($55) for 560 pages, 135,000 words, and of course, the 614 never-before-seen photographs from the author’s personal photograph collection. The book will be a superb tool for both the modeler and the tank nut alike! Do not miss this epic book, available from Amazon.com and all military book stores! Buy this book on Amazon!
German Reich/Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (1942)
Medium Tank – Blueprints Only
Prior to the German occupation of Czech lands, the Škoda works was one of the largest weapon manufacturers in the world, famous for its artillery and later its armored vehicles. In the early 1930s, Škoda became involved in designing and building tankettes, followed by tanks. Many models, like the LT vz. 35 or the T-21 (built under license in Hungary), would be mass-produced, while others never passed the prototype stage. Work on a new design during wartime was slow but a few interesting projects would be developed, such as the T-25. This was an attempt to design and build a tank that would be an effective opponent of the Soviet T-34 medium tank. It would have had an innovative main gun, well-sloped armor and excellent speed. Alas, no working prototype of this vehicle was ever built (only a wooden mock-up) and it remained a paper project.
The T-25 Medium Tank. This is the second drawing of the T-25 with a recognized turret design. It is the shape by which the T-25 is generally known today. Photo: SOURCE
Škoda’s Projects
The Škoda steel works located in Pilsen founded a special armament department in 1890. In the beginning, Škoda specialized in the production of heavy fortress and naval guns, but would also in time begin designing and building field guns. After World War One and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the new Czech nation joined with the Slovakian nation and formed the Republic of Czechoslovakia. Škoda works survived these turbulent times and managed to preserve its place in the world as a famous weapon manufacturer. By the thirties, besides weapons production, Škoda emerged as a car manufacturer in Czechoslovakia. Škoda’s owners did not at first show any interest in the development and production of tanks. Praga (the other famous Czechoslovakian weapon manufacturer) made a contract with the Czechoslovakian military in the early 1930s for developing new tankette and tank designs. Seeing a potential new business opportunity, the Škoda owners made a decision to begin developing their own tankettes and tank designs.
During the period between 1930 and 1932, Škoda made several attempts to gain the army’s attention. By 1933, Škoda designed and produced two tankettes: the S-I (MUV-4), and the S-I-P that were shown to army officials. As Praga had already received the order for production, the army agreed only to test the Škoda tankettes without ordering them.
By 1934, Škoda abandoned the development of any future tankettes as they had proved to be ineffective as combat vehicles, and instead moved to tank designs. Škoda presented several projects to the army but it was not successful in gaining any production orders, although the S-II-a design managed to gain some attention from the army. Despite the fact that it was shown to have flaws during army testing carried out in 1935, it was still put into production under the military designation Lt. vz. 35. They received an order for 298 vehicles for the Czechoslovakian army (from 1935 to 1937) and 138 were to be exported to Romania in 1936.
By the late 1930s, Škoda suffered some setbacks in their attempts to sell vehicles abroad and with the cancellation of the S-III medium tank. By 1938, Škoda works focused on designing a new branch of medium tanks, known as the T-21, T-22 and T-23. Due to the German occupation of Czechoslovakia and the establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939, the work on these models was stopped. During 1940, the Hungarian army showed great interest in the T-21 and T-22 designs, and in agreement with Škoda, a contract was signed in August 1940 for license production in Hungary.
The Name
It was common for all Czechoslovakian armored vehicle manufacturers to give their tanks and tankettes designations based on the following parameters: First would be the initial capital letter of the manufacturer’s name (for Škoda this was ’S’ or ’Š’). Then the Roman numerals I, II, or III would be used to describe the vehicle’s type (I for tankettes, II for light tanks, and III for medium tanks). Sometimes a third character would be added to denote a special purpose (like ’a’ for cavalry or ’d’ for a gun etc.). After a vehicle was accepted for operational service, the army would then give the vehicle its own designation.
The Škoda works in 1940 completely abandoned this system and introduced a new one. This new designation system was based on the capital letter ‘T’ and a number, for example, the T-24 or, the last of the series, the T-25.
History of the T-24 and T-25 Projects
During the War, the ČKD company (under German occupation the name was changed to BMM Bohmisch-Mahrische Maschinenfabrik) was very important for the German war effort. It was engaged in the production of a large number of armored vehicles based on the successful Panzer 38(t) tank.
The designers and engineers from the Škoda works were not idle during the war either and made some interesting designs. To begin with, these were on their own initiative. The largest problem for the armaments department of the Škoda works at the beginning of the war was that the German military and industry officials were not interested in expanding production of weapons to occupied countries, albeit with a few exceptions like the Panzers 35 and 38(t). During this time, Škoda weapons production was very limited. After the invasion on the Soviet Union and after suffering large losses of men and material, the Germans were forced to change this.
As nearly all German industrial capacity was directed towards supplying the Heer (German field army), the Waffen SS (more or less a Nazi army) was often left empty-handed. In 1941, Škoda presented the Waffen SS with a self-propelled-gun project based on the T-21 and armed with the 10.5 cm howitzer. A second project, the T-15, was conceived as a fast light reconnaissance tank and was also presented. Although the SS was interested in the Škoda designs, nothing came from this.
Škoda designers and engineers had the opportunity to examine some captured Soviet T-34 and KV-1 models (possibly in late 1941 or early 1942). It would not be wrong to say that they were perhaps shocked to discover how these were superior in protection, firepower, and in having larger tracks when compared to their own tanks, and even to many German tank models at that time. As a result, they immediately began working on a brand new design (it would have nothing in common with older Škoda designs) with much better armor, mobility, and sufficient firepower. They hoped that they could convince the Germans, who were desperate at that time for an armored vehicle that could effectively fight Soviet tanks. From this work, two similar designs would be born: the T-24 and the T-25 projects.
The Germans agreed with Škoda at the beginning of 1942 permitting them to develop a new tank design based on several criteria. The most important conditions set by the German army were: ease of production with minimal important resources used, to be produced quickly and to have a good balance of firepower, armor, and mobility. The first wooden mock-ups to be built were to be ready by the end of July 1942, and the first fully operational prototype was to be ready for testing in April 1943.
The first proposed project was submitted in February 1942 to the German weapons testing office (Waffenprüfungsamt). Known under the designation T-24, it was an 18.5-tonne medium tank armed with a 7.5 cm gun. The T-24 (and later T-25) was heavily influenced by the Soviet T-34 in regards to the sloping armor design and the forward-mounted turret.
The second proposed project was known under the designation T-25, and was to be much heavier at 23 tonnes with the same caliber (but different) 7.5 cm gun. This project was proposed to the Germans in July 1942 and the necessary technical documentation was ready in August 1942. The T-25 looked more promising to the Germans as it fulfilled the request for good mobility and firepower. Due to this, the T-24 was discarded at the beginning of September 1942. The earlier-built T-24 wooden mock-up was scrapped and all work on it was halted. The development of the T-25 continued until the end of the year, when, in December 1942, the German military lost all interest in it and ordered Škoda to stop any future work on this project. Škoda proposed two self-propelled designs based on the T-25 armed with 10.5 cm and a larger 15 cm howitzers, but as the whole project was abandoned, nothing came from this.
What Would it Have Looked Like?
There is enough information about the technical characteristics of the T-25 tank, but the exact appearance is somewhat unclear. The first drawing of the T-25 was dated 29th of May 1942 (under the designation Am 2029-S). What is interesting about this drawing is what seems to be a display of two different turrets placed on one hull (the T-24 and T-25 had very similar hulls but with different dimensions and armor). The smaller turret, in all likelihood, belongs to the first T-24 (it can be identified by the shorter 7.5 cm gun) while the larger one should belong to the T-25.
The first drawing (designated Am 2029-S) of the T-25 together with the seemingly smaller turret that may have belonged to the T-24. As these two had a very similar design, it is easy to mistake them for one vehicle, when in fact, they were not. Photo: SOURCE
The second drawing of the T-25 was made (possibly) in late 1942 and its turret has a completely different design. The second turret is somewhat higher, with two top metal plates instead of a single one. The front part of the first turret would most likely (it is difficult to determine exactly) be rectangular-shaped, while the second would have a more complicated hexagonal shape. The existence of two different turret designs may at first glance seem somewhat unusual. The explanation may lie in the fact that in May the T-25 was still at its early research and design phase, and so by the latter part of the year, some changes were necessary. For example, the gun installation demanded more space, and thus the turret needed to be somewhat larger, with more space necessary for the crew to work effectively.
Technical Characteristics
Unlike the problem with the determination of the exact appearance of the T-25 tank, there is reliable information and sources concerning the technical characteristics of the Škoda T-25, from the engine used and the estimated maximum speed, armor thickness, and armament, to the number of crew. It is very important to note, however, that in the end the T-25 was only a paper project and it was never constructed and tested, so these numbers and information may have changed on a real prototype or later during production.
The T-25 suspension consisted of twelve 70 cm diameter road wheels (with six on both sides) each of which had a rubber rim. The wheels were connected in pairs, with six pairs in total (three on each side). There were two rear drive sprockets, two front idlers, and no return rollers. Some sources state that the front idlers were, in fact, drive sprockets, but this seems unlikely. Examination of the rear part (exactly at the last wheel and drive sprocket) on the drawing designated Am 2029-S of the T-25 reveals what appears to be a transmission assembly for powering the rear sprockets. The front hull design appears to have left no available space for the installation of a front transmission. The suspension consisted of 12 torsion bars located beneath the floor. The tracks would be 460 mm wide with a possible ground pressure of 0.66 kg/cm².
The T-25 was planned at first to be powered by an unspecified diesel engine, but sometime during the development stage, this was dropped in favor of a petrol engine. The main engine chosen was a 450 hp 19.814-liter air-cooled Škoda V12 running at 3,500 rpm. Interestingly, a second small auxiliary engine producing just 50 hp was also planned to be added. The purpose of this small auxiliary engine was to power up the main engine and provide extra power. While the main engine was started by using the auxiliary engine, this one, in turn, would be started either electrically or by using a crank. The maximum theoretical speed was around 58-60 km/h.
The T-25 was influenced by the Soviet T-34. This is most apparent in the sloping armor design. The T-25 would be built by using welded armor on both the superstructure and the turret. The armor design seems to have been a very simple design, with angled armor plates (of which the exact angle is unknown but was possibly in the range of 40° to 60°). This way, the need for more carefully machined armored plates (like on Panzer III or IV) was unnecessary. Also, by using larger one-piece metal plates, the structure was made much stronger and also easier for production.
The armor thickness was in the range of 20 to 50 mm according to official factory archives, but according to some sources (such as P.Pilař), the maximum front armor was up to 60 mm thick. The maximum thickness of the frontal turret armor was 50 mm, the sides were 35 mm, and the rear between 25 to 35 mm thick. Most of the turret armor was sloped, which added extra protection. The hull upper front plate armor was 50 mm, while the lower was also 50 mm. The side sloped armor was 35 mm while the lower vertical armor was 50 mm thick. The roof and floor armor were the same 20 mm thickness. The T-25 dimensions were 7.77 m long, 2.75 m wide, and 2.78 m high.
The hull design was more or less conventional with a separated frontal crew compartment and the engine in the rear, which was divided from the other compartments by an 8 mm thick armored plate. This was done in order to protect the crew from engine heat and noise. It was also important to protect them from any possible outbreaks of fire arising because of some malfunction or combat damage. The total weight was calculated to be around 23 tonnes.
Crew
The T-25 crew consisted of four members, which may seem strange by German standards, but the use of an automatic loading system meant that the lack of a loader was not a problem. The radio operator and the driver were located in the vehicle hull, while the commander and the gunner were in the turret. The front crew compartment consisted of two seats: one on the left for the driver and the second to the right for the radio operator. The radio equipment used would most likely have been a German type (possibly a Fu 2 and Fu 5). The forward mounted turret design on the T-25 had one significant issue in that the crew members in the hull had no hatches at either the hull top or sides. These two crew members had to enter their battle positions through the turret hatches. In case of an emergency, where crew members had to make a quick escape from the vehicle, it could take too much time or would perhaps be impossible because of combat damage. According to T-25 drawings, there were four viewports in the hull: two on the front and one on both of the angled sides. The driver’s armored viewports appear to be the same design (possibly with armored glass behind) as on the German Panzer IV.
Located in the turret was the rest of the crew. The commander was located at the left rear of the turret with the gunner in front of him. For observation of the surroundings, the commander had a small cupola with a fully rotating periscope. It is unknown if there would have been side viewports on the turret. There is a single hatch door for the commander in the turret, possibly with one more on top and perhaps even one to the rear as with the later Panther design. The turret could be rotated by using a hydroelectric or mechanical drive. For communication between the crew, especially the commander and the hull crew members, light signals and a telephone device were to be provided.
Illustration of the T-25 with the earlier turret design.
Illustration of the T-25 with the second design turret. This is how the T-25 would probably have looked if it went into production.
3D model of the T-25. This model and the above illustrations were produced by Mr. Heisey, funded by our Patron DeadlyDilemma through our Patreon campaign.
Armament
The main weapon chosen for the T-25 was interesting in many ways. It was Škoda’s own experimental design, a 7.5 cm A18 L/55 caliber gun with no muzzle brake. In Germany, this gun was designated as 7.5 cm Kw.K. (KwK or KwK 42/1 depending on the source). The gun mantlet was rounded, which offered good ballistic protection. This gun had an automatic drum loading mechanism containing five rounds with a maximum estimated rate of fire of around 15 rounds per minute, or around 40 rounds per minute at full auto. The gun was designed so that, after firing each round, the spent case would be automatically ejected by compressed air. The A18 muzzle velocity was 900 m/s according to official factory archives. Armor penetration at a range of 1 km was around 98 mm. The T-25 ammo capacity was to be around 60 rounds; most would be AP with a smaller number of HE rounds. The total gun (together with mantlet) weight was around 1,600 kg. The A18 gun elevation was -10 to +20°. This gun was actually constructed during the war but because of the cancellation of the entire project, it was probably put into storage, where it remained until the war ended. After the war research continued and it was tested on one Panzer VI Tiger I heavy tank.
The secondary weapon was a light machine gun of unknown type (with an estimated 3,000 rounds of ammunition) located on the right front side of the turret. Whether it was coaxially mounted with the main gun or used independently (as on Panzer 35 and 38(t)) is unknown, but the former is most probably correct as it is more practical and was in general use on all German tanks. It is unknown if there was a hull ball-mounted machine gun, although the few existing illustrations do not appear to show one. It is possible that it would be installed and in that case, it would be operated by the radio operator. It is equally possible that the radio operator would use his personal weapon (possibly MP 38/40 or even MG 34) to fire through his front viewport similar to the later Panther Ausf.D’s MG 34 ‘letterbox’ flap. Regardless, the possible absence of a hull machine gun was not a significant defect, as it results in weak spots on the frontal armor. If the T-25 did use a hull machine gun (and in the turret), it would likely have been either the standard German MG 34 that was used in all German tanks and vehicles in both coaxial and hull mounts or the Czechoslovakian VZ37 (ZB37). Both were 7.92 mm caliber machine guns and used by the German until the end of War War Two.
Modifications
Similar to other German armored vehicles, the T-25 tank chassis was to be used for different self-propelled designs. Two similar designs with different guns were proposed. The first was to be armed with a lightweight 10.5 cm howitzer.
This is possibly the only wooden mock-up of the Škoda proposed self-propelled designs based on the T-25. Photo: SOURCE
There is confusion as to which exact howitzer was used. It could have been the Škoda-built 10.5 cm leFH 43 howitzer (10.5 cm leichte FeldHaubitze 43), or the Krupp howitzer of the same name. Krupp built only a wooden mock-up while Škoda built a functional prototype. We must also consider the fact that as the T-25 was a Škoda design it would be logical to assume that the designers would use their gun instead of the Krupp one. The Škoda 10.5 cm leFH 43 howitzer was designed from late 1943 and the first operational prototype was built only by the war’s end in 1945.
The 10.5 cm le FH 43 was an improvement of the existing leFH 18/40 howitzer. It had a longer gun but the biggest innovation was the design of the carriage which allowed a full 360° of traverse. The 10.5 cm leFH 43 characteristics were: elevation -5° to + 75°, traverse 360°, weight in action 2,200 kg (on a field carriage).
The Škoda 10.5 cm leFH 43 howitzer. Photo: SOURCE
However, there is a considerable chance that the gun that would, in fact, be used was the 10.5 cm leFH 42. This gun was designed and built in limited numbers around the same time (in 1942) as the T-25. Both Krupp and Škoda howitzers were designed and built long after the T-25 was developed. The 10.5 cm le FH 42 muzzle brake is very similar to the wooden mock-up, but this is not a definitive proof that this was the weapon, merely a simple observation.
The 10.5 cm leFH 42 characteristics were: elevation -5° to + 45°, traverse 70°, weight in action 1,630 kg (on a field carriage), maximum range up to 13,000 km with velocity of 595 m/s. The 10.5 cm le FH 42 was rejected by the German army and only a few prototypes were ever built.
One of the few 10.5 cm Le FH 42 ever built. Photo: SOURCE
There is a real chance that none of these two howitzers would have been used if this modification had entered production. The reasons for this are the following: 1) none of the three 10.5 cm howitzers were available as they had either not been accepted for service by the German army or were not ready by the end of war 2) Only the wooden mock-up was built of the 10.5 cm self-propelled vehicle based on the T-25. The final decision for the main weapon would have been made only after an operational prototype was constructed and adequately tested. As it was only a paper project we can not know with certainty whether the modification itself was feasible in practice 3) due to ease of maintenance, ammunition and the availability of spare parts the in-production 10.5 cm leFH 18 (or later improved models) would have been the most likely candidate.
The second proposed design was to be armed with a more powerful 15 cm sFH 43 (schwere FeldHaubitze) howitzer. Several artillery manufacturers were asked by the German army to design a howitzer with all-around traverse, a range of up to 18,000 km, and a high elevation of fire. Three different manufacturers (Škoda, Krupp, and Rheinmetall-Borsig) responded to this request. It would not go into production as only a wooden mock-up was ever built.
Only a wooden mock-up of the vehicle armed with the 10.5 cm seems to have been made due to the cancellation of the T-25 tank. Beside the main guns that are to be used, nothing much is known about these modifications. According to the old photograph of the wooden model, it looks like it would have had a fully (or at least partially) rotating turret with a light machine gun. On the hull side, we can see what looks like a lifting crane (possibly one on both sides), designed to dismount the turret. The dismounted turret may then have been used as static fire support or placed on wheels as ordinary towed artillery, similar to the 10.5cm leFH 18/6 auf Waffentrager IVb German prototype vehicle. On the top of the engine compartment, some extra equipment (or parts of the gun) can be seen. On the vehicle rear (behind the engine) there is a box that looks like a holder for wheels or possibly for extra ammunition and spare parts.
Rejection
The story of the T-25 was a very short one and it did not progress beyond blueprints. Despite the hard work of Škoda workers, nothing besides plans, calculations, and wooden models was ever made. The begs the question: why was it rejected? Unfortunately, due to the lack of adequate documentation, we only can speculate as to the reasons. The most obvious is the introduction of the better armed Panzer IV Ausf.F2 model (armed with longer 7.5 cm gun) which could be built using existing production capacity. The first fully operational T-25 would probably only be able to have been built in late 1943, as the time needed for testing and adopting it for the production would have taken too long.
By late 1943, it is questionable whether the T-25 still would be a good design, it may possibly already be considered obsolete by that point. Another possible reason for rejection was the reluctance of the German army to introduce yet another design (as at that time Tiger development was underway) and thus put more stress on the already overburdened war industry. It is also possible that the Germans were not willing to adopt a foreign design and instead favored domestic projects. Another reason may be the experimental gun itself; it was innovative but how it would perform in real combat conditions and how easy or complicated it would be for production is uncertain at best. The need for the production of new ammunition would also complicate the already over-complicated German ammunition production. So it is understandable why the Germans never accepted this project.
In the end, the T-25 was never adopted for service even though (at least on paper), it had a good gun and good mobility, solid armor, and a relatively simple construction. It should be borne in mind, however, that this was a paper project only and that in reality may be the results would have been completely different. Regardless, due to its short development life after the war, it was mostly forgotten until relatively recently, thanks to its appearance in online games.
German Reich (1945)
Medium Tank – Small Number of Unfinished Hulls and Turrets. At Least One F/G Hybrid.
As early as 1943, the Germans sought to design a new turret for the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther (Sd.Kfz.171). The Rheinmetall-designed turret that the Panther was equipped with was considered to be an inefficient design with various flaws. Wa Prüf 6, a department of the Waffenamt tasked with designing and testing armored vehicles, presumably thought that Rheinmetall could redeem themselves by redesigning the new turret. Wa Prüf 6 required that the new turret was to have a smaller visible frontal area, elimination or reduction of the mantlet’s shot trap from the original Panther turret (which tended to deflect rounds into the hull), increase in armor protection, and internally mount a stereoscopic rangefinder, while weighing no more than the original Panther turret.
On March 1, 1943, Rheinmetall created conceptual turret design drawing, H-Sk 88517, otherwise known as the ‘Turm-Panther (schmale Blende)’ (English: ‘Turret-Panther (narrow mantlet)’) under these requirements. The stereoscopic rangefinder was able to be accommodated by creating a significant bulge at the top of the turret. In addition, a periscopic gun sight was considered over a standard telescopic gun sight. The frontal turret armor had a thickness of 120mm set at an angle of 12 degrees, a thickness of 60mm at the sides and rear set at an angle of 25 degrees, and a thickness of 40mm set at an angle of 17 and 7 degrees on the turret roof. With these changes in mind, everything else was to be the same as the Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf.A’s turret.
The schmale Blende seems to be some sort of adaption of Rheinmetall’s H-SKA 86176 otherwise known as ‘Turm Panther 2 (schmale Blendenausführung)’ (English: ‘Turret Panther 2 (narrow mantlet variant)’) which the drawing dates back to November 7, 1943. The turret served as one of several proposals for the Panzerkampfwagen Panther II. It lacked the triangular roof line which accommodated the rangefinder, the rangefinder itself, and the armored guard underneath the mantlet which was designed to prevent shot traps. It is unclear if the schmale Blende is a parallel development to schmale Blendenausführung or a way for Rheinmetall to salvage the design after the cancellation of the Panzerkampfwagen Panther II in May, 1944.
Wa Prüf 6 was dissatisfied with Rheinmetall’s design for reasons unknown and, thus, in Spring of 1944, they handed the responsibility over to Daimler-Benz. Wa Prüf 6 gave a new set of requirements, most of which were the same as the original. The exceptions were exchanging the co-axial M.G.34 with the M.G.42, minimizing of the production cost, ability to be quickly converted into a Befehlswagen Panther (commander’s tank version of the Panther), and ability to use infrared night vision equipment.
Under these new specifications, theSchmalturm (English: ‘narrow turret’) was born. It did everything it was required to do and then some. It weighed less than the original Panther turret (from 7665 kg to 7565 kg) and made the area of the frontal armor smaller while not affecting the internal crew space. It also reduced the production time by about 30-40%. The new turret shared little to no relation to the original Panther turret, unlike its Rheinmetall predecessor.
It was then decided that the genesis of the Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausführung F (Sd.Kfz.171) would be determined by mounting the Schmalturm on a slightly modified Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.G hull.
Prototypes
Several Schmalturm prototypes, dubbed ‘Versuchs-Schmalturm’ (English: ‘experimental narrow turret’), are known to have been built for Wa Prüf 6. These were essentially experimental Schmalturm turrets on a Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.G hull, effectively making them Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F prototypes.
The first Versuchs-Schmalturm, completed by August 20, 1944. It was mounted on Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.G chassis number 120413, which was built by M.A.N. and was originally intended for combat. The chassis was instead used as a test bed. It featured a loader’s periscope on the turret roof which ended up being removed and the hole left from the installation was filled with a welded armor plug. A hole at the front of the turret was created for a telescopic gun sight, presumably a monocular version of the articulating T.Z.F.13 gun sight and an unspecified periscopic gun sight. ‘T.Z.F.’ stood for ‘Turmzielfernrohr’ (English: ‘turret gun sight’). The redesigned cupola had a hole to extend a T.S.R.1 observation periscope without opening the hatch.
Front and side shot of the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.G. mounting the first Versuchs-Schmalturm. Source: Panzer Tracts
The second Versuchs-Schmalturm was built by January 4, 1945 and also mounted on a Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.G, chassis number 120413 (according to a different source), which might suggest that the same chassis was used for both Versuchs-Schmalturm turrets. The new turret featured a S.Z.F.1 stabilized periscopic gun sight, but no hole for a telescopic gun sight. The hull was also photographed with ‘Schürzen’ side skirts and with the rain and debris guard band on top of the mantlet omitted. The muzzle brake was most likely omitted on this iteration.
Front photograph of the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.G mounting the second Versuchs-Schmalturm. Source: Panzer Tracts
Vision
One of the defining features of the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F was the inclusion of a rangefinder. The E.M.1.32 m stereoscopic rangefinder was under development by Zeiss of Jena, Germany. ‘E.M.’ is an acronym for Entfernungsmesser (English: ‘rangefinder’) and ‘1.32 m’ stood for the length of the rangefinder. It has a magnification of 15x and a field of view of four degrees. However, no example of this rangefinder would ever be built. Development would end in April of 1945 and mass production was meant to begin in July of 1945. In order to accommodate the rangefinder, it was located near the front top of the Schmalturm. Two spherical bulges were created to properly accommodate the piece of equipment on both upper front sides of the turret.
Initially, the monocular, articulated telescopic T.Z.F.13 was the intended gun sight for the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F, developed by Leitz of Wetzlar, Germany. An aperture at the front of the turret would need to be created to accommodate the sight, a feature that the first Versuchs-Schmalturm possessed. The T.Z.F.13 had a selectable magnification of 2.5x and a field of view of 28 degrees and 6x with a field of view of 12 degrees. An order of 4208 T.Z.F.13 gun sights was placed from Leitz which only ended with the dismal production of two gun sights, one in October of 1944 and the other in January of 1945.
It appears that the T.Z.F.13 and S.Z.F.1 gun sights were going to compliment each other with S.Z.F.1 acting as a supplement. However, the S.Z.F.1 ended up being chosen, seeing as a periscopic stabilized device was desired for series production of the Schmalturm turret. Ten trial series S.Z.F.1s were ordered from Leitz in 1944 which seemed to have resulted in the production of five examples from September to December, 1944. One thousand more production versions were ordered in January of 1945. Meanwhile, four S.Z.F.1b modified gun sights were produced in January and February 1945.
According to the President of the Panzer Kommission Stiele von Heydekampf, they became interested in stabilizing both guns and gun sights after the discovery of the Medium Tank, M3’s stabilizers during the North Africa Campaign. Heydekampf claimed that they had managed to build an experimental gun and gun sight stabilizers for the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther. However, he refused to give any additional details other than claim that the experiments were promising.
The optical parts of the S.Z.F.1 sight were built by Leitz of Weltzar, but the gyroscopic parts for vertically stabilizing the sight were provided by Fa. Kreiselgerate of Berlin. Ernst Haas from the Berlin firm was credited as the inventor and designer. Haas claims that he invented the equipment prior to the Second World War and offered his patents to the American Sperry Gyroscope Company. The company offered him too little for his patents and thus Haas refused their offer. However, his claims contradict the claims of Ludwig Leitz, head of development at Leitz. A less refined sight similar to the S.Z.F.1 sight was found in the Leitz plant. Ludwig Leitz claims that the sight was captured on the Eastern Front. He also goes on to claims that the sight was being refined and copied by both Leitz and Kreiselgerate together.
The original precursor to the S.Z.F.1 sight lacked the ability to fire accurately while on the move. While the sight was stabilized in the vertical plane, the gun was not. This meant that one could easily use the sight for observation, but could not be used to accurately fire while the vehicle was moving. However, the inclusion of a “pre-ignition device”, as Haas called it, allowed it to fire with a degree of accuracy while the vehicle was moving. The “pre-ignition device” was, in reality, a gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator that measured the rate of angular motion in the vertical plane. With this device, when the unstabilized gun and stabilized gun sight aligned at the right moment when moving, the gun would fire after the gunner has triggered the firing of the gun. There would thus be a delay until the gun and sight align. This effectively gave the tank the ability to fire accurately while driving albeit only when the inconsistent alignment occurred.
The S.Z.F.1 periscopic sight consists of the periscope, control box, and motor-generator. The control box sits at a “comfortable” proximity to the gunner. It features switches for correcting the optical sighting axis by elevating or lowering it, for power supply, lighting, and firing, and for the “arresting device”. The sight had a magnification of 3x and 6x with “clean” observation up to 6000 m, elevation/depression of ±18, and the gyros rotated at 28000 RPM. The device consumed 120 watts on the direct current side.
The S.Z.F.1 was seen as a very rugged and sturdy design which “works without the least failure” even beyond the elevation of the sight because of the “good arrangements of the gyros”. Trials showed a mean value of 10 rounds which each deviated ±0.5 m from a target 1000 meters away, which corresponded with the angular value of 0.5 milliradians.
It is not confirmed if the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F would have had the ability to fire on the move. It is known that the S.Z.F.1 was intended for the vehicle and that the second Versuchs-Schmalturm also equipped with it. The information on the performance and characteristics is based on Ernst Haas claims albeit in great detail. Without solid documentary evidence, this information should be used cautiously. The documentation doesn’t explicitly mention the S.Z.F.1, but it does provide photographs of the S.Z.F.1 implying that is what is being referred to. Speculatively, it could be possible that the S.Z.F.1b was the variant with the pre-ignition device equipped which would allow it to fire on the move accurately while the S.Z.F.1 was the original precursor that did not have this ability. Both sights were known to have been built.
Top: general view of the S.Z.F.1 motor generator (left) and control box (right). Bottom: general view of the S.Z.F.1 periscopic gun sight. Source: Stabilized Optical Sight for German Tank Guns
The loader’s periscope from the previous Panther turrets was carried over to the first Versuchs-Schmalturm and production Schmalturm turrets. However, a design change omitting the loader’s periscope occurred after production of the Schmalturm turret commenced. The hole for the loader’s periscope was plugged by a welded armor plug.
Compared to the earlier Panther cupolas, the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F tank’s cast cupola was lower in height and, as a result, presented a smaller target. It featured seven slots for easily replaceable watertight and bullet resistant periscopes. A traversable ring was mounted internally at the top of the cupola, where a V-shaped rangefinder, scissor telescope, FG 1250 infrared night vision device (of which can be screwed on easily), and an anti-aircraft machine gun mount could be mounted. Internally, a cupola azimuth indicator was located near the bottom of the cupola. The azimuth indicator showed the commander and the gunner the relative position of the turret to the hull and consisted of a “clock dial drive”, comprised of ring connected via a gear train to the turret.
Protection
The Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F featured overall improved armor on the turret and even the hull (although to a lesser extent) compared to previous Panthers. The armor plates were made from E22 alloy. Armor plates that ranged from 16-30mm thick had a Brinell hardness of 309 to 353, 278-324 for 35-50mm plates, and 265-309 for 55-80mm plates. Armor plate thickness were allowed to deviate 0% to 5% from the intended specifications. The cast armor portions were made from alloy ‘B’ and had a Brinell hardness of 220 to 336. Brinell scale is a standardized method of characterizing the hardness of a certain material.
Drawing of a production series Schmalturm for the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F. Both the telescopic and periscopic gun sights are drawn. Source: Panzer Tracts
The frontal turret armor plate thickness consisted of 120mm at 20 degrees, 60mm on the sides and rear at 25 degrees, 40mm flat on the roof, and 150mm of cast armor on the ‘Saukopf’ (English: pig’s head) style mantlet. The hull’s armor was largely the same as the Ausf.G, with the differences lying on the hull’s roof. With the hull’s armor being entirely made out of armor plating, the frontal upper glacis plate consisted of 80mm thick plate at 55 degrees, 50mm at 55 degrees for the frontal lower glacis, 50mm at 29 degrees for the upper side hull, 40mm vertically flat for the lower side hull, 40mm at 30 degrees at the rear, 40-25mm horizontally flat for the hull roof (compared to the Ausf.G’s 40-16mm), 16mm horizontally flat on the engine deck, 16mm horizontally flat on the panniers (plate protecting the bottom of the hull superstructure overhang above the tracks), 25mm flat at the frontward belly, and 16mm horizontally flat at the rearward belly.
An alternative or replacement Schmalturm design dating back to September 30, 1944 from Daimler-Benz for the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F shows it with 100mm thick frontal armor, 50mm thick sides and rear, and 30mm thick turret roof. It also lacks a periscopic gun sight and has a telescopic gun sight. Source: Panzer Tracts
The Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F was equipped with a Nahverteidigungswaffe (English: close defense weapon). The Nahverteidigungswaffe consisted of a circular plate bolted down with a 92mm launch tube angled at 39 degrees. It primarily fired Schnellnebelkerze 39 (English: ‘quick smokescreen’) smoke candles for concealment.
Drawings of the Nahverteidigungswaffe as shown in Panther and Tiger II manuals. Source: custermen.net
The new ventilator’s position for the fighting compartment made it more economic in armor parts. The ventilator was now mounted on the right front of the turret reinforcement ring and the ventilator’s fan also saw use as an extractor of fumes from firing the gun. Greater efficiency was gained by swapping the flexible ducting from the previous Panthers with a thin metal tubing.
Firepower
The Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf.F tank’s main armament consisted of the 7.5cm Kw.K.44/1 L/70 developed by Skodawerke of Pilsen, Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren (English: ‘Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia’) (German-occupied Czechoslovakia), with the assistance of Krupp. The gun was essentially a 7.5cm Kw.K.42 L/70, but modified to be more compact by placing the buffer and recuperator below the gun instead of either side as on the 7.5cm Kw.K.42 L/70. The gun cradle was now welded and the air compressor set for the fume extractor was now replaced by an air pump cylinder by surrounding the recuperator with a single additional cylinder. The air pump cylinder activated once 420mm of recoil was reached. The muzzle brake was removed which caused the recoil force to increase from 12 to 18 tonnes, however, this omission was probably necessary to reach the 420mm of recoil. Few early 7.5cm Kw.K.44/1 L/70s were fitted with muzzle brakes and an example can be seen on the first Versuchs-Schmalturm. The Kw.K.44/1 weighed 1920 kg and had a muzzle kinetic energy of 285 tonnes.
Side shot of the 7.5cm Kw.K.44/1 L/70 with its mantlet. Source: Walter J. Spielberger
The 7.5cm Kw.K.44/2 L/70 was a further development of the 7.5cm Kw.K.44/1 L/70. Essentially, it was a Kw.K.44/1 with a mechanical rapid reload device weighing 3400 kg with the gun. The device consisted of a large structure to the right of the gun carriage which held 4 rounds This device, when activated by the recoil of the gun, would lift up a round onto a holder at the end of a pivoting arm. After the breech opened and ejected the spent casing, it stayed open and the holder would move downwards and a tension spring guide would insert the round into the breech. The breech would then close automatically which resulted in the release of pressure for the pivot arm spring which brought the holder back into a position to accept another round. When the gun fired the newly inserted round, the tension spring guide would reset and thus the process repeated. Three examples of the 7.5cm Kw.K.44/2 L/70 were built and sent to Unterlüß, Germany at the Rheinmetall-Borsig test range. The device gave the gun an impressive rate of fire of 40 rounds per minute albeit with only four rounds to fire. However, it would take a significant amount of space in the Schmalturm. Nevertheless, steps were taken to mount it in the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F.
All 82 rounds were stored in the hull, likely in the same fashion as the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.G. carrying mostly Pzgr.39 (APCBC), Sprgr. (HE), and possibly a few Pzgr.40 (APCR) shells.
Due to the cancellation of production of the armored M.G.34, the M.G.42 was chosen as the replacement for the coaxial machine gun. A new mounting was designed in order to receive the M.G.42. The mounting was attached to the gun cradle and comprised of a front support with locking clamps, rear support, recoil spring, and a mechanism to adjust the gun. Two ammunition bags were positioned below the mounting. One for live ammunition and the other for spent casings.
On the rear turret plate, a pistol port was created in order to defend against enemy soldiers from climbing over the rear of the vehicle. In addition, the M.G.34 bow machine gun for the radio operator was replaced by a St.G.44.
Mobility and Maneuverability
Most if not all the automotives of the Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf.F were the same as on the Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf.G.
The Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf.F was propelled by a V12, watercooled, Maybach HL 230 P30 engine generating 600 hp @ 2500 rpm. The Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F had a combat weight of 45.5 tonnes which gave it a power-to-weight ratio of 13.2 horsepower per tonne. Coupled with a ZF A.K.7/200 transmission (located at the front), the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F could reach 3.4 km/h in the first gear, 6.8 km/h in the second gear, 10.9 km/h in the third gear, 17 km/h in the fourth gear, 24.6 km/h in the fifth gear, 34.7 km/h in the sixth gear, 45.8 km/h in the seventh gear, and 3.3 km/h in the reverse gear. It had a maximum speed of 46 km/h, average road speed of 30-35 km/h, and a cross country speed of 20 km/h. It carried 700 liters of fuel which gave it a range of 200 km on road and 100 km on cross country.
The Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F was 8.86 m long (with gun), 6.866 m long (without gun), 3.42 m wide (with Schürzen, and 2.917 m tall. It had a ground pressure of 0.88 kg/cm^2, could climb slopes of 35 degrees, a ground clearance of 540mm, was able to ford depths of up to 1.9 m, could climb steps of up to 900mm, and cross trenches of up to 2.45 m wide. It also had a steering radius of 9.4 m and a steering ratio of 1.5.
The suspension consisted of 8 overlapping road wheels on each side with 860/100 rubber tires connected to torsion bars. The drive sprockets were located at the front and the idler wheels at the rear. Eighty-seven dry pin Kgs 64/660/150 track links were located on both sides. ‘Kgs’ is code used to describe the characteristics of the tracks. ‘K’ stands for ‘rapid tracks for vehicles’, ‘g’ stands for ‘cast steel all alloys’, and ‘s’ stands for ‘floating pins’. ‘64’ stands for the design of the track, ‘660’ stands for the width of the tracks in millimeters, and ‘150’ stands for the pitch of tracks in millimeters.
Illustration of the Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf.F (Sd.Kfz.171).
Illustration of the Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf.G (Sd.Kfz.171) mounting the first Versuchs-Schmalturm.
Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf.A (Sd.Kfz.171) equipped with Rheinmetall’s schmale Blende.
These three illustrations are by Andrei ‘Octo10’ Kirushkin, funded by our Patron Golum through our Patreon Campaign.
Maybach HL 230 P30 engine schematics.
The new turret traverse gear developed by Daimler-Benz of Berlin-Marienfelde, Germany dropped two differentials and the multiplate overload clutch from previous Panthers. This resulted in it being cheaper, lighter, and smaller. The traverse gear was fixed in place to the turret ring and “driven from the main transmission shaft through a hydraulic motor”. The hydraulic motor developed by Böhringer GmbH produced 6 hp at 800-4200 rpm. Normal turret traverse and precise horizontal gun sight aiming were both done by the hydraulic motor. Accurate control of the turret traverse, instead of the gunner’s feet as on previous Panther variants, was now done by hand. In addition to the gunner, the commander was also able to directly manipulate the turret traverse because of a linkage to the hydraulic motor. However, the commander wasn’t able to precisely traverse the turret needed for good aiming of the gun. The maximum 360 degrees turret traverse time via hydraulic power was 30 seconds.
Traversing the turret by hand took four minutes for a full 360-degree traverse. One full turn of the handwheel equaled 0.405 degrees of turret traverse. If the tank were to tilt to one side, the loader had an auxiliary turret traverse handwheel to help the gunner traverse the turret.
Elevating the main gun and coaxial machine gun was also made lighter, cheaper, and more compact with the new elevation mechanism. The mechanism consisted of a screw and nut which were connected by universal joints from the turret turntable to one end and the other end of the gun cradle. Elevating the gun was done by a handwheel on the turret traverse gearbox casing which used a carden shaft and beveling gear to connect to the screw and nut mechanism. To dampen shocks from the movement of the vehicle, a ring spring was installed. The gun was able to elevate up to 20 degrees and depress down to 8 degrees. A full rotation of the hand wheel equated to 4 degrees of elevation.
Crew
The Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf.F carried over the five-man crew, three in the turret and two in the hull. In the hull, the driver was seated on the left front and the right radio operator was located on the right next to the driver with the St.G.44 hull machine gun under his control. In the turret, the gunner sat to the right of the gun and the loader on the left. The commander was located behind the gunner.
Miscellaneous
The deep groove type turret ball race had the same internal diameter as the previous Panther turret. Additionally, instead of being separate as on previous Panthers, the inner race was integral with the traversing rack.
The turret basket was connected to the inner turret ball race which used a tubular frame to connect with the turret floor. The tubular frame carried the hydraulic turret traverse motor, gun elevating gear, and a compartment for spent cartridge casings. Removable and adjustable leather cushioned with “rubber hair filler” seats for the gunner and loader were mounted on upper left and upper longerons (longitudinal bar added to provide rigidity), respectively. 20 “belt sacks” on the longeron, a container for a spare M.G.42 barrel, two containers for breathing tubes, and a container for a spare periscope are located in the turret basket. The rest of the equipment was put away behind a guard on the turret reinforcement ring.
For communication between vehicles, the Fu 2 and Fu 5 intercoms were used. Other changes include modification of the driver’s periscope mount and new hatches for the driver and radio operator. In order to open the new hatches, the hatch would be raised slightly and “move to the side”, presumably as opposed to swiveling away as on previous Panther iterations.
A Befehlswagen Panther configuration could be easily achieved by personnel in the field. The FuG5 ultra-short wave radio set was mounted on the hull and the Fu 8 long range radio was mounted in the turret. An armored encasement besides the cupola located on top of the turret shields the insulator below the antenna for the Fu 8 radio.
There were two types of methods the upper front plate and side plate interlocked with each other on the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F. The side hull plate interlocked with the front hull plate in two different methods. The side plate either locked with the front plate perpendicularly or horizontally.
Frontal portion of the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F hull showing the two methods for the upper front plate and side plate can interlock. Source: Panzer Tracts
The rear turret escape hatch was made out of the leftovers from cutting the rear turret plate.
Production
Production of the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F was to start in early 1945 and done by Krupp-Gruson in April, M.A.N. in April, Daimler-Benz in March, M.N.H. in May, and Nibelungenwerk in April. To Krupp-Gruson and Nibelungenwerk, the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F was to be their first Panthers produced while for M.A.N. production would have started with Panther number 2229, Daimler-Benz with Panther number 2621, and M.N.H. with Panther number 2303.
Unfinished Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F hulls on a welding jig. Source: Panzer Tracts
The sought after production goal of all the German firms combined was 2,940 Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.Fs in 1945. Most of the firms were to share the production load about equally together with Krupp-Gruson and initially Nibelungenwerk doing the least, presumably due to their lack of experience in building Panthers.
Due to numerous delays and setbacks, the planned production schedule was never achieved. Krupp-Gruson was to build their first two Panthers in May and Nibelungenwerk was to build their first two Panthers in August.
The second, third, and fifth unfinished hulls are Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F hulls mixed in with Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.G hulls. Source: Germany’s Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy
According to M.A.N. representatives, M.A.N. was unable to finish any Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.Fs, although they claim that Daimler-Benz was able to finish a Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F chassis outfitted with a Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.G turret and “steel tire, rubber cushioned” road wheels. Even if the turret ring sizes were the same between the Ausf.G and Ausf.F, significant changes were going to be needed in order to mount an Ausf.G turret on an Ausf.F hull as the turret race and turret traverse gear were incompatible.
It seems that only a few Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F. hulls were completed with a couple of mostly finished Schmalturm turrets (although they lacked some essential equipment such as the gun sights and range finder). Some Schmalturm examples were captured and sent to the United States, specifically the Aberdeen Proving Ground and the United Kingdom for analysis.
A Schmalturm, missing its gun, that was sent to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in the United States. Take note that the turret lacks a periscopic gun sight, but has a hole for a telescopic gun sight perhaps suggesting that this Schmalturm is an early example. Source: Germany’s Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy
Two front photographs of a production Schmalturm sent to the United Kingdom. Take note that it lacks a hole for a telescopic gun sight, but has an armored guard for the periscopic gun sight suggesting that this Schmalturm was produced later. Also take notice of the rings on both sides of the turret for mounting camouflage and the turret basket present on the left image. Source: Germany’s Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy
Service
The Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf.F, in its completed state, never saw service as the turrets were never completed. If a few Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F. managed to be completed by 20-23 of April 1945, they would have immediately seen combat defending Berlin with the II Abteilung/Panzer Regiment 2 (2nd battalion of the 2nd Panzer Regiment). However, at least one Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F mounting a Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.G. turret was seen defending Berlin in 1945 and subsequently moved into some sort of tank dump next to a Tiger I and Tiger II. This is most likely the Daimler-Benz-made Pz.Kpfw. Panther F/G hybrid M.A.N. representatives mentioned.
Three different images of the same Pz.Kpfw. Ausf.F/G hybrid knocked out in Berlin. It seems to have been knocked out from a round hitting the barrel near the mantlet, fracturing the barrel, and thus being abandoned by its crew. The hull was identified as Ausf.F hull by examining the interlocking plates. The side superstructure plate interlocks with the front upper plate horizontally, which means it is a Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F hull.
Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F/G hybrid at an unidentified tank dump after being knocked out in the streets of Berlin. This hybrid is the same as the one in Berlin due to the mud guards being bent the same way. A Tiger II and Tiger can be seen in the background. Source: Unknown
Conclusion
The Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf.F was the right upgrade at the wrong time. The Schmalturm was a significant improvement over the previous turret, however, it was far too late. By the time the vehicle entered production, Germany’s fate was sealed. The Allies were closing in and by the time they reached the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F’s production facilities, what they found were a couple of unfinished hulls and turrets. What is left of the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F is a fractured Schmalturm that was used as a range target at The Tank Museum, Bovington.
Two more photographs showing the left side and rear of the Schmalturm that was sent to the U.K. Source: Germany’s Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy
This Schmalturm was the one that was sent to the United Kingdom. The last remaining relic of the Pz.Kpfw. Panther Ausf.F at The Tank Museum. Source: Mark Nash
Krupp’s design to mount an 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 onto a Panther based on the Schmalturm. Source: Panzer Tracts
Side Note: Panther’s Designation
It is important to note that the designations, ‘Panzerkampfwagen V Panther’ and ‘Panzerkampfwagen Panther’ are both correct for the same family of vehicles. It is also important to note that the designation ‘Panzerkampfwagen V Panther’ did not receive an Ausführung letter modifier, however ‘Panzerkampfwagen Panther’ did.
For example, it is incorrect to say ‘Panzerkampfwagen V Panther Ausf.G’ (or any other Ausführung letter modifier). On the other hand, it is correct to say ‘Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf.G’.
Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausführung F (Sd.kfz.171) specifications
Dimensions
Length: 8.86 m
Length (without gun): 6.866 m
Width (with Schürzen): 3.42 m
Height: 2.917 m
Weight, combat loaded
45.5 tonnes
Crew
5 men (commander, gunner, loader, radio operator, and driver)
Propulsion
Water-cooled, gasoline Maybach HL 230 P30 V12 motor producing 600 hp @ 2500 rpm
coupled to a ZF A.K.7/200 transmission
The First World War was supposed to end quickly. Most of the high-ranking officials of the participating countries expected and planned for a short war, in which they would quickly crush their enemies and win glory and territories for their nations. However, after the German defeat at the First Battle of the Marne (6-12th September 1914), the Germans started digging in behind the River Aisne. The war was just one month old.
By March 1915, the trench lines on the Western Front spanned from the English Channel to the Swiss frontier. Bogged down in soft mud caused by heavy artillery bombing and rain, ensnared in barbed wire, entangled in numerous successive defensive lines, and decimated by machine-gun fire, offensives on the Western Front yielded little results and appalling casualties. The British and the French started looking for a solution to this ‘deadly equation’. The end result on the British end would be the first tank deployment in the world, preceded by the first tank prototype ever built, the ‘Lincoln No.1 Machine’.
The Lincoln No.1 Machine on trials. The tarpaulins concealing the vehicle have the name of the firm William Foster and Co. of Lincoln on them. Photo: SOURCE
A Historiographical Note
In October 1919, a Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors investigated about a dozen claims with regards to the invention of the tank. The claimants included personalities such as Winston Churchill, R.E.B.Crompton, William Tritton, Eustace d’Eyncourt and other important persons in the development of the tank. A large prize was awarded to those that the Commission deemed to be the ‘inventors’, although such a complicated machine could not be ‘invented’ by only two men and was a concentrated effort. However, the works of this Commission have driven a large number of divergent claims with regards to the development of the tank, and thus of the Lincoln No.1 Machine as well.
Furthermore, the Lincoln No.1 Machine (even under its more famous Little Willie name), while eliciting a large deal of interest, especially due to the centennial of the First World War, has only been treated superficially in the specialised literature, being glossed over in favor of the iconic rhomboid tanks.
A Flurry of Ideas
The tank, as it crashed through the German lines in 1916, did not appear out of a vacuum. Armored cars had been built and showcased around Europe for more than a decade, even though in small numbers and often facing vitriolic opposition. However, the armored car was incapable of traversing no man’s land. Various tank-like vehicles were also proposed around the continent and were just as rigorously ignored.
A myriad of solutions were soon envisaged, including portable bridges, pedrails, steam rollers and huge wheels. The tracked-vehicle did not immediately emerge as the redeeming solution. In fact, on 17th February 1915, a committee from the War Office (not to be confused with the later Landship Committee of the Admiralty) attended a demonstration of a Holt Tractor at Shoeburyness, some 40 miles west of London. However, the members of the committee were highly critical of the vehicle, especially regarding the weight and costs of an armored vehicle based on the Holt tractor. And thus the army turned its back on the tank idea.
The Navy Steps In
One of the major users of armored cars on the Western Front was, quite surprisingly, the Royal Navy Air Service, or RNAS. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Winston Churchill, had already joined the landship discussion in January 1915, with a letter to the Prime Minister speaking about armored steam tractors that would crush barbed wire, cross trenches, and deliver infantry to the enemy lines. While other fanciful ideas and ludicrous designs were discussed, on the 22nd February 1915, the Admiralty’s Landship Committee met for the first time under the chairmanship of Eustace d’Eyncourt, deciding to further look into two options, tracked vehicles or vehicles with large wheels.
With no reliable tracks available in Great Britain at the time, an officer was sent to the USA to try and locate some. The mission resulted in the delivery of the Killen-Strait tractor followed by two Creeping Grip tractors and an elongated set of tracks from the Bullock company in Chicago. The Bullock tracks arrived in August 1915.
An excellent shot of the two of the two Bullock Creeping Grip tractors that were bought on behalf of the Landship Committee and linked together. This was a development parallel to what would become the Lincoln No.1 Machine. However, this photograph of the original suspension also demonstrates the sagging that the elongated version on the Lincoln No.1 Machine suffered from. Because the tank’s tracks were much longer, they were even more likely to not connect correctly on the far end of the trench and be thrown off. Photo: IWM
In June 1915, the Army finally expressed its interest in getting back into the project, but the development would remain in Admiralty hands for a while longer. On 22nd (other sources state 24th) of July, the Lincoln-based William Foster & Company was finally contracted to build a prototype landship based on the longer version of the Bullock tracks. This choice came due to their previous experience with building tracked vehicles and their involvement with the military, having developed the humongous Daimler Foster artillery tractors and also having been involved in developing their own trench-crossing vehicle.
The vehicle at this stage is also described as based on one half of the articulated Crompton machine, as in an order from the Landship Committee from the 30th of July. This did not mean it actually was one half of the Crompton machine, but just that it used the same tracks.
However, from this short incubation period in the Navy’s berth, a number of components of the tank have received ship-like designations that are in use to this day. Tanks have hulls (from the watertight shell of a ship), hatches for the crew members, sometimes have weapon ports and sponsons (a part of a ship that projects beyond the side of the hull), one or more turrets (an entirely enclosed part of a ship that could rotate with the armament mounted in it), the hull machine-gun is often called a bow MG (the bow is the front of a ship) and the part above the engine is the engine deck (the floors on a ship).
The Lincoln No. 1 Machine
The paternity of the design that emerged is contested, with both R.E.B.Crompton and William Tritton claiming it. The former had led the design efforts of the Landship Committee before his contract ending prior to the end of the construction of the prototype and he was replaced with Tritton. What is known is that Tritton at least knew of a set of detailed drawings done by Crompton and an assistant, Mr. Rigby. Tritton contests having received a full set of detailed drawings, with other sources claiming he did, in fact, receive them. Regardless, construction finally began on 11th August. On the 9th (or 8th) of September, just four weeks later, it was already being driven around the yard at the Foster Company’s testing grounds.
The Lincoln No.1 Machine during trials. Notice the turret visible under the canvas and what looks like a gun holding up the cover. The vehicle was going over a small hill. The steering wheels are visible at the rear, as is the ‘nose’ that protrudes in front of the tracks. Note that the image was improperly scanned. Source: IWM Q 14543
The Name
The vehicle presented in this article, featuring the Bullock tracks, the simple version of the rear wheels and the large turret, was known as either the ‘Lincoln No.1 Machine’, after the locality it was built in, or the ‘Tritton’, after its head designer, at the time of its construction and testing. Some sources also state that William Tritton called both this design and Mother as ‘Juggernaut’.
The ‘Little Willie’ nickname seems to have only appeared after the Tritton tracks were fitted, sometime in January 1916, accompanying the ‘Big Willie’, better known as ‘Mother’ or ‘His Majesty’s Land Ship Centipede’. There is no proof that the vehicle ever officially ceased being called the ‘Lincoln No.1 Machine’, even after its upgrade.
It is thus the author’s choice to use the designations to differentiate between the ‘Lincoln No.1 Machine’ fitted with the Bullock tracks and the ‘Little Willie’ fitted with the Tritton tracks.
A note on the ‘tank’ designation should also be made. The persons involved in the project decided to adopt a cover name for the new vehicle being prepared, ‘landship’ being deemed as too conspicuous. ‘Water Carrier’ was first proposed, but the shorter version of ‘tank’ eventually won out and has remained in worldwide use. It is, however, unclear when the ‘tank’ designation first appeared and if it was applied to the Lincoln No.1 Machine. J.F.C. Fuller, in his book ‘Tanks in the Great War 1914-1918’ claims that it was first used on 24th December 1915 for a proposed ‘Tank Supply Committee’ that would take over armored development in the United Kingdom. This Committee was indeed formed in September 1916 upon the dissolution of the Landships Committee.
Another explanation given for the tank name is that the ‘chassis’ and the ‘body’ of the vehicle were separated, with the ‘chassis’, actually the Creeping Grip track system, being described as a training vehicle for the Royal Marine Artillery and the hull of the tank as a water carrier for Mesopotamia. This could also explain the photograph of the Lincoln No.1 Machine hull in the Foster factory, showing an almost complete vehicle, but with no running gear and no holes cut into the hull.
Construction
The large, boxy vehicle was of riveted construction using an iron-angle frame, being made out of boiler plate and not bullet-proof armor. This was, in the end, meant to be a test prototype and not to see combat. An angular nose protruded from the front, inside which the steering controls were located. Just above the glacis of this ‘nose’ were two hatches, hinged on the upper part, which allowed the driver and co-driver to see forwards. Both these hatches also featured a small horizontal slit with a shutter that should have allowed some limited visibility under fire. A similar design would be kept for most British tanks used in World War One. These could be held open using a strut. It is unclear if the circular gun slot that later appeared between the two hatches on Little Willie was present on the Lincoln No.1 Machine as well or if it was a later modification.
Two large, almost full-length sponsons were present on the sides, emerging from just over the tracks and reaching up to the top of the vehicle. Each of them had three weapon ports with a rotating shutter when not in use. One large headlight could be mounted on either side. The rear of the tank hosted the coupling that held the rear pair of wheels. This coupling allowed the wheels to be turned from the inside through a small hole at the rear of the tank. The rear assembly was fixed to mounting points on each side at the rear and connected to a large spring in the lower part of the rear. A door was also present on the left side of the tank, with a pistol port at its top. This seems to have been the only way of accessing the tank. A radiator fill port was present on the upper right side.
A photo showing the rear of the Lincoln No.1 Machine. The rear wheels and their mechanism are visible, as is the cable used to control them. The large door on the left is open, probably in order to aid ventilation inside. The small tubular piece of metal protruding out of the oval port hole in the center of the right-hand door at the back of the vehicle is the radiator filling tube. The constant use of a large canvas sheet over the vehicle was for security purposes, meant to disguise the machine. Photo: SOURCE
The rear wheels were meant to help the tank in steering and could be turned left and right, like on a regular car. They were based on the Ackerman steering geometry used in most wheeled vehicles. Because they were at the rear, when the wheels were turned to the left they would then turn the tank to the right, similar to how a car handles when driven in reverse. This was not the main means of steering, but was meant to augment the track steering and allow for more efficient shallow turns. The usual brake differential, which was the main mode of steering, led to the loss of a good deal of the tank’s power. Also, when crossing a trench, the wheels would offer extra support to the tank, allowing it to pass over trenches and not slide backward at the last moment.
The rear wheels on the Lincoln No.1 Machine were the same as the front wheels on the Foster-Daimler tractor, with a prominent circumferential central rib on the wheels. This feature would be kept for the Mark I tanks, but was removed afterward. The wheels where 1.37 m (4 ½ ft) in diameter. A large coil spring was also present, one end connected to the rear of the hull and the other to the rear wheel frame. This spring pulled the wheels downward, ensuring good contact with the terrain. The Lincoln No.1 Machine did not have the hydraulic system that could raise the rear wheels when needed.
The rear wheels on the Lincoln No.1 Machine. The attachment points and the large spring that held them in place are visible. Photo: SOURCE
The top of the tank had five structural support ribs running transversely, with another reinforcement running longitudinally on the centre. There was a radiator air intake at the rear right. A fan intake was placed further forward on the right, but behind the turret. Two more holes were present next to the fan. One of them was probably the fuel intake and the other the exhaust, although that is just speculation.
The Lincoln No.1 Machine also featured a large circular turret placed near the middle of the vehicle. There is some discussion around the placement of the turret, focusing on whether it was centered or offset to one side. Investigations on Little Willie, which survives in the Bovington Tank Museum, show that the circular plate that was used to cover the turret opening is off-center. However, it is unclear if this is because the turret opening itself is off-center or if only the plate was mounted to one side.
David Fletcher, in ‘The British Tank: 1915-1919’, states that the turret did not have any rotation mechanism installed for the prototype. It was not just a dummy weight though, as a photo taken during construction of the vehicle shows it being made of riveted steel, same as the rest of the tank. Contrary to various online opinions that state that the turret was meant to be fixed in place, it was almost assuredly designed to rotate on the final design. Turrets were not a new concept at the time, having already been used extensively on armored cars and on ships. Furthermore, the circular shape was too difficult to create and had no advantages over a rectangular shape if it was meant to be a fixed casemate.
Unfortunately, little else is known about the turret except for the fact it had at least one more weapon port. There is also a chalk lining on the front part, possibly showing where the cut-out for the gun would be made. There is a single photo showing the turret during the construction of the Lincoln No.1 Machine. The turret is well hidden by a textile cover in all the other photos of the vehicle. This was meant to obscure the role of the vehicle to any uninvited enquirers.
The only photo showing the Lincoln No.1 Machine’s turret. This was taken during construction at William Foster and Co. Note that the front hatches for the driver and co-driver have not been cut in yet. Neither have the side gun ports. The ‘tube’ sticking out of the lower side of the hull next to the ladder is the central pivoting axle, on which the track frames where mounted and also supported one drive chain sprocket. It is unclear what the thing attached to the side of the hull is, although it is possible it was used for cutting the weapon ports. Photo: SOURCE
The running gear was not directly connected to the hull of the vehicle. All the wheels that held the track were mounted on a frame that was then connected to a central pivoting axle on each side. Two other brackets on each side, one at the front and one at the rear, controlled the pitch of the body.
Armament
The Lincoln No.1 Machine was meant to sport impressive weaponry for the time. The turret was intended to mount a Quick Firing (QF) 2-pounder (40mm) Mark II gun. This watercooled Vickers-Maxim type autocannon was already in use in the Royal Navy as a ship-borne anti-aircraft gun. This weapon had a relatively high-rate of fire, being belt-fed, and a high muzzle velocity (585 m/s). However, the rather small shell had no explosive power, its main ammunition being solid shells, and would have struggled against enemy emplacements and machine-gun nests. This would lead to its abandonment by the nascent tank arm in favor of the 6-pounder.
Another machine-gun was meant to be mounted in the weapon port to the left of the gun. This was not coaxial and could be independently aimed.
A Quick-Firing 2-pounder (40mm) gun used as an Anti-Aircraft Gun on a train car in the Middle East, in Mesopotamia, in 1918. Photo: Q 24291, Imperial War Museum archives
Besides this, up to six Madsen light machine-guns were meant to be used. The hull of the Lincoln No.1 Machine had three pistol ports on each side and another one at the rear, from which the machine-guns were probably meant to be fired. They would be mounted on trunions and aimed through special sights using a short pistol grip. The barrel would have had a special cover. The machine-guns were magazine fed, with the magazine on the top part of the weapon. It can be speculated that the machine-guns could be dismounted for use outside the tank if needed.
The Madsens had been ordered from Denmark in 1914 for land and air use, but they were never shipped to Great Britain because the route was well covered by the German High Seas fleet and submarines. The Madsens were subsequently abandoned by the time the Tank Mark I rolled out at Flers-Courcelette, replaced by the locally-built Hotchkiss and Vickers machine-guns.
The tank version of the Madsen light machine-gun. Photo: The Madsen Machine Rifle. Main Characteristics, Organization and Tactical Use
Another source, ‘Lincoln No.1 Machine, Little Willie’ by M.J.Verrall, states that the machine-guns would be Lewis or Hotchkiss ones. The same source also states a Maxim machine-gun would have been fitted in the circular port at the front of the tank.
Some sources also state that some rifles would be carried, probably for use by the crew if they dismounted. Ammunition capacity and stowage are unknown. It is almost certain that the Lincoln No.1 Machine never got to the point where these were even considered.
Powerpack
The engine used in the Lincoln No.1 Machine was the same 105 hp Daimler-Foster already in use on Foster’s gigantic artillery tractors. This was a six-cylinder sleeve-valve petrol engine. The sleeve-valve system was an alternative to the currently usual poppet valve. These devices are used to control the flow of fuel into the piston.
At its invention, the sleeve-valve engine was significantly quieter and had markedly improved reliability, being a favorite for luxury machines. This came at the cost of excessive lubricating oil use. In the end, availability, Foster’s experience with the engine and the fact it was already in production and could be put into new tanks quickly led to its use in the Lincoln No.1 Machine.
A 1913 article from The Commercial Motor magazine showing a photo of the 105 hp Daimler engine that was later used in the Lincoln No.1 Machine. Photo: Commercial Motor April 1913
The engine was placed towards the rear of the tank, partially underneath the turret, which would have made the latter’s use more complicated. This peculiar arrangement was probably chosen in order to give a better weight distribution and allow better crew access to the engine.
Beside the engine, a gearbox (two forward speeds, one reverse), a worm differential, steering controls, and a radiator were also present. The radiator was placed at the rear-right of the vehicle and the differential was probably placed in the middle part of the vehicle. The steering controls were at the front, close to the two driver positions. One driver controlled the acceleration, gearbox and rear wheels, while the other one controlled the brakes for each track. Two fuel tanks were mounted in the rear upper sides of the hull.
The power transfer arrangement from the differential to the drive sprocket was ludicrously complicated. The drive shafts (one on each side) had a sprocket connected through a chain to another sprocket fitted to the central pivoting axle. This was connected to a second sprocket, also fitted to the central pivoting axle, which was connected by a second chain to a lantern pinion that drove the drive sprocket at the rear of the tank. A similarly complicated system was maintained on the subsequent Tank Mark I-IV. This had the advantage that the whole power transfer arrangement was more resistant to shocks, since the chains would not transmit exterior shocks to the gearbox and differential.
Illustration showing a cutaway of the complicated power transfer arrangement on the Tank Mark IV. Photo: Source unknown, taken from Pinterest
The slightly less complicated power transfer arrangement on the Tank Mark V, showing the two chain-connected sprockets, the second of which meshes with the drive sprocket. Photo: The Tank Corps, by Major Clough Williams-Ellis, M. C., and A. Williams-Ellis
A Daimler Foster artillery tractor. The size of this machine is immediately apparent. The engine and front wheels were reused on the Lincoln No.1 Machine. OHMS stands for On His Majesty’s Service. Photo: SOURCE
Crew
The number of crew members that the Little Willie would have accommodated is given as five in a single source, a speech given at an anniversary dinner 50 years later for the designers. It is unclear how accurate this information is. Two crew positions were present at the front of the vehicle, for the driver and the co-driver. At least two more crewmen would have been present in the turret, with the other one (or possibly more) manning the machine-guns in the sponsons.
The Track Units
The entire track system of the Lincoln No.1 Machine was imported from the United States, from the Bullock company of Chicago. They were an elongated version of the tracks used on the Creeping Grip tractor built by the same company. This was done because there were no suitable track producers in the United Kingdom and due to expedience, as they were already in production (even though thousands of miles and an ocean away).
The Bullock ‘Creeping Grip’ short tracks, as used on the original tractor. Photo: Commercial Motor magazine, 3rd April 1919
The drive sprocket was at the rear, while the idler was at the front. They both had a distinctive, slightly-spiraled design and were cast. The idler could be used to adjust the track tension. Eight equally-spaced small road wheels held the weight of the tank. These were all held on a single fixed frame. All photos of the Lincoln No.1 Machine show a significant curvature of the roadwheel line. This was apparently done in order to reduce the amount of track in contact with the ground and thus allow the tank to steer. There is indeed an inverse relationship between the contact length of the track and the ease of steering. The return of the track was supported by five return rollers, all fixed to another metal frame. This upper metal frame was connected to the arms of the idler and drive sprocket.
However, telegrams between Crompton and Wilson, sent when the Bullock tracks reached Foster’s, indicate that the tracks did not initially have this curvature, despite it being specified in the order to the Bullock company. This change was done on the 10th of August by lowering the central roadwheels.
There were apparently no springs or suspension parts, which assuredly made for a very bumpy ride. The vehicle was meant to be able to overcome a 1.5 m (5 ft) trench or a 75 cm (2 ½ ft) parapet.
It is interesting to note that all the running gear elements were connected to the ‘Creeping Grip’ frame and not directly to the hull of the Lincoln No.1 Machine. While this certainly affected the resistance and characteristics of the running gear, it nevertheless meant that it was easy to change, as was done when the Tritton system was introduced.
The Lincoln No.1 Machine during trials, showing an excellent view of the tracks. A close examination of the image shows that the first roadwheel has already disconnected with the tracks, landing on the outside of the guide horns when it should have stayed on the inside. Photo: SOURCE
The track links themselves were quite interesting. They were made from cast manganese steel and were 61 cm (24 in) wide. On the inner part, they had four sets of guide horn plates, which ran on either side of the wheels, idler, sprocket and return rollers. This was done in order to decrease the likelihood of the tank throwing its track. These guide horn plates also appear to have been able to rotate slightly in order to accommodate for the large curvature of the track at the front and rear.
The Bullock tracks were poorly manufactured. A report from the official that visited the Bullock factory claimed that, when the tracks did not fit the drive sprocket, the workers solved the problem by hammering the tracks into submission. Nonetheless, the tracks seem to have been unable to handle the larger weight of the Lincoln No.1 Machine and snapped or fell off as soon as the machine started moving in the factory. It must be noted that the vehicle was expected to have an operational life measured in tens of miles in order to accomplish its tasks of crossing the no-man’s-land and engaging the enemy defensive lines.
A larger problem became evident when crossing trenches. As the vehicle crossed the gap, the tracks sagged from under the wheels. When coming on the other side of the trench, the track guide horns would fail to properly connect with the wheels, which would land to the side of their intended central location. This lead to the track being thrown. During tests, this happened with alarming regularity and was, in the end, the downfall of the Creeping Grip track system, which was dropped in favor of a local design. This problem seems to have been due to the lateral flexibility of the tracks themselves.
The Lincoln No.1 Machine going up a slope during trials. Photo: SOURCE
Tests
The Lincoln No.1 Machine was tested at Cross O’Cliff Hill, just south of the Lincoln town, on the 19th of September 1915, with Sir Eustace Tennyson d’Eyncourt, Lieutenant-Colonel Ernest Swinton, Major Walter Gordon Wilson, First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill, and others in attendance, including a large crowd of factory workers and their wives. Most of the vehicle was covered with three large textile canvases from the Foster factory. One was suspended over the nose of the vehicle and a larger one was draped over the turret and the hull roof except on the rear-right side. The last canvas hanged from the side of the vehicle on the rear right side. This left the rear-right of the tank’s roof uncovered, allowing the exhaust and fans to function unobstructed.
The vehicle was run through difficult terrain and trenches. However, the tracks were repeatedly thrown off when trying to cross trenches, while the track links themselves were unsuited for the weight of the vehicle and began to break off.
This lead to the abandonment of the Bullock tracks, which were replaced with a new design on the second version of the prototype, now known as the Little Willie. However, by this time, the lozenge-shaped tank concept had already entered development and Little Willie was just a track testing vehicle.
Apparently, the rear wheels also proved unsatisfactory in some way or another, as they were changed to include a hydraulic system. More problems that were identified during tests regarded the turret, which made the tank top-heavy and too tall. It was subsequently abandoned.
Illustration showing how the Lincoln No.1 Machine might have looked during its tests without the canvas cover. Behind it is the Foster Daimler tractor, from which the engine, transmission and front wheels were reused on the tank. Illustration by Tony Bryan, taken from British Battle Tanks: World War I to 1939 by David Fletcher.
The Lincoln No.1 Machine during trials. The two openings at the front are clearly visible, although the hatches themselves seem to be missing. This photo shows the outer side of the tracks, which were of poor quality. Photo: IWM Q 14542
‘The British Tank: 1915-1919’ by David Fletcher
‘Osprey New Vanguard 100, British Mark I Tank 1916’ by David Fletcher
‘AFV Weapon Profiles 3, Tanks Mark I to V’ by Chris Ellis and Peter Chamberlain
‘A New Excalibur: The Development of the Tank, 1909-1939’ by A.J.Smithers
‘The Tank: Its Birth and Development’ by William Foster and others
‘The Landships of Lincoln’ by Richard Pullen
‘Eyewitness, being personal reminiscences of certain phases of the Great War, including the genesis of the tank’ by Major-General Sir Ernest D. Swinton.
‘History of the Tank’. Dinner Speech on the Commemoration of 50 years since the first use of tanks. January 1977
‘Lincoln No.1 Machine, Little Willie’ by M.J.Verrall, October 1988
‘The Madsen Machine Rifle. Main Characteristics, Organization and Tactical Use’
The Commercial Motor, A SIX – CYLINDER 105 h.p. SLEEVE-VALVE DAIMLER, 3rd April 1913, Page 14
The Commercial Motor, 3rd April 1919 This entire article has been funded by our Patron Golum through our Patreon campaign!
The Lincoln No.1 Machine, sporting the round turret armed with a 2-pounder Pom-Pom gun. Two more Madsen machine-guns are sticking out of the side sponson ports. Illustrated by Bernard ‘Escodrion’ Baker, funded by our Patron Golum through our Patreon Campaign.
Little Willie – Tank Encyclopedia Support Shirt
Little Wille, the first tank prototype, features prominently in this snark 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!
The foundations and principles of modern armoured warfare did not appear out of a vacuum, and nor did the machines of WW1 and WW2. Their development was full of false starts, failed ideas, and missed opportunities. Rookes Evelyn Bell Crompton was a pioneer in electrical engineering and road haulage who, by the turn of the century found himself in South Africa during the Boer War. Later, in WW1 his early work with the Landships Committee on tracked vehicles sought to break the stalemate of trench warfare. Although his tank designs never saw combat the work he started was carried on by other pioneers and helped to usher in a dawn of armoured and mechanised warfare.
German Reich (1944-1945)
Self Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun – 2-5 Built
As the German Luftwaffe (German Air Force) lost control over the skies of Germany in the second half of the Second World War; it could no longer provide sufficient protection against Allied aircraft. Panzer divisions were especially affected by the lack of cover from fighter aircraft because they were always at the center of the most intense fighting. While the Germans already had copious amounts of half-tracked Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Guns of different calibers and weights (Sd.Kfz.10/4, Sd.Kfz.6/2, Sd.Kfz.7/1, etc), these had the significant flaw of being vulnerable to the planes they themselves were meant to protect against.
A tank-based anti-aircraft vehicle (German: Flakpanzer) could solve this problem, but little effort was done in this direction. The first attempt was the Flakpanzer I, which was built only in limited numbers and was more an improvisation of an existing design rather than a purpose-built vehicle. The later 20 mm armed Flakpanzer models (Flakpanzer 38(t)) and the Wirbelwind) were built in some numbers but were considered unsuccessful, mostly due to the weak fire power of the 2cm Flak 38 by this late stage of the war.
Larger caliber 37 mm (Möbelwagen and the Ostwind, based on the Panzer IV) armed models proved to be somewhat better vehicles but were not without flaws. The Mobelwagen required a long time to prepare for action, and the Ostwind was built in limited numbers and too late to have any influence on the War. Even the famous 88 mm anti-aircraft guns were installed on some fully-tracked and tank chassis’, but again only in very limited number. These anti-aircraft vehicles’ main problem was the lack of a fully enclosed crew compartment. This issue was to be solved by the production of a new vehicle with a fully enclosed turret, the Leichte Flakpanzer IV 3 cm but mostly known by as ‘Kugelblitz’.
A period scale model of the Leichte Flakpanzer IV 3 cm and shows how the real vehicle would have looked like. Photo: panzernet.net
History
The history of the Leichte Flakpanzer IV 3 cm began with the creation of a different project design to provide German U-Boats (submarines) with an adequate anti-aircraft system. This project was carried out by Altmärkische Kettenwerke G.m.b.H (Alkett), starting in January 1944. The idea was to test a new design of a fully enclosed oblate spheroid turret armed with two 3 cm Mk 303 cannons. This project was never implemented as originally intended, but it would instead inspire a development of a fully protected Flakpanzer with similar armament.
One of the major shortcomings of all German Flakpanzers was the lack of a fully enclosed fighting compartment. As all were open top (because of the easier construction, guns exhaust gases and the need to produce them as fast as possible) it made the gun crews exposed to air attacks.
In May 1944, several Flakpanzer projects were showed to the Generalinspekteur of German Armored units, General Heinz Guderian. One of these was Oberleutnant Josef von Glatter-Gotz Leichte Flakpanzer IV 3 cm sketch project. On the insistence of General Heinz Guderian, the design and realization of a fully protected Kugelblitz began in late 1944. For design and production of this vehicle the Daimler-Benz company was chosen, and for its weapons, Rheinmetall.
The vehicle was designed by Oberleutnant Josef von Glatter-Gotz, who represented his Kugelblitz sketch project to General Heinz Guderian in May 1944. This is a sketch possibly made after the war. Photo: SOURCE
Chassis
By November 1944, plans for the new Flakpanzer were presented to the German Army General Staff. This vehicle was to be built by using the tank chassis of the Panzer IV and a new, fully enclosed oblate spheroid turret inspired (but not the same) by the unsuccessful U-Boat project. At the beginning of 1944, Alkett tested the original U-Boat oblate spheroid turret on an unmodified Panzer IV, but due to problems with the 3 cm MK 303 gun (it never went into production) and the complicated turret (possibly too difficult for production), this project was abandoned.
The version of Panzer IV chosen for this modification is unknown. Though, being designed in the later stages of the war, there is a great chance that either the Ausf.H or the Ausf.J versions were used (according to author Marcus Hock, the Ausf.J was used). The Panzer IV tank chassis was chosen simply as it was available in large numbers and it was becoming obsolete as a main frontline combat tank. It is also likely that the tanks used for this modification would not have been a newly built model, but instead, one returned to a factory for repairs or salvaged from the front. Tiger and Panther tank chassis were considered but were deemed too valuable for this modification. The main armament was to be two 3 cm cannons, but the option of two 2 cm guns was considered to be used as a temporary solution.
The serial production was to start in late 1944, but due to Allied bombing raids over German territory, many factories were not at full capacity. As a result of these delays, the serial production only commenced at the beginning of 1945, with few produced vehicles. It is possible that at least one complete prototype was built in late 1944. In one photograph dated October 16th 1944 taken during a demonstration of different anti-aircraft weapons designs near Kummersdorf, a Kugelblitz can be seen in the background. This could only be a wooden mock-up, but it is hard to say with certainty and it could likewise be a real vehicle. It was hoped that by January 1945 pre-serial production would begin, but these plans were never realized.
This is a photograph of a Kugelblitz taken in Kummersdorf. But the question arises, is this a real vehicle or just a wooden mock-up? Photo: SOURCE
By direct orders from Hitler, in November 1944, works on a similar project began. Instead of a standard Panzer IV tank chassis, the experimental Panzer 38(d) (or by using the Jagdpanzer 38(t) according to some sources) would be used as a base. It was to be equipped with the same oblate spheroid turret, but armed with both two 2 cm MG 151/20 and two 3 cm MK 103/38 cannons, though none was ever built.
Name
Depending on the sources, this vehicle is known under a few different designations. It is usually called the Flakpanzerkampfwagen IV (Thomas L. Jentz), Flakpanzer IV (Heiner F. Duske) or Leichte Flakpanzer IV (Peter Chamberlain and Hilary L.Doyle). Frequently, the ‘3 cm’ label is added to the name in order to differentiate it from other anti-aircraft vehicles based on the Panzer IV chassis. The nickname ‘Kugelblitz’ is used in many sources in reference to this vehicle. But if this nickname is a German or a post-war designation is hard to say. In this article, the ‘Kugelblitz’ name has and will be used, if only for the sake of simplicity. ‘Kugelblitz’ can be translated as ball lightning.
Production Plans and Number Built
Original plans for the Kugelblitz production predicted that the first five vehicles would be built by September 1944. Then it was to increase production to up to 30 vehicles by December 1944, and by early 1945, around 100 operational vehicles where to be built. The initial vehicles were to be built by Daimler-Benz (also in charge of producing two prototypes) and Deutsche Eisenwerke (three prototypes). For many reasons, including lack of resources and Allied bombing raids, production began only in early 1945. By the end of January 1945, planned monthly production was (sources give different numbers): 10 in January, 10 (30) vehicles in February, 10 (30) in March and a last batch of 40 in April. Because of the chaotic state Germany was in at this point of the War, it is difficult to determine the exact number of produced vehicles, but it probably did not match the planned production.
Production numbers are hard to find. Some sources state that at least one complete model was built, in addition to possibly a few more turrets, but other sources vary from up to five or even seven vehicles being completed. ‘Panzer Tracts No.12, Flak selbstfahrlafetten and Flakpanzer’, written by Thomas L. Jentz, cites several examples: According to Ing. Ebel (he worked at the Daimler-Benz) only three were fully completed. Mostly as the main supplier and builder of some of the vehicle’s parts, the Deutsche Eisenwerke plant (near the city of Duisburg, West Germany), was captured (at the beginning of 1945) by the Allied forces. According to Rudolf Spolders, the director of Deutsche Eisenwerke, only two turrets were completed, which were sent to Berlin to be possibly used as static anti-aircraft emplacement. Additionally, Jentz affirms that one complete vehicle was ready in October 1944 and that two more vehicles were built in March 1945. According to Walter J. Spielberger, five were built by February 1945. Bryan Perrett quotes that “half a dozen or so” were built. According to Duško Nešić, one prototype was built in November 1944, and two more in February 1945. According to some internet websites up to 7 were built. What can be said with certainty though is that at least two fully operational vehicles were built, as there is evidence of their existence (photographs and remains of one turret).
Technical Characteristics
As already mentioned, the Kugelblitz was built by using the Panzer IV (possibly Ausf.H or J) tank chassis. The suspension and running gear were the same as those of the original Panzer IV, with no changes to its construction. It consisted of eight small road wheels (on both sides) suspended in pairs by leaf-spring units. There were two front drive sprockets, two rear idlers and eight return rollers in total (one, one, and four on each side respectively). The design of the engine compartment was also unchanged. The engine was the Maybach HL 120 TRM (water cooled) 265 hp with 2.600 rpm.
The maximum armor of the lower frontal glacis was 80 mm thick, the sides were 30 mm, the rear 20 mm and the bottom armor was only 10 mm.
Most parts of the upper tank hull were unchanged from the original Panzer IV. The driver’s front observation hatch and the ball-mounted hull machine gun remained. The turret ring was replaced with a one taken from the Tiger I (with a diameter of 1900 mm). This was necessary because of the wider size of the newly designed turret. Because of this, the two hull crew hatch doors (for the driver and radio operator) were repositioned so as to not disturb this new installation. The front hull, directly above the driver and radio operator positions, was totally straight and level with engine deck. This differs substantially from standard Panzer IV hull as this part was slightly sloped. The front armor of the upper hull was 80 mm, the sides were 30 mm, and the rear armor that protected engine compartment was only 20 mm.
The biggest change in the design was the new enclosed oblate spheroid turret (with a fully 360° traverse) armed with two 3 cm cannons. Some sources (Marcus Hoch and Walter J. Spielberger) describe it as spherically (or simply as ball-shaped) shaped, but due to flattened sides and irregular top shape, the oblate spheroid is a more convenient designation. This newly designed turret was fully enclosed (suspended by using gimbals) and protected by a rounded protective mantlet (which had a shape like a shortened cone). The mantlet was made by welding three curved steel plates. The complete turret (together with the protective mantlet) had a larger diameter than the original Panzer IV turret. The oblate spheroid turret had a very compact construction with a diameter of only 60 cm. At least, in theory, it could be easily adapted to be operationally used in any other German armored vehicle. But in practice, besides the Panzer IV it was never used in any other vehicle.
The turret mantlet had 30 mm of armor, the inner enclosed oblate spheroid turret 20 mm, the rear part was 30 mm, with 10 mm on the top. This relatively thin armor offered protection from most machine guns and grenades.
Dimensions of the Kugelblitz were: length 5.92 m, width 2.95 m, and the height 2.3-2.4 m (depending on the source). The weight was around 23 to 25 t, again, depending on the source used.
Parts of the 3 cm cannons were protected by an armored casing, as can be seen here. On the front mantlet, the place where the two armored plate are welded together, it is visible. Photo: SOURCE
The main weapon consisted of two 3 cm MK 103/38 cannons. These cannons were already in use by the German Air Force (under the designation MK 103), mostly for ground attacks. But as the 2 cm calibers anti-aircraft gun began to become obsolete by 1944, the 3 cm MK 103 was reused for the role of a new ground anti-aircraft weapon (usually under the designation 3cm Flak 38 or 103/38). In addition to the better firepower, the compact size and belt-feed ammunition system proved to be ideal for the use in an enclosed turret. The main gun was placed in a box-shaped armored causing, but it was not gas-tight although it is possible that it was planned to be gas-tight in the future. Due to the fact that when used in action these canons produced a lot of powder smoke, installation of good extractor fans was important. The elevation of the 3 cm MK 103/38 was from – 7° to +80° (with other sources specifying -4° to +80° or -5° to +70°) with the whole ball moving up and down like an Oscillating Turret. The gun was activated by a trigger chain connected to the commander’s foot pedals (one for each gun). Initially, the manual traverse was tested by using reduction gears, but it proved to be a slow process. The traverse speed was only 10° per second and the elevation only 7º to 8° per second. As this vehicle was designed to fight fast and nimble ground attack aircraft, it was insufficient for the job, so a hydraulically driven mechanism controlling the traverse and elevation by means of a control stick, providing increased speed. The maximum rotating speed was 60° per second.
The maximum rate of fire was 250 rounds per minute, but 150 rpm was the more practical rate. The total ammunition load for this weapon was 1,200 rounds. The discharged cases fell into canvas bags placed under the guns. The order for redesigning and installing the new 3cm cannons in the turret was given to the Ostbau-Sagan in September 1944.
External parts of the two 3 cm canons barrels were protected by an armored casing and held in the center by three screws on each side. Besides their personal weapons, the crew could use the ball-mounted hull MG 34 machine gun for self-defense.
Illustration showing the crew movements in unison with the turret movement. Photo: SOURCE
The Flakpanzer Kugelblitz, painted in the ‘Dunkelgelb’ colour. Illustration by Mr. C. Ryan, funded by our Patron Golum through our Patreon Campaign.
Crew & Their Positions
The crew consisted of the commander/gunner, two gunner assistants, driver, and a radio operator. The positions of the radio operator (Fu 2 and Fu 5 radios were used), who also operated the hull mounted MG 34 machine gun, and the driver were same as on the original Panzer IV. The remaining three crew members were positioned in the new turret. The commander/gunner was position in the middle, behind the main guns, whilst the gunner assistants were placed on the left and right side in front of him. The crewmembers situated left of the gun were responsible for the turret’s movements, and the one on the right side was responsible for loading the guns. The spare ammunition was located on the right side. In some sources (like the Valka internet site), the left side crew operator was the gunner, but as the position of the foot pedals is behind the gun, this is incorrect. Each of these three crew members had hatch doors which they could use to enter or exit the vehicle. The gunner assistants’ hatch doors had a small round shaped hatch, which was also used for sighting devices. The commander had a small observation cupola on top of the new turret, equipped with a periscope for finding targets. The small size of these hatches made entering and exiting the vehicle difficult. On the turret rear, the mantlet was partially elevated, possibly for better rear protection of the commander when his hatch was open. But this, with combination of the position of the commander’s hatch, made any escape almost impossible when the turret was at high elevation. The turret crew moved together with the turret movements. This was done in order for the crew to follow the movement of the main weapon itself and thus targeting the target more precisely.
Photo of the turret where all three turret crew escape hatch doors are visible. Two on each side plus the additional rear two-part hatch door for the commander. Photo: SOURCE
3 cm Flugabwehrkanone 103/38 (3 cm Flak 38)
The 3 cm Flak 38 was made in late 1944 due to the weak firepower of the 2 cm Flak’s. It was built as a combination of the aircraft 3 cm MK 103 cannon and the 2 cm Flak 38 mounting, mostly to get it in operational service as soon as possible and to be cheap to produce. In mid-1944, Rheinmetall-Borsing was tasked with the production of some 2000 guns, in addition to 1000 gun that were to be built by Gustloffwerke, but only small numbers were produced by the end of the war. The similar four-barreled version of the 2 cm Flak 38 was also tested with the 3 cm MK 103, but it too was built in limited number only. The 3 cm Flak 38 was not a successful design, largely because of the strong vibration when firing which made the target aiming difficult and could cause some damage on the mounting itself. One innovation was the use of belt-fed system instead of the old magazine fed system. There are few designation for this gun, (depending on the source) the 3 cm Flugabwehrkanone 103/38 (simply Flak 38), Flak 103/38, 3 cm MK 103/38, or more aggressive ‘Jaboschreck’. The Jaboschreck word in essence can be translated as fast ground attack aircraft (Jagdbomber in German or just short Jabo) terror or fright (schreck).
The 3 cm Flak 38. Photo: SOURCE
The 3 cm Flak 38 was a gas-operated and fully automatic gun. With 360° traverse and -5° to +70° elevation. The rate of fire was around 450 rpm, but the more practical rate of fire was 250 rpm. Total weight of the gun was 619 kg. There where few different types of ammunition in use: the HE (815 gm), an experimental high-capacity HE rounds, AP with a muzzle velocity of 800 m/s. The maximum firing range was around 5.700 m.
In Combat
All produced vehicles (possibly five) were given to the newly formed Panzerflak Ersatz und Ausbildungsabteilung (armored Flak training and replacement battalion) located near the city of Ohrdruf (Freistaat Thüringen region in central Germany). One company was divided into three platoons equipped with a mix of different Flakpanzers vehicles. The first platoon was equipped with the Wirbelwind, the second with Ostwind, and the third platoon was intended to be equipped with experimental vehicles, such as the Kugelblitz.
The fate of all produced Kugelblitz Flakpanzers is not known. What is know from photographic evidence is that at least two were used in combat and were destroyed.
One or more vehicles (in addition to possibly an unknown number of turrets) were sent to Berlin, and during the final Soviet assault on the German capital all were lost. A photo taken on 11th July 1945 shows one destroyed Kugelblitz in Berlin. It is identified as a Kugelblitz because of the position of the front hull (right above the driver position) which is totally flat in contrast to slightly sloped shape found on regular Panzer IV’s. Doyle states this to be a real Kugelblitz.
Destroyed Kugelblitz captured during the battle for Berlin. Photo: SOURCE
There is information about another Kugelblitz vehicle that was used in combat, but in this case against Allied forces on the West, more specifically during the battles for Hörschel, Spichra and Creuzburg by the end of March and beginning of April 1945. As the American forces advanced through central parts of Germany, they came to a small village named Spichra. This village was surrounded by the Werra River and the only way across was through a partly destroyed bridge connected to a power plant. This bridge was defended with few anti-tank guns, some Panzer IIIs (marked as training vehicles) and one Kugelblitz (from the Panzerflak Ersatz und Ausbildungsabteilung). All were located at Spatenberg Hill near this village. An American reconnaissance force was sent to investigate and to find a place where the river crossing could be possible. This unit came under German fire and was forced to pull out with some losses. The American response was to bomb the village and the nearby hill. In the following battle the Kugelblitz was destroyed and its remains were discovered in 1999.
By the end of the war, the Allies managed to capture one Kugelblitz turret. Until the seventies it was stored at Royal Military College of Science at Shrivenham, United Kingdom. It was eventually returned to Germany (in the late seventies) and can now be seen at the Anti-Aircraft School at Rendsburg (Schleswig-Holstein).
Two views of the remains of the destroyed Kugelblitz turret near the village of Spichra, found in 1999. Photos:SOURCE/SOURCE
Conclusion
It is sometimes claimed that if this vehicle was produced earlier, and in larger numbers, it could have made a large impact on the war (this is often said for other German late built model vehicles, like for example Jagdpanther). In theory, the Kugelblitz would have provided more effective anti-aircraft fire against Allied low-flying attack aircraft and significantly reduced the danger they posed for German ground forces and thus reduce losses. They also note that the highly developed and advanced construction of this vehicle and its impact on later models built after the war. Claims about the potential impact of the Kugelblitz on the course of the war omit certain facts:
The Kugelblitz was built only in limited numbers, possibly only a few prototype vehicles.
It is important to notice that these were prototypes (pre-production) vehicles, and their combat potential thus was limited, having been hastily constructed and possibly not even properly tested.
There is only a limited record of Kugelblitz combat use, and if it was effective against its primary targets (ground attack aircraft) is unknown.
The claim that the Kugelblitz had a great impact on post-war anti-aircraft vehicle designs is questionable. A number of the first post-war anti-aircraft models had partially enclosed turrets, such as the American M42 Duster or the Soviet ZSU-57-2 design.
The Allies were already using anti-aircraft vehicles (during the WW2) with a fully enclosed turret (based on the Crusader tank design), so they had some experience with this system, probably influencing post-war designs more strongly.
In conclusion, the Kugelblitz was definitely an improvement (in the case of crew protection) over previous Flakpanzers that were already in operational use. It had good firepower with its two 3 cm cannons, good mobility and solid protection. It had a much lower silhouette than the Wirbelwind Flakpanzer for example, making it a less visible target. As a design it was certainly impressive and innovative.
The biggest negative side was the fact that it was never properly tested to see if the whole Kugelblitz design was successful and efficient. Even if it was built in larger numbers, it was simply too little too late. By late 1944 and 1945, the war was already lost for Germany.
Specifications
Dimensions
5.92 x 2.88 x 2.3 m
Total weight, battle ready
23-25 tons
Crew
5 (Radio operator, two gunners, driver and commander)
Armament
2x 3 cm Mk 103/3 Auto-cannons
1x MG 34
Armor
Panzer IV hull 10-80 mm, turret mantlet 30 mm and the oblate spheroid part 10-30 mm
Italian Republic (1982)
Main Battle Tank – 18 Built + 18 Converted
The Italian firms of OTO-Melara and FIAT had worked together and developed the OF 40 (OTO-FIAT 40 tonne) main battle tank. However, they classed it unusually as a ‘medium battle tank’, one of “nearly unlimited cross-country mobility” to quote the sales literature. The OF-40 was first unveiled in 1980 and quickly received orders from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The Mk.2 upgraded version was released shortly thereafter being trialed in August 1982 with features optimised for fighting in the desert and to rectify the deficiencies of the earlier vehicle which had been highlighted by the customer. The most critical deficiency being that the Mk.1 tank was unable to fire on the move due to a lack of fully stabilized sights.
The OF 40 Mk.2. Photo: Military Today
Armament
Another complaint from the UAE was the main armament. The UAE wanted a 120mm main gun but, like the Mk.1, the Mk.2’s main armament was the OTO-Melara 105mm L/52 rifled main gun. The main gun was mounted in the turret with a semiautomatic falling-wedge type breech, spring recuperator, and concentric buffer. This gun is not the same as the Royal Ordnance 105mm gun L/52 gun but is very similar and the ammunition was compatible. Alongside this was a 7.62mm FN MAG coaxial machine gun and a second 7.62mm FN MAG machine gun for anti-aircraft protection. It is important to note that the machine guns would not be supplied with the tank and would have to be purchased and fitted separately. A battery of 4 smoke projectors was mounted on each side of the turret.
The 105mm gun could fire HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank), HESH (High-Explosive Squash-Head), and APDS (Armor-Piercing Discarding-Sabot) ammunition all of which were fired electrically. The gun, being electro-hydraulically operated, returned to ‘battery’ for reloading automatically after being fired. Other NATO compliant 105mm ammunition could also be used, such as smoke and canister rounds. The gun was fully stabilized permitting fire on the move and the commander was able to override the control, sight and fire the gun himself, a very useful combat feature. Additionally, should the electrical systems fail, all of the weapon systems could be moved and fired manually.
Upgraded OF 40 Mk.1 as fitted with a new optical camera. Note the older style rear stowage. In this arrangement, this Mk.1 was advertised as a Mk.2. Source: Janes
The optical equipment and fire control on the Mk.1 were too austere therefore the Mk.2 version added a package of electrical and optical devices. The Mk.2 featured the same SFIM (Societe de Fabrication d’Instruments de Mesure) VS580-B panoramic sight day/night sight for the commander as on the Mk.1 except that it was self-stabilized during panoramic search and also matched to the gun for firing. Also, the same coaxial C215 telescope made by Alenia and an Officine Galileo built OG14LR or OG14LR2A/B digital fire control system and gunner’s primary sight was used. The OG14LR2A featured a stabilization system with meteorological sensors and the ‘B’ system added a stabilized line of sight to this. Laser range finding was by means of the Selenia VAQ33 neodymium yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser rangefinder made by Alenia and had a range of up to 10km (6 miles). Additionally, there was an optional model PZB 200 LLLTV (Low Light Level Television) camera made by AEG Telefunken with monitor and additional firing computer.
Despite these improvements to the 105mm main gun, the customer still desired a 120mm gun armed tank and, although the 120mm L/44 smoothbore gun developed for the C1 Ariete could also be fitted into the OF 40, this development came too late and is not known to have been put into practice. Such a change would have created significant issues with having to completely reorganize all of the internal ammunition stowage, fire control, and many other internal components.
Cross section of 105mm gun armed OF 40 Mk.2 turret with false colouration of gun, seating, optics, and armour. Photo modified by author
The muzzle velocity for the APDS shell is 1,470m/s, 1,170m/s for the HEAT and 730m/s for the HESH, and the gun can be fired at a maximum rate of 9 rounds per minute. Elevation and depression for the main gun is from -9 degrees to +20 degrees. Maximum range the gun is sighted for is 6000 meters. Although both Mk.1 and Mk.2 had the same gun and could both fire all 105mm NATO complaint ammunition only the Mk.2 was specifically advertised as being able to use canister and smoke type ammunition.
The coaxial machine gun can, if needed, could be used to assist in ranging as it is matched ballistically to the main gun. Only 15 rounds for the main gun were carried in a redesigned internal stowage in the turret along with 2500 rounds for the machine guns. A further 42 rounds for the main gun were carried in an ammunition rack in the front left of the hull. An additional 3000 rounds of ammunition for the machine guns are carried in the hull. The rearrangement of ammunition inside the Mk.2 meant this tank could only carry 57 rounds for the main gun.
Turret
Made from plates of welded rolled homogeneous steel armor plate and using spaced armor in critical areas, the turret is carried around the ring on steel ball bearings and is capable of being traversed 360 degrees at a speed between 0.5 degrees per second up to 21.2 degrees per second. This is slightly slower than the Mk.1 by taking one additional second to rotate 360 degrees (17 seconds for full traverse instead of 16). The elimination of shot traps was considered important and the ring for the turret is protected by a ballistic deflector.
Hull
The hull is made from welded rolled homogeneous armor steel with spaced armor in critical areas and with the crew compartment divided off from the engine area. The driver is seated in the front right with the ammunition stowed in the hull to his left, and by his seat is a floor escape hatch.
Suspension
The seven wheel stations each have double wheels and are connected via swing arms to torsion bars. Drive is delivered to the steel tracks by a rear drive sprocket and the rubber block track is carried on its return by 5 support rollers.
Five hydraulic shock absorbers are fitted on each side and conical springs prevent the wheels from deflecting too far causing damage to the bar or arm.
OF 40 Mk.2 during trials. Note the redesigned extended turret stowage basket too. Source: Military Today
Sights
The gunner is equipped with a laser range finder and an x8 optical telescope and the commander’s position is fitted with a panoramic periscope with an optional French SFIM stabilized day night sight for target surveillance and acquisition. Episcopes are also provided for the crew with 8 for the commander, 1 for the gunner, 2 for the loader, and 3 for the driver. An additional night driving sight is available for the driver.
Engine
The OF 40 is equipped with the same V-10 ten cylinder license built FIAT Diesel engine and is supercharged (2 superchargers), rated at 830hp at 2200rpm and delivering 286kgm of torque at 1500rpm. The previous Mk.1 advertised an engine output maximum at 850hp and 295kgm of torque. The engine is connected to a fully automatic gearbox with a hydraulic torque converter and the gears are electrically selected with options for 4 forward and 2 reverse gears permitted a faster maximum forward and reverse speed than the Mk.1. As with the Mk.1, in the event of an electrical failure, a manual override can be used for second gear. Additionally, this Mk.2 featured two liquid coolers with thermostatically controlled fans specifically designed for desert conditions. There were additional tropicalisation features added controlling the fuel supply to prevent overheating in desert conditions and a cyclone filter to ensure the air intake remains dust free. This combination delivers a power to weight ratio for the OF-40 Mk.1 of 19.3 hp/t.
The two fuel tanks inside, located on each side of the engine compartment, hold a total of approximately 1000 liters of diesel which is estimated to provide a range of up to 600km on road. The entire power pack consisting of engine, transmission and cooling system could be replaced by a team of 4 men with a crane in just 45 minutes. The United Arab Emirates had been unhappy with the relatively poor mobility of the OF 40 despite the claims of the manufacturers and as a result, FIAT offered two options. One was the refitting of their own FIAT MTCA V-12 supercharged diesel engine producing 1,000 hp or further enhanced to 1,200 hp. A final simpler option was to simply enhance the existing 830hp engine as already fitted to deliver 950hp. None of these three options is thought to have taken place.
Variants
As of 1998, several variants of the OF 40 were known to exist built using modified versions of the chassis: OF 40 ARV (Armoured Recovery Vehicle)
This variant was developed and produced by OTO-Melara and FIAT specifically for the needs of the United Arab Emirates and featured a bulldozer blade, for clearing obstacles but which also acted as a stabiliser when using the crane. The recovery crane mounted on the hull was capable of lifting 18 tonnes with the blade in the support position and less with it raised. The winch on the jib can be used in the lowered position for basic towing, with a tractive effort of 35tonnes. These additions increased the weight of the OF 40 to 45 tonnes when fully laden. The driver’s position remained the same in the front right but the other three crew were positioned in a fixed casemate structure mounted over the turret ring.
The OTOMATIC SPAAG. Photo: Military Today Ariete Testbed
Components for the C1 Ariete MBT were tested, including the turret, on an OF 40. Palmaria SPG (Self-Propelled Gun)
The OTO-Melara made 155mm gunned Palmaria turret. For the Palmaria SPG this was mounted onto a variant of the OF 40 hull – production complete with approximately 160 examples produced for Libya and a further 25 for Nigeria. OTO-Melara 35mm SPAAG
Twin 35mm anti-aircraft defence system turret by OTO-Melara and mounted on an OF 40 hull. This variant did not progress past the prototype stage Sabiex HIFV
Experimental heavy infantry fighting vehicle/armored personnel carrier
Developed between 2005 and 2010, as a joint venture between the UAE and Belgian firm of Sabiex. The project involved the reversing of the vehicle with the engine at the front and the former driver’s space and area under the turret repurposed for troops. Vehicle fitted with a BMP-3 turret. One vehicle made.
Conclusion
The OF 40 was a capable tank, better than the Leopard 1 Italy had in service. Free from any export problems it was an ideal tank for Italy to promote and sell. Despite garnering interest from various countries and being rapidly upgraded to a Mk.2 configuration, the OF 40 only entered service with the United Arab Emirates.
OF 40 Mk.2 on display in Thailand in 1985. Photo: Battlefield Magazine
Despite the improvements made for the UAE then, they were still unhappy. The mobility was too low, the gun too small, and there were complaints that the commander’s sight was not fully stabilized. The vehicle was replaced in UAE service with the French Leclerc instead. Originally 18 Mk.1 examples were built, which were subsequently all upgraded to Mk.2 status. 18 additional vehicles built as Mk.2’s were manufactured as well. It is reported that 39 (including test-bed hulls) OF 40 vehicles were manufactured. No OF 40’s are known to be in service today with the final vehicles officially withdrawn from front-line service with the UAE. As of 2014 the UAE still officially listed some 36 OF 40’s as part of their military forces, presumably in reserve or storage.
Rendition of the OF-40 Mk.2 by Jarosław Janas, funded by our Patreon Campaign.
OF 40 Mk.2 Main Battle Tank, specifications
Dimensions
Length gun forward – 9.65m Length gun rear – 8.33m Width with track guards on – 3.51m, with armoured track guards off – 3.35m Height to top of turret – 2.45m
Total weight
43 tonnes maximum when fully laden for combat, 40t when laden for transport
Crew
4, commander, gunner, and loader, in the turret, and a driver in the hull positioned on the front right
Propulsion
830-850hp FIAT Diesel engine with automatic transmission delivering 19.3 hp/t
Suspension
Torsion bar suspension with hydraulic adjustment
Top speed
65 km/h
Operational maximum range
600km (road)
Armament
105mm L/52 rifled gun with 57 rounds, coaxial 7.62mm machine gun and 7.62mm anti-aircraft machine gun with 5500 rounds.
Armor
Rolled homogeneous armor steel + spaced armor
Production
18 Mk.1’s upgraded to Mk.2 status, 18 more built as Mk.2
Sources
OF 40 Mk.1 Manual – Oto Melara April 1981
OF 40 Mk.2 Manual – Oto Melara November 1982
OF 40 Mk.2a Manual – Oto Melara December 1983
War Machine Magazine Vol.1 Issue. 1 1983
Defense Leaders Magazine, 2014, UAE
Forecast international
Modern Armor. (1978). Pierangelo Caiti, Squadron Signal Publications.
Janes Armour and Artillery 1985
Italian Defence Industries, Nov. 1986
Additional material from Mr. Kittichart Boonyapakdi
Kingdom of Spain/Second Spanish Republic/Nationalist Spain (1926-1937)
Light Tank – 4 Built
Spain has mainly depended on foreign technology for its tank forces but there have always been enthusiastic engineers, military commanders, and policy-makers who have wanted to break the mold and create indigenous designs. The first of these initiatives would take place in 1925 in the northern town of Trubia, Asturias. Following the satisfactory completion of a prototype, plans were put in motion to design an improved serial production tank which was to be known as the Modelo Trubia Serie A4, or ‘Trubia tank’ for short.
Context – Lessons from Morocco
Colonial competition and internal politics meant that Spain took possession of large areas of what today is Morocco. The locals loathed the Spanish colonial administrators, leading to the Melilla War (1909) and the Rif War (1911-1927). In the latter, Spain would use for the first time in its history the modern technology of aircraft, armored cars, and tanks. The Spanish brought 11 Renault FT’s and 6 Schneider CA-1’s from France which would take part in multiple actions throughout the war with mixed results. The main shortcomings found in the Renault FT, regarded by the Spanish as their finest tank, were: poor performance, speed, range of operation due to a poor engine, and its vulnerability when its only machine gun jammed.
To overcome these, a team involving Commander Victor Landesa Domenech (an artillery officer attached to the Trubia arms factory), Captain Carlos Ruíz de Toledo (a Commander in charge of Batería de Carros de Asalto de Artillería [Artillery Tank Battery] during its first engagements during the Rif War) and the Trubia arms factory’s Chief Engineer, Rogelio Areces, took it upon themselves to design and build a superior vehicle for the Spanish Army.
The Trubia prototype
Designed and built in 1925 on their own initiative and financed out of their own pockets, the Trubia prototype would be tested in 1926 with a very satisfactory reception. So much so, that, a budget was set for the creation of a tank producing workshop at the Trubia factory and a commission led by Areces and Ruíz de Toledo was established to travel Europe and investigate tank technological innovations they could use for an improved serial version of the prototype.
Appearance-wise, the tank resembled the Renault FT, as it was in the minds of Landesa Domenech and co. the best tank they had knowledge of. However, there were a few differences:
– To surmount firepower concerns, two overlapping turrets with independent movement and each armed with a Hotchkiss 7mm machine gun were adopted.
– At the front of the tank there was a small semi-circular plate attached to an elongated nose of the tank which acted as a ram to break through obstacles such as walls and barbed wire.
– Due to circumstances, armor and engine-power were only marginally improved.
The European Expedition, Notions of Tank Design
Areces and Ruíz de Toledo’s European adventure would not be as fruitful as they may have hoped and expected. Tank technology was in its infancy and most tank producing nations were wary of sharing their findings, and the technology they did exhibit and share was mostly outdated. Companies like Vickers did at the time sell custom-made tanks to the buyer’s needs, but it seems that Areces and Ruíz de Toledo did not explore this option as they probably did not want to spend much of their limited budget.
According to Artemio Mortera Pérez, author of the most complete book on the Trubia tanks, in Germany, they were shown a very peculiar suspension inspired by the one intended to be used on the K-Wagen behemoth. However, although the K-Wagen’s suspension was unsprung, the vehicle or suspension system they were shown was probably from or inspired by the earlier Orion-Wagen.
This undercarriage system was named ‘Orion’ and was supposed to improve upon traditional systems in addition to enhancing turning capabilities and minimising the effects on roads. In this integrated track design, the links were suspended from the chassis and held together by a lateral metal wall. This system was designed to prevent the tracks from coming off when maneuvering.
It is possible that the vehicle they were shown was a totally different vehicle. In 1926, the Leipzig-based firm Wotan-Werke built to test the differences between a suspended and not-suspended tracked chassis. When considering the suspension of this vehicle (see picture below) and the Trubia Serie A (later in the article), the visual similarities are uncanny. The vehicle was known as the Wotan-Werke Type A. The Trubia tank was designated as Serie A (Eng. Series A). Whilst type and series do not mean exactly the same, it is possible that there is some correlation. Notwithstanding, it could just be a coincidence.
At a time when Germany was prohibited from having a standing army, the designers behind the Wotan-Werke Type A may have been eager to find a foreign buyer and saw in Areces and Ruíz de Toledo an opportunity.
Additionally, a few Daimler engines of different horsepower were shown to the commission. As a side note, the Wotan-Werke Type A used a Typ M 1574 100 hp Daimler-Mercedes 4-cylinder Otto engine.
Satisfied with what they saw, the Commission bought at least four ‘Orion’ systems and Daimler 4 cylinder 75 hp engines for the tank series, and two larger undercarriage systems based on the same principle and two Daimler 8 V-shaped cylinder 200 hp engines with the intention of building a large tank recovery tractor.
The team behind the design had several ideas to improve upon the Renault FT:
– Improving firepower and lessening vulnerability when the only machine gun jammed. For this, the same idea as on the prototype was adapted though the lower turret was intended to use a modified Ramírez Arellano 40mm infantry gun. However, this would not materialize.
– Enhancing the FT’s poor speed, range and performance by equipping the more powerful Daimler 75hp engine.
– Avoiding the vulnerability of the crew having to exit the tank to access the engine for repairs by creating a bigger engine compartment which could be accessed from the inside.
– Improvement of the undercarriage, which had caused many headaches. It is possible that early on a wheel-cum-track system was considered, but given the failures of the Chenilletts Saint Chamond in Spanish service which used this system, the idea was quickly abandoned. The ‘Orion’ system bought in Germany was to be used instead.
The design team was willing to sacrifice small size as they felt their improvements were more important.
Design
Exterior Appearance
The square-shaped central hull part housed the crew compartment and above it was the turret. The back resembled that of an FT – rear tail included – but was much larger and housed the engine. At the front, to each side was a hinged door to access the engine. Behind it only on the right-hand side was a large exhaust pipe. To the front of the central piece was a sheet going down at a 45º angle. On the center-right were two boxes of different shapes. The most central and smaller one had a vision slit for the driver, whilst the larger one to the right had a forward firing machine gun. This position was a detachable piece which allowed the crew to enter and access the tank. The frontal and side pieces sloped inward meeting at the beak of the tank, upon which was a removable small semi-circular plate which acted as a ram to break through obstacles, such as walls and barbed wire. On the earlier version of the tank, there was a mudguard which covered the whole top of the tracks to prevent enemy infantrymen from planting explosives on them.
The side and frontal armor was 20 mm thick and made with chromium-nickel steel plates riveted to an inner frame.
Turret
One of the tank’s most recognizable features, the turret, was made out of two overlapping turrets with independent movement and each armed with a Hotchkiss 7 mm machine gun. Each turret consisted of a truncated cone forged in nickel steel 16mm thick. Each one had a ball machine gun mount which allowed for 65º of vertical and 110º of horizontal fire. On the direct opposite side of the ball mount was a small vision slit, and on either side of the turret there were small sliding windows to improve the gunners’ vision. On the top of the upper turret was a circular outwards opening hinged hatch upon which a cylindrical panoramic visor – a stroboscopic cupola – was fixed. The cylinder had vertical openings around it protected by ‘unbreakable’ glass and turned by means of a small electrical engine, providing a continuous panoramic vision of the exterior by means of the ‘persistence of vision’ phenomenon.
Armament
Armament consisted of three 7 mm Hotchkiss M1914 machine guns. Each turret had one (operated by two different gunners, one of whom was also the commander. The gunners would have to load their own weapons) and the third was at the front and operated by the driver. In total, for the three guns. the tank carried enough ammunition for 8,000 shots. Initially, the lower turret was supposed to carry a modified Spanish-built Ramírez Arellano 40 mm infantry gun, but the project behind this gun would not materialize until a few years later. The machine gun was a stop-gap solution, but with plans to fit the infantry gun in the future, though these never materialized. The sides of the tank also counted with small loopholes through which the crew could fire their personal weapons. Additionally, the first series production vehicle had a ball joint on the right side for a Mauser rifle, the purpose for which is unclear – this was later removed.
Engine
The engine could be started by means of compressed air provided by a compressor, but if this system malfunctioned, it could always be started up manually with a crank and an Bosch electrical system. The engines used were the Daimler MV1574 4 cylinder 75 hp with 900 rpm bought by Ruíz de Toledo and Areces in Germany fitted with Beru spark plugs.
However, these were modified to improve performance. To ensure that enough lubrication was provided for when the tank was at a 45º angle, the oil container was changed. A cogwheel and chain transmission was added to put the air compressor into motion.
Cooling for the motor and the interior was provided by two large ventilators. One was placed in front in the middle of the vehicle sucking air from inside the crew compartment inwards and was expelled to the exterior one through the second ventilator at the back.
The engine and two ventilators were built as one piece and were connected on each side to the body-on-frame.
The manual engine start was situated in front of the frontal ventilator and could be accessed from outside from both sides through the hinged doors.
Beneath the front ventilator was the double cone clutch which was activated by a pedal to the right of the driver.
The tank was capable of traveling at 30 km/h with a range of 100 km, a slight improvement over the Renault FT. The fuel tank held 180 liters.
Driving Mechanisms
The gearbox was beneath the driver and was made from cast steel. It consisted of four speeds with the first speed being used to overcome obstacles and for driving over uneven ground.
Changing direction was possible by means of a mechanism which immobilized or reduced the speed of one of the tracks.
Body-on-Frame and Tracks
Each track consisted of a long ellipse-shaped structure formed by two parallel steel sheets. Between the two sheets there was a track for the track rollers to travel through. The tracks on either side were joined to each other by 4 u-shaped bars traveling underneath the tank. The engine lay over the two furthest to the back. At the front of the tracks, there was an opening to the inside of the tank for the mechanism to connect them to the gearbox. Between the steel sheets were some sort of drum breaks.
Unlike in most other vehicles, the track rollers were integrated into the tracks and moved in unison with the track links along the tracks set between the two sheets. The track links had a cross pressed into them to improve traction.
Name
The tank’s name has caused some controversy over the years. Officially, it was named Carro Ligero de Combate para Infantería Modelo Trubia 75 H.P., Tipo Rápido, Serie A – meaning Infantry Light Tank Trubia Model 75 hp (the engine’s hp), Rapid Type (30km/h was considered quite fast in comparison to the Renault FT and Schneider CA) Series A. Ruíz de Toledo designated the tank Modelo TRUBIA. Serie A. – with this designation being used throughout the article. From the 1930’s onwards, official documents would add ‘A4’ or ‘4A’ at the end, possibly referring to the fact that 4 were built in total. The name Carro Rápido de Infantería [Rapid Infantry Tank] is also used.
It is, however, incorrect to call them Trubia-Naval, as this was a different tank entirely dating from 1936. Furthermore, many sources refer to the tanks as a prototype to the Trubia Naval, including the original Tanks Encyclopedia article on the vehicle. There was a direct connection between the two and they shared multiple features, but that is as far as it went. The tanks were two different projects with two distinct purposes.
The name follows a general Spanish tendency to name tanks and other armored fighting vehicles after the place where they were designed or built, or after one of the engineers behind the project.
Testing
After their construction was rushed by demands coming from Madrid, four vehicles were finished at some point in 1926 as part of a pre-production series. This meant that as soon as they were finished (only one was constructed at each time), they were transported by train to Estación del Norte (modern-day Príncipe Pío) in Madrid. One, most likely the last one, was not even finished when it was transported, and a small workshop garage next to the train station in Madrid had to be hired to finish the vehicle off before it joined the other three at the Escuela Central de Tiro, the Army’s testing ground, in Carabanchel, South Madrid. Due to the hurry imposed from Madrid, the vehicles had not been properly factory tested and a group of factory workers were sent along with the tanks to make sure everything ran smoothly.
The testing of the four tanks would garner lots of interest and many officials would visit during the long demanding tests they were submitted to. These tests included cross-country travel, obstacle demolition, overcoming gradients, pulling heavy artillery and spare armor plates of the same thickness as the tank were fired upon with a 40 mm gun to test the level of protection it offered. The 40 mm gun was the same one as originally planned to be used by the tank. While the tank’s performance was generally considered to be good several important deficiencies were noted. Pros:
– The engine was considered overall to be an improvement.
– The space and comfort inside.
– The fact that the engine could be accessed from within the tank. Cons and recommendations:
– The main con was the undercarriage, which broke down several times.
– The ventilator blades and supports snapped because of their excessive weight and were to be replaced with aluminum ones. Changes were made to soften the abrupt halting of the blades when the engine stopped.
– The support for the ventilator at the back was to be changed from cast to forged steel.
– Improvements to the fuel feed.
– The spark plug was unsatisfactory and was first replaced by a Bosch one and later by a K.L.G. one.
– The compressed-air driving system was to be changed by a driving wheel and pedals.
– The vehicle was found to lack rigidity and its main structure had to be reinforced. The top of the vehicle supporting the turrets was of special concern.
– Adding a hinged hatch for the driver’s entry and exit to the left of the detachable boxes on the frontal plate.
– Eliminating the mudguards.
– Recommendations were made for overall improvement to make the undercarriage more durable.
The accompanying factory workers carried out multiple repairs during the tests and made notes of what went wrong. Along with the official recommendations, these would be used on return to Trubia.
Death of the Project
The four tanks were taken back to Trubia by train to be disassembled and at least one was modified. The modified tanks are often called ‘segunda serie‘ [second series] to distinguish them from the original ones. The idea was to create a production series from the lessons learnt.
A modified tank was tested in the factory grounds in front of the military commanders of the Asturias region, led by General Zuvillaga. During these tests, the vehicle lacked the detachable frontal boxes, ‘ram’ piece, and machine guns.
This vehicle was later sent to Madrid in May 1928 for a second round of testing which took place on the 19th under the watchful eye of Lieutenant Colonel Antonio García Pérez, Secretary General of the Estado Mayor Central, the person in charge of supervising military centers.
The results were judged satisfactory and the tank was given ‘A.T.M. 2204’ as its number-plate and was incorporated into the Army. The commission in charge of supervising the tests concluded in a report that [paraphrasing] “the Trubia light tank, had all the required capabilities for a tank of its nature” and the order was made to build one of the heavy tractors envisioned by Ruíz de Toledo and Areces with the larger suspension system and 200 hp engine. As far back as November 1926, plans were made to equip a section within the Tank Group with an undefined number of Trubia Serie A tanks depending on how many could be made available by the Trubia factory.
Unfortunately, none of these projects would materialize. To understand why, it is important to note the context of what had been happening in Spain. In September 1923, the Captain General of Catalonia Miguel Primo de Rivera led a successful coup with King Alfonso XIII’s blessing. Primo de Rivera’s aim was to put an end to the problems associated with the ongoing war in Morocco and labor and trade union unrest. From his position of power, Primo de Rivera attempted to carry out military reforms. These were very unpopular among Army officers, especially those in the artillery section, leading to the dissolution of the latter. The artillery had been up to then responsible for the production of the Trubia Serie A’s and other military vehicles, and without their budget and blessing, the project was all but dead.
The project was never officially canceled, but without the stimuli and finance, it faded away. However, this would not be the end of the Trubia Serie A nor of Landesa Domenech and Areces’ adventures with tank and military vehicle production.
Active Service
Asturias Revolution of 1934
Popular myth and culture has led to an image of the Second Spanish Republic [established in April 1931] as a radical, progressive and left-wing state. Whilst there is some substance behind this, it is not entirely true. In the second elections held in November 1933, the centrist Partido Radical Republicano (PRR) of Alejandro Lerroux came to power with the support of the right-wing Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas (CEDA). Following a crisis of government in September 1934, CEDA removed their support and demanded that the PRR enter a formal coalition with 3 CEDA members to take a ministerial portfolio. Despite opposition from the left, this was done and as a consequence, the most left-wing elements began to mobilize.
An indefinite revolutionary general strike, organized by radical left-wingers within the Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) [left wing social democrats] and Union General de Trabajadores (UGT) trade union with the support of elements of the Anarchist party and trade unions (FAI and CNT) and the Communist Party, was called for October 5th 1934. Following a few days of strike, the revolution was brutally put down, except in Catalonia, where an independent state was declared, only to be toppled by Republican forces a few days later, and in Asturias, where the workers, mostly miners, were well armed and mobilized.
Asturias was where the Trubia Serie A’s were, too. On October 6th, the revolutionary forces (in Trubia led by the Communists among the factory workers) took control of the Trubia factory (the revolutionary forces felt that for their success they had to capture the factory with its large weapons deposits) and with up to three of the tanks inside, some or all of which were without engines. It is likely that two Landesa tanks were in a nearby factory also in Trubia and in much better running condition. In the town, the factory workers fought off the Civil Guard forces, though it is unknown if they used any of the available vehicles.
By October 14th, state forces were putting down the revolution. In a last ditch attempt to save the revolution, an armored train was sent down the line from Trubia to the neighboring Grado where it defeated the state forces. Another armored train was hastily prepared in Trubia using locomotive number 2544 ‘El Cervera’ of the Northern Railway. The train itself was only minimally armed, but it had two open-topped carriages. Upon each carriage a Landesa tank, without an engine, was placed. Until the re-discovery of several photos in the October 1934 edition of Estampa magazine, it was believed that these two tanks on the ‘Cervera’ train were in fact Trubia Serie A’s. By the 17th, the revolution in Asturias had been crushed.
Following the revolution, the 3 Trubia Serie A’s which had been left unmodified following the Madrid trials of 1926 were put back into service with a series of modifications, including the removal of the mudguards which covered the top half of the tracks and the addition of the hinged hatch for the driver’s entry and exit to the left of the detachable boxes on the frontal plate. Three of them had ‘Carro Ligero nº’ [Light Tank No.] written on the sides followed by a 1, 2 or 3 and were attached to the Infantry Regiment <<Milán>> nº 32 which was barracked in Oviedo, the capital of Asturias. The vehicles were in a poor condition, but there were plans to continue to carry out tests on them. The fourth vehicle, which may have had a number 4 written on its side, remained in the factory.
Spanish Civil War
The failed General’s coup which drew the country into a bloody civil war gave the Trubia Serie A’s their chance to prove themselves in combat for the first time, ten years after they had left the factory.
To most people’s surprise, given Oviedo’s history, the coup there was successful and the city would be the only main city in central northern Spain to join the nascent Nationalist forces. In Oviedo were the three Trubia Serie A’s of the Infantry Regiment <<Milán>> nº 32 which would serve the war in Nationalist service. On the other hand, Trubia remained loyal to the Republican government forces, and the tanks within the factory, along with a Landesa tractor (which was transformed into a tank), were pressed into service by the workers and militiamen in the town.
The two Republican tanks were first used in an offensive against Oviedo on September 10th 1936, seeing action in the small town of Las Cruces (north of Trubia and north-west of Oviedo) and Loma del Canto, in the outskirts of Oviedo. In Loma del Canto, both broke down in no-mans-land, apparently because of a burnt-out clutch caused by the inexperience of the crew. Efforts were made to recover the tanks, but this was not possible until October when Loma del Canto was captured. No more is known of the fate of the Republican Serie A4 and it was possibly scrapped.
Fortunately, the history of the three in Nationalist service is slightly better recorded; most likely they were used to quell the first attacks by militiamen on the city and helped consolidate Nationalist control of the city.
On August 22nd 1936, the three Trubia Serie A’s, accompanied by two rifle companies and one machine gun company from the Infantry Regiment <<Milán>> nº 32, a Civil Guard detachment, and a battery of Schneider 105/11 guns, were used offensively against Loma del Campón, on the road to Trubia. The objectives were reached, but nº2, under the command of Engineer Brigadier Antonio Morales Elvira broke down. The vehicle was towed back during the night, but because of the general poor condition of the tank and the unevenness of the ground, the turret fell off. It is unknown if the turret was put back, but the vehicle remained in service.
Following this small offensive, the vehicles were to be deployed defensively in the besieged city of Oviedo. Multiple further breakdowns meant that they were used statically in defensive positions; one defended La Argañosa (the western entrance to the city) and the other two, one of which was now operated by elements of the Civil Guards, were situated between Campo de los Patos street and the arms factory defending the eastern approach along the Santander road.
The one situated in La Argañosa was destroyed at some point before the end of the initial Republican offensive on Asturias in October by Nationalist forces to prevent Republican irregulars from capturing it, as it was broken down and could not be towed to safety due to the crossfire. The remaining two Trubia Serie A’s continued to be used for defensive duties.
On October 27th, nº3 was sent to the Naranco Hill to tow back to Oviedo a Republican Landesa tank which had broken through the lines but had broken down.
In January 1937, the Republican Army of the North planned a major offensive on Asturias with all available men and vehicles. The offensive would properly commence on February 21st with Republican Army forces penetrating the defensive perimeter near Campo de Patos, where the two remaining Trubia Serie A and Nationalist infantrymen managed to fend them off.
It is unknown if the two tanks survived the whole offensive (at least one did), but they were most likely scrapped once the offensive was over and plenty of German Panzer I’s, Italian CV 33-35’s and captured Soviet vehicles were available. It has been subsequently speculated that one was sent to Seville at the end of the War in the North, and was used in victory parades, but there is no evidence to substantiate this claim and no logical reason why this might have occurred. Unless or until firm evidence of their appearance in Seville is produced this has to be considered unlikely at best.
Legacy and Conclusion
Following the unofficial termination of the Trubia Serie A project in 1928-1929, Landesa Domenech, now a Captain, and Areces embarked in a new project, a tractor for military and agricultural use based on the same, but improved and updated, mechanisms as the Trubia Serie A. The tractor, named Tractor Landesa [Landesa Tractor], would also have an armored upgrade which would be used in the Revolution of 1934 and the Spanish Civil War. In the Spanish Civil War, another vehicle, the Trubia-Naval, influenced by the original Trubia Serie A would see service with both Republican and Nationalist forces.
The Trubia Serie A was a brave, but ultimately, unsatisfactory effort to improve upon the existing Renault FT. Had the vehicle worked properly, it would definitely have been a major improvement; it had improved firepower, improved engine performance, which could be accessed from the inside, allowed for higher speed, range and performance, slightly thicker armor, and more comfort for its crew. However, the experimental suspension system used proved to be inefficient and too prone to breakdowns due to its delicate nature. The problem was, that for a variety of reasons, a copy of this suspension system was still being used in new tank designs as late as 1936.
Regardless, the Trubia Serie A was the first example of a Spanish designed tank to overcome the dependency on foreign tanks and valuable lessons were learnt by the designers and engineers.
Modern Reconstruction
In the Museo de la Historia Militar Española, el Cueto, in Asturias, along its impressive collection of Spanish Civil War era reconstructions, is one of the Trubia Serie A. Whilst due to its complexity and obsoleteness the Orion suspensions system has not been replicated, everything else seems to be an accurate reproduction of the vehicle, including the double rotating turret. The vehicle has been given an engine and is used to drive around the museum’s grounds. A video of the vehicle in action can be seen here.
Specifications
Dimensions
Excluding tail 4.36 x 2.8 x 1.8 m (14.3 x 9.19 x 5.9 ft)
Total weight, battle ready
8.1 tonnes
Crew
3 (Driver/frontal gunner; Commander/gunner/loader; and Gunner/loader)
Propulsion
Daimler MV1574 4 cylinder 75 hp
Max speed
30 km/h (19 mph) on road
Range
100 km (62.14 miles)
Suspension
None
Armament
3 x 7 mm Hotchkiss M1914 machine guns
Armor
16-20 mm (0.63 – 0.79 in)
Production
4
Sources
Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Carros de Combate “Trubia” (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 1993)
Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española. Teatro de Operaciones del Norte 36/37 (Valladolid: AF Editores, 2007)
Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española. Teatro de Operaciones de Levante, Aragón y Cataluña 36/39 2.ª Parte (Valladolid: AF Editores, 2011)
Chus Neira, “El primer tanque español salió de la Fábrica de Trubia hace 90 años” La Nueva España [Spain], 30 March 2017 (https://www.lne.es/oviedo/2017/03/30/primer-tanque-espanol-salio-fabrica/2081455.html#)
United States of America/NASA (1960s-2015)
Rescue Vehicle – 4 Operated
From the days of the Mercury space program, the means of evacuating astronauts from a burning or otherwise compromised rocket vexed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, better known just as ‘NASA’. The problem was to get the astronauts from the rocket and to safety as fast as possible. The standard means chosen was to use a zip-line to get the astronauts from the rocket (or later from the shuttle) to a concrete bunker from where they would be driven to a safe distance.
The nature of the contingency being unique meant a unique solution was required which came in the form of the M113 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC). An armored vehicle would allow rescue crews to get to and from the scene and evacuate astronauts safety regardless of falling debris. At least 4 M113 vehicles were obtained. In 2013, upon the announcement of their retirement, it was confirmed that the 4 new vehicles had been obtained to replace the M113’s. This suggests that just the 4 M113’s had been used by NASA at the Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Modifications and Colour
There is some information suggesting that early work with the M113’s involved the use of asbestos added to the exterior either as a paste or as panels bolted on with the intention of protection from the potentially intense heat and flames which might be faced by such as a rescue operation. Photographic evidence of these early vehicles merely shows initially no numbers and at least one vehicle with some kind of coating (see above) and a large rectangular shield at the front. The color of the vehicle is not known and later they can be seen in a dark color but with large numbers painted on the front and sides (and presumably the rear).
Vehicles 1 and 3 noticeably had a large cab type structure added to the roof over the commander’s hatch at the time. Later photos from the 1970’s show the vehicles painted in a white color with large red numbers. Photos taken in 2014/2015 when the vehicles were being retired showed a more common firefighting luminous-green color with a horizontal reflective stripe and red numbers.
Use
The procedure for using these vehicles at the time of their retirement was that Vehicles 1 and 2 remained on standby at a secure location less than one mile (9/10th of a mile) from the launch site. A third vehicle was kept available, open and uncrewed next to the astronaut’s evacuation bunker. Vehicles 1 and 2 were crewed during launch time with a crew of fully equipped firefighters in silver firefighting suits with self-contained breathing apparatus on.
Immediately prior to launch, the fully equipped firefighting crew cram into the vehicle while the driver remained outside. He would enter the vehicle at the time of the emergency call. The rear ramp on the M113 would be raised and it would set off on its rescue mission. The reason for this is to do with air supply. Once sealed, the crew of Vehicles 1 and 2 have just 10 minutes to get from their starting point to the launch site, effect a rescue, reenter the vehicle and then get away. 10 minutes is not long at all especially considering the inferno which probably awaits them and the crews train tirelessly to hone their response times because seconds matter. Vehicle 3 sat at the reception point for astronauts by their bunker with the rear ramp open to expedite the astronauts’ evacuation via the slide wire baskets into the bunker. Because Vehicle 3 was a self-evacuation vehicle, all astronauts were trained to operate it.
Photographic evidence shows that over the decades the exact positioning and response for the vehicles had evolved but the essential requirement was the same, evacuating the astronauts in the event of a launch disaster.
Current Status
As of December 2013, the old M113’s were replaced by a more modern alternative, surplus Caiman Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) trucks. The M113’s were never used in a real-life rescue. The MRAPs are faster and more spacious than the M113 and just as well protected. The only modification to the Caiman, other than being painted white, is the planned addition of a rear ramp replacing the original steps. However, as of 2015, the Caiman vehicles seen at NASA retained the rear steps and doors. Just like the M113’s, 4 Caimans now fulfill the rescue role for NASA. The status of the M113’s is unknown although Vehicle No.1 can now be seen on a concrete platform outside Kennedy Space Center as a display.
Specifications
Dimensions (L-w-H)
4.86 x 2.68 x 2.50 m (15.11 x 8.97 x 8.2 ft)
Total weight, battle ready
12.3 tonnes (24,600 lbs)
Crew
5 (Commander, Driver, 3 Firefighters/EMT’s)
Propulsion
Detroit 6V53T, 6-cyl. diesel 275 hp (205 kW) P/w 22.36 hp/tonne
Transmission
Allison TX-100-1 3-speed automatic
Maximum speed
42 mph (68 km/h) road/3.6 mph (5.8 kph) swimming
Suspensions
Torsion bars
Range
300 miles/480 km
Armor
Aluminum alloy 12–38 mm (0.47–1.50 in)
Links, Resources & Further Reading
www.nasa.gov
M113s Give Armored Ride to Firefighters, Steven Siceloff
Spaceport News, Vol.51. No.6 April 1st 2011
Spaceshots and Snapshots of Projects Mercury and Gemini: A Rare Photographic History, Bisney and Pickering
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.