There was a remote possibility that the 1939 British Expeditionary Force (BEF), sent to defend Belgium and France, could have been issued with the same Czechoslovakian-designed tank the Germans equipped their panzer divisions with and used during their May 1940 Blitzkrieg attack. The German’s designation for this tank was the Panzer 38(t).
TNH Tank
On 13th June 1939, the British War Office Mechanisation Experimental Establishment received a new Czechoslovakian tank by rail for examination and testing. It was manufactured by Českomoravská Kolben-Daněk (ČKD), which was based near the capital Prague, and called the Praga TNH-P 8-ton tank, or TNH. It was unpacked by ČKD company’s fitters who had accompanied the tank. The tank was completely equipped apart from the ammunition. ČKD were keen to sell its new tank to the British Army and other foreign powers.
This Czechoslovakian built Praga TNH-P 8-ton tank was sent to England for testing in June 1939. (MEE)
This tank was designed to replace the Czechoslovakian Army’s LT vz. 35 tank and also be an export success. By the time rgw TNH was tested in the UK it had already been sold to Iran, Peru, and Switzerland. Lithuania had also put an order in by this point. It had a roomier interior than the earlier tank and a different suspension system. It was armed with a Škoda 37 mm gun in the turret and had two 7.92 mm Zbrojovka Brno vz.37 machine guns, one in a hull mount and the other coaxial, mounted in the turret. The armor on the front was 25 mm thick and 15 mm thick on the sides. The armor on the test vehicle sent to the United Kingdom was made of mild steel, with the exception of the turret front, which was armored.
Observations
The Driver’s Position
The British inspection team first examined the driver’s position, noting that it was on the “off-side of the vehicle.” This was unexpected for a European tank, as most had the driver position on the left side of the tank and not on the right. That was the first ‘plus’ mark noted on the report card. Czechoslovakian drivers drove on the left side of the road, just like in Britain, until March 1939, when the commander of the German occupation forces ordered a change over to the right side of the road to conform with German traffic legislation.
The inspectors recorded that the driver’s seat was adjustable for length but not for height and that the angle of the backrest could be adjusted. When the front vision hatch was locked in the open position, the driver looked through an opening that was 8 inches (20.3 cm) wide by 4 inches (10.16 cm) tall. This gave an adequate vision arc of 120º. In wet or dusty weather, a temporary glass windscreen could be locked into position. In combat situations, when the driver’s vision hatch was locked in the closed position for protection, an episcope was swung into position. Another means of vision to the front when the hatch was closed was for the driver to peer through the vision slit in the armored hatch. It was 5 inches (12.7) wide by 3/16 of an inch (4.76 mm) tall. Bulletproof glass, which was normally stored underneath the driver’s legs, could be quickly placed behind the vision slit. A small periscope gave limited vision to the right side of the tank, but the driver could not see to the left. He had to rely on the tank commander and the hull machine gunner sitting on his left to see that everything was clear.
The two steering tillers, when drawn back, engaged an epicyclic gear by clutch withdrawal and brake application to the plant ring. By pressing a knob on the end of the handle, an alternative brake could be applied which operated on the spider, thereby locking the track. Thus, the driver could steer by either epicyclic or clutch and brake methods. Communication between the driver and the commander was by a system of colored lights.
The Hull Gunner’s Position
The hull gunner was seated in a similar seat to the driver on the left side of the tank. He was also the radio operator and had to act as the co-driver. His position was rather cramped due to the wireless sets being placed on a level with his left shoulder. The machine gun on his right was fitted in a ball mounting. It had a limited traverse to the left and right due to the height of the sprocket wheels and mudguards. The gunner’s telescope was rather dark and had neither brow pad or eye padding. This would cause injury if used on the move. The ammunition belt of a hundred rounds was fed into the feed block and the remainder of the belt was suspended on guides from the roof, the whole belt being fed out of the ammunition box. The machine gun could be clamped in a central position and fired by the driver, who had a remote control trigger on his nearside steering tiller. The hull gunner sighted the gun through an open site visible through his periscope. The sight was a metal rod about 12 inches tall with a ring on the end. The base of the rod was attached to the glacis plate in front of the driver’s position.
The radio had two alternative aerials, one being a 10-foot vertical rod giving a range of 5 km, and the other being a ‘battle’ aerial carried on the running board and giving a range of 1 km.
The Czechoslovakian built Praga TNH-P 8-ton tank was armed with a Skoda 3.7 cm L/48.7 gun and two 7.92 mm Zbrojovka Brno vz.37 machine guns (MEE)
Turret Gunner
The turret gunner, who was also the tank commander, had a canvas sling seat. He was provided with a nonrotating cupola which had three small periscopes and an episcope mounted on its four sides. He was assisted by a loader who operated the coaxial machine gun. The examination team commented on the report, “The optical apparatus, though ingenious, does not give as good vision as the War Department equivalent.” The 37 mm main gun and coaxial machine gun could be fired singularly or both together. The main gun mounting could be either elevated by shoulder control or by a gear control, the firing trigger being on the handle of the latter. When the gun was being fired, the mounting was locked in the position adopted and could not be elevated or depressed so long as the gun was firing. The turret could either be rotated by a hand traversing gear or by free traversing. Locks were provided for both the turret and the gun mountings for traveling. There was no internal turret basket. Ninety rounds of 37 mm shells were carried in boxes of 6 rounds. Usually, 30 of these rounds would have been armor-piercing, and the remaining 60 would have been high explosive shells. Each armor-piercing shell weighed approximately 2 lbs. The high explosive shell weighed 1.8 lbs. There was stowage for 2,700 machine gun rounds carried in 100 bullet belts, 3 belts fit in each ammunition box. Nine hundred of the rounds were armor-piercing.
This photograph of the side view of the Czechoslovakian built Praga TNH-P 8-ton tank was taken in England (MEE)
The Hull
The British examiners looked at the tank’s fire precautions and the means of exit available to the crew in an emergency. The tank had two main crew hatches, one through the cupola lid in the turret and another above the hull gunner’s head. “Both are adequate,” was their conclusion. It was noted that the driver did not have his own exit hatch but had to either get out through the turret hatch or, if that was blocked, clambered over to the hull gunner’s position and got out through his hatch. It was also recorded that it was possible to get into the engine compartment through a small door in the offside internal bulkhead and to open the louvers from inside and get out that way. A large fire extinguisher was conveniently mounted on the wall of the fighting compartment.
The Czechoslovakian built Praga TNH-P 8-ton tank’s Praga TNHPS/II 4-stroke, 6-cylinder in-line 125 hp petrol/gasoline engine was at the rear of the tank. (MEE)
The Engine
The tank was powered by a Praga TNHPS/II 4-stroke, 6-cylinder in-line 125 hp engine. A hand crank could be used to start the engine from inside the tank as well as from outside the vehicle. A mechanical governor limited the engine speed to 2,000 rpm. The maximum speed of 42 km/h (26 mph) was based on an engine speed of 2,200 rpm. Therefore, the top speed at the governed 2,000 rpm was only 38 km/h (23.6 mph). The engine was cooled by water circulated by a pump driven off the timing gear.
The radiator was mounted at the rear of the engine. Air was drawn in through the louvers under the engine covers, one on each side. It could also be drawn from the fighting compartment by opening slots in the bulkhead. The air inlet to the fighting compartment was controlled by opening an adjustable flap over the brakes and two small louvers. “It was not considered adequate. Steering gear pollutes the air with hot Ferodo and oil fumes,” the inspectors remarked. Air was drawn through the radiator by a ‘Keith’ type exhauster and out through a bullet-proof louver facing upwards on the rear of the tank. This exhauster was coupled to the crankshaft through a universal joint. There was a slipping clutch incorporated in the fan hub. The system did not contain any pressure valves. The vehicle exhaust was very quiet and, on cross-country work, the whole vehicle was quite unlike some other tanks, but it was very noisy on roads due to track noise.
No engine oil cooler was fitted, but the large cylindrical body of the oil cooler was finned and afforded some cooling properties. A large oil bath filter was used for filtering the engine air. A large “Autoclean” filter was fitted in the lubricating system of the engine. This also incorporated the relief valve for oil pressure. All petrol and oil pipes were of a flexible rubber and canvas hose type, secured by clips. The petrol tanks were in the engine compartment, one on each side. They held 24 gallons each. Petrol was drawn from the tanks by an A.C. engine operated pump. An electric “Autopulse” pump was also fitted for emergency use.
Transmission
The transmission was through a single plate clutch in the flywheel. This could not be withdrawn, however, as its only purpose was to give a ‘slip’ if the Wilson gearbox engaged too fiercely. The power was then transmitted by a propeller shaft through the fighting compartment to a Wilson five-speed and reverse box situated between the hull gunner and driver. This box was kept cool by taking the oil to a cooler incorporated in the radiator. There was also an ‘Autoclean’ filter situated in the radiator. Bolted onto the gearbox was the bevel box, which transmitted power to two epicyclic steering assemblies. These consisted of the normal clutch, epicyclic gear with brakes on the planet ring and spider. In addition to the two bands required for steering, each assembly had a third band that operated on the spider drum and was used for breaking. The power then passes through a final reduction to the sprocket, which was mounted on the front of the vehicle. The transmission was accessible for maintenance. The brakes could be adjusted either from inside the hull or through the flap, which admitted cooling air to the steering assemblies. This flap had four positions controllable by the driver. Only one was bullet-proof. This allowed the flap to be opened a quarter of an inch (6.35 mm), in which position a flange on the outside prevented the entry of bullets.
Suspension
The suspension consisted of two assemblies on each side that carried the hull on knife edges. Each assembly had two wheels. The wheels were 31 inches (78.74 cm) in diameter and were rubber-tyred. The assembly consisted of a leaf spring mounted on the center member and joined to the top of each wheel axle casting. From the center member, there were also two radius arms that ran to the bottoms of the wheel axle casting. The front and rear arms on each side were dampened by a spring-loaded, unadjustable friction shock absorber mounted on the pin joining the arm to the center member. Lubrication was by ‘nipples’ situated in the hubcap of the sprocket, idler and each wheel. The oil was carried by drillings to all necessary parts. The knife edges are not lubricated. The track lay on the two rear wheels but was carried on two small guide rollers above the front wheels.
Tracks
The tracks consisted of manganese nickel steel castings. The track pins were headless and made from nickel chromium or manganese nickel steels. They were secured by circlips. The pin was beveled at each end and had a groove turned in it at the appropriate place. The bevel expanded the circlet, which sprung into place when the groove of the pin reached it. Track adjustment was by adjusting the idler wheel mounted at the rear of the tank. The idler wheel bracket was rotated by means of a worm and ratchet operated from outside the vehicle. It was remarked in the report that the tracks were not new when received but did not appear to have worn much. Their rate of wear appeared low. They were strong and stayed on well.
Accessories
A headlamp, two side lamps, and a tail lamp were fitted. The side lamps had a red glass pointing upwards which could be easily seen from the air. Interior lamps were provided where necessary. A signaling lamp employing three colored lights was issued with the vehicle. There was a small flap provided in the turret top to push it through. A horn was fitted that could only be used when opened up as the wiring was carried through the open sight aperture of the hull gun and had to be disconnected when in action. A mirror in a tin case to protect it from stones was fitted. The electrical system was fully suppressed to prevent wireless interference. The vehicle was fitted with four Ramshorn towing hooks in addition to the drawbar at the rear.
Trials
This tank underwent tests from 17th – 29th March 1939. The weight of the vehicle fully loaded was 9.4 tons (8.52 tonnes). It completed 188 miles (302.5 km) by road and 103 miles (165.7 km) cross-country. The examiners made the following comments:
The commander’s field of view was not ideal. The vision from the episcope and the three periscopes was not continuous. It was also extremely hard to judge distance through these instruments. The commander was also hampered when looking through his scopes owing to there being no brow pad.
The hull gunner’s field of view was adequate to cover the ground over which he could fire. The driver’s vision was adequate except for road driving in traffic, as the driver needed one member of the crew to be observing on the outside of the vehicle. The driver’s position was comfortable except that there was not enough headroom. The hull gunner’s position was rendered uncomfortable by the wireless set, causing him to lean continuously to one side. He also suffered from a lack of headroom. The commander’s position was satisfactory, with the exception that the sling seat provided did not allow him to adopt a comfortable position behind the gun. The vehicle, when closed down, did not appear to be adequately ventilated, and fumes given off by the steering gear were very unpleasant after a time.
The power of manoeuvre was adequate and did not vary whether opened up or closed down. The vehicle was also easy to handle on side slopes. The steering required a little skill, as the action of the epicyclic break bands was rapid. Unless the brake was applied skilfully, the tank would turn more than was required when driving on roads. The controls were well-placed. The vehicle did not skid under normal conditions and was safe at any speed it could attain. It did not suffer from reverse steering, but when descending hills, the steering became very insensitive and heavy. The vehicle was not very large and was as conspicuous as a light tank. The balance of the turret was difficult to estimate, as it was extremely awkward to traverse under any circumstances. The traversing handle was very badly placed by British standards. It was to be operated while looking out of the cupola and not while looking through the telescope.
The suspension of the vehicle rendered it unsuitable as a gunnery platform. It had a short sharp juddering motion of about two inches pitch which rendered it impossible to keep the eye to the telescope. Apart from this, it was quite well sprung and rode across country about similar to the Tank, Cruiser, A9, Mk.1. On roads, the suspension was at times affected by a juddering motion, but otherwise, it was satisfactory. The capacity of negotiating natural obstacles was not adequate for a cruiser tank. It could cross a 5-foot stream but failed to cross a 6-foot stream due to the back falling in as the bank gave way. It would not climb a 4-foot sandbank; the sprocket failed to pull the nose up. It could be fitted with seven spuds on each side of the vehicle’s tracks. These spuds were quickly attached to the track, but the short length of the vehicle did not enable it safely to climb more than 3-foot vertical obstacles. It was estimated that the vehicle could cross a 7 foot hard sided trench. The vehicle climbed a 2 foot 10 inches wooden vertical obstacle. This was the safe maximum owing to the angle to which the vehicle tipped itself.
The tank was driven continuously for 94 miles on roads. It took 4 hours 35 minutes and the average speed was 20.5 mph. The average fuel consumption was 3.13 mpg. Fuel consumption over cross-country courses was 2.1 mpg. After a total of 291 miles, the oil levels did not need topping up. Life of the brakes appeared satisfactory. On a 188 mile journey to Lulworth Ranges, they did not require adjustment. They were only adjusted once after about 260 miles. Two engine stoppages occurred after the vehicle was being tested due to the changing from one fuel tank to the other. No special filters seemed to have been fitted. The tank underwent a number of tilting tests and performed satisfactorily.
Final Observations of the Mechanisation Board dated 22.5.1939
“The attempt to produce an inconspicuous machine with observation arrangements immune from bullet attack has resulted in a cramped fighting machine with control inferior to our standards. The “dance” of the vehicle … is particularly marked on roads and is due to the combination of long pitch narrow bar tread tracks and un-dampened suspension.”
Conclusion
The British rejected purchasing the Praga TNH-P 8-ton tank because it was deemed inferior to the current British Cruiser tanks, such as…, in its ability to cross obstacles, lack of smooth ride, and cramped fighting compartment. It was too thinly armored to be considered an infantry tank. Its Skoda 37 mm gun was not as powerful as the British 2 pdr gun. The tank was returned to the factory. In May 1940, the British fought in France with their Cruiser tanks against Panzer 38(t)s employed by the Germans. The Panzer 38(t) and its derivatives would stay in service far longer and in far higher numbers than any of the initial British Cruiser tanks.
The Praga TNH-P 8-ton Tank as tested in the United Kingdom in 1938. Illustrated by David Bocquelet
Specifications
Dimensions (L/W/H)
4.6m x 2.12m x 2.4 m (15ft 1in x 6ft 11in x 7ft 10in)
Total weight
9.4 tonnes
Crew
4 (Commander/Loader, Gunner, Radio Operator/hull machine gunner and Driver)
Propulsion
Praga TNHPS/II 4-stroke, 6-cylinder in-line 125 hp petrol/gasoline engine.
Top Road Speed
42 km/h (26 mph)
Range (road)
250 km (155 miles)
Armament
Skoda 3.7 cm L/48.7 gun
Secondary Armament
2x 7.92 mm Zbrojovka Brno vz.37 machine guns
Turret Armor
front 25 mm, sides and rear 15 mm and top 10 mm
Hull Armor
front 25 mm, sides 15 mm, rear 15 mm and the top and bottom 8 mm
Source
Experimental Report on 8-ton Tank (Praga – TNH-P) MEE Report No.A99
National Archives at Kew WO 194/22.
S. J. Zaloga, Panzer 38(t), Osprey Publishing.
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2007) Panzer Tracts No.18 Panzerkampfwagen 38 (t) Ausf. A to G und S.
LTP designated "Puno", platoon leader of the Third Platoon in 1941 during the war with Ecuador
Peru (1938-1982)
Light Tank – 24 Imported
After a war with Colombia over a territorial dispute ending in a stalemate, Peru found itself weak. Even though the war was not lost, the High Command was disappointed with the army and, therefore, the need for a new weapon arose. Tanks and the concept of importing tanks had been just introduced to South America and the Peruvian Commission saw this as an opportunity to modernize their army. After a series of negotiations and tests, Peru acquired 24 Praga LTP light tanks which were used for the first time during the coup d’état in 1938. Later, in 1941, the vehicles saw their first combat action and were used with great success against Ecuador. They allegedly stayed in service all the way until the 1980s, when they were finally decommissioned after an illustrious career.
Colorization of a Praga LTP named “Junín” in front of the Czechoslovakian Praga factories. Colorization by Johannes Dorn. Source: Jaroslav Špitálský via Rotanazdar.cz
Context: Territorial Disputes and a Lost War to Colombia
After the war of independence in 1824, the nation of Peru was one of the many nations to rise from the Spanish colonial empire. Throughout the years, until the 1930s, South America was characterized by wars caused due to the expansion and exploration of the jungles further inland, where many different countries had claims on the same territories. One of these overlapping claims was around the regions of Amazon, Putumayo, Napo, and the Apaporis Rivers, between the nations of Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Furthermore, after the Salomón–Lozano Treaty of 1922, when the important town of Leticia was given to Colombia, many Peruvians still felt right in their claim over this area.
The League of Nations failed to deescalate the mounting tensions between Colombia and Peru due to the interest of third parties wanting the dispute to escalate. One of these parties was Czechoslovakia, which sought to export armament. The dispute finally reached its zenith in September 1932, when 200 Peruvian soldiers crossed the border and captured the Colombian town of Leticia with next to no resistance. It is unknown whether the Peruvian government planned this attack, however, they used it as justification to go to war. The incident turned into a full-scale war, but a very slow one, as the war zone area was very remote. In order to get there, the soldiers had to go through difficult terrain, such as mountains and deep jungles. The Colombians, on the other hand, had the advantage of moving their troops on the Amazon River.
Peruvian troops arrived first and captured multiple towns, such as the port town of Tarapacá. However, Colombian gunships delayed the arrival of additional troops. The largest battle took place during the Colombian capture of the town of Güeppi, with over 100 Colombian soldiers and 30 Peruvian casualties. In April 1933, the president of Peru was assassinated and replaced by General Oscar Benavides, who was against continuing the war due to personal close relations with Colombia.
Before a potential large-scale battle could break out involving hundreds of troops on each side, the League of Nations successfully resolved the war in March 1933. The war ended in a status quo ante bellum (Everything is as it was before the war) and with only a few casualties on each side. Even though the strength in manpower was almost equal, Colombia had a superior air force and access to the area via the Amazon.
A map showing the disputed area between the two countries. Source: WikiPeruvians protesting against the ratification of the Salomón-Lozano Treaty and calling for the return of the city of Leticia. Source: Wiki
Tanks for Peru and the Peruvian Delegation in Europe
Although Peru had not lost the war, strictly speaking, they had not achieved their objectives. Following the war, the Peruvian Army searched for a new weapon that could be used to effectively penetrate enemy lines. A possible solution were tanks. However, Peru did not have the production capability or engineering skills to develop its own tank. Therefore, the purchase of export tanks was considered. Tanks had been used in the South American continent before the Peruvians thought about buying tanks, during the Brazilian revolutions and wars and the Chaco War involving Bolivia and Paraguay. However, the tanks used in these conflicts were used rather unsuccessfully and only employed in small numbers. Furthermore, one of the biggest problems with tanks in most parts of South America was the hostile environment. The thick jungles and, in Peru’s case, the mountains, were physical barriers for the tanks. This led to only a small number of possible tank candidates that were able to adapt to the environment.
Due to the rising tensions even after signing multiple treaties with neighboring countries, the Peruvian Army Purchasing Commission sent representatives to Europe with the hope of buying light or medium tanks from either Czechoslovakia, France, Italy, or the United Kingdom.
In 1936, the Czechoslovak firm Českomoravská Kolben-Daněk (ČKD) established contact with the Peruvians after hearing that the Peruvians were seeking to acquire tanks. ČKD suggested the Peruvian delegation took a look at their AH-IV tankettes and TNH tanks made for Iran, which they proposed for export. In October 1936, the Peruvian delegation visited the ČKD factories and the AH-IV and TNH tanks.
Following this, right after the visit in October 1936, the Arms Purchasing Commission provided the delegation with the requirements, which were: 36 tanks, 5-6 tonnes in weight, a speed of 20 km/h, and armed with a 37 mm gun and a 7.65 mm machine gun.
After another meeting in January 1937, in April, the Peruvian delegation watched the demonstration of the newest tank prototypes made by ČKD. The newly developed LTL for Lithuania met the requirements of the delegation.
The newly developed LTL for Lithuania. Source: Tank Archives
In September 1937, a letter was sent to the Peruvian Army Purchase Office, informing them about the high prices of the ball mount of the gun. The Office replied that the delegation had to renegotiate the price within a week and conclude the contract which, in the end, turned out in favor of the Peruvians. A month later, another meeting was held where the supply of 24 tanks was negotiated. Originally, they were to be armed with the Škoda A-7 and A-8 guns. However, due to Czechoslovak Army demands, these would not be available until 1939, which was not acceptable to the Peruvians. To speed up the process, ČKD instead proposed the A-3 37 mm vz. 34, as mounted in the LT vz. 35. This also could not be produced fast enough for the Peruvians’ liking either. After a meeting between the MNO (Ministry of Defense) and CKD, the Czechoslovak Army supplied 10 reserve A-3 guns and 14 guns from infantry anti-tank guns. ZB managed to provide the machine guns in time.
At the same time, Peru also showed interest in purchasing Italian tanks. However, the demonstration of the tanks was delayed and, therefore, the Peruvians continued with ČKD. One CV33 made it to Lima for demonstrations in November 1937, but it failed to meet the requirements.
In January 1938, ČKD received the 10 3.7 cm vz. 34 ÚV A-3 guns, of which three had been taken from Czechoslovakian light tank prototypes, such as the Š-II-a. The other guns were the 3.7 cm can. vz. 34 J, for which special cartridges had to be made. In the same month, the Peruvians finally decided to stick with the ČKD tanks. During a meeting in Paris with the chief of the ČKD firm and the Peruvian Commission, the technical specifications were discussed.
The final negotiations began on January 31, 1938. ČKD informed the Peruvians of an increase in weight from 5,600 kg to 6,600 kg, which was reviewed negatively by the Peruvians, who saw it as an inconsistency on the behalf of ČKD. Whilst the negotiations were nearing their conclusion by the second week of February, the contract discussion had to be put on hold since the leader of the Peruvian Commission got sick. On February 15, 1938, the leader of the Peruvian Commission, Colonel Martínez, and the representatives of ČKD were able to finalize the contract worth 24 million koruna (US$42,000 in 1938 and around US$900,000 in 2022) for 24 Praga LTL. Of the 24 million koruna, 14 million went to CKD, 9 million to Skoda, and 1.1 million to ZB Brno. CKD managed to gain a profit of around 2,287,000 koruna.
The final vehicle specifications in the contract were: 6,300 kg weight, 25 mm of armor, a 3.7 cm cannon, a ZB 53 heavy machine gun, a ZB 30 light machine gun, 40 km/h operational speed at 4,500 m above the sea level, and a crew of 3. The request also included 8,000 HE and 5,334 AT shells for the tanks.
During the same month, the Peruvian Commission requested a visit to the factories in Czechoslovakia. Their request was allowed and the Peruvians watched a demonstration of the TNH tanks and LT vz.34 and a mounting and dismounting of the 3.7 cm cannon on the LT vz.34.
Although the contract was agreed, the Czechoslovak Ministry of Defense would only approve the sale if its Peruvian counterpart offered credible assurances that they would not export it to third countries. The assurance was obtained on April 6, 1938, and the sale was agreed upon by the Czechoslovak government, which also made the guns available.
After the final hurdle was overcome, ČKD began construction of the prototype, which was designated Praga LTP, at the Liben factory almost immediately, on April 21, due to very little time available. From April to June 1938, the prototype was constructed in the presence of the Peruvian Commission. The Peruvian Commission was headed by Captain Hector Cornejo and also included Second Lieutenant Calindo and Sergeant Vargas, who had indegenous roots and became the center of attention in Prague. Vargas would later be the main mechanic responsible for the LTPs on the Peruvian side. On August 5, the prototype was accepted by the Commission. The vehicle was accepted with only an increase of weight of 1,000 kg.
The prototype, named “Lima” after the Peruvian capital, was sent to Peru without armament for testing. The main objective was to see how the LTP performed in the Peruvian high altitude. The average altitude in Peru is 1,555 m (5102 feet), but most of the populated areas are coastal. Large parts of the borders with Bolivia, Chile, and Ecuador are mountainous though. If the vehicle completed all tests successfully, then serial production could commence.
“Lima” was sent in a wooden box through Poland to the port of Gdynia on August 4th, 1938, then on the steamer “Pilsudski” to New York where it arrived on August 20th. The vehicle, disguised as a tractor, was then transported on the ship “Frida” to the Peruvian port of Callao, where it arrived on September 13th, 1938. The next day, the tank was sent to the arsenal in Lima and prepared for test trials. It performed basic test drives for three days, before being sent via train to La Oroya, at 3,728 m above sea level in the central Peruvian Andes.
Prototype bearing the name “Lima” before being sent to Peru for trials. Source: Jaroslav Špitálský via Rotanazdar.czPrototype LTP “Lima” being shipped to Peru in a wooden box for test trials without armament. It would later be sent back to Czechoslovakia for the mounting of the armament. Source: Jaroslav Špitálský via Rotanazdar.cz
“Lima” performed well in its tests in September 1938 and the Peruvians were satisfied. However, the representative of the French mission in Peru requested more challenges and tests that the tank should undergo. It should be noted that Peruvian military thinking at the time was heavily influenced by the French. In the end, even the French representatives in Peru were convinced and reported the results to Renault.
The tank could effectively drive at 33 km/h at 4,200 m above sea level and could drive up a 40º slope. Nonetheless, an accident occurred when the tank was tasked with driving up a curvy and unknown road at top speed. It was very windy that day and the tank’s driver lost control on a curve and fell 5 m. The tank itself sustained only minor damage, and the crew members were lightly hurt.
Photo showing the “Lima” tank incident. Note “Lima” on the left-hand side of the picture after it lost control on the curve and fell off the road. At this point, “Lima” has already been flipped to the side. Source: Jaroslav Špitálský via Rotanazdar.cz
“Lima” was repaired the following morning and returned to Lima on September 23. The commission who saw the rescue and repairs on the tank was satisfied and saw this as a learning opportunity in case it happened again. On October 3, the president of Peru inspected the tank and was also satisfied. The whole accident turned out positively for the Czechoslovaks in the end, as rumors spread in Lima that the tank had fallen from a height of 15 m sustaining no damage at all. Whilst sources mention that shooting tests were carried out next, the tank did not have any armament. This was either a mistake in the sources or possibly refers to the tank being shot at. The tank was also tested for driving through dunes, which it satisfactorily passed.
Production and Export
With the success of “Lima”, serial production in Czechoslovakia was authorized. The first 13 hulls, which would become the first series, were put under construction. However, the deadline of the contract was regarded as unrealistic by ČKD. The Peruvian Commission demanded that the prototype was to be sent for trial runs in Peru by summer 1938 and the remaining tanks were to be delivered by October 1938. Armor plates for the tanks were made in the Poldi factories and the guns were constructed by Skoda. ZB was responsible for the machine guns. It was Poldi that often delayed the construction of the tanks due to armor plate shortages.
Due to the Czechoslovakian mobilization in September 1938 following the German annexation of the Sudetenland, several tanks were taken over by the Czechoslovakian military. In case the Peruvians wanted their money back if they regarded the contract with ČKD as unfulfilled, the Czechoslovakian government would pay Skoda per tank. However, this whole affair is quite unclearly explained in the available secondary literature.
In October 1938, several armor pieces were completed and mechanical components were installed on 11 tanks. Of these, 4 already had engines. In November, 6 tanks were completed and sent to painting.
In the meantime, in Peru, the diplomatic representatives and two factory divers were training the first Peruvian tankers, 3 officers, and 7 NCOs. The training consisted of teaching the Peruvians not only to drive the tanks but also how to service them.
Demonstration and training were done on the prototype “Lima”. Training finished a day before the tanks arrived. Acceptance trials that took place between December 23 and 27 were performed by the new Peruvian tankers.
In December 1938, the other 17 vehicles were successfully tested in Czechoslovakia. After the mobilization was called off, on November 4, 1938, the first batch of 6 vehicles was sent to Hamburg. In Hamburg, the tanks were sent to Callao on board the ship “PATRIA”. On December 7, after arriving in Callao, during the process of unpacking the first four vehicles, another problem was observed. All unpainted surfaces, such as shafts connecting the engine and gearbox, levers, brakes, water pump, and exhaust pipes were rusting and all leather surfaces were molding. This was mainly the result of time limitations on the Czechoslovakian side, which meant the repairs had to be done by the mechanics in Peru. On some vehicles, such as No. 1, the brake could not be replaced. Bulletproof glass blocks and support rollers of the tracks had to be replaced on almost every vehicle. Furthermore, much to the dislike of the Peruvians, the heavy ZB machine guns had a defect. Additionally, some vehicles lacked specific parts which had to be replaced.
On January 5, 1939, the second batch of LTPs was sent through Poland to the harbor in Gdynia and then sent to New York on board the ship “BATORY”. The second batch, consisting of 9 tanks, arrived in Callao on February 14, 1939, on board the ship “LEILA”.
On January 13, 1939, the third and final batch of vehicles consisting of 8 tanks was sent through Poland to Gdynia and then to New York on the steamer “VIGILAND”. The tanks arrived in Callao on February 27, 1939, on board the ship “HELGA”. Afterward, the purchase of several radio telegraph instruments was approved.
The tanks of the second and third batches had some of the same defects as the first batch, such as a lack of bulletproof glass blocks, which was a problem on almost all LTPs. In January 1939, the glass blocks were sent from Czechoslovakia with the addition of other necessary parts. Additionally, 1,071 cases and 13,334 rounds for the LTP’s guns were sent. On March 3rd, 1939 the last tanks were accepted and were officially introduced to Peruvian service. In April, 14 boxes with additional spare parts for the LTPs were sent.
Colorization of LTP named “Callao”, one of the first production vehicles, before undergoing tests in 1938. Colorization by Johannes Dorn. Source: Jaroslav Špitálský via Rotanazdar.cz
Trials in Czechoslovakia
Before being sent to Peru, each serial-produced LTP (all vehicles except the first one) had to go through a test trial. This trial run consisted of a 150 km long route on roads and 3 hours on soft grass and stony areas. On the road, everything and every little aspect of the tank had to be tested, which included testing the brakes, steering, water crossing capabilities, trench crossing capability, and ability to climb and overcome obstacles.
LTP undergoing tests in an obstacle course. Note that the camouflage has not been applied yet. The photo also demonstrates how the suspension worked. Czechoslovakia, 1938. Source: Jaroslav Špitálský via Rotanazdar.cz
The contract also stipulated that one of the first ten (excluding the prototype) tanks had to pass a long test run overseen by the Peruvian Commission. This route had to be 1,000 km long, of which 100 km had to be sandy ground. In November 1938, the route and journey were recorded. The vehicle, presumably vehicle No. 2-7, was sent together with two crew members, a Czechoslovak driver and a Peruvian mechanic, a car, and a fuel transporter and was divided into 8 stages.
The 8 stages of the 1000 km test run of the LTP
Stage
Information
Results
1st stage
Prague – Brno (227 km), 120 liters of fuel, 10 hours
Good performance under perfect weather on the state roads
2nd stage
Brno – Trenčín (139 km), 110 liters of fuel, 9 hours
Steering brakes had to be adjusted -> same performance
3rd stage
Trenčín – B. Bystrica (154 km), 131 liters of fuel, 8 hours
Oil in the gearbox had to be changed, heavy fog, performed well
4th stage
B. Bystrica – N. Smokovec (153 km), 150 liters of fuel, 7 hours
No problems occurred
5th stage
N. Smokovec – Ružomberok (98 km), 77 liters of fuel, 6 hours
Icy and mountainous roads, some track pins had to be stripped
The Commission was satisfied with the results and considered the LTP a reliable vehicle. Except for the cases when track links became loose and rivets broke on the tracks, the tank sustained no damage. This problem was fixed by introducing a new bolt for the track links. The representative of the Commission who participated in the ride stated that the vehicle could be easily started every morning whilst being kept in a closed garage overnight. At an average speed of 25 km/h, the tank’s brakes, steering, engine, and transmission all performed excellently. The temperature inside the tank was around 21°C with an outside temperature of 6°C.
The LTP that underwent the long route during a break. Note the police license plate and two Peruvian mechanics driving the tank and the Peruvian Commission following them in a passenger car behind. Source: Jaroslav Špitálský via Rotanazdar.czTest run LTP on its final stage. Note on the left side the Peruvian representative. In the background, both drivers of the tank (the right mechanic had Peruvian indegenous roots). On the right is the Czechoslovakian representative. Source: Jaroslav Špitálský via Rotanazdar.cz
The last tests were done in December 1938. All 17 tanks underwent shooting trials. However, this proved to be extremely difficult for the tanks, as the temperature reached -16°C.
At first, the tanks were designated LTL which were originally intended for Lithuania. The original contract also included the name Praga LTL. “LT” stood for Lehký Tank (Eng. Light Tank) in Czech. The letter at the end denoted the export nation, “L” for Lithuania, “P” for Peru, and “H” for Helvetia (Switzerland). When the prototype entered construction, the tanks were renamed Praga LTP which means Lehký Tank Peru. In Peru, it was known as Tanque Ligero 38/39M (Eng. Light Tank Model 38/39).
Design
The design of the LTP was very similar to that of the LT vz.38 TNH. It featured the same suspension and most of the drive, transmission, and suspension were unchanged. The vehicle had two machine guns and a 37 mm gun fitted in a turret that was redesigned from the turret of the LT vz.38.
The hull was an armored body divided into two compartments. The engine compartment, located at the back, had the engine and fuel tank. The crew compartment was separated from the engine compartment via a firewall. Only the driver was located in the hull.
The running gear was almost the same as the LT vz.38. The road wheels on the LTP were smaller compared to the LT vz. 38. The diameter of the road wheels of the LTP was around 675 mm whilst on the LT vz. 38 it was 775 mm. The running gear consisted of a front sprocket wheel, an idler wheel, four roadwheels, and three return rollers. The suspension was a leaf spring type. The rubber outlines of the roadwheels were a bit smaller than on the LT vz.38. Additionally, the contact length of the tracks with the ground was also shorter on the LTP. Track tension was handled by a tensioning crank and the idler wheel.
The engine was located at the rear, in the separate engine compartment. All 24 Scania Vabis 1664 engines for the LTPs were built in Sweden. These were similar to the ones on the LT vz. 38, with some minor differences making it more suitable for the higher altitude in which the tanks had to operate. The maximum compression ratio was increased to 1:7.2. This was to prevent the compression from reaching its maximum capabilities already at low altitudes. A pressure-reducing flap was placed in the air chamber, between the carburetor and the oil cleaner. The flap was closed by a spring which was controlled by the driver according to a scale. At low altitudes, the spring closed the flap halfway, which prevented too much air from getting into the oil cleaner. The compression level was around 1:5.7. If the tank operated at high altitudes, then the flap could be opened more and let more air through, which achieved maximum cylinder filling. This resulted in a maximum compression ratio of 1:7.2. The carburetor was a special aviation type that allowed the addition of more air. This additional air came through an air intake and was then filtered by the carburetor diffuser. The fuel was fed via an AC pump. On the rear end side was a water radiator cooling air outlet grill for the engine. The engine propelled the vehicle up to a maximum speed of 40 km/h on roads and 33 km/h off-road. The drive shaft was connected to the front sprocket wheel, driving the tank. The engine’s power rotated the drive shaft, which powered the front-placed gearbox. The LTP’s gearbox had 5 forwards and one reverse gear.
Illustration of the water radiator cooling air outlet grill. This differed significantly from other tanks in the series. Source: Praga Export Light Tanks
Superstructure
The superstructure was built on top of the hull. On the rear side were the engine deck and a rear wall. On top of the engine was the grill for the air outlet and a towing cable. On the rear wall were the exhaust muffler, a red light, a pickaxe, and a shovel. On the left mudguard were spare tracks, a toolbox, and an ax. On both mudguards, on the front, were two white side lights. On the right mudguard were the jack, iron bars, and a sledgehammer. On the front side of the hull was a hatch for the driver and a vision port with three hatches with bulletproof glass which could be rotated. On the right side of the front plate was the light machine gun. Between the vision port and light machine gun was a removable headlamp. On the front and rear sides of the hull, two towing hooks capable of handling 5,000 kg were situated.
Top view of a LTP drawing. Note the cables for the lights and other equipment on the superstructure. Source: Praga Export Light TanksAn LTP from the front. Note the headlamps and visors at the front. Source: Praga Export Light TanksAn LTP from the rear. Note that the equipment has also been painted in camouflage. Source: Praga Export Light Tanks
Turret and Armament
The turret was similar to the LT vz.38. It had a small extension at the back, where equipment and ammunition for the machine gun were stored. There were two seats for the commander and gunner, connected to the turret ring. In order for the turret to be perfectly balanced, both crew members in the turret had to be seated. This also allowed for the best turning capabilities on larger slopes.
Whilst firing, the turret could be fixed with a brake to allow quick operation of the gun. On the turret roof, there were two hatches, one for the commander and one for the loader. There was also a cylindrical commander’s cupola on top of the commander’s hatch which was attached to the commander’s hatch. The observation cupola could be rotated freely 360° and had a bulletproof glass block for the commander, but could also be locked in position. Additionally, there were holes in the turret’s roof for signal flags and a periscope. On the turret’s sides were two pistol ports, and in the rear, a glass vision block that could be closed.
Drawing of the LTP’s turret and frontal superstructure. Source: Praga Export Light TanksLTP during water tests in Czechoslovakia. The vehicle was named “Callao”. Note the commander’s cupola and the gunner’s hatch. Source: Praga Export Light Tanks
The LTP had a main gun and two machine guns. The main gun mounted in the turret was the 37 mm ÚV vz. 34. The gun was the same as in the LT vz.34 and 35 and later also the German operated Panzer 35(t). Targets for the LTP’s gun were acquired using an angled aiming telescope. In terms of performance, the gun had a muzzle velocity of 675 m/s and could penetrate up to 35 mm of armor angled at 30º at a range of 100 m and up to 21 mm of similarly angled armor at a range of 1,000 m. This made the tank, for 1938, and especially in South America, very modern, as it would face no problems penetrating other export and rival tanks, such as the Vickers 6 ton and Renault FT.
Drawing of the 37 mm ÚV vz. 34 gun, as mounted in the LTP. The Peruvian designation appears to be Cañón de 3.7cm Mod.34.Source: Jaroslav Špitálský via Rotanazdar.cz
The coaxial machine gun was the heavy air-cooled 7.92 mm ZB vz. 53.
The heavy air cooled 7.92 mm ZB. vz. 53 machine gun was the standard heavy machine gun of the Czechoslovak Army. Source: Wikimedia
The other machine gun was the light air-cooled 7.92 mm ZB vz. 30 mounted on the left side of the hull. It was manned by the gunner, who kneeled to operate it.
The light air cooled 7.92 mm ZB vz. 30 machine gun. It was the successor of the ZB vz. 26 and the standard light machine gun of the Czechoslovak Army. Source: Proxidbid
All weapons could be removed for maintenance. There were 53 rounds for the main gun, of which 18 were armor-piercing and 36 high explosives. They were stored at the bottom and left of the tank in tin packages.
The heavy machine gun had 2,200 rounds, of which some were armor-piercing, and the light machine gun had 500 rounds stored in the turret and bottom of the tank.
Armor
The armor was the same or similar as the LT vz.38 TNH except for the inner layout, observation devices, and turret. It could effectively protect the crew from armor-piercing bullets fired from regular caliber rifles and light machine guns from a distance of 75 m. The front side of the superstructure and hull were 15 to 25 mm thick. The sides of the superstructure were 15 mm thick and the rear was up to 12 mm thick. The engine deck was 10 mm thick. The turret front was 20 mm thick, and the rest, including the cupola, were 15 mm thick. Even though it was riveted and therefore offered less protection than welded armor, the rivets were reinforced and countersunk and therefore were relatively stable.
Crew
The crew consisted of 3: a commander tasked with overviewing the battlefield and giving orders to the crew, a driver, and a gunner, who operated the main gun and the coaxial heavy machine gun. The commander and gunner were housed in the turret, whereas the driver was positioned at the front of the vehicle. The crew for the prototype received training in Czechoslovakia and Peru directly from Czechoslovakian mechanics and tankers. After the first vehicles arrived, the first tank training school was opened, in which a Czechoslovakian tank instructor taught the crews. Unlike the Czechoslovakian tankers, who had trouble navigating and operating the tanks in such high altitudes, the Peruvians, who were used to the height, learned fast how to operate the tanks in mountainous regions.
Communication
Although radio receivers for the tanks were ordered, the tanks primarily relied on signal communication. Through the signal hatch on top of the turret, a red and green signal flag could be raised. During the night, electric lamps on the turret could give off a red and green color. Communication between driver and commander was done via light bulbs which the commander activated with buttons. The three light bulbs were in three different colors, creating different orders for the driver.
Organization and Doctrine
After an attempted coup d’etat in January 1938, the first Peruvian tank battalion was formed. It consisted of two companies with 12 tanks each. Additionally, there were support vehicles delivered in June 1939, which were a Praga AV command car and a two-tonne 6×4 Praga RV truck. The main positions of the tank battalion were occupied by Czechoslovak experts and mechanics.
Vehicles of the First Company in front of their barracks in 1939. On the right is the Second Platoon, in the middle the Third, and on the left the First Platoon. Note the mobile workshop and Czechoslovakian T-6 artillery tractor in the background, behind the two buses. Source: Jaroslav Špitálský via Rotanazdar.cz
The exact further organization is not known. However, photos reveal that the 12 LTPs in each company were divided into 3 platoons, each platoon identified by either a square, a triangle, or a circle. Platoon leaders had noncontinuous lines and regular vehicles had continuous lines. Each platoon had 4 vehicles. In several photos, which were all taken during the conflict with Ecuador in 1941, new markings appeared on the turret sides. One of these markings was an “R1”. Before the war, these markings did not appear and it is hard to deduce what the Czechoslovaks had in mind in terms of organization.
At some point during the 1960s, a new system was introduced with a three-digit turret number system.
First and Second platoon LTPs advancing through Ecuadorian territory in 1941 in their intended doctrinal formation. Note the vehicle in the foreground was the Second Platoon leader, “Ayacucho”. Guerre del 41 via Facebookerre del 41 via Facebook
The Czechoslovak military advisors and mechanics proposed their doctrine on how to use the tanks in combat. The doctrine was similar to the Czechoslovak tank doctrine and was not specialized for the Peruvians. The doctrine stated that the tanks were used only alongside the infantry. This meant that the tanks could not be as fast as designed, but the advancing infantry could keep up with them. Only in some cases were the tanks meant to advance faster than the infantry. The tanks were to advance in a line with normally 2 or 3 platoons at once, which meant the tanks advanced at a company level together. They would penetrate the enemy’s lines on a narrow front with infantry moving between the tanks.
LTP of the first platoon, possibly “Libertad”, supporting infantry during an advance through a river in 1941. Source: Guerre del 41 via Facebook
Camouflage and Markings
Each LTP had a unique camouflage pattern that theoretically could help identify a vehicle without seeing its name. The camouflage pattern was the standard Czechoslovakian three-tone pattern consisting of dark green, earth brown, and ochre yellow.
During the 1950s or 1960s, the vehicles were painted in dark olive green, as the Czechoslovaks did not supply any new paint after the vehicles arrived for the first time. Later, when 1 or 2 tanks were restored, a 4-tone camouflage was applied, consisting of black, beige, olive green, and brown.
Colorization of prototype “Lima” in Czechoslovakia in the Czechoslovakian three-tone pattern. Colorization by Johannes Dorn. Source: Jaroslav Špitálský via Rotanazdar.czLTP during a parade in the 2000s in dark olive green camouflage. Source: Peru.comLTP restored by the army and painted in the new 4-tone camouflage. Source: carlos_mendoza
Each of the 24 tanks had a different name painted on the right side of the chassis in white letters. Most names were the names of cities, regions, and counties of Peru.
The tactical markings were painted in most likely either signal yellow or white on the right side of the turret and the rear. Only 12 of the 24 tanks were ever sent to combat against Ecuador, which means the other 12 most likely did not participate and therefore had no tactical markings.
The 1st LTP was the prototype named “Lima”, after the capital city of Peru. It had a distinctive pattern that differed greatly from the other patterns applied to the tanks. “Lima” was also the vehicle that underwent the test trials in Peru. “Lima” was also used for testing the armor thickness against rifles and machine guns.
Of the first batch of vehicles, numbers 2 to 7, the names were not noted down and therefore can only be deduced from photos.
Number
Name
Namesake
Other Notes
1
“Lima”
Capital city of Peru
First prototype, different style of camouflage pattern
2
“Callao”
Historical port city in which the tanks arrived
It had a small Peruvian flag on the side
of the turret painted by the factory
3
“Arequipa”
Region in the south of Peru
It did not have a white circle but an “R1”,
but can be seen together with other 1st Platoon vehicles
4
“Tacna”
Region in the very south of Peru
It had a white square on its turret
5
“Loreto”
Region in the south of Peru
This area was part of the disputed area with Ecuador
and one of the reasons why war broke out in 1941
6
“Piura”
Region in the north of Peru
7
“Lambayeque”
Region in the north of Peru
8
“Cuzco”
Region in the southeast of Peru
It had a white square on its turret
9
“Ayacucho”
Region in the south of Peru
It had a white square on its turret
10
“Junin”
Region in the central of Peru
It had a white circle on its turret
11
“Libertad”
Region in the north of Peru, but also the word freedom in Spanish
It had a white circle with a dot
in the middle on the right and rear turret side
12
“Ica”
Region in the west of Peru
It had a white square on its turret
13
“Tumbes”
Region in the northwest of Peru
14
“Amazonas”
Region in the north of Peru named after the Amazon River
15
“Ancash”
Region in the central of Peru on the coastline
16
“Cajamarca”
Region in the north of Peru
It had a white triangle on its turret
17
“Madre De Dios”
Region in the east of Peru which translates
as “Mother of God”
It had a white triangle on its turret
18
“Apurímac”
Region in the south of Peru
19
San Martin
Region in the central north of Peru
20
“Tarata”
City in Tacna region in Peru.
21
“Huánuco”
Region in the central of Peru
22
“Huancavelica”
Region in the central south Peru
23
“Moquegua”
Region in the south of Peru
It had a white circle upon the war’s start
24
“Puno”
Region in the very southeast, to the border with Bolivia
“Puno” was selected for shooting
tests in May 1939 and it was revealed
that the heavy machine gun had problems that could later be fixed.
“Puno” had a white triangle on its turret
LTP named “Moquegua”, platoon leader of the First Platoon going into a river during the war with Ecuador in 1941. Source: Guerre del 41 via FacebookLTP named “Loreto” of the Third Platoon in 1939 in front of the barracks. Guerre del 41 via FacebookLTP named “Arequipa”, presumably the First Platoon, with the “R1” markings on the turret in 1941. Guerre del 41 via Facebook
Service Use
The 1939 Failed Coup Attempt
The first action and use of the LTPs was in February 1939. On February 19th, 1939, at a time of internal turmoil in Peru, General Antonio Rodríguez Ramírez, who was also Second Deputy President, carried out a palace coup against President Óscar R. Benavides, who at the time was away on an excursion. However, this was very short-lived, and Gen. Rodríguez Ramírez was shot by a policeman. The other conspirators saw the writing on the wall and lay down their arms.
In the aftermath of the failed coup, President Óscar R. Benavides was pleasantly surprised by how quickly the 7 tanks (the second and third batch were still on their way) were readied. He also proposed the purchase of armored cars to deal with the insurgents. It is unknown how the tanks were used, but it is assumed they did not fire a shot and were used more as a deterrent.
In July 1939, the tanks were demonstrated to the public for the first time, without any harmful intent, as part of a large military parade.
The War of 41
When Ecuador gained its independence from Gran Colombia in 1830, it gained a large number of territories that were previously disputed between Colombia and Peru. This led to a number of small border clashes between Ecuador and Peru and a number of unsatisfactory accords and protocols. An agreement was settled in 1936 with the Ulloa-Viteri Accord, which gave Peru its desired territories. However, most Ecuadorians were not satisfied with the agreement as a lot of Ecuadorian lands were lost. This led to further border clashes. Peru accused Ecuador of crossing the border and occupying Peruvian towns. It is important to note that even to this day, the war, and especially the build-up to it, are poorly documented and most sources take a chauvinistic line.
In 1940, the border clashes escalated in the Peruvian border town of Loreta. Ecuador’s Foreign Minister, aware of the state of his army, knew that, if a war were to break out, his country would fall, similar to France in 1940. In October 1940, he defused the situation slightly by opening negotiations between the two countries. He also tried to find international support to scare Peru off. Although the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister tried to reopen negotiations multiple times, his Peruvian counterpart did not reciprocate. This is, by some, often considered as the Peruvians wanting the war at all costs and continuing to search for a justification.
In March 1941, the USA and several other South American nations suggested mediating the dispute between both countries. This was seen as a great opportunity for the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister, but the Peruvian Foreign Minister once again ignored this.
Map of the disputed areas between Ecuador and Peru. Note that the disputed area is as large as Ecuador itself Source: Reddit.com/
Ecuador fielded next to no real organized army. Around 750 soldiers and 30 officers were on the frontline, along with an additional 650, most of whom were in paramilitary units and volunteers, in reserve. A total of 8 outdated Krupp artillery pieces left over from the wars fought by Gran Colombia were also in service, along with 2 to 4 47 mm guns, and around ten 20 mm Breda anti-aircraft guns. For motorized vehicles, the Ecuadorians only had civilian ones that quickly ran out of fuel.
One of the Ecuadorian 20 mm Breda guns. This gun would also later deal the only damage ever done to the LTPs. Source: Guerre del 41 via Facebook
Peru, on the other hand, fielded a much larger army, consisting of an estimated 11,000 to 13,000 men. In 1940, the Agrupamiento del Norte (Eng. Northern Army Grouping) was created. This was organized into the Group Headquarters, two light infantry divisions, and two army detachments. The two army detachments consisted of a special force for fighting in the jungles and the 33rd Infantry Battalion fighting in the northeast. The Group Headquarters had the 5th and 6th Cavalry Regiments, the 6th Artillery Group consisting of 8 105 mm guns, and the Army Tank Detachment consisting of the 1st Company of LTPs.
Solely based on photographic evidence, in combat against the Ecuadorians, the first company of tanks was employed and consisted of:
The 1st Light Infantry Division fielded multiple infantry battalions, anti-aircraft, engineer, and artillery groups. The same organization was used for the other light infantry division. The rest of the Peruvian Army, including the other 12 tanks, were stationed on the other borders, such as with Bolivia.
Peruvian Czechoslovak artillery piece during the war against Ecuador in 1941. Guerre del 41 via FacebookColorization of LTP named “Tacna” of the Second Platoon in 1939 in front of the barracks. Colorization by Johannes Dorn. Source: Jaroslav Špitálský via Rotanazdar.cz
On July 5th, 1941, negotiations broke down between Ecuador and Peru and the dispute finally escalated into a full-blown war. However, at the start, it was only a minor border clash. It is unknown which side shot the first bullet and accusations remain to this day, but it started out between two border patrols in the Ecuadorian town of Huaquillas on the Zarumilla River, near the coast. The Ecuadorian troops managed to capture Peruvian border posts in the Aguas Verdes district on the Peruvian side of the Zarumilla River. The Peruvians responded on the next day by bombing Ecuadorian border towns and pushed the Ecuadorians to the other side of the river using a much larger force.
The first major battle of the war was the Battle of Zarumilla, fought between July 23rd and 31st. This battle was fought in the air, on land, and in the river mouth with submarines and small warships. Peruvian forces managed to overwhelm the Ecuadorian Army with superior strength, making them flee.
Peru attacked the Ecuadorian port town of Puerto Bolívar with ships on July 29th. Ecuadorian President, Carlos Alberto Arroyo del Río, ordered a unilateral ceasefire, resulting in the ire of many Ecuadorians, military and civilian. Before the ceasefire went into effect at 18:00 on July 31st, a final attack was conducted by the Peruvians. Peruvian paratroopers conducted the first ever parachute operation in the Americas to capture Puerto Bolívar.
Colorization of the First Company’s First Platoon moving through an Ecuadorian village supported by motorcyclists and infantry. Colorization by Johannes Dorn. Guerre del 41 via Facebookerre del 41 via Facebook
In spite of the ceasefire, Peru launched a new attack to the east, in the Amazon jungles of south-central Ecuador between July 31st and August 1st. Fighting in this area lasted until August 11th when Peru gained control of the Yaupi and Santiago rivers.
The Peruvian LTP tanks also supported attacks in the east during August and September 1941, in which Peru managed to capture a large number of territories. On August 31st, Peru began the blockade of Guayaquil, Ecuador’s main maritime port and base of its fleet.
The Peruvian advance was slowed down when Argentina, Brazil, and the US demanded an end to the war. By October 6th, offensive operations ended and an international mediation was formed to try and resolve the war. Although representatives tried to support Ecuador, the Peruvians stood by their claims, and by 1942, the US had greater problems to deal with.
On January 29th, 1942, the Rio Protocol was signed which resulted in Ecuador giving up its claim on Peruvian land and the border between the two countries finally being agreed upon. However, this would not be the final peace treaty, as war broke out again in 1981 and 1995. Only in 1998 was a final peace agreement between the two countries reached.
LTP “Madre de Dios” and “Puno” (platoon leader) of the Third Platoon advancing through Ecuadorian territory in August 1941. Guerre del 41 via Facebook
The Peruvian LTP tanks were widely used on the coastline on the western side, due to most of the fighting happening there. On several occasions, the Czechoslovakian T-6 artillery tractor, with its superior tracked suspension, towed the motorized units out of the mud and through rivers. The tanks also supported infantry, advancing in the way the doctrine intended. On one occasion, the tanks crossed a river and protected the infantry, which could move safely over the river.
Peruvian T-6 artillery tractor towing the RV truck out of the mud, 1941. Guerre del 41 via Facebookerre del 41 via Facebook
The LTP performed excellently due to the almost non-existent anti-tank capabilities of the Ecuadorian forces. The vehicles advanced at a fast pace supported by motorized units and motorcycle infantry. They encountered no trouble advancing through mountainous regions and the rainforest and, if minor mechanical problems occurred, the trained Peruvian tankers and the Czechoslovak mechanics could solve the problem. At some point, the LTPs advanced at such a high pace that the rest of the army could not keep up.
LTP of the second platoon in 1941 during the war with Ecuador. Source: Praga Export Light Tanks
It was only due to the lacking Ecuadorian anti-tank capabilities that the tanks managed to survive in many instances. The only possible threat was posed by the Ecuadorian artillery, which was also one of the reasons why the Bolivians lost their tanks to the Paraguayans in the 1932 Chaco War. However, the Ecuadorian artillery, only available in small numbers, lacked coordination and experience, which resulted in its ineffective use.
Only in one case did an Ecuadorian 20 mm Breda gun manage to slightly damage the turret front of a vehicle during the attack on Huabillos. The AP rounds of the 37 mm gun were not used often, as the tanks encountered nothing to penetrate. The HE rounds, on the other hand, were used, dealing damage to the already few machine gun nests and bunker positions.
Close-up showing the damaged LTP, presumably “Cajamarca” or “Loreto” of the Third Platoon. The round hit the tank on its gun barrel. Source: Guerre del 41Colorization of the tank “Moquegua” with its commander, Manuel Salazar Vásquez, during the Peru-Ecuador War. Note the platoon markings are not yet applied. Colorization by Johannes Dorn Guerre del 41 via Facebook
Post-War of 41 Service
In 1947, even though through the Lend-Lease Act, the United States had provided Peru with 30 M3 Stuart tanks, the Peruvians favored the LTP tanks, and a request for 20 additional vehicles was put forward to ČKD. The Peruvians were unhappy with the M3 Stuarts, as they were less reliable compared to the LTPs, which had now been in service for 5 years without any major issues. Negotiations started, with the Peruvians requesting upgraded light tanks from ČKD. The upgraded tank would have had welded armor, an upgraded 37 mm Skoda A-7 gun, and a diesel engine.
However, in 1951, the new Czechoslovakian Communist government ended the negotiations, as in their eyes, and those of Moscow, Peru was a mere vassal of American imperialism. ČKD could only send spare parts with a value of US$53,735 on April 5, 1950, which arrived in 1951. Throughout the years, many of the 24 tanks were cannibalized for parts that were used to repair other LTPs.
Two vehicles in running condition but without paint and ammunition, located in the Real Felipe fortress in Callao, were spotted in 1987.
The LTPs were eventually replaced by the much more advanced AMX-13 and T-54/55 tanks.
One of these two vehicles from Callao was restored in 2015 by the Military History Institute and was named “Junín” and gifted to the Czech Republic. The other exists in its old form in front of the fortress. However, it is assumed that more vehicles exist, either broken down in army storage or as monuments in barracks or public places. In the 2000s, 1 or 2 vehicles were also restored by the Army and have been used during parades.
LTP located at the Real Felipe fortress in Callao. Source: Historum.comRestored LTP named “Junín” in the Military History Institute Prague. Source: Flickr.com
Support Vehicles for the LTP
Due to the need for repairs and tank maintenance coming up during the discussion of the original contract, a mobile workshop trailer was designed. The trailer had four wheels and carried spare parts and tools for the tanks. It was to be towed by a T-6 artillery tractor and only one was sent to Peru. In February 1939, the mobile workshop arrived together with a Praga T-6 artillery tractor.
Conclusion – South America’s Greatest Tank during WW2?
The choice to purchase tanks from Czechoslovakia had proven to be the right one for Peru, as the Praga LTP fulfilled all the requirements demanded by the Peruvian Army. The only exceptions being some minor mistakes, small shortcomings, and increased weight. The ultimate test for the tank would be the participation during the Peru-Ecuador War of 1941, where they performed exceptionally well against the Ecuadorian Army, suffering from next to no breakdowns or mechanical issues. They even outperformed the later arriving M3 Stuarts. In service until the 1980s, the Tanque Ligero 38/39M was one of the tanks with the longest service life in the world.
The question of if the Tanque Ligero 38/39M was South America’s best tank during WW2 remains unanswered, as no conflicts between any other nations happened. However, assumptions can be made from similar vehicles or comparing gun penetration with specifications of other export or South American tanks.
A tank comparable to the Praga LTP which saw wide service was the LT vz.38, designated Panzer 38(t) in the German Army. Although the Panzer 38(t) fielded an upgraded gun, it had almost the exact same propulsion and armor protection. During the Polish campaign, the Panzer 38(t), although in small numbers, encountered the British Vickers 6-ton export tank and French Renault FT in Polish service. Both vehicles were also exported to South America. The Renault FT was present in relatively larger numbers in the Brazilian Army and the Vickers 6 ton (although out of service by 1941), in the Bolivian Army. Both tanks could be easily penetrated by the Panzer 38(t) and therefore also by the Praga LTP.
Furthermore, the armor provided sufficient protection against the 47 mm of the Vickers. Chile fielded several Carden-Loyd tankettes armed with 20 mm anti-tank guns. However, it is not known how these guns performed.
Chilean Carden-Loyd tankette with a 20 mm anti-tank gun in 1939. Source: Familia Acorazada Del Ejército De Chile
In 1941 and 1942, the first Lend-Lease vehicles arrived, not just in Peru, but the entirety of South America. Although the M3 Stuart would, in theory, be equal to the LTP, the state in which most M3 Stuarts arrived was terrible, resulting in poor performance. The only tank that could have posed a serious threat was the M4 Sherman sent to Brazil as part of the Lend-Lease Act, which outshone the Praga LTP in most factors. There was also the Nahuel DL.43, which was essentially an Argentine medium tank similar to the M4 Sherman. This tank would also outperform the LTP.
A tank comparable to the LTP, the Panzer 38(t), saw wide service in the German Army during the early Second World War. Source: Warspot.ruLTP during examination in an Ecuadorian village. This was the vehicle that was damaged by the 20 mm Breda. Guerre del 41 via Facebook
Illustrations
LTP prototype “Lima” in full camouflage. Note the different style of camouflage pattern compared to other LTPs.LTP designated “Puno”, platoon leader of the Third Platoon in 1941 during the war with EcuadorLTP presumably “Libertad” during a parade in 1956. Note the new full green camouflage. All illustrations by Ardhya ‘Vesp’ Anargha
Tanque Ligero 38/39M specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
4.1 x 1.95 x 2.16 m
Total Weight
7,325 kg
Crew
3 (Driver, commander, loader/gunner)
Speed
Cross-country: 33km/h, roads: 41 km/h
Range
187 km
Armament
37 mm UV vz. 34 canon, heavy ZB vz. 53 (turret), light ZB vz. 30 (hull)
Ammunition
54 rounds for the gun (18 armor piercing, 36 HE rounds), 2,700 rounds for both MGs
Prior to the war, the German Army was heavily engaged in expanding its new Panzer Divisions. For this purpose, great attention was given to the development of new types of tanks (Panzers). Due to the German industry’s lack of production capacity at that time and despite great effort, the more desirable and stronger Panzer III and IV could not be produced in sufficient numbers. The Germans were instead forced to use a large number of the weakly armed Panzer I and Panzer IIs.
Panzerkampfwagen 38(t) Ausführung A (Source: panzernet.net)
Luckily for the Germans, during the takeover of Czechoslovakia in early 1939, they came into possession of the Škoda and ČKD factories. With them, they obtained over 200 LT vz. 35 and, more importantly, some 150 (not all were finished by that time) LT vz. 38. While both would be put into service, the Germans were far more interested in the more advanced LT vz. 38, which was far superior to the German Panzer I and II and was a close match for the larger Panzer IIIs. The LT vz. 38 would provide a great asset for the German Panzer Divisions during the first few years of the war. In later years, its chassis would be reused for a number of different modifications up to the war’s end.
The Czechoslovakian Origin
After the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, Czechoslovakia became an independent state. Beside its independence, it also inherited two military weapon manufacturers, Škoda (Pilsen) and Českomoravská Kolben-Daněk, ČKD (Prague). ČKD was formed back in 1871 and was initially involved in the production of industrial machinery, while, in later years, it would begin to develop and produce military equipment like field kitchens, automobiles, tractors, etc. During the First World War, CKD was even involved in producing a small run of armored cars for the Austro-Hungarian army. With the dissolution of the monarchy, for over a decade, ČKD did nothing regarding the development of armored vehicles. The first attempts to expand to the production of armored vehicles were made during the twenties. These included two projects: the MT tracked tractor (based on the French FT tank) and the ‘Kolohousenka’ (a wheel-cum-track) vehicle, but nothing came of these two projects.
Recognizing their obvious lack of experience in tracked vehicle design, ČKD officials bought three British Carden-Loyd Mk.VI tankette and built an additional four under license. After a series of tests and evaluations, ČKD produced its improved tankette based on this vehicle (named P-1), and even gained a small production order from the Czechoslovakian army. However, the greatest success of this project was the gaining of experience in tank design.
In the mid-thirties, the tank design bureau of ČKD, under the leadership of Alexej Surin (who was a Russian immigrant during the First World War), began working on a completely new and quite modern suspension design. Plans and blueprints for the AH-IV tankettes and TNH light tank were ready early in 1935. Both vehicles were to use a new design of suspension which consisted of two larger road wheels placed on a single horizontal spring unit.
As, at that time, Czechoslovakia was in no position to finance nor maintain a large army, ČKD turned instead to the foreign market. The first business opportunity was quick to arrive. Luckily for ČKD, a military delegation from Iran was visiting Czechoslovakia on a military mission of finding good tank designs. This delegation, led by General Ismail Khan, arrived in Prague during May 1935. Once there, they met with the representatives from Škoda and ČKD. The ČKD paper designs impressed the Iranian delegation, which immediately ordered 30 AH-IV armed with machine guns and TNH armed with 3.7 cm guns and two machine guns. The ČKD officials were quite generous to the Iranian delegation, donating them a P-I tankette (which no doubt positively affected the delegation) as a present.
These two prototypes were ready (without the weapons and with mock-up turrets) by September 1935. The Iranian delegation was once again impressed and increased the order for 50 vehicles of both types. Immediately after these negotiations, the ČKD began working to finish its TNH vehicle, which lasted to the end of 1935. Due to some delays, ČKD finally delivered these vehicles in May 1937.
The two prototypes (TNH to the left and AH-IV to the right) were presented to the Iranian delegation in September 1935. (Source: tankarchives.ca)
Following this success, ČKD managed to achieve great export success with these two vehicles. The TNH, with different weapon configurations, would be sold to Iran, Lithuania (which ordered 21 tanks but never received them due to Soviet annexation), Peru and Switzerland.
Further development of the TNH would eventually lead to the introduction of the successful LT vz. 38. (Source: warspot.net)
During the late thirties, encouraged by these export successes, ČKD officials tried to sell the TNH to the Czechoslovakian army. Previously, ČKD had been included in the production of nearly half of the 298 Škoda LT vz.35 tanks for the Czechoslovakian army. ČKD got its chance when the army decided not to increase the production of the LT vz.35 and instead asked for a new design. The ČKD response to the Czechoslovakian army request was the TNH-S tank. This vehicle was built in 1937 by using soft iron plates to save money (as it was to serve mainly as an advertising vehicle for any interested customer). While visually the same as the standard TNH, the TNH-S tank had a stronger engine and a new gearbox unit. At the start of 1938, the TNH-S and another prototype named P-II-R were presented to the army. After a series of extensive tests that lasted until March, the army requested tests of the installation of the LT vz.35 turret with a new 3.7 cm A7 gun. In April, the army made several new requests regarding the design of the driver’s frontal armored plate, which had to be changed in order to provide more room for the machine gun to be operated efficiently, increasing the armor thickness of the front plate to 25 mm, increasing the fuel load from 180 to 210 l, adding and a two-part hatch doors above the radio operator.
After more months spent in weapon testing, the TNH-S was once again presented to the army’s military delegation at the start of July. The delegation was impressed with its performance and ordered it into production under the designation LT (which stands for ‘Lehky Tank’, light tank) vz.38. The tank was then returned for a complete overhaul, but despite the 7,740 km-long test run, only minor repairs were needed.
Despite providing excellent overall performance, the start of LT vz.38 production was delayed. The main reason for this was a disagreement between the army and ČKD officials regarding the tank’s price. The price for the LT vz.38 (without the gun) was 640,180 crowns, which was far more than the older LT vz.35. As both sides reached a compromise, a contract for 150 vehicles was signed in late July 1938. It was planned to produce the first 20 vehicles by the end of the year. The remaining tanks were to be built in early 1939. The vehicles were to be built in the ČKD production facilities in Prague-Liben. Praga was to provide the engines and most parts of the gearboxes, while armor plates were provided by Poldi steel mills and VHHT.
Czechoslovakia’s attempts to reorganize and expand its army were never completed due to political developments with Germany. Namely, due to the Munich agreement in September 1938, Germany managed to obtain a large portion of Czechoslovakia’s western territory. During this crisis, ČKD received permission from the army to advertise this vehicle abroad. Britain was interested in its design and, in February 1939, one was actually shipped to England to be tested at the Mechanical Experimental Establishment of the British Army. The British were not impressed with its performance. After this failure, the vehicle was shipped back to Czechoslovakia. Sweden also tried to buy the LT vz.38 and an agreement was signed for 90 vehicles. In July 1940, these 90 vehicles were simply taken over by the Germans for themselves. But, nevertheless, Sweden acquired a production license for this vehicle.
Due to problems with the deliveries of armor plates from the suppliers, actual production was unable to start up until early 1939. The first series of 10 tanks was actually completed by the time of the German annexation of what was left of Czechoslovakia and the creation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the Slovakian Republic puppet state.
In German Hands
With the occupation of former Czechoslovakian territories, the Germans came into possession of the Škoda and ČKD factories. To determine what weapons and armored vehicles could possibly be reused, the German Heeres Waffenamt (army weapons department) dispatched, in May 1939, a delegation to the ČKD factories. Under German ownership, ČKD would be renamed to BMM (Böhmisch-Mährische Maschinenfabrik). This delegation was led by Lt.Col. Fichtner and Lt.Col. Olbricht. After a quick inspection of vehicles present at the facility, the LT vz. 38 immediately caught the attention of the German delegation. It appears that the LT vz. 38’s overall performance highly impressed the Germans who, after an examination, proposed its adoption for army use. For this reason, on 15th May 1939, the Arbeitstab des Heeres-Waffenamt-Prag (working staff of the armament office in Prague) was formed. Its first decision was to immediately take over the 10vehicles already produced, which were then given to the 1st Armored Regiment stationed at Milovice. There, these tanks were used for the initial training of new cadre of instructors that would be needed for later expansion in the numbers of this vehicle. 9 LT vz. 38 would be officially taken over by the Germans on 22nd May 1939, while one vehicle was kept in the factory.
The LT vz.38 being demonstrated to the Germans during May 1939. It still has the Czechoslovak tricolor camouflage. (Source: panzernet.net)
While the Heeres Waffenamt was initially uninterested and reluctant to adopt foreign weapons and armored vehicles (a practice that would change later in the war), due to a lack of German industrial production capacity, which prevented the Wehrmacht from fielding tanks in greater numbers, the LT vz. 38 was accepted for service. Little did the Germans know at that time that this decision would lead to the emergence of a great number of different types of armored vehicles (anti-tank, ammunition supply, anti-aircraft etc.) based on the LT vz. 38 chassis. The production rate was to be around 25 vehicles per month. Beside the first 10 vehicles, 12 were completed in June, 39 in July, 18 in August, 31 in September, 30 in October with the last 11 completed in November 1939. Very interesting is the fact that the Germans actually paid ČKD for all these tanks.
The Name
When the ČKD LT vz. 38 tank was adopted by the Waffenamt, from May to August 1939, these were simply referred to as tschechische (Czech) Pz.Kpfw.III. In August 1939, in German documents, the designation Panzerkampfwagen (3.7 cm) L.T.M. 38 began to appear. L.T.M. 38 was an abbreviation which stood for Leichte Tank Modell 38 (light tank type/model 38), while in some sources it stands for Leichte Tank Munster. In some German documents, the designation Panzer III(t) was also used. In the period between October 1939 to January 1940, the name was once again changed to LTM 38 Protektorat. The name Panzerkampfwagen 38(t) (or simply Panzer 38(t)), by which it is best known today, was officially introduced by In 6 in mid-January 1940. In addition, its main weapon was also officially designated as 3.7 cm Kw.K.38(t).
During the war, as newer models were introduced, the Ausführung (English: version) denomination, ranging from A to S, would be added to its name. While, during its production run, some changes were made (mostly regarding the armor thickness), the Panzer 38(t)’s overall construction and design was relatively unchanged from the first version to the last. For this reason, precise identification of the Panzer 38(t) versions can sometimes be very hard.
Design
The Hull
The Panzer 38(t) was more or less similar in layout to all other German tanks. It was divided into a few sections which included the forward-mounted transmission, central crew fighting compartment, and, to the rear, the engine compartment. The transmission and steering systems were placed at the front of the hull and were protected with a large angled armored plate. To allow better access for repairs, a rectangular-shaped transmission hatch was located in the middle of this plate. It was protected by an extended ‘U’ shaped splash ring.
The hull and the remaining parts of the Panzer 38(t) body were constructed using armored plates riveted to an armored frame. The armor plates that needed to be easily removable (like the upper horizontal plate in the hull for access to the gearbox, rear-engine plate, etc.) were held in place by using bolts. In order to be able to cross rivers up to 1 m deep, the rivet and bolt joints were waterproofed by adding parchment paper soaked in oil.
The Superstructure
The superstructure was added atop the Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A hull to provide protection for the crew members. It had a simple design which consisted of four plates (one at the front, one on each side, and one at the rear) and the armored roof plates (the roof could be easily removed for repairs). While the side and rear armored plates were flat, the front was not. The left part, where the machine gun ball mount and the small observation port for the radio operator were located, protruded out slightly. This port had a 4 mm visor slit that was cut into it and, for protection against small-caliber rounds, a stepped deflector was added. This observation port was protected with a 50 mm thick armored glass block. For the radio operator, there was an additional but much smaller observation port to the left side.
A view of the Panzer 38(t) interior. The driver was positioned to the right with the radio/machine gun operator left of him. Here, the Panzer 38(t)’s relatively cramped interior is also noticeable. (Source: Pinterest)
On the right side, there were two observation ports (one on the front and one on the right side) that were used by the driver. These could be protected by using either a 50 mm thick armored glass block or a tempered glass windshield.
The roof armor plate of the crew compartment was completely flat. Above the radio operator, there was a two-part hatch door. The Panzer 38(t) superstructure was not completely gas-proof, and for this reason, four gas masks were stowed inside the vehicle.
Front view of a Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A. The radio operator’s hatch door is open. This particular vehicle was taken for evaluation at the German Kummersdorf testing center, possibly in early 1939. (Source: Panzer Tracts No.18).
The Turret
The Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A had a simple turret design, which was constructed using differently shaped armored plates held together by rivets and bolts. The large one-piece front armor plate was placed at an angle of 9° and the sides were angled at 10°. The front turret armor plate was connected to the turret frame by using bolts so that it could be easily removed for maintenance or repair of the main gun. The turret was mounted on a ball bearing race and had a full 360° of traverse. The traverse was achieved by using the traverse handwheel gear. The diameter of this turret ring was 1,210 mm (or 1,265 mm depending on the source).
A commander’s cupola was located on the left side of the turret roof. The commander’s cupola had four observation ports to cover all sides. On top of it was a large one-piece hatch door. A tube-shaped pivoting, traversable (with a 360° arc) periscope was mounted in front of the cupola. Unlike later versions of the Panzer 38(t), the Ausf.A did not have an armored cover over the top of the periscope.
On the commander’s cupola’s hatch, there was a smaller round hatch which was used for firing signal flares or using signal flags. Next to the commander’s cupola, there was another round-shaped hatch that had the same purpose. The secondary role of these two hatches was for ventilation during gun firing. Besides the commander’s cupola, no other escape hatch was added to the turret. In addition, there were no observation hatches to the side nor to the rear.
Storage and Other Equipment
Due to the Panzer 38(t)’s small size, internal storage space was quite limited. For this reason, additional external storage boxes were added. These were not added at the production plant, but at Army depots prior to their shipment to frontline units. The number, size and designs of the storage boxes varied throughout the production run. On the Ausf.A, a shovel and a pickaxe were placed at the rear. While it was not initially installed, during the production run of the Ausf.A, a Notek light was added on the left track guard, while to the rear left side (later in production changed to the right side), a convoy tail light would also be added.
Four Panzer 38(t)s belonging to Rommel’s 7th Panzer Division during the Western campaign in May/June 1940. While the second tank lacked the large storage bin, the remaining three had one placed on the left side. (Source: panzernet.net)
Suspension and Running Gear
The suspension consisted of four 775 mm diameter large road wheels with split rubber tires. The use of large diameter wheels was meant to reduce wear on the rubber tires. These wheels were connected in pairs and were suspended using semi-elliptical leaf spring (with 14 leaf springs) units. In addition, there were a front (637 mm) 19 tooth drive sprocket, (525 mm) rear idler, and two (220 mm) return rollers per side. The track consisted of 94 links. Each track link was 293 mm wide and 104 mm long. These were connected using link pins which were secured with spring clips. The ground clearance of this vehicle was 40 cm. The upper part of the tracks was covered by a track guard which was 2 mm thick. The truck guard was also slightly angled to the outside, to serve as a rainwater drain.
A drawing of the Panzer 38(t)’s large paired road wheels with their semi-elliptical leaf spring unit just above. (Source: S.J. Zaloga Panzer 38(t) Osprey Publishing)Side view of the Panzer 38(t) suspension system with two return track rollers and four road wheels. The drive sprocket wheel is at the front of the tank and the idler wheel at the rear. (Source: warspot.ru)
The Engine and Transmission
The Panzer 38(t) was powered by a Praga TNHPS/II six-cylinder gasoline engine giving out 125 hp@2200 rpm. This was actually a license-produced variant of the Swedish Scania-Vabis type 1664. The maximum speed for the vehicle was 42 km/h (or 17 km/h cross-country), with an operational range of 220-250 km and 100 km cross country. The fuel load of 220 l was stored in two fuel tanks placed under the engine and protected by an armored plate.
The Panzer 38(t) engine cooling system consisted of one radiator (with a capacity of 64 l) and a large cooling fan, both of which were placed to the rear of the engine compartment. Engine temperature could be regulated from the crew compartment. This engine provided the best performance when the temperature was between 80 to 85° Celsius. Air intakes were placed above the engine and were protected from enemy fire with armored plates. The engine could be started using a 2.5 kW Scintilla (later replaced with a Bosch) type starter or simply by using the hand crank.
Rear view of a Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A. Behind the large round armored cover was the cooling system, which consisted of one radiator and a large cooling fan. Also, note the air intake grille placed above the engine. (Source: warspot.ru)
The engine and the crew compartment were separated by a fire-resistant and gas-tight armored firewall. This firewall was 5 mm thick and consisted of 2 mm of steel, 2 mm of asbestos, and 1 mm of aluminum plates. It served to protect the crew from the engine heat and any possible outbreaks of fire in the engine. The crew had two small rectangular hatch doors placed in the firewall in order to have access to the engine compartment if needed.
The Praga-Wilson CV-TNHP four-speed (one reverse) gearbox was connected to the engine by a drive shaft that ran through the bottom of the crew fighting compartment. The driver could change the gear simply by using a selector and then engaging the clutch foot pedal.
The driver steered the tank by using clutch-brake steering units which had two steering brake drums and two bypass drive brakes. When the driver used the bypass driver brake, the Panzer 38(t) turning radius was 9 m. To lower this radius to less than 9 m, the driver released the steering clutch and then engaged the steering brakes.
The Armor Protection
The front glacis was 12 mm thick at a 75° angle, the hull front was 25 mm at a 15° angle and the lower hull front was 15 mm thick with a 66° angle. The side armor was 15 mm thick, the rear was 10-15 mm and the bottom was 8 mm.
The front superstructure armor was 25 mm placed at a 17.6° angle. The sides of the crew compartment were 15 mm placed vertically. The engine compartment was protected by 10 mm thick armor at a 35° angle.
The front turret armor was 25 mm (at a 10° angle), while the sides and rear were 15 mm (at a 9° angle) and the top was 8 mm (at 80-90° angle). The commander’s cupola had all-around 15 mm of armor, with the hatch door being 8 mm thick.
The Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A, similar to other German tanks at that time, was equipped with the Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung (a smoke grenade rack system). This device was placed on the rear of the hull. This rack, covered with an armored shield, contained five grenades which were activated with a wire system by the Panzer 38(t) commander. When activated, the Panzer would then drive back to the safety of the smokescreen.
The Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung system positioned at the rear and covered with an armored shield. (Source: Pinterest)
The Crew
The Czechoslovak designers originally planned for this vehicle to have three crew members. In this scenario, the commander would be the only one to stay in the turret. He would simply be overburdened with the many tasks that he would have to perform, like operating and loading the gun. As this thinking was obsolete by German standards, the greatest change to this vehicle was adding the fourth crew member. While the latest German tanks used innovative five-man crew configurations, due to the Panzer 38(t)’s small size, this was not possible. In German hands, the Panzer 38(t) was operated by a crew of four which consisted of commander/gunner and loader, who were positioned in the turret, and the driver and radio operator in the hull.
The crew positions inside the Panzer 38(t). (Source: S.J. Zaloga Panzer 38(t) Osprey Publishing)
The commander was positioned on the left side of the turret. In order to have a better awareness of the surroundings, he was provided with a cupola. Due to the turret’s small size and the impossibility of adding a fifth crew member, the commander had to act as the gunner too. The loader was positioned next to the commander. The loader also operated the turret machine gun. In the hull, on the left side, was the radio operator and next to him, to the right, was the driver. The commander had two options to communicate with the driver, either through an intercom system or by signal lights (green, red, and blue).
The Armament
The main armament of the Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A was the 3.7 cm A7 L/48.7 Škoda gun which, in German hands, was renamed to KwK 38(t). With the acquisition of Czechoslovakian factories, the Germans also claimed possession of stockpiles of 3.7 cm ammunition. The original Czechoslovakian 3.7 cm rounds (known in Germany as Pzgr.Patr 37(t)) had a weight of 0.850 kg and, with a muzzle velocity of 741 m/s, the armor penetration was 28 mm armor (at a 30° angle) at 600 m. This type of ammunition had some issues, especially with the large cloud of smoke that accumulated after the gun was fired, which made forward observation difficult. Another issue was the lack of tracers. To resolve these problems, the Germans improved its performance by adding a tracer, increasing the weight by adding a larger explosive charge, and adding a new cap in order to increase its aerodynamic performance. This new round had a muzzle velocity of 750 m/s and could penetrate 41 mm (at a 30° angle) at 600 m and 27 mm at 1 km. Besides the armor-piercing rounds, there was also a high explosive and a tungsten-cored round. The tungsten core ammunition was available from early 1941 on. It was known as the 3.7 cm Pzgr.40/37(t) and, with a muzzle velocity of 1,020 m/s, could penetrate 64 mm of armor at ranges of 100 m at a 30° angle. In German pamphlets that were issued to the frontline troops in the summer of 1941, this ammunition type is listed as being able to penetrate the T-34’s hull side armor from ranges of up to 300 m. Tungsten was in short supply in Germany, so the use of this ammunition was rare. The rate of fire for this gun was around 15 rounds per minute.
The ammunition load for the main gun was 90 rounds (or 72 depending on the source), which was stored in 15 ammunition magazines with 6 rounds each. The elevation of the gun ranged from -10° to +25°. The gun used the Turmzielfernrohr 38(t) telescopic sight, which had a 2.6x magnification and a 25° field of view. If this sight was not operational (either due to malfunction or combat damage), there was an optional second open sight. The back of the gun was provided with an armored recoil shield to avoid accidental injury during gun firing. Underneath this protective shield, a canvas bag was added to hold 15 to 20 spent cartridges. During the firing of the main gun, the spent propellant fumes were ejected by the engine cooling air system, through a vent slit which was located on the superstructure left side, or even through the observation ports. When on the move and not in combat, the turret could be locked down in place.
The secondary armament consisted of two 7.92 mm ZB vz. 37 machine guns. These machine guns were renamed by the Germans as MG 37(t). The first ball-mounted machine gun was positioned in the superstructure and was operated by the radio operator. It had a 28° traverse with an elevation of -10° to +10°. The elevation was limited in order to avoid hitting the main gun by accident and potentially damaging it. For aiming this machine gun, a telescopic sight with 2.6x magnification was provided. There was also an option for the driver to fire the machine gun, by activating a trigger placed on the left steering lever. In this case, the machine gun would be fixed and aimed by moving the whole vehicle.
The Panzer 38(t) was armed with one 3.7 cm gun and two machine guns. This configuration was more or less standard for all tanks during World War Two. While the 3.7 cm was effective against most tanks (except the heavy ones) in the early stages of the war, the appearance of the Soviet T-34 and KV series in 1941 showed that it was no longer adequate for the job. The turret machine gun could be aimed independently, which was somewhat unusual for its time. (Source: warspot.ru)
The second ball-mounted machine gun was placed to the right of the main gun. Interestingly, there were two options for how this machine gun could be operated. First was the standard coaxial link to the main gun. The second option was to use the machine gun completely independently by removing a connection pin. In this case, the machine gun had 28° of traverse with an elevation of -10° to +25°. The turret machine gun was operated by the gunner. The total ammunition load for the two machine guns was 2,700 rounds. The Germans added one MP 38/40 submachine gun with 256 rounds of ammunition. Besides the gun and machine gun ammunition, some 24 rounds for a signal flare pistol were also carried inside. On some Ausf.A vehicles, a blocking mechanism was added to the turret machine gun to prevent it from hitting the main gun.
The Command Version
On their new Panzer 38(t)s, the Germans added radio equipment which they deemed necessary for proper tank use. Usually, the tank company commander’s tank was equipped with an Fu 5 transmitter and Fu 2 radio receiver. The platoon leader’s tank had the Fu 5 and ordinary tanks were equipped with only Fu 2 radio sets.
The Panzer 38(t) had a few different command vehicle versions known as Panzerbefehlswagen (tank command vehicle). These were built in three different versions (the difference was in the radio equipment used and type of radio antennas), the Sd.Kfz.266, 267, and 268. The Sd.Kfz.266 version was equipped with a Fu 5 and a Fu 2 radio and used a rod-type antenna. The Sd.Kfz.267 had Fu 8 and Fu 5 radio equipment and had large frame antennas that were placed on the rear deck. This version had its turret fixed and the main gun was replaced with a wooden dummy gun. The last version, the Sd.Kfz.268, used the Fu 7 and Fu 5 radio equipment with two rod antennas. The Sd.Kfz.268’s main purpose was to communicate with German Air Force units for better cooperation.
When modified to be used as a command vehicle, the hull machine gun had to be removed and, in its place, a round armored cover was added. For crew protection against infantry attack, two more MP 38/40 submachine guns were added. A number of Panzer 38(t) Ausf.As were modified for this role. The Ausf.As that were used in Poland had a larger aerial on the left side of the superstructure. While not present on all Ausf.A, the use of this antena was abandoned after the Polish campaign. The main center where all these modifications were conducted was the Nachrichten Heereszeugamt (signal ordnance depot) at Berlin-Schoneberg.
The command version based on the Panzer 38(t) was not popular with its crews, as it lacked an adequate view of the surroundings. While the Panzer III was more preferable for this role, due to a lack of tanks in the early stages of the war, the Panzer 38(t) was used instead.
This Panzer 38(t) used in Poland in 1939 had a larger aerial antenna placed on the left side of the superstructure. Its use was abandoned after Poland. (Source: panzernet.net)The Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A Sd.Kfz.267 with its large rear frame antenna is the most easily identified of all command version tanks. (Source:Panzer Tracts No.18).This is the Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A Sd.Kfz.268 version, identified by its two-rod antennas. (Source: warspot.ru)
In Combat – Poland 1939
By the time of the Invasion of Poland in September 1939, there were some 57 Panzer 38(t) (with two command vehicles) allocated to Panzer-Abteilung 67 (67th Tank Battalion), which was part of the 3rd Leichte Division (Light Division). This battalion was divided into three companies with four platoons each. While it was originally intended to equip these companies purely with the Panzer 38(t), due to a lack of tanks, it was not possible. For this reason, Panzer-Abteilung 67 was instead also issued with (rare) Panzer II Ausf.D tanks. The 3rd Light Division was allocated to Armee Gruppe Süd (Army Group South) which was under the direct command of General Colonel von Rundstedt. At the start of the war, the 3rd Light Division engaged Polish positions near Czenstochowa and managed to break through the line. It lost its first Panzer 38(t) tank on the 6th September 1939, when it was hit by a Polish 3.7 cm anti-tank gun. In the following days, the 3rd Light Division clashed with many Polish forces, until it reached Gora Kalwaria, just south of the Polish capital, Warsaw. It also participated in the German attempt to stop the Polish counterattack near the Bzura River, which was successfully repelled. The last combat action in Poland was during the siege of Modlin. By the end of the Polish campaign, only around 7 vehicles were lost, but all were recovered and put back into action.
Panzer 38(t) tanks during the Polish invasion in 1939. Just behind the front vehicle is a rare Panzer II Ausf.D. (Source: S.J. Zaloga Panzer 38(t) Osprey Publishing)
During this campaign, the Panzer 38(t) performed well, with minimal equipment and mechanical breakdowns. But, like all German tanks, the Panzer 38(t) was also lacking adequate armor protection. The Polish anti-tank guns could penetrate its frontal armor at up to 300 m ranges and the anti-tank rifles at up to 100 m. Interestingly, during the Polish campaign, the Germans tested the idea of using trucks to transport the Panzer 38(t), hoping that this way, they would be able to advance more quickly. This likely proved to be impractical (and possibly dangerous) and was abandoned and never used after Poland.
While the use of trucks as a transport for the Panzer 38(t) was meant to increase its speed of deployment (at least in theory), it proved to be problematic and this idea was dropped.This Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A used in Poland lacked the larger aerial antenna placed on the left side of the superstructure. (Source: Panzer.net)
In Combat – To the West
After the Polish campaign, the Light Divisions were reorganized into proper Panzer Divisions. The 3rd Light Division was renamed the 8th Panzer Division in October 1939. Due to the increased production of the Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A and Ausf.B, it was possible to equip two Panzer Regiments, the 10th (part of the 8th Panzer Division) and the 25th (part of the 7th Panzer Division). The Panzer regiments consisted of three battalions. Each battalion was further divided into two 15 vehicle companies (divided into three platoons) in total some 90 vehicles. But, despite increased production of the Panzer 38(t), insufficient tanks had been produced to fully equip these units by the time of the German invasion of the west. The 7th Panzer Divisions had, at the start of the campaign, some 91 Panzer 38(t), with 10 (or 8 depending on the source) additional command vehicles based on this tank. The 8th Panzer Division was a bit larger, with 116 Panzer 38(t) and 15 command tanks.
A column of Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A, belonging to the 7th Panzer Division. The large white line painted across the engine compartment was used for aerial recognition.
When the Germans attacked in May 1940, both of these Panzer Divisions were part of General von Rundstedt’s Armee Gruppe A. The 7th Panzer Division, which was under the command of Erwin Rommel, made quick progress and, by 14th May, crossed the Maas River. After that, it successfully engaged the French 1st Tank Division, which had Char B1 bis and H35 tanks. The 7th Panzer Division crossed the French border on 16th May and, two days later, managed to inflict heavy losses on the French 1st Light Division. By the 20th, it had reached the Arras area, where the British 4th and 7th tank regiments were holding the line. These units were equipped with Matilda tanks, which were immune to the Panzer 38(t)’s 3.7 cm gun. While British tanks initially caused panic among the German units, the use of artillery, air support, and 88 mm guns allowed the Germans to regain the initiative. The British lost some 46 tanks, while the German lost only six Panzer 38(t)s. By 12th June, this division managed to cut off and force the surrender of the French IX Corps near Abbeville. The last combat action of this unit in the West took place six days later while engaging British forces at Cherbourg.
A Panzer 38(t) during the French campaign in May/June 1940 crossing the French Border. (Source: worldwarphotos.info)
Meanwhile, the 8th Panzer Division supported the XIX. Tank Corps, which was under the command of General Guderian. This Corps made rapid progress through the Allied line and, by the 25th of May, reached St. Omer, which was only 40 km south from Dunkerque. By the end of May, the 7th Panzer Division reported 18 heavy and some 295 enemy light tanks destroyed, with 20 Panzer 38(t)s being lost. In total, both divisions lost some 54 Panzer 38(t) tanks, but the majority could be repaired and put back into action.
The Panzer 38(t) tank’s good performance in the West could be considered somewhat ironic considering its origin. It was the Czechoslovak revenge for handing their country over to the mercy of the Germans during the Munich Agreement.
In Combat – The Balkan Campaign
The 8th Panzer Division saw action during the Axis war with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in April 1941. During this operation, the 8th Panzer Division was part of the LVI. Motorized Corps that attacked from Hungary. After the short campaign that lasted less than two weeks, this Division reported the loss of 7 Panzer 38(t)s.
In Combat – The Soviet Union
For the upcoming invasion of the Soviet Union, thanks to increased numbers of Panzer 38(t)s, there were 3 more Panzer Divisions equipped with this vehicle, besides the ones used in France. The total Panzer 38(t) and command vehicle strengths of these divisions on the 22nd June 1941 were as follows: the 7th had 166 tanks and 7 command vehicles, the 8th 118 and 7, the 12th 109 and 8, 19th 116 and 11 and the 20th had 116 vehicles and only 2 command vehicles. At this point, due to the introduction of an additional version of this vehicle, tracking the Ausf.A is difficult, as the sources usually refer to all variants simply as Panzer 38(t), without mentioning the precise version.
Prior to Operation Barbarossa, in order to reduce reliance on fuel supply convoys and to increase operational range, the Panzer 38(t) (together with nearly all German tanks) were to be equipped with 200 l towed fuel trailers. In addition, a transfer pump system was also provided. As the use of this trailer could be dangerous in combat situations, a quick release tow hitch which could be activated from inside the vehicle was added to the rear. This proved to be awkward and vulnerable to enemy fire, which would lead to its withdrawal from further use.
A Panzer 38(t) belonging to the 12th Panzer Division during Operation Barbarossa in the early months of 1941. While the fuel trailers increased operational range, they proved to be a hindrance in combat and their use was abandoned. (Source: worldwarphotos.info)
The Panzer 38(t), like all German equipment in the Soviet Union until the end of 1942, suffered heavily. For example, the 7th Panzer Division had lost some 176 vehicles by the start of 1942. Some 98 were lost as a consequence of enemy fire, 1 was captured, 52 had to be blown up due to a lack of fuel, spare parts, or breakdowns and some 25 had to be returned to Germany for extensive repairs.
In early 1942, the Panzer 38(t) was to equip the new 22nd Panzer Division, while those on the front lines were reorganized. Due to losses, the 6th and 7th Panzer Divisions were brought back to the West for rebuilding. The surviving Panzer 38(t)s from the 7th Panzer Division were used to reinforce the 1st and 2nd Panzer Divisions. The 12th was re-equipped with newer Panzer III tanks, while the 8th, 19th and 20th Panzer Divisions still had this tank in their inventory. During 1942, the Germans also sold over 100 Panzer 38(t) to their Hungarian allies.
While the Panzer 38(t) was a quite good tank in the early years of the war, by 1942, due to its weak armor and armament, its days as a front line combat tank were at an end. It proved to be no match for the newer Soviet T-34 and KV series tanks. This could be clearly seen in a report of the 1st Panzer Division dated from early April 1942.
“… Panzers are knocked out by T 34 at ranges of 200 to 800 meters. The Panzer 38(t) can’t destroy or repulse a T 34 at these ranges. Because of its gun, the T 34 can knock out an attacking Panzer at long-range… “.
The Panzer 38(t)’s 3.7 cm gun was ineffective against the thick and sloped armor of the Soviet tanks. In rare cases, there were instances when the Panzer 38(t) managed to destroy a Soviet T-34 tank. One such occasion involved a Hungarian operated Panzer 38(t). This event took place during the combined German and Hungarian attack on the Soviet positions at Storozhevoye. During the fighting, a T-38 (as the Panzer 38(t) was called in Hungarian service) commanded by Sergeant Janos Csizmadia came across a T-34 that was attacking the German rear positions. Sergeant Janos Csizmadia reacted quickly and fired at the T-34 at close range. The T-38’s 3.7 cm armor-piercing round managed to pierce the T-34’s rear armor and the tank exploded.
In other Roles
From 1942 on, it was obvious to the Germans that the Panzer 38(t) was becoming obsolete as a main frontline combat vehicle. For this reason, most Panzer 38(t) were being retired from service and reallocated to secondary duties. Over 351 turrets taken from this tank were used as stationary bunkers all around occupied Europe. Other vehicles were reused as training tanks, put on trains, or even as ammunition vehicles. While the sources do not mention the precise versions of these modifications, some were probably also of the Ausf.A version. As the Panzer 38(t) proved to have outstanding performance, it was heavily used by the Germans for many modifications during the war, but probably the most well known are the tank hunters.
Some 351 turrets taken from obsolete Panzer 38(t) tanks were used across Europe as stationary bunkers. Some of these probably included Ausf.A turret. (Source: Pinterest)
Use by other Axis Powers
During the war, the Germans supplied their allies with a number of different weapons and tanks. These included the Panzer 38(t). During the attempt to rearm their Romanian allies in March 1943, some 50 Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A, B, and C (known as T-38 in Romanian service) versions were given to Romania. These were then used by the Romanians to fight the Soviets, but as these tanks were obviously obsolete, they performed poorly against Soviet Armor. Nevertheless, some survived up to August 1944, when Romania switched sides and joined the Soviets and began attacking German units. The last three T-38s were lost during the fighting for the crossing of the Hron river in March 1945.
Conclusion
Despite not being German-built, the Panzer 38(t) played a great role in the Panzer Divisions during the first years of the war. It was far superior to the German Panzer I and II tanks and was available in sufficient numbers to equip several Panzer Divisions by 1941. While its effectiveness as a front line combat tank diminished during the invasion of the Soviet Union, its service did not end there. While most were withdrawn from the front lines and allocated to secondary duties, several continued to see combat for some time afterward. But, the most useful feature of the Panzer 38(t) was its chassis, which was used extensively by the Germans up to the war’s end.
The Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A was almost identical to the original Czech Lt vz.38. This vehicle saw action in France in 1940. Illustration by David Bocquelet.
Panzer 38(t) Ausf.A specifications
Dimensions L-W-H
4.6 m x 2.12 m x 2.4 m
(15ft 1in x 6ft 11in x 7ft 10in)
Total weight
9.4 tonnes
Crew
4 Commander/Loader, Gunner, Radio Operator/hull machine gunner and Driver
Armament
3.7 cm KwK 38(t) L/48.7 gun
Secondary Armament
2x 7.92 mm M.G.34 machine-guns
Turret Armor
front 25 mm, sides and rear 15 mm and top 10 mm
Hull Armor
front 25 mm, sides 15 mm, rear 15 mm and the top and bottom 8 mm
Propulsion
Praga EPA 265 HP @ 2600 rpm petrol/gasoline engine
Kingdom of Hungary (1942)
Medium Tank – 105-111 Supplied
During WWII, the Hungarians were one of Germany’s allies which had a significant domestic production of armored vehicles. While these locally produced vehicles were fine by the standards of the early war, unfortunately for the Hungarians, by the time they were fielded in larger numbers, they were already obsolete. To bolster their ally’s firepower, in 1942, the Germans supplied the Hungarians with a selection of armored vehicles, including over 100 Panzer 38(t) tanks.
Military field exercise involving Hungarian armored vehicles prior to the start of the military operations on the Eastern Front in 1942. In front are the T-38s, while in the back are anti-tank/aircraft Nimrods. All the way back, a few Toldis are also visible. Source: Pinterest
History
The Hungarians officially signed the Tripartite Pact to join the Axis forces on 27th September 1940. By the time of the Invasion of the Soviet Union, in June 1941, the Hungarian Army (Honvéd) had the largest armored force of all the German allies on this front. By the end of 1941, the Hungarians fielded light tanks, which were of little use against the newer Soviet tanks. To rebuild its shattered force, the Hungarian High Command tried to implement the ‘Huba II’ military plan. This plan involved the formation of two new units, the 1st and 2nd Armored Divisions.
A T-38, possibly during an exercise. Source: unknown
Despite being unprepared and having suffered heavy losses, including much of its armored formations, the Hungarian High Command was hard-pressed by the Germans to send additional forces to the Eastern Front. The Hungarian High Command chose to send the 2nd Army, which consisted of 9 light divisions and the 1st Field Armored Division (1.páncélos hadosztály). As there was a general lack of modern equipment, especially tanks, the formation of the 1st Field Armored Division was too slow. Despite German promises of modern equipment, the Hungarians were instead supplied with 102-108 (depending on the source) Panzer 38(t) Ausf. F and G (known in Hungarian service as the T-38, but also classified as a medium tank) and 22 better armed Panzer IV Ausf. F1 (classified as a heavy tank in Hungarian service). Among the acquired T-38s, some 38 were command vehicles with better radio equipment (Fu 2 radio receiver which was standard for all T-38 and a Fu 5 transmitter) and reduced secondary armament of one machine gun. The Germans also provided the Hungarians crews with necessary training at the Wünsdorf military school.
In Hungarian service, the T-38s received three-digit numbers, which was painted on the turret rear side. In addition, on the hull, a slightly modified German Balkenkreuz was painted. The difference is the color of the central cross was painted in green (instead of the original black) on a red background.
The 1st Field Armored Division had, in total, 89 T-38s and all the 22 Panzer IVs, which were allocated to the 30th Tank Regiment. The 1st Armored Reconnaissance Battalion of this division was equipped with 14 Csaba armored cars and 17 Toldi light tanks, with 4 rebuilt Toldi tanks being used for medical support roles. In addition, there was the 51st Armored Autocannon Battalion, also known as the 51st Tank Hunter Battalion, which was equipped with 18-19 Nimrod anti-tank/aircraft vehicles. The Hungarian 2nd Army was tasked with supporting the German left flank advancing toward Stalingrad.
The Hungarian Balkenkreuz variant. Source: PinterestThe three-digit number painted on the turret is visible here. Source: Magyar Pancel
The Panzer 38(t)
The TNH – LT vz. 38 tank was developed and built by the Czech ČKD company (Českomoravska Kolben Danek) in the second half of the nineteen-thirties. Production of the vz. 38 began in late 1938 but, by the time of the German annexation of Czech territory, not a single tank had been taken over by the Czech Army. Germany captured many brand new vz.38 tanks and, in May 1939, a delegation was sent to the ČKD factory to examine their operational potential. The Germans were so impressed with this tank that they were quickly introduced into Wehrmacht service under the name Pz.Kpfw.38(t) or simply Panzer 38(t). The ČKD factory was completely taken over for the needs of the German Army under the new name BMM (Bohmisch-Mahrische Maschinenfabrik).
The Panzer 38(t). Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/panzer-38t/
The Panzer 38(t) was built in relatively large numbers, saw combat action from Poland to the end of the war and was considered an effective tank for its class. But, from late 1941 on, it became obvious that it was becoming obsolete as a first-line combat tank. The Panzer 38(t) chassis, on the other hand, was mechanically reliable and was highly suitable for use for other purposes, a fact which the Germans exploited to the maximum. Over 100 Panzer 38(t) Ausf. F and G tanks, which had stronger 50 mm armor, were supplied by the Germans to their Hungarian allies in an attempt to rebuild their armored formation.
A Panzer 38(t) in German service. Source: Wikimedia Commons
In combat
The majority of the Hungarian 2nd Army was engaged in the advance toward the city of Stalingrad, ‘Operation Blau’, in May 1942. The 1st Armored Division was not involved in these initial combat operations, as its elements did not reach the front line until June and July. The reason for this delay was the general lack of fuel and transport vehicles.
The 1st Armored Division’s initial position was in the Uryv-Pokrovka, Storozhevoye area, on the western banks of the Don River. Its first orders were to crush a Soviet bridgehead defended by the 130th Tank Brigade. The Hungarian attack, which began on 18th July, was spearheaded by elements of the 30th Tank Regiment and 51st Tank Hunter Battalion. The Hungarian Panzer IVs managed to destroy a Soviet T-34, followed by more Soviet tank losses, mostly T-34s and American supplied M3 Stuart tanks. Being lightly armored, the M3 Stuart tanks could be destroyed by the T-38’s 3.7 cm guns. A Hungarian correspondent who was in one of the T-38s during this offensive later wrote down in his memories:
“… We carried on and entered the light of a burning farm just at the worst moment. A stack stirred and approached us. As the straw fell behind a Soviet tank appeared in front of us…. It was a medium tank (a M3 Stuart tank) firing two shots at us. None of them got us, we were still alive! But our second shot did hit it! … As I spied out of the turret I couldn’t see any Hungarian tank losses. But my joy was too early: my headphones asked for a doctor. ‘Tank number 591 got hit. We need a doctor!’ I could see through my binoculars that a major from the staff reached the damaged vehicle and lifted the injured men over into his tank under heavy fire. Quite a few enemy tanks opened fire on them and we tried to cover them as well as we could from the distance. We were much relieved when the doctor’s tank arrived and that the damaged tank hadn’t fallen into enemy hands. It didn’t catch fire either and was towed away. ”
The Soviet bridgehead was eventually destroyed by the afternoon. The Soviet losses were 21 destroyed tanks. The majority of these were destroyed by the Panzer IVs. The Nimrod vehicles destroyed 6 tanks and the remaining 3 were destroyed by the T-38s. During the Soviet retreat, their losses climbed to 35 tanks, with at least 4 captured M3 light tanks. The Hungarian losses were minimal, with only two damaged but recovered T-38 tanks. Of the 4 captured M3s, one was sent back to Hungary for evaluation and the remaining were used to tow the damaged T-38’s.
The Hungarians managed to capture four M3 Stuart light tanks and put them in limited use. Here it is used to tow a damaged T-38. Source: http://www.surfacezero.com/g503/showphoto.php?photo=70408
By the end of July, the Hungarians were confronted by the 261st and the 260th Tank Battalions (both belonging to the 130th Tank Brigade). The 260th Tank Battalion had organized two centers of resistance. The first ,supported with 3 M3 and 5 T-60 tanks, was located 1.2 km northwards from the forest which lies 2 km northwards from the village of Miginevo. It was intended to support the actions of the composite battalion of the 24th Motor Rifle Brigade. The second point of resistance was supported with 7 T-34, positioned in the North-Western outskirts of Miginevo, ready to provide fire support in the direction of Titchiha – Selyavnoe. The total armored strength of the 260th Tank Battalion was 3 M3, 5 T-60 and 7 T-34 tanks. The 261st Tank Battalion had its 10 T-60 concentrated at the North-Eastern edge of the wood 2 km westwards from the village of Davydovka. Another 17 T-60 tanks were concentrated in the woods 500 m to the South-East from the village of Drakino. In total, this unit had 27 T-60 tanks.
Some elements of the 1st Armored Division were engaged in the battle for Storozhevoye on 10th August. There, a poorly prepared attack led to the loss of 10 T-38s, of which 3 could not be recovered. Interestingly, these three abandoned Hungarian T-38 tanks (known by the Soviets as 38T) would be evacuated during the night of 10/11 August by the Soviet 260th Tank Battalion. The 1st Armored Division’s next action was the attempt to stop the Soviet attack near the city of Korotoyak. For this, elements from the 1st Armored Division were sent to support the Hungarian defensive.
The battle against Soviet forces resumed on 15th August, when the Hungarian forces managed to inflict on the Soviets the following losses: 3 knocked out M3 Stuarts, 3 burned and 3 knocked out T-60s, 1 knocked out 38T (reused by the Soviets) and one T-34, which took severe damage including a jammed turret and bent gun barrel.
The Hungarians also lost a Panzer IV and at least three T-38s. One of these T-38s was destroyed by a Soviet Sergeant, V. Panganis, who, after his 45 mm anti-tank gun was destroyed, took a few AT grenades and jumped under the tank, blowing himself and the Hungarian vehicle up. Two more Soviet tanks were destroyed by the end of the day, with the loss of three additional T-38s. One was destroyed by a Soviet T-34 and the remaining two, ironically, by German anti-tank fire. In the following days of harsh battle for Korotoyak, the Hungarian losses increased to 55 T-38s and 15 Panzer IVs. Of these numbers, some 35 vehicles were under maintenance and repairable. The 1st Armored Division was eventually pulled back from Korotoyak due to increased losses. The Germans provided the Hungarians with four Panzer Ausf. F2 tanks fitted with the longer 7.5 cm gun. By the end of August, the 1st Armored Division total strength was around 85 T-38s, 22 Panzer IVs and at least 5 Toldi tanks.
T-38 destroyed a T-34
At the start of September, the Hungarians made another attempt to crush the Soviet positions around Uryv-Korotoyak. The attack began on 9th September, supported by the German 168th Infantry Division and the 201st Assault Gun Detachment. As the Soviet positions were well defended, the attack was proceeding at a slow pace. A Hungarian Tank Battalion was sent to support the attack on the Soviet positions at Storozhevoye, which were defended by T-34 tanks. During the fighting, a T-38 commanded by Sergeant Janos Csizmadia came across a T-34 that was attacking the German rear positions. Sergeant Janos Csizmadia reacted quickly and fired at the T-34 at close range. The T-38’s 3.7 cm armor-piercing round managed to pierce the T-34’s rear armor and the tank exploded. This was one of the few occasions where the T-38’s weak gun managed to destroy a T-34. By the end of the day, Sergeant Janos Csizmadia, encouraged by this success, managed to personally destroy two enemy bunkers with hand grenades but also to capture at least 30 demoralized Soviet soldiers. For his action, he was awarded the Great Silver Medal for Bravery.
A T-38 driving through Hungary in the Spring of 1942. Source: PinterestA T-38 column. The front vehicle is a command tank. It can easily be identified by the lack of a hull machine gun. Source: unknown
Continuous battle for Uryv and Korotoyak
After two days of hard fighting, the Axis forces finally managed to capture the entirety of Storozhevoye on 11th September, with the further loss of two Hungarian T-38s. The Axis attacked the Soviet bunker positions in the Otitchiha hamlet.
A part of the Soviet 6th Army operational area map with the Otitchiha hamlet where the Hungarian Armored force was heavily engaged. Source: Archive file TSAMO, F 203, Op. 2843, D. 182 Major Semyonov, 6th Army
Because they were too well defended, the first attack was repulsed, with many Hungarian tanks being damaged or put out of action. The next day, the Axis forces attacked from another direction. As the heavy Soviet bunkers were immune to the 3.7 cm guns, the crews would often destroy these bunkers by using hand grenades. The attack eventually succeeded and the German 168th Infantry Division set up defensive positions there. The Soviets made a counter-attack supported by heavy KV-1 and T-34 tanks. The Hungarian tanks were ordered to resist this attack. The following engagement was mostly one-sided, as the Hungarian 3.7 cm guns proved useless during this combat. The desperate situation was later described by Corporal Moker in his diary.
“ …. We pushed ahead until we reached the Headquarters of the German Infantry… A Russian tank (KV-1C) appeared ahead of us from the wheat-field and opened heavy fire on us. Yet comrade Nyerges, our gunner, was quick to answer. He managed to gun superbly and we watched his moves trustfully. We retired a few meters and so did the enemy. Nyerges sent one tank-grenade after the other. He shook his head, something must have been wrong. He kept on loading and firing and we were stifling from the smoke. It seemed that we were unable to break the armor of that tank, its thick and slanting skin resisted everything, thus all our efforts were in vain. Nyerges stopped for a moment and took a deep breath. He was dripping with sweat. This helplessness was terrible! … In the meantime, the enemy tank retired. We started to hope. I could hear a terrible detonation and felt as if I was rising. I was struggling desperately to stand up and open the roof but my throat microphone’s cord held me back. Helping hands rescued me from my imprisonment, pulling me out by the arm. I fell in front of the vehicle. I felt a burning pain at the back of my head but I didn’t pay attention to it… “
Rear view of a Hungarian T-38. Source: Unknown
The same KV-1 destroyed another T-38 which was nearby. By the end of the day, the Hungarian losses were extensive and only 22 T-38s and 4 Panzer IVs were still operational. The Soviets lost 8 T-34 tanks and two KV-1s were damaged. Between 14th to 16th September, all Soviet counter-attacks were repulsed with losses of 18 T-34 and 6 KV-1 tanks. Some fell victim to Hungarian fire, but also to the firepower of German supporting assault guns. Nevertheless, on 16th September, the Hungarian 30th Tank Regiment had only 12 T-38s and 2 Panzer IVs operational.
By October 1942, in order to reinforce their Hungarian allies, the Germans provided them with 10 Panzer III Ausf. N tanks and 6 Panzer IV Ausf. F2 and G. The next larger engagement of the Hungarian armor with the Soviet happened on 19th October near Storozhevoye. The Hungarian tankers managed to destroy 4 Soviet tanks.
Advance of Hungarian T-38s through the Soviet Union in 1942. Source: https://www.ww2incolor.com/hungary/Hung_001.html
From that point on, the 1st Armored Division was put into reserve for rest and refurbishment. In December (or September depending on the source) 1942, the Germans supplied the Hungarians with five Marder II vehicles and at least three more Panzer 38(t) Ausf. C tanks. At the start of 1943, the Hungarian 1st Armored Division was put under direct German command, under the Cramer-Corps. At that time, the total armored strength of this unit consisted of 9 Panzer III Ausf. N, 8 Panzer Ausf. F2 and G, 8 Panzer IV Ausf. F1, 41 T-38s and the 5 Marder II tank destroyers. The Cramer-Corps, beside the Hungarian Armored Division, consisted of the 26th and 168th Infantry Divisions, the German 190th Assault Gun Detachment and 700th Armor Detachment. The commander of the Cramer-Corps was Major General Hans Cramer.
The Soviet Winter offensive
In mid-January 1943, the Soviets launched an offensive against the Hungarian positions and, after heavy losses, forced them to retreat. The Soviet tanks caused chaos in the Hungarian lines. The German 700th Armored Detachment (equipped with Panzer 38(t) tanks) was also decimated on the way. The Soviets then engaged the Hungarian 12th Field Artillery Regiment, which they destroyed, but the Soviets lost 9 tanks in the process. The low temperatures of -20 to -30°C also caused important losses to the Hungarians. Nevertheless, the Soviets were forced to stop their attack due to significant tank losses. During the Soviet offensive, many T-38s were blown up by their crews due to a general lack of fuel and breakdowns. For example, the 1st Tank Brigade alone had to blow up 17 T-38 tanks.
The fighting was extensive around the city of Alekseyevka (west of the Don river), which the Hungarian 1st Armored Division, with the help of the German 559th Anti-Tank Battalion, were ordered to take back. The attack began on 18th January 1943, and after heavy fighting, Alekseyevka was taken by the Axis forces. The next day, the Soviets made a counter-attack which was repelled with the loss of a T-34 destroyed by a Marder II and a T-60 destroyed by a Panzer IV. Despite their success, the Axis forces were forced to retreat out of Alekseyevka. On 21st January 1943, the Axis forces again managed to enter the western parts of the city of Alekseyevka. But the 1st Armored Division had to retreat and, on 25th January, reached Noviy Oskol. For the remainder of January and early February, the 1st Armored Division fought many hard battles with the advancing Soviets. During the fighting around the city of Korocha, the last operational T-38 was lost. Without ammunition, it was attacked by two T-60s and one T-34. By 9th February, the 1st Armored Division reached the river Donets and eventually reached Kharkov. Due to extensive losses, this division had to be pulled back from the front. The last remaining operational vehicles were two Marder II tank destroyers.
The remaining T-38s that managed to avoid destruction were mostly used in Hungary for crew training. They may have seen some more action during the Soviet advance towards Hungary by the war’s end, but in any case, these were already obsolete.
A small number of T-38s that survived the fighting around Stalingrad were used for crew training until the end of the war. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/panzer-38t/
In Russian hands
It appears that the Soviet 130th Tank Brigade, during their fighting with the Hungarian armed forces, managed to capture at least three T-38s tanks. The war diary of the Soviet 260th Tank Battalion (which was part of the 130th Tank Brigade) stated that, on 9th August 1942, the unit had three T-34, three M3 Light and fifteen T-60 tanks (21 operational tanks in total). On the same day, the battalion took up a defensive position at the edge of the forest northwards from Hills 171,6 and 195,5. By 18:00, the battalion, including tanks, was ‘fully entrenched’. Three T-34 tanks were allocated to defend the village of Miginevo. On the next day, 10 August, at 5:30 in the morning, the battle started with heavy shelling. At 9:00, the enemy put into action 27 tanks, but after losing 16 of them, the enemy was forced to retreat. The 260th Tank Battalion reported no losses during this engagement.
On the 10th August 1942, the Axis forces advanced in the area Storozhevoye – Hill 186,6. Multiple tank-infantry attacks were repulsed. The 260th Tank Battalion, acting as a part of the 24th Motor Rifle Brigade, defended an area in the South-Western part of the forest to West of the hamlet of Titchiha (Otitchiha). As a result of the engagement, the 260th Tank Battalion reported 1 enemy tank knocked out and 1 burned. Also, 25 enemy soldiers were reported as casualties.
The report also noted that First Lieutenant HOMENKO (originally ‘HOMENK’, one letter probably missing), commander of the tank company of the 260th Tank Battalion, ‘organized defense right’, which eventually helped to hold the ground. On the same day (10th August), the I/130 MSPB (Motostrelkovo-Pulemyotnyj Bataljon, Motor-Rifle Machine-Gun Battalion) took up a defensive position near the Hill 187,7 and also fought as a part of 24 Motor Rifle Brigade.
On the night of 10/11 August, the 260th Tank Battalion managed to evacuate from the battlefield 3 knocked-out 38T tanks. Two of them were repaired during the next day (11 August 1942) and put into Soviet service. On the 13th August, the 260th Tank Battalion had three T-34, three M3 Light, 15 T-60 and 2 captured 38T tanks (one of the 38Ts finished repair by 18:00 on the same day).
The Soviet forces on the 14th August received a verbal order to move during the night and concentrate in the area south-west of the village of Goldayevka. The task was to advance in the direction of Hill 160,2 – Goldayevka. The force allocated to that attack consisted of one T-34, three M3 Light, ten T-60 and the two captured 38Ts.
On the next day, 15th August, at 5:00, the 260th Tank Battalion arrived at the area of operations and reconnoitered it. At 6:00, the Battalion started to advance in the direction of Hill 160,2 keeping the line formation. After heavy fighting, the battalion commander reported that the enemy lost 4 anti-tank guns, 3 machine guns, 2 mortars and at least 25 soldiers and officers.
The 260th Battalion had lost two T-60 tanks, with one completely burned out. The second tank was recovered and repaired. The 260th Battalion managed to eventually capture Hill 160,2, but was later forced to retreat as it was lacking infantry support.
Another attack started at 15:30. The Battalion still possessed one damaged T-34, three M3, eight T-60 and one captured 38T. Again, the commander reported enemy losses as follows: 6 anti-tank guns, 2 mortars, 3 cars, and up to 100 enemy soldiers and officers. Soviet losses included at that time three knocked-out M3 (all later recovered), one knocked out 38T and one destroyed T-60 which was left on the battlefield. In the following attack, despite having infantry support, Hill 160,2 was not captured and Soviet forces fell back. At 18:00, the Battalion withdrew from the battle. Its War Diary mentioned another one 38T “destroyed and left on the battlefield” as well as stress, that ‘T-60s don’t fit to be used in the first line of attack’.
A page from the 260th Tank Battalion War Diary which mentions the fate of the 38T tanks. Source: War Diary of the 260th Tank Battalion. TsAMO, F 3107, Op. 1, D. 90, l. 66 (ob.)
This information could be corroborated with the 130th Tank Brigade report. According to that document, on the 15th August, the 260th Tank Battalion lost one of two operational 38T tanks during the first attack on Hill 160,2 which commenced at 7:00. The second 38T was lost during the next attack initiated at 15:30 in order to recapture the same hill.
Total claimed enemy losses at the end of the 15th August were 12 AT-guns, 3 cars, 4 mortars, 6 machine guns and more than 160 men and officers. Total Soviet losses were 5 men and officers killed in action, 1 severely damaged T-34, 3 knocked out M3 Light, 2 knocked out 38T and 6 T-60, of which 3 burned and 3 knocked out.
Report on the 130th Tank Brigade’s combat losses during the period from 1st August 1942 to 21st August 1942. One 38T (captured) listed as ‘burned’ Source: 130 Tank Brigade Combat Report. TsAMO, F 3107, Op. 0000001, D. 0006, l. 34
On 16 August, the 260th Tank Battalion had 5 T-34 (3 tanks in Migenevo) and 12 T-60 tanks. Most of them did not take part in the attacks on the previous day.
According to the 130th Tank Brigade report, on 16th August, the 260th Tank Battalion formed a Tank Company from remaining operational tanks. The Company had five T-34s, ten T-60s, three M3 Light and one 38T. Three days later, the Brigade still had one 38T but with a jammed turret.
According to the 6th Army report dated from 21st September 1942, one 38T (previously belonging to the 260th Tank Battalion) was to be allocated to the 3rd Barrier Troop (in essence an anti-retreat unit) Detachment which was stationed at Davidovska. In total, it seems that the Soviet units engaged in this area operated around three captured 38Ts captured from the Hungarian forces.
The Soviet 6th Army report, in which one T-38 was to be given 3rd Barrier Troop Detachment. Source: https://pamyat-naroda.ru/documents
While the 260th Tank Battalion had three 38T tanks, only two were ever used. The fate of the last vehicle is unknown but it was either unusable or more likely simply cannibalized to get spare parts.
The Soviet Army did use some captured Panzer 38(t)/T-38 Source: http://wio.ru/tank/capt/capt.htm
Conclusion
The T-38s provided the Hungarians with means to equip their shattered armored forces after the hard battles of 1941. Over 100 were acquired but their performance was inadequate by the standards of 1942. While they did achieve some success, they simply did not have any chance against more modern Soviet armor.
Panzer 38(t) Ausf.G, Royal Hungarian Army, 30th Tank Regiment, 6th Company – 1942, Don area, Russia.
The Panzer 39, also known as the ‘LTL-H’ or ‘LTH’ (which was the Czechoslovakian export designation), was a Swiss light tank that served in the Swiss Army from 1939 to 1960. It was the basis of multiple proposed conversions, the first one being the 1941 modification featuring a 47 mm AT gun and later modifications would eventually turn it into the Nahkampfkanone 1. This was the first tank to be utilized by the Swiss which had proper anti-tank capabilities. Before that, Switzerland had bought the French Renault FT in 1921, called the MFT-17 “Moskito” in Swiss service, and, later, in 1934 and 1935, the Vickers-Armstrong Modell 1933/34 light tank called the Panzer 34/35. It was intended to build the Panzer 34 and 35 tanks in larger quantities and use them as border patrol and reconnaissance vehicles but, before long, it was decided that these tanks lacked the firepower and armor to be effective against other tanks. A Swiss delegation thus visited the German firm of Krupp in Essen and the Swedish firm of Landsverk in Stockholm in order to look for new vehicles to replace Panzer 34/35. However, neither Krupp nor Landsverk offered any vehicles that were to the liking of the Swiss, although one Landsverk L-60 was obtained for testing. It was believed that during their time in Sweden, the Swiss delegation was given a tip to visit the Czechoslovak company CKD (short for Ceskomoravka-Kolben-Danek), as many Praga AH-IV-Sv tankettes were being finalized for Sweden.
When looking at the development of the Panzer 39, consideration should be made of the earlier vehicles which CKD offered to Switzerland. As with many nations at the time, Switzerland opted to buy a new tank instead of developing their own. Swiss officials contacted CKD in 1937 saying that they would visit later in the year to look at new tanks. Not being a company to miss such an opportunity, CKD offered the Swiss some Praga AH-IV-Sv 3.5-tonne tankettes as well as the 7.5-tonne TNH-S tanks. During the visit of the Swiss delegation in early September 1937, they received a proposal for about 60 AH-IV-H tankettes which were similar to the Swedish version. However, the Swiss delegation deemed the tankette to be too short for traversing the alpine terrain and thus rejected the offer. The delegation then asked for a 6-tonne vehicle with 24 mm of armor and a domestic 20 mm gun as well as two Maxim machine guns. CKD, which was negotiating with Latvia and Peru at the time to sell a tank known as the LTL, got the request from Switzerland for their new tank. Since they had the LTL at their disposal, they offered it to Switzerland.
Swedish AH-IV-Sv tankette. Source: Flickr user Thomas T.
While it was armed with a 20 mm Oerlikon gun as required by the Swiss, this vehicle still did not satisfy the Swiss and was thus modified. After rigorous tests though, the deal was accepted and signed. This new vehicle was called LTL-H (also known as LTH) and the deal was for 24 of these vehicles, of which 12 vehicles were to be built in Czechoslovakia fitted with a 119 hp Skoda Praga EPA engine but without armament and optics.
Panzer 39 located at the Military museum Full-Rheuental. Source: kleinesstachelschwein.ch
The remaining 12 vehicles were built in Switzerland and fitted with a Swiss 110 hp Saurer CT1 D SZ 1007 engine. These 12 vehicles, as well as the 12 Czechoslovakian built ones, were armed with a 24 mm Panzerwagen Kanone 1938, a pair of 7.5 mm Panzerwagen Maschinengewehr 1938, and one 7.5 mm LMG 1925, all manufactured by the Waffenfabrik W+F Bern.
Layout
The layout of the Panzer 39 was like that of many other tanks of the time, with the engine being in a separate compartment to the rear and the crew compartment ahead of it, with a rotating turret on top of the vehicle.
The armor was 32 mm on the front of the hull and turret, with 15 mm on the sides and 8 mm on the rear of the tank.
The crew consisted of 3 men, a driver, a gunner for the main gun as well as the coaxial 7.5 mm LMG 1925 located on the left of the main gun. He was also, presumably, meant to load the main gun. Lastly, there was the tank commander whose job was to not only command the vehicle but also operate the radio and man the commander’s MG, a model 1938 7.5 mm Panzerwagen Maschinengewehr which was located on the right-hand side of the main gun in an independent ball mount.
Close up of the front of a Panzer 39. The two Pzw Mg 38s in the hull and next to the 24 mm Pzw K 38 main gun are visible. Source: Author’s own
Who would have operated the hull-mounted Pzw Mg 38 is not known, although it can be assumed that the gunner could also get into the MG position next to the driver if the need occurred.
Typical to CKD tanks of the time, the Panzer 39 had 4 large road wheels on each side, connected in pairs to a leaf-spring suspension. The drive wheel and transmission were in the front of the vehicle.
It could reach a top speed of 45 km/h on-road with a range of 200 km and 20 km/h off-road with a range of 120 km.
Close-ups of the suspension and engine deck. Source: Author’s own.Rear of the turret. The distinctive CH designation which has been added to every Panzer 39 since 1941 is visible. – source: Author
The main gun was derived from the 24 mm Tankbüchse 41 manufactured by W+F Bern. It had a clip size of 6 rounds and was a single-shot weapon. It could penetrate 43 mm of armor at a range of 150 meters with an initial shell velocity of 900 m/s for the armor-piercing shell. It could fire Armor Piercing (AP) rounds, as well as High-Explosive (HE) rounds, Tracer rounds, Training rounds with or without Tracer as well as Dummy rounds.
The 24 mm Tb. 41 and its muzzle. Source: Team-Pak.ch & Author
In Service
Entering Swiss Army service in 1939, these tanks were divided into 6 Tank Detachments known as Pzw. Det. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, with 4 vehicles per Detachment. In 1940, the 6 Tank Detachments were reorganized into 3 Tank Regiments (Panzerwagen Kompanie, Pzw. Kp), 1, 2, and 3, each of which was attached to a light brigade.
Following the end of WW2, throughout which Switzerland remained neutral, the Swiss Army underwent a reorganization and, in 1948, Pzw. Kp. 1, 2, and 3 were disbanded. This was followed by another change in 1949, when the former Pzw. Kp. 1 through 3 were renamed to Panzerjäger Kompanie ( Anti-tank regiment) 31 through 33. These units were then equipped with the G 13.
Panzer 39 mod. 1941
The Swiss Military quickly discovered that the 24 mm PzwK 38 was not sufficiently effective when it comes to penetrating armor. Thus, in 1941, plans to upgun the Panzer 39 were started and it was quickly decided that the caliber of choice would be 47 mm. The gun of choice was the 4.7 cm Pak 41 (renamed to 4.7 cm Panzerwagen Kanone 41 for mounting in the tank) and a new turret design for mounting the gun was submitted in April 1943.
3-side drawing for the new turret. Source: Author/Swiss Archives
The gun would have had a penetration of around 60 mm at point-blank, with the armor-piercing shell weighing 1.75 kg and having a muzzle velocity of 750 m/s. The new turret was significantly larger in order to fit the new gun, but kept the armor at around 30 mm at the front but only around 8-10 mm on the side and 8 mm on the rear. In addition to that, the new turret was welded instead of bolted to increase crew protection and lower weight. The requirement for this new turret was that it had to be designed in such a way that no hull modifications was needed in order to mount it. It was not until 1945 that the prototype was ready for testing with a wooden mockup gun mounted. By this time, the 47 mm gun was out of date and unable to provide the anti-armor capability to keep up with foreign tank’ armor. As a result, the plans for this modification were reversed. The single prototype turret was destroyed following a decision by the Swiss Military in late 1945 to turn all Panzer 39s into training vehicles, thus making the modification obsolete.
Panzer 39 mod. 1941 with new turret and wooden mockup gun. Source: pinterest user Tank The Monster
Conclusion
Like with many other nations at the time, CKD’s tanks formed the backbone of the Swiss Army and were the basis for many different modifications. The Panzer 39 underwent one more modification in the shape of the 34M Pz.K-41 which eventually lead to the Nahkampfkanone 1 project.
Switzerland was neutral during WWI and WWII and therefore would have had to fight a defensive war if attacked, especially during WWII. Swiss General Guisan expanded the existing bunkers and came up with the National Redoubt plan, which consisted of abandoning the lowlands by almost the entire military, only leaving a few bunkers occupied. These manned bunkers consisted of mainly the Rhine forts at the German border, as well as multiple tactically situated bunkers in the lowlands which were meant to weaken the invaders as much as possible until they reached the Redoubt itself. On top of heavily fortifying the Alps with countless smaller and larger bunker systems, many roads and bridges were rigged to explode at a moment’s notice. These sections of road and bridges were generally placed in front of bunkers in strategic positions, where convoys of potential invaders would all be stuck and could neither move forward nor backwards easily, therefore making them ideal targets for the bunkers which would have caused massive losses. On top of that, the railway connection through the Gotthard and various other North to South connections would have been destroyed making transporting goods between Nazi-Germany and fascist Italy a logistical nightmare.
The alpine terrain would have made traversing it a nightmare without proper equipment. Source: theculturetrip.com
Such a warfare in the Alps would also require the Swiss Military and its vehicles to be very mobile, therefore making heavy vehicles or vehicles with bad off-road capabilities useless in the mountainous terrain. This would also explain why Switzerland was happy with their Panzer 39 and their great off-roading ability as well as good reliability. They were perfectly suited for their terrain and defensive warfare. The vehicles that could be used in the Swiss Alps would have mostly been lightly armored ones, such as half-tracks and other light tanks, against which the 24 mm main gun of the Panzer 39 would have been more than sufficient. However, this plan abandoned a large part of the country and most of the population in the hands of the enemy.
Panzer 39 illustration based on the surviving example at the Military museum Full-Rheuental.
Illustration of the Pz. 39 mod. 1941 prototype with 4.7 cm gun.
Both illustrations were produced by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.
Specifications (Pz. 39)
Dimensions (L-W-H)
4.46 x 2.00 x 2.10 m (14.63 x 6.56 x 6.88 ft)
Total weight
7.7 tonnes
Crew
3 (Commander, Radio Operator/ Gunner/ Driver)
Propulsion
Skoda Praga EPA (119 hp) (88 kW) and Saurer CT1 D SZ 1007 (110 hp) (81 kW)
Suspension
Leaf-spring
Speed (on/off road)
45/25 km/h ( 28/15.5 mph)
Range (on/off road)
200/120 km ( 124/75 mi)
Armament
W+F 24 mm ( 0.94 in) Panzerwagen Kanone 1938
2 x 7.5 mm ( 0.30 in) W+F Panzerwagen Maschinengewehr 1938
7.5 mm ( 0.30 in) W+F Leichtes Maschinengewehr 1925
Armor
Front 32 mm (1.3“)
Side 15 mm (0.6”)
Rear: 8 mm (0.31 in
Production
24
Specifications (Mod. 1941)
Dimensions (L-W-H)
4.46 x 2.00 x 2.10 m (14.63 x 6.56 x 6.88 ft)
Total weight
7.7 tonnes
Crew
3 (Commander, Radio Operator/ Gunner/ Driver)
Propulsion
Saurer CT2D, 125 bhp (92 kW)
Suspension
Leaf-spring
Speed (on/off road)
45/25 km/h (28/15.5 mph)
Range (on/off road)
200/120 km ( 124/75 mi)
Armament
K+W 4.7 cm (1.85 in) Panzerwagen Kanone 1941
2 x 7.5 mm (0.30 in) W+F Panzerwagen Maschinengewehr 1938
7.5 mm (0.30 in) W+F Leichtes Maschinengewehr 1925
Armor
Front 30 mm (1.1“)
Side 15 mm (0.6”)
Rear: 8 mm (0.31 in
Production
1 Prototype
Sources
militaerfahrzeuge.ch ftr.wot-news.com
Swiss National Archives/Einbau 4.7 cm Pak. in Panzerwagen
Swiss National Archives/NK I + NK II
Exportni Lehka Tanky Praga ( Export Light Tanks) by Vladimir Francev
One year after the Anschluss (the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany) in March 1938, Adolf Hitler implemented the occupation of the Sudetenland (Bohemia-Moravia) and the seizure of Czechoslovakia.
As a result, the Germans took over the Czechoslovak industry, including the Skoda factory, which produced the Lehký tank vzor 35 (Light Tank Model 35), locally known as the LT vz. 35, or LT-35. By the time of the German occupation, Czechoslovakia had built 434 LT vz. 35 light tanks. The Germans immediately took over 244 of them in order to equip their emerging armored forces.
These light tanks fought in the German Panzer Divisions from 1939 until 1942, when they were removed from active service. During this three-year period, they actively participated in the Invasion of Poland, the Battle of France and the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa (the ill-fated and costly invasion of the Soviet Union).
The tanks were highly praised by their crews, especially their robustness (except the pneumatic system, which was very susceptible to extreme cold) and versatility. They were used until the exhaustion of the spare parts available for this model. When in use with the Germans, it was known as Panzerkampfwagen 35(t) or Pz.Kpfw.35(t). The letter “t” indicated the term ‘Tschechisch’ (meaning ‘Czech’ in German), following the rule of using a letter designating the name of the country of origin for the material captured by the Germans. Pz 35(t) and Panzer IVs in France, 1940. Photo: Bundesarchiv
LT vz. 35, the Original
The Lehký tank vzor 35 (Light Tank Model 35, LT vz. 35) was the frontline tank of Czech armored forces at the time of the German invasion. The 10.5-ton tank entered service in 1939. It had a 3-man crew and was armed with a 37mm Škoda ÚV vz.34 gun, with two 7.92 mm (0.31 in) Zbrojovka Brno vz.37 machineguns. The tank had armor of up to 35 mm (1.4in) thick.
The vehice ran on a leaf-spring suspension, and propulsion was provided by a 120hp Škoda Typ 11/0 4-cylinder gasoline engine. This would provide a top speed of 21 mph (34 km/h).
A full article on the LT vz. 35 can be found HERE.
Pz.Kpfw.35(t), German Service
At the beginning of WWII, the Germans had shocked the world with their combined arms tactics. Armored forces were essential in the practical application of this doctrine, with armored vehicles paving the way for the infantry. There was a pressing need for quick, well-armed armored vehicles. In April 1939, the Germans had in their inventory about 230 Panzer III tanks. The LT vz.35 was classed similarly in the German army and with the confiscation of these 244 Czech tanks, their medium-light armored forces more than doubled.
The Germans used everything available to them, from new vehicles coming out of assembly plants to old veterans of the Czech conflicts in the Sudetenland. Most of these vehicles were sent to the 11th Panzer Regiment in Paderborn and the 65th Panzer Abteilung in Sennelagen. They used the Pz.Kpfw.35(t) to the limit of its useful life, as production had already been completed by the Czech factories. The Germans did not think to resume their manufacture because the pneumatic system of these tanks was problematic for maintenance.
Design
Many of the elements of the basic design of the Czech vehicle remained the same. In the name of the standardization, the Germans made many modifications in the Czech LT vz. 35. The most evident was the painting of all vehicles in the standard German-Gray color, with a large white cross, preceding the infamous Balkenkreuz, applied to the side of the turrets. Some tanks had stripes of brown or green on the German-gray, but this was not common.
The big white crosses were gradually removed shortly after the first stages of the Invasion of France, as the enemy gunners used them as excellent aiming points. Many vehicles were penetrated in this way in Poland and France. At the time of the Invasion of Russia, the great majority of Pz.Kpfw.35(t) tanks had much smaller and discrete Balkenkreuz on the sides of the hulls.
In mechanical terms, the main modifications were the installation of German radios and intercoms, the installation of Notek lights on the left front mudguards and German lights on the rear of the tanks. Another important modification was the replacement of Czech magnets with Bosch ones, made in Germany. To increase the range of the vehicles, extra fuel was carried in jerry-cans installed in racks at the rear of the hull.
But the most important of all modifications were based on tactical studies of the use of the armored vehicles: the incorporation of a fourth crewmember. This fourth crewmember was a loader and his addition was meant to reduce the commander’s workload and to increase the efficiency of the vehicle and of its crew. With the presence of the loader, the commander could concentrate on observing the tactical situation of the battle in which he was involved, increasing his effectiveness and greatly increasing the ability of the tank to accomplish its tasks and survive. Operation Barbarossa 1941: North sector, 1941, German Infantry supported by a Panzer 35(t) – Bundesarchiv
The effectiveness of this decision was well proven in the brief but intense Battle of France when the German Panzers (with their 3 turret members: gunner, loader, and the commander) faced the French tanks, whose turrets were only crewed by the commander. The French commanders had to load, aim, shoot and even discern the whole tactical environment of the battle. The cost of this modification was a decrease in the number of projectiles stored in the tank turret.
The Germans also modified some of the Pz.Kpfw.35(t)s into the Panzerbefehlswagen 35(t), or command tanks. The transformation was intended to increase the internal space of the tank to facilitate the control tasks. This was achieved by eliminating the front hull machine gun and installing an additional Fu 8 radio and a gyrocompass. The major external differential factor of these command vehicles was the presence of a large frame antenna on the rear deck just behind the turret.
Panzer 35(t) of the 11th Tank Regiment, 1st Light Division of the Wehrmacht. Poland, September 1939. Panzer 35(t) of the 65th Panzer battalion, 11th Panzer Regiment, 6th Panzer Division. Eastern Front, Summer 1941. The original LT vz. 35 in Czech service. Illustrations by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet
Operational Use
With tensions in Europe growing and the possibility of war increasingly close, the German crews trained intensively with their new tanks alongside the maintenance and logistics personnel. The planned invasion of Poland was imminent.
By the end of August, the 11th Panzer Regiment had its companies fully equipped with the light Pz.Kpfw.35(t), with additional tanks in reserve. The 11th Panzer Regiment formed a part of the 1st Leichte Division. For the Fall Weiss Operation (the invasion of Poland), 106 Pz.Kpfw.35(t) and eight Panzerbefehlswagen 35(t) were ready for combat.
Proving its robustness and reliability, many Panzer 35(t) tanks covered more than 600 km on their own tracks, on very rough roads or in open field, with no major breakdowns (the fragility of the pneumatic system only manifested itself in very low temperatures). They participated in the hard battles at Wielun on September 3 and at Widawa, Radom and Demblin, on September 9. The Pz.Kpfw 35(t)’s ended their participation in the Polish Campaign between the 17th and the 24th of September in the north of Warsaw at Mandlin.
The armor of the Pz.Kpfw 35(t) could easily manage artillery shrapnel, machine gun bullets and infantry anti-tank rifle rounds. It could also withstand 20mm cannon fire, but the 37mm anti-tank shells of the wz.36 AT gun and 7TP light tanks could penetrate the 25mm armor. At the end of the Polish Campaign, 11 tanks were heavily damaged, but almost all were refurbished by Skoda to return to the front line. Only one was considered a total loss.
It was observed that the tanks moved by their own means for far greater distances than expected, thanks mainly to the reliability of the machines. With the lull coming after the fall of Poland, the armored forces installed reserve track links and supplementary rubber tires for their suspension wheels. Another measure was the installation of a rack for jerry-cans with extra fuel.
After the end of their first combat action came a period of tension and reorganization for the German Armored Forces. The 1st Leichte Division was renamed as the 6th Panzer Division, with its 118 Pz.Kpfw.35(t) restored survivors and its 10 Pz.Bef 35(t), serving with the 11th Panzer Regiment.
During the ensuing invasion of France, the 6th Panzer Division reported 45 casualties among its Pz.Kpfw.35(t), but only 11 were considered total losses. The other 34 returned to active service after being retrieved from the battlefield and repaired by the workshops in Germany and Czechoslovakia. Many of these casualties were due to the exhaustive use.
The Pz.Kpfw.35(t)s remained as first-line vehicles until the beginning of 1941. The 6th Panzer Division still listed in its inventory 149 Pz.Kpfw.35(t) gun tanks and 11 Pz.Bef.35(t) command tanks at the end of June 1941, being used for Operation Barbarossa. Because of the long distances in this theater of operations, the Pz.Kpfw.35(t) carried up to 8 jerry-cans in additional fuel racks on the rear portion of their hulls, in addition to a greater load of spare parts.
In battle, the Pz.Kpfw.35(t)’s were still effective against the Soviet light tanks, but when meeting the T-34, KV-1 and KV-2, it became painfully clear that the small and reliable 37mm main guns could do nothing against the armor of these tanks. But even so, the Germans continued to use these tanks. It can be said that the removal of the Pz.Kpfw 35(t) from the front lines of combat was due more to the mechanical wear (these vehicles had covered enormous distances in Poland, France and Russia) and the climatic conditions (The Russian winter was too much for the fragile hydraulic and pneumatic lines of the tank). On the 30th of November 1941, all Pz.Kpfw. 35(t)s were reported as “non-operational” on the Russian front.
All surviving vehicles were sent back to Germany and Czechoslovakia, where some less worn out were remanufactured for other uses. Forty-nine of these vehicles had their turrets and armament removed. A tow- bar with a capacity of 12 tonnes was installed in the back of the hull, along with more jerry-cans for extra fuel. These vehicles, converted by Skoda, once again served Germany as artillery tractors and ammunition carriers: Morserzug-Mittel 35(t). Rather than waste the turrets, these were reused as fortified bunkers and fixed fortifications on the shores of Denmark and Corsica.
Panzer 35(t) specifications
Dimensions
4.90×2.06×2.37 m (16.1×6.8ftx7.84 ft)
Total weight, battle ready
up to 10.5 tons
Crew
4 (commander, driver, gunner, loader/radio)
Propulsion
Škoda Typ 11/0 4-cylinder gasoline, 120 bhp (89 kW)
Speed (on/off road)
34 km/h (21 mph)
Suspension
Leaf spring type
Armament
Main: Škoda ÚV vz.34 37 mm (1.46 in), 72 rounds
Secondary: 2 x 7.92 mm (0.31 in) Zbrojovka Brno vz.37 machineguns, 1800 rounds
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.
United Kingdom (1937)
Peru (1938-1982)
