Quantcast
Channel: Tank Archives
Viewing all 1899 articles
Browse latest View live

Siberian Tanks

$
0
0
The German tendency to assume that any new Soviet reinforcements in 1941 came from Siberia is well known, but turns out that along with mythical Siberian riflemen there were mythical Siberian tanks as well:

"16th Infantry Division (motorized)
Department 1 (intelligence)
Division HQ
October 7th, 1942

Intelligence agents report that new heavy tanks from Habarovsk have been sent to the European front. Tanks made in Habarovsk are allegedly labelled with the letter H and also "Habarovsk, Osoaviahim".

Immediately report the arrival of these tanks to the intelligence department of the division."


World of Tanks History Section: Panfilov's Last Step Back

$
0
0
The front line passed near Kryukovo in late November of 1941: a settlement and a railway station. The Red Army and the Wehrmacht pushed against it like two boxers. One, more vicious and more experienced, was still attacking, but his blows lacked the crushing strength they had at the start of the bout. The other, forced to keep his guard up, was barely standing. He missed hits, spat blood, fell down. But every time he got up again and kept fighting.

One of Panfilov's men, regiment commander Bauryzhan Momysh-Uly, was looking for a place to stand for his men, the last line of defense. He couldn't find it. Then the senior lieutenant pulled out his knife. "I carefully cut the map in half and gave one half to Sulima. "Here," I said. "Burn it. We won't need to study terrain east of Kryukovo."" Moscow lay to the east, and Momysh-Uly hid it beyond the "end of the world", not just from the Germans, but from himself.
Nowhere to Retreat

The 8th Guards Panfilov Rifle Division (formerly 316th) was a part of the 16th Army of the Western Front. The army commander, Lieutenant-General Rokossovskiy, had the idea to form a defense along the banks of the Istra river and the Istra water reservoir, a so called "limit of the front". The commander allowed his men to take a few steps back.

Rokossovskiy's plans were approved by the Soviet Chief of Staff, B.M. Shaposhnikov, but G.K. Zhukov, the commander of the Western Front, personally rejected them. He demanded that the army hold west of Istra. Zhukov understood the army commander's desire to give his troops the most advantageous positions, but the plan threatened the Front. Specifically, the defense of Klin and covering the assembly of the 1st Shock Army, which was just coming in from the reserve of the Supreme Command. 

Neither the opinion of the army commander nor the front commander's disapproval had any meaning. In the cold fall of 1941, the shallowed out and frozen water reservoir was not a serious obstacle for the Wehrmacht. On November 25th, the Germans not only crossed it, but pushed the Soviet forces away from the eastern bank. Rokossovkiy ordered his men to take back what was lost, but they could not carry out that order. The Germans moved across the main forces of the 11th and 5th Tank Divisions and broke through the Soviet defenses by the middle of November 28th.

The headquarters of the 8th Guards Rifle Division and 19th Tank Brigade in Maryino were in the way of the German attack, leading to the loss of command over forces that were in the way of the "tank steamroller". Even Rokossovskiy's HQ in Kryukovo was in danger.

The village and railroad station of the same name were supposed to be the cornerstone of the 16th Army's defense. The region was controlled by the 8th Guards Rifle Division, the best in Rokossovskiy's army. However, even Panfilov's men weren't made of iron, and two weeks of nonstop vicious fighting at the last stages of Operation Typhoon cost the division dearly. Its troops couldn't take another attack. An urgent message sent to the HQ of the Western Front read "enemy broke through the front of the 8th GSD". A little later, the events were given a fuller description: "The 8th GSD, attacked by tanks and infantry, did not hold, lost formation, and began a disordered retreat to the east. The division was stopped by the end of the day."

Tug of War at Kryukovo

Rokossovskiy replied quickly and firmly.

"To the commander of the 8th Guards Rifle Division
CC: Commander of the 7th Guards Rifle Division

The division is not completing its objectives.
During November 28th and 29th, its constant retreat opened the front and threatened other units in the army with destruction.

I demand that:
Forces of the 8th GSD, 20th KD, 44th KD, and all tank forces attached to the division must take Kryukovo by dawn.
After that, attack according to orders.
The overall authority in taking Kryukovo is given to the commander of the 7th Guards Infantry Division.
...
Failure to complete these orders will have consequences.
Inform regarding completion by 6:00 on November 30th, 1941.
Commander of the 16th Army, Lieutenant-General Rokossovkiy
Member of the Army Military Council, Divisional Commissar Lobachev."

Rokossovskiy and Zhukov, who also knew about the crisis in Panfilov's division, understood that even the harshest orders won't stop tanks or form counterattacks. New men had to be found. Zhukov couldn't stick his hands into Stavka's reserves, that would jeopardize the planned counteroffensive that he devised. The 16th Army was falling apart in front of his eyes, and that was no less dangerous. Zhukov decided to scrape together reinforcements for Rokossovskiy from neighbouring armies, platoon by platoon.

"Special Priority
Commanders of the 5th, 22nd, 43rd, and 49th Armies
CC: Commander of the 16th Army

The Front Commander orders each rifle division to detach one rifle platoon complete with authorized weapons and ammunition. Select platoons that already saw combat.
The selected platoons should be sent to the Commander of the 16th Army no later than 17:00 on November 19th to fill the 8th and 9th Guards and 18th Rifle Divisions. 5th Army to Nakhabino, 33rd, 43rd, and 49th Armies to Kryukovo, which is 30 km north-west of Moscow. Supply each platoon with two days' worth of food.
Report on completion.
Sokolovskiy"

"Special Priority, deliver immediately
The Front Commander orders: immediately transfer by trucks one rifle battalion from the 19th Rifle Division to Rokossovskiy at Kryukovo. Report on completion. 
Sokolovskiy"

Recently, the Red Army discovered once again that tanks can't be stopped by just infantry. Katukov's 1st Guards Tank Brigade was ordered to aid Rokossovskiy's men.

Katukov replied to the commander of the 8th Guards Rifle Division, informing him that the brigade is currently in battle, and it would be nice to know who was coming to replace them. Of course, Katukov likely knew that his men would likely to have to split up. The situation at Kryukovo demanded immediate attention. Since the 1st Guards Tank Brigade could not leave the front lines, the brigade commander sent everything he could pull out of battle.

"To the commander of the 8th Guards Rifle Division
  1. 5 tanks were sent to the 1073rd Rifle Regiment on the northern outskirts of Malino at 5:00 on December 1st, 1941
  2. Three tanks were sent to the 1077th Rifle Regiment at Savelka and three tanks to the 1075th Regiment at Aleksandrovka at 10:00 on December 1st, 1941"
The brigade's motorized infantry battalion and eleven tanks. Not a lot, but in the coming days, they helped the 8th Guards Division to hold the line at Kryukovo.

Location of elements of the 1073rd Rifle Regiment, December 5th, 1941 at Kryukovo (shaded blue).

The rest of Katukov's brigade could only hand off their positions and come to help on the night of December 3rd. In the morning, the 8th Guards Division began their attack, trying to knock the enemy out of Kryukovo. The Germans (35th Infantry and 5th Tank Divisions) lost their offensive temper by then, but could still put up a solid defense, especially when the attacking division barely had enough men for a regiment.

"1. Throughout December 3rd, the 8th Guards Rifle Division and attached elements fought stubborn offensive battles to take Kryukovo, pushing the enemy out of houses and basements. 
The enemy, up to one infantry division and 50 tanks strong, offered stubborn resistance to our attacking units and attempted unsuccessful local counterattacks.
2. Elements of the division could not take the south outskirts of Kryukovo and remain at the line in the attached diagram.
1077th regiment (786 men) fought in the direction of Alabushevo.
1075th regiment (287 men) repeated the offensive at the south outskirts of Kryukovo three times since 3:00 and took it at 17:00. Losses during the day: 29 killed, 105 wounded, losses are being confirmed. 
1073rd regiment (350 men) attacked towards the station and eastern outskirts of Kryukovo. As a result of the battle, the station was taken. Losses during the day: 30 killed and 60 wounded. The commander of the regiment Senior Lieutenant Mamysh-Oly [sic] and Deputy Secretary of the Party Organization comrade Shirokov were wounded.
1st Guards Tank Brigade: fought alongside elements of the 8th Guards Rifle Division.
45th Cavalry Regiment, 51st Cavalry Regiment: attacked three times, but without success, taking heavy losses."

Through December 3-5th, Panfilov's infantry and Katukov's tanks attacked Kryukovo, but without success. The German counterattacks were equally fruitless. Unable to enter the village and station, the Soviet forces stopped with losses in men and tanks.

"Two KV tanks were blown up by our mines near the school due to the fact that minefields are not guarded and units were not informed. 1 tank was evacuated to the repair base, the other is still on the battlefield with blown up tracks and there is no way to evacuate it due to powerful rifle and machinegun fire."

These unsuccessful battles clearly showed that it was impossible to take Kryukovo back with existing forces. In order to aid in the upcoming attack, Major-General V.A. Revyakin was given an artillery regiment, two squadrons of rocket launchers, and the 17th Rifle Brigade. The latter just arrived at the front and was composed of inexperienced soldiers, but it was fully equipped and armed! The other units from Revyakin's operational group could only wish for such a blessing.

From the Last Line

The new attack at Kryukovo was not just another attempt to take the village and its surroundings. A general offensive was planned for dawn of December 7th, 1941. Due to a shortage of shells, Rokossovskiy ordered that there would be no artillery barrage and batteries would only fire at targets discovered during the offensive.

Meanwhile, the Germans did everything they could to turn their positions into a fortress. Kryukovo and the nearby Kamenka had little in common with Stalingrad, but surviving veterans recalled these early December street battles as some of the toughest of the whole war.

"Operational summary of the 1st Guards Tank Brigade, 24:00 December 7th, 1941
  1. Elements of the brigade, supporting the 8th Guards Rifle Division over the course of December 7th, 1941, fought the enemy over Kryukovo, Kamenka, and Goretovka.
    1. The motorized rifle battalion had the objective to take Kamenka alongside the 51st Cavalry Regiment to the right and 17th Rifle Brigade to the left, attacked across the Goretovka river and reached the south outskirts of Kamenka twice.
      Both times, met with powerful mortar fire from the northern outskirts of Kamenka and from the forest north-west of Kamenka, without support from its neighbours, the battalion was thrown back to its initial positions with heavy losses.
      By 24:00 on December 7th, the battalion, with about 140 men in its rifle companies and 80 men in its mortar company, is located in the northern clearing in a grove south of Kamenka.
    2. The tank regiment fought with the enemy throughout the day. 8 tanks under the command of Senior Lieutenant Lavrinenko are with the 1078th Regiment [there is a mistake in the document, likely they meant the 1073rd Regiment] on the eastern outskirts of Kryukovo.
      Further advance of the group is prevented by powerful fire from anti-tank artillery and enemy tanks in Kryukovo.
      The regiment's strike team composed of 5 tanks commanded by Senior Lieutenant Burda burst into Kamenka and fought with enemy tanks and AT guns. Met with heavy resistance, the group was forced to retreat with heavy losses.
      8 tanks attached to the 17th Rifle Brigade under the command of Captain Gerasimenko, without artillery or infantry support, and without the ability to cross the Goretovka river fought the enemy around Goretovka.
      ...
      The strike team in the forest east of Malino has 2 KV tanks left, one T-34 tank, and one BT tank. One KV has a weak engine due to its long time in service, the other KV has a malfunctioning gearbox, and the T-34 had a shell damage its elevation mechanism.
      ...
  2. As a result of battles during the day, the brigade destroyed: 3 enemy tanks, 1 tractor, 1 staff car, 1 covered car, 1 light car, 1 car with ammunition, 2 heavy guns, up to 10 light guns, 1 AT gun, 5 MG nests, 2 dugouts, and over 200 infantrymen. In addition, a house with a German HQ was crushed by a tank in Kamenka.
    Our losses: 6 T-34 and one KV knocked out (all tanks evacuated except one T-34 that burned up when fighting for Kamenka).
    Preliminary count of 13 dead and 58 wounded."
The 17th Rifle Brigade was the least reliable unit in play, since it never saw combat before. Doubts about it were, unfortunately, not unfounded: the brigade began its offensive late and by the evening one of its battalions began a "disorderly retreat". The battalion had to be stopped by the reconnaissance company.

The German strength was also at its limit. Only a few days ago, these units broke through the front and forced Panfilov's men to flee. Now, it became clearer every hour that they would never walk the last few kilometers left until Moscow. The question now was if they could walk away at all.

That question was answered in the morning of December 8th.

"Operational summary, 12:00 on December 8th, 1941, 8th division HQ

The 8th Guards Rifle Division and its attached units took Kryukovo and Kamenka after three days of fierce fighting.

The enemy, having a noticeable numerical advantage, resisted stubbornly. As a result of our actions, he broke and ran in panic towards Mikhailovka."

The results of the fighting were summarized by trophy teams of Panfilov's division.

"In the battles for Kryukovo and Kamenka on December 8th, the 8th Guards Rifle Division captured:
  • Tanks: 29
  • Tractors: 2
  • Armoured cars: 4
  • Cars: 41"
This was just the beginning, the first "tax" extracted from broken and retreating German units. The trophy teams would need reams of paper to list all the possessions the enemy abandoned during his flight.

Having stood their ground at the edge of the world marked by Momysh-Uly, Panfilov's division and the 1st Guards Tank Brigade took their first steps westward.

Light Tank M2: Two-Headed Light

$
0
0
In January of 1935, the Light Tank T2E1 arrived at Fort Benning for military trials. This vehicle was the result of nine years of trial and error, which began with the design of the Light Tank T1. Over time, the concept of the light tank changed radically. It transformed from a two man tank with an engine in the front and a 37 mm gun as the main armament to a 4 man tank with a rear engine, front transmission, and machineguns in a two man turret. As a result of the trials, the Light Tank T2E1 was accepted into service as the Light Tank M2A1.


Two Heads are Better than One

The Light Tank T2E1 gained a significant amount of weight on its way to mass production. In its initial state it weighed 6803 kg, but various changes to improve its characteristics raised its mass to 8618 kg. This was more than a ton over the limit established by the Secretary of War in the spring of 1933. However, there was nothing that could be done. The tank reached such a level of reliability that the military had to overlook that requirement.

One of the first Light Tanks M2A1. Registration numbers are not yet painted on.

The first nine Light Tanks M2A1 were built by Rock Island Arsenal in 1935. Since the prototype Light Tank T2E1 had the serial number 1, these tanks had numbers 2-10. The vehicles also received registration numbers U.S.A. W 30101–30109.

The mass production tank turned out to be a little lighter, 8523 kg, while its armour and mobility remained the same. The design included all the suggestions for improving the experimental tank made after the trials.

One of the complaints about the T2E1 was the poor visibility. This issue was solved by adding a commander's cupola. This added another problem: it was only possible to climb out of the tank through the commander's station. This issue was also present on many American light and medium tanks.

The turret changed as well. The slopes on its upper part were removed, but the front became sloped. The hull also changed somewhat. According to requirements, the mufflers were taken out of the engine compartment and placed outside. Another change was the appearance of a radio station with an antenna port in the left rear part of the hull roof.

T7 combined machinegun mount used on the tank.

There were no changes in armament. Two machineguns, one 12.7 mm and one 7.62 mm, were placed in the combined T7 mount, which was protected with a gun mantlet from the outside. This armament was sufficient for fighting armoured cars and most tanks of the time.

It must be said that while experimental T2 light tanks were designed with armament in mind, it was never installed. It was also never installed on some Light Tanks M2A1: a portion of the tanks were used almost until the very end of their service with no guns. In order to train crews, the primary purpose of this tank, weapons weren't needed.

M2A1 on exercises. This tank has no turret armament.

The armament was one of the reasons why only 9 Light Tanks M2A1 were made. The standardized vehicle inherited one drawback from the Light Tank T2 that was almost impossible to correct. The drive shaft, covered with a casing, was placed very high up and interfered with the the crew when the turret turned. The problem could be solved, but American engineers decided to forego trying to lower the shaft with complex mechanisms. The path they took was simple.

In order to solve the problem of the shaft, the designers looked to the Vickers Mk.E, which in many ways was the inspiration when the Light Tank T2 was built. This time, the Americans decided to borrow the idea of two one man turrets. It's worth noting that the Vickers Mk.E Type A had two turrets for a completely different reason. It needed them to perform the function of a trench sweeper. The Americans were more interested in the crew's comfort. The idea of two turrets was first tried on the light cavalry tank Combat Car T5, where it achieved satisfactory results.

Experimental Light Tank T2E2.

In the same year of 1935, another experimental tank entered trials, the Light Tank T2E2. It had no serious changes to the chassis compared to the Light Tank M2A1. The turret platform roof was replaced, and two one man turrets were installed instead of one two man. The commander's turret was very similar to the Light Tank M2A1's turret. It had the Browning M2HB machinegun on the M9 mount. The right turret, a little smaller in size, had the Browning M1919A3 machinegun in the M12E1 mount. Both machineguns had telescopic sights.

The antenna port was moved to the center of the hull roof, behind the turrets. This solution was also copied from the Vickers Mk.E Type A.

On trials, the tank with registration number U.S.A. W.30114 showed satisfactory results. The mass grew to 8660 kg, which had almost no impact on mobility. The addition of a second turret meant that the mobility of fire increased radically. The purpose wasn't to clear trenches, as the theater of war the light tanks were meant for had few of them. However, cavalry was still a popular type of force at the time, and the ability to shoot at more than one target was not considered excessive.

The antenna mount is visible in this photo. Without thinking too hard, the Americans borrowed it from the Vickers Mk.E.

The Light Tank T2E2 was accepted into service almost at the same time as the Light Tank M2A1. The new tank received the index Light Tank M2A2. 9 tanks were built in 1935 with serial numbers 11-19 and registration numbers U.S.A. W.30110–30119.

Over the course of comparative trials, it became obvious that the layout with two one man turrets is better. The American infantry received a vehicle with good maneuverability of fire, which was very suitable for raids like the hunt for Pancho Villa. With the same armament as the Medium Tank T4 and better maneuverability, the Light Tank M2A2 cost half as much. It's not surprising that after the comparative trials, the tank was selected for mass production in large numbers in 1936.

Backbone of the Pre-War Force

1936 was a busy year for the Rock Island Arsenal. The American army ordered 125 Light Tanks M2A2, serial numbers 20-144. Tanks haven't been ordered in these volumes since WWI. A year later, another order for 104 tanks was made. The tanks received registration numbers U.S.A W.30120-30368.

Three tanks built in 1937 were equipped with Guiberson T-1020 diesel engines. Like the stock Continental W-670, the engine had its roots in the aircraft industry and was air cooled. Compared to the aircraft A-1020 variant, its power was reduced from 340 to 250 hp. The tanks equipped with diesel engines were indexed Light Tank M2A2E1. Military use of tanks with diesel engines showed that they are difficult to start in cold weather.

Personnel of the 11th Tank Regiment with their vehicles.

Mass production finally allowed infantry units to start rearming with new tanks. The Light Tank M2A2 became a symbol of the American army in the late 1930s. These tanks were often seen in newspapers and on newsreels. The completely obsolete M1917 Light Tanks were finally replaced.

Aside from the continental US, these tanks also served in Hawaii. The Pearl Harbour naval base was housed on Oahu island since 1908, and the Schofield Barracks army base was not far from there. The 11th Tank Regiment located at Schofield Barracks initially had M1917 Light Tanks. This unit as also rearmed with Light Tanks M2A2, and reports of this unit's exercises were a common sight in American media.

Combined training of tankers and engineers together was common as well. This training consisted both of tankers learning to cross obstacles and engineers learning to create impassable obstacles for tanks. The new tanks were kept busy.

The last Light Tank M2A2 with serial number 248 and registration number U.S.A. W.30368 was sent to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in July of 1937. The tank was indexed Light Tank M2A2E2, and was noticeably different from its comrades. The thickness of its armour was increased to 25 mm, and its mass grew to 9675 kg. The engine compartment was also changed. This tank became a test bench for various technical solutions that were used in the improvement of the experimental T5 Medium Tank.

Light Tank M2A2E2 in its initial configuration at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, August 1937.

In August of 1938, the tank returned to Rock Island, where it was subjected to another series of changes. A new engine and suspension were tested simultaneously. Unlike the previous design, the bogeys remained the same, but the idler was completely changed. It was increased in diameter and lowered to the ground, increasing the track's contact surface. This was done for a good reason: the Light Tank M2A2, as well as other tanks of that family, was tall and shallow, leading it to oscillate lengthwise.

The modernized tank used the 6-cylinder General Motors 6-71 engine. This 7 L 188 hp diesel engine, unlike the Guiberson T-1020, was water cooled. The new engine required more space in the engine compartment, which lengthened the tank.

During trials, the bogeys were widened in order to increase the contact surface, and connected with a reinforcing beam.

Trials of this tank, indexed Light Tank M2A2E3, began in early July of 1939. As a result of these changes, the tank's mass reached 10.5 tons. As a result, neither the engine nor the new suspension were put into mass production, but the trials were not conducted in vain. Later, a duo of General Motors 6-71 engines was used in American medium tanks, and the slightly changed idler was used on the Combat Car M2 and Light Tank M3.

Light Tank M2A2E3 on trials. The lengthening of the rear part of the tank led to changes of its suspension.

Further development of the M2 light tank family went, oddly enough, along the lines of making tanks for cavalry. In the summer of 1937, the Combat Car M1E2 entered trials. Its greatest difference from the predecessor was an altered suspension with greater distance between bogeys. These changes increased the contact surface length from 2184 mm to 2464 mm, increasing the stability of the tank. The hull was also converted. The engine compartment was changed especially thoroughly, and the access to the engine was notably improved. The vehicle went into production under the index Combat Car M1A1.

Light Tank M2A3. The changes in the turrets and engine compartment are visible.

The military made a sensible decision to take the Combat Car M1E2 and make an infantry tank based on that design. This led to the creation of the Light Tank M2A3. Unlike the cavalry tank, which had one two man turret, the infantry tank had two one man turrets. The turrets were simplified compared to the M2A2: there were no more curved plates, and the turrets were assembled from only flat plates/

Like previous vehicles, the Light Tank M2A3 was assembled with rivets. Since the rivets had flat heads, they are very hard to see, and it creates an illusion of welding on photographs. In reality, welding was used on American tanks much later.

The combat weight of the tank grew to 9450 kg, and the top speed decreased to 58 kph. On the other hand, the thickness of the front armour of the hull and turret grew to 22 mm. This was the result of studying battles in Spain, which showed that tanks need to be reliably protected from  high caliber machineguns. 

The diesel version, M2A3E1, can be differentiated by the longer ducts leading to the air filters.

The first Light Tanks M2A3 began entering service in the summer of 1938. In total, the Rock Island Arsenal built 73 of these tanks. The tanks received serial numbers 249-321 and registration numbers U.S.A. W.30368-30441. The tanks used 250 hp Continental W-670 series 9 engines. In addition, 8 tanks indexed Light Tank M2A3E1 received Guiberson T-1020 series 3 diesel engines, later replaced with the series 4.

Timken electric transmission.

During service, the gearboxed with sliding gears were replaced by gearboxes with synchronizers. The Light Tank M2A3 was the first American tank on which an electric transmission was used. One of the mass production tanks was converted to use a transmission designed by the Timken company. Two electric motors and other equipment were placed at the front of the tank. The electric transmission took up more space than the stock one. Because of that, the M2A3E2 tank that received it remained an experiment. Nevertheless, American engineers returned to the idea of an electric transmission several times.

Light Tank M2A3E3 on trials, January of 1941. The rear of the hull and suspension were changed radially.

Even though the Guiberson T-1020 engines didn't show themselves exceptionally well, the American military didn't give up on trying to install diesel engines into their tanks. On February 21st, 1940, the Ordnance Corps approved the installation of a V-shaped 4 cylinder V-4-223 diesel engine produced by General Motors in a Light Tank M2A3.

This work was done less to improve the M2A3, and more to modernize the Light Tank M2A4. The engine compartment of the tank was altered to be like that of the M2A4. The 250 hp diesel fit into the compartment, but it was heavier, forcing the installation of a larger idler to increase the contact surface of the track, like on the Light Tank M2A2E3.

The V-4-223 diesel engine.

The converted tank, indexed M2A3E3, entered trials in January of 1941. The changes increased its mass to 10,800 kg. As a result of trials, the engine was still not accepted for use in light tanks. On the other hand, the suspension used on the Light Tank M2A3E3 migrated without almost any changes to the production Light Tank M3.

First Antarctic Tank

Unlike the Light Tank M2A4, its younger brothers never got to fight. The American military soberly evaluated the abilities of their machinegun tanks. On the other hand, it's difficult to say that the Americans weren't ready for war while looking at the M2 series of light tanks. These tanks were built for a theater of war different from the European one, and were very well adapted for it. By September 1st, 1939, the American army had a little under 450 modern light tanks armed with high caliber machineguns which easily penetrated bulletproof armour.

The concept of light and fast vehicles was popular in many countries. For instance, the backbone of the British army in September of 1939 was 1002 Light Tanks Mk.VI, which was inferior to the American tank in all respects. The characteristics of the American tanks were closer to those of the German Pz.Kpfw.II tanks, slightly inferior in firepower and superior in mobility. As of September 1st, the PzII composed over 40% of the German tank fleet. Another 38% was made up of Pz.Kpfw.I tanks, which had no chance in battle with American tanks.

Light Tank M2A3 during obstacle training, Fort Belvoir, April 1942.

The American light machinegun tanks were used for training duties. Numerous exercises held since the end of the 1930s were performed with these tanks. The M2 family remained in service until 1942. Even though they did not fight, they served an important purpose. They became learning tools for thousands of American tankers. The Light Tank M2A1 was also the starting point for the T5 medium tank, which later turned into the Medium Tank M2.

Time and duty took their toll. Not a single M2A1 survived, and one M2A2 and M2A3 remain in museums. Another Light Tank M2A2E3 also survives to this day.

The tale of this tank could end here, if not for one "but". The history of the Light Tank M2A2 contains one forgotten episode that makes its career unique. This was the first, and so far the last, tank used in the Antarctic. This happened in 1939, which Admiral Richard Byrd began his third expedition. Officially, it was called the United States Antarctic Service Expedition. It was made famous by the Snow Cruiser, an enormous, progressive, and largely useless vehicle that became stuck 150 km along the route. Of course, that story is just one of many from the expedition. Its main task was the creation of an eastern base on Stonington Island in Marguerite Bay and a western base ("Little America") on the Ross Ice Shelf. That is where three Light Tanks M2A2 were sent.

Light Tank M2A2 on Stonington Island. A T3E4 Tracked Light Tractor can be seen in the background.

Even before being sent to the Antarctic, the tank was lightened, the armament and a portion of the armour removed. It quickly became obvious that this was not enough. Turrets were also removed from the tanks, the ground pressure was decreased, but use of the tanks showed that it was necessary to reduce the weight by another third. The turrets didn't go to waste: they were used to make the tracks wider and let the tanks drive better on loose snow. In order to prevent the tank from being covered in snow that was kicked up, extended fenders were attached to the front.

The use of the tank in low temperatures also resulted in a lot of hassle. Nevertheless, the tanks were actively used on both bases to tow sleds. During one outing, a tank managed to travel 50 km with a 2 ton sled at second gear. The tanks were not returned to the United States. To this day, a Light Tank M2A2 remains at Stonington Island.

Pak 40 Penetration Tables

$
0
0
The graphics refer to several types of shells:
  • Blue: standard armour piercing shells
  • Red: HEAT shells
  • Green: subcaliber armour piercing shells
  • Yellow: high explosive shells
The areas of the tank are marked as follows:
  • Solid black: critical effect
  • Hatched: destructive or critical effect
  • White: no effect
The other parts of the intro are pretty standard tips for AT gunners: let the tanks get close, camouflage your position, aim carefully, fire from a favourable angle, don't waste subcaliber ammunition (use only when AP and HEAT failed you, and even then at a range of less than 1000 meters).



Against the Matilda, the gunner is instructed to use HEAT only against vertical surfaces, at a short distance. HE can be used against the tracks and suspension. Hitting the engine deck with HE can cause a fire.

Against the Valentine, the advice is the same, except without the extra qualification for HEAT. The penetration values for the Valentine were come from calculations and should be used as preliminary guidelines only.


Against the T-34, the gunner is instructed to fire HEAT at the front part of the turret, aside from the gun mantlet. He should fire AP at the gun mantlet from 1000 meters. From 100-500 meters, he can fire AP at the driver's hatch or the connecting bar between the upper and lower front plates. The same advice as with the British tanks still applies to HE: fire it at the tracks and suspension. Unlike British tanks, shooting at the engine doesn't cause fires.

Against the KV-1, the advice is largely the same. Fire HEAT at the front of the turret or AP at the gun mantlet. HEAT can also be used against the lower front plate and the driver's plate, although the manual warns that it should be fired only when the tank is driving directly at you. The rest of the advice is the same as above, curiously enough down to the engine fire.

The KV-1 with applique armour is a tougher target. Subcaliber AP should be used here, and even then at close ranges. At 100 meters, even AP shells can penetrate the thickened portions of armour. HEAT is indicated to only be able to damage the tank when fired frontally.

Advice for the KV-2 is, understandably, the same as for the KV-1.

CAMD RF 500-12480-138

Launch of the IS-6

$
0
0
"Order of the People's Commissar of Tank Production of the USSR
Moscow
June 8th, 1944

Factory #100 (comrades Kotin, Yermolayev) jointly with TsNII-48 (comrades Zavyanov, Kapyrin) developed a draft project of the IS-6 heavy tank, which has significant advantages in terms of armour compared to the IS-2 mass produced tank.

In order to ensure timely production and trials of experimental prototypes of the new IS-6 tanks, I order that:
  1. Tactical technical requirements for the design and production of IS-6 tanks with mechanical and electric transmissions are attached to this order.
  2. The NKTP's chief engineer, comrade Kotin, must provide the necessary guidance in the design of the IS-6 experimental tank.
  3. Acting director of factory #100 comrade Solodukhin and chief designer of factory #100 comrade Yermolayev in cooperation with the director of Uralmash comrade Muzrukov and chief designer comrade Gorlitskiy must ensure that the IS-6 is designed, produced, and trialed. Comrade Muzrukov must be allotted the necessary amount of designers and technologists to develop the designs and technological processes.
  4. Director of the Uralmash factory comrade Muzrukov, acting director of factory #100 comrade Solodukhin, and chief designer of factory #100 comrade Yermolayev, must finish the following according to timetable in attachment #2 of this order:
    1. Ensure the development and release of working blueprints of the IS-6 tank, as well as production of experimental prototypes of the tank and hulls for ballistics trials.
    2. In cooperation with TsNII-48, design and produce weld joints, their models, and protection from HEAT shells and directed mines, as well as perform ballistics trials.
    3. Present a list of required materials, half-stock, and purchased items to the Chief of Supplies of the NKTP by July 1st of this year.
    4. Produce 8 sets of tires and disks for road wheels of the IS-6 by June 25th and send 3 sets to factory #100 for trials on an IS-2 tank.
  5. The chief of the 3rd Department of the NKTP, comrade Khabaryshev, must provide by July 5th of this year:
    1. To Uralmash, necessary scrap metal to produce hulls and turrets for IS-6 tanks as requested by the design bureaus of factory #100 and Uralmash.
    2. Ammunition for ballistics trials of the hull, turret, and HEAT shields.
  6. The Chief of Supplies of the NKTP, comrade Rozin, must provide Uralmash by July 20th of this year with necessary materials, half-stock, and purchased items as requested by the design bureaus of factory #100 and Uralmash.
  7. The Chief of the Financial Accounting Department of the NKTP, comrade Shagalov, must issue 350,000 rubles to the Chief Designers of the NKTP comrade Kotin, 500,000 rubles to the director of Uralmash comrade Muzrukov, and 150,000 rubles to director of TsNII-48 comrade Zanyalov for the purpose of awarding bonuses to workers who distinguished themselves during development and production of the IS-6 tanks.
Bonuses are issued according to the following schedule:

Stage
Factory #100
UZTM
TsNII-48
For the tank with a mechanical transmission
Design and release of working blueprints, production of a model for the model commission.
100
50
25
Design of the technological process, production of experimental hulls, production of experimental hulls with various types of weld joints and their trials.
25
100
50
Production, assembly, and release of experimental prototypes and their trials.
50
100
-
For the tank with an electric transmission
Design and release of working blueprints.
75
50
25
Design of the technological process, production of 3 experimental hulls, proving grounds trials of one hull.
25
100
45
Production, assembly, and release of two experimental tanks with an electric transmission.
50
75
-
Finalizing the tank’s design
25
25
5
Total
350
500
150

Control over the execution of this order is given to my deputy, comrade P.M. Zernov.

People's Commissar of Tank Production of the USSR, V. Malyshev."

Trophies into Battle

$
0
0
"Report on the fighting condition of captured tanks (German)

In Zamoshye: 1 medium tank without a turret, functional. At the battalion's repair yard: 3 medium tanks.
  1. No machineguns, optics, or radio, requires medium repairs (suspension, radiator, fuel tanks, turret hatch).
  2. No machineguns, optics, or radio, requires medium repairs (electric wiring, radiators, suspension).
  3. No machineguns, optics, or radio, requires medium repairs (suspension, fuel tanks).
The vehicles came to the repair yard on their own power. 

There is a small tank without a radio that is functional, requires an inspection.

In the evacuation group: 3 artillery tanks.
  1. No gun breech, optics smashed, gearbox smashed, wiring destroyed, needs medium repairs. No batteries.
  2. Gearbox smashed, optics smashed, serious breaches in the hull. No batteries.
  3. Motor burned out, optics smashed, wiring burned out.
A small tank that needs capital repairs.

An APC: no front wheels, no steering wheel, no batteries. Needs medium repairs. 

Required for combat ready tanks:
  1. Machineguns: 9
  2. Optical sights: 5
  3. Batteries: 11
  4. Radios: 9
Perform inspections, medium, and capital repairs. 

Ammunition is required for medium and artillery tanks.
From the 10 captured tanks, 4 can move on their own. It is necessary to train the personnel, form crews, and master these captured tanks.

Commander of the 107th Independent Tank Battalion, Shilimov"

We Lost a Track!

$
0
0
"On the losses of materiel
...
For the T-34, a characteristic loss is the destruction of tracks, drive wheels, and idlers. Out of 24 losses, 20 tanks were lost for these reasons. During our attacks, the enemy concentrated fire from several anti-tank guns on one tank and then moved fire to the next tank. There were two cases of partial penetrations of front armour, and those tanks went on to attack again after that.
...
Conclusions: T-34 tanks need strengthening of the tracks, idlers, and drive wheels to be equivalent in robustness to the front armour, since suspension damage in battle impedes further use of the tank, especially if there is a shortage of spare parts and tractors that can evacuate the tank."

Via zihuatanexo.

Combat Car T4: Christie Style

$
0
0
On March 25th, 1931, the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation and Bureau of Ordnance signed a contract to build five Christie M.1931 tanks, later expanded to seven. American infantry received three Convertible Medium Tanks T3 and cavalry received four Combat Cars T1. It seemed that the long struggle between Christie and the American military finally ended with Christie's victory, and a large order will follow the first batch of tanks any day now. However, history took a different path, and the Christie suspension was a dead end for the American tank building school. However, the evolution of American convertible drive designs led to several interesting vehicles, one of which was the Convertible Medium Tank M1, which was standardized for service.

The Fire Brigade at Work

In order to understand one issue that plagued Christie, one must travel back to 1924, when a serious conflict between the inventor and the American military took place. It's well known that none of the many designs developed by the Front Wheel Drive Motor Corporation from 1917 to 1924 were accepted into service. Frequently, the issue wasn't with Christie, but with the sluggish bureaucratic machine, where the left hand didn't know what the right was doing. The military often didn't know what it wanted. For example, the 155 mm SPG was redesigned three times and still rejected in the end.

Experimental prototypes built during this period cost the treasury $175,000, a sizeable sum at the time. Christie took the blame. In 1924, the Bureau of Ordnance broke off its relationship with the Front Wheel Drive Motor Corporation, and General Williams cursed Christie. Christie responded by calling his payment "blood money", but didn't stop there.

The packet of patents purchased from Christie in 1920 cost the military $100,000. It included rights to all currently designed types of vehicles and their components. In addition to the patents, his contract gave the military rights to future inventions, a clause which cost Christie dearly.

Convertible Medium Tank T3E2. It is noticeably different from Christie's initial design.

The use of the Convertible Medium Tank T3 and Combat Car T1 in the military revealed a number of drawbacks. Many of these drawbacks had nothing to do with Christie. For example, the one man turret installed on the tanks differed little from the turrets of the Light Tank T1 family. The fact that the commander couldn't be responsible for everything at once and that the turret had to fit two people was fair, but Harry Knox's tank had the same problems. The same can be said for the driver's compartment, which was designed for one man in Christie's tank. The idea to make it fit two people only came about in the spring of 1932, when the Light Tank T1E4 began trials, which used solutions borrowed from the Vickers Mk.E. In other words, the tank wasn't bad, but requirements changed.

Another problem with Christie was that he had a very stubborn character and often became obsessed with new ideas. For example, in 1932, he became obsessed with the idea of a flying tank, which resulted in the Christie M1932 Airborne Tank. It was the fastest tank in the world, and it was praised in the press and shown off to Congress. The military didn't need a new tank with an uncertain future, it needed improvements of already existing designs.

In June of 1932, the Bureau of Ordnance recommended the preparation of documentation for an improved version of the Medium Tank T3. At the same time, the head of the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation was informed that $200,000 will be allotted in the next fiscal year for the production of the improved Medium Tank T3E2. Christie tried to insist that only the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation has the rights to build the Medium Tank T3E2, but an unpleasant surprise lay in store for him, one that he himself prepared in the past. Turns out that the Bureau of Ordnance could legally use his inventions as it pleased.

The same tank on wheels.

On October 14th, 1932, the military finished working on specifications for the Convertible Medium Tank T3E2. The request for tender was sent to multiple companies, including the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation. The results were predictable: by November 28th it was clear that Christie would not receive the contract. Instead, the contract for five tanks and the sum of $200,000 went to American LaFrance.

Ironically, the contract went to the company that the Front Wheel Drive Motor Corporation, Christie's previous company, competed with on the fire truck market. Back then, in the mid 1910s, American LaFrance won, and now history repeated itself. The loss of this contract spelled bankruptcy for the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation. The sale of the M1932 to the USSR only postponed the end while aligning the US military against Christie.

Testing the tank's off road performance.

Meanwhile, the tender didn't mean that the infantry would get tanks that were superior to Christie's. For American LaFrance, the victory was accidental. Founded in 1832, American LaFrance Fire Engine Company specialized in fire engines from the beginning. By November of 1932, the company has not produced a single armoured vehicle. It's not surprising that American LaFrance worked closely with Army organizations, especially the Watertown Arsenal, while working on the Convertible Medium Tank T3E2. The development of the tank dragged on, and the prototype was only completed in late 1933.

Instead of modernization of Christie's tank, his competitors ended up with a completely new one. The differences began in the front, which, according to the military's demands, was widened to fit two people. The assistant driver, sitting to the right, received a Browning M1919A4 machinegun. The turret also fit two people and received an elongated shape. It was noticeably larger, which was a bonus for the crew. The tank kept the armament of the Convertible Medium Tank T3, but for some reason, three machineguns were added to the sides of the turret and the rear hatch. American LaFrance engineers retained the commander's cupola, but it was now placed in the center of the turret and was not especially comfortable to use.

The designers were generous with machineguns.

Even though American LaFrance had experience with 12 cylinder truck engines, it picked the Curtiss D-12 435 hp aircraft engine for the tank. Like the Liberty L-12, this engine was widely used, and no issues were foreseen. According to the military's request, access to the engine and transmission was improved, although not by much. The transmission could be serviced through the removable shutters in the rear.

As for the hatches in the front of the tank, they were rather unusual. The driver's two-piece hatch repeated the shape of the predecessor, but it was only meant to improve visibility on the march. The driver entered and exited the tank through another hatch in the hull roof.

The suspension was also radically changed. The idler started to resemble a shrunken road wheel. The drive sprocket changed the most. The tank now had a more conventional "star". The track links also changed. American LaFrance engineers discarded the idea of a Galls chain and returned to the same gearbox as the M.1931 had.

A Convertible Medium Tank T3E3 at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. It was scrapped in the early 1950s.

Thanks to the more powerful engine, the Convertible Medium Tank T3E2 was faster than its predecessor. Its maximum speed was 56 kph on tracks and 93 kph on wheels. However, these numbers were obtained on the proving grounds. In practice, they were not as fantastic. During army trials, the American LaFrance tank was significantly less agile.

All five tanks ended up in the 67th Infantry Regiment (Medium Tanks), along with Convertible Medium Tanks T3. The designs ended up very raw, and around 60 changes were made to them during the duration of their service. After modernization, these tanks received a new index: Convertible Medium Tank T3E3. The military turned down further work with American LaFrance.

Cavalry Experiment

American cavalry declined Christie's services before the infantry did, back in February of 1932. The reasons for ending the partnership with the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation was simple: money. The cost of the Combat Car T1 was so high that it was impossible to purchase the necessary amount of tanks. The cavalry first attempted to make an alternative for Christie's tanks in 1931.

The result was the Combat Car T5, later renamed to Combat Car T2. It was developed by the Bureau of Ordnance along with the Rock Island Arsenal. Harry Knox became the author of this curious design. Often, the Combat Car T2 is passed off as an attempt to use Christie's patents, but in reality it was a self-made design, which the cavalry quickly rejected, realizing that it has no future.

Christie-type suspension patented by Gladeon Barnes.

A conference held in February of 1932 formed the requirements for an improved cavalry tank. The limit on its mass was 9 short tons (8163 kg), maximum speed on wheels had to be 64 kph, and maximum speed on tracks 35.2 kph. The crew, just like withe the Convertible Medium Tank T3E2, was increased to 4 men. Two machineguns (12.7 and 7.62 mm) would be used in the turret, and another one in the hull. A heated debate erupted over the mass, as a result of which it was lowered to 8.5 short tons (7710 kg). The maximum speed on tracks was increased to 48 kph.

The design, which received the name Combat Car T4, had a lot in common with the Convertible Medium Tank T3E2, especially when it came to the driver's compartment. Overall, the design was different, and had little in common with the initial Christie tank.

Unlike the Combat Car T2, Knox has nothing to do with this tank. An unexpected counterpart turned up: Major Gladeon Marcus Barnes, at the time the chief of the Aberdeen proving grounds. Barnes' specialization was artillery. but the talented engineer turned towards armoured vehicles in the early 1930s. Taking Christie's suspension as the basis, he eliminated one of its greatest drawbacks: the tall springs. He placed them at an angle, also changing the swing arms, which allowed the hull to be much lower.

Combat Car T4 at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, August 12th, 1933. Only the suspension concept remains from Christie's design.

The suspension wasn't the only change. While the predecessor to the Convertible Medium Tank T3E2 was obvious, the Combat Car T4 that arrived at the proving grounds in August of 1933 was completely different. With a similar width, it was half a meter shorter and 30 cm lower. The mass was within the required 8.5 tons, but the armour was only 9.5 mm thick around the perimeter. Thanks to the reduction of space required by the suspension, the upper front plate of the hull was sloped.

Instead of a large aircraft engine, the tank received an 11 L Continental R670 air cooled engine, which could produce 264 hp of power while being much lighter and more compact than the Liberty L-12. The transmission was included in one compact assembly with the engine. Thanks to the smaller dimensions, the engine compartment roof could be sloped, which helped reduce mass.

The running gear was also nothing like its predecessor. The road wheels, idlers, and drive sprockets were designed anew, the tracks were new as well. The track holders were also very original: half of the track was held on the fenders, the other half underneath, with the ends resting on the drive wheel and the idler.

The engine and transmission of the Combat Car T4, coupled into one assembly.

Trials at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds showed that the characteristics of Barnes' tank were even better than required. The maximum speed was 80 kph: the cavalry tank was even faster than the Combat Car T1. It's not surprising that the Ordnance Committee approved the design on June 7th, 1934.

At the same time, there were several issues. The 1118 mm turret ring diameter was too narrow. The committee ordered that it should be increased to 1420 mm. The tank that began trials in late August of 1934 had a new horseshoe shaped turret. The idea of a coaxial machinegun was discarded, and the tank had two separate machineguns. The mass of the tank grew to 9 tons, but its characteristics remained at the previous level. The converted vehicle was later indexed Combat Car T4E1.

The modernized Combat Car T4E1. It received an additional AA machinegun, plus two machineguns in the sponsons.

It seemed that the tank would make it into mass production. The cavalry insisted that Combat Cars should be used to equip mechanized units. In reality, the Combat Car T4E1 remained experimental. At the time, the Combat Car T5 was undergoing trials, a design very similar to that of the Light Tank T2, designed by Harry Knox. Even without the lobbyists in the Bureau of Ordnance, the Combat Car T5 had two significant advantages. At 7.5 tons, the mass was within revised Bureau of Ordnance requirements. Knox's tank also cost half as much as the Combat Car T4E1. For the American economy, which was just climbing out of the Great Depression, this was an important factor.

In addition, the Combat Car T5 could reach a speed of 72 kph on tracks, almost as fast as its competitor was on wheels. Its armament was the same, and the armour was a little bit thicker. It's not surprising that the military did not choose the convertible drive tank.

Combat Car T4E2, an unusual concept that the American military was obsessed with in the mid-1930s.

This was not the end of the Combat Car T4E1. In the winter of 1935, the vehicle was converted into the Combat Car T4E2. The turret was replaced with a large casemate. Three machineguns were added to the existing three: one per side and one in the rear. The mass of the tank grew to 13 tons.

Relative Success

Even though the Combat Car T4 was a dead end, it left its mark on the American tank school. Its further evolution went along the lines of the infantry tank. In April of 1934, the Combat Car T4 was demonstrated to the infantry command, which was satisfied with the design. Around this time, the trials of the Convertible Medium Tank T3E2 began, proving that the design was unpolished and lacked a future. It was decided that an infantry tank on the Combat Car T4 chassis with improved armour would be designed.

Convertible Medium Tank T4. Even though it was based on the Combat Car T4E1, it had many differences.

This tank entered trials in 1935. Its shape was reminiscent of the Combat Car T4E1, but it had many differences. The driver's hatch was a different, greatly improved, design. The sides of the upper front of the hull and forward observation ports were different. It had no additional machineguns or toolboxes on the fenders. The new two-man turret was a distant relative of the turret from the Combat Car T4E1. Its main difference was the characteristic "step" on top which served as a commander's cupola.

The armament was installed differently. While the cavalry tank had its Browning M2HB on the left, the infantry tank had it on the right. Protective shields which served as gun mantlets were added.

The suspension differed from that of the Combat Car T4E1. All wheels, including idlers and drive wheels, were designed anew. In wheel mode, the tank was propelled by a Galls chain. Since the mass of the tank grew to 12 tons, the engine was supercharged to 268 hp. The new tank also received mufflers on the roof of the engine compartment.

The rear of the Convertible Medium Tank T4 was also different.

The tank was indexed Convertible Medium Tank T4. Despite the improved engine, its characteristics were more humble than those of the cavalry tank: 61 kph on wheels and 38 kph on tracks. The tank became wider and taller, and its armour was thickened to 16 mm. Nevertheless, the tank proved reliable, which was enough for mass production. American infantry received 16 Convertible Medium Tanks T4 in 1935-36.

In addition, the army received three Convertible Medium Tanks T4E1. These vehicles were the infantry equivalent of the cavalry's Combat Car T4E2. As with that tank, the Convertible Medium Tank T4E1 received a roomy casemate with four 7.62 mm Browning M1919A4 machineguns around the perimeter. One Browning M2HB 12.7 mm machinegun was mounted in the front.

Convertible Medium Tank T4E1. History is silent regarding the presence of a poker table inside the casemate.

The Convertible Medium Tank T4 family was the largest among American convertible drive vehicles. Despite the weak engine, they had decent mobility. Like other convertible drive tanks ordered by the infantry, they were stationed at Fort Benning.

The first attempt to standardize these tanks was made in February of 1936, without success. The second attempt was on March 30th, 1939, and this time it was successful. The tanks received the index Convertible Medium Tank M1, Limited Standard. The Medium Tank T4 became the only convertible drive tank that was officially accepted into service. However, that was only its swan song. A year later, the tanks were written off as completely obsolete. By that point, tanks on the Light Tank T2 chassis were the standard in the American military.

One Convertible Medium Tank T4 survives to this day. Today, it can be seen at the National Armor and Cavalry Museum, Fort Benning.


Merry Christmas

$
0
0
Merry Christmas to all my readers!


2 cm KwK 38 Penetration Tables

$
0
0
By 1941, the PzII wasn't exactly a top of the line tank, and its firepower left much to be desired. These instructions reveal how to squeeze the most out of a gun that hasn't aged well. 

The tank has three types of ammunition:
  • Pz: armour piercing
  • HK: "hard core" subcaliber armour piercing (not to be used at a range of over 250 meters)
  • Sp: high explosive
The tank silhouettes are labelled as follows:
  • Solid black: destructive effect
  • Shaded black: hindering effect
  • White: no effect
Otherwise, the advice is largely the same as in the Pak 40 instructions.



Against the Valentine, there isn't much the 2 cm KwK 38 can do. Firing at the gun mantlet, machinegun port, and driver's slit is bound to have some effect, but the only guaranteed damage is APCR straight to the back of the turret. Firing HE at the engine deck might start an engine fire. Interestingly enough, the tracks aren't indicated as a weak point. Presumably 20 mm HE shells are not powerful enough to break them.

Against the Churchill, the idea is the same: hammer away at anything there shrapnel can make it through to jam mechanisms or injure the crew. You can try shooting underneath the tracks from the side or rear at close range, when the tank is at a strict right angle from you.

Against the M3 Lee, you have a few more offensive options. From the front, the area around the main gun is vulnerable to subcaliber ammunition, as is much of the side and rear. The Sherman, while invulnerable from the front, can also be penetrated at close range from the side and rear. At least, in theory, the notes below clarify that these are just calculations.


The T-34 (for some reason the three-periscope driver's hatch and two-periscope driver's hatch versions are separated) are much less vulnerable than the Sherman: you can only penetrate them by shooting at the lower hull, behind the wheels. KV tanks are completely invulnerable (barring engine fires from getting HE through the grille), as is the Matilda, which mysteriously migrated to the Soviet page instead of the British one.

CAMD RF 500-12480-138

85 mm AT Gun Battery

$
0
0
"16.11 At 13:00, a radio telegram arrives from the XXXXVI Tank Corps giving us the objective to deliver an attack from Shitkovo through Lama, as the progress of 2 Pz.D. is blocked by flanking fire from the forest east of Morozovo."
NARA T-315 R-587 F-1014/1019

The Soviet report shines a little more light on the nature of this blocking fire:

"On 16.11, around 12:00, the enemy began an attack on the left flank of the 316th Rifle Division (8th Guards) with 25 tanks. Of them, 7 tanks fired from standstill and 18 drove towards Morozovo. The 4th AT gun battery of the 768th Artillery Regiment opened fire on the advancing tanks despite enemy fire. As a result, 3 tanks were knocked out and the tank attack was pushed back. The battery lost one gun."

Seems like a fairly standard course of events, but the 768th Artillery Regiment wasn't an ordinary AT gun unit.


This is a map of the 768th and 296th Artillery Regiments from just a few days prior. The 768th is armed with a rather curious array of weapons: 37 mm AA autocannons and 85 mm AA guns. Seems that they were quite effective in an AT role, just like the German 88 mm AA gun.

Via zhur_from_rkka.

This is hardly the only effective use of 85 mm guns. For example, a month prior at Ilyinskoye line of defense at Maloyaroslavets, an 85 mm gun battery destroyed 14 German tanks and 10 trucks or APCs in only 10 minutes.

MS-1 Production Plans

$
0
0
"November 6th, 1928

To the State Izhor Factory (GIZ)

The Bolshevik factory writes to you with a proposal to produce armoured hulls for the T-18 according to blueprints and technical requirements from the Bolshevik factory. The order can be fulfilled in whichever of two variants you prefer:


  1. The Izhor factory produces armoured plates and, having finished and tested them via artillery trials, passes them on to the Bolshevik factory to make hulls.
  2. The Izhor factory produces armoured plates and, having finished and tested them via artillery trials, assembles the hulls. All necessary forged and cast materials necessary for assembly of the hulls, without mounting openings, are transferred to the Izhor factory.
Deadlines:
  1. Armour or hulls for 85 vehicles are due in 1928-1929. The last batch is due before August 15th, 1929.
  2. Armour or hulls for 185 vehicles are due in 1929-1930.
Detailed deadlines will be established when the order requirements are finalized. The factory is asked to reply promptly regarding the feasibility of these deadlines and the cost of the order.

Blueprints and technical conditions are attached.

Assistant Director, Technical Department."

"To the management of the Bolshevik steel casting factory

To your request from November 6th of this year regarding the feasibility of producing armoured steel for tanks I reply that a detailed request was sent to the Metals Directorate and Supreme Soviet of the National Economy, and necessary loans were requisitioned in connection with this work. The decision regarding this question lies with the aforementioned organizations.

Factory Manager Marchenko."

SU-85BM

$
0
0
"Photo album of D-5S-85 with increased muzzle velocity designed by factory #9 and installed by Uralmash factory 


Photo #1: Overall view of the SPG with gun elevated to 25°.



Photo #2: Overall view of the SPG with the gun depressed.

Char B: A Difficult Beginning

$
0
0
The Char B1 and its improved version, the Char B1 bis, stand as the symbol of French tank building in WWII. At the start of WWII, these were the best medium tanks, combining shell-proof armour and serious armament, capable of destroying any tank in the world. Meanwhile, several elements of the Char B1, such as its suspension and its short barreled 75 mm howitzer in the hull, were rather archaic. Naturally, there was a good reason for this. Even though the Char B1 was accepted into service in 1934, five years before the start of the war, its story begins more than a decade and a half prior...

Gun in the Hull

Unlike the British, who concentrated on heavy tanks in WWI, the French started out with the medium weight category. The first French tank, the Schneider CA1, belonged to it. In general, the French managed to create the most successful medium tanks of WWI. They were also the most numerous in their class. The British Medium Mk.A Whippet that arrived later was noticeably worse than its French equivalent.

According to a popular version of events, the French then concentrated all of their efforts on the light Renault FT, which later became the most numerous and best tank of WWI. However, that is not entirely true. The Schneider company continued working on a medium tank, taking into account the drawbacks discovered in the Schneider CA1. The tank had a large protrusion in the front, which was supposed to serve as a battering ram for smashing through enemy fortifications, but ended up being a liability. The hull was also to long. Another problem was the placement of the gun on the right side, which limited the arc of fire.

In 1917, work began on a new generation Schneider CA tank.

Schneider CA3 with a 75 mm gun in the hull. The foundation laid by this design will later be used in the development of the Char B.

On May 1st, 1917, several Schneider medium tank projects were demonstrated to the Ministry of War. Their mass ranged from 13.2 to 15.4 tons. They differed in both the armament and its layout. The first variant had a 47 mm gun in a rotating turret, the second had a 75 mm mod. 1897 gun in the front of the hull. The military considered these two variants the most interesting. In total, the commission picked 5 variants, which were presented to the Comité Consultatif de l'Artillerie d'Assaut (Assault Artillery Consulting Committee) on May 11th.

As a result of the meeting, it was decided that an improved tank would be developed on the base of the Schneider #1. The tank retained its turret, but the gun was replaced with a short 75 mm one. On July 5th, 1917, a reworked version of the tank was presented, indexed Schneider CA3. To be safe, the tank was presented in two variants. One was made according to requirements and was similar to the Schneider #1 with an enlarged turret and a 75 mm gun. The second variant had no turret, and the short barreled 75 mm gun was placed in the middle of the hull. To defend itself from infantry, the tank had machineguns in the front and sides of the hull.

Unexpectedly, that variant was selected as preferable. Schneider received an order to produce 400 Schneider CA3 tanks, work began on the production of a prototype, but an order was issued pausing the CA3 program in February of 1918, and it was later completely cancelled. The French army was left without a second generation medium tank.

Medium tank designed by Delaunay-Belleville. It's easy to tell what tank was its predecessor. The mantlet of a 37 mm gun can be seen to the left of the driver's cabin.

Development of French medium tanks continued on personal initiative alone. Delaunay-Belleville was among companies involved in the assembly of the Renault FT. This company was famous for luxury cars, but it couldn't walk past a military contract.

Delaunay-Belleville produced 390 Renault FT tanks. Based on this vehicle, Delaunay-Belleville engineers designed an artillery tractor for the 155 mm Canon de 155 C mle.1917 Schneider howitzer. The gun was transported directly in the tractor, and could fire without being dismounted. The vehicle was sent to trials in October of 1918, but was not mass produced as the war ended.

A larger engine required a roomier engine compartment.

Using their experience with the tractor, Delaunay-Belleville began working on a medium tank on its own initiative. They decided to not reinvent the wheel: the medium tank completed in 1919 looked like an enlarged Renault FT. The front and turret were taken from the predecessor with no changes. The weight increased to 15.8 tons, which required a new engine and a hull that was almost one meter longer. At the same time, the hull was made wider. This was not caused by the engine, but by a 37 mm gun being placed in the front, to the left of the driver.

Delaunay-Belleville engineers managed to bring the Schneider CA3 concept to fruition, albeit in a clumsy way. This design did not go unnoticed. It came to the attention of General Estienne, the father of French tank building.

Together and Apart

The results of WWI were contradictory for French tank building. On one hand, the French created the best tank of the war, having found the optimal layout, later dubbed classical. On the other hand, they did not have time to fully realize their tank industry. Heavy breakthrough tanks, Estienne's brainchild, were too late for the battlefield. They also proved too expensive, which spelled their doom.

As for the Renault FT, even though it was the best tank in the world, it was not devoid of faults. It was protected from only rifle caliber bullets, and equipping it with anything bigger than a 37 mm infantry cannon proved a difficult task. Eventually, Estienne came to a reasonable conclusion: medium tanks were the future. Their size allowed for sufficiently thick armour and powerful armament, and they were much cheaper than heavy tanks.

According to Estienne's theories, the Renault FT would be gradually replaced by the "battle tank" (char de bataille, or Char B). Their mass would be between 13 and 14.5 tons, and the overall concept was similar to the Schneider CA3. Their main armament would be a 75 mm gun, as the smallest caliber capable of effectively fighting against light fortifications. It was to be housed in the front of the hull. The rotating turret was optional, and in any case, would not contain a weapon more powerful than a machinegun. 

Estienne began preparations for the project in 1920. A year later, in late 1921, the general initiated a program for a new tank. Aside from Delaunay-Belleville, Estienne involved FAMH, FCM, Renault, and Schneider. According to the preliminary agreement, the first order would be made for 120 Char B tanks. Delaunay-Belleville received an order for 10 tanks, FAMH for 15, FCM for 15, and Schneider and Renault 30 each.

Estienne proposed that the companies develop the Char B together. In reality, this did not happen, and almost every company picked its own route. Delaunay-Belleville was the first to build their concept in metal, but also quickly dropped out of the competition. Its tank matched the requirements in mass alone, in every other way it was obsolete. There were four competitors left.


 Due to the increased requirements for armour, which had to be 25 mm in the front and 20 on the sides, the designers did not manage to keep the mass of the tank under 14.5 tons. In addition, the machinegun turret became a mandatory requirement.

According to Estienne, the FAMH design was the best match for the requirements of the Char B concept.

FAMH (Compagnie des Forges et Acieries de la Marine et d'Homecourt), whose tanks are better known under the name Saint-Chamond, developed the tank that met Estienne's requirements. It was the shortest (overall length was 5.2 meters) and the gun was in the exact center of the hull, according to requirements. This was little consolation to the driver. Even though her had a separate cabin, the gun was still located near his legs. The pneumatic control system also added problems and required additional efforts from the driver.

As required, the crew consisted of three men. Aside from the driver and his assistant (who also serviced the gun), the crew included a commander in the turret. His duty was also unenviable: aside from his direct responsibilities, he had to aim and load the dual Hotchkiss Mle.1914 machineguns. Their service required extraordinary ability. It's worth noting that the crew layout was the same in all tanks created according to the Char B concept.

The same tank from the front. It's hard to envy the driver.

At 17 tons, the FAMH Char B had a 120 hp Panhard engine. It was enough to accelerate up to 18.2 kph, almost twice as fast as the Renault FT. As with all other vehicles presented in the tender, the engine and transmission were in the rear.

A progressive decision was to use pneumatic shock absorbers in the suspension. As for the track links, they had British roots. The French used Philip Johnson's designs from the Medium Tank Mk.D. Like the Americans on their Medium Tank M.1922, FAMH engineers equipped the tank with wooden pads that could get more grip on uneven terrain.

FCM (Forges et chantiers de la Méditerranée) engineers also used tracks from the Medium Tank Mk.D, and also the rest of the suspension, along with the original decision to use a cable for the elastic element. It's likely that the company eventually received news about how unreliable it was, as the cable was replaced with a Galls chain.

The tank, which is sometimes called FCM 21, also used the Panhard engine, but the higher mass reduced the top speed to 17.5 kph. On the other side, the larger fuel tanks increased the range to 175 km compared to FAMH's 70.

FCM medium tank. The similarities to the FCM 2C are striking, especially since the commander's turret is the rear turret from the heavy tank.

FCM's medium tank was reminiscent of the FCM 2C breakthrough tank. Despite a different suspension and tracks, the overall design of the running gear changed little. The hull design was similar as well. FCM's tank was the longest (6.5 meters) and tallest (2.5 meters). The height was due to the commander's cupola, which, just like the turret, had its roots in the FCM 2C design.

The armour was the same as the FAMH variant: 25 mm. Poor comfort for the driver was another thing it had in common with its competitor. He was placed on the left side of the hull, the gun on the right. It's unlikely that this neighbour improved his work conditions, and his visibility decreased. On the other hand, the commander of the FCM tank felt like a king. Not only did he have a cupola, but the turret was much larger than that of his competitors.

Experimental SRA (Renault JZ) tank on the assembly line. The suspension can be seen in this photo.

The only companies that worked together like Estienne wished were Schneider and Renault. On October 21st, 1921, an agreement of cooperation was signed. Competition remained, and each company took its own path in some respects. Nevertheless, both companies moved in parallel and shared identical parts and components in their designs.

Both tanks had identical turrets, designed by Schneider, containing a pair of Hotchkiss machineguns. Later, this turret (known as the ST1) and its improved version (ST2) were used on Renault D1 light tanks. The unification also included the engine: both tanks used a 180 hp Renault design. The armour, increased to 30 mm, was also similar, as was the weight: 19 tons. The hulls were also similar, including the placement of the armament and the driver's position. The tanks even had similar names: SRA and SRB, where SR stood for Schneider-Renault.

SRA on trials.

The SRA also had an internal index at Renault: Renault JZ. This tank was almost entirely developed at Boulogne-Billancourt. The length of the tank was between FAMH and FCM at 5.95 meters. It couldn't go faster than 17.5 kph, but no top speed was specified in the requirements. Like other competitors, the tank used Medium Tank Mk.D type tracks, but the suspension used bogeys (2 bogeys of 6 wheels each per side) and leaf springs. Overall, the suspension was more reliable than its competitors'. 

This is what the tank looked like after trials. The wear on the tracks, especially the wooden pads, can be clearly seen.

The main feature of the Renault tank was the armament. The 75 mm short barreled gun was shifted to the right, and the ability to aim the gun horizontally was completely absent. This reduced the mobility of fire, but was a boon when it came to protection. In addition, the SRA's driver was housed much more comfortably. Even though he still served as the gunner, his life was much easier than on the FAMH or FCM variants of the Char B. The same could be said about visibility. The presence of servos reduced his efforts.

The SRB, designed by Schneider, had a similar front hull, with one exception. Instead of a short barreled 75 mm gun, it had a long barreled 47 mm gun. It also had the NAEDER turning system, which made aiming the gun horizontally much easier for the driver. The SRB also had servos.

The SRB was the only tank with a different gun than its competitors, but in the same mount as the SRA.

The running gear was a noticeably different between the SRB and SRA. The tank used a similar suspension, which the designers wanted to replace with a hydropneumatic one. Instead of Medium Tank Mk.D type tracks, a more traditional design was used. Renault FT tracks were taken as the basis, and seriously redesigned. Similar tracks were later developed for the Renault NC. With an identical engine, the SRB was slightly faster than the SRA.

Without Consensus

As the tanks had to be designed from scratch, work dragged on. All four vehicles were presented on May 13th, 1924, in Rueil-Malmaison. Trials began, which lasted until March of 1925.

The tanks had to have a special trailer which carried 800 L of fuel or 8 men.

The result of the trials came as a shock to General Estienne. He assumed that out of the competitors, one vehicle could be selected as the superior and put into production. In practice, each of the tanks had its own drawbacks.

The FAMH tank was difficult to drive, and broke down many times. The Achilles Heel of the FCM design was the gearbox, which also broke. Similar problems pursued the SRA. In addition, Philip Johnson's tracks were deemed not the best. Initially, everything was fine, but tracks with wooden pads quickly wore down. It was clear that fully metallic tracks were the best option, but even they needed improvements.

Char B by Renault, FCM, and FAMH on trials, 1924.

The SRB was a clear favourite, as its suspension turned out to be the best and the NAEDER system showed itself well. However, Estienne wasn't completely satisfied with this tank either. As a result, no company was awarded the contract for production. Instead, Estienne issued new requirements which had different conditions. Instead of four tanks, only one would be built, and the concept would be designed by Schneider and Renault. The tank would use a Renault engine, a Schneider double differential, a Fieux clutch, and the NAEDER turning mechanism. Individual suspension elements would be taken from the FCM and FAMH tanks.

The armour requirement was increased to 40 mm in the front, 30 mm in the sides, 20 mm in the roof and 15 mm in the floor. The mass was estimated at 19-22 tons. Overall control over the project was given to Renault, who cooperated closely with the STCC (Section technique des chars de combat, Tank Technical Section). Schneider engineers would also take an active role in the development.

After almost four years in development, the second generation medium tank project was launched a second time. Nine long years remained until the adoption of the Char B1.

To be continued.

Char B: On France's Backburner

$
0
0
On May 13th, 1924, a demonstration of medium tanks built according to the Char de bataille program took place in Rueil-Malmaison. FAMH, FCM, Renault, and Schneider each built a prototype. The plan was to pick the most successful design and split up the contract for 120 tanks between the companies. However, it turned out that none of the tanks completely satisfied requirements of the military. As a result, General Estienne, the originator of the Char B program, was forced to create new requirements in March of 1925 for an improved tank which would use the most successful technical solutions from its predecessors.

Last One Out

Tasked by the military with coordinating the work on the Char B, Renault presented a model of the prototype for approval in 1926. The improved tank was created while working closely with Schneider, which designed a modernized turret for the tank. The Renault-Schneider duo was the main driving force behind the new design. Another participant was the STCC (section technique des chars de combat). With their aid, Schneider's engineers improved the turret. Maurice Lavirotte, an employee of Ateliers de Puteaux (APX) was put in charge of the work on the Char B. Formally, APX had nothing to do with the Char B, and only started working on the project in the 1930s, but in practice, the company had significant influence on the development of the new tank.

Full sized model of the reworked Char B, 1926.

Even as a model, the tank was significantly different compared to the experimental tanks. Even though the design was based on the SRA and SRB, only the overall layout remained. Compared to its predecessors, the new Char B was 40 cm longer, but that was only the beginning of its metamorphosis.

The suspension used in the prototypes was too bulky, which resulted in a lot of unused space between the side of the tank and the spaced armour. The FCM prototype was much more reasonable in this regard. The volume taken up by the suspension was decreased, and the tracks now wrapped around the whole hull. The decision was correct, as the newly formed bustles on the sides went to good use.

The drive sprockets increased in size. The driver's station also noticeably changed. Like in the FAMH prototype, he was placed in a cabin, which improved his visibility. In addition to the cannon, a machinegun was installed in the hull, and the crew was increased to 4 men. The fourth crew member was a radio operator.

The first Char B1 prototype, copy of a factory blueprint.

The model commission approved the project. On March 18th, 1927, contracts were signed with Renault, FAMH, and FCM to produce prototypes. Schneider was not included in the list, but it's hard to think of the company as a victim of a conspiracy. Schneider was awarded the contract for making the hulls and turrets, hardly a loss.

As for FAMH, aside from one prototype, it was tasked with building two 75 mm guns. The third was built at Schneider. In addition, the STCC and Schneider were working on a modernized version of the tank, indexed Char B1. This had to do with the fact that the tank, codenamed Tracteur 30, was clearly not going to fit into the weight requirement. The initial range of 19-22 tons did not accurately reflect reality. According to calculations, the mass of the tank would be at least 23 tons, and in practice it approached 25 tons. The Char B1 was almost twice as heavy as Estienne's initial requirements for a battle tank.

Suspension elements of the Char B1. Despite its visual similarity to "rhombus" tanks, the Char B1 had a different and rather complicated suspension.

Renault was the first to complete a Char B1 prototype. In March of 1929, tank number 001 began factory trials. It looked very much like the model, but with corrections for the tank's growth. Instead of a 180 hp Renault engine, it used a more powerful 6 cylinder engine with aircraft roots, like its predecessor, but a power of 250 hp.

The suspension, which was shown in very general terms on the model, demands closer attention. It was designed at FCM's design bureau under the supervision of engineer Burdeaux. The new suspension had a lot in common with the suspension designed for the FCM 2C. In total, the tank had 16 road wheels per side. 3 front ones and 1 rear one had individual leaf springs. The rest were combined into bogeys (3 groups of 4 wheels), and vertical coil springs were used as the suspension element.

The suspension was accessible from inside the tank, which made it easier to service in battle. The travel of the suspension was not large, but it was enough for a tank that was supposed to be used on the "moon landscape" of trench warfare. The track links were a further development of the design used on the SRB.

Char B1 001 on trials, 1932. By then, it was already using the ST3 turret.

After finishing the first stage of factory trials, the experimental Char B1 drove from Rueil-Malmaison to Bourget. The tank made the 250 km trip in a day, with an average speed of 16.5 kph. It was the first French tank that could independently drive such a distance without serious breakdowns.

Trials continued until April of 1930. Various improvements were tested, changing the tank visually. The military was generally satisfied with their new tank, but problems were recorded with the insufficiently robust NAEDER turning mechanism.

Closeup of the turret and 75 mm gun.

Work on building two more experimental vehicles was postponed, as they included the new experience collected during trials of tank 001. In the meantime, FAMH let go of the contract for building a second tank. As a result, tank #102 was also built by Renault and was finished in 1931. As for FCM, nothing happened to contract #215 D/L, and the vehicle was complete in 1931. Initially, it had a dummy turret.

Awaiting Disarmament

Trials of the Char B1 prototypes were conducted in an uncertain situation. A conflict erupted between Estienne and the infantry, which grew into a serious confrontation. This was due to the fact that the infantry had its own vision of an infantry support tank.

Estienne proposed a large tank with serious armour and armament which would not be produced in large volumes like the Renault FT. The infantry had different opinions. In 1928, the NC-3 light tank began trials, which eventually became the Char D1. It was not as large or well armoured as the Char B1, but it was much lighter and, potentially, a lot more could be built. Its 47 mm gun, which appeared at the same time as the ST1 and ST2 turrets, was enough for the task of direct infantry support.

The tank's initial turret was later returned.

Another factor that hammered a wedge between Estienne and the infantry was the development timeline. By the time the third Char B1 prototype was finished, the Char B program was already running for seven years. Time passed, and with it, requirements for the battle tank grew.

In October of 1930, a program began to develop a new generation of tanks. Which led to new departures from the initial Char B concept by January of 1932. The first tank, Char B2, was supposed to have a long 75 mm gun, 50 mm of armour, and its mass would increase to 35.5 tons. The 45 ton Char B3 would have a 6 man crew, a 75 mm gun like the Char B1, and a long barreled 47 mm gun.

Finally, Estienne decided to revive the FCM 2C concept, but this time as a "stopping tank" (Char d'arrêt). Work on this design began in 1928. In 1932, they resulted in the Char BB project. The 60 ton tank had a pair of 75 mm long barreled guns, 60 mm of armour, and an 8 man crew.

It's unlikely that any of this made the infantry command happy, as they needed immediate replacement for thousands of obsolete Renault FT tanks instead of long term plans.

Tank #103 with a dummy turret.

Finally, another factor came into play, which directly influenced the French tank program. A disarmament conference began on February 2nd, 1932, in Geneva, initiated by the League of Nations, which became concerned about a new armament race in Europe. Even though the results were quite contradictory, it had some impact on potential designs.

The Char BB was the first victim of the conference, as it fell under the imposed limits. The same fate awaited the Char B2 and Char B3, as further limits on the mass of tanks were expected. For this reason, work did not progress pas the tactical-technical requirement pase.

The initial proposition by the French to limit the mass of tanks at 92 tons alerted the Germans. The outcome of this requirement was the appearance of "heavy tank D" in the German "Tanks" encyclopedia: a 92 ton tank with a 15 man crew, one 155 mm howitzer, one 105 mm howitzer, and two 75 mm guns.

While debates in Geneva raged on, the trials of Char B1 prototypes continued. Due to complaints about the NAEDER system, an experiment was performed with a hydraulic gearbox designed by the Swiss Winterthur company (modern day RENK-MAAG). It's possible that the French received information about it from the British, who used the same gearbox on the A1E1 Independent tank.

Tank 103 also used a 180 hp diesel engine from the Swiss company Sulzer Ltd., which was also located in Winterthur. Trials of this engine were unsuccessful. It never achieved its nominal power, and strong vibrations were observed.

The French Clerget company also proposed a 180 hp diesel, but its trials were also unsatisfactory. In any case, this was good experience for FCM, which was later applied during the design of the FCM 36.

Tank #103 during mobility trials.

An experimental unit was created in August-October of 1931 to test the new tanks. Initially, it was based in Rueil-Malmaison. The tanks' average speed was 12 kph, and their maximum speed was 22 kph, higher than that of the Char D1. Later, the unit was transferred to a military base next to Mourmelon-le-Grand. 

The tanks were constantly improved during military trials. The suspension was altered, a pneumatic suspension and various kinds of gearboxes were tested. Radios of various types were tested as well. Tank #001, later renumbered to #101, served as a testbed for ST1 and ST3 turrets.

Experimenting with radios on the new tanks. Another type of antenna went into mass production.

Even though the tanks showed growing pains, the conclusion was made by the end of 1932 that the tanks are satisfactory for completing tasks expected of them. Around this time, the first reviews of the Char D1 began arriving from the military, and they were not particularly flattering. The Renault UZ, later renamed to Char D2, entered trials in 1932. Its turret was used on the Char B1.

It was expected that a contract for the production of seven Char B1 tanks would be signed in late 1932, but a new phase of disarmament talks began in Geneva. The French military waited. Back in 1930, during the London conference, the issue of limiting the mass of tanks to 25 tons was raised. Even though the Char B1 gained weight during all these conversions, it still fit into this limit.

In February of 1932, the rules of the game changed. British Prime Minister James Ramsey MacDonald proposed limiting field artillery to 105 mm and the mass of tanks to 16 tons. This was no accident, as that was the weight of the British three-turreted Medium Tank Mk.III. 

If the conference accepted the British proposal, it would have been the end of the Char B1, and the Char D2 would have taken its place. However, the debates achieved nothing, and Germany left the commission on October 23rd, 1933. One thing was obvious: there would be no weight limit.

Having the choice between a more or less ready Char B1 and the problematic Char D2, which they were feverishly trying to find an engine for at the end of 1933, the French infantry opted for Estienne's tank. This was a serious mistake, since the Char B1 was incapable of being produced in sufficient numbers for several reasons. However, at the time, this seemed like a good decision.

Technically in Production

On March 13th, 1934, almost 13 years after the start of the Char B program (and 17 years after the beginning of work on the Schneider CA3 tank), contract #30 D/P was signed with Renault to produce seven Char B1 tanks. A decision was also made to upgrade tanks #102 and #103 to mass production standards. Tank #102 received the proper name Amorique, and tank #103 became Lorraine.

Even before the beginning of production, in December of 1933, one noticeable change was made to the Char B1. As a result of using the Char D1 and testing the Char D2, it was clear that the ST1 and ST2 turrets were too small. A decision was made to use the APX 1 turret designed by Ateliers de Puteaux (APX). The turret ring diameter was increased to 1022 mm, and the turret became roomier.

However, it was not possible to get rid of the main issue. The initial idea of a machinegun turret with the turret ring diameter of the Renault FT that the Char B and Char D shared left no room for a two man turret.

Initial production tanks had no 75 mm guns. They were installed later.

On December 26th, 1934, contract #1029 D/P was signed with Renault to produce another 20 Char B1 tanks. The company was overloaded with orders, as production of the Char D1 was still on, and a contract for 50 Char D2 was signed on December 24th. Work on the Renault ZM, which would later become the Renault R35, was also going full throttle, and that's not including work on light reconnaissance tanks for the cavalry.

It's not surprising that tank #104 (later given the name Verdun) was completed only in December of 1935. Contract #30 D/P was only satisfied by Renault in may of 1936, and the tanks came with no 75 mm guns (they were only installed later), and there were not enough turrets for every tank.

Renault started making good on its next contract, #1029 D/P, on March 27th, 1936, when tank #111 "Dunkerque" was accepted by the customer. The last tank under this contract was shipped on January 5th, 1937, with 6 tanks produced at FCM.

Renault's financial difficulties created additional problems in 1936. The French government had to take extreme measures: in late 1936, Renault's tank production in Issy-les-Moulineaux was nationalized. A new company was founded in its place:  Ateliers de construction d'Issy-les-Moulineaux (AMX for short). Renault retained the rights to produce the Char B1, but in a different place.

Similar changes happened with APX in 1936. The company's factory in Rueil-Malmaison was nationalized. The factory was renamed Ateliers de construction de Rueil (ARL), and Maurice Lavirotte was appointed as its chief designer.

Tank #130 "Ile de France", 1936. After exercises, the idea of trailers was rejected.

The next contract, #1891 D/P, signed on October 8th, 1936, fell to FCM due to all the commotion at Renault. The first tank under this contract (#131 Touraine) was delivered on June 9th, 1937, and the last (#135 Morvan) left the factory on July 30th. In total, out of 32 Char B1 tanks, plus two prototypes modernized to production standards, 11 were built at FCM.

Gradually, the price of the tank decreased, but was still very high. Tanks from the latter batches cost 1,218,000 francs apiece. To compare, the Char D2 cost 610.000 francs. At the moment of its creation, the Char B1 was the most expensive tank, equal to the cost of two British Infantry Tanks Mk.II at the start of their production.

511th Tank Regiment lined up for parade. The first B1 tanks were sent to this unit.

The completed tanks were sent to the 511th Tank Regiment, created on March 12th, 1936, out of the 51st Heavy Tank Battalion. The first Char B1 tanks were sent to the unit even before the reform, in early 1936. The regiment's new headquarters were at Verdun.

The first exercises held with these tanks showed that the idea of a trailer was not the best. For this reason, late production Char B1 tanks were built without a trailer hook. It was decided that a special vehicle would be used instead, which gave birth to the Lorraine 37L tractor.

All 34 tanks were sent to the 511th Tank Regiment. The first production tank, #104, was used by the commander, Colonel Bruno. All tanks received names of French towns and provinces.

Tank #112 Mulhouse from 3rd company, 37th BCC. The tank has the new 47 mm SA 35 gun. The tank suffered a typical fate for a Char B1: it was abandoned near Orleans on June 15th, 1940.

On August 27th, 1939, the 511th Tank Regiment was reformed once more. Its Char B1 tanks were included in the 37th Battle Tank Battalion (BCC). The process of modernization began around the same time. Like Char D2 tanks, these tanks received long barreled 47 mm SA 35 guns. After these changes, Char B1 tanks became almost identical to the late Char B1 bis. It is still possible to distinguish between them due to different observation devices in the turret.

The tanks needed major repairs. In the process, the tanks were spread out across different units. By the start of the war, there were no longer any Char B1 tanks in the 37th battalion. They returned only on May 16th (tanks ##104, 112, 122, 127, 132). 12 tanks ended up in the 347th Independent Tank Company (CACC), formed on May 17th, 1940.

After long journeys along frontline roads, only 3 tanks remained by June 3rd. Another 3 apiece tanks were located in the 106th and 108th training battalions (106th BIC and 108th BIC). 11 tanks were in Mourmelon. The fate of the first mass produced Char B tanks was no better than that of the Char D2. Some were destroyed in battle, but most were captured by the Germans.

Flamm.Pz.B2 740(f) made from a Char B1. Western Ukraine, June of 1941.

Despite the differences between the captured B1 and B1 bis tanks, the Germans gave them one index: Pz.Kpfw. B2 740 (f). Some captured tanks were converted into flamethrower Flamm.Pz.B2 740 (f) tanks. Among them was tank #103, Lorraine.

The tank in the 347th CACC became the victim of the marathon along French roads in late May of 1940. After repairs, the Germans converted it into a Flamm.Pz.B2 740 (f). On May 31st, 1941, the tank was included in the 102nd Flamethrower Tank Battalion (Panzer-Abt. (F) 102), where it received the tactical number 131. This wasn't the only instance of a Char B1 being converted into a flamethrower tank. At least two more (tactical numbers 113 and 233) used the old chassis. As for tank #131, it participated in the assault on the "Velki Dzyal" stronghold in the Rava-Russkiy fortification region on the western border of the USSR. During the attack, it was hit by a cannon installed in a bunker and burned up.


Teletank Development

$
0
0
"To Lieutenant-General of the Tank Forces, comrade Fedorenko

Report

I report to you on the current status of armoured telemechanics:

Various organizations (NII-10, NII-20, Red Army NIST) performed work regarding telemechanization of tanks since 1929 under the orders of Red Army US and ABTU. Experimental prototypes of Renault, T-18, T-24, T-37, T-26, T-28, T-20, T-38, and BT-7 teletanks were produced.

By 1935, the issues of automation of the suspension and chemical armament of the tank were resolved, and a commission selected the TOZ-26 T-26 teletank developed by NII-20 as the most suitable teletank out of three experimental T-26 teletanks. This prototype was accepted for mass production. In 1936-37, factory #192 produced 35 groups and another 30 groups in 1938-39, slightly modernized vehicles with the index TOZ-8. In total, 130 special tanks were built, 65 control tanks and 65 teletanks (65 groups).
On February 25th, 1937, T-26 TOZ-26 teletanks were accepted into service with the Red Army. Currently there are two light tank brigades (24th and 36th) that have one teletank battalion each. Presently, the teletank special equipment on TOZ-6 and TOZ-8 tanks is obsolete. Experience in use of the tanks showed that the remote systems were unreliable and the tank's maneuverability when controlled remotely was poor. The telephony equipment was complicated, difficult to use, and expensive. The cost of equipment to make one group is 175,000 rubles (not counting the cost of T-26 tanks). The cost of capital repairs for special equipment of one group is 70,000 rubles. Due to poor reliability of the special equipment, the military has not yet mastered the tactics of applying teletanks. During the Polish campaign, the teletank battalion of the 36th Light Tank Brigade participated in battle, but due to the nature of the fighting the teletanks were not operated remotely and were used as regular manually controlled chemical tanks. At the Finnish theater in Karelia, two teletank battalions and the 7th teletank company were used. Teletanks were used with radio control to discover mines and perform demonstrative reconnaissance. Six teletanks were lost in battle.

Individual groups of teletanks achieved their objectives but gained no tactical experience.

A large amount of resources was spent on tank telemechanics, but the future of teletank development is unclear. NII-20 did note receive any orders for experimental prototypes in 1941, and is closing its tank laboratory to reassign the engineers to other work. Factory #192 is competing the order to repair 10 groups of TOZ-6 and TOZ-8 teletanks in March of this year, after which it will cease work on teletanks due to a lack of new orders.

How should teletanks be developed further? There are no defined conclusions or opinions.

Since 1938, NII-20 performed a large amount of work to simplify and reduce the cost of special equipment and developed a new rapid selection type. By order from the Red Army US with approval from GABRU, NII-20 finished the following prototypes of teletanks equipped with the new equipment:

  • Telemechanical BT-7 group
  • Telemechanical T-26 group
  • Telemechanical group of T-20 and T-38 tanks
The BT-7 group went through government trials and was deemed suitable for producing a test batch. This group has some advantages in its maneuverability and reliability compared to all existing teletanks, but the production of one group is expensive, 200,000 rubles. Since there are no chemical BT-7 tanks, work needs to be performed by three subcontractors on chemical armament, special equipment, and armour. It is reasonable to not spend money on BT-7 teletanks but instead work on simplified removable equipment for T-34 tanks. NII-20 can perform this work in 1941-42.

The new T-26 teletank group passed factory trials. The equipment used by this group is simpler and more reliable than equipment used by T-26 TOZ-6 and TOZ-8 teletanks. Its cost is also significantly cheaper, 30-40,000 rubles per group. Factory #192 will be the only subcontractor for equipment. The weak points of this equipment are the electronic encoder and decoder, but their drawbacks can be resolved by factory #192.

The telemechanical group of T-20 and T-38 tanks did not pass trials due to weak off-road performance and thin armour of the vehicles. Further work on telemechanization of these tanks should cease. Special equipment from the T-38 and T-20 can be used with some adjustments on T-40 tanks.

The Red Army Communications Directorate plans to repair 10 telegroups of obsolete T-26 TOZ-6 and TOZ-8 tanks at factory #192 in 1941 at the cost of 700,000 rubles. These telegroups will be delivered from army units as they wear down. It is necessary to prioritize re-armament of the two teletank battalions from TOZ-6 and TOZ-8 teletanks to T-26 teletanks with new equipment. In order to do this, proving grounds trials of the latest group of T-26 tanks must be accelerated with the goal of ordering a batch of teletanks from factory #192 in February-March of 1941 with the 700,000 rubles allocated for the repair of TOZ-6 and TOZ-8 teletanks. Re-arming the battalions allows us to resolve issues regarding tactical application of teletanks. Issues of telemechanization are technically solved, and only the issue of teletank tactics remains.

In 1941, the Red Army NIST will test a remote television apparatus: a transmitter and a receiver with a 9 by 12 cm screen. This device transmits images over radio (television) of terrain surrounding the tank and objects in its field of view over 100-150 meters. The size of this device allows it to fit into the T-26 turret bay. The use of television may be a solution to the issue of aiming flamethrowers. This work can answer the question of the usefulness of television in tank forces.

The suggested plan for further work in telemechanization is as follows:
  1. First quarter of 1941: order a batch of new T-26 teletanks at factory #192, for which the trials of these tanks must be accelerated.
  2. Re-arm existing teletank battalions armed with TOZ-6 and TOZ-8 teletanks to new T-26 teletanks.
  3. The main task for teletank battalions is to resolve the issue of effective use of teletanks.
  4. Do not cease scientific research at NII-20. Give NII-20 the task of developing removable equipment for T-34 tanks, which can be made into chemical tanks with powerful armament. This work can give positive results in automation of tank controls (servos, remote controls, etc).
  5. Perform trials of the television device in T-26 tanks with NIST in 1941.
I ask for your decision regarding these issues.

GABTU BTU chief, Military Engineer 1st Class, Korobkov
GABTU BTU 2nd Department Chief, Military Engineer 2nd Class, Demyanenko"

Experimental Night Vision

$
0
0
"Trials of night vision IR detection devices and IR projectors
  1. Items under trials:
    1. Night vision device type Dudka Dosug (2 units)
    2. Tokarev rifle with IR optical sight.
    3. IR projectors
      1. PP-45 spotlight (2 units)
      2. Z-15-4 AA spotlight (1 unit)
  2. Goal of trials:
    1. Determine the maximum range of vision with IR light when observing:
      1. A single moving or stationary soldier.
      2. A group of moving soldiers.
      3. Shields, dugouts, local landmarks.
    2. Determining the possibility of shooting from a sniper rifle using a nighttime IR sniper scope and determining range at various levels of light."

Pak 43 Problems

$
0
0
"Experience with 88 mm Pak 43 anti-tank guns

Front line experience showed that towed 88 mm anti-tank guns are of limited usefulness in mobile warfare (counterattacks, mobile defense, and especially when covering retreats).

Causes:
  • The 4.5 ton mass, 1.9 meter height, and completely unprotected prime movers limit its mobility on the battlefield.
  • As a rule, there is not enough time to organize a proper firing position.
  • The gun, due to its size, cannot be concealed from the enemy (especially from the air).
  • Due to the difficulty of turning the gun, it is difficult to defend against infantry at close range.
Conclusions: The towed 88 mm gun is only useful in positional warfare. In mobile warfare, it can only be used in the main directions of defense, for example in important sectors, control over which is especially important.

The manual 18/9 "Instructions on using the 88 mm Pak" issued on June 27th, 1943 is being revised."

CAMD RF 500-12480-24

TK-3 and TKS: Poland's Armoured Cockroaches

$
0
0
By pure numbers, Poland had an impressive amount of armoured vehicles in WWII: about 870 units (against approximately 2700 German tanks in Army Group North and South). However, three quarters of them were rather unusual vehicles: TK-3 and TKS tankettes. What were the machines that formed the backbone of the Polish armoured forces like?

An Architecture Student and his Roach

One of the first large battles of WWII began on September 9th, 1939: the Battle of the Bzura. Polish Poznan and Pomorze armies, retreating to the east from the Poznan salient, ended up in the rear of the German Army Group South, which was aiming towards Warsaw. Moving at night, the Poles secretly reached the Bzura river and delivered a powerful blow against the left flank of the German 8th Army. The south-east offensive liberated many cities and forced the Germans to revise their plans in central Poland, moving additional tank and airplane units towards Bzura. The situation was so critical for the Germans that on September 17th, the Luftwaffe cancelled all sorties except those in the Bzura region. Nevertheless, the Poznan and Pomorze armies were unable to change the overall course of events; the Germans were at Lvov on September 12th and completed the encirclement of Warsaw on September 14th.

Among other units, the Great Poland Cavalry Brigade was a part of of the Poznan army, which in turn contained the 71st Armoured Battalion. Out of the three companies of this unit, formed just before the war (August 24th-27th), only one was equipped with vehicles which would be referred to as tanks. These were 13 machinegun-armed TKS (and possibly TK-3) tankettes, four of which were rearmed to 20 mm wz. 38 model A autocannons, classified as "super-heavy machineguns" by the Poles. One of these "heavily" armed tankettes ended up under the command of a platoon commander Sergeant Roman Edmund Orlik, a student of the Warsaw Polytechnical University, drafted on August 26th. The second member of the crew was the driver, Bronisław Zakrzewski.

Roman Edmund Orlik (front) with Bronisław Zakrzewski in front of his tankette.

During the Battle of the Bzura, the Great Poland Cavalry Brigade fought fiercely against the 4th Tank Division of the 16th Motorized Corps, 10th Army. On September 14th, the brigade attacked at Brochów. In this battle, Orlik destroyed 3 tanks from the 36th Tank Regiment. Likely these were PzI and PzII tanks, as they made up the majority of the tanks in the 4th division.

On September 18th, the Great Poland Cavalry Brigade, now a part of the Operational Cavalry Group, formed to clear the path to Warsaw for the rest of the elements of the Poznan army who were being encircled by Germans, was fighting near the Kampinoski Park, west of the capital. Orlik's platoon (in Polish sources, a half-platoon, półpluton), his tankette and two more armed with machineguns were sent out to scout. Hearing the noise of tank engines ahead, the sergeant ordered the machinegun tankettes to hide and put his own tankette in an ambush.

Diagram of the tank battle drawn by Orlik after the war.

A column of three tanks and several cars from the 1st Light Division was driving along the road. Opening fire suddenly, Orlik knocked out the front tank with a shot to the side, forcing the rest of the vehicles to drive into the forest to go around. Changing positions, Orlik destroyed the other two tanks. The rest of the column fled, and his platoon left the battle with no losses.

Several sources claim that the tanks he destroyed were Czech PzKpfw 35(t) tanks, since those were the most common in the 1st Light Division, but one of the tanks was likely a PzIV. The division had several tanks of this time, and lost 9 of them between September 1st and September 25th.  Wiktor IV Albrecht von Ratibor was among the heavily wounded in this battle, and later died. Several sources state that he commanded a PzIV crew, and there is even a photograph of his destroyed tank.

Possibly  Wiktor IV Albrecht's tank, destroyed by Roman Orlik on September 18th.

On September 19th, Orlik took part in the Battle for Sieraków, where a few dozen tanks of the German 11th Tank Regiment and 65th Tank Battalion attacked the Polish 7th Mounted Rifle Regiment and 9th Lancer Regiment. More than 20 German tanks were destroyed by the Polish tankers and towed guns from the 7th towed artillery squadron, 7 of which were claimed by Orlik. He also captured two German tankers prisoner. After that, Orlik managed to drive his tankette to Warsaw, take part in its defense, and then join the Polish resistance after its fall. He survived the war and worked as an architect.

Taking his vehicle into account, his achievements (13 knocked out or destroyed tanks in less than a week) are pretty amazing. The small, lightly armoured, and lightly armed TKS tankette looks nothing like a menacing tank destroyer. Nevertheless, practice showed that it can be a deadly weapon in the right hands. Seeing as how Orlik became a tanker several days before the war, mastering it wasn't hard.

Polish military historian Janusz Magnuski cites a captured German tank officer as saying "It's hard to hit a small cockroach with a gun". What were these cockroaches like?

A Pole with British Roots

British tank building experiments echoed throughout the world. The "six-ton Vickers" birthed a family of tanks that fought for several nations in WWII. The fate of the two-man MkVI tankette created by John Carden and Vivian Loyd, called "Carden-Loyd tracked machinegun carrier" in Soviet literature. These tankettes were produced in the USSR (T-27), France, Czechoslovakia, Japan, Italy, Poland. In the last two countries, tankettes were the majority of tracked armoured vehicles by the start of the war.

Carden-Loyd MkVI tankette (without a machinegun) towing a howitzer.

The British tankette, armed with a 7.7 mm water cooled Vickers machinegun, was cheap and easy to produce. It used many easily accessible automotive components in its design, including the Ford T engine.

In 1929, its mass production in Britain began, and Poland bought one unit for trials. After a demonstration at the proving grounds in Rembertów on June 20th, 1929, a decision was made to buy 10 more tankettes, which formed two platoons of five each. Expanded trials showed that the tankettes have good mobility and off-road performance, which, combined with their small size, made them perfect reconnaissance vehicles. A decision was made to replace wz.28 armoured cars in reconnaissance squads of cavalry units with tankettes. Poland purchased a license to produce the Carden-Loyd MkVI.

Further trials from September to December of 1929 showed several drawbacks. For one, the uncomfortable unsprung suspension caused problems, exhausting the crew during prolonged trips. Two British-built vehicles were improved with half-elliptical  leaf springs.

These half-measures were not enough, and the vehicles that were put into mass production were the subject of a much more thorough modernization. The TK-1 and TK-2 were intermediate stages of the improvement process. They differed in the position of the drive sprocket: on the TK-1 it was in the rear, but on the TK-2 it was in the front.

While the TK-2 still used the Ford T engine, the TK-1 used the new Ford A. Both vehicles received an electric starter and a Hotchkiss wz.25 air cooled machinegun. As for the name of the Polish tankette, there is no single opinion about its origins. TK can stand for the last names of the designers who worked on the project, Tszeczak and Karkoza, the initials of Lieutenant Colonel Tadeusz Kossakowski, from the engineering department of the Polish army, or just an abbreviation of the word "tankette". 

Prototypes; TK-2 (front) and TK-1. Behind them are original Carden-Loyd MkVIs. The photograph was likely taken in 1930. Ursus A and two Saurer trucks are visible in the background.

Mass Production

Further experiments led to the creation of a third variant of the vehicle with a closed top. The new vehicle, indexed TK-3, was adopted by the Polish army in 1931. 100 tankettes were made in total, split into three batches. 15 TK-3s from the first batch were made with mild steel.

Mass production version of the TK-3 tankette. Mass: 2420 kg. Engine: 40 hp Ford A. Top speed: 46 kph. Range: up to 200 km. Armament: 7.92 mm Hotchkiss wz.25. Ammunition capacity: 1800 rounds.

In the early 1930s, the Poles purchased a license for the Italian FIAT-122BC engine to replace the Ford A, which had to be purchased abroad. In 1933, these engines were installed on several tankettes. In total, between 18 and 22 tankettes (indexed TKF) were made with these engines. Likely, they were counted towards the 100 TK-3 made, somewhere towards the end of production.

In 1933, work to modernize the TK-3 began. The TKS (pre-war style, TK-S) received a new hull with improved armour. The tankette was equipped with the domestically produced FIAT engine and a new transmission. The suspension was reinforced, tracks widened, and the track tension system altered. The commander received a rotating modern periscope, and the machinegun was installed in a ball mount. The first prototype used a water cooled wz.30 Browning machinegun, but a decision was made to return to the air cooled wz.25, like on the TK-3.


Mass production version of the TKS. Mass: 2750 kg. Engine: 46 hp FIAT 122BC or 42 hp FIAT 122AC. Top speed: 45 kph. Range: up to 160 km. Armament: 7.92 mm Hotchkiss wz.25 machinegun. Ammunition capacity: 1920 rounds.

In total, 262 TKS tankettes were built before April of 1937. The lighter TKS-B variant was developed as an artillery tractor. Instead of armoured plates, it used ordinary steel. The vehicle was lighter, faster by 5 kph, used less fuel, was easier to control, but was never put into production.

It was obvious from the beginning that a tankette armed only with a machinegun could not fight against enemy armoured vehicles. There were several ideas to re-arm them with more powerful weapons. A proposal was made in 1931 to use the 13.2 mm Hotchkiss heavy machinegun. Variants with 37 and even 45 mm guns were explored. In 1935-36, the heavy 20 mm Solothurn S-18-100 anti-tank rifle (used as the primary armament on the Toldi tank) was tested on a TKS tankette. The trials showed that it could be useful to install a weapon of this caliber, but idea was rejected as the rifle could only fire single shots.

After testing out several models of Oerlikon, Solothurn, and Madsen autocannons, a decision was made in August of 1939 to re-arm 80 TKS and 70 TK-3 tankettes with the recently designed 20 mm wz.38 model A guns. 

Prototype of the 20 mm wz.38 model A "super-heavy machinegun".

Only 50 guns were made before the war, and even fewer were actually installed on tankettes: between 20 and 24. Roman Orlik was lucky enough to end up in one of them. Combining their small size, good mobility, and improved armament, these TKS and TK-3 tankettes were among the most useful of the Polish tank fleet.

TK-3 tankette with a 20 mm wz.38 model A autocannon.

Experiments on Roaches

Any story of Polish tankettes should mention experimental vehicles on their chassis. In late 1932 or early 1933, an experimental TKW (W for wieża, turret) turreted version of the tankette was built. Both air and water cooled machineguns were tried out. Experiments with this mini-tank showed that it was extremely cramped, had terrible air flow, and bad visibility. The center of gravity was too high and the right side was overloaded, which could lead to it flipping over. The driver's armoured cabin restricted to turret's rotation to a 306 degree arc.

Turreted TKW tankette armed with a water cooled machinegun.

The TKD self propelled gun was built on the TK-3 chassis in 1932, armed with a 47 mm short barreled Vickers QF gun. The SPGs were meant for anti-tank and artillery support of cavalry units. Exercises in the summer of 1933 showed that there were no problems with the suspension, but the weak gun was inadequate for the needs of the Polish army.

Experimental TKD platoon, early 1930s.

One experimental TKS-D vehicle was armed with a 37 mm Bofors gun. The concept was unique: the tankette served as a tractor for an anti-tank gun, which could be removed from its mount and installed in the tankette if necessary, turning the tractor into a miniature tank destroyer.

TSK-D artillery tractor/tank destroyer. The gun is installed on the tankette, which is towing an empty mount.

Another interesting design was the Polish take on the convertible drive concept which was popular in the 1930s. A special wheeled chassis was designed for tankettes on the Ursus A truck chassis. After driving up a ramp, the drive sprockets connected to the rear axle with chains and the controls were connected to the front wheels. The tankettes took on the shape of heavy armoured cars, although the lack of turret meant that this solution was of questionable utility in combat.

TKS on wheels.

The TK-3, TKF, and TKS tankettes were the backbone of the Polish armoured force before WWII. 600 units formed a mighty army on paper. In reality, they could not serve as a proper replacement for "real" tanks. However, advantages such as small size and good mobility let them perform reconnaissance or fight from ambushes. In the absence of other armour, they could perform the role of an infantry support tank, their presence alone sometimes boosting the morale of Polish infantry and negatively impacting the Germans, who were not expecting to encounter Polish armour.

Medium Tank Mk.III: Britain's Cerberus

$
0
0
By the middle of the 1920s, the British army received a new generation of medium tanks that served for a long time. The Medium Tank Mk.I and Medium Tank Mk.II became the first turreted medium tanks in the world. A good design and high reliability guaranteed a long life for these tanks, but by 1926, the British military was already thinking about their replacement. A Vickers design, the Medium Tank Mk.III, was suitable for the job. Even though the rather interesting design became the ancestor of a series of later tanks, including Soviet and German ones, its life in the British army was a difficult one.

Export Evolution

Even though the Medium Tanks Mk.I and Mk.II were well designed, the military had complaints regarding them. The front mounted engine impacted the driver's visibility. The top speed of the tanks was also unsatisfactory. 24 kph was enough for the 1920s, but the military's expectations grew. This makes sense: there is no such thing as a tank that's too fast, and improving a tank's speed can only improve the tank's fighting qualities.

The new medium tank concept did not come from nothing. Oddly enough, its progenitor was a heavy tank. In 1922, the Ministry of War compiled requirements for a heavy tank. According to them, the tank had to have a low silhouette, rear engine, and the ability to cross 2.8 meter wide trenches. Its armament consisted of a 3-pounder (47 mm) gun and two machineguns in sponsons. The Vickers company joined the project, reworked it, and proposed the installation of the gun in a rotating turret. Eventually, that project turned into a completely different tank, known as the A1E1 Independent. Nevertheless, a tank with a rear engine, one cannon in a turret, and machineguns on the sides was not forgotten.

Medium Mk.C on trials.

The design of this tank began in 1925. The tank, indexed Medium Tank Mk.C, was never ordered by the British army, and was built exclusively for export. This tank was based on the Birch Gun. Like the SPG, the export tank received 13 road wheels per side, and the general design of the suspension makes it easy to guess its origins. However, that's where the resemblance ran out.

As in the 1922 specifications for a heavy tank, the fighting compartment was moved to the front and the engine compartment to the rear. The tank used a water cooled Sunbeam Amazon 110 hp 6-cylinder aircraft engine. This engine granted the tank a decent 10 hp per ton, giving the 11.6 ton tank a very respectable to speed of 32 kph.

A machinegun in the rear of the turret later became a common feature in Japanese tanks.

The machineguns in the sides of the hull also migrated here from the heavy tank's requirements, but they were installed in ball mounts and had such a narrow range that they were almost completely useless. The idea was that the tank would drive on top of a trench and the machineguns would clear it out, but the hard part was getting to the trench with a mere 6.5 mm of armour. That much armour could only reliably protect from small arms fire at several hundred meters.

A fully fledged door in the front of the tank looked unusual, to say the least.

The turret armament was no less interesting. The front of the turret only housed a 57 mm 6-pouder gun, like the ones used on the famous "rhombus" tanks. There was also a machinegun in the turret, but it was located in the rear, inside the turret bustle. It is unclear why this was done.

In order to compensate for the lack of a coaxial machinegun, the designers installed another machinegun in the front of the hull. The 5 crewmen of the Medium Tank Mk.C had 1 cannon and 4 machineguns at their disposal.

Vickers engineers decided to place a door in the right part of the front. This was not it for wonders on this side: there was also a special bulge for the driver's legs.

This gun is all that remains of the Irish Medium Tank Mk.D.

A prototype of the Medium Tank Mk.C was finished in 1926. The British army put the tank through trials and quickly rejected it. The military did not want to sacrifice armour for speed, and some engineering decisions made in the design were quite puzzling.

On the other hand, a foreign customer was found quickly. The Japanese bought the tank in 1927, and it became the progenitor of the Type 89 medium tank. Curiously enough, the Japanese kept the door in the front, the hull gun, and the curious arrangement of the armament in the turret.

The Medium Tank Mk.D followed. Ireland bought it in 1929. The tank served in the Irish army until 1940. Its gun served even longer as a part of a fortification line in Curragh, where the tank spent all its life. The gun survived to this day and can be seen in Curragh (County Kildare). 

Three Heads are Better than One

Even though the Medium Tank Mk.C was a dead end, Vickers managed to benefit from its creation. Not only did it sell the tank abroad, but the design process itself gave them priceless experience. This experience came in handy before the Mk.C even left the factory.

In 1926, the Royal Tank Corps began working on requirements for a new medium tank based on the first exercises with the Medium Tanks Mk.I and Mk.II. The requirements were completed in June. For starters, the idea of hull machineguns was deemed senseless, since such weapons had very poor fire mobility. The obvious conclusion was the introduction of separate turrets, but the Medium Tank Mk.I/Mk.II layout could not support this solution.

The only way was to move the engine to the rear of the tank and put the turrets int he front. The mass of the tank had to remain at 15.5 tons, since British pontoons could not carry a weight of over 16 tons. The tank was also required to be able to destroy enemy tanks at 1000 yards (900 meters). The presence of a radio was mandatory, as was moving the fuel tanks from inside to hull to the sides. Another requirement was a reduction in noise.

16-ton Vickers at the factory courtyard.

The new Vickers medium tank concept was ready quickly: in September of 1926. The engineers already had experience with the Medium Tank Mk.C, along with the A1E1 Independent, the heavy tank that was built according to the requirements from 1922.

According to calculations, the mass of the new tank, indexed A6, was about 14 tons with 14 mm of armour in the front and 9 mm on the sides. This was enough to protect the tank from rifles and machineguns. Like in the A1E1 Independent, the driver's cabin was placed in the center of the hull, and the turrets were to its sides. A turret with a 3-pounder gun and coaxial machinegun was placed in the center of the hull. Another turret was placed behind the main turret with an AA machinegun, but its lifespan was brief. The designers quickly removed it to lose weight.

The engine was placed in the rear of the hull. Two engine variants were proposed. The first was a 120 hp engine that gave the tank a top speed of 22.4 kph. The second, a much more interesting choice, was a 180 hp V-shaped Armstrong-Siddeley engine. The tank could achieve a top speed of 32 kph, with over 10 hp/ton.

It's easy to see how different the A6E2 is from the Medium Tank Mk.II.

A wooden model of the tank was ready by March of 1927. The model was accepted, and two prototypes of the tank were approved: A6E1 and A6E2. Both tanks lost their AA turrets and two Vickers machineguns were installed in each machinegun turret. Since both turrets only housed one man, this decision is unlikely to have made his life easier.

The second tank was equipped with a Wilson planetary gearbox with a hydraulic mechanism. ROF Woolwich was selected as the organization that would assemble the tank. The mass of the A6 reached 16 tons, giving the tank the index "16-tonner", which would often be used in correspondence.

Turn your attention to the large opening in the suspension: it contains a hatch.

The first tank, A6E1, registration number T.404, was ready at the beginning of 1928. Overall, its design was the same as the wooden model. The hull, elevated at the front, offered comfortable working conditions for the crew. Like the A1E1 Independent, the tank received hatches in the sides. To improve resistance to bullets, deflector plates were installed in the front. As the requirements stated, the majority of the fuel (416 L) was outside the hull. The remaining 37.5 L were inside the tank to improve its center of gravity. The main turret had two commander's cupolas.

The tank was not without its oddities. The driver had no observation slits, so when the hull was closed he had to drive the tank blindly. There was also no room for a radio, since the turret had no bustle.

The second tank, A6E2, looked almost identical to its brother. The tank were often called 16-tonner #1 and #2.

The tanks were subjected to various tests during trials.

Both tanks were shipped to the Mechanical Warfare Experimental Establishment (MWEE) in Farnborough. There, A6E1 received the registration number ML 8698 and A6E2 - ML 8699. During trials, the A6E2 received a new engine: the 180 hp Ricardo CI. It was quickly discovered that the new engine was not as good, and it was replaced. It was also proposed that a pair of Rolls Royce Phantom I engines with a combined power of 190 hp be tested in the A6E1, but this idea was never implemented.

It's worth noting that the A6's designers underestimated their creation. The tank could achieve a top speed of 41.5 kph, very respectable for the time. The suspension, borrowed from the Medium Tank Mk.II, turned out to be a little weak for the new tank. In 1929, Vickers engineers proposed three replacement designs, two of which were modifications of the old suspension and one of which required a redesign of the whole tank. Another unpleasant but predictable surprise was the result of firing trials at Lulworth. It turned out that handling two machineguns in a small turret was too difficult.

The A6E3 received a new suspension and lost its side hatches.

The results of the trials led to an improved design indexed A6E3. Upon arrival at the MWEE proving grounds, the tank received the serial number MT 9637. The new tank received machinegun turrets similar to those used on the A1E1 Independent. The amount of machineguns was reduced to one per turret, and the turrets themselves were made a little roomier by shifting the machinegun to the right. The amount of cupolas on the main turret was also reduced to one.

The tank was equipped with a new suspension. The road wheels were grouped together into four groups of two bogeys each.The suspension was similar to the one used on the Vickers Mk.E by John Carden and Vivian Loyd. The new design did not result in noticeable improvements, but increased the tank's weight to 16.25 tons.

In order to improve the speed of the tank, the A6E3 was equipped with a powerful 500 hp diesel Thornycroft RY/12 engine, which was used on speedboats. It is not known how much the top speed of the tank increased, but this did not help the suspension any.

Failed Handover

Despite problems with the suspension, the A6 was a good design, suitable for replacing the Medium Tank Mk.II. Specifications were made for an improved A6, indexed Medium Tank Mk.III.

Often, the names A6 and Medium Tank Mk.III are mixed up. The Medium Tank Mk.III did not have the A6 index. The two tanks were very much alike, and even the mass was the same at 16 tons. Since no breakthrough was made with the A6E3, the Medium Tank Mk.III used a suspension similar to the Medium Tank Mk.II. The design was changed a little, but overall remained the same. The engine was also left alone. The length of the tank remained, but its width grew slightly. The machinegun turrets migrated from the A6E3.

Medium Tank Mk.III at the factory, 1929.

Medium Tanks Mk.III E1 and E2 were built at ROF Woolwich in 1929. They received registration numbers T.870 and T.871. One of their main differences from the A6 was the turret. The A6 conical turret could not fit a radio station, so the new tank received a turret with a bustle that could fit a No.9 radio. Another difference was the commander's cupola. It was shifted to the left and replaced with a design borrowed from the Medium Tank Mk.IIA.

It's easy to see the difference between the turrets of the A6 and the Medium Tank Mk.III from the top.

Alas, the appearance of the Medium Mk.III coincided with the sad events that caused a crisis in British tank building. The "Great Tank Scandal" caused the disbanding of the Experimental Mechanized Force, formed in 1927 bu Colonel John Fuller. Soon, the worldwide financial crisis struck the military budget. Since the navy remained a priority at the Ministry of War, the budget cuts were primarily compensated for in other branches. Tank building was one of the scapegoats.

Driver's station on the Medium Tank Mk.III A3.

Later, the Medium Tanks Mk.III E1 and E2 were sent to MWEE, where they received refistration numbers MT 9707 and MT 9708. In 1931, Vickers built a third (and last) Medium Tank Mk.III. The tank, numbered T.907 and MT 9707, differed from its predecessors in its modified suspension. Trials which lasted until 1933 showed its superiority over the Medium Tank Mk.II. However, there were problems with the suspension that were reduced on the Medium Tank Mk.III A3, but not by a lot.

A reduction in financing and dragging on of the trials doomed the Medium Tank Mk.III. By 1934, it was obvious that it's too late to put this tank into mass production. 

Medium Tank Mk.III in the British Army.

This sad end did not mean that the Medium Tanks Mk.III and A6 would not end up in the military. Unlike its predecessors, the Medium Tank Mk.III ended up being used by the army. In 1934, the tanks were included in the tank brigade that became the reincarnation of the Experimental Mechanized Group. The brigade, created in 1931 in Solsberry, consisted of three mixed battalions. The Medium Tanks Mk.III were included in the brigade as commanders' tanks. The MT 9707 was used heavily by the brigade before, and was soon taken apart. The fate of MT 9708 was even worse: a fire broke out during exercises. The tank burned out and had to be written off. The MT 9709 served for much longer, until 1938.

The Medium Tanks Mk.III received positive feedback during their service in the tank brigade. The level of comfort of use and service was higher than that of their predecessors.

Debriefing in the tank brigade, mid-1930s.

The "Vickers 16-ton" did not go unnoticed by tank building nations of the world. The British military considered the idea of two machinegun turrets successful. The idea later migrated to light tanks, such as the Vickers Mk.E Type A. The idea of additional machinegun turrets was aso used on the British Cruiser Tank Mk.I and German Nb.Fz. 

The Medium Tank Mk.III made an even more noticeable impression on Soviet tank building. In 1930, a purchasing commission headed by the chief of the UMM, A. Khalepskiy, arrived in Great Britain with the goal of buying tanks. Vickers offered the standard set of export tanks: the Carden-Loyd Mk.VI, the light Vickers Mk.E, and the Medium Tank Mk.II. All three tanks were purchased, the Carden-Loyd tankette later turned into the T-27, and the Vickers Mk.E into the T-26.

As for the Medium Tank Mk.III, the British first refused to show it. Later, the position changed. The cost for examining the documentation was 20,000 pounds Sterling, and another 16,000 for each tank. In addition, the deal required larger orders of other tanks. Finally, Semyon Aleksandrovich Ginzburg, who later became a key figure in Soviet tank building, obtained detailed information about the tank through trickery.

It's hard to call the resulting T-28 a copy of the Medium Tank Mk.III. Ginzburg headed the development of the T-28, but only took the overall concept of a medium tank with a rear engine compartment, three turrets, and 16-17 ton mass. In all other respects, it was a completely different tank.

Viewing all 1899 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>