Quantcast
Channel: Tank Archives
Viewing all 1900 articles
Browse latest View live

Light Tanks, 1944, Part 1

$
0
0
"To the Chief of the GBTU Tank Directorate, Major-General comrade Afonin
January 5th, 1944

The preliminary tactical-technical requirements for a light tank that you sent were examined by a small circle of design and technology managers. Having studied your requirements in detail, we came to the following conclusions:
  1. In general, the requirements are realistic and such a tank can be designed and built at our factory.
  2. A number of issues you presented require special investigation and only then can they be implemented in a production vehicle.
Based on the above, we ask you to consider the following wishes of the factory when composing the revised tactical-technical requirements.
  1. Set the thickness of turret armour at 60 mm for a cast armour variant and 45 mm for rolled armour.
  2. Do not specify the position of the transmission and drive sprocket. Let the designer select the best possible position of the transmission and drive sprocket.
  3. Reduce the maximum speed from 50 kph to 42 kph in order to retain more torque at top speed and all intermediate speeds.
  4. Allow a torsion bar suspension with bogeys instead of only an independent torsion bar suspension, as this will allow for reduced weight and still allow for sufficient flexibility.
  5. Set the maximum ground pressure at 0.65 kg/cm² instead of 0.6 kg/cm², as it will still allow for satisfactory off-road mobility and lower the weight of the tank in otherwise equal conditions.
  6. Don't specify the mounting of the gun, leaving it up to the designer. Installation of the gun from the outside makes the turret larger and increases the weight. Installation of the gun from the inside decreases weight and allows for a better shape, but makes assembly more difficult. The final decision should be up to the designer, who will weigh all the advantages and disadvantages.
Issues connected with significant experimental work caused by insufficient experience, unusual designs, and difficulties in production must be considered when designing the tank, but must not constrict the viability of the tank during its early production.

In connection with that, we consider the following:
  1. A long and careful investigation must be conducted due to the fact that the MK-4 observation device will make using an AA machinegun on the commander's cupola difficult and the optimal positions of the machinegun, observation device, and sight during firing of the machinegun must be found.
  2. Planetary transmissions. This is a completely new topic for domestic tank building. It will require a long design period and a long production refinement period, which will cause delays in production of a new type of tank or growing pains during initial stages of production. Work on a planetary transmission must be done in parallel, and the tank's design must allow for painless installation of the transmission after it has been refined.
  3. Two-stage turning mechanism. In our opinion, there is no reason to complicate the turning mechanism for this class of tank and a one-stage turning mechanism that's a part of the planetary transmission is acceptable.
  4. We consider it necessary to build a new 8 cylinder engine for a new light tank. A diesel based on the V-2 engine with a 60 degree angle between cylinders will reduce the length of the engine, increase power, and allow the use of major V-2 components.
I ask that you immediately reply with your decisions regarding the issues we raised. We consider that the topic of a new light tank is timely and the decision to start working on such a tank must be made immediately.

Chief engineer of the factory, Demyanovich
Chief designer, Gudkov"


Light Tanks, 1944, Part 2

$
0
0
"To the Chief Engineer of factory #174, comrade Demyanovich
January 26th, 1944

Regarding your inquiry relating to tactical-technical requirements for a light tank, here are the possible changes to requirements:
  1. The choice of the best position of the transmission and drive sprockets is left up to the discretion of the factory designer. The transmission must be easy to remove, install, and service in the field.
  2. The maximum speed can be lowered to 42 kph, but the average speed on a dirt road must remain at 30 kph.
  3. The suspension can be either individual torsion bar or torsion bar with bogeys, under the condition that it remains sufficiently limber and reliable.
  4. The maximum ground pressure should be no more than 0.65 kg/cm².
  5. The 60 mm of turret armour specified in the requirements much be rolled and high hardness. In case of cast armour, it must be at least 75 mm thick. The slope of the turret sides should be at least 30 degrees.
  6. Mounting the gun from the outside allows the replacement of the gun in the field without a high capacity crane.
  7. Experience in the Patriotic War showed that it is reasonable to have AA machineguns on a tank. I consider that it is necessary to install an AA machinegun on the rotating part of the commander's cupola. I am attaching overall drawings of the M4A2 tank to be used as a reference on how to install an AA machinegun on the roof of a turret.
  8. Until a planetary transmission is designed, it is acceptable to install a regular mechanical gearbox into the tank with a two-stage planetary turning mechanism.
    After the planetary transmission is designed and tested, it should be installed in the tank to replace the regular gearbox and two-stage planetary turning mechanism.
    To make decisions regarding the design of gearboxes easier, I refer you to the Baumann institute, which previously worked and is still currently working on such a transmission for heavy and medium tanks.
  9. The Kirov factory SKB-75 is working on a diesel engine for a light tank. The design will have a significant number of parts in common with the V-2.
    1. Engine name; V-20
    2. Number of cylinders: 8
    3. Angle of cylinders: 90 degrees
      Contact the Kirov factory to be informed of the latest developments on the V-20 and to receive full information about the topic.
Chief of the GBTU Tank Directorate, Major-General of the Engineering-Tank service, Afonin
Chief of the 6th Department of the GBTU Tank Directorate, Engineer-Colonel Solinin"

SU-76-57

$
0
0
"Mounting of a 57 mm mod. 1943 gun on a SU-76M SPG

This project is being designed according to an order from the Artillery Committee and consists of the installation of a 57 mm mod. 1943 ZIS-2 anti-tank gun barrel on the mount from the 76 mm mod. 1942 ZIS-3 gun on the SU-76M SPG chassis.

The ZIS-2 and ZIS-3 have identical semi-automatic systems and breeches.

The main characteristics of the prototype are shown in the table next to those of the SU-76M:

Characteristic
57 mm gun
76 mm gun
Muzzle velocity:
High explosive
Armour piercing
Subcaliber armour piercing

700
990
1270

680
662
950
Shell mass, kg
High explosive
Armour piercing
Subcaliber armour piercing

3.750
3.120
1.780

6.50
6.56
3.02
Rate of fire, RPM
12
10
Maximum gun elevation
17°
15°
Minimum gun depression
-4°
-3°
Horizontal range
+/-15°
+/-15°
Ammunition capacity
60
60
Crew
4
4
Full length of the SPG, mm
5625
5120
Penetration (calculated)
Armour piercing shell at 90°
100 m
300 m
500 m
1000 m
2000 m

Subcaliber armour piercing shell at 90°
100 m
300 m
500 m
1000 m
2000 m


115
110
106
96
77


175
160
140
120
95


79
76
73
65
48


128
110
92
77
58
Combat weight, tons
10.5
10.5

Trials of the experimental prototype were performed at the Gorohovets artillery proving grounds from May 1st to May 4th of this year in the amount of 270 shots, 107 of them with an increased charge.

After trials, a second variant of the 57 mm SPG was proposed to the Molotov factory, with the following changes:
  • Install the 10-T periscopic sight (remove the panoramic sight of the 76 mm mod. 1942 gun).
  • Install an electric trigger in the elevation flywheel handle. It is permitted to use mass production components to make the trigger.
  • Completely close the fighting compartment in order to protect the crew from bullets and shrapnel (6-8 mm thick roof, 15 mm rear plate).
Currently, GAZ is working on the second variant of the SPG."

SU-122-2 in Combat

$
0
0
The CIA has a tendency of detecting all sorts of armoured vehicles that are as interesting as they are fictional, but this time they might have hit the mark.


Two guns, like a SU-122, but larger. There can be only one answer!


Or, more likely, not that, but a man can dream.

First Soviet Tanks

$
0
0
The first tank built in the young Soviet Republic was the "Russian Renault", a poor copy of the most numerous and probably best tank of WWI. It is also known as "Freedom Fighter Comrade Lenin", after the name of the first tank of the batch. There were 15 Russian Renaults built in total at the Krasnoye Sormovo factory in Nizhniy Novgorod under the supervision of visiting engineers from the Putilov and Izhor factories. This group was headed by Sergei Petrovich Shukalov. The Putilov and Obukhov factories were pioneers of the Russian Empire when it came to mastering complicated machinery, and the Izhor factory specialized in producing armoured plates and parts for the Imperial army.

Tanks were not built in Soviet Russia after the end of the Civil War. The country's industrial capacity was aimed at industrialization and restoration of the ruined agricultural sector. However, the topic of tanks was not forgotten. The Obukhov factory was studying tanks captured by the Red Army from the Whites and interventionist forces. Little by little, fragments of information arrived from workshops in the south of Russia, where the last battles just ended, about the specifics of foreign tanks that local craftsmen repaired for the White Army. The Obukhov factory was entrusted with the repair and service of existing tanks starting in the summer of 1921, as the quality of work at Sormovo was not satisfactory for the military. In 1922, the factory was renamed to "Petrograd State Armament, Optics, and Steel Casting Factory "Bolshevik"". 

T-18 (or MS-1, Small Support) tank on parade. November 7th, 1929

A design bureau was created in Moscow at the Main Directorate of Military Industry, headed by S.P. Shukalov. At first, the bureau designed the T-18 tank (or MS-1), a new modernization of the Renault FT. The T-18 was completed by 1925, and its mass production began in 1928 at the Bolshevik factory.

The army needed a more powerful support tank, and the UMM (Mechanization and Motorization Directorate) created requirements for a new tank with cannon and machinegun armament in rotating turrets. The "Komintern" Kharkov Locomotive Factory (HPZ) was tasked with its design under the supervision of Shukalov's design bureau, which was then renamed to the Armament-Arsenal Trust. The Kharkovites already had experience with civilian tracked vehicles (the Kommunar tractor, based on the German Hanomag WD Z-50). Now they had to learn how to build tanks.

The Muscovites did not try to take over all the work. On the contrary, they loaded off as much of it to Kharkov as possible. Initially, the deputy chief engineer M. Adrianov and deputy tractor plant foreman V. Dudka were responsible for the tank, but a special tank design group was created in 1927 with I.N. Aleksenko at the helm, a young and talented designer who had just returned from serving in the army. Most designers working here were very young. Aleksenko turned 23 in 1927, A.A. Morozov, one of his deputies, turned 23 as well, and most other engineers were even younger.

I. N. Aleksenko: head of the HPZ tank design group from 1927 to 1931. In May of 1929, the specialized T2K design bureau was formed on the basis of the group.

The group began working actively. A tank prototype was ready by October 15th, 1929, but it took two more months to install equipment. The T-12 was influenced by two design schools: the American and the French. The layout was largely borrowed from the M1921 Christie tank, built in 1921 and not mass produced. It rejected the rhomboid layout of WWI tanks had a layout that would soon become classic: driver's compartment in the front, fighting compartment in the middle, engine and transmission in the rear. It was likely that the layout was taken from unclassified sources, such as American popular science magazines, where American designers often published advertisements.

American M1921 tank designed by Christie.

The T-12 had a machinegun was placed in a separate cupola, which was placed on top of the main turret in order to save on space and mass. This created certain issues for the crew and increased the height of the tank, but engineers went to further lengths to save on weight.

The influence of the French school can be seen in the suspension. It almost completely repeats the design of the T-18 (MS-1), which, in turn, was a copy of the French Renault NC-27.

Wooden model of the T-12.

The T-12's running gear consisted of 16 road wheels (8 per side) paired up in eight bogeys (4 per side) with a vertical spring suspension. The tracks were supported by four return rollers. The tank had its drive sprocket in the rear and the idler in the front.

The plan was to equip the T-12 with a domestic engine designed by A.A. Mikulin (a nephew of the father of Russian airplane building, N.E. Zhukovskiy), which would be built at the Bolshevik favtory. Since no engine was built yet, the tank was equipped with the 8 cylinder 240-300 hp M-6 aircraft engine, a licensed copy of the French Hispano-Suiza 8Fb.

A planetary gearbox allowed the tank to reach a speed of 26 kph. The T-12 was equipped with a 690 mm metallic "tail" in the rear, which lengthened the tank and allowed it to cross trenches up to 2.65 meters wide. This trait was inherited from the T-18.

The nonagonal three-man (commander, loader, machinegunner) turret would be equipped with a 45 mm cannon or a 76 mm howitzer. The sides of the turret had two 7.62 Shpagin ball mounts for Fedorov machineguns. The third machinegun was installed in the front of the turret, to the right of the gun. The fourth was installed in the machinegun cupola, which was shifted to the rear from the center.

T-12 in the factory courtyard.

The armour was sufficient for its time: 22 mm in the front, 12 mm on the sides. The hulls of the T-12 and T-24 tanks were built at the Izhor factory. The T-12's driver was placed in the front, towards the right side, which is an unusual feature of Soviet tanks exclusive to the T-12 and T-24.

Trials of the T-12 began on April 2nd, 1930. The tank drove for 2 km off-road, but the transmission soon broke. The engine worked for only 33 minutes before it overheated and the water in the radiator began to boil. When turning on soft soil, the right track slipped off the idler.

The tank was improved, and new trials took place from April 28th to May 2nd of 1939, this time with People's Commissar of Armament Marshal Voroshilov, UMM chief Corps Commander I.A, Khalepskiy, and NTU (Scientific-Technical Directorate) chief G.G. Bokis. The factory was represented by the HPZ director L.S. Vladimirov and the chief of tank production, S.N. Makhonin. Instead of the Fedorov machinegun, which was not yet built, the tank was equipped with a 7.7 mm Lewis machinegun and showed good results: up to 60% hits on target. The tank could easily climb a 35-36 degree grade in first gear, reach a speed of up to 26 kph on flat ground (up to 30 kph if the engine was revved up to 2000 RPM), cross trenches up to two meters wide, and was fairly agile off-road. The ground pressure was 0.45 kg/cm², which was acceptable. Nevertheless, the tank was not accepted into service.

It was already clear by mid-1929 that the T-12 would not enter mass production due to inherent design defects that made it unreliable and gave it a short range (80 km). The HPZ design bureau, which was born out of Aleksenko's design group, was tasked with developing an improved modification of the T-12 in parallel with completion of work on it. This modernized variant was named T-24.

T-24 mod. 1930.

The design of the T-24 was not much different from that of the T-12. The additional fuel tanks were placed on top of the fenders, since there was no room inside, like on the T-18. Another machinegun was installed in the upper front plate, and another crew member was added: the machinegunner, sitting to the left of the driver.

The UMM instructed HPZ to build a batch of 15 T-24 tanks without awaiting trials. The first three tanks were completed by July of 1930, and one was sent to Kubinka for trials. Here, the tank was sent to the proving grounds with full fuel tanks and 10 rounds of ammunition. However, a fire quickly broke out within the engine. The crew left the tank in panic, aside from the driver, Vladimirov, which put out the fire and saved the tank on his own. The tank received minor damage and was sent to be improved further.

T-24 prototype on trials. Neither the 45 mm gun nor Fedorov machineguns were ready, so the tank had to start trials without them.

The nonagonal T-12 turret was replaced with a cylindrical one, and the old turret was returned to the T-12. The new turret had a new experimental 45 mm gun instead of the old 45 mm Sokolov gun, which would go on to become the famous 45 mm tank gun mod. 1932. The machineguns were removed from the sides of the turret, leaving only the machineguns in the front of the hull and turret and in the cupola. Instead of the Fedorov machinegun, which was never finished, the tank was equipped with Degrtyaryev mod. 1929 machineguns. The ammunition capacity of the tank was 89 shells and 8000 rounds.

The mass of the tank grew from 14.7 to 18.5 tons as a result of all the changes, which reflected on its mobility. The top speed dropped to 24 kph. The fuel capacity increased to 460 L, which increased the range by 1.5 times: from 80 to 120 km.

T-24 tank.

After side-by-side trials of the T-12 and T-24 tanks, the UMM made an order for 300 T-24 tanks in 1931. A special T2 wing was built at the factory for tank assembly, and Aleksenko's T2K design bureau was enlarged. However, the UMM Scientific-Technical Committee chief, I.A. Lebedev, tasked the HPZ director with building the convertible drive BT tank. Production of the T-24 was cancelled, and the factory only had time to build 28 chassis, 25 hulls, and 26 turrets (production was behind schedule). 25 tanks were assembled.

Moscow had several reasons to make this decision. First, a purchasing commission headed by Corps Commander I.A. Khalepskiy visited a number of foreign tank design and production organizations, and made deals with some of them regarding licensed production in the USSR. Khalepskiy convinced the People's Commissar of Armament, Marshal Voroshilov, that buying and building Vickers and Christie tanks was a better deal than wasting time dealing with problems that Western designers already found solutions to. History shows that this was the correct decision.

Member of the T2K design bureau at HPZ.

Engineers from Eduard Grotte's design bureau, recruited by the same commission, designed the TG-1 medium tank, a prototype of which was built at the Bolshevik factory in Leningrad. Its armour, armament, reliability, and mobility was superior to that of the T-12 and T-24, as well as that of most Western analogues, and Soviet leaders saw it as the Red Army's future medium tank. The discovery that the tank was too expensive for the Soviet economy and too complicated for Soviet factories was only made much later.

What was obvious in Moscow was met with confusion in Kharkov. According to deputy UMM chief G.G. Bokis, "factory director Bondarenko openly called the fast tank a "saboteur tank" in order to discredit it... it took great efforts, up to contacting the Government, to force HPZ to build the BT tank and correct defects in its blueprints and designs during production."

BT-2 tank.

After pressure from Moscow, work on the future BT-2 tank finally began, but not at the rate that was considered satisfactory by Soviet leaders. Only three tanks were assembled by November 1st, 1931, as opposed to the six that were planned. The new tanks took part in the November 7th parade in Kharkov.

N.I. Aleksenko put in his resignation, with the reasoning that forcing the factory to produce foreign tanks was unpatriotic and harmful to the development of domestic design talent. On December 6th, 1931, he was replaced with A.O. Firsov, the former chief engineer at the "Russian Diesel" factory in Leningrad. Firsov was previously convicted as a saboteur (work in Kharkov replaced five years of camps). This change was pivotal for the factory, Soviet tank building, and the country as a whole.

Firsov brought ideas to HPZ that would later set the stage for the legendary T-34 tank: a diesel engine, which was soon built by Kharkov specialists, and a 76 mm gun as a tank's main armament. The T-34 inherited a welded hull and the Christie suspension from the BT tank. All of this would come later. Meanwhile, the creators of the T-24 were outraged about the changes that came from above, but kept working.

T2K design group, with its leader from 1931-1936, A.O. Firsov, in the middle.

The fate of the 25 T-24 tanks was dramatic. They were not in demand until 1932, when the 45 mm mod. 1932 tank gun was finally accepted into service. By then, the UMM realized that the Soviet T-26 and BT-2 tanks, build on the foundation of the foreign Vickers E and Christie tanks, could achieve the same objectives that the T-24 tanks were built for. In addition, work was underway at the Kirov factory on the multiturreted T-28 medium breakthrough tank, which was superior to the T-24. The T-24 was not accepted into service after all.

18 tanks were sent to the Kharkov Military District (HVO), where they were distributed among training units. One tank was left in the Moscow Military District (MVO) and assigned to the Stalin Military Mechanization and Motorization Academy. Five more tanks were sent to tank and artillery proving grounds. By 1938, most of these tanks were disabled due to breakdowns in the engine, transmission, or suspension.

On March 2nd, 1938, the People's Commissariat of Armament ordered these tanks to be removed from service, partially disarmed, have their armour removed, and have them sent to fortified regions to be used as immobile bunkers (BOTs). Earlier, MS-1 tanks were converted into BOTs. The order was applied to the 22 T-24 tanks in HVO and in warehouses. The Kiev Military District would receive 12 tanks (all from HVO), and the Belorussian Military District would receive 10 (6 from HVO, 1 from MVO, 3 from the warehouse-workshop #37 in Moscow).

The tanks had their engines, transmissions, tracks, and other suspension elements removed. Only the road wheels remained so that they could be towed around. The machinegun cupola, machineguns, and 45 mm gun were also removed. They were replaced with a 76 mm gun (L-10 or KT-28) and a 7.62 mm Maxim machinegun in a ball mount to its right. The driving compartment was radically altered, the front armour was increased, and two more Maxim ball mounts were added. This armoured bunker was not buried in the ground, but towed and positioned in front of a likely enemy breakthrough.

There is no information about how this order was carried out. It's possible that the process was drawn out, since German photographs from 1941 show T-24 tanks converted into BOTs, but not placed into position.

German solder in front of a T-24 BOT, armed with a 76 mm L-10 gun. Leningrad Military District, fall of 1941.

There is information about one complete T-24 tank at the Kubinka proving grounds. In the fall of 1941, it was presumably sent to the front lines.

Artyom Drabkin's book "I Fought in a Tank" contains the memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Ashot Aletovich Amatuni, who wrote about the battles in the Salkiye Steppes in the summer of 1942, where he fought as an infantry cadet:

"We marched from the Surovikino station to the front lines... took up defenses somewhere 120-140 km west of Surovikino. Tanks were our most dangerous opponents, since the only method we cadets had against them were bottles with incendiary fluid... We were faced not with light T-II tanks, but medium T-III and T-IV tanks, serious opponents. By the end of the fighting, we were supported by English Matilda tanks and our T-24s, but these were small, bad tanks. Only the T-26 seriously helped us..."

It's unlikely that we will ever learn if the veteran mistook some other tank for the T-24 or is these were indeed T-24s, never converted into BOTs but instead lost in an unfair fight.

LPP-25: Light, Simple, and Unwanted

$
0
0
The light LPP-25 anti-tank gun was built as an answer to the German s.Pz.B.41 anti-tank rifle. As a result of information that reached Soviet designers from the front lines, a weapon was born that did not lose out to the German gun, but without the complex and short-lived conical barrel. What was this LPP-25 like?


The idea of a light anti-tank gun with high penetration was born in the Dzerzhinskiy Artillery Academy in the spring of 1942, when its lecturers learned of light and effective German anti-tank weapons. This information was combined with information about massed use of fast tanks, assault guns, and armoured cars with, at the very least, bulletproof armour, and the theories of the lecturers about the use of anti-tank guns in battle.

Ambitious plans

The academy's students and most of the teachers were sent to the front lines. The academy itself was evacuated to Samarkand in mid-November of 1941. The remaining teachers did not lose contact with their former students and colleagues, and proposed a new weapon based on correspondence with th front lines.

Drawing of the LPP-25 type 1, travel position.

Anti-tank guns were the main method of dealing with tanks and armoured cars. They were very effective during defenses when firing from prepared positions, but needed tractors during an offensive to keep up with tanks and infantry. If the enemy counterattacked, they did not have time to prepare convenient positions. For these reasons, the use of anti-tank rifles to reinforce infantry units on the defensive and during an offensive was considered optimal. These rifles had a number of advantages: they were light, small, and had good penetration at short range. At the same time, they had their drawbacks: heavy weight for only one soldier, difficulty in aiming at moving targets, insufficient penetration at ranges past 300 meters.

As a result, a project was created to plug the gap between an anti-tank rifle and a medium anti-tank gun: a light anti-tank gun, capable of keeping up with infantry. The main opponent of this gun would be light and medium tanks, armoured cars, regular cars, and enemy strongholds. The larger caliber would improve penetration and the mount would make it easier to aim at moving targets. The s.Pz.B.41 conical barreled anti-tank rifle influenced the development, as it was ideal for that role.

The project's main author was Engineer-Lieutenant-Colonel A.N. Sidorenko. Engineer-Captain M.F. Samusenko and Engineer-Captain I.I. Zhukov worked alongside him. They composed tactical-technical requirements for a weapon which was presented to the department of artillery. After a long discussion, work on the project was approved.

Drawing of the LPP-25 type 1, battle position.

The 25 mm caliber was chosen for the gun, as it was optimal from the point of view of compactness and overall weight, but allowed for penetration of over 35 mm of armour. The gun was designed to use as many parts from guns that were currently in production as possible.

The ammunition was new, but made with existing components. The 295 g AP shell was taken from the 25 mm AA autocannon mod. 1940, and the casing was a necked-down version of the 37 mm mod. 1930's round. The muzzle velocity of 1200 m/s was expected. The overall weight of the gun was limited to 230 kg.

Seems that the designers of the project, indexed LPP-25, had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the ammunition for the s.Pz.B.41, and not just the gun itself. A special 25 mm shell with a tungsten core was proposed, similar in size to the one in the German shell. The argument was that the USSR already produced tungsten cores for 12.7 mm bullets and a slightly larger core would not be an issue. The mass of such a shell was 200 grams, and the muzzle velocity would increase to 1400 m/s.

Barrel of the anti-tank gun.

Since the tungsten core shell would be expensive to produce, it was assumed that the ammunition loadout would contain no more than 25% of these shells and that they would be used only in special circumstances, such as when enemy heavy tanks appeared less than 300 meters away and all regular shells were expended.

Calculations were also done for a shell analogous to the German s.Pz.B.41. In this case, the muzzle velocity increased to 1700 m/s and the penetration would have been 1.5 times higher. The calculated penetration of the LTT-25 with any shell was higher than that of its German equivalent.

The barrel and breech of the gun were developed in April of 1942. The overall project was finished and approved in May, at a special meeting with the academy's dean. After that, the blueprints were passed on to the People's Commissariat of Armament for production.

The barrel and breech were built at the Molotov factory #172 in Motoviliha, a suburb of Molotov (within modern day Perm). Since the factory was busy with production of the 45 mm mod. 1937 gun and tasks connected with the M-42 and M-6 guns, it took some time to fulfill the academy's request. Only a long string of letters and personal involvement of GKO member L.P. Beria in October of 1942 managed to get two barrels and two breeches produced and sent to factory #702 in Tashkent.

Left: the shell from the 25 mm mod. 1940 AA autocannon in the shell casing from the 37 mm AT gun mod. 1930. Right: LPP-25 type 1 AT gun in travel and battle position.

Factory #702 developed working blueprints and assembled two experimental prototypes on different mounts and with different barrels. Some parts were built by warehouse #20 in Tashkent. Thorough cooperation was required, and production was faced with many difficulties, mostly because of lack of communication. This delayed production.

Both guns were delivered to the academy in January of 1943. A commission inspected the prototypes on January 30th and tried out the first prototype. Due to a lack of an artillery proving grounds or proper gunpowder, a limited amount of trials was performed.

Calculated penetration of the LPP-25 depending on distance and angle of armour:


LPP-25
s.Pz.B.41

1
2
3
Angle
90
60
90
60
90
60
100 m
73
53
105
78
Up to 75
45-50
400 m
62.3
44.8
82
57
40
-
500 m
59.3
42.7
76
54
-
25
600 m
55
40.4
-
-
-
-

Variant 1: steel shell, V₀ = 1200 m/s, mass = 295 g
Variant 2: special shell, V₀ =1400 m/s, mass = 200 g
Variant 3: special shell 28/20, V₀ = 1360 m/s, mass = 123 g

Description of the LPP-25 type 1 anti-tank gun

  • Caliber: 25 mm
  • Practical rate of fire: 20-25 RPM
  • Vertical range: -7 to +11 degrees
  • Horizontal range: 30 degrees
  • Aiming speed: 
    • Horizontal: 6° per second
    • Vertical: 2°24' per second
  • Bore axis height: 300 mm
  • Clearance: 300 mm
  • Wheel base: 1080 mm
  • Mass: 240 kg
  • Time to convert from travel to battle position: 8-10 seconds
  • Dimensions in travel position, LxWxH: 3500x1250x1060 mm
  • Dimensions in battle position, LxWxH: 3300x2020x800 mm
  • Top speed: 60 kph
  • Number of parts without wheels or sight: 402, 32 of which are borrowed from other designs
The gun was made up of five assemblies:
  • Oscillating part
  • Upper mount with elevation and turning mechanism
  • Lower mount with wheels, suspension, and trails
  • Shield
  • Optical sight
The oscillating part included the cradle, recoil brake, monobloc barrel with 12 rifling grooves (34 caliber twist), 2525 mm in length (L/101), connected with the breech, the direction case, the retaining nut, return mechanism, and muzzle brake. The breech was taken from the 37 mm AA autocannon mod. 1937 with some minor changes.


Conversion of the LPP-25 from battle position to travel position. The project's authors are likely pictured.

The upper mount contained the elevation and horizontal traverse mechanisms, which were similar in design to "classical" anti-tank guns.

The pipe-like trails with travel locks were attached to the lower mount with ball joints. The lower mount was built as a platform with the wheels, suspension, and trails.

The wheels deserve special attention. Mounted on a cranked axle with a winch and leaf springs, they were taken from the TIZ AM-600 motorcycle, but with a solid tire. The shape of the axle raised the wheels in battle position, and the lower mount rested on the ground on a special spade.

The shield was 3 mm thick, had an irregular shape, and was sloped at 30 degrees. The shield was designed to protect the crew from pistol caliber bullets and light shrapnel. The shield could not deflect a rifle bullet at close range.

Aiming flywheels of the LPP-25 type 1.

The "duck" type optical sight was original, and had 3x magnification and a FOV of 12 degrees. It was designed to fire at a range of up to 1000 meters without raising the gun.

Firing trials showed that the muzzle velocity was less than calculated: 1165-1180 m/s instead of 1200. Nine shots were fired at the 465. mm rear hatch of a T-34 from 140 meters at 90 degrees. Two hits registered, one in the side, making a penetration with a fragment knocked out, one in the center, making a clean penetration.

It turned out that the muzzle brake, designed like the German s.Pz.B.41 muzzle brake, was too effective, at three times better than calculated. This caused short recoils, and the semiautomatic mechanism either worked poorly or not at all. The muzzle brake was safe and did not stun the gun crew. It was decided that using this muzzle brake design on other guns was reasonable.

Rear hatch from a T-34 tank after being shot with the LPP-25 gun.

The gun turned out to be stable when firing with the barrel in any position. This was achieved because the mount rested on the ground in battle position.

The gun was easy to move across cross-country terrain with the strength of the crew alone. The small weight and size allowed it to fit inside the truck bed of a ZIS-5 truck and many others. A proposal was made to simplify the design by removing the suspension. That way the gun could fire from its wheels.

LPP-25 anti-tank gun, type 2

The second variant of the gun had significant differences. The barrel, designed for shells with a muzzle velocity of 1400 m/s, had its rifling twist at 45 calibers, as opposed to 34 calibers with the first type of gun. There was no traverse mechanism. Aiming was done in the same way as on the s.Pz.B.41, with the gunner's right hand pulling on a handle attached to the cradle. The handle also housed the firing mechanism. A ribbon brake was used to regulate the aiming sensitivity which was used for precise aiming (for example, at the firing port of a pillbox).

The shield attachment was simplified. The wheels were removable, and had handles for transport. The box-like trails were similar to early s.Pz.B.41 trails. The optical sight was different, the PP-9 model.

LPP-25 type 2 in battle and travel positions.

The LPP-25 type 2 was assembled from 375 parts, not counting the sight or wheels, 32 of which were already in mass production.

After trials, the academy commission concluded that the LPP-25 was a modern artillery system that could become a good anti-tank gun to support infantry and tanks. The commission concluded that the gun could be installed on an SPG, used in airborne units, was simple and safe to use, and had significant reserves for simplification. The ammunition could be put into mass production quickly. The commission deemed it necessary to send the gun to proving grounds trials.

Trials

On February 6th, 1943, the dean of the Artillery Academy, Major-General S.P. Sidorov, sent documents regarding the design and trials of the LPP-25 to the Deputy People' Commissar of Defense, Marshal of Artillery N.N. Voronov and GAU Chief Colonel-General N.D. Yakovlev with a request to perform trials.

On March 30th, 1943, a decision was made by the Chief of Staff of Artillery, Major-General of Artillery F.A. Samsonov, that if the drawbacks of the LPP-25 were resolved, it could be accepted as battalion or even regimental level artillery.

The LPP-25 began trials at the Gorohovets proving grounds in early July of 1943. Three types of shells were made: light subcaliber (163 grams), regular steel, and a tungsten core round.

Firing from the LPP-25 type 1.

Aside from trials against armoured plates and stability trials, the light subcaliber shell was used against a captured German tank "medium in weight and heavy in armament" (likely a PzKpfw III) from a range of 100 meters. The gun was aimed at the 45 mm thick upper and lower front plates. The results were all complete penetrations.

However, not all calculations were correct. For example, it took 20-30 seconds to convert the type 1 gun into battle position, and 26-45 seconds to convert it back. The mass was also a bit higher than expected at 277 kg. The width of the shield was insufficient, it was uncomfortable to aim, a lack of recoil guard meant that the crew could sustain injury when firing, and the sight markings were poor.

A number of improvements followed, including the gun shield.

The second round of trials took place during September and November of 1943. The trials found the type 1 gun superior, under the condition that newfound defects be resolved.

Improved gun shield for the LPP-25 type 2.

The penetration of the LPP-25 was established as follows:
  • The stock AP-T shell from the 25 mm AA autocannon mod. 1940 (286 g) penetrated 45 mm of armour at 60 degrees from a range of 340 m.
  • The experimental light subcaliber shell, German type (167 g) could penetrate 60 mm of armour at 60 degrees from 500 meters, 75 mm of armour at 60 degrees from 65 meters, and 90 mm of armour at 90 degrees from 200 meters.
  • The experimental subcaliber shell from the 25 mm AA autocannon mod. 1940 with a tungsten core (200 g) could penetrate 60 mm of armour at 60 degrees from 400 meters, 75 mm at 60 degrees from 115 meters, and 90 mm of armour from a range of over 190 m, but less than 300 m.
The lifespan of the barrel was 600-650 shots.

Even though the gun showed satisfactory ballistic performance, satisfactory precision, good maneuverability and low visibility on the battlefield, simplicity of service and sufficient penetration, it was not adopted into service. The 37 mm ChK gun designed by E.V. Charnko and I.A. Komaritskiy was chosen instead.

The LPP-25 gun was an excellent light gun, suitable for mid-WWII. It was an excellent example of how to achieve impressive penetration with a small caliber using simple technical solutions.


Original article by Vadim Antonov.

Cheating at Statistics 17: Leaving Leningrad

$
0
0
In early 1944, the German forces around Leningrad weren't doing so well. The blockade around Leningrad had ruptured, Sinyavino heights were lost, and Army Group North was beginning to slink back westward. Introduction of the hyped up Tiger tank failed to make a difference here. Now these Tigers, namely s.Pz.Abt 502, were holding back the Red Army while the rest of the Germans escaped. Forczyk describes the situation: "The remaining Tigers of the s.Pz.Abt.502 assisted the AOK 18 in its withdrawal by turning to ambush the Soviet spearheads; on 25 January they claimed 41 Soviet tanks destroyed at Voyskovitskiy, 5 km southwest of Gatchina."

Anyone who's been keeping up with this long running series will have recognized the perfect storm: the Tiger crews know for a fact that the battlefield will remain in Soviet hands and that their claims will not be checked. There was also incentive to make up for the Tiger tank's rather dismal performance on the Leningrad front. Let's take a look at just what happened at Voyskovitsy on January 25th.

January 25th was well into the Krasnoye Selo-Ropsha Offensive Operation, known as January Thunder or Neva-2. The 42nd Army, was attacking from Krasnoye Selo southwest, towards Pskov. By this time, it had reached Gatchina.

Diagram #142
Leningrad and Volkov Fronts
Krasnoye Selo-Ropsha Offensive Operation and its progress to Pskov (fragment)

For once, everything is very cut and dry in the documents:


"Armoured and Mechanized Forces:
...
The 220th Tank Brigade fought for Zhernovo, Voyskovitsy station, Ilkino, and was passed over to the commander of the 196th Rifle Division at 16:00"

Looks like they were the only ones fighting here. Let's take a look at their documents.


"At 12:20, the tanks moved out from their initial positions and into battle.
At 13:00, the tanks crossed the railroad and burst into Ilkino and Voyskovitsy station. At 13:30, the tanks had carried out their mission, having captured Ilkino and Voyskovitsy station, where they set up 360 degree defenses. Rifle units were cut off upon approaching the railroad and did not proceed further, as the enemy impeded them with automatic fire. The enemy turned Voyskovitsy station into an anti-tank stronghold, reinforced by 3 AA batteries and 4 gun crews (as we learned from a prisoner after the battle). The tank attack destroyed a portion of the anti-tank stronghold.

At 14:00, two Tiger tanks and one Ferdinand SPG appeared on the road between Voyskovitsy and Ilyino. They started shooting up our light tanks at point blank range from the southwest outskirts of Ilyino. The AA gun batteries partially resumed activity and began firing at the tanks again.

The tanks fought for over 3 hours, taking heavy losses, and had to retreat to a grove 1 km east of Ilyino.

7 T-34 tanks arrived at the battlefield at 15:30, reinforcements from the 1st Red Banner Tank Brigade, which participated in battle and took losses.

Losses of tanks consisted of:
Burned: 14 T-26 tanks, 1 T-34 tank
Knocked out: 1 T-34 tank"

Even counting the tank that was knocked out instead of destroyed, that's 16 vehicles knocked out by the Tigers, whatever that Ferdinand was (most likely a StuG), and the AA and AT batteries, compared to 41 claimed by the Tigers alone. 

OSA-76

$
0
0
"Lightened 76 mm SPG OSA-76

Factory #38 designed a draft project of a lightened 76 mm SPG (factory designation OSA-76) with a ZIS-3 gun on their own initiative.

The draft project was presented to the GBTU USA for review.

Experimental prototypes of the SPG are being build.

Brief tactical-technical characteristics of the OSA-76:
  1. Mass: 3400 kg
  2. Armour:
    1. Front: 6 mm
    2. Sides: 4 mm
  3. Engine power (four cylinder engine): 50 hp
  4. Range: 250 km
  5. Dimensions:
    1. Length (with barrel): 4800 mm
    2. Width: 2050 mm
    3. Height: 1560 mm
  6. Bore axis height: 1050 mm
  7. Top speed: 35 kph
  8. Armour piercing shell muzzle velocity: 662 m/s
  9. Armour piercing shell mass: 6.5 kg
  10. Vertical range: -5° to +12°
  11. Horizontal range: +/- 10°
  12. Ammunition carried: 30 shells
  13. Crew: driver, gunner, loader
  14. Sight: mechanical, with Hertz panorama
The armour has three variants:
  1. First:
    1. Front: 6 mm
    2. Sides: 4 mm
  2. Second (combat mass 3700 kg):
    1. Front: 10 mm
    2. Sides: 10 mm
  3. Third (combat mass 3800 kg):
    1. Front: 15 mm
    2. Sides: 10 mm"

Tractor Tanks and SPGs

$
0
0
"Minutes from a technical meeting at Comintern factory #183 regarding producing SPGs at factory #183
August 27th, 1941

Participants:
  • Factory director, Y.E.Maksarev
  • Chief engineer, P.M. Krivich
  • Chief designer, A.A. Morozov
  • 52nd Department Chief, N.G. Zubarev
  • GABTU regional engineer, D.M. Kozyrev
  • Military Engineer 2nd Class R.E. Sorkin
  • Senior GAU military representative, G.P. Lozbinev
The following topics were discussed:
  • Installation of an 85 mm AA gun designed by factory #8 in an SPG designed on the T-34 chassis.
  • Installation of a 76 mm F-34 tank gun designed by factory #92 in an SPG designed on the Vorozhilovets tractor chassis.
  • Installation of an 85 mm AA gun designed by factory #8 in an SPG designed on the Vorozhilovets tractor chassis.
The meeting established that:
  1. Installing an 85 mm gun on the A-42 tractor can only be done at the cost of reducing the amount of T-34 tanks that are produced, as the A-42 tractor has not entered production.
    Due to this fact, the meeting decided that continuing work on this SPG is senseless. Work on this SPG should be ceased.
  2. Approve the production of a prototype of the SPG with an F-34 gun on the Voroshilovets tractor platform designed at factory #183 with the following characteristics:
    1. Armament: ZIS-4 or F-34 gun, DT coaxial machinegun.
    2. Horizontal range: 360 degrees.
    3. Type of SPG: turreted.
    4. Combat mass: 23,000 kg
    5. Armour:
      1. 20 mm sides and turret
      2. 20-30 mm front and lower rear
      3. 15 mm roof
      4. 10 mm floor
    6. Bore axis height: 2300 mm
    7. Maximum speed: 35 kph
    8. Range: 200 km
    9. Engine: 375 hp V-2V or M-17T powered by kerosene.
  3. Accept the F-34 gun as the armament.
  4. Approve the production of 25 of these SPGs in October and November, under the condition that the amount of SPGs produced will not count towards the number of Voroshilovets tractors ordered by the NKO.
  5. The first prototype of the SPG will be delivered to the NKO/NKSM commission. Trials will determine the necessary changes to be made to production SPGs.
  6. In order to increase the firepower of the Voroshilovets tractor, GAU, factory #183, and factory #8 will investigate the possibility of installing an 85 mm AA gun designed by factory #8 on its chassis.
  7. The deadline for this investigation at factory #8 is September 10th, 1941. The deadline for communicating the results of the investigation to factory #183 is September 15th, 1941.
  8. These decisions must be approved by the NKSM and GAU/GABTU.
Signed
[Signatures]"

Soviet Mega Tanks

Provornov's Light Tank: T-34 in Miniature

$
0
0
Hundreds of tank-themed proposals were sent to the Main Automobile and Armour Directorate of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War. There was a wide spectrum of ideas and inventors. There were workers, scientists, engineers, ordinary citizens. A significant percentage was made up of military men of all ranks and branches. One of these men was Lieutenant Provornov, who proposed a light tank in July of 1942 with a number of original solutions. It was never built in metal, but fans of World of Tanks know it as LTP.

A Tank from a Tanker

July 5th, 1942, was a pivotal date in Soviet tank building. GKO decree #1958ss "On production of T-34 and T-70 tanks" cancelled the production of small T-60 tanks. They left the stage to make room for the improved T-70. At the same time, factory #264 in Krasnoarmeysk switched to producing hulls for T-34 tanks, which the front needed like the air they breathed.

On the same day, a letter arrived at the Main Automobile and Armour Directorate of the Red Army (GABTU KA) with a design for a tank that could have replaced the T-60. The author of this design was Lieutenant Konstantin Yakovlevich Provornov. Lieutenant Provornov was not involved with inventions until this moment, as he had more important things to do. Provornov entered the Red Army in 1939 and met the start of the Great Patriotic War as a platoon commander in the 98th Tank Regiment of the 49th Tank Division. In late July of 1941, the 49th division was encircled at Uman, the lieutenant was heavily wounded and disappeared. Provornov was listed as MIA until February of 1942, when he was discovered in a hospital.

Cutaway of Provornov's tank. It's not hard to guess what existing design inspired him.

Provornov fought in a T-34 tank, and this was reflected in the light tank design that he proposed to GABTU's Department of Inventions. At the time the lieutenant was only 22 years old, but his light tank was very well designed. This was because the young tanker knew the Red Army's tanks well. As a direct user, he knew the advantages and drawbacks of the tanks he served with.

T-40's Competitor

Before we example Lieutenant Provornov's idea, let's remind ourselves what tanks the Red Army had in the summer of 1942. Mass production of the T-50 tank, which was supposed to become the most numerous representative of its class, failed. The development of light tanks started from turning the small T-40 amphibious reconnaissance tank into the T-60, then T-70. That was the correct decision for the time, but the T-70 had some nuances.

The layout of the T-40, T-60, and T-70 placed the engine to the right of the driver. The turret was also displaced to the left. If a shell hit the engine, fire quickly engulfed the tank. In addition, the layout inherited from the amphibious tank left little room for improvements. The T-80 tank with a two-man turret that appeared in the end of 1942 was the pinnacle of this family. Further evolution was senseless.

Final drive diagram.

Provornov's light tank was much more interesting than the T-70, and especially the T-60. The inventor was familiar with the T-60 at the very least, which can be seen in the design of the engine. He also knew the design of the light T-26 tank. In concept, the tank he proposed was closer to the T-34. The resemblance can be seen in the overall shape. A hull with sloped armour, a familiar turret, rear transmission, all of this came from the T-34. Of course, the tank was not just a copy, as it contained a number of original and interesting ideas.

 Provoronov joined the engines into one unit.

Characteristics of the Design

Provoronov's light tank was an 11 ton three-man fighting vehicle. The hull was only 4 meters long, less than not only the T-70, but the T-60 as well. The hull was also narrower than that of its analogues at 2 meters. The tank's layout within such confining dimension was a difficult task, but Provornov managed to solve it. As mentioned above, because of the T-40's amphibious past, the T-60 and T-70 used their internal volume poorly. This is especially evident in the front, where there was a lot of empty space. Thanks to a T-34-like hull shape, Provornov's tank did not have this drawback.

The driver's position was further forward than on the T-60 or the T-70, which freed up space behind him. The driver used a large T-34-like hatch to get inside, which was equipped with two observation devices. A ball mount with a DT machinegun and a periscopic sight like the ones used on STZ T-34s was installed next to it. An emergency evacuation hatch was installed in the floor.

Fuel system layout. The placement of fuel tanks outside of the fighting compartment was a definite plus.

The rear of the tank also had a lot in common with the T-34. The tank used a pair of GAZ-11 engines, same as the T-40, T-60, and T-70. According to calculations, their combined power of 170 hp could achieve a top speed of 45 kph. The implementation of the pair of engines, however, was novel: both engines were connected to a perpendicular gear system. The engines were also installed on the same frame, shared fuel lines, ignition systems, and electric starter.

The cooling system was also original. The radiators were placed above the engines. The same solution was used on the T-26 tank. The result was a compact assembly that fit into such a small hull. The rear of the tank also fit the 500 L fuel tanks. According to calculations, the range of the tank on a highway was 430 km, and the range on a dirt road was 300 km. The placement of the fuel tanks outside of the fighting compartment was a definite bonus. The transmission was also in the rear. The final drives were the same as on the T-60. Large access hatches could be used to access the engine and transmission compartment, just like on the T-34.

Engine/transmission compartment hatches, inspired by the T-34.

The suspension, combining the solutions from the T-34 and T-60, was also very rational. Provornov's tank used a torsion bar suspension. Unlike the T-60 or T-70, it did not have return rollers. Each side had 4 650 mm road wheels, much larger than on the T-60. The width of the tracks was 300 mm. The tracks of a modernized T-70, which appeared several months after Provornov's proposal, had the same width.

While the hull layout was reasonable, the turret raised some questions. Provornov managed to fit a two-man turret into the tank, despite such a small size and dense layout. The diagrams only give an approximate idea, but the turret ring diameter was the same as on the T-26 and BT-7, which was large enough to comfortably house two men.

The design of the smaller tank's turret was similar to that of the T-34's turret. According to the description, the turret was cast. It inherited a large hatch from the T-34 in addition to the shape, as well as the observation devices. The armament consisted of a 45 mm gun and a coaxial DT machinegun. The ammunition capacity was 150 shells and 75 DT magazines. Considering the size of the tank, the actual amount of ammunition carried would likely have been smaller.

Torsion bar suspension and idler diagram.

Fate of the project and its author

Lieutenant Provornov came up with a light tank that was appropriate for contemporary realities and had a number of original solutions. It was a good replacement for the T-60 and was no worse than the T-70. The amount of thought that went into the design was more than in some actual design bureaus. The issue was that the tank was no longer needed. Production of the T-70 was in full swing, and work on SPGs on its chassis had already begun. Compared to that, the young tanker's work was destined to remain in the archives.

Provornov's light tank turret, based on the T-34 turret.

Thanks to published archive documents, it was possible to discover Provornov's fate. The lieutenant received the position of a platoon commander in the 214th Tank Battalion, 65th Tank Brigade. Provornov participated in Operation Kutuzov, the finale of the Battle of Kursk. According to his award order, Provornov's crew destroyed 2 tanks, 3 guns, and up to 30 enemy soldiers on June 26-27th. For his skilled actions, he was awarded the Order of the Red Star.

Unfortunately, Lieutenant Provornov died on the very next day in battle for the village of Gorki, Orel oblast. He was buried in a mass grave next to the village. Later, the grave was moved to Rzhava, Orel oblast. Who knows what could have happened to Provornov, had he survived the war? Many former officers became notable tank designers. Among them was, for example. Leonid Nikolayevich Kartsev, who had a number of battle medals and later became a leading tank designer.


Halftrack Experiments

$
0
0
Ever since their appearance in the mid-1910s, halftracks have been considered as a chassis for armoured vehicles, especially SPGs. Better off-road performance than wheeled vehicles and stability made these vehicles an attractive chassis for artillery. Halftrack SPGs were popular in Germany and the United States. The heroes of this article, Soviet ZIS-41 and ZIS-43 halftracks, are not as well known.


Bigger Chassis

Wheeled SPGs (29-K SPAAG on the YaG-10 chassis and light SU-1-12 on the GAZ-AAA chassis) were the only kind of SPG that was built en masse in the USSR in the 1930s. As for halftracks, artillery designers were not interested. The reason was simple: the USSR had no halftracks that could be used as an SPG chassis.

The Scientific Automotive Tractor Institute (NATI) managed to produce halfway decent halftracks only towards the end of the 1930s. The GAZ-AA based halftrack received the index GAZ-60, and the ZIS-5 halftrack was called ZIS-22. Both vehicles were in mass production by 1941, but the military showered them in complaints. An increase in off-road performance came at the cost of higher fuel consumption, and the speed of halftracks was much lower than that of wheeled trucks.

The problems with the halftracks were obvious, and it's not surprising that NATI, as well as GAZ and ZIS factory design bureaus, actively worked on all wheel drive trucks. ZIS was working on ZIS-32 and ZIS-36 trucks, which were supposed to replace the ZIS-5 and ZIS-6. GAZ worked on GAZ-63 and GAZ-33 trucks, which would replace the GAZ-AA and GAZ-AAA.

Trials of the 37 mm 61-K AA autocannon on the chassis of a ZIS-32 truck, July of 1941

GABTU could see that these vehicles were much better than halftracks. It's not surprising that in May of 1941, when work on SPGs was discussed, the ZIS-22 halftrack was absent from the list of prospective chassis. However, the idea of installing the 25 mm 72-K autocannon in the ZIS-32 or ZIS-36 truck bed was raised.

Work in this direction went further than just theory. ZIS-32 and ZIS-36 trucks equipped with the 37 mm 61-K AA autocannon began trials in early July. Trials went successfully. However, the ZIS-36 never entered mass production, and the ZIS-32 did not last long on the assembly line, and only as a regular truck. Nevertheless, this was a signal to look into development of analogous SPAAGs on the mass produced GAZ-AA, GAZ-AAA, and ZIS-5 truck chassis.

Halftracks were also absent from the list of factory #92 projects. By July 20th, 1941, the design bureau prepared prototypes of 57 mm anti-tank gun armed SPGs. The ZIS-30 was built on the chassis of the Komsolomets tractor, and the ZIS-31 was built on the GAZ-AAA chassis with an armoured cabin. The ZIS-30 turned out better, since the Komsomolets performed better off-road. That is when Grabin turned his sights to a halftracked chassis.

ZIS-22M halftrack, July of 1941. Grabin picked this vehicle as the chassis for his tank destroyer.

The GAZ-60 could not be used as a chassis, as it could barely pull itself along. The ZIS-22 was a different story. An improved version of this vehicle, indexed ZIS-22M, entered trials in June of 1944. It had the improved ZIS-16 engine and an improved radiator from the ZIS-101. The suspension was also modernized. The vehicle performed better than the ZIS-22 on trials, and it was recommended for mass production. This was the vehicle that factory #92 decided to use as the chassis for its new SPG. The project was not Grabin or Muravyev's personal initiative. The work was overseen by the Directorate of Ground Armament of the Main Artillery Directorate (UVNA GAU KA).

ZIS-41 on trials, April of 1942

Tactical-technical requirements for a "57 mm anti-tank SPG on the chassis of a ZIS-22M all-terrain vehicle" were finalized on August 21st, 1941. The accompanying letter, copies of which were sent to ZIS and factory #92, indicated that the changes to the ZIS-22M chassis should be minimal. In addition, the chassis had to be returned to ZIS after the design was complete. That was done because the ZIS-22M existed in very small numbers at the time.

According to the requirements, the chassis had to have armour for the cabin and engine compartment, as well as the fuel tank and ammunition racks. The mass had to be no more than 6.5 tons, and the range at least 250 km. Aside from a ZIS-2 gun, the halftrack had to have a DT machinegun in the cabin. The SPG had to carry at least 100 shells, which had to be easy to load. The rate of fire was estimated at 15 RPM.

Crossing a snowy slope.

The appearance of the SPG that was indexed ZIS-41 was no accident. Only 100 ZIS-30s were produced, and the Komsomolets tractor was out of production by August of 1941, so no more could be built. There was no alternative to the ZIS-22M. The problem was that production of the ZIS-22M was also not going smoothly. Only three were built, and an attempt to mass produce it in Moscow failed.

The index ZIS-41 was given to the SPG by factory #92, not the automotive factory in Moscow.

The design of the cooling grilles can be seen in this photo. Trials showed that the design was poor.

It's worth mentioning a few details about the work done in 1941. A few authors write that the vehicle was built and tested in the fall of 1941, and then work stopped before the end of the year. This is not the case. The SPG was definitely built on the ZIS-22M chassis. The question is when it was built. The halftrack itself received the name ZIS-42, and one of the experimental vehicles was equipped with an M-13 rocket launcher system. This vehicle went through testing in mid-September alongside analogous launchers on the T-40 and STZ-5 chassis.

ZIS began its evacuation from Moscow in October of 1941. The question of whether or not the ZIS-41 was finished before then is still open. However, it is obvious that the information about ZIS-41 trials in November is nonsense. The real trials happened several months later.

The gun platform design can be seen in this photo.

According the the experimental work schedule dated February 1st, 1942, the experimental SPG was ready by then, but trials have not yet begun. The Artillery Committee was still preparing the trials program. 15,239 rubles were spent on designing the ZIS-41, 28,255 were spent on building the prototype, and the ZIS-2 gun cost 11,500 rubles.

In addition, it was planned to build 24 ZIS-41s in the spring of 1942, before the trials were even complete. The due date was October of 1942. Factory #92 and ZIS were responsible for production. The budget was 2,400,000 rubles, or 100,000 per SPG. This was not cheap: the light T-60 and T-70 tanks, as well as SPGs on their chassis, cost less.

Nevertheless, the documents prove that work on the ZIS-41 did not end in 1941 and trials were not held in 1941.

With many inconveniences

The ZIS-41 was tested at the Gorohovoets artillery proving grounds (ANIOP). The orders for trials and the trials schedule arrived on February 24th, 1942. The SPG itself came later, on March 13th, and the documentation came a week later. One of the experimental ZIS-22M prototypes was used to build the SPG. It was rather experienced: according to documents, it had already traveled 16,500 km when the mobility trials began.

Factory #92 did not meet the weight requirements. The mass of the ZIS-41 was 7.5 tons instead of 6.5 tons. To be fair, it was not possible to meet them. Conversion of the GAZ-AAA into the ZIS-31 already raised the mass from 2.5 to 5 tons. Since the ZIS-22M had a mass of 5150 kg, it was not possible for the SPG to weigh less than 7.5 tons.

The driver in the ZIS-41 sat like this. No comment.

As required, the SPG received an armoured cabin that covered both the engine and driver's compartment. The cabin held the driver and the machinegunner, although the experimental vehicle had no DT mount. The front armour was sloped. The driver's compartment was not that well thought out. A special report regarding the crew positions was dedicated to this.

Traditionally for Grabin's designs, the crew's comfort came last. There was no space left for the driver's legs as a result. The driver sat bunched up with his knees up to the steering wheel. It would be interesting to see how long someone could drive like this.

Military Doctor Second Class Aleksandrov, who studied the crew workspaces on the ZIS-41, clearly did not think that the driver had to endure all difficulties and adversities of military life, and simply stated that the driver's cabin had to be redone to make room for his legs. However, factory #92 never made this change.

ZIS-41 with the gun removed.

The fighting compartment was significantly different from the one on the ZIS-30. Factory #92's designers took the truck bed, rejecting the flip-open sides. Instead, they added small guard rails around the edges, which served a rather symbolic purpose. The platform itself was made from armoured steel and had a layer of wooden planks above it. The ZIS-2 gun was mounted on a foundation in the middle of the platform, giving it 360 degree traverse. A gun shield was added to protect the crew. If flipped up, the crew could work while standing.

The requirement to carry 100 shells was met in a very unusual way. The SPG had no ammunition racks. The shell crates were laid directly on the platform. Aside from a loader and a gunner, the gun crew included an observer, who also stood on the platform.

Foundation of the gun.

Various modifications led to trials being postponed until April 14th. These were just the mobility trials, gunnery had to wait. The ZIS-41 could remove its gun and be turned into an artillery tractor, and tractors were a pressing issue.

The GAU was working on a half-armoured tractor for divisional artillery at the time. The ZIS-41 was potentially suitable for this role. Plus, the ZIS-42 was built in late April of 1942, which was tested by towing a 122 mm M-30 howitzer. The vehicle succeeded, pulling the gun behind it off-road.

Overall view of the gun shield.

The ZIS-41 entered a new round of trials on April 24th, approved by the Deputy People's Commissar of Defense, Colonel-General N.N. Voronov and the GAU Chief, Colonel-General N.D. Yakovlev. The gun and foundation were removed. Instead, 30 crates of shells for the M-30 and 8 crewmen were put into the truck bed. The howitzer was attached to the rear. In addition to 3 tons in the truck bed, the halftrack pulled another 2.5 tons behind it. The halftrack drove for 192 km between April 24th and April 27th, 8 of them across the snow with skis on its wheels, 145 on a highway, and 49 off-road.

The tractor accelerated up to 37 kph, spending 50 L of fuel for 100 km. On dirt roads, the speed fell to 12-30 kph, in second or third gear. Off-road, the top speed was 5-8 kph, and the fuel expenditure rose to 200 L per 100 km.

ZIS-41 as an artillery tractor.

The effectiveness of the front wheels dropped noticeably off-road. To solve this problem the designers installed tractor type brakes. A similar solution was used on German halftracks. The turning radius was also high: 10-15 meters on the highway, 30-40 off-road. The "regular" ZIS-42 had the same issues.

Another issue was overheating of the engine, which was caused by a poor design of the grille armour and overloading of the vehicle. This was particularly noticeable off-road, when the water in the cooling system began boiling every 2-3 km. The situation on a road was not much better: here the water boiled every 10-15 km. For comparison, the ZIS-42 did not overheat in these conditions. The testers also did not like the lack of normal truck bed walls. The vehicle was deemed conditionally suitable for use as a tractor, but with many cautions.

Mobility trials. It's unlikely that the crew took too much pleasure in riding on the ammunition crates.

Firing trials could only start on May 27th, 1942, and lasted until June 6th. 371 shots were fired, 163 with increased propellant load. The gun itself worked fine, but many complaints were made about the SPG. The lack of an ammunition rack reduced the mobility of fire. The loader had to leave the cover of the gun shield to get ammunition, which put him at risk of being hit by bullets or shrapnel. Another issue was that the gases from the gun barrel could smash the headlights or enter the cabin.

The high bore axis meant that the SPG would start to oscillate when firing. This was specifically noticeable when firing at 90 degree angles. The gunner suffered from oscillations. The report said that his seat was uncomfortable and that he had to hold onto the flywheels in order to keep himself from falling off.

The conclusions were as follows:

"Based on the results of the trials, the Gorohovets ANIOP considers that the 57 mm ZIS-41 SPG requires additional design improvements.
The Gorohovets ANIOP considers the main drawbacks of the SPG the poor stability after firing at a 90 degree angle (the platform tilts at a high angle), unsatisfactory engine cooling, and a lack of ammunition racks. The factory needs to correct these drawbacks, repeat the side shooting trials, and perform additional mobility trials."

Despite the negative verdict, the story of the ZIS-41 was not finished. The GAU liked the idea of installing an anti-tank gun on the ZIS-42, but the vehicle needed a lot of work. In addition, the ZIS-2 was also in trouble. The gun was removed from production in late 1941, and the 76 mm divisional gun mod. 1942, also known as the ZIS-3, took its place. Coincidentally, that gun was designed to use the ZIS-2 mount.

Many battles were fought over the reason for the cancellation of the ZIS-2. Some blame excessive penetration, others have their own theories. The real reason was complicated. First of all, production of barrels, and more importantly, ammunition, for this gun was complicated. In addition, factory #92 was loaded with other orders.

With the ZIS-3 that was initially not accepted into production, the situation was different. The ballistics were the same as the already popular USV and F-34 guns, so there were no unusual problems with its production.

In addition, the ZIS-2 was the target of complaints from antitank gunners. They complained that the gun was too heavy and its trails were too long. The GAU made the decision to develop a similar gun, but with a shorter barrel and a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s. The gun, with a 63 caliber barrel and a ZIS-3 mount, was presented by factory #92 in July of 1942. It was indexed IS-1 and passed factory trials successfully. This gun became the priority for the ZIS-41. However, the Gorohovets proving grounds found a number of defects of the IS-1, and was not put into mass production.

As a result, the GAU was forced to resurrect the ZIS-2 in the spring of 1943. In the summer of 1943, the gun was back in mass production.

Firing trials. The sides of the engine compartment are open, but this did not help against overheating.

The issues weren't only with the gun. ZIS was evacuated in October of 1941 and was busy with restoring the production of trucks. The ZIS-5 was a priority, and nobody had time for the ZIS-42. The prospective SPG remained without a chassis.

The factory didn't exactly rejoice at the thought of working on the ZIS-41, and there were good reasons for it. As a result, the work on the ZIS-41 was moved to factory #592 in mid-October of 1942. Its designers already had experience with wheeled SPGs, but their work did not move past paper. This proposal was initiated by the Artkom, who approved them with letter #543460 from September 22nd.

According to the requirements, the SPG had to use either the 57 mm IS-1 or 76 mm ZIS-3 gun. The chassis was still the ZIS-42. However, new orders were given on October 31st. ZIS management agreed to finish working on the ZIS-41, and the project was taken away from factory #592. However, work on the ZIS-41 did not continue in Moscow and the project eventually vanished.

No need for armour

The waning of work on the ZIS-41 coincided with the start of work on another SPG on the ZIS-42 chassis. The first information about it crops up in early November of 1942. The Moscow ZIS factory interpreted the word "improvement" in a very creative way. In reality, the factory started working on a whole new vehicle that used the experience from the ZIS-41. This time, the vehicle was not a tank destroyer, but a SPAAG. It received the index ZIS-43. This is an index given by the automotive factory, not factory #92's design bureau. History made a full circle. The halftrack SPG returned to where it started from: ZIS.

ZIS-43 SPG in travel position, December of 1942.

On November 14th. 1942, by request of ZIS director Likhachev, the Artkom sent tactical-technical requirements for a "37 mm AA gun on the ZIS-42 all-terrain vehicle". According to them, the cabin and engine were covered in armour, and the AA gun received a shield. The requirements specifically said that the cabin had to be designed in such a way that the driver was comfortable. The need to change the airflow in the engine compartment was also stated. The GAU once again insisted that the weight of the SPG had to be less than 6.5 tons. It's difficult to say how the artillerymen expected to lower the mass with the same armour and the requirement to have a gun platform with walls.

The same SPG in travel position.

ZIS did not let development drag on, and the ZIS-43 made it to trials by December 15th, 1942. This time, the new ZIS-42 chassis was used. Armour steel was not wasted on the prototype, and boilerplate sufficed. The engine and cabin armour looked the same, but with some nuances. The design of the grilles changed, and the airflow was better. The mass of the SPG grew even more, to 8750 kg, so the load on the engine increased.

Hatches in the sides of the engine compartment were added to make maintenance easier, as well as a large two-piece hatch on top. The cabin was redesigned, as there were no longer any complaints about the driver's conditions. This time, there was no coaxial machinegun. The truck bed, ammunition racks, and gun mount were taken from the ZIS-5 SPAAG. The only difference was that the 37 mm 61-K autocannon now had a gun shield.

The new grille design is visible.

The ZIS-43 drove to the proving grounds on its own, traveling 380 km from the factory to the Gorohovets proving grounds. The SPG drove for another 500 km as a part of the trials from December 19th to the 23rd. The engine overheated twice, but there was a new problem. The temperature in the cabin reached 40-50 degrees while driving. The floor in front of the commander's seat was hot. If this happened in December, when the air temperature was -10 °C, it's hard to imagine what would have happened during the summer.

The increased mass took its toll on the top speed and fuel efficiency. The SPG could not go faster than 35 kph, and the average speed was 29.3 kph. The fuel expenditure grew to 90 L per 100 km. The average speed on dirt roads was 19.5 kph, and the fuel expenditure was 110 L per 100 km.

Skis installed during movement across snow are visible on the rear wall of the truck bed.

The results of the firing trials were the same as seen on the ZIS-41 earlier. The headlight was smashed by gases. The high center of gravity affected the firing precision, especially when firing to the sides. Nevertheless, the stability of the platform was deemed sufficient. In addition, the testers rejected the travel lock design.

The following conclusion was given as a result of the trials.

"The 37 mm AA autocannon installed on the modernized ZIS-42 chassis can be used for AA defense of motomechanized unit on the march in areas where enemy anti-tank forces are not present. Due to its mobility and off-road performance, its main objective is to cover all types of forces on the march.

The large size, thin armour, and poorer mobility than the stock vehicle does not allow it to replace the 37 mm SPAAG on a tracked chassis (factory #38 type).

The experimental prototype of the 37 mm AA autocannon passed trials.

After all defects mentioned in the report are corrected, both in the gun and chassis, the commission can recommend the prototype for service in the Red Army."

The fate of the ZIS-43 was decided quickly. After studying the results of the trials, the GABTU armour directorate (BTU) proposed that further work be cancelled. Since the SPAAG was meant to protect units on the march, there was no sense in having armour. This also solved the issue of overloading the chassis. There was no need for the ZIS-43.

However, the BTU chief, Engineer-Colonel Afonin, raised the question of a vehicle analogous to the ZIS-41. This time, matters did not proceed past proposals. As for the ZIS-43, it had its armour removed in the spring of 1943, and it turned into an ordinary ZIS-42, without notifying the GAU.

The Red Army did receive a halftracked SPG with a 57 mm gun, and later even a SPAAG halftrack. Of course, they were called GCM T48 and MGMC M17, and Soviet design bureaus had nothing to do with them. These vehicles began arriving through the Lend Lease program starting in late 1943.

Original article by Yuri Pasholok.

T-34 Tank Destroyer

$
0
0
"Approved by Deputy People's Commissar of Defense, Marshal of the Soviet Union, G. Kulik
May 27th, 1941

Tactical-Technical Requirements for an 85 mm SPG

1. Purpose of the SPG
  1. The 85 mm SPG is designed to accompany moto-mechanized units and for combat with enemy tanks and armoured cars.
  2. The 85 mm SPG must be able to combat strongholds and personnel positioned in the open, or behind light field fortifications, support direct and indirect fire, and be able to penetrate 85-90 mm of armour with a coefficient of K=2400 at 30 degrees at a range of 1000 meters.
2. Tactical Requirements for the Gun

The 85 mm SPG must satisfy the following requirements:
  1. Rate of fire: 15 RPM
  2. Gun elevation: no less than 25 degrees
  3. Gun depression: no less than 5 degrees
  4. Horizontal range for fire up to 3000 meters: 360 degrees. Fire at a range of over 3000 meters can be limited to a range of +/- 25 degrees.
  5. The rate of horizontal and vertical aiming must be the same as on the 85 mm mod. 1939 AA gun, namely:
    1. Horizontal aiming:
      1. In first gear: 3 degrees per turn of the flywheel, with efforts no greater than 6 kg.
      2. In second gear: 7 degrees per turn of the flywheel, with efforts no greater than 12 kg.
    2. Vertical aiming:
      1. In first gear: 1.2 degrees per turn of the flywheel, with efforts no greater than 10 kg.
      2. In second gear: 3.65 degrees per turn of the flywheel, with effort no greater than 20 kg.
3. Technical Requirements for the SPG

The 85 mm SPG must satisfy the following requirements:
  1. Muzzle velocity: 800-850 m/s
  2. Ammunition: armour piercing and fragmentation grenades from the 85 mm mod. 1939 AA gun.
    Note: if the muzzle velocity is greater than 800 m/s, it is permissible to alter the propellant load, in other ways the ammunition must be identical to that of the 85 mm mod. 1939 AA gun.
  3. The recoil mechanisms must allow for 50 nonstop shots before a pause to cool the system. The recoil mechanism must not leak fluid.
  4. The design of the recoil mechanisms must allow for firing at all angles between -20 degrees and +40 degrees at a 15 degree tilt.
  5. The gun must be comfortable to load at all angles of elevation and depression.
  6. The position of the sight equipment must ensure that the gunner's work is comfortable.
  7. The gun must be balanced. A balancing mechanism is permitted.
  8. The gun must have a travel lock.
  9. The gun and crew must be covered from the front, sides, and top by 8-10 mm of armour.
  10. The gun crew consists of five men.
  11. The SPG uses the A-42 tractor as the chassis, which is produced on the improved T-34 chassis.
    The SPG must satisfy the tactical-technical characteristics applied to the A-42 by the GABTU and GAU, including the addendum for SPGs included in these requirements.
    The travel mass of the SPG must not be greater than 25 tons.
    The SPG must be able to tow wheeled artillery systems weighing up to 25 tons.
    It is not necessary to equip the SPG with a winch, compressor, or demultiplexer.
  12. The armour must protect the crew (driver and machinegunner), engine compartment, fuel, and oil tanks.
    The armour covering the driver and engine compartment must be 30 mm thick from the front and the sides. The roof and floor must be 15 mm thick.
  13. The armour of the tractor must allow easy access to its components for service in the field.
  14. The armoured cabin must fit two men, and provide for:
    1. Comfortable positions of the crew during driving and firing of the machinegun. The seats must be adjustable based on the height of the driver and machinegunner.
    2. Quick and easy exit and entry into the cabin.
    3. Communication between the cabin and the gun crew during movement.
  15. The front wall of the cabin must contain a DT machinegun mount. The range of fire must be +/- 15 degrees horizontally and +15 to -7 degrees vertically. No fewer than 20 disks of ammunition must be carried.
  16. The design and position of the observation devices must allow for good visibility of the road and surroundings. The deadzone in front of the SPG may be no more than 4-5 meters.
  17. The cabin must be isolates from exhaust fumes or precipitation. The floor and walls separating the cabin from the engine must be isolated from heat. The cabin must be well ventilated.
  18. The gun platform can fit an artillery system weighing 4700 kg with recoil resistance of 10 tons.
  19. The platform must have armoured sides 1 meter tall and 10-12 mm thick. The rear panel must flip out.
    Semi-soft foldable seats for 5 men must be attached to the walls.
  20. The platform floor must have transmission maintenance hatches.
  21. The overall height of the SPG must be no greater than 2800 mm. The height of the platform must be no more than 1100 mm above the ground.
  22. The onboard ammunition capacity must be no fewer than 50 shells.
  23. A one-axle trailer can be used to transport ammunition. The capacity of the trailer must be 100 shells in the stock packaging for 85 mm AA gun shells. The weight limit of the trailer must be no less than 2000 kg. The mass of the trailer can be no more than 1500 kg. The sides of the trailer must be armoured. The thickness of the armour must be 10 mm.
  24. During the development of working blueprints, develop blueprints for necessary instruments, equipment, spare parts, and toolboxes.
  25. Technical requirements #1 and #22 will be reviewed during development and examination of the design during a meeting between GAU and GABTU."

ZIS-30 in Combat

$
0
0
"To the Deputy Chief of GABTU, Major-General of the Technical Forces, Lebedev
CC: Lieutenant-General of the Tank Forces Tamruchi
April 5th, 1942

The 57 mm anti-tank gun mounted on the Komsomolets chassis showed itself as a dangerous weapon against any type of enemy tank. During use in battle, the following advantages and drawbacks were discovered.

Advantages:
  1. The gun is self propelled.
  2. The crew is protected by the gun shield.
  3. The sights are precise.
  4. The agility is good.
  5. The muzzle velocity is high.
  6. The range of direct fire is 2-2.5 km.
  7. The SPG is easy to hide.
  8. The rate of fire is 10-12 RPM.
On March 17th, 1942, one SPG (4th Guard Tank Brigade) fired 13 times and knocked out 3 tanks at a range of 2 km during an enemy counterattack, the rest turned back.

Drawbacks:
  1. The recoil mechanism and return mechanisms break quickly.
  2. The engine is weak, especially in conditions of deep snow, mud, or steep climbs.
The 57 mm self propelled anti-tank gun battery was a part of the 4th Guards Tank Brigade motorized rifle battalion.

These guns were used on the offensive to support tanks. They drove behind the motorized infantry ranks from one line to the next. Usually, they covered the flanks. Convenient positions were chosen and the guns destroyed enemy strongholds that prevented the motorized infantry or tanks from advancing.

During counterattacks, the guns were used to deflect tank or infantry attacks.


On the defense, the guns were placed in directions where tanks were likely to appear and were sometimes sent in behind tanks. Since they fought as a part of the motorized rifle battalion with tank battalions, their job was usually to cover the flanks. There were cases where the crew or the tractor were knocked out by shrapnel from shells that burst nearby. It is reasonable to install the gun on a T-60 chassis.

Deputy Commander of Armoured Vehicles of the Southern Front, Lieutenant-General of the Tank Forces, Stevnev
Military Commissar of the Armoured Vehicles Directorate of the Southern Front, Valuyev"

Replacement Steel

$
0
0
"State Committee of Defense
Decree #3038
March 16th, 1943
Moscow, Kremlin

In order to test the quality of armoured plate made from KM-1 steel (FD 5732) as a replacement for M3-2 (8S) steel on tank hulls:
  1. The People's Commissariat of Ferrous Metal (comrade Tevosyan) must deliver KM-1 plate to factories ##112, 176, and Uralmash in the amount earlier established by the agreement between the People's Commissariat of Ferrous Metal and GABTU and the NKTP.
  2. The People's Commissariat of Tank Building (comrade Zaltsmann) must produce and test experimental T-34 and T-70 tank hulls at factories ##112, 176, and Uralmash from KM-1 steel produced by the People's Commissariat of Ferrous Metal and deliver conclusions to the Council of People's Commissars regarding the possibility of using KM-1 steel (FD 5732).
  3. In the event of satisfactory results of trials of KM-1 steel, the People's Commissariat of Tank Building (comrade Zaltsmann) must investigate the preparations necessary for hardening this steel at NKTP factories at a temperature of 200 degrees.
Deputy Chair of the Committee of Defense, V. Molotov
State Committee of Defense
Decree #4756
December 10th, 1943
Moscow, Kremlin

In connection with the unsatisfactory results of KM-1 steel (FD 5732) trials carried out in according with GOKO decree #3038 issued on March 16th, 1943, the following must be done to finally establish the suitability of the aforementioned steel in tank production;
  1. The People's Commissariat of Tank Building (comrade Malyshev) must carry out another trial of KM-1 steel, for which Uralmash must build an experimental batch of 30 hulls in February of 1944, of which 1 hull and 20 main armour plates will be put through ballistics trials at a proving grounds in accordance with GBTU's testing requirements.
  2. The People's Commissariat of Ferrous Metal (comrade Tevosyan) must roll at the Kuznetsk Metallurgical Factory and deliver to Uralmash by December 25th, 1943, enough KM-1 armoured plate to meet their requirements.
  3. The People's Commissariat of Tank Building (comrade Malyshev) and People's Commissariat of Ferrous Metal (comrade Tevosyan) must deliver conclusions to the Council of People's Commissars regarding the suitability of KM-1 steel for production by March 10th, 1944.

Deputy Chair of the Committee of Defense, V. Molotov"


Tank RMA

$
0
0
"To the Deputy People's Commissar of Defense, Marshal G.I. Kulik

The chief designer of factory #92, comrade Grabin, reports to me that the 85 mm F-30 gun installed in the T-220 tank turret made by the Kirov factory is unbalanced and the pedal trigger is positioned in an unsatisfactory manner. 

In order to balance the gun and reposition the trigger, the tank and the gun have to be sent back to factory #92 for adjustments.

I ask you to immediately order the shipment of the T-220 tank with the 85 mm F-30 gun from the Kirov factory to factory #92.

Deputy People's Commissar of Armament, Mirzakhanov."

Medium Tank M2: Last Place in the Arms Race

$
0
0
The late 1930s were a time when armoured vehicles were developing rapidly. The start of WWII in September of 1939 gave an even bigger push to the flywheel of progress. Designs that were considered revolutionary suddenly fell behind. There were cases where tanks became obsolete soon after coming out of the factory. The American Medium Tank M2 is among those unlucky ones. You can read a lot of mockery of the combat abilities of this tank, but they are unreasonable. American engineers made a decent medium tank, but by the time it entered mass production there were already other tanks with more armour and better armament.


Turret and Casemate

The American infantry adopted the Convertible Medium Tank T4 in 1935. The Rock Island Arsenal in Davenport built 16 tanks of this type, as well as three Convertible Medium Tank T4E1, which had a casemate with machineguns on all sides instead of a turret. The tank turned out to be controversial.

On one hand, this was the first American medium tank with more than 10 vehicles produced. On the other hand, the tank had strange characteristics. Even on wheels, the tank was less mobile than the Light Tank M2A1, even thought it had analogous armour and armament. Since the Convertible Medium Tank T4 cost twice as much as its light brother, it's easy to understand the hesitation of the American military. Unlike the Light Tank M2A1 and the Combat Car M1, this tank was not developed further. It was obvious that a new tank is needed.

In addition to the war between purely tracked and convertible drive lobbies, there was another fierce battle raging on in the Ordnance Department about how to place a tank's armament. The Convertible Medium Tank T4 and Combat Car T5 existed in two variants (with a turret and with a casemate) for a good reason. Infantry captain George H. Rarey tried to get the two sides to get along. In April of 1934, he designed a concept of a convertible drive medium tank that combined the "machinegun hedgehog" and a turret with 360 degree rotation. The perimeter of the fighting compartment was lined with machinegun sponsons, and a turret with a 47 mm gun was placed in the center. The driver was placed in a separate cabin.

Captain Rarey's convertible drive tank, April 1934

The tank was never built. Trials in the 67th regiment where the Light Tank M2A1 and Convertible Tank T4 ended up showed that Harry Knox's suspension was better. However, Rarey's design was not a waste of paper.

He worked at the experimental directorate at Fort Benning. When the Ordnance Committee decided to launch work on the Medium Tank T5, the work was largely controlled by the experimental directorate. Even though the Light Tank M2 was taken as the starting point, the fighting compartment and driver's compartment migrated to this project from Rarey's tank.

This is what the Medium tank T5 looked like during initial trials.

The need to use the Light Tank M2 design when creating the Medium Tank T5 was taken literally. Many components were taken without changes to speed up the design process, such as the Continental R-670-3 engine, gearbox, drive sprockets, road wheels, idlers, and tracks. The suspension couldn't be copied exactly and had to be reinforced. Since the overall length of the vehicle titled Medium Tank T5 Phase I grew to almost one meter, the number of road wheels was increased to six.

The overall layout of the Light Tank M2 remained, but the driver was moved to the middle. As a result, the drive shaft ended up right between his legs.

Rarey's turret and gun mount design, which later was used to develop a new turret for the Medium Tank T5.

The usage of existing components helped out with the rate of development. The American engineers had to hurry; the growing tensions in Europe after the Nazis came to power were felt even across the ocean. American cavalry began receiving a new generation of light tanks in 1936. Work on new types of armament, including anti-tank, also continued.

The American military understood that a war can't be fought with light tanks alone, so the development of a medium tank remained a high priority. So high, that the tank that entered trials on November 16th, 1937, was still half a model. Its fighting compartment, turret, and armament were all made of wood. The customers cared more about how the suspension would work. Nevertheless, Rarey's concept was clearly visible in the design. The turret from his project migrated tot his tank with very few changes.

The biggest difference was the armament. The Ordnance Department understood that the 47 mm gun was too weak and ordered another gun, a 37 mm one. This was the tank version of an anti-tank gun developed by Gladeon Barnes and inspired by the 3.7 cm Pak. The result was the most powerful 37 mm gun, but when the new medium tank prototype was being tested, it was still in development.

The radically redesigned Medium Tank T5 Stage I, February of 1938. In addition to the redesigned top, you can see new cooling fins around the final drives.

The tank returned to the Rock Island Arsenal after trials, which lasted until December 29th, 1937. Improvements to the chassis were made. Since the mass of the vehicle increased to 13.5 tons, the stress on the gearbox increased by 1.5 times. It could still do its job, but the final drives overheated, and so special cooling fins were added.

Everything above the chassis was completely replaced. The tank started looking even more like Rarey's concept. Since the original turret was uninhabited (the gunner sat below), and the new requirements had to make it fit two crewmen, Rarey designed a new turret. The turret became larger and its sides became sloped.  A hatch was added to the rear. The turret armour was welded.

The driver in the tank felt like a king. The only problem was the driveshaft between his legs.

The driver's compartment also changed. It received sloped armour and three observation hatches, which provided excellent visibility when open. The fighting compartment also changed, but the concept of machinegun sponsons in the corners remained. The engine compartment shape changed as well.

Since the vehicle was experimental, mild steel was used in its construction. The thickness of the front was as high as 25 mm, which offered reliable protection against high caliber machineguns.

The Medium Tank T5 Stage I in its final form. The idea of dual 37 mm guns was later rejected.

The vehicle, numbered U.S.A. W-30369, returned from trials on February 16th, 1938. The tank reached a top speed of 49.6 kph, which was sufficient for a medium tank. Since work on armament continued, the turret housed a dummy gun. Later, it was replaced by a pair of M2A1 37 mm guns, but the dual gun design did not progress past the experiment stage. Special armour plates were added to the rear, which functioned as deflectors. The tank's machinegunners could use them to send bullets to dead zones in the case that enemy infantry got right up against the tank.

Overall, the military was satisfied with the Medium Tank T5. After Aberdeen trials, the tank was sent to Fort Benning to be tested by tankers from the 67th regiment. It was obvious that the new vehicle was superior to the Combat Car T4. With comparable mobility, the Medium Tank T5 had better protection, firepower, and crew comfort. It is not surprising that the Committee ordered that the tank be standardized under the index Medium Tank M2. As for the first prototype, it is still present at the National Infantry Museum at Fort Benning.

Gaining Weight

The verdict that the Medium Tank T5 will be adopted into service did not mean that work on it was done. Development continued, since trials revealed more than just its positive sides. The suspension had to be reinforce, the engine and transmission redone, and the armour improved. The new mass limit was 20 short tons (18.4 metric tons).

Medium tank T5 Phase III, November of 1939. The changes are not visible from this angle, but this tank was radically altered.

In November of 1938, a new tank called Medium Tank T5 Phase III entered trials. This was the second experimental prototype, the tank called Phase II was never built. The tank looked like its predecessor, but this was misleading. The tank designers jumped the gun, and the tank grew to 19 metric tons. For starters, the side armour was thickened.

The engine compartment was changed, as well as the muffler with deflector plates.

The engine group was changed completely. A much more powerful and much larger 9 cylinder Wright R-975 Whirlwind engine was used. The aircraft version produced 400 hp, but the tank version was dialed down to 346 hp. The new engine increased the top speed of the tank to 52.6 kph.

The transmission also had to be changed. A new gearbox was installed, and new final drives were used. The drive shaft in the middle forced the driver to move to the left. his place was taken up by machineguns. The drive sprocket design was changed, and the track links were widened from 295 to 406 mm.

The idea of an offset driver's cabin and a removable plate around the front machineguns was controversial.

The turret was also noticeably changed. It was now cast, its sides up to 25 mm thick. An AA machinegun was attached to the right side. The biggest change was the use of the 37 mm T3 anti-tank gun. The gun was installed with almost no changes compared to the towed gun. An armoured mantlet was added to protect from bullets and shell fragments.

37 mm T3 gun, which had almost no changes compared to the towed weapon.

Trials not only showed better mobility, but significant increase in fuel consumption. If the T5 Phase I could travel for 200 km on one load of fuel, the T5 Phase III could only drive for 168 km, and that's with bigger fuel tanks. A solution to this problem was the installation of a diesel Guiberson aircraft engine. It was star-shaped and had air cooling, just like the Wright R-975. The conversion was approved on September 20th, 1938, and the tank was renamed to Medium Tank T5E1.

Medium Tank T5E2, seen from the right.

Bigger changes were made in the spring of 1939. The offset driver's cabin gave the idea of installing something bigger in the front hull. A converted tank, named Medium Tank T5E2, entered trials on April 20th, 1939. Its main turret was replaced with the commander's turret from the Light Tank M2A3, equipped with a rangefinder. The 75 mm Pack Howitzer M1A1 was installed in te hull. The mount as the same as the one used on the light Howitzer Motor Carriage T3.

The howitzer looked natural, like the tank was designed for it.

While working with the howitzer in the small SPG was a pain, there was no such issue in the larger fighting compartment. However, the machinegun in the front right corner had to go. Trials continued on the Aberdeen Proving Grounds until February 8th, 1940, and concluded with positive results. Later experiments with the Medium Tank T5E2 directly influenced the American medium tank program, leading it away from worldwide tendencies.

Unlike with the Gun Motor Carriage T3, there were no problems with insufficient space.

Preparations for mass production of the Medium Tank M2 were underway at the same time as the experiments with the Medium Tank T5E2. The Rock Island Arsenal was chosen as the producer. The first tank with registration number U.S.A. E-30444 left Davenport in the summer of 1939. It included fixes to the defects discovered in the second experimental vehicle.

The mass of the tank was reduced to 17.3 tons, which improved the power to weight ratio. The top speed of the tank was reduced to 42 kph. The reduction of speed and engine RPM allowed an increase in fuel economy to 208 km per load. Since the final drives overheated a little, the cooling fins returned.

The designers also restored the driver's cabin and the original location of the machineguns. The width of the track links was reduced to 337 mm, and the bogeys were reinforced. The armour was also changed: the front was thickened to 28.5 mm, and the thickness of the sides was increased.

The first Medium Tank M2 on a demonstration, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, fall of 1939.

The turret and armament were changed yet again. The overall layout was the same as on the T5 Phase III, but the design was riveted, not cast. The 37 mm gun remained, now standardized under the index M3. It was installed in a new mount with a coaxial Browning M1919A4 machinegun. The tank had eight of those machineguns in total: two in the front, four in sponsons, one coaxial, and one AA.

Copy of the factory blueprint. You can see how the AA machinegun was carried on the turret.

According to the first order, Rock Island Arsenal would build 18 Medium Tanks M2 in 1939. The second production tank was sent to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds and became a test lab. Thanks to this, the tank survived to this day, albeit in a somewhat altered state. 54 more vehicles were expected to be built in 1940, but the external political situation started changing, and with it, the plans of American military minds.

Small Batch

The war in Europe was closely watched by the Americans. Just like in WWI, the US kept to a policy of neutrality, but they understood that it would not last for long. American intelligence carefully analyzed information received from Poland in the fall of 1939, and that information also influenced the development of the Medium Tank M2. Reports about the use of the Medium Tank M2 also came back from the army, and they were carefully studied.

Second mass production Medium Tank M2. Aberdeen Proving Grounds, August 1939.

One of the deficiencies with the new tank was in regards to its turret. The sloped armour "ate up" a lot of its volume. All conical turrets suffered from this. A new turret was hurriedly designed. Its base was the same as on the M2, but the sides were installed at a right angle. The rear hatch was also removed, replaced with a large single hatch in the roof.

The new turret received a modernized gun mount, called 37 mm Gun Mount M19. This mount was also developed for the Light Tank M2A4. The gunner received the ability to aim the gun horizontally without turning the turret. The experimental mount was installed on the second mass production Medium Tank M2, and trials proved that it was a good design.

The seventh mass produced Medium Tank M2 during exercises. This tank, just like the second one, became a test lab.

The next step was improvement in protection. It turned out that the pistol port shutters were vulnerable, and a proposal was made to replace them. Fighting in Poland also proved that the side armour has to be stronger, since penetrations through the side were a common occurrence.

A column of Medium Tanks M2 from the 67th Infantry Regiment, 1940. These tanks were included in the 2nd Armoured Division in July of 1940.

The result of all these changes was a modernized tank, indexed Medium Tank M2A1. It had a 400 hp Continental R-975E-C2 engine, which was a licensed copy of the Wright R-975. The mass grew to 18.7 tons, and the suspension had to be modernized. The width of the track links was also increased to 362 mm. The top speed remained at the level of the Medium Tank M2. The transmission was also changed: it received hydraulic controls, which made the driver's job easier.

The second Medium Tank M2 witha  new turret. The tank survived until today in this form.

Aside from the new turret, the Medium Tank M2A1 had novelties that were not so obvious visually. The M19 gun mount received improved armour for the gun's recoil mechanisms. The protection of the sponson machineguns also increased, and the front plate received deflectors. The thickness of the side armour grew to 32 mm, so shooting at the tank with autocannons was a pointless exercise. The front armour was not reinforced, as it was already enough. All observation hatches were improved. Now they had their fittings on the inside and were much more reliable. 

Mass production Medium Tank M2A1, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, September of 1940

The situation in Europe was taking an unpleasant course. Despite their neutrality, the US helped out France. For example, the American Curtiss Hawk 75 was the second most numerous fighter in the French air force. Trucks and other military supplies were sent en masse. On May 10th, 1940, the Germans began their push through the Benelux countries and ended up in France within the week. By the end of the month, it was clear that France would not last long. The British also took a beating, losing most of their Expeditionary Corps.

The positional scenario of WWI did not repeat itself. The biggest issue with producing the necessary number of tanks that was required in this situation was that the biggest producer of tanks was the Rock Island Arsenal, who also produced artillery.

The changes noticeably improved the crew's working conditions.

On May 29th, 1940, President Roosevelt appointed William Knudsen, the head of the automotive giant General Motors, to the post of the Head of the Office of Production Management, which organized military production. The choice was obvious. Knudsen was the man who implemented the assembly line, first at Ford, then at Chevrolet.

Knudsen quickly found his bearings and called Kaufman Keller, the President of the Chrysler Corporation, to a meeting on June 7th. They knew each other well, since Keller worked at General Motors for a long time. There was no talk of competition; WWII was raging on, and there was no guessing when the United States would become involved. The biggest issue came from the fact that the US Army only had 18 modern medium tanks at the time. As for the Medium Tank M2A1, the Rock Island Arsenal was still working on the first three tanks.

Wooden model of the hull and turret built from Rock Island Arsenal blueprints at Chrysler.

Knudsen's proposal was simple: Chrysler Corporation had to build a tank factory. Keller agreed, and a complete set of technical documentation arrived in Detroit on June 17th. Chrysler built a wooden model using the blueprints. A contract to build a tank factory was signed with Chrysler on August 15th, 1940. At the same time, an agreement was made to build 1000 Medium Tanks M2A1. The first three tanks were due in September of 1941, and production gradually increased to 100 tanks per month. The last tanks were expected in August of 1942.

Mass production of Medium Tanks M2A1 at the Rock Island Arsenal, late 1940. You can see that the arsenal had to build several types of tanks at once, and that's not including artillery.

Plans to build one thousand Medium Tanks M2A1 did not last long. The American military studied information coming from France very carefully. It was clear that the main enemy of Allied tanks would be the Pz.Kpfw.IV. The short barreled 75 mm gun was particularly impressive to the Americans. The fact that it had very limited penetration was not obvious.

Nevertheless, the new tank took shape on June 13th, 1940. The Medium Tank M2A1 chassis had no alternatives. since building a tank from scratch meant wasting precious time. The military demanded that the new tank have better armour and a 75 mm gun. That is how the Medium Tank M3 was born.

Medium Tanks M2A1 from the 2nd Armoured Division headed for exercises, June 14th, 1941.

On August 28th, 1940, the order for 1000 Medium Tanks M2A1 was officially cancelled and replaced with a contract to produce Medium Tanks M3. However, the contract with the Rock Island Arsenal was not cancelled so that its production facilities were kept busy. An agreement was made for 126 tanks of that type, which were ready by December of 1940. The production rate gradually decreased, since the Medium Tank M3 was in higher demand. The last M2A1 were delivered in August of 1941, with Medium Tanks M3 built in parallel. In total, the US Army received 84 M2A1 medium tanks.

Applique armour developed for the Medium Tank M2A1. Weighing the pros and cons, this modernization was cancelled.

It's hard to say that the Medium Tank M2A1 was bad. The Americans built an adequate fighting machine that was no worse than the PzIII Ausf. E, and was far superior to British pre-war cruiser tanks. The Medium Tank M2 also served as a platform for American medium tanks and SPGs of the wartime era. The problem with the M2A1 was that the American military evaluated its potential very soberly and decided to use a good tank to build a better one. Their motivation was correct.

As for the M2 family, the tanks served, but as training vehicles. There was, however, an attempt at improving their armour. Applique armour that raised the M2A1's protection to 76 mm was developed. Its mass increased by 4.3 tons. 

Experimental E2 flamethrower, summer of 1942.

The last attempt to send the Medium Tank M2 into battle happened in the summer of 1942. The tank was equipped with an E2 flamethrower instead of the gun. Trials showed that the range of the flamethower was small and the tank lost the ability to fire its gun at a long range. Experiments continued on the Medium Tank M3, but with similar results. These experiments were not fruitless, as the experience was used to install a flamethrower on the Light Tank M3A1.

As for the original Medium Tanks M2 and M2A1, they were used for training purposes until the end of 1942. Time was not kind to them: only one Medium Tank M2A1 remains to this day. in Fort Benning, but its gun mount was replaced with a later one.

Light Tanks T1E4 and T2E1: Experiments on an Ideal Platform

$
0
0
The idea of a light tank with a front engine that the American Ordnance Department insisted on was at a dead end by 1932. Trials of the Light Tank T1 family and later the Medium Tank T2 showed that the idea was unacceptable. Poor visibility, excessive mass, bad crew conditions, and, most importantly, the limits of further development, put an end to such tanks. Designers moved on to working on other tanks with different layouts. Harry Knox, the father of the front engine American tanks, did not abandon his idea, and kept looking for a place for his idea. Stooping down to plagiarism, he crossed his Light Tank T1E1 with the Vickers Mk.E, its overseas competitor. The resulting "hybrid" Light Tank T2E1 was not that bad.


Anthology of Inspirations

The main counterpart of the Light Tank T1 and Medium Tank T2 at the time was the Christie tank, which shattered the dreams of the Ordnance Department to sell them to the American army. Compared to it, all prior American tank designs looked like toys. Meanwhile, another tank appeared on the other side of the Atlantic that contributed a few nails to their coffin: the Vickers Mk.E, designed by John Carden and Vivian Loyd.

For a number of reasons, the British army had no place for this tank, but it had a huge export potential. The Vickers Mk.E and its variants became the most popular tank of the 1930s. It was bought by Bulgaria, Bolivia, Greece, Poland, China, Thailand, Finland, Portugal. This tank was picked by the Soviet purchasing commission headed by I.A. Khalepskiy as an infantry support tank, purchasing a license for its production in the USSR under the name T-26. Poland also designed the 7TP tank on its chassis. The combat career of the Vickers Mk.E began in the fall of 1932 in South America, and concluded a quarter of a century later in 1959.

The secret of this tank was that its creators catered to the most in-demand market segment. With its low mass, the tank had reliable bulletproof armour, high mobility, and good firepower for an infantry support tank. The Vickers Mk.E was reliable and had good potential for modernization. It's enough to say that while the first British tanks weighed about 7 tons, the latest Soviet T-26es weighed close to 11 tons. Thanks to the rear engine and front transmission, the tank was very compact. The suspension was also very good, even though the British military had their doubts about it.

Vickers Mk.E Type A at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, June 15th,1931

Thanks to the close ties with the British, the American military managed to get a Vickers Mk.E Type A. Trials held in June of 1931 compromised the Light Tank T1 even further. Its only advantage over the British tank was its armament, and even then, the gun was experimental. The mass produced T1 gun mount with the short 37 mm M1916 had few advantages over the two machineguns on the Vickers Mk.E. In addition, there was also the single turret version, the Vickers Mk.E Type B, which carried a much more powerful 47 mm gun in a two-man turret. The British tank was lighter and 25% faster, had identical armour, and better crew conditions.

Harry Knox patented the tank and its suspension in March of 1934.

After such a crushing defeat, the Ordnance Department had to stop and think. On one hand, there was the Christie tank. On the one hand, a decent foreign tank that was actively exported. The result of this deliberation was a stunningly simple decision: Knox and his team didn't think of anything better to do than to copy the progressive solutions of the Vickers Mk.E.

The USSR is often accused of stealing technologies. In truth, before the war, foreign technology was usually licensed. In this case, Harry Knox resorted to outright plagiarism. In addition, he even had the gall to patent his stolen solutions!

In late 1931, one Light Tank T1E1 was sent to the Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois. The tank was radically altered to make it more like a Vickers Mk.E. The result of this conversion, which was completed in March of 1932, left little of the initial tank. The hull was partially retained, at least its front, which became the rear after the conversion. The engine remained in place, but it was now separated from the fighting compartment. The external fuel tanks also remained. Otherwise, this was a completely different tank, much more modern than the Light Tank T1E1.

Light Tank T1E4 at the Rock Island Arsenal, March of 1932.

Like the Vickers Mk.E, the new tank, designated Light Tank T1E4, had a front transmission, designed completely anew. The central front plate was now cast. The driver's compartment was so roomy that it now fit two people, with the addition of the assistant driver. This idea was well accepted by the American military. In the future, the assistant driver received a machinegun so he did not simply take up space.

Thanks to the migration of the transmission, the engine compartment was not changed. However, the length of the hull grew from 3860 mm to 4600 mm. The width of the tank also increased from 1786 mm to 2200 mm, but the height decreased from 2200 mm to 2000 mm. The turret retained its shape, but the diameter increased. The 37 mm M1924 gun was installed in it, with a long counterweight.

The same tank in September of 1932, after receiving a more powerful engine.

The suspension was borrowed from the Vickers Mk.E, with some changes. The idler also looked similar to the British inspiration, but the drive sprocket was new. It's hard to say that the new design was better. If the teeth of the drive sprocket on the Vickers Mk.E broke, one only had to change the crown. Here, the whole sprocket had to be replaced. The track links were also designed anew by Knox. Thanks to their width of 337 mm, the tank could drive comfortably on soft ground.

The results of trials in the summer of 1932 were mixed. The tank was heavier than the Light Tank T1E1, but had the same engine. Its agility and mobility decreased. One solution was the installation of a Cunningham 140 hp engine. The top speed grew to 32 kph, but that was still less than the top speed of the Vickers Mk.E.

Light Tank T1E6. The biggest difference compared to the T1E4 is in the rear.

The issue of insufficient power was resolved in late 1932. The tank received a 12 cylinder American LaFrance engine that could reach a maximum output of 244 hp. The more powerful engine required serious changes to the engine compartment. Its height was equal to that of the turret platform. The lower part also changed. Large air intake "ears" appeared along the sides. The changes were serious enough to give the tank an new name, Light Tank T1E6.

The American LaFrance engine required a larger compartment.

The changes increased the tank's mass to 9030 kg. However, the more powerful motor promised improved mobility. The power to weight ratio was 24.5 hp/ton, almost as high as on the Christie Medium Tank T3! The tank should have been able to fly with that kind of power, but trials showed that the top speed was... 32 kph. The same as on the Light Tank T1E4 with a 140 hp engine.

Unlike the speed, which did not increase, the amount of technical problems did. The patience of the Secretary of War was not infinite, and a decree passed in the spring of 1933 limited the mass of light tanks to 7.5 tons. Work on the Light Tank T1E6 continued until 1934, but it more like death throes. The joint Ordnance Department and Cunningham project had no future.

Smaller, Lighter, Faster

The failure of the Light Tank T1 did not mean that Harry Knox was done for. On the other hand, Christie's tanks were out of the game by mid-1933. The military stopped ordering tanks from Christie in November of 1932, preferring to give the contract to American LaFrance. Around the same time, the cavalry ordered the Combat Car T4, which was also based on the Christie design. Gladeon Barnes worked on this tank. His convertible drive tanks turned out too heavy and too expensive. As a result, Harry Knox and the Ordnance Department held the monopoly on tanks once more.

Further development of American light tanks happened within the cavalry's orders. The resulting vehicle was called Combat Car T5. Its development began on June 3rd, 1933. According to the specifications sent to the Ordnance Committee on July 10th, 1933, the combat car had to weigh 14,000 lbs (6,300 kg), reach the top speed of 30 mph (48 kph), have 100 miles of range (160 km). Its armament had to consist of one 12.7 mm machinegun and two 7.62 mm machineguns, and its armour had to protect from rifle caliber bullets. The requirements for a 7.5 ton tank were approved on August 9th, 1933. 

Light Tank T2, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, May of 1934

A light tank for infantry, called Light Tank T2, was developed in parallel with the Combat Car T5. Both tanks were built at the Rock Island Arsenal bye early April of 1934. These two tanks were very similar in design. The strict speed and weight requirements resulted in a tank that was a further development of the Light Tank T1E4 (and the Vickers Mk.E), but was also original in many ways.

Since the 7.5 ton weight limit did not allow the tank to be big, and no suitable automotive engine was found, the Continental R-670 aircraft engine was chosen. This air cooled 7 cylinder engine was used on the Combat Car T4, but it came in one unit with the transmission. The Light Tank T2 had its transmission in the front. Thanks to the star-shaped engine design, the engine compartment was very compact, and the tank was only 4077 mm long. On the other hand, the size of the engine forced the hull to be rather tall. The overall height was 2057 mm, which was not that much, but the hull itself was over 1.5 meters tall. The high center of the engine also raised the driveshaft.

The same tank, seen from the rear.

The Light Tank T2 and Combat Car T5 were opposites in turret and suspension. The infantry tank kept the Vickers Mk.E style suspension with 4-wheel bogeys, albeit with some changes. Its tracks were a further development of the tracks used on the Combat Car T4. The track link was metallic, but the joints were of a rubber-metallic design. Due to the raised driveshaft, the Combat Car T5 had two turrets. The Light Tank T2 had one turret, with two men. A bulge in front of the turret housed the Browning M1919 and Browning M2HB (with a shortened barrel) machineguns. Another machinegun was in the hull, used by the assistant driver.

On the Way to the Classics

Both tanks arrived at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds on April 13th, 1934. Intensive trials began. The Light Tank T2 finished trials on May 17th. Its mobility and crew comfort were tested.

Light Tank T2 on trials, April of 1934.

The design of the tank, especially the hull, was deemed good. However, the testers criticized the position of the driveshaft from the engine to the transmission. It was difficult to leap over it in battle. Unfortunately, there was nowhere else to put it, and the raised driveshaft became a staple of American tank design. The visibility was deemed good, but the installation of side mirror was recommended. The mirrors finally appeared 10 years later on the M4A3E8 medium tank.

A high driveshaft is one of the issues with a rear star-shaped engine.

Defects were discovered after 115 km of trials, and the tank was sent back to Rock Island. Nevertheless, enough data was gathered for preliminary conclusions. The top speed achieved during trials was 43.4 kph. Not quite the 48 kph that was required, but it was still very good. However, the leftovers from the Light Tank T1E4 let themselves be known. The smoothness of the suspension was deemed insufficient, especially off-road. In addition, the short hull made the tank drift at high speed. The tank was very loud inside, which prevented the crew from talking. The track link design was also deficient.

An illustration from the Vertical Volute Spring Suspension patent.

The list of defects made during the trials were considered during modernization. In October of 1934, the improved tank, indexed Light Tank T2E1, entered trials. The biggest change was the suspension. Instead of the admittedly poor Vickers Mk.E style bogey suspension, the much simpler and more elegant suspension that Harry Knox worked on since 1933 was used. It used two-wheel bogeys with a vertical spring. This system was much more compact and had larger travel. The Vertical Volute Spring Suspension (VVSS) was first used on the Combat Car T5, and the infantry tank received an improved version.


Light Tank T2E1 on trials at Fort Benning, January of 1935.

The tank received new track links in addition to a new suspension. Knox worked on rubber-metallic joints since the early 1930s, but he went even further in his experiments with rubber in 1934. He patented the rubber-metallic track link on March 6th, 1934, an invention that was as revolutionary for American tank building as the Christie suspension. The resulting design was very good, and its pair with the VVSS suspension became the distinguishing mark of American tanks for a decade. The new track links were tested on the Light Tank T2E1. The track was improved based on the results of the October 1934 trials.

Demonstration of the VVSS suspension.

On January 11th, 1935, the tank was sent to Fort Benning for military trials. Tankers from the 67th Infantry Company (Medium Tanks) tested the Light Tank T2E1 in the most difficult conditions. The trials concluded on February 14th, and a list of desired improvements was composed. They included the installation of a commander's cupola, movement of the mufflers out of the engine compartment, and reinforcement of the suspension. There was not a single serious breakdown during the trials. Overall, the infantry deemed the Light Tank T2E1 to be acceptable as a light tank. 9 years later, the program to replace the light 6-ton M1917 tanks finally birthed a worthy successor. The concepts used to build the Light Tank T2E1 were used in American tank design until the end of 1942.

Cheating at Statistics 18: Volosovo Vanishing

$
0
0
Following some very generous evaluations of their performance, the s.Pz.Abt. 502 continued backing up before the advance of the Red Army. Just a few days later, on January 28th, 1944, an epic battle erupted near the village of Volosovo:

"28 January 1944: Volosovo is reached. Tiger III (Feldwebel Hermann) is approached by 27 T-34s. With only 3 armor-piercing and 9 high-explosive rounds remaining, he destroys 7 T-34s. Several alerted Tigers knock out 8 more T-34s. Ammunition is running out. 9 more T-34s are knocked out at dawn."

A scenario fit for an action movie! It seems everything is lost. but victory is snatched from the jaws of defeat and 24 of the attacking 27 T-34s are knocked out! However, just to be safe, let's make sure that the battle actually happened.
Looking at the records of the 42nd Army, we see this:


"Armoured and Mechanized Units: did not fight that day, were occupied with towing and repairing their vehicles, except the 31st Guards Tank Regiment and 205th Tank Regiment, which fought with the 90th Rifle Division near Lisino."

Right off the bat, the majority of the 42nd Army's armour could not have participated in the fight, and the tanks that did come out that day fought in a different place. The 31st Guards Tank Regiment had an authorized strength of 21 KV tanks, so it's right out. We're left with up to 32 T-34 tanks in the 205th TR, but again, they were engaged against a different target. Although, Volosovo is somewhat near Lisino, and it's possible that the division sent half of its armour to flank around a particularly difficult line of defense. Anything can happen! Let's read the division's records.


"January 28th, 1944

The enemy did not offer any resistance."

Oh. So much for the epic action-packed battle the Germans described. Instead of an tank battle worthy of Hollywood, the Soviets scare off a few regiments of Germans, capturing 7 abandoned tanks (one of them a Tiger). The Tigers were here, but failed to deliver much of an impact, if they fought at all. The 205th Tank Regiment that allegedly just lost 75% of its authorized strength in one battle continues to follow the 90th Rifle Division until the end of the Krasnoye Selo-Ropsha Offensive Operation.

Archive Awareness is now Tank Archives

$
0
0
Over four years ago, I started writing this blog. Originally, it was called Ensign Expendable's Archive Awareness, stemming from my World of Tanks forums username and the fact that very few posters there had the slightest idea about what historical archives were or how they functioned. Since that was quite a mouthful, I decided to make the URL quick and snappy: Tank Archives.

The brave new world that opened before me was full of potential. My original grandiose plans included several sites under the Archive Awareness umbrella dedicated to archive documents of various themes. Out of those, only Soviet Gun Archives ever materialized, and even that fell into disuse as I figured out that my real passion was tanks, and only tanks.

However, there is nothing as permanent as the temporary, and so the name remained, despite the occasionally confused search queries (my favourite is "tank archive awareness"). It's finally time to shuffle things around a little and make the name more consistent. 
Viewing all 1900 articles
Browse latest View live