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

Renault NC: Destined for Export

$
0
0
The Renault FT ended up being not only the best tank of WWI, but the most numerous one. Its production continued after the end of the war, and 3728 tanks were built by 1921. Meanwhile, the French army was no longer satisfied with the Renault FT. Even the infantry, which inherited the tank, was not thrilled with a vehicle that had a top speed of 3 kph off-road. To replace this "pensioner", Renault designed a new tank called the Renault NC. Why were foreign armies more interested in this tank than the French?

Path of least resistance

Aside from reliability issues with rapidly ageing tanks, serious financial issues influenced further development. Even though Renault specialized in cars and trucks, it did not want to lose its income from military orders. The end of the Great War meant that funding was reduced. Renault could no longer expect the completion of the order for 3940 tanks. On the other hand, a number of countries started local wars, and the combatants needed weapons, including tanks. Here, the French army stood in the way of Renault as an exporter, as they gave away their tanks left and right. The company either had to satisfy itself with miserly order volumes or seek new solutions.

An additional problem with the Renault FT was that its miserly speed meant that trucks were required to move it any significant distance. Trials showed that the engine began to overheat at higher speeds. Even installing a more powerful engine did not help, as the semi-rigid suspension limited the top speed. In addition, the running gear of the tank, especially the tracks, had very poor reliability, only 150-200 km. In order to fix the tank's mobility issues, these problems would have to be solved.

A suspension patent that Adolphe Kégresse used on halftracks and modernized Renault FT tanks.

Meanwhile, the former chief of the technical unit of the Imperial garage, Adolphe Kégresse, returned from Russia in 1917. Here, he began to promote the most important invention of his life: a tracked suspension with a rubber track. André Citroën, the founder and head of a well known automotive company that started its business in the military sector, was intrigued by this invention. Kégresse began working for Citroёn in 1919, as they moved from ammunition to automobiles. The halftrack system, which was perfected with the help of engineer Jacques Hinstin, proved successful. Citroёn-Kégresse halftracks became famous. They were used by the French Army, and armoured cars were built on their chassis.

Renault FT with a Kégresse suspension in Morocco. Obstacle crossing rollers were already added.

Kégresse offered to design a similar solution for the Renault FT, riding the wave of his success. An order was made for 26 of these tanks, which were made in 1925. The armament, turret, hull, and engine remained unchanged. The tanks were converted from existing Renault FTs. 

The old suspension was removed, replaced with a suspension that was very similar to the one used on early Citroёn-Kégresse halftracks. Two four-wheel bogeys were used on each side. The tracks were fully metallic. As the mass was greater than that of halftracks, the track and drive sprocket had to be changed. The resulting tank is often called Renault NC M24/25, but that index was never used in reality.

Tanks modernized after battles in Morocco. As you can see, the rollers were not installed on all tanks, and they could be armed with either machineguns or cannons.

Modernized tanks were sent to the 508th Tank Regiment, where they were organized into two companies. Military trials began, which included exercises in Mourmelon, home to one of the French army's central training facilities. Immediately, a small issue was discovered. Even though the suspension was longer, the tank occasionally scraped its hull against obstacles. To prevent this, rollers were attached to the front of the hull. Trials showed that the replacement of the suspension was a good idea. The top speed increased with the same engine, and the range was also increased.

Yugoslavian tanks on parade. The rear rollers can be seen.

It's possible that the trials could have been completed successfully, and the equipment of Renault FT tanks with Kegresse's suspension would have been commonplace, but fate played a cruel trick. In the summer of 1925, France officially joined Spain in the Rif War in Morocco. The tank unit equipped with Kegresse's tanks was among those sent to fight. Their rubber tracks were quickly worn down by the rocky terrain. One of these breakdowns ended tragically on October 3rd, 1925. While trying to fix the track, the tank's crew was killed by Berbers. Four more tanks lost their tracks in that battle. Since Kegresse's track was made out of one piece, it was difficult to install.

A tank with a modernized suspension in Poland. A decision was made to buy 5 such tanks.

After returning from Morocco, the tanks were sent to Versailles, where they were repaired and modernized. The track had to be changed drastically. Rubber-metallic grousers were added, which improved off-road traction. Modernized tanks continued serving in the 508th BCC. The track design,tested on the modernized Renault FT was later used on other Citroёn-Kégresse vehicles.

Deep Modernization 

When Kegresse's work on the Renault FT was just starting, the French army began thinking about seriously changing the tank. The Germans managed to obtain specialized anti-tank guns towards the end of WWI. Even though their penetration was a lot less than of the guns available in the early 1930s, they had no issues with tanks of the era. In addition, tanks started carrying armour piercing shells, which could penetrate up to 15 mm of armour. More protection was needed.

Renault NC-2 on the factory floor.

In 1923, an order for two modernized tanks was made, indexed Renault NC at the factory. The military, as well as Renault, decided to play it safe, in case Kegresse's suspension doesn't prove itself. The prototypes, indexed NC-1 and NC-2, had identical turrets and hulls, but different suspensions. Development went slowly, and the tanks entered trials in 1925.

The Renault NC-2 used Kegresse's suspension. Issues discovered during its use on the Renault FT were corrected. The bogey and suspension design remained largely the same, as well as the idlers. The drive sprockets were replaced, as insufficient traction was observed. The road wheels were also changed, and now had rubber rims. The track was altered, and now it was stretched out, without return rollers. This kind of solution raises many questions about how easy it would be to use in battle. Stretching out the tracks on a Renault FT with Kegresse's suspension was already hard, and the process of doing it with the NC-2 was even harder.

Close up view of the Renault NC-2's suspension.

The alternative was the Renault NC-1. Considering its number, looks like Renault placed their bets on this design. Turns out they made the right choice. This tank had metallic track links, but the design was altered. The rest of the suspension was changed even more. As with the NC-2, the tank had four wheels per bogey. However, while Kegresse's design used leaf springs, the Renault design had vertical coil springs. The result allowed for a larger contact surface.

The number of road wheels was insane for a light tank: 14 per side, two of which were used to soften the impact when hitting an obstacle. The drive sprocket and idler were fully redesigned. The suspension was covered up with shields to protect it from mud.

Renault NC-1 prototype.

Both prototypes had identical turrets, borrowed from the Renault FT. The hull was also similar to that of the Renault FT. This was not caused by conservatism on behalf of Renault, but by the French army, which wanted to save money. The war was over, the country was recovering from four years of bloodshed, and money for new toys was hard to come by, especially considering how many Renault FT were already in service. The front was identical to that of its predecessor, except for an increase to 25 mm of armour. This armour protected the tank from heavy machineguns. The rear was redesigned completely, to fit a new 62 hp engine. Since it was larger than the Renault FT's engine, the engine compartment had to be lengthened.

Renault NC-1 on trials, which showed that a traditional suspension was still better than Kegresse's design.

Trials, which began in 1925, showed that both tanks were superior to the Renault FT. Even though the increase in armour raised the mass of the tank from 6.7 to 8.5 tons, the new engine and superior suspension meant that both new tanks could reach a speed of about 20 kph. For an infantry support vehicle, this was enough. Trials also showed that a rubber-metallic track lost out to the a traditional design. The trip of Renault FT tanks with Kegresses's suspension to Morocco also happened around this time, which resulted in an even more negative evaluation.

As a result of the trials, the NC-1 emerged as a clear leader. The French army could get a modern tank, superior to the Renault FT in most ways. However, in 1926, infantry command composed new requirements for a light tank. Its mass had to be about 13 tons, the armour was increased to 30 mm, and the 47 mm cannon was proposed as armament. The Renault NC did not meet any of these criteria. There was some hope with cavalry, but that branch was not interested either.

In this situation, Renault had no other choice but to offer the tank for export. It received the index NC-27. It is sometimes claimed that the NC-2 was marketed for export as the NC-31, and these vehicles were built for China, but this is incorrect. The NC-2 remained as a single prototype.

Renault NC-27 on trials in Poland.

The first buyer of NC-27 tanks was Poland, which ordered one tank in 1928. The tank was tested alongside the Renault FT with the Kegresse suspension. After lengthy trials, the Poles declined a large purchase. They already had over 150 Renault FT tanks, and the new ones were not a sufficient improvement to cause significant interest. The order was limited to one NC-27 and five Renault FT with Kegresse's suspension, which received new tracks. These tanks were known as M26/27.

Renault got luckier with another buyer: Yugoslavia. According to various sources, either 9 or 10 Renault FT tanks with Kegresse's suspension were purchased. They survived until the spring of 1941, when the Germans invaded Yugoslavia. By that time, the obsolete tanks could not do much on the battlefield and were easy prey. Some of them were knocked out, a few were captured intact. One of them eventually ended up in American hands and was sent to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

According to François Vauvillier's research, the tanks that were sent to Yugoslavia and Poland were called Renault FT-Kegresse, and 29 were made, not 26. As for the Renault M. 24/25, Renault M.26/27 and Renault NC-31, these tanks were invented in the Tanks encyclopedia, which was published in 1935 in Munich. Published as a spiritual successor to Heigl's book (Fritz Heigl died in 1930), it contained a large number of inaccuracies and straight up inventions. 

For example, the NC-27 is recorded under the index NC-31, and the NC-2 is really the experimental NC-3, which later became the D1. The authors claim that the NC-2 was used in Greece and Japan, which is incorrect, as is information about the Renault M.26/27 that were allegedly sent to China. Due to a lack of other sources, these mistakes are often repeated by authors.

This photograph illustrates the outcome of the trials of the NC-27 in Sweden.

Sweden was another country that took an interest in French tanks. At the time, German and Austrian engineers were working on convertible drive tanks for Sweden. However, development was dragging on, forcing the Swedish army to seek an alternative. One NC-27 was purchased in 1928. The Swedish army indexed it Strv fm/28. Trials went badly from the very start. The gearbox and clutch were not particularly reliable. To make things worse, the suspension was poorly suited for Sweden. The results of the trials meant that no further purchases would be made.

On the other hand, the NC-27 finally convinced the Swedish army that tanks have to be developed locally and not bought elsewhere. The tactical-technical requirements for a new tank were composed after studying this tank. However, the vehicle ended up being useful for more than just trials. The Strv fm/28 served as a training tank for some time. Today, this tank can be seen at the Arsenalen tank museum, as the last surviving specimen from the NC family.

Fortune finally smiled upon the tank that was rejected by European nations. An order for 10 NC-27 tanks was made by the Imperial Japanese Army in 1929. According to Japanese sources, the deal was for 23 tanks. The tanks were shipped to Japan that year. It appears that the Japanese had the same opinion about individual components as the Swedes. However, they had little choice, since things were going poorly at the time. Japan had no domestically designed light tanks at all, and only 22 Renault FT tanks, purchased from France earlier.

Otsu-Gata Sensha, the Japanese modernization of the NC-27. The tank is equipped with the Japanese Type 11 37 mm gun.

The Japanese took it on to themselves to correct the drawbacks of the imported tanks. According to French sources, the tanks, indexed Type 89, received more powerful Mitsubishi engines. The 75 hp motor was enough to accelerate the tank to 20 kph. Some Type 89s received 6.5 mm Type 3 machineguns. The 37 mm SA 18 cannons were replaced with 37 mm Type 11 infantry cannons. The gun shared an ancestor with the SA 18: the French 37 mm mod. 1916 trench gun. However, it was more powerful, and could be used in an anti-tank role. As a result, the Type 89 was the most heavily armed tank from the Renault FT family.

Type 89 tanks with new guns and engines were the first tanks the Japanese army used in combat. On September 18th, 1931, Japanese intervention in Manchuria began. The battle for Harbin broke out in late January of 1932. In addition to the 2nd Infantry Division, the 1st Special Tank Company, commanded by Captain Hyakutake, also took part. However, there was no fully fledged battle at Harbin. Poorly trained Chinese forces quickly retreated, and the Japanese tanks had no worthy opponents. However, some conclusions were made from that experience. For example, the operational range of the French tanks turned out to be very short.

Combat in another part of China, Shanghai, began around the same time. Here, Captain Shigemi's 2nd Independent Tank Company took part in the fighting. The company contained five Type 89 tanks and ten NC-27 tanks. Combat showed that Japanese medium tanks were far superior to French light tanks. The NC-27 showed the same weaknesses that it did during trials in Sweden. The suspension was deemed unsuitable for this theater of war. The tanks were later sent to form the 1st Tank Regiment in Kurume. Here, the NC-27s were used alongside Type 89s as training vehicles.

Japanese NC-27 tanks during exercises of the 1st Tank Regiment in Kurume. The tanks are armed with either a cannon or a machinegun.

Despite the humble successes, it's hard to call the Renault NC program a failure. Although the tank was never accepted into service in France, and it success abroad was limited, these were the only mass produced French tanks of the 1920s. Further development of the Renault NC resulted in the mass produced D1, which even saw combat. The tank was noticed in other nations. For example, the Soviet experimental T-19 light tank used an NC-1-like suspension.


KwK 43 and the Schmalturm

$
0
0
Fantasizing about what might have been if the war in Europe continued past May of 1945 is not just a widespread hobby, but a profitable business. One of the vehicles frequently depicted laying waste to hordes of Allied tanks is the Panzerkampfwagen Panther mit 8,8 cm L/71 KwK 43, combining the firepower of a heavy tank and the mobility of a slightly less heavy tank. Yuri Pasholok wrote previously about how the gun, while technically fiting in the Schmalturm turret, didn't make the crew's life particularly pleasant. Let's take a look at a blueprint.


The quality of the original isn't great, so it might take a minute of squinting, but there are two issues that are immediately apparent.

One is that the commander's cupola overlaps the gun breech. As Pasholok points out, it would be incredibly uncomfortable to use it for observation, and using it would carry a risk of getting smacked by the gun when it recoiled. Interestingly enough, the commander's position on the Panther was one of the few stations that the British found acceptable in their inspection. Looks like that was about to disappear on the "improved" model.

The next problem is the loader's. The loader had a lot of issues in the larger Tiger II turret with this gun, so the smaller Schmalturm would not improve his lot in life. The blueprint helpfully includes the dimensions of a KwK 43 shell. In order to load it, the back of the shell would basically be scraping the back of the turret, which would make loading the gun even more difficult.

T-60 Applique Armour

$
0
0
"To the 3rd Department
January 19th, 1942

I am sending you the numbers of T-60 hull parts that will have applique armour applied to them. The same armour thickness will be used in hulls with single-part armour.

Part name
Part number
Main thickness (mm)
Applique armour thickness (mm)
Upper front plate
060-35-01-6
20
15
Driver’s hatch
060-35-04-1
20
15
Cabin front plate
060-35-02-3
20
15
Cabin side plate
060-35-02-4
20
10
Turret bustle, right
060-35-10-1
15
10
Turret bustle, left
060-35-10-4
15
10
Turret front, right
060-35-10-86
15
10
Turret front, left
060-35-10-87
15
10
Turret middle, left
060-35-10-87
15
10
Turret middle left and rear right
060-35-10-90
15
10
Turret rear left
060-35-10-92
15
10
Turret rear
060-35-10-93
15
10
Lower front turret plate
060-35-10-88
15
10
Mantlet shield
060-35-066
20
15

Rough Handling

$
0
0
It's no secret that the F-34 gun was also tested out on the KV-1 as a part of the various efforts to improve its firepower in 1941. After the gun was tested, the tank was converted back into its original form.

Experimental KV-1 with an F-34 gun.

Here's a little more about the tank's post-trial fate:

"Technical Act
May 24th, 1941
The commission, composed of:
  • Chair, Military Technician 1st Class A.S. Kaz
  • Members:
    • Senior SD-2 plant foreman, V.P. Kazakov
    • Representative of the OTK, I.A. Bretan
performed an inspection of KV tank #9694, engine number #1528-05, to determine its technical condition.

The inspection and testing by the commission established the following:
  1. The engine worked for a total of 14:25:00, and the tank traveled 141.7 km.
  2. The engine is functional.
  3. Transmission: there are grease marks on the right side, near the labyrinth grease gland. Adjustment is required.
  4. Running gear: functional.
  5. Electrical equipment: the batteries need to be recharged, electric lamps and fuses restocked.
  6. Hull: functional, needs painting.
  7. Turret: the turret ring guard was removed under the gun and the turret bay. The set of turret ring guard bolts is incomplete. The machinegun ammunition racks to the right of the turret, above the gun, by the batteries, and by the gate valve weer removed. The machinegun ammunition racks need repairs. The cassettes were bent and the turret hatch does not close.
  8. Commission conclusions:
    1. The vehicle is functional.
    2. Restocking and correction of defects is necessary.
[Signatures]"

SS Professionalism

$
0
0
"There's an interesting moment at the start of the Vienna operation that should be remarked on, regarding the issue of highly trained SS units. The Germans saw the preparations. Even though the weather was bad, their reconnaissance aircraft were flying and saw a concentration of cars, tanks, artillery, and tracked it. They could precisely predict that an offensive was about to start. The first round of fighting was with the Fuhrer, who was told that the Spring Awakening had to end, now the Russians are going to hit us and that's it, the front will collapse, we're going to have an "awakening" with hangover, as they say. They tried to convince Hitler for a while, convinced him in the end (it was still Guderian then as the Chief of Staff). Guderian convinced Hitler to wrap up Spring Awakening since it didn't achieve any results. The Fuhrer agreed that it had to wrap up to prepare for the Russian offensive. With a load off his shoulders, Weller, the Commander of Army Group South calls Dietrich's HQ and says "That's it, the Fuhrer allowed it, we can retreat, now the Russians will attack", to which he received a cold answer: "Well you see, it's already evening (March 15th), we can't get in touch with our people and pull them back, let's do it tomorrow, tomorrow night, to conceal our movement." A whole day was lost purely out of exceptional incompetence, I have no other word for it, on behalf the 6th SS Tank Army staff."

Aleksey Isayev, "The Nazis' Last Counteroffensive"

Renault R 40: Incorrigible

$
0
0
The Char leger Modele 1935 R that was accepted into service by the French army on April 25th, 1935, was a compromise. Created as a replacement for the Renault FT, it did not surpass its predecessor by much in speed, and the armament remained the same. Of course, the new tank had more powerful armour, but experience showed that you could not rely on it. The French infantry began looking at the FCM 36, an expensive tank, but one that was more suitable for the infantry tank role. The Renault R 35 could only be rescued with a modernization of its weakest link: the suspension. A new tank with a superior suspension and a longer gun received the index R 40. It finally satisfied the requirements of the customer, but it was too late.

In search of a superior suspension

The Renault R 35 was a victim of the French army's desire for more armour with the same dimensions. As a result, the tank quickly left the 6 ton weight class and surpassed the 10 ton mark towards the end of its development. Its mobility could not remain the same. In this case, the problem was not with speed. The French infantry did not prioritize a high speed. The R 35 was tasked with supporting infantry attacks, and infantry, no matter how much it wants to, can't run across the battlefield as fast as a horse.

The main weakness of the Renault R 35 was the suspension, and this weakness was not revealed right away. Renault engineers used their previous experience with the Renault VO cavalry tank when designing the Renault ZM. The suspension was compact and worked well on a level road. It also showed itself well on the experimental Renault ZM. The problem was that it was designed for a different weight class and for a different purpose. It didn't break, but when the Renault R 35 was delivered to the military, it turned out that its suspension was unsuitable for off-road driving.

The problems that the French were facing were, in a way, similar to what the Japanese encountered with the Ha-Go in Manchuria. The Japanese solved that problem by installing special mounts with an additional road wheel on each side. The French, however, were unsatisfied with a half-measure like that, since the target theater of war was right under their noses. The French infantry commanders first began looking at the FCM 36 because of its superior off-road performance (not to mention its welded hull, sloped armour, and diesel engine).

Dissatisfaction with the R 35's suspension grew gradually. By 1938, it entered the practical phase. Infantry command decided that the Renault R 35 will be produced with the current suspension up to tank #1500. The 1501st tank must have a modernized suspension, and all existing Renault R 35s will be modernized and have their suspension replaced.

By that point, the Renault assembly plant was nationalized and reformed into the Ateliers de construction d'Issy-les-Moulineaux, or AMX for short. In early 1938, AMX engineers began working on a new tank that could replace the Renault R 35. However, the AMX 38 was still up in the air, while the unsatisfactory Renault R 35 suspension was an immediate issue. Even after this restructuring, Renault remained a dominant force in French tank building, and its engineers never stopped working on new tanks and components. However, Renault no longer held a monopoly on the modernization of its own tank.

Renault R 35 with a suspension designed by Lorraine.

One of the companies that tried its luck at modernizing the Renault R 35's suspension was Lorraine. This fragment of the Lorraine-Dietrich automotive company moved to military projects in the early 1930s. The company's biggest success was the contract fro Lorraine 37L tracked prime movers. This suspension from this vehicle was tried on the R 35. The modernized tank entered trials in the spring of 1938. As on the Lorraine 37L, the number of road wheels was increased to 6 per side, and the idler was lifted off the ground. The tracks were also taken from the prime mover. To reinforce the design, the bogeys were connected with a beam.

The result was far from idea. In order to install the new suspension, 118 new holes in the hull had to be drilled. The mass of the modernized tank also grew by 1.5 tons. It's not surprising that the military declined this proposal.

The first variant of the Renault modernization. No comment.

Renault began its modernization with a simple idea. The first variant replaced each road wheel with two wheels of smaller diameter. These wheels were attached to a separate bogey. The result was an unusual design with 10 road wheels per side, but at what cost! The design was much more complicated, and trials showed that this system was hopeless.

Renault's second variant with a stretched suspension.

The second attempt was not any more complicated. A decision was made at Renault that the issues of the suspension came from insufficient length. The issue was resolved by increasing the wheel base. The idler was moved far back and a sixth road wheel was added in its place. This "improvement" increased the tank's mass by 700 kg and did not solve any problems with the suspension.

Many changes were made to the tank as a result.

The third modernization was final. It looks like Renault remembered what they did with the Renault NC. as the design created in 1939 has many similarities with France's first mass produced interbellum tank. The new suspension contained 9 road wheels per side, combined into bogeys with horizontal springs. The suspension and road wheels were covered with screens.

Even though the third modernization increased the tank's mass by 2 tons, the French infantry command was interested. There was no chance of using this suspension in new production, but it could be installed on existing tanks. Plans were made for the modernization of 800 existing tanks, but it was not meant to be. AMX managed to do the job much better.

Renault's last try at modernization of the R 35's suspension. This variant was better, but AMX still won.

AMX engineers did not try to make their jobs harder. The first modernization variant was simply the installation of the AMX 38 suspension on the R 35. The number of road wheels grew to 12. This modernization was never performed in metal. The suspension used in trials was a different one, similar to Renault's third variant.

AMX's first suspension proposal.

A commission from the infantry command summarized the results of the contest and awarded victory to AMX. The modernized tank was indexed Char léger Modèle 1935 R modifié 1939. The military liked the suspension so much that it was proposed for the Hotchkiss H 38 tank, but the cavalry declined this offer. It didn't need another 700 kg of weight, and cavalry tanks mostly drove on roads, not fields.

End of the campaign

Despite the fact that the new suspension was much more suitable for off-road driving, the French military did not rush it into production. In their opinion, there was no need to change approved plans, and the first 1500 tanks should be produced with the old suspension. This seems strange, especially since old tanks would be modernized anyway after the Char léger Modèle 1935 R modifié 1939 entered production. 

The modernization process was not influenced by the start of WWII. According to the production schedule, completion of the 1500th Renault R 35 and the switch to Char léger Modèle 1935 R modifié 1939 was scheduled for February of 1940. The reality was different: the old Renault R 35 lasted a month longer than expected on the assembly line. The last tank produced had the registration number 51540, meaning that 1540 units were built.

The new suspension was anything but simple.

By the time the new tank entered production, two events took place that impacted its fate. The first was that the tank received the name Renault R 40. This is logical, considering the year that it was put into production.

The second event was much more important. French industry finally managed to produce the long barreled SA 38 37 mm gun in sufficient amounts to install it on all tanks. The Renault R 40 shrugged off one of the drawbacks of its predecessor: a gun that was worthless against tanks with 20 mm of armour or more.

Even though the new tank was assembled at an AMX factory and its suspension was designed by AMX, it was still called Renault. Its components were still being manufactured at Renault, and even the new suspension was built at a Renault factory south of Le Mans.

The start of production of the Renault R 40 was affected by a number of factors. The first was that AMX still had an order for B1 bis tanks. Furthermore, it was significantly increased. The infantry command finally realized (after almost five years) that the Char G isn't going anywhere, and hurriedly ordered fifty Renault D2. The resources of the factory at Versailles-Satory weren't infinite.

The first Renault R 40 with registration number 51541 left the assembly line in March of 1940. Considering its workload, AMX could not keep up the production volumes of the Renault R 35 (70 tanks per month). Due to the chaos during June of 1940, nobody knows the total number of Renault R 40 tanks produced. The biggest registration number encountered in photographs is 51670, meaning that at least 130 were built. François Vauvillier claims that 155 tanks were built, but the real number is likely fewer. Even if there were 155 Renault R 40 tanks built, the average monthly production was only 50 units, not a lot for a mass production tank.

Tankers from the 40th Tank Battalion (BCC, Bataillon de Chars de Combat) with their new tank, May 1940

The first unit to receive the Renault R 40 was the 40th Tank Battalion. This unit had 15 Renault R 35 and 30 Renault R 40 tanks on May 19th, 1940. Its first battles on May 31st near Corbie showed the superiority of the new tanks over old ones. The battalion lost nine R 35s, but the R 40s only received damage to observation devices. The battalion continued fighting defensively until the end of the war, and had 27 tanks left over by June 18th.

The next recipient of the new tanks was the 48th Tank Battalion, which took in 16 R 35 and 29 R 40. The battalion's debut at Abbeville, where 11 tanks were lost, also demonstrate the R 40's superiority. By June 8th, the battalion had 26 tanks left, predominately R 40s.

Another unit with Renault's tanks had them in nearly equal numbers (21 R 35 and 24 R 40) was General Maczek's 2nd Polish Battalion. These were the same men who fought in the 10th Armoured Cavalry Brigade in the fall of 1939. However, they quickly transferred their tanks to the 25th Tank Battalion, which used Hotchkiss H 39 tanks prior to that. The battalion was fighting near Somme in early June, and had 6 tanks left at the end of the campaign.

As for the Poles, they were the last to receive the R 40 (13 units on June 19th). They did not have a lot of time to fight. The personnel were quickly evacuated to Britain where they formed the 1st Polish Tank Division.

Renault R 40 from the 48th BCC.

Overall, the career of the R 40 could be described as successful. The modernized R 35 was more successful than its predecessor, and the longer gun increased its effectiveness in battle. Nevertheless, there was no huge leap in quality. Even with the modernization, the Renault R 40 was obsolete.

At war's end

As with the Renault R 35, some R 40 tanks (around 30) fell into German hands. The tanks were given the index Panzerkampfwagen 40R 736 (f). Some of the captured tanks were still in warehouses. The Panzerkampfwagen 40R 736 (f) is practically the only French light tank that the Germans did not convert into SPGs or special vehicles.

There are several reasons for this. One is that, in comparison with the R 35, the Germans captured a miserly amount of tanks. The new suspension was also more complicated than on the Renault R 35. The Germans decided to spare themselves the extra headache, and the Panzerkampfwagen 40R 736 (f) never left France.

Panzerkampfwagen 40R 736 (f) captured by the Free French.

The Panzerkampfwagen 40R 736 (f) was equivalent to the R 35 as a training tank, and this is the role that it was used in. As on the R 35, the Germans cut off the commander's cupola and installed a two-piece hatch. The captured tanks survived in this form until the summer of 1944. At least several Panzerkampfwagen 40R 736 (f) remained in the Paris garrison. In August of 1944, one tank was captured by the Parisians and went into battle against the Germans.

Alas, time was not kind to the R 40: not a single surviving tank of this type is known.

Military Police Renault R 35. The missing commander's cupola indicates that the tank formerly served the Germans.

As with the Renault R 35, the reclamation of French territory by the French army meant that the tanks returned into service. They did not see the front lines, but were often used as auxiliary vehicles. Some of these tanks were never converted by the Germans, as they were squirreled away during the occupation. The career of the R 35 did not end after the war. These tanks were even modernized. Some R 35s received the long SA 38 cannon. These tanks were included in the military police which was used in the French occupation zone in Germany.

The first variant of the Automoteur-Canon de 16 livres sur chassis R 35, conceptually similar to the German 4.7 cm Pak(t) (Sfl) auf Fgst.Pz.Kpfw.35 R 731(f) tank destroyer.

To wrap up, it's worth mentioning a far more radical modernization than the installation of a longer gun. Work began during the German occupation, even though it only reached the draft stage in the fall of 1945. Looks like AMX engineers were impressed by Alkett's work an decided to develop something similar to the 4.7 cm Pak(t) (Sfl) auf Fgst.Pz.Kpfw.35 R 731(f). 

Even the name Automoteur-Canon de 16 livres sur chassis R 35 (self propelled 16-pounder gun on the R 35 chassis) is reminiscent of its German analogue. The layout was also similar. 58 rounds of ammunition was kept in the main ammunition rack in the rear bay. The name of the gun was erroneous: AMX engineers were going to use the British 17-pounder gun. Even the Germans did not attempt installing such a large gun on such a small chassis. The mass of the resulting SPG was optimistically estimated at 12 tons. The layout was similar to the 4.7 cm Pak(t) (Sfl) auf Fgst.Pz.Kpfw.35 R 731(f), but the size of the fighting compartment was larger. The casemate was going to be cast, and it shape was very complex.

The second variant of the Automoteur-Canon de 16 livres sur chassis R 35. This time, the gun is pointing backwards.

This was not the only AMX project of its kind. In parallel, another Automoteur-Canon de 16 livres sur chassis R 35 project was in development, with a noticeably different layout. Its mass was estimated at 11 tons, which was even less believable. However, the layout also raises many questions. AMX engineers couldn't think of anything better than to turn the gun backwards. The ammunition rack moved to the engine compartment, and the ammunition capacity decreased from 70 rounds to 42. The crew consisted of two men.

This layout raised serious issues about the load on the suspension. If the weight was evenly distributed in the first variant, the second variant's rear road wheels were noticeably overloaded. Nevertheless, neither project was ever built in metal. The Renault R 35 was hopelessly obsolete, and the tanks themselves were heavily used. It was easier to let the old veterans retire and use British and (especially) American self propelled guns.

Canon 25 mm S.A. Mle 1934: A "Baby" Gun for a Grown Up War

$
0
0
An old military saying states that "every army prepares to fight the previous war". That is how the French generals acted when planning new anti-tank guns. Thinking about enemy tanks, they envisioned clumsy boxes, crawling across the battlefield at a pedestrian's pace, protected with several centimeters of armour. To fight them, a small gun was needed, one that could be easily hidden on a crater-pocked field and pushed around with just the strength of the crew. The result of this line of thinking was the 25 mm anti-tank gun model 1934, Canon 25 mm S.A. Mle 1934.

Its story begins before the end of WWI, when the well known Hotchkiss company began designing a new tank gun. Since the war ended, the project was mothballed, but suddenly came up again in the early 1930s, when the French army was looking for a new anti-tank gun. By putting the failed anti-tank gun on a wheeled mount with deployable trails and a small shield, the company ended up with a small and cheap anti-tank gun, and a decent one at that. The prototype, produced in 1933, successfully passed trials. The gun was accepted into service as the Canon 25 mm S.A. Mle 1934, or 25 mm semi-automatic gun, model 1934. Hotchkiss received their first order for 200 units in 1934.

Design specifications

Compared to its field artillery "sisters", the 25 mm anti-tank gun looked like a toy due to its small size and mass. Its designers took a number of steps to make the gun easier to hide on the battlefield. The top of the gun shield was wavy (straight lines are easier to see) and the barrel was equipped with a flash suppressor. The gun was semiautomatic: the breech remained open after a shot was fired and extracted the shell, but closing the breech had to be done manually.

The Hotchkiss gun was anti-tank, and only that. Its ammunition consisted of two kinds of armour piercing shells: one with a tracer, and one without. A tracer shell (its tip was painted green) made it easier for the gunner to correct his fire, but in some cases, like when fighting from an ambush, it risked revealing the position of the gun. In that case, a tracerless shell could be used (black tip).

The ammunition design was similar to an enlarged anti-tank rifle round: it has no explosive filler and consisted only of steel shot. The mass of the shot was 317 g (320 g for the tracer variant), and the length was 109 mm. The gunpowder in a large 145 mm long casing gave it a muzzle velocity of 920 m/s. According to French data, the cannon could penetrate 40 mm of armour at 30 degrees from 400 meters. The report on Soviet trials of the captured weapon is less optimistic: at the same angle, it gave the gun 36 mm of penetration at 100 meters, 32 at 300, 29 at 500, and 22 at 1000.

The small caliber and semiautomatic breech gave the gun a high rate of fire. French manuals describe it as 20 RPM, but other sources say 15 RPM against moving targets or 25 RPM against stationary ones. A well trained crew could fire 35 times per minute. Of course, in that case, no fire correction was possible.

The gun was equipped with a telescopic 4x sight with a FOV of 11 degrees. The distance markings on the sight went up to 3500 m. A backup iron sight, consisting of a bead and a rear sight, was installed on top of the telescopic sight. It could be adjusted to four positions: 400, 600, 800, and 1000 meters.

Aside from the wavy top, the gun shield had another feature: a large portion of the surface was protected by two additional shields. The mount had deployable trails and two wheels with pneumatic tires. Thanks to the gun's low mass (475 kg), it could easily be moved around the battlefield by its crew of 6. Special straps came with the gun for that purpose. The gun was to be moved by prime movers over long distances, but practice showed that the design was too delicate. The top speed had to be limited to 15 kph off-road and 30 kph on a highway. An attempt to solve this problem resulted in a stop-gap solution: a special trailer with sprung wheels that would carry the gun. This technique, often used with obsolete guns, seemed absurd when applied to a new gun specifically designed to be transported by motor transport. Nevertheless, this method was widespread. Another way to improve mobility was carrying the gun in the truck bed.

The gun's light weight allowed the crew to move it on their own.
Vauvillier F. Le Canon de 25 mm antichar modele 1934 Hotchkiss

A new version of the gun appeared in 1937, Canon 25 mm S.A.-L Mle 1937 (L for leger, light), designed by Puteaux. This gun weighed only 310 kg. Visually, it could be distinguished by a different shape of the shield and flash suppressor. The breech and trigger mechanism were also modified to increase the rate of fire.

In total, 4225 units of Canon 25 mm S.A. Mle 1934  and 1285 Canon 25 mm S.A.-L Mle 1937 were built before May 1st, 1940. The more powerful Canon 37 mm S.A. Mle 1937 was supposed to replace the 25 mm anti-tank guns, but its production was ramping up slowly. Another attempt was made to modernize the gun in 1939. The result, named Canon 25 mm S.A. Mle 1934 modifie 1939 (25 mm semi-automatic gun model 1934 modification 1939), received a more robust mount, which removed the speed limit for towing. The army ordered 1200 of these guns, and supplies were scheduled to start in June of 1940. It's not known whether or not the first batch of guns was ever delivered to the customer.

Use in combat

The 25 mm tank gun was the main anti-tank weapon of the French army at the start of WWII. Each infantry division was authorized to have 52 guns: 12 in each infantry regiment (2 in each battalion and 6 in the regimental anti-tank company), 12 in the divisional anti-tank company, and 4 in the reconnaissance group. The amount of anti-tank guns in an infantry division was less than in the German equivalent, which had 75 3.7 cm Pak guns. 

Canon 25 mm S.A. Mle 1934 crew at work.
Vauvillier F. Le Canon de 25 mm antichar modele 1934 Hotchkiss

The 25 mm guns were present in other French army units, but in lesser amounts. A light mechanized division had 24 of these weapons (12 in the dragoon regiment and divisional anti-tank squadron). A light cavalry division had 28 guns (8 in the dragoon regiment, 4 each in cavalry regiments, and 12 in the anti-tank squadron). A tank division had only a dozen of these guns. To finish off, reconnaissance groups in army corps had four of these guns each.

Fighting in May-June of 1940 showed that the 25 mm gun is an effective anti-tank measure in skilled hands. An iconic example is the battle near the Belgian town of Gembloux on May 14-15th. An anti-tank gun crew commanded by Corporal Louis Brindejon from the 2nd Moroccan Rifles Regiment managed to knock out seven German tanks (three PzII and four PzIII) from the German 4th Tank Division. The French fired from 600 meters, and the gun was so well hidden that the Germans never managed to destroy it. The Germans only managed to cross Brindejon's crossroads when a Fi 156 plane spotted the gun and marked it with a smoke bomb. The gun was disabled as a result of mortar fire, and its crewmen were killed or wounded. Brindejon himself was wounded and captured, survived until liberation, and died in 2010 at the age of 92.

Abandoned Canon 25 mm S.A.-L Mle 1937. France, 1940.

The Germans recognized the effectiveness of the 25 mm gun. Colonel Kune from the 3rd Tank Division wrote: "The precision of fire from the French 25 mm anti-tank gun is very good. The front armour of the Panzer III is easily penetrated by this excellent French weapon."

However, not all anti-tank units used their cannons as skilfully as Corporal Brindejon. In most cases, the guns were helpless even against relatively "thin-skinned" German tanks of the early war. One participant of the battles of May-June of 1940, commander of a 25 mm gun crew, Corporal Jean Dupont, shared his impressions in an article called Fighting Tanks published in the Field Artillery Journal in April of 1941. Dupont recalled: "My 25 mm gun crew fired on three tanks. One was stopped, another was delayed for a few minutes, the third remained undamaged despite the fact that we fired many shots from some 50 yards away."

Another issue was that a number of French units did not receive enough 25 mm guns. For example, the 71st Infantry Division went into battle with just 25% of its authorized amount of anti-tank guns.

Career abroad

200 25 mm guns were sent to Britain, receiving Boys anti-tank rifles in return. The British called these guns 25 mm Hotchkiss Mark I. They were used not only by British expeditionary forces in France, but also in Norway. The most known episode in their career happened there. On April 23rd, 1940, a German column consisting of a light PzII tank, an Sd.Kfz. 231 armoured car, and a NbFz three-turreted tank approached the city of Åndalsnes, which was protected by two companies from the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry Regiment. The column was followed by infantry (some on trucks, some on foot). As soon as the head of the column entered the Lagen river valley, one of the British 25 mm guns opened fire. The artillerymen managed to disable the NbFz by firing at its suspension, and then knocked out the light tank. The armoured car had no choice but to retreat. The small caliber anti-tank gun managed to disable the heaviest tank Germany had to offer in 1940.

200 Canon 25 mm S.A. Mle 1934 guns were given to the British.

Moving 25 mm guns in truck beds was a necessary measure due to the fragility of their mounts.

The British were left with very few 25 mm guns after the fall of France, mostly those that were evacuated from Norway. They were used for training purposes until ammunition was expended (production of 25 mm shells was deemed unreasonable due to the low number of guns).

Before the start of the Winter War, Finland ordered 50 Canon 25 mm S.A.-L Mle 1937 guns from France, received only 40, and only 20 of them saw battle. The last batch of 10 guns meant for Finland was captured by the Germans in Norway. After the fall of France, Finland bought a large number of guns from the Germans (200 units: 133 Canon 25 mm S.A. Mle 1934 and 67 Canon 25 mm S.A.-L Mle 1937). French 25 mm guns were used by the Finns until 1943 as 25 PstK/34 and 25 PstK/37. They even had an unofficial nickname: Marianna.

The Canon 25 mm S.A. Mle 1934 was called 25 PstK/34 in the Finnish army.

25 PstK/37 anti-tank gun and its crew.

The Wehrmacht indexed the Canon 25 mm S.A. Mle 1934 as Pak 112(f), and the Canon 25 mm S.A.-L Mle 1937 as Pak 113(f). The Germans used them in second and third line units, largely in occupied Western European countries. Some amount of guns made their way to the Italians, where they were indexed Cannone a 25/72 and later used in North Africa.

German trophies in 1940:  Canon 25 mm S.A. Mle 1934 guns.

The Renault UE carrier was the prime mover for the 25 mm guns in both the French and German armies.

An improvised tank destroyer: Pak 112(f) installed on a Renault UE prime mover.

A small number of Canon 25 mm S.A. Mle 1934 guns were used by the Free French forces in North Africa, including as improvised tank destroyers. The gun was installed on a gun mount in the truck bed of a Dodge WC-51.

The overall impression of the 25 mm anti-tank guns was formed during the fall of France in 1940. Yes, the "Hotchkiss" could not win the war, but these little guns showed themselves well. On one hand, good penetration and rate of fire could destroy the German tanks of the time. On the other hand, the gun had no reserve for boosting its characteristics (and it was already necessary in 1941, as more tanks with anti-shell armour appeared). This partially explains the reluctance of Germany to use these guns. Another drawback, caused by the low caliber, is the absence of a high explosive shell, which could have made it useful for some other task than fighting tanks. The 25 mm guns were no longer anti-tank rifles, but didn't quite make it to the level of "real" cannons.

Tactical-technical characteristics of the Canon 25 mm S.A. Mle 1934:

Caliber, mm
25
Barrel length, calibers
72
Mass, kg
475
Length in travel/battle position, m
3.57/3.46
Width in travel/battle position, m
1.04/2.53
Wheel base of the mount, m
1
Height to the top of the gun shield, m
1.1
Vertical traverse, degrees
-5 to + 15
Horizontal traverse, degrees
60
Rate of fire, RPM
15-35
Range: practical/maximum, m
1000/1800

KV-3 Evolution

$
0
0
"To the BTU Chief, Military Engineer 1st Class, comrade Korobkov

I report that the Kirov factory made the following decisions on the KV-3:
  1. The KV-3 will be based on the Object 221 with a future plan of increasing the side armour once an 850 hp engine is received.
  2. The armament, front, and turret armour will be increased according to State plans.
  3. Since the hulls of the Objects 220 and 221 are identical in dimensions, the transmission from the 220 will be installed in the KV-3 with the V-5 engine (700 hp) with the intention to replace it with an 850 hp engine.
  4. Trials of the V-5 engine, transmission, and KV-3 suspension will be performed on the Object 220.
To achieve this, the Object 220 will be loaded to the weight of the KV-3 (70 tons), which will reduce the clearance of the tank by 22-30 mm from twisting of the torsion bars and compression of the rubber rims.

The first trial occurred on April 12th, 1941. A leak was found in the V-5 engine crankcase through the ventilation valve. In order to prevent this, the crankcase was connected to the oil tank with a hose.

The second trial occurred on April 14th. The vehicle traveled 120 km by April 15th. The results are as follows: over roads, the 700 hp engine works satisfactorily. Off-road, it is only possible to drive in second gear. Currently (in the spring) the terrain is especially difficult to traverse and the off-road performance with this engine in the summer will be better.

The issue of the gun is still unclear. The dimensions provided by factory #92 are unsatisfactory for the Kirov factory, as a stamped turret of the required height cannot be produced by the armour factories.

Senior Military Representative of GABTU, Military Engineer 2nd Class, Bubyakin."


Cromwells in Normandy

$
0
0
"Remarks regarding the use of Cromwell tanks in Normandy

1. Exhaust fumes, exhaust system, sparkplug fouling

A. The tank's users discovered that the exhaust fumes of the tank gave away the tank's position in moist weather. 

In order to immediately prevent this from happening, a protective cap for the exhaust pipe was designed. It is easy to install and it's made from scrap metal and refuse. The latter is used as stuffing.
This cap has the following advantages:
  1. Exhaust fumes are spread beneath the horizon.
  2. The exhaust fumes are cooled by air, and their density decreases.
  3. Since it is easy to remove the cap, it's easy to replace the stuffing.
The use of the cap has the following drawbacks:
  1. Loss of full gun depression in the range from 5 o'clock to 7 o'clock.
  2. The protective cap is vulnerable to enemy fire and to damage when driving off-road.
B. Sparkplug fouling

Practice shows that even though the sparkplugs in the engine fouled on both sides, row "A", closer to the exhaust valve, is particularly prone to fouling. The exact figures in terms of miles or hours are unknown, but there were cases when a tank had to stop for 3 hours.

Another reason for breakdowns is the slow speed that the tanks must drive at along the roads.

The defects could be less frequent if drivers could be instructed to maintain high engine RPMs when idling or driving slowly. However, in practice, it is difficult to follow these instructions, since usually the drivers wear tight helmets, and it is very loud in the tank. It is difficult to keep track of the engine RPM. Users also insist that the first indicator of increasing RPMs for the driver is the activation of the regulator. They also say that the installation of a tachometer is very desirable. 

It proved impossible to remove an engine and check it in the field. Currently, investigation of all sparkplugs that proved defective is underway.

2. Design of the mudflaps

There are complaints about damage to the mudflaps, especially the front, from enemy fire, trees, etc. As a result, they are torn away from the tank. The shiny steel that is revealed along the entire side of the tank was easy for the enemy to see and could reveal its location.
A more robust design is proposed.

3. Delco-Remy charging device

The size of the charging device is insufficient, and it is difficult to keep tank batteries at full charge. In addition, the gasoline engine has many defects.

4. Driver's emergency hatch

Conclusions were made based on sets that were meant to be used in the field.
  1. Ball joint plate: up to 1/8" of metal must be removed.
  2. External ball joint: must have a cutout to remove the periscope.
  3. All other plates have to be cut down at both angles, and the attachment pins must be cut down by 1/8"-1/4" to fit to the hull plates.
  4. In some cases, up to 1" of metal has to be removed from the lower part of the rear plate of the turret to avoid fouling up the ball joints.
  5. If any set of plates is built for a certain tank they do not necessarily work with any other tank.
  6. It takes 4-12 hours to prepare the plates in field conditions.
5. 75 mm gun mantlet

There was a case of a direct hit to the BESA machinegun. The machinegun war thrown back into the radio, the gunner was killed. The shell passed through the mantlet and into the turret without damaging the turret at all.

6. Eccentric axle

A number of these axles was bent. Based on existing information, it was established that they were bent after the tanks drove through densely forested terrain.

7. Towing hooks

Both cases of tow hooks tearing off were investigated, and conclusions were made that the tear occurred on:
  • Non-swampy terrain
  • Even, not pitted, terrain
  • With clean tracks
  • While towing the tank in a straight line
A welded design of the towing brackets is being developed to increase robustness."

Tukhachevsky on Tanks

$
0
0
A man like Mikhail Tukhachevsky needs no introduction, as he is one of the most famous military minds of the 20th century, having come up with the very effective Deep Battle doctrine. However, some of his ideas were rather odd, even for their time.

"In my note on tanks, I wrote: "If we take Magdesiev's calculations as 50%, then with our plans for tractor production in 1932/33 of 197,000 units, the annual tank production can be 100,000. If we consider one year of war to consume 100% of tanks (this is an arbitrary number), then we can maintain a park of 50,000 tanks."

Why 50,000 tanks from 100,000? Because in my proposal, the building of 50,000 tanks will be done not in peacetime, not during mobilization, but in the first year of war. So out of 100,000 tanks , 50,000 (excluding tanks build during peacetime) will be spent on deploying the tank units and 50,000 will be used to compensate for 100% losses. I don't understand how people who are well informed in issues of military organization, and Staff workers must be so, can't figure out such an elementary issue.

The RKKA Staff considers the loss of tanks per year of war to be 400%. In this case, we can maintain a fleet of 20-25,000 tanks. Characteristically, the RKKA Staff did not apply their standard to my note, but the opposite, took 50,000 tanks as the starting point, applied their 400%, and calculated that a peacetime order of 142,000 tanks must be made. I can't find the words for this kind of behaviour in the Staff.

According to my calculations, 8-12 thousand tanks must be mobilized to organize a new kind of deep battle, which I told the Revolutionary Military Council having not yet read your letter. I know there is nothing fantastical about this number, which can seen from such things like comrade Voroshilov stating that the government offered us 10,000 tanks, but he thought it was unreasonable and proposed 3,500 tanks. 

Let me add that we still treat the tank issue very conservatively, insisting that all tanks be of the military type. Considering that we will have no competitors in Europe in the field of tractor building by the end of the five year plan, we need to strive for having 1/3rd of all tanks be special military types, to perform special tasks of fighting enemy artillery, etc. The rest of the tanks, in the second and third echelon, can be slower, larger, etc. This means that such a tank can be an armoured tractor, just like we have armoured cars, trains, draisines, etc. We can produce massive amounts of armoured tractors.

...

The RKKA Staff insists that it is necessary to build many large military factories, which I consider incorrect. Military production can be based on civilian factories, which I proved with figures attached to my notes on industrial mobilization and the artillery program. The attached notes explain that I aim to minimize peacetime spending by way of adapting civilian products and organizations to the aims of war."

Even though Tukhachevsky fell out of favour and was eventually executed, his tractor tank idea was tried during the desperate early months of the Great Patriotic War. These tanks were of limited usefulness, and did not last long in production, making room for much more useful "second echelon" tanks.

KV-1 Engine Compartment

$
0
0
Details of the famous Aberdeen test are still not fully available online, all we have are scraps and rumours. However, user Makarov from Tiger's Corner shared a little bit of it with us. These high resolution photos of the engine and transmission compartments are sure to delight any dedicated scale modeler.

Fans of the "JS" vs "IS" debate will also both certainly be shocked at the new name the tank received in this report: KB.



Renault D1: FT on Steroids

$
0
0
Attempts to modernize the Renault FT, the most numerous tank in WWI, gave unexpected results. Initially, only the low speed was unsatisfactory for the French military, but its tastes grew by the mid-1920s. Now, the thin armour, which was insufficient to protect the tank from high caliber machineguns, was also unsatisfactory. The result was the NC-1 tank, which was 2 tons heavier and had thicker armour, while being twice as fast. The tank was a good replacement for the Renault FT, but the army's appetites grew once more, which led to the creation of a new tank, the Renault D1.

Questionably Light

The military's desires were partially influenced by the development of the 30 ton Char B heavy tank. Renault and Schneider began to develop the SR tank (Schneider-Renault) together. The SRA (Schneider-Renault A, aka Renault JZ) and SRB (Schneider-Renault B) ended up very similar. Both tank used Schneider's cast turret with two Hotchkiss machineguns. The idea of a dual mount was liked by the French, since the tank's firepower doubled. The fact that this system made the commander's life difficult, since he also doubled as the loader and gunner, was not taken into account. The idea of dual machineguns hung around until the mid-1930s.

In 1926, the French infantry command revised its requirements for a light infantry support tank. According to them, the armour had to be thickened to 30 mm tons at a weight of 12 tons. The armament would consist of either two machinguns or a 47 mm cannon. The Renault NC family, meant to replace the Renault FT, did not match those requirements. Renault tried to fit a dual machinegun mount inside the FT turret. The Tanks encyclopedia, published in Munich in 1935, mistakenly calls the tank with this turret the NC-2. It also claims that these tanks were mass produced and exported, but that is not correct.

The only known photograph of the Renault NC-1 STCC, mistakenly also called Renault D3.

Another branch of evolution for this tank is mistakenly called Renault D3. In reality, this was the experimental NC-1 which was converted to test out a new suspension and turret. The design appeared in 1930, and carried a modernized suspension designed by Captain Marie Adrien Joseph Balland. The name STCC meant the Technical Tank Section (section technique des chars de combat) where Balland worked. Aside from the new suspension, the Renault NC-1 STCC had a turret that migrated from the Char B prototype built in 1929. The turret, designed by Schneider, changed shape and received a commander's cupola. This tank remained an experiment, as Renault was already working on a more promising tank.

Renault NC-3. The exhaust pipe coming out of the side is a sign of the more powerful 65 hp engine.

Work on this tank, initially called Renault NC-3, began in January of 1927. Initially, only the armour would be improved, but soon, the design of the hull had to be changed. STCC also wanted to have a radio installed in the tank. Theoretically, it could fit in the turret, but making the commander/gunner a loader as well was considered the peak of sadism. As a result, the crew grew to three men, but the radio operator did not fit into the turret. The most logical solution was to widen the hull by 38 cm, shift the driver to the left, and put the driver on the right.

At the same time, the length of the hull grew by 18 cm, since the increased mass of the tank meant that a more powerful engine was needed. A hull machinegun was added to the right of the driver, so he would not get too bored. The machinegun was fixed in the horizontal plane, but could still be aimed up and down. The special tail to help the tank cross trenches remained. With it, the length of the Renault NC-3 was now 5.3 meters.

Experimental prototype with raised skirt armour, showing the suspension.

The suspension did not change much compared to the NC-1. However, it was covered with removable skirt armour, which protected it from enemy bullets and shrapnel. Despite the increased mass, the NC-3's ancestor was obvious. A prototype of the new infantry tank entered trials in 1928. However, it did not keep the name NC-3 for long. Soon, it was given the name D1, a name it is known by today. In Renault documents, the tank is referred to as Renault UT or TY.

Headache

The trials, which ended in 1929, showed that the direction chosen for modernization was correct. Initially, the tank had a 65 hp engine, but it was clearly insufficient. Tanks ordered in 1930 had a new engine. The more powerful 74 hp 6 L Renault 25 CV returned the D1's mobility to the NC-1's levels. Thanks to thicker armour, the D1 was reliably protected from high caliber machineguns, and even anti-tank cannons had problems with 30 mm of armour at the time. A decision to order the first 10 tanks for military trials was made in March of 1929, before trials ended.

82 mm SPG on the Renault TY chassis.

Meanwhile, the tank had one serious issue. The experimental D1 entered trials with a turret from the Renault FT. It did not match the infantry command's requirements, as it could not fit either a 47 mm cannon or two machineguns. Schneider and STCC were still working on the new turret, and nothing existed in metal at the time the contract for 10 tanks was signed. To make things worse, the department that was designing the turret was not in contact with Renault.

As a result, the tanks that were produced had to be equipped with turrets from the Renault FT. Since the turret ring diameter was the same, there were no issues with later replacing the old turret with a new one. The first D1 entered the 503rd Tank Regiment in May of 1931, and the pilot batch was delivered by November. Earlier, on December 23rd, 1930, a new contract for 70 tanks was signed, and these also had to be equipped with turrets from the Renault FT.

An artillery observer vehicle on the Renault D1 chassis, on trials at the 507th RCC.

Several vehicles were designed on the chassis of this tank. In 1930, an SPG was designed that would carry an 82 mm gun. It is still not known what gun this would have been. The initial chassis was used without changes, and the gun was installed with the breech facing forward, which helped fit it into the dimensions of the hull. Compared to the D1, the mass of the SPG dropped from 14 to 12 tons, so there were no issues with mobility. The crew of the SPG consisted of five men. During firing, the driver had to exit the vehicle.

The SPG would take part in the Maginot Line's mobile defenses. The project was cancelled in 1932, even though this vehicle was very realistic. Another project was a vehicle for artillery observers. The turret was removed and replaced with a fixed observation cupola. One such vehicle was made out of tank #1016.

Experimental ST1 turret, tested out on tank #003.

The turret for the new tank, indexed ST1, was produced in 1930. Schneider did not reinvent the wheel, and simply took the Char B turret and modified it. The changes consisted of replacing the right machinegun with a 47 mm cannon and installing a hatch instead of the observation cupola. The thickness of the turret armour gives away what tank the turret came from. It was 40 mm thick, thicker than the hull.

The D1's commander got lucky, since the MAC Mle. 1931 machinegun was used instead of the Hotchkiss, which was more compact and easier to reload. At the same time, the presence of a cannon and a machinegun in a turret with the Renault FT's turret ring diameter, no matter how far apart, was not comfortable for the commander.

Tank #1085 with a reworked ST1 turret (turret serial number 2) in the 508th RCC. A counterweight is installed in the rear of the turret.

The experimental turret was installed on tank #003. It was quickly discovered that the center of mass of the turret shifted, causing many issues. The only way to fix this was to install a large counterweight in the rear of the turret. This was not a long term solution, but, nevertheless, an order for 10 turrets was made. They were installed both on pilot tanks and tanks from the 1930 order. The turrets were severely criticized in the army, as the counterweight could not solve the horribly cramped layout. The hatch in the roof was of questionable value, since it was hard to use.

The only known photograph of the ST3 turret. The only difference is the lack of a cupola and minor details.

After a heap of negative feedback from the army, Schneider and STCC began to design a new turret. Taking the ST1 as the starting point, Schneider's engineers increased the size of the turret bustle, returned the commander's cupola, and slightly reworked the armament mounts. In order to be safe, two turrets were designed (ST2 and ST3), with minor differences. Both turrets were built in 1933 and sent to the long-suffering 503rd Tank Regiment.

It became clear that the improved turret was better than the ST1, since there was more space inside, and the counterweight was no longer needed. The turret was accepted into service in October of 1933, but delivery began in 1936. Meanwhile, on June 12th, 1932, a new batch of 30 D1 tanks was ordered, and another 50 on October 16th, 1933. The last tanks entered service in May of 1935. The tanks only reached their initially envisioned state a year after their production run ended!

Tank #1001 with the ST2 turret. This was the first D1 to receive this turret.

While the new turret was better than the old, it wasn't cause for much praise. A commander's cupola was installed, but it was very uncomfortable to use. The turret became roomier, but the commander's position was still hard to envy. In addition, when open, the rear turret hatch hit the radio antenna. This issue was resolved when the tank was already in service.

Second line fighter

In addition to the 503rd Tank Regiment, where the tanks went through trials, the Char D1 was sent to the 507th, 508th, and 510th regiments. A battalion of 45 tanks was included in each unit. As it often happens with trailblazers, the tank was plagued with defects. The new tanks were used mercilessly, since they were used to work out new tactics. These numbers describe the degree to which the tanks were used. In 1934, out of 110 tanks present, 31 were functional, 62 were broken or undergoing major repairs, and 17 more tanks were in "exhausted" condition.

D1 on exercises in Champagne. The tanks have cannon turrets from the Renault FT.

The situation was made worse due to the tanks being used with old Renault FT turrets. When new turrets were installed in 1936, issues arose, since the old ammunition racks were designed for 37 mm shells. The arrival of the ST2 turret also did not mean that the old and cramped ST1 turrets will be replaced. They remained on tanks, which were later sent to training units. Information that the turrets were replaced by the start of WWII is incorrect. And what would be the point, if the military began to doubt the value of the D1 by 1937? By that moment, 30 mm of armour was not that much, and the tank's other characteristics indicated that it was rapidly becoming obsolete.

At the same time, nobody wanted to remove the D1 from service. France could not afford to replace its tank fleet all at once. Yes, the D1 was no longer suitable for fighting in Europe, but France had many colonies. That's where the obsolete tanks were "exiled" to. In late 1937, the 61st, 65th, and 67th Tank Battalions were formed in Tunisia, and 145 tanks were sent there. These battalions were located in Bizerta. 

The appearance of these tanks in Tunisia was no accident. Having sent the D1s there, France significantly increased its presence in the region, which was getting hotter by the minute. France could not remain indifferent to Mussolini's expansionist policies. The appearance of almost 150 tanks with competitive armour and armament, even for the second half of the 1930s, would cool the Italian dictator's head.

Tanks on exercises, shortly before being sent to Tunisia.

The French remembered that these obsolete tanks were in Africa in late May of 1940, when the Germans penetrated the Franco-British defenses and streamed deep into French territory. The 67th battalion began loading its tanks on May 29th, and on June 2nd, the battalion, now under the command of Captain Valleteau, began unloading in Marseille. The battalion started its journey to the front lines on June 9th. Two days later, it unloaded in Sainte-Menehould. The battalion's objective was to cover the retreat of the 5th Mixed Senegal Infantry Regiment and 6th Colonial Division.

The tankers entered battle on June 12th. The second company moved out towards Suippes at 15:50 to stop the advancing German forces. The D1s had to fight for four hours against German infantry on their own, defending the city. The situation was made difficult by the presence of many anti-tank guns. Each tank received several hits. The turrets were not penetrated, but many tankers were cut up by shattered vision blocks. 11 tanks from the company received this type of damage. The 3rd company, fighting around Souin, also came under fire from German anti-tank artillery and lost 7 tanks.

On the next day, the 1st and 2nd companies covered the retreat of the 6th Colonial Division at Sainte-Menehould. That is where they first met German tanks. Even though the D1 was obsolete in 1940, it was a lot more useful in battle than modern French tanks. The short barreled SA 34 47 mm gun turned out to be more useful than even the long 37 mm SA 38, and not all tanks had that gun to begin with. 30 mm of armour was not a problem for this gun. As for armour, the D1 that was built according to specifications from 1926 and modern light tanks had about the same amount.

As a result, the first meeting between French and German tanks forced the Germans to retreat. However, the 2nd company was down to 4 tanks, and all of them were damaged. The last tank of the company was lost on the next day. The 3rd company was ambushed and lost all of its tanks. As for the 1st company, it mostly lost its tanks to technical breakdowns and a lack of spare parts. Nevertheless, its vehicles still saw action. On the night from June 15th to June 16th, two surviving D1s participated in deflecting a German attack, and were included in the 43rd Tank Battalion the next day, which was armed with Renault R 35 tanks. However, due to technical breakdowns, these tanks did not last long.

Knocked out tanks from the 67th BCC, June 1940.

This was not the end of the Char D1's fighting career.

The Germans received 18 tanks, which were renamed to Panzerkampfwagen D1 732(f). These tanks were not even used as training tanks. Worn out components and battle damage left no chances for further service. In addition, the German trophies contained tanks with ST1 turrets, which were completely useless.

The situation in Africa was different. From 107 tanks left in Tunisia, 77 were returned to warehouses after the surrender of France, where they were given to the Italians. Another 10 tanks were in such poor condition, that they were deemed unsuitable for service. The remaining 20 tanks were secretly moved to Algiers by the French. In the summer of 1941, after several attempts, the French managed to convince the Italians to release 62 D1 tanks, which were also moved to Algiers. That is where they were included in RCA regiments (Régiment de Chasseurs d'Afrique, Regiment of African Hunters), which were subordinate to cavalry. The 2nd RCA, located in Oran, was effectively the 65th Tank Battalion. The French managed to restore an entire tank unit.

The 4th RCA was located in Tunis. It contained 15 tanks. The 5th RCA, in Algiers, officially had 15 tanks, but also had the 20 hidden D1s.

More than two years after the battles in Champagne, the D1 had to fight again. On November 9th, 1942, the Americans began Operation Torch, which included a landing near Oran. One of the priority targets of the operation was the airport at Tafaru. Here, the 601st Tank Destroyer Battalion, armed with 75 mm M3 GMC halftracks, went into battle with what the Americans recorded as French Renault R 35 tanks.

In reality, these were D1s from the 2nd RCA. The battle was uneven, since the 75 mm guns could knock out the French tanks at long ranges. However, the 601st battalion lost one M3 GMC, as well as one Light Tank M3A1. The French losses were much higher: 14 D1s, almost a whole company. There were more damaged tanks, since the remnants of the 2nd RCA were soon included into the Allied forces, and they only had 10 functional tanks.

Tanks of the 2nd RCA in Oran, 1943. These tanks managed to fight against the Germans and the Americans.

At the same time, the 4th RCA in Tunis was between a rock and a hard place. Vichy France was formally neutral, but the Germans from the Africa Corps demanded that its forces should be placed under its control. Meanwhile, the British were on the horizon. This kind of diplomacy could not last for long, and, on November 19th, the 4th RCA began fighting against the Germans. The defending French units began to retreat slowly, but British commandos came to their aid. The 4th RCA continued fighting until February of 1943.

The 5th RCA also had to fight, in the mountainous regions of Tunisia. In late February of 1943, British Valentine tanks came to replace the ageing D1s. By the end of the African campaign, only 10 D1 tanks remained, which were combined into a the EPSM military police unit, subordinate to the Navy.

Despite the fact that the D1 was obsolete in the mid-1930s, its results in battle were surprising. The concept adopted by the French infantry in the mid-1920s was correct. Even with all of its drawbacks, the D1 was a decent infantry tank. Its closest analogue was the British Valentine, which had more armour, but was not as well armed. Alas, in the early 1930s, the French placed their bets on a different class of tanks.

Original article by Yuri Pasholok.

Renault D2: De Gaulle's Workhorse

$
0
0
The heavy Char B1 tank became the symbol of French pre-war tank building, and General de Gaulle is frequently associated with it. The 36 ton tank might have been the best French tank was indeed the best tank that France had during the fighting of May-June of 1940. The tank's thick armour worked well, even though the concept of the tank was obsolete.

Interestingly enough, mass production of the Char B1 might never have happened, since the French military was considering a different tank for the role of their main tank in the early 1930s, with the same armament, same armour, but more than 1.5 times lighter. This was the Renault D2, the tank that Colonel De Gaulle served in.



Improved D1

The French military realized that the Renault D1 was not completely satisfactory in January of 1930. One of the initiators of the revision of requirements was Captain F. J. Deygas, a known theorist and one of the coordinators of the Infantry Technical Department. One of his complaints was the insufficient armour of the D1. In part, the complaint was correct, since the D1 was in a strange situation where the thickness of the turret armour was 10 mm more than of the hull armour.

Captain Deygas' fears were based on the fact that 30 mm of armour was no problem for the 25 mm gun that was in development in the early 1930s. The French realized that they weren't the only ones who were so clever, and analogous anti-tank weapons will soon appear in other countries.

Renault received requirements for an improved D1 in May of 1930. The requirements described a tank similar to the D1, but with 40 mm of armour. Due to the increased armour, the expected mass grew to 16 tons, but it was expected that the mass will later reach 20 tons. The crew and armament were the same as on the D1.

The future tank, indexed Renault UZ, was unlucky from the very beginning. The first obstacle in its way was the financial crisis that began in 1929. It started in the USA, but reflected on the economies of the whole world. In 1930, the French army's budget dropped radically, which struck a blow to the Renault UZ program. The contract for building experimental prototypes was only signed in December of 1931, more than a year and a half after the specifications wee issued. The first prototype was built in April of 1932, and sent to the trials with no turret. Money was tight...

Renault VA, also known as Renault D3.

Let us pause the tale of the Renault D2 for a moment to discuss other tanks that are directly connected to it. Another tank entered trials along with the Renault UZ in late April of 1932. It had the factory code of Renault VA, although it is better known as the Char D3 or "colonial tank". During the financial crisis, Renault decided to dust off an abandoned concept from 1926.

The tank wasn't meant for the French army, which had no interest towards the "colonial tank". Renault's goal was the international market, specifically Japan, the main customer of the Renault NC-27. Encouraged by their success, Renault decided to make a lighter version of the Renault UZ for the Japanese. The armour thickness was reduced to 20 mm, which lowered the mass to 12-13 tons, and the top speed doubled to a very respectable 35 kph. Not a single photograph of the tank remains, but factory blueprints show the tank carrying a Schneider turret, the same one as the Renault NC-1 STCC. The result was a relatively mobile infantry support tank, immune to rifle caliber bullets.

Unlike the Renault D3, its lighter brother, the Renault VO, never left the drawing board.

Another light tank was designed in parallel with the Renault VA for the Japanese, with characteristics very close to the Renault NC-27. The design was also based on the Renault UZ, but the tank was made for a crew of two. The mass was 9.9 tons, the thickness of the armour dropped to 16 mm, and the turret was used from the Renault FT. The result was a quick and cheap infantry support tank.

However, the tank, indexed Renault VO, was never built. Trials of the Char D3 disappointed the potential customer. Shortly before that, the Renault NC-27 saw battle, where their suspension proved unsuitable for that specific battlefield. The Japanese did not wish to finance experiments of French engineers, especially since their Type 89 medium tank was clealry better than the Renault NC-27. The history of the Char D3 doesn't end here, as there was a Garnier-Renault SPG built on its chassis and tested in 1935.

Experimental Renault UZ with ST1 turret #3 on trials, 1933.

The fate of the Renault UZ was much better than that of its colonial brothers. Tank #2001 received a temporary turret from the Renault FT and completed the first stage of trials this way. In May of 1933, the tank was sent to Rueil-Malmaison, where it underwent repairs and received an ST1 turret. Even though the turret was criticized by the army, its installation was a reasonable move, since it allowed a direct comparison between the characteristics of the new tank and its predecessor, the Char D1. This tank, indexed Char D2 No.1 Mle. 1932, was sent to the 503rd Tank Regiment, the same place where the Char D1 was undergoing trials.

Prototype #2001 with skirts flipped up.

As the technical requirements requested, the Renault D2 was very similar to its predecessor. This was most applicable to the suspension, although it was slightly redesigned. The tank became a little wider, and the front of the hull was changed noticeably. The hull machinegun was moved to the right, and now the radio operator fired it.

The mobility characteristics improved in comparison to its predecessor, as evidenced by reviews from the 503rd Tank Regiment. Despite the increased fuel expenditure (350 L for 100 km, presumably off-road), the D2 surpassed its predecessor. The speed increased due to a more powerful engine, and the tank was much easier to control. The reviews regarding the increased volume of the fighting compartment were particularly favourable.

The second and third prototypes were significantly different in the way that the armour plates were connected.

Infantry command ordered two more prototypes, numbered 2002 and 2003, in December of 1932, without waiting for the trials to finish. Overall, they were the same as tank #2001, and even had Renault FT turrets in their original form. However, instead of riveted connections, the French began using blunt bolts, although in limited amounts, especially for the front plate, since it was shot most often. The hull machinegun was moved further to the right, and its mount was redesigned to increase resistance to bullets and shells.

The plan was to equip the tanks with a 120 hp Renault engine, but when the tanks were built in November of 1933, the engines were hurriedly replaced. The French military was interested in diesel engines around this time, since they were more economical than gasoline ones. After comparative trials of Lorraine-Dietrich and Renault, a decision was made to keep the initial gasoline engine in place. Later, a 9.5 L 150 hp engine was built, which was eventually set as the stock engine for the new tank.

The first mass produced D2, named Patay.

The choice of turret resulted in a heated battle. The problem was that the thicker turret armour requirement left both the ST1 and ST2 behind. The new heavier turret could barely be rotated by hand. An electric turning mechanism was needed, but it was impossible to install it with a Renault FT sized turret ring.

As a result, the ST2 turret was left off the D2 and heavy B1. Instead, a turret designed by AMX in December of 1933 was used. It was indexed APX 1. French tankers must have breathed a sign of relief. It was impossible to fully shrug off the "inheritance" left by the Renault FT, since the turret was still one-man, but it was must larger on the inside. The commander's station started looking a lot less like a torture chamber for a claustrophobe. In this state, the Char D2 was almost completely finalized by January of 1934. This was no longer a light tank, but a 20 ton medium tank. On January 19th, without waiting for trials to finish, the French army ordered 50 tanks, but politics got in the way.

Big mistake

While the D2 was being developed, various political processes were underway in Europe. In order to reign in the arms race, British Prime Minister James McDonald organized the London disarmament conference in 1930. Analogous conferences also happened in Geneva. Typically, the navy is mentioned when these conferences are brought up, but tanks were also discussed. One of the proposals was limiting the mass of tanks to 25 tons.

Clouds gathered above the Char B1, which was in development since the 1920s. The problem wasn't just the extended development time, but that the tank had no advantages over the Renault D2. The armour thickness and turret armament (as well as the whole turret) were the same. The mobility was also similar. However, the B1 was almost 1.5 times heavier. The only advantage of the Char B was the presence of the short 75 mm gun in the front of the hull. That gun was not particularly easy to use. French infantry command thought long and hard.

Layout of the suspension of the mass production Renault D2.

At another conference in Geneva, which began in February of 1932, where James McDonald proposed limiting field artillery to 105 mm in caliber and the mass of tanks to 16 tons. Technically, the Renault D2 could have fit into this limit, but the limit was disputed, and the 1932 conference ended with almost no results.

The next time the conference opened was in February of 1933, several days after the Nazis coming to power in Germany. The Germans were not hiding the fact that they were about to begin processes that were in opposition to disarmament. On October 23rd, 1933, Germany left the commission. In practice, this meant the start of a new arms race. The issue of mass limits disappeared.

As a result, the relatively light D2, which looked promising, ended up in an unenviable position. It wasn't a light or a heavy tank, and the French weren't thinking about medium tanks at the time. The "maneuver tank" class that the D2 ended up in wasn't particularly necessary. In addition, trials of the prototypes showed that it's necessary to redesign the hull and suspension.

Tanks from the 507th RCC, Paris, June 14th, 1937

The order for 50 tanks was finally approved on December 24th, 1934, and the first tanks were delivered on May 9th, 1936. Mass produced Renault D2 tanks received serial numbers from 2004 to 2053. The last tank was accepted on February 23rd, 1937. These tanks differed from the experimental prototypes. Aside from the APX 1 turret, the tanks received storage boxes and radio antennas on the right side. The front of the hull was radically reworked. The sloped upper front and driver's cabin were discarded. Instead of a two piece hatch for the radio operator, there was now only one large hatch, which opened forward. The driver received an improved Char B1 style observation device. The suspension was also reworked.

The French command made a terrible mistake by assigning priority to heavy tanks. Even with a series of drawbacks (low speed, troublesome suspension), the Renault D2 was the best balanced out of all French infantry tanks. The Renault R 35 was too poorly armed, and its armour was insufficient to resist anti-tank guns at a range of less than 300 meters. The Char B1 had some room left over for modernization, but production was going too slowly. Only 32 tanks were built from December of 1935 to July of 1937, and 130 more were built with the efforts of 4 companies by September of 1939. As for medium tanks, infantry command launched the Char G program to build a 20 ton tank. The ide of a "miniature Char B1" failed spectacularly. 

Renault D2 from the second production batch.

A contract for a second batch of Char D2 tanks was finally signed in the spring of 1938. By that time, Renault's tank assembly plant was nationalized, and the factory was renamed to AMX.

Externally, the tanks from this batch differed from their predecessors. The biggest change was the armament. Instead of the short 47 mm SA 34, the more powerful SA 35 was used, the same gun from the Char B1 bis and Somua S 35. The tank used the same APX 1 turret, but with new observation devices. In parallel with the new tanks that were armed with SA 35 guns, old tanks would be rearmed as well. Even though the first two tanks were sent to be rearmed in September of 1939, some D2s from the first batch kept their old guns.

As for the second contract, the infantry command dragged their feet until the spring of 1940, hoping that something will come out of the Char G. The result was predictable: the first five tanks with serial numbers 2054-2058 were only accepted on March 27th, 1940. Ten tanks were accepted on April 12th, 10 on May 6th, and 12 more on May 25th. By June 6th, 37 out of 50 tanks were accepted, and on June 12th, evacuation of Renault factories from northern Paris began.

Experimental flamethrower mount on modernized prototype #2002.

Finally, it's worth mentioning that the French had very strange ideas about the future of the first batch of D2s. It was proposed that the tanks would be converted to flamethrower tanks. Only one tank was converted to carry a flamethrower.

Amid chaos

Usually, the description of the combat career of the Renault D2 is limited to the words "limited use". Sometimes there are stories about how the tanks broke often. The reality of the D2's service life is no less complex than the story of its creation or production.

Tanks from the first batch were sent out in 1937 to the 507th Tank Regiment. They replaced the Renault D1s, which left a pretty bad impression. The new tanks were received with much more enthusiasm. Aside from tanks, let us mention one Lieutenant Colonel that entered the regiment in the summer of 1936. His name was Charles de Gaulle. 

On June 7th, 1936, he was appointed as the acting regimental commander. On September 5th, 1937, de Gaulle officially became the commander of the 507th regiment. On December 25th, he was promoted to Colonel. Before that, on July 14th, 1937, the new tanks marched on parade through Paris. As the commander of the 507th Tank Regiment, de Gaulle practiced his theories of how tanks would be used in future wars. The tankers had a good opinion of him: the theorist turned out to be a capable commander.

De Gaulle also disproved the thesis that only short people could be tankers. Standing at a height of 196 cm, the colonel could fit into the not particularly roomy D2. De Gaulle used three tanks throughout his career of which #2025 "Yorktown" was the most famous. All tanks in the 507th regiment had names.

Tank 2025 "Yorktown", Colonel de Gaulle's commander's tank.

Intensive training under a talented commander did its job. By the start of the war, a significant part of the 507th regiment was in need of repairs. Rearmament of the tanks to more powerful SA 35 guns began at de Gaulle's insistence. On August 27th, 1939, the 507th Tank Regiment was reformed. Its D2s were included into the 19th Tank Battalion and the Renault R 35 tanks in the regiment ended up in the 20th Tank Regiment.

On September 2nd, de Gaulle was appointed as the commander of the 5th Army's tank units, after which he left the 19th Tank Battalion. This was the beginning of a series of misfortunes. On September 13th, the tanks were sent for a 120 km march. 16 tanks broke down during the march, and only 10 functional tanks were left in the unit.

The real problems began in the spring of 1940. On March 11th, the commander of the 19th Tank Battalion gave the order to rearm the tanks to SA 35 guns. The first tank was rearmed by April 8th, but out of 15 tanks, 8 were already in poor technical condition.

On April 26th, a portion of the battalion's personnel arrived in Versailles to crew new D2 tanks, which were to be sent to Norway. As a result, the unit had 30 crews left to man 44 tanks! Tanks from the battalion's first company were left with old guns, no sights, and no crews. The second company had all 15 of its tanks rearmed, but only 5 went through major repairs. The third company was still being rearmed. As a result, the 19th Tank Battalion was unsuitable for battle even before the fighting began.

Tank #8082 from the 350th CAAC, June 18th, 1940. Many dents in the front armour are evidence that the French military made a huge mistake by not putting this tank into mass production.

Tanks from the second batch didn't fare much better. The rapid (by French measures) acceptance of the new tanks led to them breaking down constantly. For example, the 345th Independent Tank Company, where the tankers of the 1st company of the 19th Tank Battalion were sent, lost half of its tanks to technical breakdowns by May 29th. This was called sabotage, but the reality was that it was impossible to accelerate the QA process and keep quality at the same level.

The 346th Independent Tank Regiment had different issues. According to de Gaulle's report, the crews did not know their tanks. This was not surprising, considering the fact that they were trained on Char B1s.

All of these issues combined were present in the 350th Independent Tank Company, the last unit to receive D2s. Out of 15 tanks, 2 broke almost instantly, and another 3 fell behind on the march due to technical issues.

Broken tank #2066 "Denain" from the 345th CACC, abandoned by the French and repaired by the Germans.

Out of 84 Renault D2 tanks received by the French army, 21 were lost in battle, 26 broke down and were abandoned, 12 broke down and were recovered, and 12 tanks were abandoned during evacuation. The Germans evacuated 12 tanks and took 9 more from the French as a part of the peace settlement. The tanks were indexed Panzerkampfwagen D-2 733(f), but weren't even used as training tanks. One tank was sent to a trophy exhibition, another to the proving grounds at Kummersdorf. In April of 1945, this tank was sent to defend Zossen, but the force of habit likely took over during the march, and the tank broke down.

What's in a Name?

$
0
0
There are a fewexamples where the real name of a tank or gun sinks into the sands of time, replaced by a more popular, yet incorrect one. The Renault FT is another example. More often than not, you see the tank called "FT-17", rarely "FT-18". Looking at production codes at Renault, the number was never included. For example, the Renault FT was preceded by the Renault FS, a car, and succeeded by the Renault FU, a heavy truck. However, even serious sources attach a number to the tank's name. Where did the number come from?

German documents regarding the Renault FT use the extra numbers.

The answer, in this case, is relatively simple. A tank encyclopedia called Taschenbuch der Tanks was written in 1935. The book was very popular at the time, and was considered a reputable source. Unfortunately, the authors filled it with a number of their own fabrications. For example, the names "Renault M.17 F.T." and "Renault M.18 F.T." were invented to differentiate between tanks with a cast riveted turret and cast turret respectively.

Russian translation of Taschenbuch der Tanks. The "M 17" with a riveted turret is on the left, the "M 18" with a cast turret is on the right. In reality, both tanks were simply designated "Renault FT".

This is far from the only fabrication in the encyclopedia. Readers can also read about mythical vehicles like the French "Heavy tank D" with a crew of 15 men and four cannons, a number of made up export tanks and incorrect destinations for real ones, various other mistakes with indexes, etc. Nevertheless, the information in this encyclopedia was taken at face value at the time and influenced the development of tank building in several countries.

Ultra Gun

$
0
0
The Department of Inventions was flooded with a great deal of proposals from the population, most of which received an answer similar to this one. However, a small fraction of the inventions were actually useful. Even if they were never implemented in metal, the USSR recognized the contributions of its citizens.

"To the Chief of the Central Planning Department of Inventions of the SNK

RE: Decision regarding the issue of a patent for claim #1582s

Having inspected the description, drawings, and all documents related to the request of citizen S.D. Bogoslovskiy, registered at the NKV under #1582s on April 23rd, 1942, under the title "Bicaliber barrel and shell, specially designed for an anti-tank gun", the Inventions Section of the Technical Council of the NKV decided to issue a patent for a gun barrel that fires "Ultra" shells with the following description:

"The gun barrel designed to fire "Ultra" shells distinguishes itself by being composed of several connected rifled sections of different calibers, connected by smooth conical sections, designed to squeeze the driving ribs of the shell when it passes from a larger caliber section to a smaller caliber section."

Acting Chief of the Inventions Section of the NKV Technical Council, Arzumanova
Senior Inventions Engineer, Yermakov"

Here's the text of the request:

"Gun barrel for firing "Ultra" shells

Bicaliber weapons with a barrel shaped like a truncated cone became popular for fighting enemy tanks. The production of such a barrel is very difficult.

The proposed barrel is simpler to produce and meets all requirements for weapons firing "Ultra" type shells.

Figs. 1 and 2 show the proposed barrel design and an "Ultra" shell.

The rifled section 1 of the barrel has a threaded connection with the rifled section 2, the channels of which are connected with rings 3 that have smooth conical channels to squeeze the ribs 4 of the shell 5 when it passes from barrel section 1 to barrel section 2, which has a smaller caliber."



PzIII Shortage

$
0
0
"June 20th, 1942
To the Deputy People's Commissar of Defense and GABTU Chief, Lieutenant-General of the Tank Forces, comrade Fedorenko
Moscow, 2nd NKO building

An experimental SPG on the chassis of a captured German StuG SPG, equipped with a 122 mm divisional howitzer mod. 1938 "M-30" was built according to orders from the Artillery Committee by factory #592.

The first results of factory gunnery and mobility trials show that it is feasible to use captured StuG SPGs to build self propelled howitzers, which are necessary for fighting dugouts.

In response to the Artillery Committee's request regarding the location and availability of captured StuGs, the Chief of the Captured Materiel Directorate replied that the Fronts do not have any, which is unlikely to be true, as repair base #82 alone has 10 vehicles that could be repaired in the first half of July of this year.

Factory #592 was ordered by the People's Commissar of Armament, comrade Ustinov, to organize mass production of these SPGs. Due to the importance of urgent 122 mm self propelled howitzer production, I ask for you to order repair base #82 to repair and send its StuGs to factory #592 no later than July 15th of this year, and order the GABTU Repair and Maintenance Directorate to investigate the location of StuGs at GABTU repair bases, their repair, and subsequent shipment to factory #592 (Mytishi).

GAU Chief, Colonel-General Yakovlev
GAU Military Commissar, Divisional Commissar Novikov"

German Tank Fear

$
0
0
"Anti-Tank Defenses

14. The fear of massed enemy tank attacks still grips the soldiers, especially among the young and inexperienced replacements, to the point of mental breakdown. As a result, soldiers often leave anti-tank foxholes and positions, which lets enemy tanks cause significant losses and the Russian infantry to take our positions without battle.

Conclusions:

Training, among replacements as first priority, must harden young soldiers, especially infantrymen, against the mental effect of tank attacks. Every soldier must know that when he leaves his positions or foxhole, he becomes defenseless against tank fire, but a well prepared foxhole or, even better, a deep slit trench offer reliable protection against the weight and fire of tanks. It is necessary to take every opportunity to teach soldiers to let the tank pass above their trench using our tanks, assault guns, tractors, or captured tanks. It's necessary to prove the limited amount of visibility, and therefore precise fire, on the move from a tank. Every soldier must sit in a tank at least once."

LT vz. 35: Steel Fist of the First Czechoslovakian Republic

$
0
0
On April 19th, 1933, the Czechoslovakian army signed a contract with CKD to produce 50 light P-II tanks. This ended the 10 year long quest to build a domestic tank. The tank accepted into service on July 13th, 1935, as the LT vz. 35 was sufficiently modern. However, a year later, the Czechoslovakian military needed a better protected tank. This tank, the LT vz. 35, was destined to become the backbone of the Czechoslovakian armoured forces.

Skoda strikes back

The reason for this change was the behaviour of the leadership of their neighbour, Germany. Adolf Hitler became the Chancellor on January 30th, 1933, and the Nazis came to power. Further events developed at a breakneck pace. In February of 1933, Joseph Goebbels, Germany's representative at the disarmament conference in Geneva, made it clear that his country will no longer be limited by the Treaty of Versailles. On October 23rd, 1933, Germany left the commission, and it was clear by next summer that its rearmament had begun.

Unexpectedly, the leading European powers discovered that they were not ready for a new war with Germany. This was most true when it came to tanks, which were hit hard by the 1929 financial crisis. A crisis was also present in the heads of the militaries. A long search for an ideal tank in France led to a situation where in the summer of 1934, 37 tank battalions out of 40 were armed with old Renault FT tanks. 

The British, whose tank fleet chiefly consisted of Medium Tanks Mk.I and Mk.II, accepted into service in the 1920s, weren't doing much better. At best, they could bring 200 obsolete tanks against the Germans. Meanwhile, the Germans were starting production of La.S tanks (future PzI). An arms race was starting in Europe, an arms race which took its final form in 1935.

The light P-II-a tank in its initial configuration. A dummy gun is installed.

Czechoslovakia, Germany's eastern neighbour, began to prepare its answer in the summer of 1934. In August, a report was composed that became the formative document for the construction of a tank force. According to it, the army was expecting 279 light and 42 medium tanks from its country's industry between 1934 and 1937. 240 million Czechoslovakian kroner were allocated for this task.

Specifications for main types of tanks were composed. Category I contained tankettes. The P-II tank belonged to the second category (light cavalry tanks with 15 mm of armour). The II-a category contained light cavalry tanks with 25 mm of front armour and 15 mm of side armour. Category II-b tanks were designed for infantry support, and they would have 25 mm of armour all around. II and II-a tanks would have a 37 mm gun. Finally, category III was for medium tanks, which had 47 mm guns and 32 mm of armour.

The P-II-a tank in its final configuration on trials, July 1937. This photograph shows how the suspension of this tank is radically different from the LT vz. 34.

Unlike the P-II, which CKD designed with almost no competition, a fierce battle was fought for the contract for the II-a. Skoda, whose SU light tank lost the previous battle, was ready for a rematch. On the other hand, CKD took this new competition very lightly.

The result of CKD's work, which started in 1934, was the P-II-a tank. The experimental prototype received the registration number P10.074. A number of publications attack this tank. These attacks claim that CKD put out the same P-II tank, but with thicker armour. This accusation is only partially true. Yes, these tanks looked similar, but it is not correct to say that they were the same.

To start, the P-II-a was 10 cm longer and 14 cm taller than its predecessor. The suspension had to be seriously redesigned, since its mass grew by a ton. The return rollers, idlers, and drive sprockets were redesigned. The tank received wider track links.

There were no fewer changes on the inside. The engine compartment held a 4 cylinder Praga SV 114 hp engine. The P-II-a received a planetary Praga-Wilson gearbox. Thanks to these novelties, the top speed of the P-II-a grew to 36 kph, higher than the requirements for a category II-a tank.

Experimental Skoda S-II prototype during trials in Milovice.

Skoda also decided not to reinvent the wheel and further developed the Skoda S-II (SU) concept. The Skoda S-II-a (registration number C-80509, later 13620) that entered trials in 1935 only inherited the overall layout from its predecessor. While Skoda's engineers were improving their old design, they effectively created a whole new tank. Its mass grew to 10.5 tons and length increased to 4900 mm.

The new tank inherited the T-11 engine and gearbox, but its speed increased to 34 kph. This mostly happened due to a superior running gear. The suspension was also radically changed. The number of road wheels increased to 9 per side, and the idler and drive sprocket received characteristic Skoda rims, which prevented the tracks from slipping off. The track links also became wider.

The Skoda S-II suspension was one of the strong points of the vehicle.

The armament and turret were even more different from the predecessor. As the military demanded, the tank received a 37 mm Skoda A3 cannon and two ZB vz. 35 machineguns. The cannon and machinegun mount were very similar to the one used on the LT vz. 34. The turret was also similar.

As a result of the first stage of trials in the summer of 1935 at a proving grounds in Milovice, Skoda was selected as the winner. CKD protested the decision, which feeds the flames of conspiracy theorists who claim that there was a secret deal between the military and Skoda. Let's be real: the S-II-a was clearly better than the P-II-a.

Among other characteristics, this is especially true of the crew comfort. On CKD's tanks, the crew entered the tank and left it through the turret. Skoda's tanks had hatches in the hull from the very beginning. The S-II-a only had one hatch in the hull, but remember that there were only three crewmen, even though there were four stations.

The acceptance of the S-II-a into service under the index LT vz. 35 on October 30th, 1935, was the correct decision. As for the P-II-a, the tank's registration number was changed to 19.003 and it underwent trials in Milovice in 1937. After trials, the tank was returned to CKD.

Soldiers of misfortune

The tank meant for Czechoslovakian infantry was overshadowed by the fierce battle over the cavalry tank, but nobody cancelled it. The infantry still awaited a tank with 25 mm of armour all around, making it invulnerable to high caliber machineguns. This tank was a sort of answer to the Renault NC, an answer that came about five years too late. By the second half of the 1930s, the firepower of antitank guns increased, which made the French thicken the armour of their prospective tanks.

The only known image of the Skoda S-II-b.

The victory in the cavalry tank tender must have relaxed Skoda's employees. That's the only explanation for the experimental S-II-b tank that arrived for trials in January of 1936, which was effectively a repeat of the S-II-a, but with the side and rear armour increased to 25 mm.

Obviously, this could not happen without consequences. The mass of the tank increased to 12.8 or 13.1 tons, depending on the source. Because of this, the suspension had to be reinforced. Later, in July of 1936, another prototype with serial number 13.638 joined it in trials. Neither tank could speed up over 26 kph, which likely did not make the military too happy.


Trials of the P-II-b infantry tank in Milovice, end of 1936.

The competitors from CKD put more effort into their infantry tank. The P-II-b prototype with serial number 13.636 arrived in Milovice at the end of May 1936. Despite looking similar to the P-II-a, the tank differed greatly from its predecessor. The length of the hull grew to 4.95 m. This was necessary to install the 105 hp Praga SH I6 engine. The hull also changed, especially the engine compartment.

The suspension also changed. Compared to the P-II-a, only the idlers remained the same. The springs were covered by an armour screen to protect them from enemy fire. The air intakes were also protected. Instead of a commander's cupola, there was a bulge that spanned the width of the whole turret, which also changed significantly. Another addition was a pole in front of the driver's vision slit which acted as a sight when aiming the machinegun.

The tank was significantly different from CKD's previous designs.

Comparative trials proved that CKD's tank was superior to its competitor's vehicle. In addition, the P-II-b was faster, with a top speed of 30 kph. However, there was no winner. The military was disappointed with its light infantry tanks and decided to concentrate on medium tanks.

And so, work on the SP-II-b medium tank began, performed jointly by CKD and Skoda. Later, the project resulted in the V-8-H tank, which was accepted into service as the ST vz. 39. As for the P-II-a, it was transferred to Vyškov, where it fell into German hands in 1939. CKD didn't waste its efforts: various components were later used on medium tanks, and the commander's cupola migrated to the Pz.Kpfw.38(t) n.A.

In a storm of politics

The acceptance of the LT vz. 35 did not mean that CKD ended up with nothing. Recall that the military picked Skoda before the end of trials, which caused CKD to accuse them of conspiracy. The issue became serious, and the solution was to split up the order between the two competitors. The scandal perpetuated by CKD was nothing but a smokescreen, since the two companies already agreed on everything. However, that did not stop CKD from tripping up its "friend" at every turn.
Tank #13.666, the first production prototype.

The first order was for 160 tanks for equipment of four armoured battalions in cavalry brigades. On May 12th, 1936, the order was increased by 35 tanks, and another 106 were added one month later. The tanks were expected to start arriving on September 30th, and the order would be completed on July 30th, 1937. As with the LT vz. 34, the hulls would be built by POLDI Hutte from Kladno.

As for the financial side of things, this is where it gets interesting. Skoda asked for 783,550 kroner per tank. This was about 1.5 times as much as a PzII. However, a comparison with the British equivalent, the Vickers Mk.E, is probably more apt, and this tank was significantly more expensive.

The combination of a good price and decent characteristics was the cause of success of Czechoslovakian tanks on the export market. The Vickers Mk.E was losing popularity, since it was becoming obsolete.

The same tank from the right.

However, in the summer of 1936, Czechoslovakian tank builders had no room on their plate for export orders. Both Skoda and CKD had significant difficulty with ramping up production. It turned out that the tank was difficult and poorly planned from a production standpoint. Significantly more time than planned was required to set up technological processes. as a result, the first 15 production LT vz. 35 tanks were only delivered by Skoda in on December 21st, 1935.

All of them were sent to the 1st Tank Regiment in Milovice, where military trials began. One tank drove for 4000 km from January to March of 1937, without significant problems. As for CKD, the first 10 tanks were ready on February 13th, 1937. The tanks were sent to the 2nd Tank Regiment in Praslavice.

The same tank from the left.

Reliability trials of mass production tanks painted a different picture. Two Skoda tanks (13.683 and 13.696) and one CKD (13.721) were tested in Milovice. Each tank traveled 5-7 thousand kilometers, and the results were far from ideal. Both design defects and factory defects surfaced during trials.

Returns from the army also started coming in at around the same time. The situation was so serious that the order for 103 tanks of the third series was stopped. The Ministry of Defense only signed the deal on November 7th, 1937, but this didn't stop CKD from delivering their last tank before the end of 1937. As for Skoda, their last tank left the factory in Pilsen on April 8th, 1938.

Both companies produced 149 LT vz. 35. Most tanks (197) were sent to the 1st Tank Regiment. Another 49 were sent to the 2nd Tank Regiment, and the remaining 57 tanks ended up in the 3rd Tank Regiment (Martin, Slovakia). The manufacturers did their duty when it came to repairs, and the defects were gradually removed. Trust in the LT vz. 35 was restored.

The ZB vz. 35 machineguns were replaced with the superior LT vz. 37. As for plans of saturating the military with LT vz. 35 tanks, those were completely forgotten.

LT vz. 35 from the 3rd Tank Regiment, on maneuvers in the fall 1938. The training exercises happened during a time of tension with Germany. Later, the tank was included in the Slovakian army.

Disappointed in the joint project, CKD focused on their own projects, and Skoda began looking for foreign buyers. Romania was interested in the tank, and ended up buying 126 of them. However, due to the reliability issues that surfaced, a decision was made to wait a while before signing the order. Because of this, production of the S-II-aR began closer to the fall of 1938.

At that point, the Czechoslovakian army underwent urgent mobilization in connection with rapidly worsening relations with Germany. A part of the Romanian order was confiscated. However, the tanks were never used: as a result of the Munich Agreement, Czechoslovakia was forced to surrender the Sudetenland to Germany. Poland also grabbed a slice, occupying Český Těšín. In this situation, the Czechoslovakian army lost interest in further orders.

The fulfillment of the Romanian order continued, and the buyer received the last of the tanks, indexed R-2, on February 22nd, 1939. Approximately half of these tanks were from the R-2c modification. These tanks were almost identical to the regular R-2, but used cemented armour. You can tell these tanks apart by the characteristic shape of the rear turret plate.

R-2c, a variant of the tank made for the Romanians, built using cemented armour.

Other countries also took an interest in the Czechoslovakian tank. In September of 1938, negotiations between Skoda and the British Alvis Straussler company to produce the tank under license. According to Czech historian Vladimir Francev, the plan was to build 100 tanks at Skoda and 100 more under the license. Considering how poorly British tank building was doing at the time, this idea sounds reasonable. However, negotiations ended with nothing in 1939.

The situation with LT vz. 35 tanks in the USSR was no less interesting. The USSR was an ally of Czechoslovakia. On May 16th, 1935, an agreement was signed about mutual military aid. One of the practical consequences of this aid was the production of B-71 bombers at Avia, a clone of the Soviet SB.

The USSR received complete information about new Czechoslovakian vehicles in return. As a result, trials of the S-II-a and one production tank with serial number 13.903 happened at Kubinka in the fall of 1938. The tanks were rated quite highly by Soviet specialists. The suspension was particularly interesting.

LT vz. 35 at the NIIBT proving grounds, September 1938.

The Soviet side offered to purchase the two tanks that arrived for trials. However, Skoda fell victim to greed and mistrust. The company became suspicious that the USSR might clone the S-II-a, and demanded that the USSR buy a production license. The request was denied, and the tanks returned to Czechoslovakia.

To be fair, the S-II-a would never have been built in the USSR. The tank was interesting purely as a sample of Czechoslovakian technologies. The suspension was of interest, and it was later copied and tested on the T-26. There was a plan to use it on the SP-126 infantry support tank, but the idea was rejected in favour of a torsion bar suspension.

As for the S-II-a that went through Soviet trials, they returned to Czechoslovakia and were used during the border skirmish when Hungary tried to occupy Transcarpathian Ukraine. Tank #13909 was knocked out and captured by the Hungarians. There, it received the registration number 1H-407. The S-II-a prototype was captured by the Romanians and returned to Skoda. It spent some time at a trophy exhibit in Vienna, after which it was sold to the Waffen SS purchasing commission for 35,000 Reichsmarks in December of 1942. Interestingly enough, the Skoda factory was currently owned by the SS. It so turned out that the SS sold the tank to itself at half price.

Light T-11 tank in the Bulgarian army. The tank belongs to a batch of 10 tanks, originally built for Afghanistan.

Improvements of the S-II-a continued even after complete occupation of Czechia by Germany on March 15th, 1939. On May 26th, 1938, Skoda changed the index of the tank to T-11 (where 11 was the combat mass). The old indexes still held for some time. A Polish delegation visited the factory on March 9th, where it expressed interest in all Skoda tanks, but this interest did not develop into anything.

10 T-11 tanks were built for an order from Afghanistan. which were equipped with improved Skoda A-7 37 mm guns. The tanks were built, but never made it to Asia. Later, these tanks, which received a factory designation of S-II-aB, were sold to Bulgaria.

S-II-aJ in its initial configuration.

Yugoslavia was another country that took an interest in the Czechoslovakian tank. The project, named S-II-aJ, had a slightly altered design. Initially, it used a diesel engine. In addition, the turret and armament were changed. The tank received a new commander's cupola, and a more powerful 47 mm A-9 gun instead of the 37 mm A-3.

This is how the S-II-aJ, or Skoda T-12, was built in metal.

The tank, built in early 1939, was demonstrated to the Yugoslavian delegation. According to research by Jiri Tintera, the tank did indeed receive a diesel engine. What happened later is not known. One thing is known for certain: the Yugoslavian army lost interest in the tank. It's possible that the diesel engine was the cause of this disinterest.

The tank was converted. Instead of a diesel engine, it received a 135 hp Skoda T-11/2 engine. In this form, the tank was tested by the Hungarians from May 7th to May 9th, 1940. However, the Hungarians already had a tank by that point, the Landsverk L-60, which was accepted into service as the 38M Toldi I. The deal with Skoda for the tank, now indexed T-12, fell through. 

Skoda T-13M, the best protected variant of the S-II-a. It appeared too late to interest potential buyers.

The T-13 was another dead end of the S-II-a's development. The tank's initial index was R-2a. This was the same S-II-a, but its characteristics were closer to that of the S-II-b infantry tank. The thickness of the armour grew to 30 mm in the front and 25 mm on the sides. The improved A-7 gun was installed in the turret. Due to the increase of the mass to 12.6 tons, the improved T-11/2 engien was used. It didn't help much: the top speed during trials was only 32 kph. The trials lasted until 1941 and did not demonstrate impressive results.

The light Skoda T-14 tank, the last of the S-II-a family. It was never built in metal.

The Skoda T-14 was the last of the S-II-a family. This tank was built with a new buyer in mind: Germany. It was a further development of the Skoda T-12. The tank received a reworked commander's cupola and an even more powerful 47 mm A-11 cannon. The suspension and fighting compartment were reworked slightly. However, the tank did not attract much interest from the potential buyer.

By 1941, the S-II-a concept was completely obsolete. It needed a deep modernization, not cosmetic improvements. Skoda's employees understood this. In late December of 1940, the light T-15 tank was designed. As for the T-14, it did not move past the drawing board.

Despite all of its issues, the LT vz. 35 can't be called a bad tank. It fought in the German army for more than two years, and Bulgaria kept these tanks until the early 1950s. This was one of the best light tanks in the world when it entered production. Unfortunately for Czechoslovakia, these tanks could not protect their country from Germany. Politicians often turn out to be much scarier than tanks.

Praga LTL and Pzw 39: Tanks for Neutrals

$
0
0
In May of 1935, an Iranian commission signed a contract with CKD for light Praga TNH tanks. At the moment, these tanks did not exist in metal, but the Iranians saw the potential in this design. A prototype was demonstrated in September of that year. The Iranian commission was so impressed that the order was increased to 50 tanks on September 10th. For this time, this was a very respectable amount of tanks for the export market. It's not surprising that representatives from other nations came to Czechoslovakia to find inexpensive and high quality light tanks. CKD's engineers managed to satisfy their new customers, creating new tanks for Lithuania and Switzerland, known as the Praga LTL and Pzw 39.


Lithuanian dead end

Vickers-Armstrongs Limited dominated the world market for armoured vehicles in the mid-1930s. In addition to the "6-ton"Vickers Mk.E, the British arms giant had another tank on offer. It is better known as the "Vickers 4-ton". This tank appeared as a further development of the Caden-Loyd Mk.VI tankette. First, a turret similar to the ones used on the Vickers Mk.E Type A was installed. Later, the hull was enlarged, and the result was named Patrol Tank.

In 1933, it was replaced by a thoroughly reworked tank with a Horstmann suspension, a new hull, and a Henry Meadows engine. This tank is known as the Vickers M1933. Its design was constantly improving.

Aleksey Surin's patent for an engine combined with a gearbox, designed for the Praga LTL.

A number of countries were interested in this tank, since the "Vickers 4-ton" was rather quick, inexpensive, and suitable as a reconnaissance tank, or, if necessary, an infantry support tank. Some countries bought samples for trials, others bought small batches. These tanks were overshadowed by the success of the Vickers Mk.E, but the number of countries that bought them was quite large.

Lithuania was included in the list of Vickers-Armstrongs Limited customers. In 1923, the Baltic state purchased 12 light Renault FT tanks, which were already obsolete by the early 1930s. In 1934, the Lithuanian government made a deal for 16 more light tanks. In May of 1936, these tanks were triumphantly presented in Kaunas, the capital at the time. 

The initial form of the Praga LTL, armed with a 37 mm Skoda A 4 Beta gun.

The contract did not mean that Lithuania would stop buying more tanks. On December 28th, 1935, a letter from the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense arrived at CKD's headquarters. Lithuania clearly noticed the success of the Czechoslovakian company, and decided to order its tanks here.

The requirements somewhat puzzled CKD's management. According to the letter, the Lithuanians needed a 5 ton tank with 6-13 mm of armour and a top speed of 50 kph. 4 tanks would be armed with Vickers machineguns, and 12 with 20 mm Oerlikon autocannons. The Lithuanians were eager for an answer: according to the letter, CKD should respond by mid-January of 1936.

However, CKD had nothing of the sort to offer. All it could propose was the Praga AH-IV-C, a variant of the AH-IV tankette with a cannon and a mass of 4.5 tons.

Experimental prototype of the Praga LTL at CKD, May 1938.

An almost year-long pause followed. During this year, it seems that the Lithuanian military realized that their requirements had little in common with reality. Armour that was thick enough to protect from rifle caliber rounds was no longer enough. It's not surprising that a proposal to develop a 9 ton tank followed in November of 1936. CKD was ready for this turn of events. The Praga TNH-L project was sent to Kaunas, an offshoot of the TNH design.

Detailed negotiations began in December. The Lithuanian delegation was shown the P-II (LT vz. 34) and P-II-a. POLDI Hutte was also hard at work, producing armour plates for testing. The Lithuanian delegation seemed satisfied, but suddenly rejected the TNH-L. The military suddenly remembered that many bridges in the country were rather flimsy, and the mass had to be limited to 5-6 tons.

A rear transmission required a radical redesign.

On February 12th, 1937, a draft project of a new tank was sent to Kaunas. One active participant of its discussion was Algirdas Slesoraitis, an officer of the Lithuanian army and a functionary of the militarist fascist Iron Wolves association. Lithuania was seriously considering the Landsverk L-120 tank, but fortune smiled upon CKD,

The tank presented to Lithuania was called Praga LTL. It had two options for armament: either a 20 mm Oerlikon autocannon or a 37 mm Skoda A 4 Beta cannon, as well as two types of engines (air or liquid cooled). The thickness of the armour was increased to 25 mm. The design was clearly better than the L-120. t's not surprising that a contract for 21 LTL tanks at 570,000 kroner apiece was signed on May 26th, 1937.

The approved variant weighed 5.6 tons and was armed with a 20 mm autocannon. The requirement to drop the mass meant that the size of the hull had to be reduced; it was 40 cm shorter and 10 cm narrower. In addition, the transmission migrated to the rear, and the engine was installed at an angle to fit into its compartment. The 7 L Praga F-IV 125 hp engine was taken from the amphibious tank of the same name.

The tank received modernized observation devices and a new turret.

According to the contract, the first Praga LTL prototype was expected for trials no later than in 7 months, or by January of 1938. The delivery of the tank was late due to the fault of the armament manufacturer. Since CKD was not at fault, they managed to avoid being fined. The Lithuanians weren't in a hurry either, and a commission arrived in Prague only on May 4th, 1938.

The tank that entered trials was overloaded: its mass was 7.2 tons. On the other hand, the top speed was 55 kph. The tank also received an improved turret and observation devices. The first week of trials was accompanied by a number of breakdowns, the biggest of which was the breaking of the gearbox. The tank was finally perfected by August 29th, 1938. Trials continued, and the tank traveled for another 3500 kilometers by the end of 1938. Further trials were performed in Lithuania, from January 26th to March 11th of 1939. The tank drove for 1474 km.

The result was a successful light tank, somewhat superior to the PzII in characteristics.

As trials continued, the worldwide political situation became more and more heated. Meanwhile, CKD tried to get other Baltic states interested in their new tank. The LTL never made it to Tallinn or Riga, since there was a risk of losing the contract. The tank returned to Prague, where it met German occupation.

It's worth noting that the Germans did not impede the Lithuanian contract. The reworked tank was named Praga LLT. Instead of Maxim guns, it used Czech ZB vz. 37 machineguns, and the commander's cupola was moved to the right. The tanks would have been delivered in three batches of seven tanks, but Lithuania was annexed by the USSR on August 19th, 1940. A storm of letters was exchanged between local authorities and the Red Army GABTU, and there was even a brief search to find these tanks.

Swiss success

Even though the deal with Lithuania didn't pan out, there was another country willing to buy Czechoslovakian light tanks: Switzerland. The history of its armoured forces was similar to that of Lithuania. In 1921, the Swiss bought two Renault FT tanks, which received registration numbers M+7310 and M+7314. They served until 1940, although it was fairly obvious that they were unsuitable for mountainous terrain.

Two Carden-Loyd Mk.VI tankettes were purchased in 1930. Cooperation with Vickers-Armstrongs Limited continued, and two 4-ton Vickers-Armstrongs Light Tank Model 1933 were purchased in 1933. A year later, four more Vickers-Armstrongs Light Tank Model 1934 were ordered. In the Swiss army, they were called Panzerwagen 34/35. There were no further orders. The Swiss decided to pursue more modern vehicles, and to produce them domestically, not just buy them.

Switzeland's powerful arms industry was capable of producing tanks. Initially, the plans were to buy or build 80-90 tanks by 1939. In April of 1937, these appetites cooled down: six divisions were going to receive an armoured platoon of four tanks each, or 24 tanks in total.

Preliminary design of the Praga LTL-H.

The Swiss purchasing commission spent April 15th to 22nd in Essen, at the Krupp factory. The Germans had very little to offer aside from the PzI and the L.K.A./L.K.B. tanks, export tanks on its chassis. The Swiss departed for Stockholm. On their first visit, they tried out the Landsverk L-60. However, neither the L-60 nor the lighter L-120 was satisfactory for the Swiss. Perhaps they were just browsing.

Interestingly enough, Sweden itself had its eye on foreign tanks in the past, and visited Essen themselves in January-February of 1937. In March, the Swedish commission visited Prague and tested out the Praga AH-IV and Praga THN. As a result, the Swedes bought the Praga AH-IV-Sv tankette. These tankettes were assembled partially from Swedish components (armour, engines) and armed with Swedish weapons. This kind of flexibility at CKD, as well as good technical characteristics and low price, interested the Swiss.

An attachment to Aleksey Surin's patent on a special system that prevented burning fluid from entering the tank.

In mid-June of 1937, Emil Oplatka, a representative of CKD, received a letter from Captain Koenig, the head of the KTA's tank department (the technical department of the war ministry, Kriegstechnische Abteilung). Koenig was interested in the precise characteristics of the Praga AH-IV-Sv. Oplatka arrived in Bern on July 21st, where he had a meeting with Koenig. The head of KTA's tank department was interested by Oplatka's proposals. A Swiss delegation to Prague was planned. CKD began reworking the AH-IV for Switzerland. The company received permission from the Swedish military and from the Czechoslovakian Ministry of Defense to show Swedish materials to the Swiss.

In early September of 1937, the KTA's leadership arrived in Prague, where it viewed CKD's tanks. By the end of the month, the AH-IV-H tankette was designed, very similar to the AH-IV-Sv. Its price, depending on the production volume, was estimated to range from 345,000 to 383,500 Czech kroner. The project didn't last long; trials of British light tanks by the KTA made them realize that tanks of this size are too small to cross serious obstacles.

Swiss delegation in front of the Praga LTL-H. Captain Koenig is in the middle, in the leather coat.

On October 18th, 1937, the Swiss military formulated requirements for a new tank. They were very similar to the ones that the Lithuanians had. The mass of the tank was capped at 6 tons, the armour was to be 25 mm thick, and the armament consisted of Maxim guns and a 20 mm Oerlikon autocannon. The tanks would also carry a Saurer diesel engine. 

The similar requirements and existing designs for the Praga LTL meant that the work only took 5 days. The tank named Praga LTL-H was very similar to the Praga LTL visually, but the drive sprockets and transmission returned to the front of the tank. The turret was borrowed from the Peruvian Praga LTP.

Unlike the Lithuanian project, which dragged on, the LTL-H was developed very quickly. In November, CKD received permission from the Ministry of Defense to sell a license for this tank. Two contracts were prepared by early December. The first contract, #15430, was for 12 tanks at a price of 600,000 Czech kroner apiece. The cost did not include optics or armament. According to the second contract, #15431, Switzerland received permission to produce 12 more tanks under license. The agreement also included CKD's help in assembling the tanks. The contracts were negotiated in Prague on December 6th, 1937, and finally signed in Bern on the 18th.

Praga LTL-H during trials, spring of 1938.

The production of the first experimental Praga LTL-H happened just as quickly. Work was at its peak by the end of January of 1938. Despite the fact that the tank was supposed to have a Saurer diesel engine, the prototype had a Swedish Scania-Vabis 1664 engine. Work was slightly late, and the experimental LTL-H only began trials on March 17th, instead of February. KTA officers, including Koenig, observed.

The tank that entered trials was somewhat different from the initial project. First of all, the turret was changed noticeably. Instead of a gun, it carried a wooden dummy. In addition, it had an interesting feature. Information about battles in Spain reached Czechoslovakia, including frequent use of Molotov cocktails. To protect the engine from incendiary fluid, Surin designed a special "skirt'. Thanks to it, the fluid didn't spread across the fenders, but dripped off the back.

After completion of the first stage of trials, during which the tank traveled 811 km, additional minor changes were made to the LTL-H. The experimental prototype was sent to Switzerland, where it traveled another 901 km. After that, the LTL-H was equipped with a new engine: the 110 hp Saurer CT1D, initially designed for buses. The tank drove for another 750 km with this engine.

The Swiss military was satisfied with the tank, which showed itself well in the mountains. After completion of the trials, the LTL-H returned to Prague, where it was disassembled and re-equipped with the Scania-Vabis 1664 engine.

Like other CKD tanks, the LTL-H had good mobility.

In June of 1938, documentation for assembly of the LTL-H arrived at the KTA. Armour plates, observation devices, suspension elements, and transmission components arrived from Czechoslovakia. Everything else was built in Switzerland. Meanwhile, changes were still being made to the tank. The tank received a new turret with an air intake in the rear, like the Praga LTP.

One of the reasons for a redesigned turret was a change in requirements for armament. By mid-1938, it was obvious that the 20 mm Oerlikon 1S was obsolete as an anti-tank gun. It could not even penetrate the front armour of the tank that it was installed on.

In 1938, under the direction of Johann Adolf Furrer-Kägi, the chief designer at Waffenfabrik Bern, a 24 mm semiautomatic cannon was developed. It was built in two variants: tank (Panzerwagen Kanone 1938) and anti-tank (Panzerabwehr-Befestigungskanone 38). Thanks to a magazine feed, the rate of fire reached 30-40 RPM. The magazine also caused an issue: since it fed from the top, an indentation in the turret roof had to be made.

The idea of installing a 24 mm gun was a correct one. It had worthy penetration characteristics, and its rate of fire was higher than that of a 37 mm gun.

24 mm  Pzw-Kan 38 (Panzerwagen Kanone 1938) gun that was installed on mass production Pzw 39 tanks.

The events of September of 1938, when a war nearly broke out between Germany and Czechoslovakia, had its impact on the Praga LTL-H. The first sets of armour plates arrived at CKD from Kladno in October, and the first two tanks were ready for factory trials in mid-December. The first traveled 150 km, the second 1500 km.

Tanks built in Prague received Swedish gasoline Scania-Vabis 1664 engines instead of diesel ones. This included all 12 LTL-H tanks from the first batch. Koenig and other officers that arrived for an inspection were satisfied, and the tanks were sent to Switzerland. Deliveries continued even after the occupation of Czechia. Since Switzerland, much like Sweden, had tight ties with Germany in the military sphere, the Germans did not impede further cooperation.

The initial look of the Panzerwagen 39.

In parallel with production of tanks in Prague, components to assemble tanks in Swizerland were also built. The K+W (Eidgenössische Konstruktionswerkstätte) factory in Thun, close to Bern, was chosen. The city was home to the design bureau and proving grounds. Thun became the heart of Swiss tank building.

Assembly work was delayed, since the armour arriving from Kladno suffered from its traditional defects. In addition, some plates had to be replaced completely. An engineer was sent from CKD to correct defects. The Swiss also ordered spare parts from the company, now called BMM, many times. Despite all the issues that were uncovered during assembly, the tanks finally entered service in early 1940.

A column of tanks in three-colour camouflage.

In May of 1939, the first tanks began arriving in Swiss units. They were indexed Panzerwagen 39, or Pzw 39. By September of 1939, six tank platoons were organized. Each received 4 tanks, as planned. Registration numbers depended on what platoon the tank was in. The number 75 meant the mass (7.5 tons), the third number was the number of the platoon, and the fourth was the number of the tank in the platoon:
  • 1 platoon: M+7511 — M+7514
  • 2 platoon: M+7521 — M+7524
  • 4 platoon: M+7541 — M+7544
  • 5 platoon: M+7551 — M+7554
  • 6 platoon: M+7561 — M+7564
  • 7 platoon: M+7571 — M+7574
The number of the platoon corresponded with the number of the division that the tank was in.

The monochrome gray paint was quickly replaced a two-colour camouflage. Large letters CH were painted on the sides of the turrets so there could be no mistake that this was a Swiss tank. Some tanks, including tanks from the 5th platoon, had three colour camouflage.

Each platoon also had its own emblem on the side of the tanks. The first platoon had a lobster, the second had playing cards, the fourth had a snake, the fifth had a turtle, the sixth had a rhinoceros, the seventh had a crocodile. The tanks took part in Swiss army exercises in 1940 bearing these markings.

Despite their neutrality, the Swiss treated the fighting nearby very seriously. Denmark's neutral status didn't help that much. Nevertheless, the mountains would have slowed the Germans down. In addition, it was risky to stick their hand into a country famous not only for its mountains, but for international banks. Switzerland, just like Sweden, managed to preserve its neutrality during the entire war.


The letters CH signify that the tank is Swiss, and the crocodile means that the tank belongs to the 7th platoon.

Swiss tank units were reorganized in December of 1940. The tanks were combined into three companies of 8 tanks each. The first company had playing cards as its emblem, the second had a rhinoceros, and the third had a turtle. Later, one of these tanks became a test subject for various experiments.

Overall, the Swiss army was satisfied with its tank specifically and Surin's designs in general. It's not surprising that the Pzw 39 lasted in the Swiss army for many decades. The last order for spare parts was made in 1947, which allowed the tanks to serve for a while longer. In August of 1948, the tanks were removed from the tank companies, and replaced with G-13 tank destroyers. The Pzw 39 was finally retired in 1960.

Pzw 39 in the late 1940s. G-13 tank destroyers are seen in the background.

Careful treatment of these tanks meant that nine Pzw 39 survived until today, more than a third of all tanks built. You can familiarize yourself with the vehicle on display at Thun in this walkaround. At least three tanks are still functional. In 2016, one Pzw 39 tank was gifted to the Czech Republic, and this tank can be seen at the technical museum in Lešany. Knowing the skill of local restorers, we can be sure that, soon, this tank will also be back on its feet.

KV Gun Upgrades

$
0
0
"The following work is necessary to perform trials of KV tank armament and improvement of blueprints:
  1. Install the F-34 gun instead of the F-32 gun into the KV-1 tank at factory #92 by March 1st, 1941.
    A commission composed of representatives from ChTZ, the Kirov factory, GABTU, and GAU must perform trials and approve blueprints by March 5th, 1941. Factory #92 received a KV tank with a 76 mm F-32 gun on February 2nd, 1941.
  2. Install the 107 mm F-42 gun instead of the M-10 gun into the KV-2 tank by May 1st, 1941. Perform trials and work on blueprints, presenting them to the NKO no later than May 15th, 1941. Factory #92 received a KV tank with a large turret on January 29th.
  3. Install the 76 mm F-34 gun into the KV-3 tank (with 90 mm of armour and mass production KV chassis) according to the Kirov factory designs.
    For this, the Kirov factory must present the Izhor factory with NKO approved blueprints by March 1st, 1941, for the turret to be built. The completed turret must be sent to factory #92 by April 1st, 1941. GABTU and GAU must finish their trials and approve blueprints by April 15th, 1941.
  4. Factory #92 must install the ZIS-5 gun (F-27 with AA ballistics) into the KV tank (experimental prototype with 90 mm and lengthened chassis).
    Kirov factory must deliver the turret of this tank by March 1st, 1941.
  5. Factory #92 must improve the 85 mm tank gun for the KV tank (100 mm armour T-220) in order to balance it.
    GABTU and GAU must perform trials of this gun at the Gorohovets proving grounds. The tank must be sent from the Kirov factory to factory #92.
    On the second KV (T-220) tank, factory #92 must install the 107 mm F-42 gun, for which the Kirov factory must immediately deliver the turret of this tank to factory #92. GABTU and GAU must perform trials and approve blueprints.
GABTU and GAU are responsible for the trials programs.

All aforementioned orders are done by factory #92 and Kirov factory in cooperation, supplying each other with necessary blueprints. 

I ask that comrade Yelyan and comrade Zaltsmann make the necessary orders for completion of all aforementioned work in time.

Deputy People's Commissar of Defense, Kulik
February 19th, 1941"

Viewing all 1900 articles
Browse latest View live


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