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

Light SPGs

$
0
0
"Decision of the meeting held by the Deputy People's Commissar of Defense, Marshall of the Soviet Union, comrade Kulik
May 23rd, 1941

1. It is necessary to have four kinds of SPGs:
  1. SPAAGs
  2. Assault guns
  3. Tank destroyers
  4. Bunker busters
2. The following artillery systems will be used on SPGs:
  1. SPAAGs:
    1. 20 mm autocannon on the T-40 or GAZ-62 chassis.
    2. 23 mm autocannon on the T-40 or GAZ-62 chassis.
    3. 37 mm autocannon on the T-50 chassis.
  2. Assault guns
    1. 76 mm mod. 1927 and 1932 guns on the T-26 chassis.
  3. Tank destroyers:
    1. 57 mm ZIS-2 gun on the T-50 chassis.
    2. 85 mm AA gun on the T-34 chassis.
  4. Bunker busters:
    1. 152 mm Br-2 gun on the KV chassis.
3. The composition of tactical-technical characteristics for experimental SPGs and the setting of deadlines is assigned to:
  • 20 mm and 23 mm guns: Brovalskiy, Kovalenko, Astrov, Lipkhart, Berezin, Shpitalniy, Volkov-Yartsev.
  • 37 mm gun: Chechulin, Kovalev, Ginsburg, Kostin.
  • 76 mm gun: Sorkin, Kovalev, Ginsburg.
  • 57 mm gun: Sorkin, Kovalev, Astrov, Ginsburg, Grabin
  • 85 mm gun: Zasosov, Agrikov, Dorokhin, Morozov.
  • 152 mm gun: Komarov, Voroshilov, Kotin, Ivanov, Vishnyakov.
The tactical-technical characteristics, with deadlines for experimental prototypes, production locations, and production amounts are to be presented for discussion at a meeting with the Marshall of the Soviet Union, comrade Kulik, by 20:00 on May 24th, 1941."


U-20 Requirements

$
0
0
"Tactical-technical characteristics for the development of an experimental prototype of the oscillating part of the 85 mm AA gun on a T-34 tank chassis to create a self propelled anti-tank gun

November 7th, 1941
  1. The oscillating part of the 85 mm mod. 1939 AA gun will be installed on a T-34 tank chassis (with engine) without changes.
  2. The gun mount must meet the following requirements:
    1. Horizontal arc: 360 degrees
    2. Vertical range: from -8 to +30 degrees
    3. Aiming speed from one turn of the flywheel:
      1. Vertical: 1.2 degrees
      2. Horizontal: 3 and 7 degrees
  3. For aiming mechanisms, it is desirable to keep existing parts.
  4. It must be possible to fire on the move, against the direction of movement.
  5. The SPG must carry a tools and spares kit, as well as 30-40 rounds of ammunition.
  6. The SPG must have seats for the gun crew.
  7. The gun platform must make it comfortable to service the gun in firing position.
  8. A shield must protect the crew and mechanisms from bullets and shrapnel.
  9. The SPG must have a removable 7.62 mm machinegun, installed in the driver's cabin, with a forward firing arc.
    The machinegun must also be able to fire at airborne targets.
GAU UVNA Chief, Colonel Sorokin
Acting UVNA Military Commissar, Military Engineer 1st Class, Voznesenskiy
Chief of the UVNA 2nd Department, Military Engineer 1st Class, Anisimov"

    Taubin's Automatic Grenade Launcher

    $
    0
    0
    In the mid 1930s, an automatic grenade launcher made by engineer Taubin was tested in the USSR. There were some good things about it, like a satisfactory shrapnel radius for grenades and a high rate of fire: 436 RPM! However, there were also many problems. It jammed a lot (7.2% of the shots), and the extractor had to be replaced 30 times over 587 shots. The precision, especially on the horizontal axis, was unsatisfactory.


    However, Taubin did not give up. He wrote to Molotov, Voroshilov, and Kaganovich, with pleas to produce his mortar, complaining the the Red Army lacks the ability to suppress strongholds on reverse slopes at a range of 500-1200 meters at the company level. The letters contained such gems as: "The production of an automatic grenade launcher, the value of which was identified by the army in December of 1937, is being held back intentionally... The employees of Design Bureau 16 consider it necessary to create a commission in order to confirm the facts stated in this letter and identification of the parties guilty of artificially delaying the progress of the automatic grenade launcher."

    In response to these claims, Division Commander Grendal sent his own letter, remarking that the Red Army possesses company level mortars for such tasks, and "In order to reduce the amount of correspondence between us in the future, it is suggested that your workers ask Artkom in person (available from 14:00 to 17:00) regarding issues they do not understand."

    The Swedish Army's Tough Choice

    $
    0
    0
    The time between the World Wars was that of rapid technical progress. Even tanks, a relatively new invention, could become obsolete quickly. Even though only several wealthy countries could afford a large number of the newest tanks for their armies, experimental vehicles and small batches cropped up in many nations. Sweden, who managed to retain neutrality during WWI, was among them. Its army was engaged in a lengthy and difficult search for a suitable tank. The search ended with the acceptance of the Strv m/31, or L-10, which begat a whole family of armoured vehicles.


    Do it yourself

    The first success for Sweden during the interbellum years was the establishment of contacts with German defense companies. Under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was not allowed to develop or produce new types of armaments. Tanks were strictly forbidden. It was allowed to produce a limited amount of armoured cars for police forces. Nevertheless, Sweden managed to purchase parts for 10 light LK-II tanks from Germany, which were assembled at a shipyard in Stockholm. The tanks were first indexed Pansarvagn fm/22, but then received the name we know them by today: Stridsvagn m/21.

    Overall, the military was satisfied with their purchase. Even five years after the end of WWI, the LK-II was not yet obsolete. It had decent off-road performance, especially for a tank of its class, and the crew conditions weren't bad for the era. The only serious drawback was the lack of a cannon. It also turned out that 10 German tanks was all that Sweden could hope for. There was no possibility of ordering more LK-IIs, and none was expected to come up.

    Meanwhile, Sweden was not living under a rock. Information about new types of armoured vehicles reached the country, especially British and French models. They knew about the Medium Tank Mk.D, the Medium Tank M1921 that was built on its chassis, and Medium Tanks Mk.I and Mk.II. Information on these vehicles was available from multiple sources, including "Die Kampfwagen fremder Heere", which was published in 1926 in Berlin. Hauptmann Fritz Heigl from Vienna was directly connected with the publication. He turns up in this story later.

    Renault FT during trials of radio equipment, 1924. The gun was removed from the turret.

    Incoming information suggested that tanks were developing, and their maneuverability grew as much as their firepower. Unfortunately, even buying a British Medium Tank Mk.I was impossible at the time. The French Renault FT was the bestseller on the world market. Even Sweden's eastern neighbour Finland had 32 of these tanks.

    In the fall of 1923, the Swedish KAF (Kungliga Arméförvaltningen, the Royal Army's Supply Directorate) approved the purchase of one Renault FT. A tank armed with a cannon in a Berliet turret was obtained. The Swedish military was quickly disappointed by its purchase. The Swedish infantry guards regiment (Svea livgarde) which received all of Sweden's tanks nicknamed the Renault FT "Putte", or "angel". After the LK-II, which comfortably fit four tankers, the two-man Renault FT felt like a coffin. It was also slower than the German tank.

    The only advantage of the French tank was the cannon, which was removed and installed into a Strv m/21 in 1924. The weapon did not return to the Renault FT. In August of 1926, when the tank's engine gave out, it was written off without any regrets and used as a shooting range target.

    Trials of the Renault NC-27, which also led to nothing. The failure of this tank was the last straw, and Sweden decided to design its own tank.

    The second attempt of "French intervention" was made in November of 1927, which Sweden began talks to purchase a Renault NC: a modernized Renault FT with thicker armour, a 62 hp engine, and a new suspension. KAF decided to buy a single tank. Trials held at the Järvafältet proving grounds to the north-west of Stockholm brought disappointment once more. The tank broke constantly. Gearbox issues were common. Finally, the tank's suspension was unsuited for the Scandinavian landscape.

    Unlike the Renault FT, the tank was not scrapped, but survives to this day. Nevertheless, KAF gave up on buying foreign tanks. The Swedes decided to build their own tank. Work began in 1928. Since there were no engineers with tank building experience in Sweden, experts were found abroad.

    Austrian trail

    During WWI, Austria-Hungary possessed excellent domestic artillery, which could not be said about its armoured vehicles. Some success was had in the building of armoured trains, but Austria-Hungary's road vehicles were limited to Romfell armoured cars and Günther Adolf Burstyn's tank project. Like Germany, Austria and Hungary were prohibited from designing and building tanks, and were limited to "training" armoured cars. This was more of a preventative measure, since tank design didn't get too far in the collapsed empire, but there was one man in Austria who managed to create a decent armoured car.

    Panzerauto M.26, one of Fritz Heigl's armoured cars. It's not impossible that the creator himself is present in this photo.

    Fritz Heigl, the man already mentioned in this article, is known to tank history enthusiasts as the first man to create an encyclopedia of tanks. A much smaller circle of people knows that Heigl was not just a theorist, but also dabbled in practice. The "training" armoured cars that Austria was permitted to have were designed by him.

    Heigl was 32 years old when he designed his first armoured car, the Panzerauto M.25. He designed three variants of this car, which had a different design of the armament, hull, and chassis. The lighter Heigl Panzerauto M.26 followed. Aside from everything else, Heigl's armoured cars had a very unusual camouflage pattern.

    The designer could not develop the success of his design in Austria. The Treaty of Versailles tied his hands, but there was the option to try and seek success abroad. Heigl picked the Swedish Morgårdshammar AB company as a partner and industrial base. Some authors call it an arsenal, but that is incorrect. Morgårdshammar was mostly involved with heavy equipment, including mining equipment and excavators. With this kind of specialization, tank building was a very likely successful offshoot.

    47 mm gun designed for the prospective tank.

    The first contact between Heigl and Morgårdshammar was made in 1925, but the negotiations reached the practical stage closer towards the end of 1927. In January of 1928, Heigl, already a Major, arrived in Stockholm. Judging by the correspondence, he already had some conceptual designs for his own tank. Sweden also received blueprints of the Heigl Panzerauto M.26. It's worth noting that Heigl did not abandon his country to work on tanks in Sweden. He actively tried to assist tank building in Austria. In 1928, he proposed the creation of a centre for military research in Vienna, but the military refused. Sweden was the only place where the engineer could bring his ideas to life.

    SV A1, the Heigl's first draft project. This was an advanced tank for its time.

    According to documents, Heigl began with a 9 ton tank. The armament was discussed in February of 1928. Various weapons were proposed. One of them was the Bofors 57 mm Küstengeschütz m/16 coastal defense gun. A 47 mm gun from the same company was also considered. A 37 mm Skoda infantry cannon was also considered, the same one that was to be installed in the Strv m/21.  

    Finally, the choice was settled for the happy medium: the 47 mm Bofors gun, based on the Hotchkiss design that was later installed into the Renault D1. Unlike the French, the Swedes hid their recoil mechanisms inside the tank, which made the gun less vulnerable to enemy fire. The gun could penetrate 25 mm of armour from 400 meters, which was enough to combat most tanks of the time.

    Comparison of the SV A1 and other tanks. These "shadow diagrams" will later appear in Heigl's encyclopedia.

    Heigl's first draft project, named "Variant A" or SV A1, was presented in mid-April of 1928. The vehicle was quite unusual, unlike any other tank of the time. It had two command posts, and the presence of a steering wheel implied a complicated transmission (it was not specified in the design). Several layout variants were proposed, two of which had the engine in the front, and at least one in the rear. In any case, the crew consisted of 4 men, and the mass was 10.5 tons.

    The 85 hp Scania-Vabis 1561 engine from the Scania-Vabis 324 truck was to be used. An alternative was the Maybach-Omnibus-Motor 100 hp engine. The tank's top speed was estimated at 25 kph, which was enough for the time. The tank had impressive armour: 20-30 mm thick, practically shell-proof at the time.

    Variant B with a deployable wheeled drive.

    The armament was placed in an unusual way. The gun was located in the turret, and judging by the mount and the shoulder stock, it could be aimed vertically and horizontally without traversing the turret. This was done to make precise aiming easier. An AA gun was present in the rear of the turret. The commander also had a machinegun in a small cupola on top of the main turret. Another machinegun was located in the hull, and would be used by the gunner in an emergency.

    Layout of the redesigned tank.

    The results was an unusual but satisfactory vehicle. However, a radically reworked "Variant B" project was ready in the second half of April. The crew composition, armament, and engine remained the same, but the tank itself looked different. It became shorter, only one turret remained, and most importantly: it gained a wheeled drive. Using hydraulics, the tank could switch to wheels. The second variant could also move on railroads. In his memo, Heigl noted that the wheels could be used in different ways. They could be used as fascines or help when crossing wide trenches.

    Demonstration of the advantages of additional axles. They could help with movement in difficult conditions.

    KAAD (Kungliga Arméförvaltningens artilleridepartement, the Royal Army Department of Artillery) viewed these projects with some scepticism. In November of 1928, the Chief of Staff Carl Gustaf Hammarskjöld initiated a new tank purchase program. A decent amount of money was allotted: 400,000 kroner. According to Sweden's requirements, the tank must not be heavier than 12 tons, and its armour must protect from the 37 mm infantry gun. The tank also needed to have powerful armament and the ability to confidently drive along difficult Swedish terrain. Development of the tank had to be done on a tender.

    Stridswagen A-4-C, Heigl's last design.

    According to Swedish historians, Heigl designed six variants of his tank between 1928 and 1930. The last of them, Stridswagen A-4-C, was dated August 1930. The tank had a lot in common with the "Variant A". The engine was in the front, and the transmission in the back. The turret was also very similar. The machinegun cupola returned. Overall, the tank was somewhat obsolete, but still satisfied the Swedish army's requirements. 

    Alas, it remained on paper. Major Heigl died on December 30th, 1930, due to issues with his liver. He was 37 years old. The project was orphaned after his death. Morgårdshammar AB had no one who could see it through to the end.

    No wheels is better

    As mentioned above, the Swedish military declared a tender for a new tank for its army. Heigl's first competitor was AB Bofors. It was essentially a front for the German Krupp conglomerate, which was working on its Leichttraktor at the time. Two prototypes were racking up mile after mile at Kazan, earning many criticisms regarding their design. The Leichttraktor lost the Swedish tender in absentia. In the winter of 1931, KAF reviewed information about the vehicle, and came to the conclusion that the tank is not suitable for Scandinavian terrain. These conclusions were founded, since both the Leichttraktor Krupp and Leichttraktor Rheinmetall were dead ends for the German tank building industry. 

    Reworked Landsverk L-5 project, without wheels. It served as the starting point for the development of the superior L-10 tank.

    The second bid came from Heigl's main competitor, left all alone after his death: Landsverk from Landskrona. It specialized in train cars, dock cranes, and agricultural vehicles. The company also had ties to Germany. In the 1920s, when it was near bankruptcy, the company was bailed out by Gutehoffnungshütte, Aktienverein für Bergbau und Hüttenbetrieb (GHH). Beginning in 1928, Landsverk began to slowly gain footing in a new field: military vehicles. This was not a coincidence. GHH, which also owned MAN, used the Swedish company as a test lab.

    Otto Merker began working in Landskrona in 1929. The 30 year old engineer arrived from Maschinenfabrik Esslingen. He designed a tracked and wheeled chassis at his previous job. Allegedly, it was a tractor, but in reality, it was the chassis for a convertible drive tank. Merker's first project at his new job was  convertible drive tank. Effectively, it was a rework of the Räder-Raupen-Kampfwagen M28 GFK chassis, more of a German tank than a Swedish one.

    The first variant of the L-10, equipped with a simplified suspension.

    The result of Merker's work was the convertible drive Landsverk L-5 tank, which deserves its own article. Even though Merker's job was to create a convertible tank, he presented a parallel project: an improved Landsverk L-5 without wheels. The turret and armament were taken from the convertible drive project, as was the engine and suspension. The vehicle's hull was wider, but the overall width was less than that of the convertible drive tank. The protruding wheels noticeably increased its width.

    After ditching the massive wheeled drive, Otto Merker was able to improve the tank in other ways. The fighting compartment was larger, and the freed up mass made it possible to reinforce the armour. The convertible drive tank had issues in this respect, since it didn't meet the customer's criteria for protection.

    First variant of the L-10 hull.

    The delays in work on a second generation tank made KAAD's leadership worry more and more. In January of 1931, Lieutenant Erik Gillner and Captain Walter Elliot (head of the A9 directorate, responsible for motorization of artillery) arrived in Great Britain. They were shown the Medium Tank Mk.IA, Medium Tank Mk.II, Medium Tank Mk.III, and Carden-Loyd Mk.VI tankettes. The result of the trip was the purchase of two tankettes: Mk.VI and Mk.V. Both of them survive to this day.

    The Swedes also looked at the Vickers Mk.E and Carden-Loyd Patrol Tank Mk.VI.  The military cared little about supporting domestic industry. Nevertheless, the L-5 was given a chance, especially since, unlike Heigl's and Bofors' vehicles, it existed in metal.

    Otto Merker's first purely tracked tank was built in metal.

    On July 30th, 1921, KAAD was presented with the Landsverk 10 (later L-10) project. The tank transformed noticeably since the improved L-5. The hull was almost half a meter longer, the suspension was reworked. The turret changed, and now resembled the one used on the German Leichttraktor. The engine was also German: the 150 hp Maybach DSO 8. It was considered for installation in prospective German tanks in the mid-1930s, including the B.W. There was also an alternative: the 160 hp air cooled Argus A.S.10W.

    The tank's top speed was estimated at 35-40 kph. The Landsverk L-10 was designed in two variants: with 8-14 or 14-24 mm of armour. In the first case, the tank weighed 9 tons, in the second case: 10.5 tons. The tank was armed with a 37 mm Bofors gun and two ksp 6.5 mm m/14-29 machineguns: one coaxial, one in the hull.

    The same tank from the rear.

    On October 16th, 1931, a contract for production of four tanks was signed. The overall budget was 505,780 kroner. Of that, 343,500 kroner was for three L-10 tanks, or 114,500 kroner each. By 1931 prices, this was a little less than 6500 pounds Sterling. It's not surprising that the KAAD was looking at the Vickers Mk.E. The British tank cost 1.5 times less.

    A batch of three tanks was a victory for Swedish tank building, albeit a small one. The Strv m/31 was the first Swedish built tank accepted into service.

    The contract did not mean that the tank would appear quickly. Unlike the L-5, which was effectively a polished version of an existing chassis, the new tank was built from scratch. The military did its part to slow down the project, requesting that certain changes be made. One of them was the installation of a radio, which made adding a rail antenna necessary.

    The second Strv m/31 crossing an obstacle.

    The tanks were delivered to the customer in 1935. The L-10 became the first Swedish tank to be accepted into service and built in a batch of more than one. The tanks were indexed Strv m/31. It's hard to call the tank poor. At 11 tons, the tank reached a top speed of 40 kph.  It was no Christie tank, but this was enough to support infantry. Other tanks of this class had the same mobility at the time.

    The tank was equipped with a planetary transmission, which was a major achievement at the time. The armament was adequate, and the crew felt very comfortable in its tank. This was a worthy light tank, closer to medium tanks in some respects.

    Strv m/31 on exercises. The tank turned out to be quite comfortable to work with.

    Despite satisfactory characteristics, no further orders for the Strv m/31 followed. Several factors influenced this decision. The tank was rather expensive, and it was not hard to find a cheaper one abroad. The suspension, unified with the L-30, was complicated, especially the elastic elements, which combined coil and leaf springs. Aside from four main road wheels, there was a smaller one in between the bogeys. The result was complicated and archaic.

    Otto Merker did not sit still, and continued to work. In addition to the L-10, he produced the L-100 scout tank and L-60 light tank. Started with the goal of making a smaller L-10, the latter grew into a progressive design that overtook its predecessor. This was especially true for its torsion bar suspension. It's not hard to see why interest in the L-10 waned.

    A complicated suspension was one of the biggest problems for Sweden's first tank.

    A lack of further orders did not mean that the tanks would do nothing. The vehicles were issued to the Gotaland guards infantry regiment (Göta livgarde, I 2), and received registration numbers 51-53. The tanks earned an ambiguous reputation. They had good off-road performance, but suffered from gearbox issues. Later, two tanks were used at Gotland island as immobile bunkers. The tank with registration number 51 survived to this day. It is complete, and can be seen in storage at the Arsenalen tank museum.

    The sad fate of Merker's first Swedish tank didn't mean that it was not an important step for Swedish tank building. This was Sweden's first tank that was accepted into service and produced in any numbers. The overall concept of the L-10 became the foundation for much more fortunate future developments. The L-10 developed into the LAGO export tank, which turned into the Strv m/42, Sweden's most numerous tank of the 1940s. With various conversions, the tanks remained in service until the 1980s.

    Adventures of the Centurion in Scandinavia

    $
    0
    0
    Despite Sweden's goals to arm itself with domestic designs, foreign tanks in the Swedish army were not a rare sight. In cases when their industry was too slow or designers put out unsatisfactory results, the Swedish military made up the shortfall with foreign purchases. Recall that the Strv m/37, Sweden's most numerous tank at the start of WWII, was actually the CKD AH-IV-Sv tankette. Later, the Swedes acquired the Strv m/41, a licensed copy of another Czechoslovak vehicle, the LT vz. 38. A similar story happened again after WWII. Tired of waiting while domestic designers, the military purchased British Centurion tanks, which ended up being the most numerous tanks with a classical layout in the Swedish post-war army.


    Waiting for EMIL

    The Swedish military was largely responsible for the difficult situation it faced in the early 50s. In 1943, work was initiated to come up with a tank capable of facing the Soviet T-34. The requirements changed several times, as did the projects built to meet them. It started with the 28 ton Landsverk Pricken. It was replaced by the 30 ton LS 46, then the 25 ton Landsverk Leo, which the military also rejected. The Landsverk Lansen was designed based on the Leo. None of the aforementioned vehicles even made it to the prototype stage. The most that Lansdverk did was produce full seized models of the Lansen in various variants for foreign buyers.

    In March of 1950, KATF (Kungliga Arméförvaltningens Tygavdelning, Royal Army Ordnance Department) learned of the IS-3 tank that was in use by the Soviet army. An analysis of its protection showed that Swedish designs were hopelessly obsolete. This meant that serious changes must be made to the new tank's design once again.

    KATF prepared specifications for a new tank, armed with a 105 mm gun, by November 9th, 1950. The tank differed little from previous projects. At a mass of 25 tons, it had to have a power to weight ratio of 18 hp/ton. The Strv m/42 was considered as a chassis. However, this time, the Swedish army decided to have a backup plan. A search for a suitable tank was also started abroad.

    A Swedish commission inspects a Centurion Mk.3 tank in Switzerland, November-December 1951. In the foreground (holding a hat) is Erik Gillner, a key figure in Swedish tank building.

    The Swedes had little choice in 1950. Wartime tanks were not considered, since they were obsolete. This limited the candidates to two tanks. One was the American M26 Pershing tank and its successor, the M46 Patton. The 44 ton tank had a 90 mm gun, with similar characteristics to the German 88 mm Flak 18. This wasn't bad for the end of WWII, but no longer enough to deal with the IS-3. The M46 had better mobility and top speed than the M26 due to a new engine, but the tank was rapidly becoming obsolete.

    The second candidate was the British Centurion tank. This was a real breakthrough for the British tank industry, who fell behind in the tank race in the end of WWII. Towards the very end of the war, the British managed to build a tank that combined good armour and a powerful gun. In 1949, the Centurion Mk.3 arrived on the scene with an 84 mm Ordnance QF 20- pdr Tk Mk.I. This weapon drastically increased the tank's effectiveness.

    The British tank had its drawbacks. It was bigger and heavier than the M46, and its top speed was only 35 kph. In addition, the front hull armour was only 76 mm thick, which was not enough for the early 1950s, despite the sharp slope of the hull.

    One of the first Centurions Mk.3 to arrive in Sweden. Exercises of the P 2 tank regiment, Hassleholm, summer of 1953.

    The Centurion Mk.3 was chosen. However, it turned out that the British were not ready for export deliveries in 1950. A response to the Swedish request stated that the tanks should not be expected before 1958. The start of the Korean War in the summer of 1950 triggered a new leap in the arms race. The USA and Great Britain had no time for Sweden.

    Sweden began getting closer to France starting in late 1950. In January of 1951, the KATF received information about the French AMX M4 medium tank, which later became the AMX 50. The Swedes became acquainted with another French tank in July of that year: the AMX 13. Both of these tanks had a significant influence on Swedish tank building. After studying the French experience, the prospective Swedish tank turned into the EMIL in September of 1951. A year later, it was seriously redesigned. The mass grew from 28 tons to 41.8, the 120 mm gun was discarded for 105 and 150 mm options, and the tank increased in size.

    A sample AMX 13 arrived in Sweden in April of 1952, and trials began. The French vehicle was seriously considered as a new tank for the Swedish army. Negotiations for an order of 300 tanks began.

    Swedish flags and Swedish turret numbers were the only differences between the Centurion Mk.3 and Strv 81 at first.

    It's possible that Swedish tank building could continue along this "French path", but the situation changed in late 1952. On December 5th, a letter arrived from the Swedish embassy in London, stating that the British were ready to sell 80 Centurion Mk.3 tanks. A fully equipped vehicle cost 50,000 pounds Sterling. This sum also included two years of service. If the deal was made in January of 1953, the order would be fulfilled in 1953-54. In January of 1953, KATF received detailed technical information on the British tank. In November-December of 1952, Swedish specialists visited Switzerland, where they had a chance to examine a Centurion Mk.3.

    As you can see, the Strv 81's loader had no shortage of room.

    Serious changes had to be made to tank purchase plans. As of January 1953, the Swedish army was planning on buying 300 AMX 13s at a cost of 700,000 Swedish kroner per tank. As for the British tank, its cost in Swedish currency was 845,000 kroner.

    The Centurion Mk.3 was a more tempting variant. These tanks showed themselves well in Korea. As for the AMX 13, the Swedes were disappointed. General Carl August Ehrensvärd had the following opinion about the tank: a good tank, but not for Sweden. The choice of Sweden's commanders finally swayed towards the British tank. This was meant to be a temporary replacement for the domestic EMIL tank.

    KRV solution

    According to the initial deal, the first six Centurion Mk.3 tanks arrived in Sweden in April of 1953. The delivery of the rest was stretched out until December 31st, 1954. In reality the first tanks arrived at Landskrona only on May 2nd. The tanks were loaded on a train and sent to Hassleholm, where the P 2 tank regiment relocated to in 1947. The tanks, indexed Strv 81 on the Swedish army, were studied here. The number 8 indicated the gun's caliber in centimeters, and the number 1 meant that it was the first such tank in the Swedish army.

    Exercises with P 2 tanks, summer of 1954.

    The Centurion was different from what the Swedish military expected to get. These tanks could be called old-fashioned. The British returned to Sidney Horstmann's bogey suspension. This suspension was first used in the late 1920s on Vickers tanks, and looked rather archaic on a post-war vehicle. On the other hand, the suspension didn't occupy space inside the tank, and a damaged bogey could easily be removed. The widely known E-50 and E-75 tanks also had similar suspensions.

    The tank's large mass, 50 tons, was a serious drawback. Meanwhile, the Centurion was officially still a medium tank. 

    Tanks in the mountains. It turned out that the British vehicles were suitable for Swedish terrain.

    There was also a heap of advantages that outweighed the drawbacks. One of the Swedish requirements was crew comfort, and there was no shortage of it here. The Centurion was a massive leap forward for British tank building when it came to comfort. Compared to the Cromwell and the Comet, the driver's station was like a starship cabin. The seat could be lifted on the march, giving the driver excellent visibility. In case of bad weather, there was a cover that could be raised over the hatch to protect the driver from precipitation. The driver's compartment was well thought out and organized.

    The fighting compartment was also radically changed. This was especially true for the loader, which had enough space to dance. The large turret ring diameter (1880 mm) and thoroughly thought out fighting compartment layout helped here. A more powerful gun could later fit into this same space without loss of comfort for the crew. Even the stock 84 mm gun was a decent option.

    The final stage of the study of the vehicle was exercises during the winter of 1954. It was clear that the Swedish military made the right choice.

    The British fulfilled their end of the bargain ahead of schedule. The last of the 80 Centurions arrived in Sweden in the fall of 1954. Full scale tactical exercises with Strv 81 tanks began in June of 1954, which made use of P 2's tanks. Exercises continued into the fall, where the tanks were used in difficult scenarios. They were driven through the swamps, through the forests, and even through snow. It turned out that the low top speed was made up for by good mobility in Sweden's difficult terrain. It was clear that the military bet on the right horse.

    Strv 81 tanks from the second batch can be distinguished by the fume extractor on the barrel. These vehicles received a full loadout of Swedish equipment.

    The successful trials opened the way for further orders. Due to the failure of the EMIL project, which changed its name to KRV in 1956, these were desperately needed. The development was behind schedule, but serious issues with the turret and armament of the prospective vehicle were already apparent.

    In 1955, the Swedish army ordered another 160 Centurion Mk.3 tanks. The tanks that were delivered differed from tanks of the first batch. The biggest external change was in the 20-pounder gun. The counterweight disappeared from the tip of the gun, and a fume extractor was added, which reduced the amount of fumes that reentered the turret after firing. Overall, 240 British tanks were purchased. In addition, 13 Centurion ARV vehicles were ordered, indexed Bärgningsbandvagn 81 A, or Bgbv 81 A.

    Bgbv 81 A, a recovery vehicle on the Centurion chassis. 13 such vehicles were purchased.

    The appearance of British tanks allowed for a massive rearmament of the Swedish army. The Strv 81 replaced the hopelessly obsolete Strv m/42. These tanks were modernized into Strv 74, which in turn replaced Landsverk L-60 and Strv m/41 tanks. The Strv 81s slowly changed their appearance. Initially, they were only used as the British delivered them. Later, they received Swedish radios, and started changing externally. The front and rear mudguards received holders for tactical symbols, and special rests were added to the front plate, which served as parking brakes. The lights also changed. Finally, a mount for the KSP m/39C machinegun was added to the commander's cupola.

    The Swedish military was at a crossroads in 1958. The KRV prototype was successfully going through trials, but it still had no turret or armament. On May 2nd, a meeting was held where the issues of rearmament for 1958-1966 was raised. In addition to continuing the work on the KRV, the issue of either purchasing or licensing tanks from Great Britain, USA, or Germany was raised. Another replacement for the KRV was proposed: the Strv S

    This Strv 81 is equipped with a special trailer that carried extra fuel.

    The KATF was unwilling to close the KRV program, since so many resourced were already spent on it. Meanwhile, news of a new version of the Centurion came from Britain. On November 6th, 1958, the military received information on new variants available for purchase. The Mk.8 and Mk.10 were offered. The price difference was minimal, which could not be said about the characteristics.

    For starters, the Centurion Mk.10 received an additional armour plate on the front of the hull and a new gun mantlet. The tank received a more powerful 105 mm L7 gun. To be fair, the modernized Centurion Mk.8 offered the same armament, but it's not hard to see why Sweden considered the Centurion Mk.10 for purchase.

    The British offered tanks in three batches at a cost of 50,000 pounds Sterling each. The first batch of 75 tanks could be delivered starting in March of 1960, the second batch of 100 could start shipping in March of 1961, and shipment of the final batch of 140 vehicles would begin in August f 1961. Centurion ARV Mk.2 recovery tanks on the Centurion Mk.7 chassis were offered at a cost of 51,200 pounds Sterling (plus 401 pounds for the crane). For 52,000 pounds, the Swedes could purchase a Centurion Bridgelayer.
    The Strv K, a hybrid of the KRV and Centurion Mk.10, could look like this. In the end, the Swedish military decided to not risk it.

    The Swedes wavered. On one hand, it was clear that British tanks, expensive at first, were a rational option. On the other hand, their mobility did not improve, while the KRV chassis was quite good. The last attempt to save the KRV involved combining the Swedish chassis and the Centurion Mk.10 turret. Work on this vehicle, indexed Strv K, began in mid-June of 1959. The turret ring would have to be modified, since it was bigger on the KRV. This could have been an interesting hybrid, with good armour, high mobility, and a powerful weapon. It's possible that the Swedes could have installed a 62 caliber long cannon, the kind that eventually ended up in the Strv S.

    After weighing the pros and cons, the Swedish military rejected the idea. It was simpler to just buy new tanks than to make a hybrid, which would cost at least 1.5 times as much as a Centurion Mk.10. Work on the Strv S was in full swing, so there was still an option of a domestic vehicle with high mobility, a powerful gun, and an autoloader.

    The Strv 101 replaced the KRV and Strv K.

    The final shipments of Centurion Mk.10 tanks numbered less than the British initially proposed. In total, Sweden received 110 tanks indexed Strv 101 (first tank with a 10 cm gun) in 1959-60. The Strv 101 was immediately modified in the same way as the Strv 81. The lights were changed, reflectors and parking brakes were added, and a mount for a Swedish machinegun was installed. Sweden also bought three Centurion ARV Mk.2 vehicles, indexed Bgbv 81 B.

    Strv 81, modernized to the level of a Strv 102. This modernization extended the tank's service by 30 years.

    Since the L7 seemed much more promising than the 20-pounder, an idea was raised to rearm the Strv 81 with these guns. This was done in 1964-66. At the same time, the tanks received improved Ra 421 radios and new lights. The front armour was not improved. The tanks that were converted in this way were indexed Strv 102. In the latter half of the 1960s, the Swedish army possessed 350 modern Centurion tanks.

    Half a century in the line of duty

    Production of the Strv 103A finally began in 1967. The Swedish turretless tank was partially unified with the Centurion: it used road wheels from this tank. The appearance of the Strv 103 didn't mean that the 101 and 102 would retire. The Strv 103 was a very unusual fighting machine, and tanks with classical layouts seemed like superior options for certain tasks. In addition, the Swedes could still count, and the modernization of the Strv 81 did not come cheap. The British tanks could count on a long career in the Swedish army.

    Strv 101 during exercises, 1970. As you can see, the lights changed.

    The next stage in the modernization of the Strv 102 began in 1973 and continued until 1977. An analogous program for the Strv 101 ended in 1983. Thanks to these modifications, the service time of these vehicles was radically increased.

    Aside from modernizations, the tanks were subjected to various experiments. One of them was the creation of spaced armour designed in 1976. The armour consisted of chains, which hung from special rails. The designers expected this armour to protect the tanks from HEAT warheads. Work did not progress past the experimental stage, but a similar solution can be seen on Israeli Merkavas. 

    Chain spaced armour tested in 1976.

    The Strv 101 and 102 were to be replaced by a tank designed as a part of the MBT 2000 program, but it did not progress past a full scale model. Meanwhile, Bofors performed the next modernization as a part of the torn-REMO program from 1983 to 1986. The resulting variants were indexed Strv 101R and 102R.

    In addition to new electronics, the tanks changed externally. The lights were changed once more, and a pair of mortars was added to the roof. Finally, the tanks received reactive armour, similar to the kind developed by the Israeli Blazer company. These improvements increased the tanks' lifespan until 1995.

    Strv 102R, the first Swedish tank with reactive armour.

    The most advanced variant of the Swedish Centurion was the Strv 104. Hägglunds & Söner AB modernized the tanks to this standard. The Swedes developed this variant after studying the modernization of Centurion tanks in other countries. For starters, the tanks received better reactive armour than the Strv 101R and 102R. The next step was the improvement of mobility. Hägglunds & Söner AB took the same road as Israel, and borrowed the engine and gearbox from the Americans. In this case, the donor tank was the M60. Thanks to this modification, the tank's top speed grew to a decent 48 kph.

    The new engine and gearbox made a new engine deck necessary. It became very similar to the engine deck of the Israeli Centurion, known as the Sho't. The turret received new controls systems and a pair of mortars on the roof.

    The Strv 104, the most modern Swedish Centurion.

    80 tanks were modernized to the Strv 104 standard from 1983 to 1987. They were issued to the P 6 (Kristianstad) and P 10 (Strängnäs) regiments. Later, these tanks ended up in P 18, which is quartered on Gotland island. This was the last unit to receive Centurion tanks.

    In the 1990s, the Strv 101 and 102 were slowly phased out, replaced with the Strv 121 (Leopard 2). The Strv 105 modification was yet another attempt to breathe some life into these tanks, but only an experimental prototype was built. As for the Strv 104, they served until 2001, outliving even the Strv 103. The Swedish Centurion is not alone in this: these tanks served for a very long time in many countries, and are still in service somewhere.

    Lend-Lease Deficiencies and Spares

    $
    0
    0
    It's no small secret that a great number of vehicles ordered by the USSR through the Lend Lease program. Most of the issues with missing gear were solved very quickly, or so I thought. This table shows that missing weapons continued to be an issue until the end of the war. The number listed in the numerator is for weapons that were supposed to arrive, the number listed in the denominator is for weapons that actually arrived, split up by year. The second last column shows the total number of the weapon that was ordered and that arrived. The last column sums up the difference.

    CAMD RF 38-11369-1

    The 76 mm howitzer, 76 mm gun, 75 mm gun, 57 mm gun, 40 mm gun, and 37 mm AA gun all arrived in full. However, once you get to the 105 mm mortar, there is an issue, with a shortage of 114 units throughout the war. The 50.8 mm mortar (2" smoke grenade launcher in British vehicles) is also missing 450 units. The 25.4 mm (1") flare gun rounds out the missing launchers, 1055 units short. 

    Moving on to small arms, the 13.97 mm Boys ATR shipped a whole 1850 units short, with barely any arriving, not that they were all that likely to be used at all. The American 12.7 mm Browning MG is the only item in this section that had no units missing. The 11.43 mm (.45) Thompson SMG came up 2339 units short, 7.92 mm BESA MG was 36 units short, the 7.7 mm Bren MG was a shopping 2628 units short, but the 7.62 mm Browning MG takes the crown. The Soviets counted 3928 of these weapons missing.

    Aside from weapons that came with tanks, there were also some spares. So many spares, in fact that a surplus formed. This table has the same structure as the previous one, with the number of weapons arrived in the numerator, number of weapons expended in the denominator, and total surplus at the end. Comparing the leftovers to the deficiencies above, you can see that the difference isn't quite made up. A number of Lend Lease tanks had to go into battle lacking weapons.


    Canadian Super-Tank

    $
    0
    0
    Most of my readers have probably heard of the Super Heavy Tank T28, a four-tracked 86 ton assault SPG that the Americans designed to bust through the defenses of the Siegfried Line. Interestingly enough, across the Atlantic Ocean, the British had a similar idea, but cranked up to 11.


    Considering that the 80 ton T28 only managed a top speed of 8 mph, even 5-6 mph would be an optimistic estimate for this 150 (at best) monster. Thankfully, Gatehouse was right about one thing: experienced officers know what they're talking about, and Barnes managed to talk him out of the idea.


    How Myths Are Born

    $
    0
    0
    I already discussed how, due to a mistake, the Light Tank M2A4 was "spotted" in the ranks of the Red Army. Since serial numbers were present in the listing, it was fairly easy to figure out that these were actually fairly common Light Tanks M3. 

    Let's take a look at a similar situation. Once in a while, you can see rumours of the Medium Tank M2 being supplied via Lend Lease. It's not hard to be confused when you see something like this:


    In this document the 201st Tank Brigade is complaining about all of the equipment that it's lacking. There is a shortage of every kind of staff, no artillery, hardly any machineguns, only one APC, and no heavy or light tanks. Instead of 20 T-34s, they received 22 "M-2" tanks. Makes sense, one medium tank replaces another, case closed.

    There is, however, one issue. Only 18 Medium Tanks M2 were ever built. Maybe it's possible that the M2A1 was lumped under the same index? Let's keep going through the brigade's documents.

    Eventually, the brigade scrounges up another handful of "M-2" tanks and some T-60s and goes off to fight. The amount of "M-2s" is dutifully recorded, until, one day, someone else fills out the unit's combat journal for the day, and the mystery is finally solved.


    The 21 remaining "M-2" tanks turn into... Mk.II tanks. As in Infantry Tank Mk.II, or the very ordinary Matilda. Skipping forward another month, we see "artillery Mk.II tanks" and "armour piercing Mk.II tanks" recorded in the brigade's journal, quite obviously a reference to Matilda CS tanks armed with howitzers, as opposed to the regular 2-pounder gun, which only fired AP shot. 

    Molotov Cocktails

    $
    0
    0
    If you ask people that know next to nothing of history, they will tell you that Molotov Cocktails are a Russian invention. People that know a little bit more will tell you that they are a Finnish invention. Keep going further, and you will be told that the original use of petrol bombs dates back to the Spanish Civil War.

    Turns out, the first group was correct. However, these bombs came around long before Molotov accomplished anything of value, and didn't even have a proper name. In late May of 1915, Stavka's General on Duty wrote to the head of the Chief Military-Technical Directorate:

    "The High Command Headquarters received several proposals for measures of repressing the enemy in response to their use of poisonous gases. These measures consist of burning the crops that are currently growing in Germany and Austria. In order to achieve this, we require widespread manufacture of incendiary devices of various weights..."


    The answer to this need can be found later, in the GVTU's correspondence with the Office of the Chief of the Organization of Aviation in the Active Army, in a letter complaining about improper alcohol bottles mysteriously appearing.

    "In order to produce incendiary devices for burning of crops, the Directorate acquired 100,000 empty wine bottles from the Petrograd Excise, which were prepared by a group of lower ranks under the supervision of the Chief of the Central Air and Sea Warehouse, as well as a specially appointed officer. The bottles were packaged by packagers of government wine warehouses. The GVTU, having developed this type of weapon, notes that the thick wine bottles may not break if they strike soft ground. Therefore, they acquired wine bottles from the Excise, and did not send other wine bottles, or beer bottles. The GVTU does not know how other wine bottles or beer bottles reached the army squads. The chief of Engineering Supplies of the South-Western Front also informed the Directorate that only vodka bottles have been sent out."

    Such confusion! It is not surprising that the devices never received a proper name.

    Let's skip forward a few decades and look at Soviet application of these incendiary devices.


    "Instructions on the use of incendiary bottles", approved by Stalin himself on August 12th, 1941.

    "1. The purpose of incendiary bottles.

    Incendiary bottles are one of the simplest and most reliable means for destroying tanks, armoured cars, transport trucks, warehouses, landed airplanes, and enemies in cover. In the hands of a brave soldier, they are a fearsome weapon. Skilled and sudden use can not only strike the enemy, but cause panic and compromise enemy organization.
    The bottles work as follows: when they hit a solid object, the bottle breaks, and the liquid inside of it ignites, either with a match attached to the bottle, a special metallic igniter, or a capsule inside the bottle.
    The Red Army uses bottles with:
    1. Self-igniting "KS" fluid.
    2. #1 and #3 flammable mixes.
    2. Properties of flammable fluids

    KS fluid

    Bottles filled with KS fluid come in two varieties:
    1. Pure,
    2. With additives to make the fluid more viscous (stickier).
    The two mixtures vary in colour. Pure KS fluid is yellow-green in colour, and the fluid with additives is dark brown. The unit weight of the first is 1.8, second is 1.4. Both fluids smell like rotten eggs. When exposed to air, they ignite at a temperature of 800-1000 degrees, creating a large amount of white smoke.

    The sticky KS fluid, when impacting a tank or car, covers the view ports and glass, and heats up tank parts on impact. The smoke blinds the crew, fluid that seeps inside the tank destroys the engine, and can ignite the gas tanks. The crew is forced to exit the tank. When this fluid comes in contact with clothing, it sticks to it, quickly penetrates, and can cause severe burns. One bottle of sticky KS fluid burns for 2-3 minutes.

    Pure KS fluid has similar properties, but sticks less, and does not burn as long (for 1.5-2 minutes). It is very hard to put out KS fluid fires. It can be put out with sand, dirt, and water. Note that in events of insufficient dirt coverage, or when the water evaporates, the fluid can ignite again.

    #1 and #3 mixes


    Mix #1 is a viscous substance, yellowish in colour, with unit weight of 0.8. It excels at spreading out over metal surfaces and sticking to them. The fluid ignites with special devices (igniters). It burns at temperatures of 700-800 degrees, and lets out small amounts of black smoke when burning. One bottle burns for 40-50 seconds. After burning, a hard and opaque film remains. Properties of mix #1 are identical to the sticky KS fluid.


    Put out fires from mix #1 with sand, dirt, water, by covering it with a greatcoat or tent. After putting out the fire, it will not start again by itself.

    Mix #3 is less viscous than mix #1, with unit weight of 0.9, and ranging from brown to light lemon in colour. It burns for about one minute. Otherwise, it is identical to mix #1.

    3. Bottles with KS fluid


    Regular beer bottles, 0.5-0.75 liters in volume, are used (fig. 1). The bottle contains a layer of water or kerosene to prevent the fluid from coming into contact with air. The bottle is closed with a rubber cork. The cork is reinforced with metal wire and tape.


    Fig. 1. Incendiary bottle with KS.

    The bottles are placed in wooden crates for transport. The crates are filled with dirt. Use loose, clay-free dirt, so that the package is lighter. The size of the crate should be such that the bottles could be covered with dirt from all sides. The dirt should go up to at least the corks. The top and bottom of the crate should be clearly marked. When transporting the bottles, follow the following precautions:
    1. Do not throw the crates with bottles, or flip them over.
    2. Carefully observe the condition of the package. If it starts smoking, determine which bottle is emitting smoke. Carefully, using rubber gloves, extract this bottle and bury it. Fill the gap with dirt. 
    3. If one or many bottles ignite, bury the entire crate.
    Fig. 2. Incendiary bottles in a crate.

    When carried, the bottles should be placed in bags with barriers (fig. 3). If no such bags are available, use rags, paper, hay, grass, etc. During normal movement, carry the bag over your shoulder. When running, hold the bag with your left hand and prevent it from hitting anything. 

    Fig. 3. Placing incendiary bottles in a bag.

    4. Bottles with mixes #1 and #3

    Regular vodka bottles, 0.5-0.75 liters in volume are used. The bottles are filled with fluid and closed with a wooden cork. The bottles are equipped with special matches (fig. 4), glass capsules, or metallic igniters. 

    Fig. 4. Incendiary bottle with #1 mix.

    The match consists of a wooden stick covered in an incendiary substance (fig. 5). Two are attached to the cylindrical part of each bottle with rubber bands. The matches are ignited by friction before throwing the bottle.

    Glass capsules (fig. 5) are filled with fluid that ignites when it comes in contact with the incendiary fluid. The capsule is placed in the bottle, and activates when striking a tank or car. In order to make placing capsules in the bottle more convenient, each cork should have a string through a hole in it. 

    Fig. 5. A special match (top) and two types of capsules for igniting #1 and #3 mixes. Sizes are in millimeters.

    A metallic igniter (fig. 6) is a pipe containing a capsule detonator, a spring with a safety pin, and a firing pin. Before throwing the bottle, the pin is removed. When throwing the bottle, the spring is freed, the firing pin strikes the detonator, and an explosion occurs. The igniters are attached to the bottle with string.

    Fig. 6. Metal igniter.


    Bottles with incendiary fluid are placed in the same crates as KS bottles. Each crate contains the needed amount of igniters (one capsule or metallic igniter for each bottle, or two matches wrapped in paper), and one strip of sandpaper for every three bottles (for bottles with matches). Transportation rules are the same as for KS bottles.

    When issuing bottles with #1 and #3 mixes, each soldier receives one strip of sandpaper, and a necessary amount of matches wrapped in paper. The soldier then inserts the matches into rubber bands on the bottle, leaving the paper on them. The incendiary substance on the matches should be pointed towards the bottom of the bottle. Place the glass capsules inside the bottle. Tie metallic igniters to the side of the bottle. 

    5. Uses of incendiary bottles.

    In order to destroy enemy tanks with bottles, each soldier should carry 3 bottles, one with KS fluid and two with #1 and #3 fluid. The soldier positions himself in a trench, crack, shell crater, behind a fence, in a hole, a ditch, or any other concealment (fig. 7 and 8), camouflaging himself and hiding from bullets and shrapnel.

    Fig. 7. Throwing an incendiary bottle from a roadside ditch.

    Fig. 8. Throwing an incendiary bottle from behind a bush.

    The soldier observes tank movements. When they approach, the soldier prepares his bottles for throwing. If his bottles use matches, he tears off the paper covers.

    When the tank or car is 15-20 meters away, the soldier takes a KS bottle, holds the cylindrical part, and throws it at the tank, followed by one or two #1 and #3 bottles. If the bottles have matches, light them before throwing. #1 and #3 bottles may be held by the neck, if it is more comfortable. Throw bottles with metallic or capsule igniters in the same manner as bottles with matches, after the KS bottle (if several types are available). 

    Throw the bottles while standing or crouching (fig. 9), aiming for your target. Aim for the engine (a tank has it in the rear, an armoured car in the front), observation ports, poorly sealed hatches (fig. 10). 2-3 well placed bottles can ignite the tank or car (fig 11).

    Fig. 9. Throwing an incendiary bottle while crouching.


    Fig. 10. Vulnerable parts of a tank for incendiary bottles.

    Fig. 11. A KS incendiary bottle hit a tank.

    Directions for a tank destroyer group

    A tank destroyer group consists of 2-3 soldiers. One or two have incendiary bottles and grenades. One has a machinegun or a submachinegun, and is the commander. 

    After receiving a mission, the commander must:
    1. Pick a position from which incendiary bottles and grenades may be thrown comfortably and stealthily. If necessary, give the order to dig a trench.
    2. Observe his sector.
    3. Ready data for firing from his machinegun.
    4. Ready the bottles for use against the enemy (check the matches and igniters, presence of ampules in bottles).
    5. Check readiness of grenades. Five grenades should be prepared for throwing at tanks, primed and with safety on. Tie them together with string or wire. Four grenades should point one way, one the other. When throwing the grenades, remove the safety of the fifth, take its handle, and throw it at the tracks.
    6. Mark locations 15-20 meters away where the first KS bottle should be thrown.
    Groups position themselves as indicated on fig. 12, pointed towards likely directions of enemy tanks. Intervals between groups should be no more than 25-30 meters. Communication is performed right-to-left. 

    Fig. 12. Positioning tank destroyer groups. (Б) is a soldier with bottles and grenades, (  ) is the group commander with a machinegun or submachinegun. 

    When the tank is 15-20 meters away, the commander gives an order: "At the tank, fire!" On this command, the soldiers throw bottles (fig. 13 and 14) and when the tank catches fire, grenade bundles at its tracks. The commander looks for the enemy crew, and then eliminates of captures it.

    Fig. 13. Throwing incendiary bottles from a trench.

    Fig. 14. Throwing incendiary bottles from an ambush at a bridge.

    When the objective is complete, or when the group is out of ammunition, they stealthily retreat to a previously arranged spot, determined by the unit commander.

    Directions for tank destroyer units

    After receiving his objective, the unit commander must:
    1. Analyze the situation and determine possible tank routes.
    2. Give his teams their tasks and locations.
    3. Determine the actions taken by teams when tanks arrive.
    4. Determine a signal for throwing bottles.
    5. Determine the resupply procedures for grenades and bottles.
    6. Indicate a rendezvous point after the mission is completed.
    7. Determine the location for a medical aid site and his observation point.
    The unit acts in a manner to let the front of the column through, and then strike the whole column simultaneously (fig. 15 and 16).

    Incendiary bottles are a powerful weapon. Their success depends on your bravery, agility, and resolve.

    Fig. 15. A tank destroyer unit in a settlement. (K) is the unit commander, (Б) is a soldier with bottles and grenades, (  ) is a soldier with a submachinegun.

    Fig. 16. A tank destroyer unit on a road. (K) is the unit commander, (Б) is a soldier with bottles and grenades, (  ) is a soldier with a submachinegun.

    Safety measures and first aid

    In trenches, incendiary bottles, especially KS bottles, should be kept in separate sections. When setting up a storage location, place them in a small pit or a location where they are safe from impact.

    Handle with care. Ensure that they do not knock against one another or hard objects. If a bottle breaks, remove all other bottles from the vicinity, and cover it in dirt. Make sure that the fluid does not come in contact with skin or clothing.

    If the fluid gets on clothing, immediately remove the affected clothing, or separate it from the body with sand, dirt, water. Until medical aid can be administered, keep a wet towel or rag in contact with burnt skin.

    Chief of the Military Chemical Defense Directorate of the Red Army, Major-General of the Technical Forces, Melnikov

    Military Commissar of the Military Chemical Defense Directorate of the Red Army, Regimental Commissar Krylov

    August 8th, 1941"

    Frenchman in German Hands

    $
    0
    0
    The belligerents in WWII had to improvise time and time again. Obsolete weapons, no longer suitable for their initial purpose, found surprising new applications. One of the most notable examples of such a "second life" is the German conversion of the French 75 mm Mle. 1897 field gun, as a result of which the 19th century weapon became an effective anti-tank gun.

    The French Canon de 75 Modèle 1897 (Mle. 1897) arrived on the scene in 1897, and became the first mass produced quick-firing gun equipped with a recoil dampening system. During WWI, it composed the bulk of French artillery, retaining its position in the interbellum period. Additionally, the Mle. 1897 was widely exported.

    The gun had a barrel with a liner and a Nordenfelt type eccentric breech block. Hydropneumatic recoil dampeners were installed in the cradle of the upper mount. The carriage was typical for the time: one trail with large diameter wooden wheels, equipped with steel rims. The gun weighed 1190 kg in combat, and its practical rate of fire reached 12 RPM. The maximum range was 11,200 m. The gun was towed with a limber by six horses.

    Captured gun

    The Wehrmacht obtained its first Mle. 1897 cannons during the Polish campaign in 1939. It is known that 1230 (other sources say 1374) cannons were present in Polish warehouses and units just before the war. They were nearly untouched by modernization. A dozen were modified for mechanized towing, and eight more guns received sights from 37 mm Bofors guns to at least somehow adapt them for fighting tanks. The Poles developed an armour piercing shell for the Mle. 1897, but its new masters took no interest in it. Having captured several hundred Mle. 1897, the Germans sent them into storage, assigning the index FK 97(p). Later, 80 guns were sold to Romania.

    The Germans captured many more guns of this type in France. Suffice it to say that the French army had about 4500 of them at the start of the war. Aside from the basic variant of the Mle. 1897, which was indexed FK 231(f) (occasionally the index FK 97(f) is used), the Germans captured many Mle. 97/33 guns, which used a split trail, and metallic wheels with pneumatic tires. These were indexed FK 232(f). Like with their Polish booty, the Germans showed little enthusiasm towards these weapons. Only a small amount of 75 mm guns was issued to second line forces and used in the coastal defense of France and Norway.

    Rebirth

    The treatment of these trophies radically changed in the summer of 1941, when the Germans encountered T-34 and KV tanks, against which the 50 mm Pak 38 was ineffective. In this difficult situation, a decision was made to accelerate the work on the new Rheinmetall-Borsig 75 mm Pak 40 and Krupp Pak 41 (equipped with a conical barrel and never made it into mass production). Additionally, captured guns would be used as temporary measures. This primarily applied to Soviet 76.2 mm F-22 and USV guns, which had good ballistics, pneumatic tires, a suspension, and a modern split trail carriage. The latter provided for a wide traverse angle, a vitally important feature of an anti-tank gun. The archaic Mle. 1897 with its single trail carriage was inadequate for this task: the horizontal traverse angle was only 12 degrees, which put its lifespan in combat with tanks into question. The Germans were also dissatisfied with the mobility of the Mle. 1897, as it could only be towed by horses.

    A simple solution was found. The barrel of the Mle. 1897 was placed on the Pak 38 carriage with its split tube trails and wheels that enabled it to be towed by a vehicle. The hybrid was named Pak 97/38. However, this was not a simple combination of a barrel and a carriage. To reduce the recoil (the carriage was originally meant for a 50 mm gun), the barrel was equipped with a single chamber Solothurn muzzle brake. The rear of the cradle was lengthened, and the trigger mechanism was reworked: now pulling the trigger cord only raised the striker, and firing was performed by pressing a button on the elevation flywheel. In addition, the gun was modified to take the Auschilfstrichtmittel 38 sight for indirect fire.

    The relatively low mass of the Pak 97/38 and the addition of a third wheel under the trails allowed it to be pushed around by its crew. The photo also shows the original breech.

    Ammunition

    The Pak 97/38 could fire single piece ammunition of various types, both captured (French and Polish) and new German HEAT ammunition, loaded into French casings. The Germans captured 5.5 million rounds of French ammunition for 75 mm guns of the following varieties:

    French designation
    German designation
    Shell mass, kg
    Muzzle velocity, m/s
    Maximum range, m
    Mle. 1900N
    7,5 cm Sprgr Patr 230/1(f)
    5.3
    550
    7600
    Mle. 1915FN
    7,5 cm Sprgr Patr 231/1(f)
    5.51
    550
    7600
    Mle. 1917
    7,5 cm Sprgr Patr 233/1(f)
    6.1
    570
    10,000
    Mle. 1918
    7,5 cm Sprgr Patr 236/1(f)
    6.5
    555
    10,000

    The index 7.5 cm K.Gr.Patr.Pz. (p) referred to a Polish armour piercing shell without a ballistic cap. The shell's mass was 6.8 kg, and its muzzle velocity was 570 m/s. The shell was rarely used, as its penetration was considered insufficient (less than 60 mm).

    Three types of HEAT shells were developed in Germany for the Pak 97/38: the 4.4 kg 7,5 cm Gr.Patr. 97/38 HL/A(f) and 7,5 cm Gr.Patr. 97/38 HL/В(f) and the 4.8 kg 7,5 cm Gr.Patr. 97/38 HL/С(f). The muzzle velocity of all these shells was 450 m/s. The penetration was up to 90 mm at 90 degrees and 75 mm at 60 degrees.

    The focus on HEAT shells was a necessary evil, caused by the low muzzle velocity of the Pak 97/38's ammunition. At the time, the production quality of HEAT shells was poor. The amount of penetration varied greatly, which created issues penetrating targets with armour that was close to the shell's limit. HEAT shells also generally have issues with penetrating highly sloped armour, which meant that this weapon had difficulty penetrating the T-34's upper front plate. The low muzzle velocity limited the gun's range, which increased the risk of the gun being destroyed.

    Mass production of shells for the Pak 97/38 was set up in Germany. 2.8 million HE and 2.6 million HEAT rounds were produced in Germany between 1942 and 1944. As of January 1st, 1945, the Wehrmacht's warehouses contained 907,900 HE and 714,100 HEAT rounds. 

    Production

    Conversion of Mle. 1897 guns to the Pak 97/38 was performed in 1942 and 1943, and made sense economically: the conversion of one gun cost 8000 Reichsmarks and took 1500 man-hours. A full conversion took four months. Meanwhile, the Pak 38 and Pak 40 took 6 months to produce, and were much more time consuming and expensive: the Pak 38 consumed 10,600 Reichsmarks and 1800 man-hours, and the Pak 40 took 12,000 Reichsmarks and 2200 man-hours.

    A Pak 97/38 towed by another trophy: the light Renault UE prime move.

    Overall, 3712 Mle. 1897 guns were converted: 2854 in 1942 (to compare, 2114 Pak 40 guns were made that year) and 858 in 1943. The last 160 units were the so called Pak 97/40. These guns used the Pak 40 carriage, freed up when the guns migrated to Marder tank destroyers. The Pak 97/40 weighed about 200 kg more than the Pak 97/38, while retaining the same ballistic qualities.

    Another such example: this Pak 97/38 is being towed by a formerly Belgian Vickers Utility B tractor.

    Service and battle

    Supplies of the Pak 97/38 began in mid-1942, coinciding with the beginning of the penetration of German forces towards Stalingrad. They were used to arm divisional and regimental anti-tank units. Officially, infantry divisions were only issued 75 mm guns in February of 1943: 12 guns in one company of the anti-tank battalion, and 9 each in anti-tank companies of infantry regiments (39 per division in total). The official TO&E only mentioned the Pak 40, and there was not a single word about the Franco-German ersatz in it. The history of the Pak 97/38 is a perfect demonstration of the fact that rules in the army are just guidelines, and deviation often brings improvements. The 6th ARmy received 174 75 mm anti-tank guns in June of 1942 (111 Pak 40 and 63 Pak 97/38), and immediately put them to use. Its 75th Infantry Division claimed 59 Soviet tanks (4 KV, 51 T-34, and four light) between July 13th and 19th, 30 of which were claimed by the 75 mm gun squadron. A report on the new weapon reads:

    "The effectiveness of the 7.5 c Pak 40 is wonderful...
    The effectiveness of the Pak 97/38 with HEAT shells is also good, aside from the case where a KV tank was hit eight times without a single penetration."

    A Pak 97/38 in position.

    As mentioned above, the production of Pak 40s in 1942 was about a third less than the Pak 97/38. In addition, many Pak 40s were used to make Marder tank destroyers. These SPGs were used to arm tank destroyer battalions and companies in tank and Panzergrenadier divisions, but the most effective anti-tank measure in infantry divisions on the Eastern Front was still the Pak 97/38. In the first half of 1943, a typical infantry regiment's anti-tank company was armed with a pair of 75 mm guns, a pair of 50 mm guns, and eight almost useless 37 mm door knockers. Even though 75 mm guns were the minority for a long time, they were noticeably effective in the summer and fall of 1942. Having received these guns, infantry units could combat heavy and medium tanks without using 88 mm AA guns. Soviet commanders now had to consider the growing firepower of German anti-tank batteries. Without suppressing them using their own artillery, a tank attack could stall.

    Aside from the Wehrmacht, the Pak 97/38 was used by the SS (having received 96 guns in May of 1942) and the Luftwaffe. Field divisions received 339 guns in January of 1943, and 21 more in March.

    From Jun to December of 1942, the Wehrmacht lost 159 Pak 97/38 guns, and 643 in 1943. Three quarters of these losses were at the start of the year, during the finale of the Battle of Stalingrad.  In 1944, 594 losses were reported (43% of them in the summer). Finally, fifteen Pak 97/38 were lost in January-February of 1945. According to official statistics, 1411 Pak 97/38 guns were lost in total. However, the Wehrmacht only had 14 Pak 97/38 guns as of March 11th, 1945, and 108 (including some amount of FK 231(f)) could be found in warehouses. Therefore, one can calculate that the  real losses were significantly higher, or that the reports did not include guns captured in warehouses.

    Aside from the Eastern Front, a small number of Pak 97/38 were used in Libya and Tunis. They also found a use on the Atlantic Wall. Captured Pak 97/38 guns were also used by British units in North Africa and resistance forces during the Liberation of France.


    Gun crew moving into position. Obelisk anti-tank bunker, Scheveningen, Netherlands.

    FFI (French resistance) troops are taking position with a Pak 97/38 gun. 

    The Pak 97/38 was not particularly popular in the army. Even though they were superior to the low caliber anti-tank guns, they were still not as good as the "pure Aryan" Pak 40. Another drawback of the Pak 97/38 was the light carriage. It made the gun unstable while firing, and there were breakdowns during travel. An order had to be given in September of 1942, limiting the towing speed of the gun to 20 kph.

    A notice limiting the gun's towing speed to 20 kph is painted on the gun shield.

    Unlike captured Soviet 76.2 mm guns, the Pak 97/38 was rarely used in self propelled guns. The only exception was a small batch (10 units) of 7,5 cm Pak 97/38(f) auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen T-26(r) tank destroyers. These were typical field improvisations: the gun, with its stock shield and upper mount, was installed on top of a turretless T-26 tank. These guns were used by the 3rd company of the 536th Tank Destroyer Battalion, but they were replaced with Marders in March of 1944.

    Tank destroyer on a T-26 chassis.

    The Third Reich's Allies

    Germany's allies, Romanian and Italian units, also fought at Stalingrad. Their armament was inferior to that of the Germans, and the latter took measures to beef up their brothers in arms. Starting with October of 1942, infantry divisions of Romania's 3rd and 4th Armies received one 6-gun battery each. The same batteries were introduced into nine divisions of the Italian 8th Army (the Italians referred to the Pak 97/38 as Cannone da 75/39). In November of 1942, the Pak 97/38 was first delivered to Hungary. In total, the country received 43 guns. Some amount of guns was passed on to Bulgaria in the summer of 1943. In total, the minor Axis powers received at least 517 Pak 97/38 guns.

    The Pak 97/38 had its own history in Finland. The country purchased 48 captured French Mle. 1897 guns and 50,000 shells in 1940. Initially, they were used in fortresses under the index 75 K 97. In February of 1943, Finland turned to Germany with a request to convert these guns to anti-tank guns. 46 guns were converted. 30 were finished in March, and the remaining 16 in May. The gun received the index 75 PstK/97–38, and the soldiers nicknamed it Mulatti (mulatto), referring to it being a mix of two guns. Seven guns were lost in battle against the Red Army in the summer of 1944. The remaining 39 were stored in warehouses for decades, and only written off in 1986.

    Evaluation

    Like any weapon, the Pak 97/38 had its advantages and drawbacks. Its low cost, small size, and ammunition that expanded its applications can be counted among the former. HEAT shells had satisfactory properties, allowing the gun to penetrate the T-34 from any side and the KV in the side or rear. On the other hand, the low muzzle velocity limited the maximum effective range to about 500 meters and reduced precision. Overall, the Pak 97/38 was a decent temporary solution, which allowed the saturation of infantry units with anti-tank guns until Pak 40 production got off the ground.

    Tactical-technical characteristics of the Pak 97/38:

    Caliber, mm
    75
    Mass in combat, kg
    1190
    Barrel length (rifled section), mm/calibers
    2722 (2489)/36.3
    Crew
    7
    Rate of fire, RPM
    10-12
    Range, m
    10,000
    Horizontal arc, degrees
    60
    Vertical arc, decrees
    -8 to +18
    HEAT shell mass, kg
    4.4-4.8
    Muzzle velocity, m/s
    540
    Penetration at 500 m, mm
    75

    Original article by Andrei Haruk.




    Devourer of Tungsten

    $
    0
    0
    In late summer of 1942, the Red Army captured a German weapon that piqued the interest of the Red Army Main Artillery Directorate. This was the new German tapered bore 7.5 cm Pak 41. Several shells were captured along with the gun, which allowed trials to be performed and several characteristics to be determined. What was this gun, and what were the results of its trials in the USSR?

    History

    After the first encounters of the Germans with new Soviet T-34 and KV tanks in June of 1941, it was clear that the 3.7 cm Pak was ineffective against them. Anti-tank defense had to be performed with AA and field artillery firing over open sights, but these guns were ill-suited for this task: they were too large, insufficiently mobile, and offered little protection for their crews. Germany accelerated work on anti-tank guns.

    Pak 41 on trials at the Gorohovets proving grounds, fall of 1942.

    One of the directions for improving the power of anti-tank artillery was the creation of a tapered bore, using a principle invented by engineer Hermann Gerlich. The  2.8 cm schwere Panzerbüchse 41 (2,8 cm s.Pz.B. 41) was another such gun. The principle allowed the creation of an effective anti-tank gun with a high muzzle velocity, which meant better penetration, but also spawned a whole heap of problems. The most grievous ones were a low barrel life and the consumption of rare and expensive tungsten, which was used to make shells.

    By mid-1941, tungsten was in deficit in Germany, as supplies came from far outside the Third Reich. Special blockade runner ships had to deliver it from overseas in small amounts. Mass production of a weapon that fired this metal was not the best idea, but that was the quickest possible method that industry could propose.

    By January of 1942, two 75/55 mm caliber (75 mm at the breech, 55 mm at the muzzle) guns were proposed: a combined Rheinmetall and Krupp proposal called Schwere 7.5 cm Pak 44 and Krupp's own 7.5 cm Pak 41.

    Blueprints of the 7.5 cm Pak 41 barrel.

    Trials showed that the lifespan of a Schwere 7.5 cm Pak 44 barrel was only 250 rounds. The 7.5 cm Pak 41's barrel was no better, but the design allowed for replacement of the section of the barrel that wore down the most in the field. As a result, the 7.5 cm Pak 41 had an advantage.

    Due to the inability to supply the guns properly, only 150 units were ordered. Production began in March of 1942. A separate note was made that the production of these weapons decreased the number of subcaliber ammunition with a tungsten carbide core available for other anti-tank guns.

    The gun cost no more than the traditional Pak 40 (15,000 Reichsmarks vs 12,000), which appeared slightly later. It took 2800 man-hours to build one gun. 

    Production was spread out in the following way: March: 48, April: 25, May: 77. Military acceptance was performed with some delay. 4 guns were accepted in April, and the remaining 146 in May.

    Use in battle

    Out of 150 guns, 141 were immediately shipped to the Eastern Front and distributed among anti-tank squadrons of infantry and motorized divisions. Excited reviews began to return soon after.

    Gun from the 36th anti-tank squadron, 36th Infantry Division in position. Bagranovichi region, spring of 1944.

    In August of 1942, the Wehrmacht lost three guns, and one of them was retrieved by the Red Army intact, along with a small amount of armour piercing shells. In total, 17 Pak 41 guns were lost before the end of 1942.

    "Shell hunger" forced the Germans to seek out a replacement for tungsten, but a new type of shells for the Pak 41 with a steel core performed significantly worse. In addition, the more traditional Pak 40 proved itself worthy, and large amounts were shipped to the front.

    By April of 1943, the Wehrmacht had 78 Pak 41 guns left. Some of the losses were noncombat, as guns were stripped for parts. On July 25th, 1943, a note appeared in the journal of the Wehrmacht Supreme Command:

    "Due to a lack of spare parts and difficulty with ammunition, Army Group Center passed 65 7.5 cm Pak 41 guns to the Supreme Command of the West, where they were repaired, reorganized, and subsequently used for coastal defense."

    A low profile is an important feature of any anti-tank gun, and the Pak 41 met this requirement.

    However, the Atlantic Wall soon ceased to have any use for these guns due to a lack of armour piercing shells. However, they were not written off or scrapped. The guns remained in service until 1944 and fought against the Western Allies.

    The number of Pak 41 guns available steadily declined. Only 56 remained by February 1st, 1944, 44 by April 1st, 35 by September 1st, and only 11 guns survived until March 1st of 1945.

    Trials in the USSR

    As mentioned above, one of the guns ended up captured by the Red Army, and the GAU instructed that trials should be performed on October 6th. The trials were performed to compose a technical description of the weapon, determine penetration, and ballistic qualities of the system. Special attention was to be paid to the recoil mechanisms, semiautomatic mechanisms, and breech. 

    Pak 41 anti-tank gun during trials at the Gorohovets proving grounds.

    The gun arrived along with six shells at the Gorohovets proving grounds on October 22nd, 1942. The shell type is written down as "Pzgr.40", but that is a mistake, as the conical barrel of a Pak 41 would have been torn off by a regular shell. It is impossible to determine today what kind of shell was used.

    Stability trials (jumping, recoil, surging) were performed during firing to determine ballistic properties. Three shells were spent to perform this. Since the sight was lost, the gun was aimed by looking down the barrel.

    Only three shells remained for penetration trials. It was planned to fire at a 120 mm thick plate from 200 meters. The first shot would have been made against the plate at an angle of 60 degrees. If penetration was not achieved, it would have been fired at an angle of 90 degrees. If the armour was penetrated on the first try, the target for the second shot would be 140-150 mm of armour at 60 degrees.

    7.5 cm Pak 41 ammunition cutaway.

    Trials did not go according to plan. The proving grounds had no 120 mm thick armour plates, so two 1.2x1.2 m plates of different hardnesses were used, one 100 mm thick and one 45 mm thick. These plates were positioned at a 60 degree angle. The 100 mm plate was already fired upon, and it was deformed. It was not possible to put the plates right up against each other, so a 30 mm space remained between them. The gun fired from 200 meters, aiming through the barrel.

    The first shot missed. The second was fired from 100 meters. Alas, it was also a failure: the shell hit the wooden frame that held the plates. The third shot, fired from 75 mm, hit the mark. The ballistic cap deformed, the core penetrated the 45 mm plate, shattering into tiny pieces, and the sabot was stuck between the plates.

    The shell after hitting the armoured plates.

    Even one hit was enough to conclude that the Pak 41 could penetrate 120 mm of armour at a 60 degree angle. Calculations showed that it would be able to penetrate 195 mm at 500 meters and 170 mm at 1000 meters. Due to a lack of shells at the Gorohovets proving grounds, the calculations of the Artillery Committee could not be confirmed.

    The trials ended there. Based on the muzzle velocity of 1190 m/s, one can guess that the Pzgr. 41 St. shell was used: a steel core, and not a tungsten one.

    Description of the 7.5 cm Pak 41

    The 75/55 mm caliber anti-tank gun was designed to combat tanks and armoured vehicles, and could also fire to suppress strongholds and destroy enemy personnel.

    It was transported by a mechanized transport, and was equipped with a suspension mechanism, which activated automatically when the trails were joined, and a pneumatic brake, which could be activated by the transport driver. The wheels were metallic, with solid rubber rims. The split trail carriage allowed it to fire over a 60 degree arc.

    Gun shown from the crew's point of view.

    The main parts of the gun were the barrel and breech, cradle with recoil mechanisms and a ball mount, the elevation and traverse mechanisms, a shield, and the sight.

    The Pak 41's design did not include an upper and lower mount, a standard feature of all gun designs of the time. The shield performed the function of the lower mount. It was built from two 7 mm thick armoured plates, reinforced with ribs in between.

    A cradle with a ball mount, the suspension, and aiming mechanism were attached to the shield. The shield protected the crew from small arms fire from all ranges and shell fragments, to some degree. The barrel was installed in a ball mount in the middle of the shield, a feature typical of fortress guns rather than anti-tank ones. 

    The breech was a vertical semiautomatic sliding type. The optical periscopic sight only allowed for direct fire. The sight was located in the upper part of the cradle. The sight design allowed the gunner to account for barrel wear.

    7.5 cm Pak 41 in travel position.

    The monobloc barrel consisted of the tube, adaptor, barrel collar, muzzle brake, and breech. The breech was connected to the tube with a connector. The adaptor was screwed into the tube, for which it had slots for a wrench. The opening between the tube and the connector was covered by the collar, which was attached with a screw. The tube had 28 constant twist rifling grooves. The caliber of the tube was 75 mm along its length, and the length of the tube was 2965 mm.

    The adaptor had a more complicated design. Its channel combined the cylindrical and conical parts, without any rifling. Most of the wear happened to this part of the barrel, and the design allowed for rapid replacement in the field. The adaptor was 950 mm long. The caliber was 75 mm at one end and 55 mm at the other. The length of the conical part was 450 mm, the length of the cylindrical part was 500 mm. The muzzle brake was of the slotted type and screwed into the end of the adaptor. The gun allowed for vertical aiming from -10 to +18 degrees.

    Some historians incorrectly interpreted the blueprints and accompanying text, as a result of which they decided that the adaptor was split into two parts.


    Ammunition for the Pak 41 and a tube container for transport.

    Four types of ammunition were developed for the 7.5 cm Pak 41
    • Pzgr. 41 H.K.: armour piercing tracer ammunition with a tungsten carbide core. Mass 2.58 kg, muzzle velocity 1260 m/s.
    • Pzgr. 41 St.: armour piercing tracer ammunition with a steel core. Mass 3.00 kg, muzzle velocity 1170 m/s.
    • Pzgr. 41 W.: armour piercing tracer ammunition. Mass 2.48 kg, muzzle velocity 1230 m/s.
    • Spgr. 41: high explosive tracer grenade. Mass 2.61 kg, muzzle velocity 900 m/s.
    The 7.5 cm Panzerjägerkanone (Pak) 41 was a unique weapon with excellent characteristics that was a threat to both contemporary tanks and post-war vehicles. Only a small number and a lack of tungsten prevented it from showing its full strength. Meanwhile, the appearance of this weapon prompted the USSR to begin working on its own analogues, especially since new types of German tanks were already known, and the performance of the Pak 41 was impressive.

    Churchill Problems

    $
    0
    0
    The following document is dated March 1942.

    "Churchill I and II tanks

    The following points need special attention while working with the aforementioned tanks.
    1. Engine
      1. In order to reduce the chance of the cast iron clutch socket cover, part Z.V.1/BB/44365, the engine RPM should never rise above 2000 RPM. It is possible that some engines are limited below this number, but most are set at 2400 RPM.
        A new type of cover is made from cast steel.
      2. There were complications when starting the engine in the cold. The symptoms of this are: the engine cannot turn over at any RPM, and doesn't budge at a certain point when a start is attempted. If this happens, the engine must be thawed, then started. This happens when a small amount of ice forms along the diameter of the cylinders, between the bottom of the piston and the cylinder head.
        Water gathers in the engine from condensation in the exhaust system, and the condensate leaks through the open exhaust valve.
      3. The fact that the engine has started cannot always be heard from the driver's seat. Be wary, and do not use the manual starter when the engine has almost started, or is at least turning over. Make long pauses between attempts to start in order to avoid damage to the starter gear and flywheel crown. If the electric starter is faulty, there is no other way to start the engine than towing the tank.
      4. Since the engine of this tank has hydraulic plungers, it is especially important to drain and refill the oil, replace the filter elements, and clean the mesh filters every 300 miles.
      5. Certain difficulties were had with the cylinder head liners. To replace a damaged liner, the engine must be taken out of the hull. The cylinder head liner can also be replaced by using a special instrument, inserted into the two openings for sparkplugs, to raise the cylinder head and replace the liner without removing the engine from the hull. Great care must be taken when replacing the cylinder head bolts that the bolts are well tightened and provide even pressure.
    2. Clutch socket
      1. The cast iron cover, part Z.V.1/BB/44365, is not robust enough, and may crack. Cracks radiate out of the central opening of the cover, to the clutch lever slots.
        In order to prevent wounding of personnel and damage to the vehicle, the socket covers must be inspected often. If a crack is discovered, the vehicle must be taken off the road until a new socket cover is ready.
        Also, remember that when the clutch disks or case cover are changed independently, they should be carefully balanced before assembly.
      2. The bolts of the clutch shaft with a universal ball joints should be inspected regularly and tightened.
    3. Gearbox and steering
      1. The 4-speed gearbox causes difficulty due to slipping of the third gear. When driving, be very careful, and fully engage every gear.
      2. Some vehicles may be equipped with a limited on the selector lever, to prevent engagement of a high gear. Due to the limit placed on engine speed in section 1.1, the high gear limiter may be removed to compensate for the loss of speed.
    4. Final drive
      1. The bolts in the clutch between the gearbox and final drives must be regularly inspected and thoroughly tightened. 
    5. Tracks
      1. Tracks, consisting of plates, must be calibrated in such a way that the plates engage the idler on both sides.
    6. Suspension
      1. The bolts that attach the bogey carrier to the hull, and the bolts that attach the side armour, must be frequently inspected and tightened.
      2. Rubber shock absorbers on each bogey, attached to the suspension carriers, need to be inspected often. Defective shock absorbers must be replaced immediately. If they are not replaced, then the bogey carried will be damaged.
      3. Difficulties in lubricating the road wheel axles with grease pumps, installed at the ends of the axles, may arise. The grease pumps consist of a double valve, and great care must be taken to ensure that sufficient amount of lubricant makes it to the axles to sufficiently lubricate the ball bearings.
      4. The bogey carrier axle bolts should be frequently inspected and thoroughly tightened.
    7. Hull
      1. It is especially important to keep the hull under the engine and within the gearbox case clean and not covered in oil, gasoline, or water. This condition influences greatly the performance of the brakes, since the oil, gasoline, or water may be easily caught into a stream of air from the engine fan, and end up in the right brake drum in the gearbox case.
        To avoid difficulties in steering, the floor of the hull and gearbox must be frequently inspected and thoroughly cleaned with a mop. For this, hatches in the hull are opened.
      2. To avoid having the track catch onto the rear tow loops, the rear loops must always be on the rear top eyes. When tow loops are used in the lower eyes, watch them to ensure that track links are not damaged.
      3. The air that cools the radiators passes through grilles on each side of the vehicle using a fan on a flywheel. The sucking action of the fan is enough to pull in dust, dirt particles, glass, leaves, etc, when driving off-road or on narrow roads. These foreign materials are deposited on the inner side of the radiator, lowering its effectiveness, and causing overheating or engine damage. The radiator must be inspected frequently, and foreign particles removed.
    8. Turret traverse mechanism
      1. When these tanks travel through a forest, it is important to make sure that the turret gun does not hit trees or other obstacles while the tank moves. This causes serious damage to the turret traverse mechanism, since the friction clutch in the mechanism does not protect it when the tank travels at a speed of more than 6 mph.
    9. Steering
      1. When steering with the double differential, it is recommended to do so while the engine is at high RPM, avoiding doing so during contact with an obstacle or crossing of a steep grade, to avoid stalling the engine.
      2. On soft terrain, there is a chance that the track will slip while driving, losing energy due to the action of the double differential, but immediate application of the brakes to the slipping track will allow the driver to prevent complete loss of energy and bogging down.
      3. All of these peculiarities are characteristic of this special type of vehicle, and special attention must be paid to them while driving."

    M10 Additional Armour

    $
    0
    0
    Major Berg, who you might remember from the Hellcat article, worked on the GMC M10 as well. The applique armour, the mounts for which are a distinguishing mark of this vehicle, were his idea.


    Due to the difference in weight between the Sherman and the M10, 14 mm thick applique armour could be attached to the hull and turret without harming the performance of the vehicle. The total weight of the armour was 2031 lbs. However, the additional armour would only be mounted on a small percentage of vehicles serving in a special role, with the armour removed when the vehicle returned to its normal role.

    Additional protection of this type was also considered for the M7.

    Three types of this shielding (right against the armour, 1 inch, and 10 inches away) were tested at Aberdeen against M74 37 mm AP and M62 3 inch APC. The protection against the 37 mm shell did not differ depending on the distance, but protection against the 3 inch shell was better then the extra plate was right up against the armour. Interestingly enough, the protection with spaced armour was not any worse than a piece of armour of equivalent thickness.

    8.8 cm KwK 36 Trials

    $
    0
    0
    "B. Firing on KV-1 and T-34 hulls with the 88 mm gun

    1. Firing on a KV-1 hull.

    The KV-1 hull was fired upon with armour piercing and high explosive rounds from 1500 meters. The results are shown in table 2.

    Table 2

    Target
    Shell type
    Armour thickness
    Armour slope
    Impact angle
    Damage
    Front hull appliqué armour
    AP
    20
    20
    70
    20 mm deep dent. The shell ricocheted into the corner of the driver's plate appliqué armour and chipped off a section 120 x 110 mm.
    Turret rear
    AP
    75
    20
    70
    Complete penetration. Entrance: 120 x 110 mm, exit 190 x 130 mm.
    Turret rear
    AP
    75
    20
    70
    110 x 90 mm armour fragment torn off.
    Applique armour and driver's plate
    AP
    75+30
    20
    70
    Complete penetration, entrance: 110 x 130 mm, exit 180 x 210 mm. 230 x 210 mm section torn off the appliqué armour, two 200-270 mm cracks formed in the appliqué armour.
    Driver's plate appliqué armour
    HE
    30
    20
    70
    Right section of the appliqué armour torn off (section weakened by hit #4)
    .

    Photo #4. Overall view of the KV-1 hull after being fired upon by the German 88 mm tank gun.

    Photo #5. Impact of the armour piercing shell to the front hull applique armour. 20 mm deep dent. The shell ricocheted into the driver's plate and knocked off a 120 x 110 mm section.

    Kalashnikov's First

    $
    0
    0

    "Self-loading carbine developed by Kalashnikov and Petrov, according to technical-tactical requirements from the GAU KA Artillery Committee #2941.

    The carbine (right view) is shown on the photo."


    Czechoslovakian Dead End

    $
    0
    0
    The greatest success of the Czechoslovakian tank industry was with light tanks. The LT vz. 35 and LT vz. 38 turned out to be excellent vehicles, used by several nations during WWII. Despite the fact that Skoda's T-15 and Pz.Kpfw.38(t) n.A. did not make it past the prototype stage, the chassis of the latter was used for the Jagdpanzer 38(t) tnak destroyer. It is not surprising that, after the end of the war and start of work on the TVP medium tank, work on a new light tank began in parallel. The result of that work was several interesting prototypes, such as the TNH 57/900, Skoda T-17, and the amphibious Letak.

    Continuation of the German program

    Czechoslovakia's tank fleet was incredibly diverse at the end of WWII. Its units fought on two fronts: the 1st Czechoslovakian Army Corps approached from the east, and the 1st Czechoslovakian Tank Brigade from the west. As such, one unit was equipped with British vehicles, the other with Soviet ones. At the end of the war, the vehicles were distributed between units to keep them as uniform as possible.

    Because of this, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd tank battalions, made up from the former 1st Czechoslovakian Army Corps, had no light tanks. These battalions only had medium T-34 and T-34-85 tanks. As for tank battalions made from the 1st Czechoslovakian Tank Brigade, they were chiefly composed of Cromwell IV and VI tanks. They also had some light tanks: the Czechoslovakian army acquired 38 Stuart VI tanks: American Medium Tanks M5A1 re-equipped by the British. By 1946, their number was reduced to 37, and remained at that level until 1949.

    LT-38/37 on maneuvers, late 1940s.

    Locally produced light tanks joined them in 1946. Some amount of Pz38(t) and LT vz. 38 tanks remained in Czechoslovakia after the war. Some were left by the Germans, others were used by the Slovakian army. The tanks were indexed LT-38/37 (light tank model 1938 with a 37 mm gun), sent to the CKD factory for repairs, and then issued to units. As of June 3rd, 1946, 25 LT-38/37 were in use by the 14th, 21st, and 22nd tank battalions. Later, they were spread across six battalions. By the end of the year, their number grew to 29 tanks. By 1948, the number of vehicles reached their peak: 31 in tank battalions and 17 in an armoured train battalion.

    Pz.Kpfw.38(t) n.A. chassis during a demonstration, 1957. Most likely this is the third prototype that was being used as a test bed for the Tatra Typ 103 engine.

    The appearance of the LT-38/37 was both a necessary evil and a question of prestige. A country that was the leader in exporting tanks in the late 1930s should not have an army armed exclusively with foreign tanks. CKD and Skoda were busy with the Tank všeobecného použití (TVP) or Main Battle Tank in the late 1940s, but both companies also worked on light tanks. CKD was the more successful of the two when it came to light tanks.

    Both companies were producing the Jagdpanzer 38(t) tank destroyer until the end of WWII. These vehicles were also used by the Czechoslovakian army under the index ST-I ShPTK vz.39/75N, and in considerable numbers: 259 as of 1949. The chassis was taken from the Pz38(t) n.A. reconnaissance tank, which never entered production, but had the potential for further modernization. One of the prototypes was retained by CKD, and offered a suitable platform for further experiments.

    A 23. A 24, and A 25 37, 47, and 57 mm gun project.

    As per tradition, a fierce competition took place between CKD and Skoda. Nevertheless, the competitors forgot about it when mutual interests were involved. This is what happened during the creation of the prospective light tank. This project came up thanks, in part, to Skoda. The company received a lot of experience in designing artillery during the German occupation, including tank guns. One of these guns was the Skoda A 18 75 mm gun for the T-25 medium tank. The gun's main feature was the use of a revolver type autoloader with a five round capacity.

    After the end of the war, Skoda continued working in this direction. A "triplex" project was ready by the end of 1947. The main weapon was the 47 mm A 24, with the 37 mm A 23 and 57 mm A 25 offered as alternatives. The systems shared their overall design, a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s, and the loading mechanism. The drum of the A 23 gun contained 19 rounds, the A 24's had 13, and the A 25 had 10. The most powerful of the guns had a calculated penetration of 81 mm at 60 degrees at a range of one kilometer.

    TNH 57/900 II project, December 1949.

    Blueprint Zb6099P, dated December 8th, 1947, shows the gun mounted in a two-man turret. This date can be considered the first mention of the project that was later indexed TNH 57/900. CKD designed this tank on the chassis of the Pz38(t) n.A. The numbers 57/900 refer to the caliber and muzzle velocity of the gun. The 57 mm A 25 was chosen as its primary weapon.

    The tank took shape by December of 1949. At that point, CKD was designing this vehicle for export. Thanks to the fact that most of its components were already built in metal, no issues with production were foreseen. The main changes consisted of a new turret with a new gun and alteration of the turret platform and front hull. In a way, CKD repeated the Swedish modernization of the Strv m/41, which was a very similar proposal. Both projects consisted of a 57 mm cannon with an autoloader, a new turret platform, and even the armour thickness (50 mm front, 30 mm sides) and mass (15 tons) were similar. However, CKD employed realists, which understood that the modernization would increase the tank's mass significantly. It was estimated at 15-16 tons.

    Tatra Typ 103 diesel engine, proposed powerplant for the TNH 57/900.

    The 15 L Tatra Typ 103 was proposed as the engine for the TNH 57/900. This 220 hp V-shaped engine was already in mass production, and no supply issues were expected. The third Pz38(t) n.A. prototype that was kept at CKD was trialled with this engine.

    The chassis was loaded with ballast to estimate the tank's performance. According to calculations, a tank with this engine could reach a top speed of 48 kph, which was enough for a light tank. A 250 hp V-8 engine developed by CKD was proposed as an alternative. With this engine, the tank's power to weight ratio would be 16.6 hp/ton, which was even more than that of the American Light Tank M24 "Chaffee". The Czechoslovakian tank could have been a worthy competitor on the export market.

    Variety on paper

    While working on the TNH 57/900 with CKD, Skoda did not forget about its own interests. While Prague was thinking about renewing export shipments, Pilsen was more concerned with domestic programmes. Recall that the first more or less realistic TVP project was designed by Skoda and was indexed Skoda T 40. It should not come as a surprise that Skoda received the leading role in the TVP project. A concept of a domestically produced light tank was developed in Pilsen, which was supposed to meet the requirements of the military much more closely.

    Skoda's wartime projects included a wide spectrum of anti-tank and AA guns with loading mechanisms.

    By the mid-1940s, countries that were still developing light tanks came to the conclusion that 37-57 mm cannons were no longer enough. Armour became so thick, that guns with these calibers could no longer effectively combat it. As a result, the optimal calibers became the ones that were previously used on medium tanks, primarily 75-76 mm.

    The Americans were the first to use such a weapon on a light tank, installing a 75 mm gun on the Light Tank M24. After the war, the Light Tank M41 received a more powerful 76 mm gun. As for the 75 mm caliber, it was not forgotten. The French installed a shortened version of the Panther's 75 mm gun on the AMX 13, and the Swedes later used the same caliber.

    Skoda also had guns of this caliber. Aside from the 75 mm Skoda A 18 gun, which, like the T 25 tank, did not make it past the design stage, there were other weapons that made it to the prototype stage, such as the 75 mm Skoda R 4 AA gun with a hydraulic loading mechanism. With a 4300 mm long barrel, it could propel a 6 kg armour piercing shell to a velocity of 920 m/s. The loading mechanism allowed it to reach an impressive rate of fire: 45 RPM.

    Skoda T-17 light tank project, September 1948.

    With this wealth of experience and direct contacts at the VTU (Vojenský technický ústav, Military Technical Institute), the overseer of new tank developments, Skoda began working on its own project. The tank received the index T-17 (T: tank, 1: light, 7: seventh prototype). Work began in 1948 and coincided with the changing outlook regarding the TVP project. Requirements changed, and the tank changed with them.

    Presumably, the Czechoslovakian military obtained some information on the Soviet IS-3 heavy tank. There can be no other explanation for why the TVP, a mix of German and Czech technologies, suddenly began to resemble the Soviet tank. This was also true for the T-17, a draft project of which was ready by September 8th, 1948. The 19-ton tank received a pike nose, similar to the IS-3, but its rear was more reminiscent of the T-34. A 275 hp 15 L V-8 engine brought it to life. According to calculations, the top speed of the T-17 with this engine would be 46 kph. Like the T-34 and IS-3, the transmission was in the rear. The tank would have four wheels per side and a torsion bar suspension.

    The cast turret was also reminiscent of the IS-3. It contained three crewmen and the 75 mm Skoda A 26 gun. Its characteristics were almost identical to the R 4 AA gun. In addition, the tank would receive three machineguns. The armour was up to 50 mm thick in the front and 25 on the sides. The thickness of the cast turret varied from 60 to 15 mm. This was a satisfactory light tank for its time, equipped with worthy armour and armament.

    105 mm Typ 17-1 (H-9) howitzer. One of the new types of Czechoslovakian armament that would be installed on the LP platform.

    Skoda was not just building a light tank, but a special platform called LP (Lehký podvozek, light chassis), which served as the foundation for a large number of SPGs. Conceptually, they were similar to those later built by Skoda for the TVP program. These light vehicles were designed in 1948-49, four in total. Aside from the chassis, they were united by domestically produced armament that was being developed at Skoda at the time.

    105mm ShH 14,3/540-LP self propelled howitzer, November 1948.

    Vehicles on the LP chassis were reviewed at a meeting of the Czechoslovakian Ministry of Defense on November 18-20th, 1948. The first was the 105 mm ShH 14,3/540-LP SPG. Blueprint Zb 5915-S showed the same LP platform. The only difference from the T-17 was that a new open-topped turret replaced the old closed up one.

    By that point, the 270 hp engine, which was a bit too weak for the T-17, was replaced with a 500 hp air-cooled turbocharged diesel. A Praga-Wilson gearbox was selected. According to calculations, the expected top speed was no less than 55 kph. It’s possible that Skoda was being too homble, since the T-17’s power to weight ratio grew from 14.2 to 26.3 hp/ton, and the SPG weighed even less than the tank, just 16 tons. The 105 mm ShH 14,3/540-LP was armed with the 105 mm Typ 17-1 (H-9) howitzer, which was being designed at Skoda since 1946. This weapon reached the experimental prototype stage.



    The 76.2 mm ShPTK 6.6/900-LP only differed from the SPG in armament.

    The 76.2 mm ShPTK 6.6/900-LP tank destroyer, blueprint Zb 5916-S, was almost an identical twin of the SPG. Instead of a howitzer, the tank destroyer was equipped with the 76 mm A 19 anti-tank gun. This was a further development of Skoda’s wartime anti-tank gun projects. The gun used the same ammunition as the Soviet ZIS-3. With a 5300 mm long barrel and a muzzle velocity of 915 m/s, the A 19 easily penetrated 100 mm of armour at 60 degrees from a kilometer away. As with the H-9 howitzer, work reached the experimental prototype stage. The gun never entered production, and is now on display at the Technical Museum in Lešany.

    The third vehicle on the LP platform, the ShPLK 2.12/1020-LP.

    The third vehicle was the 50 mm ShPLK 2.12/1020-LP, blueprint Zb 5918-S. This project was similar to the Flakpanzer 38(t). The fighting compartment moved from the front to the rear, and the hull became wider. This was done so that a 50 mm AA gun that was being designed by Skoda since 1948 could fit into the hull. THe gun was based on the 57 mm R 8 autocannon. Unlike the other weapons, this one did not make it past the design stage.

    76 mm ShPTHK 6.6/900-LP, blueprint Zb 5920-S, a spiritual successor to the Jagdpanzer 38(t).

    The last project to be presented was the 76 mm ShPTK 6.6/900-LP tank destroyer, blueprint Zb 5920-S. Unlike the Zb 5916-S, this vehicle was more reminiscent of the Jagdpanzer 38(t). The 17 ton SPG had a fully enclosed fighting compartment with sloped armour. This layout allowed the vehicle to be a little lower, which is quite an important parameter for a tank destroyer. The mobility and armour was the same as in the previous designs.

    Lost profits

    The LP projects, including the T-17, were reviewed at a large meeting, which was held on April 19th, 1949. Interest was shown in the main idea, but work slowed down. A year later, work on light tanks ceased. Around this time, the TVP suffered a similar fate.

    Many reasons are named. Some blame the Czechoslovakian communists, who were in favour of following the Soviet “older brother”. This is a somewhat fair assessment. This theory is most applicable to the TNH 57/900. It was rather obsolete, but it had the potential to be successful in third world markets. Politics, an increasingly important factor after the breakout of the Korean War, was a significant factor to the death of the export tank. However, the closure of the Czechoslovakian light tank program cannot be explained by politics alone.

    Letak light amphibious tank.

    As of 1950, the T-17 and other vehicles on the LP chassis, just like the Skoda T 50 and other vehicles from the TVP program, existed only on paper. The continuation of the TVP program seemed a questionable endevour. Its replacement with a licensed copy of the T-34-85 was a reasonable measure. Light tanks were another matter entirely. Towards the end of 1950, light tanks were removed from the Czechoslovakian army. The light tank as a class fell out of favour. It was decided that medium tanks could handle the role just as well.

    The Czechoslovakian military realized its mistake after they found out about the Soviet PT-76 amphibious tank. In April of 1954, work on a light amphibious tank began at the Stalin factory in Martin, Slovakia. It was based on the VOZ amphibious vehicle, aka Tatra 807, which reached the experimental prototype stage. The tank project was indexed Letak (flyer). It weighed 15 tons and carried a 57 mm Skoda autocannon, based on the R 11 AA gun. The hull of the Letak was altered during the design process, and the front became very similar to the front hull of the IS-3. The project was cancelled in February of 1956, and no replacement ever turned up. The Czechoslovakian army opted to not use the Soviet PT-76 in its army. However, a license for the amphibious BTR-50 armoured carrier was purchased. It was produced under the index OT-62.

    Reworked Letak with a new front hull.

    The fate of the T-17/LP and Letak programs reflects the short-sighteness of the Czechoslovakian military. By the time the Letak was cancelled, Czechoslovakia was actively shipping tanks to Egypt and to other countries. Unwilling to develop its own light tanks, Czechoslovakian military and political leaders missed out on a sizeable share of the export market, which was gradually occupied by a new player, China, ten years later. Chinese Type 62 light tanks had similar characteristics to the T-17. They were accepted into service in a dozen countries. An analogous situation occurred with amphibious tanks. Even the presence of the Soviet PT-76 did not impede the export of its Chinese clone, the Type 63.

    T-34 Armour Research

    $
    0
    0
    January 25th, 1940

    "
    1. When researching armour for 25-50 mm plates, the Ilyich Research Laboratory made the correct decision to explore highly hardened steel while preserving the necessary degree of ductility. Despite existing opinions that thick tank armour (40-75 mm) must have lower hardness (3.4-3.6 mm), the Research Laboratory developed hard armour (2.9-3.1 mm), finding a successful combination of alloying components, which gave the armour satisfactory ductility.
    2. The commission remarks that work on MZ-2 armour was done very thoroughly. Experience with HZ steel made from byproducts of ship armour manufacturing proposed by engineer D.I. Chizhikov in 1937 was applied, work on determining the optimal combination of elements (C, Ni, Si) for various armour thicknesses was performed, although the analysis should be confirmed for 30 and 35 mm thick armour.
      The process of smelting steel from byproducts of ship armour with minimal addition of nickel was developed. Work to establish the thermal hardening process was performed. Sufficient proving grounds trials were performed to present the type of steel to the commission.
      However, the commission remarks on the insufficient amount of laboratory work performed on the materials, especially microscopic analysis and fracture tests, with correlations established between armour quality and fracture test results.
    3. Let it be noted that, at the point of delivery of MZ-2 armour, it had already been used in the production of A-34 hull components, and has proven itself completely. Another positive note is that not one, but six plates were presented for delivery, which allows for more confident conclusions.
    4. Based on the results of trials, the commission concludes that MZ-2 steel demonstrates high resistance to shells and bullets when used in thicknesses of 40, 45, 50, and 25 mm against shells up to 45 mm in caliber inclusive, which is superior to tank armour of FD-4654, 4674, and 7634 types, as well as high quality HNM plates used by the AU to test shells.
      In addition to high resistance (PSP and PTP [rear plate intactness and complete penetration]) against blunt tipped 45 mm shells, both at normal and at angles, 40, 45, and 50 mm plates also showed good resistance against sharp tipped 2-01991 45 mm shells, which approached the resistance of surface hardened plates against this type of shell.
      Due to a lack of data against 37 mm ammunition, the commission could not perform a detailed comparison against other types of armour. MZ-2 plates also reliably destroy incoming shells. 40 mm thick plates and up do not allow a shell to penetrate with its HE chamber intact. 
    5. These excellent characteristics are achieved due to high hardness and satisfactory ductility demonstrated by 40, 45, and 50 mm thick plates against 37 and 45 mm shells. These characteristics (hardness and ductility) are the defining characteristics of MZ-2 steel. A simple heat treatment method ensures that production will be kept up to standards.
    6. From a cost standpoint, MZ-2 steel is very interesting, as it allows the production of tank armour, sufficiently hardened by additions of nickel and molybdenum, with minimal additions of nickel and use of ship armour byproducts. Existing types of tank armour, FD-4654, 7934, and even MIZ require a large amount of additional nickel and molybdenum.
    The commission considers it necessary to task the Ilich Research Laboratory with the following work:
    1. Smelt MZ-2 steel with nickel and molybdenum from byproducts in such a way that additional nickel is not required.
    2. Explore other ways of smelting MZ-2 steel that are more cost effective than the duplex process.
    3. Confirm the chemical composition of nickel and carbon, especially to determine the feasibility of producing the armour without additional nickel.
    4. Explore the effect of chrome, silicon, and molybdenum on the characteristics of steel.
    5. Explore the optimal production process for MZ-2 steel.
    The commission decrees that:
    1. Conditional on satisfactory results against 76 mm shells, the Chief of the Red Army ABTU and the Chief of the 7th Directorate of the People's Commissariat of Shipbuilding should accept MZ-2 into production for 40, 45, and 50 mm plates for A-34 tanks.
    2. MZ-2 steel is recommended for use in the production of 25 mm thick armour plates.
    3. The Ilyich laboratory should continue work on 30 and 35 mm thick plates, which demonstrated poor ductility during trials.
    4. Task the Ilyich laboratory with exploring the use of MZ-2 steel in the production of 55-75 mm thick plates. The 7th Directorate must provide the laboratory with a shooting range for a 76 mm gun for this work.
    5. Accelerate the completion of work to determine the suitability of MZ-2 steel for production of plates thinner than 25 mm.
    6. Establish the following tactical characteristics of MZ-2 armour:
    7. Thickness
      45 mm sample 0130
      45 mm 2-01991
      37 mm blueprint 3882
      12.7 mm DK
      0 degrees
      30 degrees
      0 degrees
      30 degrees
      0 degrees
      30 degrees
      0 degrees
      PTP
      PSP
      PTP
      PSP
      PTP
      PSP
      PTP
      PSP
      PTP
      PSP
      PTP
      PSP
      PTP
      PSP
      50
      745
      Higher than max velocity
      680
      712
      691
      >740
      743
      760
      -
      -
      -
      -
      45
      725
      755
      Higher than max
      680
      -
      663
      >685
      680
      710
      740
      760
      -
      -
      40
      669
      690
      740
      765
      665
      690
      -
      750
      630
      685
      675
      725
      -
      -
      25
      450
      530
      500
      560
      -
      -
      -
      -
      550
      650
      500
      650
      730
      -
    8. Advise the A-34 manufacturer to increase the thickness of the rear armour from 35 to 40 mm. At a cost of a small increase to mass (100 kg), it will drastically increase the performance of the vehicle.
    9. Accept the attached technical requirements draft. Propose and task the Ilyich laboratory with development of an MZ-2 plate fracture scale.
    10. Accept the attached instructions for production of MZ-2 steel by the Ilyich laboratory. Instruct the laboratory to develop a process to smelt steel using 50% of HNM steel byproducts."

    Panther Armour Quality

    $
    0
    0
    Long-time readers of this blog are no doubt already aware of the poor performance of German armour in British and Soviet trials, but you can never have too much evidence. Here's another log for the fire.


    "(a) 17 Pr v Glacis

    Gun performance is appreciably better than forecast and it must be therefore be concluded that German plate is not up to the standard of our Homogeneous M.Q. tank armour.

    In point of fact the German plate appears far too brittle and large cracks develop from any penetration. These became so bad during the course of the trial that whole sections fell away and it was difficult to find a target in the later stages.

    This fault is not confined to this particular plate as the tank used as a target had been knocked out by penetration of the turret side, by 75 mm AP, and from here the cracks had developed to the side of the plate."

    Mediterranean Area A.F.V. Technical Report No. 23 - Part II Enemy Equipment - Panther
    14th September 1944

    IS Bug Report

    $
    0
    0
    "To the Deputy Chair of the Committee of Defense, comrade Molotov

    I report that, in accordance with GOKO decree #2943ss, issued on February 24th, 1943, Kirov factory and factory #100 produced two experimental prototypes of IS tanks:
    1. IS-1 tank with a 76 mm gun (F-34)
    2. IS-2 tank with a 122 mm gun (U-11)
    The experimental prototypes were presented for proving grounds trials:
    • IS-1 on March 22nd, 1943
    • IS-2 on March 28th, 1943
    As of this writing on April 3rd, the prototypes have traveled:
    • IS-1: 542 km
    • IS-2: 449 km
    The prototype commission made the following conclusions based on the results of the first stage:
    1. The IS-1 and IS-2 tanks, presented for trials, meet the main tactical-technical requirements set by the GOKO.
    2. The tactical-technical characteristics of the IS tanks is superior to that of the KV-1S tank, due to the fortunate placement of all components.
      The IS tanks presented for trials have a number of defects, the main ones of which are as follows:
      1. The cooling system does not allow the engine to work normally.
      2. The main friction clutch is weak and breaks often.
      3. The engine frame is insufficiently robust, which leads to it breaking.
      4. The balancing mechanism for the F-34 gun in the IS-1 is unfinished.
    3. The commission specifically noted the low quality of the diesel engines used in IS tanks. Two engines broke down during the trials.
    4. Components of the transmission functioned satisfactorily during trials.
    5. The commission deems it reasonable to:
      1. Continue trials of experimental IS tanks until the end of the warranty period to determine the reliability of components.
      2. Take all measures to immediately correct all aforementioned defects at the factory.
      3. Correct all defects on the 10 IS-1 and IS-2 tanks already in production at the Kirov factory, put them through warranty period trials to finalize all components and make the final decision regarding the acceptance of these tanks into service with the Red Army.
    Lieutenant-General of the Tank Forces, Korobkov
    Lieutenant-General of the Tank Forces, Biryukov"

    Fashion Police

    $
    0
    0

    "Excerpt from an order of the 1st Mountain Infantry Division

    Item #3. On the wearing of ties.

    A red rag is the sign of a communist. Wearing red ties and armbands is forbidden. Wearing a brightly coloured tie is unsuitable for a German soldier.

    General Lantz
    Translated by Intendant 3rd grade Skormorovskiy"

    Viewing all 1899 articles
    Browse latest View live


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