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

Sherman Conversion

$
0
0
Long time readers already know about Chasovkinov's rather unconventional plan to make the two-gunned ST-II tank. However, this wasn't his first foray into unusual designs. Back during the years of the war, he saw observed Soviet officers preferring the heavier 85 and 100 mm tanks of domestic designs and relegating Lend-Lease vehicles with more humble armament to the second line and thought of some solutions. One was to simply install T-34-85 turrets on Sherman hulls. The was much more interesting.


Chasovnikov and another engineer, Kazarin, proposed converting Shermans into SU-85 or SU-100 SPGs, killing two birds with one stone: raising the firepower of the tanks and freeing up T-34 chassis so more T-34-85 tanks could be produced. The freed up turrets (it's unclear from the sketch, but he was not, in fact, planning to make a supersized M3 Lee) would be installed as fortifications.

Of course, this "solution", as well as many other genius proposals did not specify where the authors were going to get thousands of new guns or the factories that could perform this conversion. In addition, M4A2(76)W tanks started shipping soon after, making this ridiculous proposal completely unnecessary.

Covenanter: Reservist Tank

$
0
0
Winston Churchill's saying "The tank that carries my name has more drawbacks than I do!" in regards to the Infantry Tank Mk.IV is well known. Despite this evaluation, the Churchill was the longest-living British tank, even finding itself useful in Korea. It is not know what the Prime Minister thought about the Cruiser Tank Mk.V, more known as the Covenanter, but there is one fact that says more than enough: it is the most numerous tank of the Second World War that never saw combat.

In a Hurry

The increase in armour of the Cruiser Tank Mk.III that resulted in the Cruiser Tank Mk.IV was a half-measure, unable to radically improve the combat effectiveness of the tank. The British Ministry of War knew that the modernization reserve of this chassis ran out. A deep modernization was necessary to make the tank meet the expectations of the military, and fast.

The Ministry of War, and especially one of the minds behind the cruiser tank concept, Lieutenant Colonel Giffard Le Quesne Martel, did not sit still. In 1936, specifications were developed for a "heavy" cruiser tank. Martel was inspired by the T-28 tanks he saw alongside BT tanks during Soviet exercises. Interestingly enough, the T-28 was initially inspired by the three turreted British Medium Tank Mk.III.

Two companies got to work: Nuffield Mechanization & Aero and the London Midland & Scottish Railway Company (LMS). LMS began work on the A14 heavy cruiser tank, which was indeed similar to a T-28. Nuffield chose a different direction. Their result was more similar to the experimental T-29. Even though the difference in weight between the two tanks was about 9 tons, the characteristics were similar. By 1939, one prototype of both the A14 and A16 was built. Neither the military nor the developers were particularly impressed with them. The result was the same cruiser tanks, but bigger, slower, and more expensive.

Pilot prototype of the Cruiser Mk.V, fall of 1940. The hull machinegun is a distinctive feature of this design.

On February 2nd, 1939, specifications for a new cruiser tank were developed. The maximum thickness of its armour was 40 mm. The Christie suspension was preserved, and the same 2-pounder (40 mm) gun and BESA machinegun were used. The combat weight of the tank was supposed to be about the same as that of the A13 vehicles (Cruiser Tank Mk.III and Mk.IV). Seeing these requirements, Nuffield and LMS themselves asked the Ministry of War to cancel the heavy cruiser tanks, since thickening their armour served no purpose. Another vehicle was needed, a much lighter one.

Work on the new tank, indexed A13 Mk.III, was assigned to three companies. LMS was working on the hull and chassis, Nuffield was designing the turret. A third company, Henry Meadows, was tasked with the engine. This decision was made due to the negative feedback that came from users of the Nuffield-Liberty engines. However, the participation in the A13 Mk.III project didn't mean that Nuffield gave up on their own tank. Instead of the rejected A16, work began on the lighter A15 vehicle.

The A13 Mk.III project was ready in mid-April of 1939. Instead of a deep modernization, LMS ended up with a brand new tank which inherited only the suspension type from its predecessor. Even this component was not exactly the same. LMS engineers installed the springs on an angle in order to make the hull lower. Overall, the hull was not only lower, but shorter than its predecessor.

Thanks to the angled suspension elements, the Covenanter's hull was very low.

The low hull was made possible by the 16 Liter DAV engine developed by Henry Meadows. This 12 cylinder 300 hp engine was designed using the opposite layout, which allowed reduction of the height of the engine compartment. The Wilson planetary transmission was paired with this engine.

The aim to make a compact and low hull conflicted with common sense. There was no room for cooling radiators in the engine compartment, so LMS engineers didn't think of anything better than moving them to the front of the hull. The radiators were placed on the left side of the tank, and the driver was displaced to the right. The air vents for the radiators were in the most important place from the point of view of armour protection, and even though there was a deflector that protected the vents from the front, its effectiveness was negligible. It's worth mentioning that the radiators were cooled by fans which were powered by the turret traverse motor. There was also no room in the engine compartment for air filters, which were instead moved to the engine compartment roof and protected with light covers.

Meadows DAV opposite engine which made height reduction possible.

The original plan was to make the hull fully welded, but even by early summer of 1939, it was obvious that there would not be enough skilled welders. LMS was forced to redesign their hull, which increased in mass by 100 kg. Instead of welding, rivets were used as much as possible, which was only natural for a locomotive company. Another feature was layered armour. The armour was composed of two plates without any space between them. For example, the front plate was composed of a 21 mm plate and a 19 mm one, with the inner plate being made from mild steel.

The turret, designed by Nuffield, also had its oddities. On one hand, the armour was sloped. On the other hand, for some reason only the rear and sides were. The front of the turret remained at an almost right angle. The oddities did not end there. Someone clever in Nuffield decided that there is no reason to have a commander's cupola, so it was replaced with a Mk.IV periscope. This periscope was installed right in the middle of the turret, right above the gun breech. Of course, it could be used somehow, but when the gun fires right under the commander's chin, it must have been rather uncomfortable. There was another periscope on the right side of the turret for the loader.

The turret hatch was also interesting. There was only one, but it was large. During travel, the hatch could be flipped back and used as a seat. Aside from a 2-pounder gun and a BESA machinegun, the turret also had a 2" (50.8 mm) breech-loaded mortar for firing smoke grenades.

Cruiser Tank Mk.V production at the LMS factory. April, 1941.

Despite the unusual decisions made during the design process, the tank was deemed satisfactory by the Ministry of War. On April 17th, 1939, LMS received a contract to make 100 tanks with serial numbers ranging from T.7095 to T.7194. No prototype was to be built, and the tank would enter production immediately. However, later, a T.7195 pilot tank was built after all.

English Electric and Leyland Motors were going to be involved in the production starting in September of 1939. The first received a contract for 100 tanks (T.15295-T.15394) and the second for 151 tanks (T.15395-T.15545). The A13 Mk.III was accepted into service as the Cruiser Tank Mk.V before the first tank was even built.

This rush can be easily explained. Say what you will about Chamberlain and his actions in Munich, but he did buy Britain a year of peace. It is fair to say that this year proved decisive for Britain, including Britain's tank production. In fall of 1938 there was simply nothing to fight with. The production of new tanks was just getting off the ground, and the majority of the armoured forces was composed of 4 ton tanks equal to the Pz.Kpfw. I. The British military had to take a risk.

Reliability? Never heard of it

During the construction of the first Cruiser Tank Mk.V, it became clear that the Wilson transmission was a no go. Instead, it was replaced with a stock Meadows gearbox from the Cruiser Tank Mk.IV and combined with the Wilson planetary turning mechanism. This introduced additional problems connected with cooling. Another loss was the decision to not use an aluminium alloy for the road wheels. Even though each wheel weighed 10 kg less than a pure steel one, sacrifices had to be made in the name of simplicity.

Covenanter I from the 1st Armoured Division during Exercise Bumper, September 1941.

The pilot tank T.7195 had both aluminium road wheels and a Wilson transmission. Turning was done with a steering wheel as opposed to levers. The engine compartment size was increased compared to mass production models, which had a positive effect on the engine cooling. The first two tanks also had a hull machinegun, presumably so the driver wouldn't be bored during battle.

The experimental tank arrived sans turret to the Farnborough proving grounds on May 23rd, 1940. It travelled 802 miles (1283 km) during trials, reaching a speed of up to 60 kph. Since it had experimental cooling equipment, no problems with overheating were observed. Later, an experimental Merritt-Brown transmission was installed on the tank, and it drove another 839 miles (1342 km).

The real problems began when the second tank, T.7095, arrived on September 29th, 1940. Aside from the driver's machinegun, this vehicle was exactly identical to mass production models. After 50 minutes of driving, the water temperature in the cooling system was 75 degrees Celsius. After 2.5 hours, the temperature reached 177 degrees! The oil cooling system was also overheating, and there were problems with the gearbox.

A common pastime for Covenanter crews. This "lucky" Covenanter I crew belongs to the 9th Armoured Division.

Attempts to correct the situation resulted in delays. The first tanks only left the factory in late December, and only 7 units were finished that year. They were sent directly to Bovington, where they took part in military trials. A torrent of unkind words followed. The compact layout of the engine compartment resulted in problems during service. There were also complaints about the fighting compartment, which was found equal to that of the competitor Cruiser Tank Mk.VI, which was already in use by the military at the time.

Both tanks had problems with the suspension. Since 242.5 mm wide 102 mm long track links migrated from the lighter Cruiser Tank Mk.IV, the ground pressure increased and the lifetime of the tracks decreased. Work began on 272 mm wide 103 mm long track links, which reduced the ground pressure by 10% and reduced the amount of links per track from 120 to 114. Later, a third type of track link was developed, made with different materials and with different track pins.

Covenanter II from the 9th Armoured Division, 1942. The radiator cooling vents have been redesigned.

Despite the fact that problems with the cooling system were not corrected, the production of the tank was not cancelled. LMS, Leyland, and English Electric made 81 tanks in the first quarter of 1941, 186 tanks in the second quarter, and 212 in the third. These still weren't the volumes that the Ministry of War was looking for. The army's requirement for cruiser tanks alone was 9930 units in January of 1941. Contracts for production of the tank named Covenanter in spring of 1941 were handed out in abundance. Strangely, LMS produced the fewest tanks. Aside from the aforementioned 100 units, it only built 60 more (T.81347-T.81406).

English Electric built the following series of tanks:
  • T.18361-T.18660 (300 tanks)
  • T.18661-T.18760 (100 tanks)
  • T.78244-T.78346 (103 tanks)
  • T.81407-T.81446 (40 tanks)
  • T.81447-T.81612 (166 tanks)
  • T.81613-T.81862 (250 tanks)
  • T.130695-T.130719 (25 tanks)

In total, English Electric built a little over half of all Covenanter tanks. In parallel with tanks, this famous company also built Hampden and Halifax bombers.

Nominally a car company, Leyland also built A27L Centaur and then Centurion tanks. As for the Covenanter, the company carried out the following contracts:
  • T.23104-T.23203 (100 tanks)
  • T.81863–81902 (40 tanks)
  • T.81903-T.81962 (60 tanks)
  • T.81963-T.82087 (125 tanks)
  • T.130720-T.130769 (50 tanks)
The last contract was signed in August of 1941, but production went on for a lot longer. The Cruiser Tank Mk.V, Covenanter I, remained in production until the fall of 1941. 500 units were built. Tanks from the early series had the same gun mantlet as the Cruiser Tank Mk.IVA. Later tanks received an improved mantlet that was protected from being jammed by shells.

Covenanter tanks took part in may experiments. For instance, amphibious equipment was tested on this model.

Production of the Covenanter III began in October of 1941. Most of the differences in this model were in the rear of the hull. The tank received improved air filters and a radically redesigned engine compartment, which improved the situation with cooling. This was the most numerous modification: 680 tanks were built. Later models received an external fuel tank, mounted in the rear.

LMS was not particularly saddened by the small amount of tanks it built, as in April of 1942, it began modernization of Covenanter I tanks. The tanks received an improved cooling system, improved air filters, and other equipment, making the life of their crews merely difficult instead of nightmarish. These modernized tanks were indexed Covenanter II, and some of which were converted into Covenanter IICS tanks.

Covenanter III tank from the 9th Armoured Division on exercises, 1942. It is easy to see how the rear of the hull is significantly different from tanks of other modifications.

The last modification, Covenanter IV, went into production in June of 1942. The hull was similar to Covenanters I and II. This modification used a third type of air filters, the same types as used on late Crusader models. The tanks continued to use 2-pounder guns, while Crusader and Cavalier tanks already had 6-pounder (57 mm) guns. There are suspicions that the Ministry of War was already aware of the Covenanter's limited future and didn't want to install expensive new guns on it. Some tanks were converted into Covenanter IVCS tanks with 3" howitzers.

The last Covenanter tanks were produced in early 1943. In total, 1771 Covenanter tanks of all types were built. 20 Covenanter I and 60 Covenanter IV tanks were converted into Covenanter Bridgelayers.

Training Tank

The first unit to receive the Cruiser Tank Mk.V was the 1st Armoured Division. Its tankers already had a go at the Light Tank Mk.VII, which they rejected. The new cruiser tank also caused little joy. In September of 1941, the 1st Armoured Division participated in Exercise Bumper. At their conclusion, the division handed off their tanks to receive Crusaders and left for North Africa.

Covenanter Bridgelayer on trials, 1943. According to Peter Brown's research, this is a conversion of the first prototype of the A13 Mk.III.

The 9th Armoured Division "inherited" the Covenanters. It was formed in December of 1940 as a training unit. The Covenanter was received with enthusiasm at first. This is not surprising, as the unit previously had worn out Cruiser Tank Mk.IV tanks, which weren't famous for their reliability to begin with. This enthusiasm didn't last long, and many complaints about breakdowns were sent to the manufacturers. Tankers of the 9th Armoured Division were forced to endure the Covenanter until September of 1942 when they were replaced with Centaurs.

The Irish Guards also received Covenanter tanks, this time the reliable Covenanter III, which they kept until September of 1943. In May of 1943, this unit participated in Exercise Columbus.

Winston Churchill using a Covenanter III from the 9th Armoured Division as a podium, May 1942.

The last to receive these unlucky vehicles were the Poles. In 1942, the 1st Polish Armoured Division was formed, armed with Valentine and Covenanter tanks. The only "combat" loss of a Covenanter was in this unit. As a result of a night raid by German aircraft on Canterbury in Kent County, a bomb hit a tank that was a part of an armoured train. Covenanter tanks served with the Poles until early 1944.

The 1st Polish Tank Division was the last to use Covenanter tanks. This photo was taken in early 1944.

Due to many problems with the cooling system, the Covenanter never reached the battlefield. To be fair, Crusader tanks weren't exceptional in this regard either, and the Covenanter eventually surpassed its competitor. In July of 1942, during comparative trials, the Covenanter managed to drive for 1600 km, while the Crusader engine only lived for 1120 km. Likely as a result, the military risked sending four Covenanter IV tanks with sand shields to Africa. These tanks were never used in combat and remained at the training camp in Abbasiyah (north-west of Cairo). It's likely that their technical problems never went away.

The only known photo of Covenanter tanks in Africa, March 1943. The tank is in its usual state: undergoing maintenance.

The Covenanter was written off in February of 1944. Nobody particularly cared about these tanks, and only one survives to this day. This is a Covenanter III T.23140, produced by Leyland in later 1941. The vehicle with a personal name "Achilles" was a part of the 9th Armoured Division. It spent several decades at a junkyard, after which it ended up in the Bovington tank museum. In addition, two Covenanter Bridgelayer vehicles survived to our time.





Medium Tank Mk.I: First of the Maneuver Tanks

$
0
0
The end of the First World War coincided with the decline of vehicles designed by William Tritton. Drastic budget cuts meant that further development of heavy tanks in Great Britain stopped. As for the first post-war medium tanks, they turned out to be too heavy, and could not repeat the success of the Mk.A Whippet. In late 1918, development of the Medium Tank Mk.D began, directed by Lieutenant Colonel Philip Johnson. The result was truly revolutionary and could reach a record of 20 mph (32 kph), but a large amount of mechanical problems brought about the end for that tank. After trials, the tank was not approved for mass production, but it did not disappear into nothingness. Later on, the Americans used it as a basis of their Medium Tank M1921. In England, the Vickers company had a go at making tanks and attained success with its first steps, creating the successful Medium Tank Mk.I.

New Player

The steel casting Vickers company started its rise to the spot of one of the largest arms manufacturers in the world towards the end of the 19th century. In 1897, it bought out Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company, propelling the steel casters from Sheffield into leading positions in the small arms and artillery markets. Slowly, Vickers acquired shipbuilding companies and naval artillery producers. Finally, in 1919, they bought Metropolitan Railway Carriage and Wagon Company which, along with making wagons, was making tanks since 1917.

Vickers' rise to greatness was connected with two figures. Sir George Thomas Beckham was Vickers' chief designer. He managed new types of weapons that were developed and produced by the company. He is linked to another figure, Sir Arthur Trevor Dowson, the controlling director of the Vickers company from 1906 to 1931. Nearly all new developments at Vickers that had to do with armament were patented by these individuals.

During the First World War, Vickers, or rather its child company Wolseley, built armoured cars. The company had almost no direct connection to tank building. This changed in the early 1920s. The heavy and medium tank crisis was a chance that was too good to miss for Vickers. A decision was made to not compete with the Medium Mk.D, but to stake a claim on the barren light tank market.

In 1921, Vickers received a contract to develop and produce three light infantry tanks. The first prototype was ready by December of 1921 and sent to Farnborough, where a research facility was established at the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Armoured Corps. In 1928, it was renamed to MWEE (Mechanical Warfare Experimental Establishment). The tank later received a registration number: MWEE 7.

Vickers Infantry Tank No.1, Britain's first light tank.

Vickers' design was progressive and conservative at the same time. The Vickers Infantry Tank No.1 had a rhomboid hull, and its suspension was also similar to that of the WWI "rhombus" tanks, but there were many more innovative elements in this design.

This sounds comical, but a whole six years after the Renault FT and FCM 1A, the British finally put a turret on their tank. Vickers engineers equipped their brainchild with a fully rotating turret which fit all the tank's armament, three Hotchkiss machineguns. The bearings that the turret rotated on were outside of the hull. This solution was used on subsequent Vickers tanks.

There were innovations outside of the hull, too. The designers of the tank created a very compact fighting machine with a mass of under 9 tons. Despite the rhomboid hull, the tank's layout was classical. Compared to the "rhombus" tanks, the driver of the Infantry Tank No.1 lived like a king, and the commander had a cupola on top of the turret. The entire crew was housed in the front of the tank, and the engine compartment was isolated. This was enormous progress compared to the "rhombus" tanks where the engine was placed in the middle of the hull.

The second prototype, Vickers Infantry Tank No.2, was ready in July of 1922. It received the registration number MWEE 15. It repeated the design of the previous vehicle, but a 3-pounder (47 mm) gun was installed in the turret.

Trials showed mixed results. The tank reached a speed of 24 kph on a highway, which was very good for the early 1920s. The tank also performed well off-road. However, both tanks were plagued by transmission problems, and the design of the track links proved far from perfect. As a result of trials, the tanks were rejected.

18-pdr Transporter. Its chassis was used as a basis for the new tank.

It was clear to Vickers that their infantry tank won't cut it in late winter of 1922. Because of this, they did not build a third prototype, instead building a transporter for the 84 mm (18-pounder) field gun. Work on this vehicle, named 18-pdr Transporter, began in March of 1922. This vehicle had nothing in common with the Vickers Infantry Tank No.1. Instead of a step forward, it was a leap in comparison to any other vehicle currently in development.

The above applies to the suspension more so than any other part of the vehicle. The best thing that was available at the time was a half-rigid leaf spring suspension. Vickers engineers developed a system with two-wheel bogeys that were attached to vertical coil springs. New track links were developed, named No.9 Link Track. An 80 hp Wolseley motor was used, with the engine in front and transmission in the rear. The 18-pdr gun would roll inside the hull and the crew would sit on its perimeter, facing each other.

The first trials showed how progressive the transporter was. Vickers Infantry Tank No.1 was forgotten, and Vickers received an order to build a tank on the 18-pdr Transporter chassis. Interestingly enough, another Vickers tractor would become a chassis for a tank, but in Germany, not in England. There, a Vickers tractor was the basis of the Kleinetraktor project, better known as Pz.Kpfw.I.

Light to Medium

According to specifications, the new Vickers tank was also in the light category. Its maximum speed was rated at 15 mph (24 kph), but the military's appetites grew after the transporter reached a speed of 20 mph (32 kph) during trials. The crew would consist of 5 people, same as the Vickers Infantry Tank No.1. Since the tank was a light one, its armour was only a quarter of an inch thick (6.35 mm). This armour was rather questionable, as even the Renault FT had 16 mm of steel protecting it from rifle caliber bullets.

An experimental convertible drive Medium Tank Mk.I: "Wheel-cum-track Light Tank Mk.I". The driver's hatch has a completely new design.

The prototype that Vickers produced in late 1922 is often called Vickers Medium Tank Mk.I. Indeed, the tank was "promoted" to the medium class when it was accepted into service in the mid-1920s. The tank weighed in at 11.25 tons, which was still in the light tank category. Also, the name of the company was often missing in official documents. The manual simply calls it "Tank, Medium, Mark I". This is not surprising, as the tanks weren't only built by Vickers. According to the contract, only 13 tanks were built there, and 14 more were built by ROF Woolwich.

The appearance of the Medium Tank Mk.I coincided with two more novelties. One, the Ministry of War introduced letter indices for tanks. Strangely enough, the "pioneer" for this system was the A1E1 Independent, and the Medium Tank Mk.I was indexed A2E1. The second novelty was introduction of registration numbers. The first character was a letter, followed by numbers. The letter T meant tank, tractor, or transporter. Oddly enough, the Woolwich tanks received indices T.1 through T.14, so the very first Vickers prototype, made from mild steel, was indexed T.15.

An old system existed in parallel with the new one. This system consisted of a registration number of two letters and four digits, painted on the front of the tank. For example, T.7 had the registration number ME9923.

Layout of the Medium Tank Mk.I, figure from the manual.

The design of the new tank was similar to the 18-pdr Transporter. In addition to the 10 road wheels and 4 return rollers per side, another road wheel was added to the front. The idler mounts were also altered and a reinforcement beam was added to the return roller mounts. After trials of the T.15 pilot tank, another road wheel was added to each side in the rear. The driver was placed to the right of the engine, a 90 hp V-shaped aircooled Armstrong Siddeley. This engine is mistakenly called Vickers-Armstrong, but the two companies didn't merge until 1927. The transmission, like in the transporter, was in the rear, along with the fuel tanks.

A Medium Tank Mk.I in Vickers' courtyard, 1923. As you can see, the crew has no problems getting into the tank.

The Medium Tank Mk.I turned out to be larger than the Medium Tank Mk.A, or Whippet. Its height was a little over 2.8 meters. With a size like that, calling it light was indeed problematic. This excess height was connected with the front engine compartment, but it also allowed the crew's working conditions to be quite comfortable. Entering or exiting the tank could be done through one of three hatches, although the rear one could very well be called a door due to its size. The hull was assembled in the traditional manner for the time: a frame was welded together, after which armoured plates were riveted to it.

Medium Tank Mk.I CS with a 3.7" (94 mm) howitzer. In a way, this was the precursor of the German Pz.Kpfw. IV

The tank's turret was an evolution of the Vickers Infantry Tank No.1. It also rotated around its ring on three large bearings, installed outside of the hull. Vickers engineers decided to discard the dome shape and make the turret similar to the Rolls-Royce armoured car. The turret had a 3-pdr Vickers gun and four Hotchkiss machineguns (three along the perimeter, one AA). Another strange fact was the presence of two Vickers machineguns in the sides. The use of two different kinds of machineguns in one tank is a mystery.

Another interesting fact is the absence of HE shells from the tank. The Medium Tank Mk.I became the first vehicle to implement the controversial "machineguns are enough" concept. This mistake will come back to bite the British military during WWII. However, tanks armed with 3.7" (94 mm) howitzers had HE shells. These tanks received a special index, A2E2 Medium Tank Mk.I CS (Combat Support). Their ammunition loadouts also included smoke shells.

Worthy of Imitation

The first production Medium Tank Mk.I units started rolling out of the factories in 1923. They were mostly distributed among testing centers, but also made their way into the military on a trial basis. An intensive trial period followed, meant to discover the defects in the design so that they could be removed in the next batch. A convertible drive was tested on the T.15 pilot vehicle in 1926, renamed Wheel-cum-track Light Tank Mk.I. The convertible drive system was controversial. On one hand, the tank could convert to wheeled mode in one minute, which gave it an advantage over Christie's system. On the other hand, the tank's speed did not increase, but it became more difficult to control. In 1928, after a series of experiments and a modernization to Wheel-cum-track Light Tank Mk.I*, the idea was discarded.

A Ministry of War commission inspects a Medium Tank Mk.I. Note the open driver's hatch.

At the moment of its creation, the Medium Tank Mk.I was the best vehicle in its class. Nevertheless, it had many drawbacks, although none of them fatal. For one, the No.9 Link Track consisted of several parts, which were riveted to each other. During movement, the rivets could fall out and the tracks were disabled. The Hotchkiss machinegun mounts also proved difficult. The AA machinegun mount was also poor. Some tanks received six rollers for the turret, as three was not enough.

Medium Tank Mk.IA. Note that the tank still uses the No.9 Link Track.

The driver's hatch design was dangerous. In travel mode, the hatch flipped back on its hinges, giving the driver an excellent view to the left and right. The problem was that the hatch was not fixed in place. There were no problems on even terrain, but the situation became problematic when the tank went off-road. On a good bump, the hatch would slam shut, and the poor driver could lose a few fingers or get a smack on the head.Since the British didn't have tank helmets and the beret helped very little, this could have very unfortunate consequences.

Testing the maximum tilt of the Medium Tank Mk.IA. This angle lets you see the turret roof and redesigned AA gun mount.

The information regarding design defects was assembled and used to produce the second series of tanks, the Medium Tank Mk.IA. The contract was once again split between ROF Woolwich and Vickers. Woolwich vehicles received numbers T.28-T.43, Vickers vehicles were T-44-T.58. Externally, it is easy to distinguish these vehicles from the first batch by the simplified Hotchkiss machinegun mounts. In addition, the turret received a rear slope, which now housed the AA machinegun mount. The driver's hatch was also changed, and now it consisted of two parts. The thickness of the front of the hull and turret armour was increased to 8 mm.

Medium Mk.IA*, serial number T.58.

The No.3 Link Track was developed to replace the ailing No.9 design. The new design with its H-shaped indentation was so good that it affixed itself in British tank design for a good 15 years. However, the new tracks didn't appear on the tanks right away. The first tanks received the old No.9 Link Track. The replacement happened later. Three vehicles from the first batch (T.7, T.14, T.17) received Ricardo C1 engines. This required a change in the design of the upper front plate.

Even the earliest Medium Tank Mk.I were actively used. This tank has a three-colour camouflage and late model headlight covers.

The modernization did not end there. Someone from the Ministry of War finally discovered that the tank had two kinds of machineguns and that the front facing one existed independently of the main gun. The result was the Medium Tank Mk.IA*. The Hotchkiss machineguns were removed, their openings covered up with armour plates. Instead, a coaxial Vickers machinegun was introduced. A commander's cupola replaced the turret hatch, earning the name "bishop's crown". Towards the end of its career, the Medium Tank Mk.I received large protective covers for its headlights.

Medium Tank Mk.I, serial number T.7, with a Ricardo C1 engine.

The last tanks of the Medium Mk.I family were vehicles with serial numbers T.59 and T.60. Unlike the rest of the family, these tanks were referred to as light. The Tank Light Mk.IA(L) was more similar to the Medium Tank Mk.II. The hull machineguns and cannon were removed. Instead, two Vickers machineguns were installed in the turret. In 1925, both tanks were sent to India, where they were tested for three years. After that, they returned to their homeland and were scrapped.

Medium Tank Mk.IA* on exercises at Farnborough, 1935. The closest tank was converted to a command tank, the AA machinegun was replaced with a radio antenna.

Even though the Medium Tank Mk.II entered production in 1925, the first interbellum mass produced British tank remained in service for a long time. Until 1939, these tanks were used during exercises, teaching hundreds of British tankers. Several vehicles were sent to the colonies. One of them, presumably T.14, can be seen at the South African Special Services Battalion Museum.

In the 1920s, the Medium Mk.I was a trendsetter. The designers of the German Leichttraktor and American Light Tank T1 and Medium Tank M2 copied many design elements. Interestingly enough, neither the Germans nor Americans managed to duplicate the success of this tank in due time. By the time foreign "clones" were ready, Vickers already moved on from this design.

Light Tank M22: Steel Locust

$
0
0
Thanks to John Walther Christie, the USA was the leader in airborne tanks before WWII, but with one caveat: not a single one of his vehicles was actually accepted into service. However, Christie's experiments resulted in a very good understanding of what an airborne tank should be like. The idea of a tank with wings was quickly discarded in favour of a light tank that was attached under the fuselage of a heavy bomber or transport plane. This concept was used to make the Light Tank M22.

Christie's Last Chance

Christie received some funds to develop his airborne tank after a relative success in Britain. The tank was converted into the M1938 tank, which didn't have much luck with the American military either. Christie, experiencing major financial troubles, sold his company to William J. Bigley and his United States Convertible Systems Inc.

The situation changed in early 1941. The British, who were planning on mass purchases of American tanks, were interested in an airborne tank. The Americans immediately remembered Christie and his wonder-machines. In late 1941, the Christie M1936 airborne tank was tested at the Aberdeen proving grounds. During the trials, the vehicle broke down constantly, but showed impressive characteristics. The report referred to it as "Bigley-Christie".

Airborne Christie M1936 tank. In late April of 1941, the Americans performed trials of this vehicle and ordered a Christie tank as a result.

This is a good time to mention why the American army did not adopt any one of Christie's designs. The problem was that Christie designed tanks based on his own personal logic. Frequently, this logic contradicted what the customer ordered. For example, with airborne tanks, Christie considered the tank itself the most important thing. The army will figure out a delivery method.

In addition, not a single Christie tank past 1933 had a turret. His airborne vehicles had one calling: speed. The American army, on the other hand, was much better grounded. yes, speed was important, but they needed a tank, not a race car.

On May 22nd, 1941, specifications for the T9 Airborne Tank were developed. This vehicle would weigh 7.5 tons (sans crew), its length was 3.5 meters, width 2.13 meters, and height 1.68 meters. The armament, either a 37 or 57 mm gun, would be housed in a rotating turret and equipped with a gyroscopic stabilizer. The crew was 2-3 people. Remember the small dimensions of the vehicle and armament, which had to be in a turret.

The Christie M1942 Light Tank. The military received something completely different from what they asked for.

United States Convertible Systems Inc. began development of the new tank in July of 1941. A model was also built. Christie agreed to build the tank for $126,000, a very serious amount of money for the time. However, the proposed tank did not fit into the T9 specifications. The width was fine, but the length was 5.6 meters, more than 1.5 times than what was in the specification. The turret, or rather its absence, was also a problem.

Christie proposed another one of his visions in November of 1941. The Christie M1942 Light Tank also had no turret. Instead it had a casemate with a 37 mm gun. Five machineguns were placed in the hull. Christie ignored the fact that the rigid specifications came from the capabilities of the C-54 transport airplane that was currently in development, and soon he himself was ignored.

The story continues. In May of 1942, Christie proposed the same tank to the USSR. He was ready to travel there with his colleagues for the same price: $126,000. However, Major-General Lebedev put an end to the idea.

By the Book

In May of 1941, when the specifications for the T9 Airborne Tank were being developed, the Bureau of Ordnance decided to play it safe. In parallel with Christie, they tasked Marmon-Herrington Company Inc. and Pontiac with development of an airborne tank. Pontiac was likely a last resort, as the company had no experience in tank design. As for Marmon-Herrington, they had a respectable amount of tankettes, armoured cars, and light tanks, which were not only in production but already saw combat.

An alternative to the Christie tank: Light Tank T9 designed by Marmon-Herrington. A wooden model of the tank was presented in August 1941.

The full sized model of the Light Tank T9 was presented in August of 1941. Marmon-Herrington didn't reinvent the wheel and based their design on the CTLS light tank. Nearly the entire suspension, with the exception of the idlers, was borrowed from this tank. Externally, the tank was similar to the T7, which was currently being designed by the Rock Island Arsenal.

This similarity was not a coincidence, as the evolution of the tanks happened in a similar way. The tank received a riveted hull, traditional for American light tanks, with the exception that it was very low, due to the project's limitations. The plan was to install a cast two-man turret similar to the one on the Medium Tank M3 with a 37 mm gun and a coaxial Browning M1919 machinegun.

The vehicle was inspected by the Bureau of Ordnance, was well as representatives from the air force and Douglas company engineers. The latter were present for a good reason. As mentioned above, the C-54 transport airplane developed by Douglas was going to be the delivery method for this tank. In November, a full scale model was developed for Douglas to check the fit with the C-54. The tank was carried underneath the fuselage. The turret was demounted and carried inside the airplane. The turret was relatively light, and loading it into the plane was not particularly difficult.

Light Tank T9, Pontiac concept.

The competitor vehicle from Pontiac was presented in September of 1941. In general, the concept was the same as the Marmon-Herrington vehicle. The difference was in peculiarities of the hull and engine. The hull was going to be welded with the use of cast components. Two 6 cylinder 3.9 L 90 hp Pontiac automobile engines would power the tank. By comparison, the Marmon-Herrington tank would be equipped with a Lycoming O-435T  7 L opposite aircraft engine, which was just entering production in 1942.

The tanks were so similar that the cost was the main deciding factor. Marmon-Herrington's project was cheaper, which led to their victory.

An experimental prototype of the Light Tank T9, April 1942. The driver received a pair of machineguns so he wouldn't be bored.

Pontiac was not particularly disappointed, as an SPG was going to built on the chassis of their T9. This vehicle, the T42 GCM, evolved into the T49 GMC. From that point on, Buick, another division of General Motors, started working on that vehicle. The result was the T70 GMC, otherwise known as M18 Hellcat.

Necessary Lightness

The first experimental prototype of the Marmon-Herrington Light Tank T9 was finished by April of 1942. By then, a series of changes were made to the design compared to the initial project. First of all, the hull was fully welded. Only the upper front plate was bolted on to allow access to the transmission. Second, the Americans found only one coaxial machinegun insufficient. As a result, the tank received a pair of Browning M1919 machineguns in the hull. The driver would fire them, but the loader, sitting in the turret, would reload.

The tank was compact, but very reasonably laid out.

In April of that year, the tank was sent to Fort Benning where it underwent trials and fitting to a model of a C-54 fuselage. During trials, it was discovered that the suspension is insufficiently stiff. To resolve this problem, channel brackets were installed between the bogeys, and later special reinforcers developed by Marmon-Herrington engineer William A. Cost. Further trials demanded additional changes, which made the tank somewhat heavier. Due to the tank's low mass and powerful engine, it turned out to be fairly agile. Not as fast as Christie's tank, but the maximum speed of 56 kph was a very respectable figure.

On May 31st, 1942, in the middle of the trials, an unpleasant surprise arrived from the Americans. According to revised specifications, the mass of the tank had to be 7.1 tons, or 400 kg less than initially specified. Removing 400 kilograms was no easy task, especially since Marmon-Herrington engineers were already constrained by weight. Something important had to go.

The first thing to disappear was the pair of Brownings in the hull. Future loaders could breathe easier. The gyroscopic stabilizer and turret traverse motor followed. They were useful, of course, but not necessary. After that, the T9 continued trials, which ended only in January of 1943. Later, this vehicle was used by Marmon-Herrington as a display model.

Light Tank T9E1, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, December 1942. The altered hull is obvious in this photo.

Work on an improved T9 tank began in February of 1942. In April, a full sized model, indexed T9E1, was sent to Fort Benning to be fitted under the C-54 fuselage. As a result, the hull was radically changed. Once again, the influence of the T7, or rather the T7E2, was clearly visible. The upper front plate was composed of one piece, positioned at a sharp angle.

Other parts of the hull were changed, especially the rear. The driver received a separate cabin, which improved visibility. The turret design was also changed, and one large hatch was replaced with two small ones.

This is how the T9E1 was to be attached to the Douglas C-54 Skymaster.

The first experimental prototype of the T9E1 was produced in November of 1942, and intensive trials started that same month. The second vehicle was sent to England immediately after assembly. Both parties were satisfied with the result, and in April of 1943, the Light Tank T9E1 entered mass production. In total, Marmon-Herrington built 830 tanks of this type before February of 1944, the biggest success for the company in the field of tank building.

The T9E1 index was used in reference to the tank until September of 1944, when the vehicle was finally standardized as Light Tank M22. As for Britain, it was named "Locust" there. The tank was never called "M22 Locust", much like there was no "M4 Sherman". M4 Medium Tank was the American name, while the British called it Sherman I.

In 1944, an alternative appeared for transporting the Light Tank M22: the Fairchild C-82 Packet. The tank could fit inside of it whole.

Work on the T9E1 didn't end with mass production. In November of 1943, a program to install the T24E1 81 mm breech-loaded mortar into the turret started. In August of 1944, one tank was equipped with the weapon, indexed T9E2. However, no progress was made past some experiments.

Limited Viability

Most T9E1 tanks went into the American army, but these tanks were never used in combat. The army received the tanks coolly. The tanks were mostly developed for British needs, and looked quite weak by the middle of 1943. In addition, the M24 light tank, already in development by then, was also somewhat airborne, even though it had to be taken apart and transported in two C-82 airplanes.

Soviet foreign intelligence learned of the T9 and T9E1 in July of 1943. The tank interested the Soviet leadership with its high mobility. However, the T7E2 light tank, which later became the M7 medium tank, was deemed much more interesting.

GAL. 49 Hamilcar Mk.I glider, Britain's main airborne tank delivery system.

The British received 260 T9E1 tanks. Locusts in the British army were indexed T.15877 through T.159376. Judging by the numbers range, the order was initially for 500 tanks, but was later reduced. One of the reasons for this could have been mechanical problems that were revealed by trials. A second problem was the lack of obvious advantages over the domestic Tetrarch I.

Of course, unlike the British tanks, Locusts had HE shells in their arsenal. However, right as Locusts started making it into the army, the Tetrarch I gained HE shells for its 2-pdr (40 mm) gun. The British tank was faster, more comfortable, and the armour of both tanks could only protect it from small arms. Weighing the pros and cons, Locusts were left in reserve. Old but still competitive Tetrarchs flew into Normandy, and were only replaced with Locusts in fall of 1944 when the British adapted the Littlejohn adapter to American guns, which drastically increased the muzzle velocity and with it, penetration.

The Littlejohn Adapter was first designed for the 2-pdr gun. The Bovington Tank Museum retained a Littlejohn for the 37 mm gun installed in the Locust.

The Locust was used by the British in combat only one time. On March 24th, 1945, the Allied forces carried out Operation Varsity to cross the Rhine. The British 6th Airborne and American 17th Airborne divisions were the main forces in this operation. The British extensively used gliders during this operation, including heavy GAL.49 Hamilcar Mk.I for transporting tanks.

The operation began at 10:00. Main British forces were deployed north-east of Wesel. The strike group had 8 Locust tanks. The first never made it across the Rhine: after an AA gun hit the glider, is bottom fell out, the tank fell into the river, and the crew died. A second tank was lost during landing when its glider crashed into a local farm. One of the remaining tanks damaged its gun during landing, a second its machinegun, and the third broke its engine.

A Locust from the 6th Airborne Brigade.

Unlike Normandy, where the Tetrarch's main enemy was parachutes that tangled in their tracks, the Locusts had a warmer welcome. Minutes after landing, Lieutenant Kenward's tank ended up face to face with a Panther. Since the nose of the Hamilcar glider did not open, the tank had to ram its way through. The Lieutenant fired off a dozen shots with no visible effect. The Locust was knocked out by return fire, but two crewmen survived, including the commander. The tank with a damaged engine made a fine bunker, supporting its infantry with artillery fire. According to reports, the tank crew claimed about 100 dead Germans.

The remaining four tanks supported the British paratroopers. With their help, the 6th Airborne attacked German positions. The tanks kept fighting on the next day. On March 26th, the main forces crossed the Rhine, and the Locusts were replaced with the much better armed Cromwells. This was the end of the tank's service history with the British army.

In 1946, the Locust was deemed completely obsolete. They began to be written off. A small number made their way to Belgium. Many more were sent to Egypt, where they replaced the Light Tank Mk.VI. Compared to these vehicles, dropped by the British in 1941, the Locusts were quite modern. As of 1948, the Egyptian army had 50 Locust tanks that formerly belonged to Britain.

IDF soldiers inspect a knocked out Locust, December 1948.

During the Israeli War of Independence fought from 1947 to 1949, Locust tanks fought a lot more intensively. On May 14th, 1948, Israel declared its independence. On the next day, forces of neighbouring Arab countries entered Israel to erase it from the face of the Earth. The most well known episode in the service life of Egyptian Locusts was Operation Assaf (December 5-7th, 1948). The Egyptians attacked Sheih Noran (today, kibbutz Magen). A 57 mm anti-tank gun (also a former British weapon) knocked out 5 Locust tanks. The Egyptian attack failed. Another tank made it into Sheih Noran, but was knocked out by a British PIAT grenade launcher.

The Locust was used in battles for Al-Awja with similar success. Three tanks were captured by the IDF in working condition and remained in use until 1952. The Egyptians kept their tanks until the mid 1950s when they were finally deemed obsolete.




T-34 with Big Guns

$
0
0
"Factory #221
To the People's Commissar of Armament of the USSR, comrade Ustinov
To GAU Chief Lieutenant-General of Artillery comrade Yakovlev

RE: 152 mm gun and 203 mm howitzer SPG

By personal initiative, the design bureau of the factory created a project for SPGs for the 152 mm gun and 203 mm howitzer. Main blueprints and an explanatory note are attached.

The project uses existing components as much as possible, including suspensions, engines, and the guns themselves.

The suspension and engine used are taken from the T-34 tank produced by the Stalingrad Tractor Factory. As for the artillery systems, we propose the use of the 152 mm Br-19 gun and 203 mm B-4 gun produced at our factory, including the use of upper equipment.

This solution allows for powerful SPGs with good mobility, matching the speed of tanks (about 40 kph).

The aforementioned unification of parts and good cooperation conditions between us and STZ ensures that production could be set up very quickly.

We consider that, in this very mobile war, a highly mobile high power SPG would be a very useful asset to the Red Army.

We ask for your cooperation in building and testing an experimental prototype. Namely, we ask for you to order the People's Commissariat of Medium Machinebuilding to order the Stalingrad Tractor Factory to send us working blueprints of the T-34 tank and one T-34 tank (sans turret). The factory promises to quickly (2-2.5 month) produce a prototype and perform trials.

We consider this work to be very meaningful at this time. We expect a quick answer and cooperation on this issue.

Attachment: 13 blueprints, explanatory note
Factory Director Gonor
Chief Designer, Ivanov"

CAMD RF 81-12038-103

I posted about crazy guns on the T-34 before, but judging by the fact that they're only ordering one hull, these guys have an even crazier design in mind.

Quality for 1945

$
0
0
"Attachment to GOKO decree #6868s issued on November 4th, 1944

List of further design and production improvements of tanks and SPGs.

On IS tanks and SPGs:
  1. Prevent the premature wear of the engine crankshaft splines and main friction clutch flywheel splines. Due: January 1st, 1945
  2. Ensure that road wheels, track links, and track pins have a lifespan of at least 1000 km and, by January 1st, 1945, provide measures necessary to increase that lifespan to 1500 km.
  3. Prevent the premature wear of the actuator cup and falling in of the main friction clutch pedal. Due: December 1st, 1944.
  4. Provide reliable operation of the ball bearings of the idlers and road wheels. Due: December 1st, 1944.
  5. Investigate the issue of protecting the main friction clutch from dust. Due: December 1st, 1944.
  6. Investigate the issue of improving lubrication of the road wheel ball bearings. Due: December 1st, 1944.
  7. Provide new crew hatches for testing with a load-balancing device for easy and convenient opening. Due: December 1st, 1944.
  8. Increase the quality of the spring and friction coupling clutch of the inertial starter. Due: December 1st, 1944.
  9. Install MDSh smoke canisters on every tank and SPG. Due: February 1st, 1945
On T-34 tanks and SU-100 SPGs:
  1. Plan measures to convert all T-34 tanks to the 5-speed gearbox. Due: January 1st, 1945.
  2. Ensure that track links and track pins have a lifespan of at least 1000 km and, by January 1st, 1945, provide measures necessary to increase that lifespan to 1500 km.
  3. Prevent the premature wear of the engine crankshaft splines and main friction clutch flywheel splines. Due: January 1st, 1945
  4. Prevent the premature wear of the actuator cup and falling in of the main friction clutch pedal. Due: December 1st, 1944.
  5. Investigate the issue of protecting the main friction clutch from dust. Due: December 1st, 1944.
  6. GBTU must complete trials of a T-34-85 tank with a commander cupola with a one piece hatch with a load-balancing device by November 15th of this year and, jointly with NKTP, make a decision regarding mass production."

T-34 Improvements, 1943

$
0
0
"To the Chief of the GABTU Technical Directorate, Major-General of the Tank Forces, comrade Afonin
CC: NKTP Main Inspectorate Chief, Engineer-Lieutenant-Colonel comrade Gutman

I attach excerpts from proposals to improve the T-34 tank and its armament from the 3rd Ukrainian and 2nd Ukrainian Fronts for December of 1943.

From the report of the 3rd Ukrainian Front:
  1. On the design of the commander's cupola in the T-34 tank:
    1. The commander's cupola cannot provide 360 degree vision to the commander as the vision slits are too high and cannot be used with a closed hatch (the eyes are lower than the slits). On the other hand, the cupola impedes viewing through the PT-4-7 periscope. Also, the slits are very narrow.
      Proposal: use mirror periscopes like in the KV-1S cupola. This will allow reduction of the size of the turret and improve vision.
    2. The two piece hatch is heavy and uncomfortable, and has an inconvenient and difficult to operate latch. Opening the latch and cupola hatch takes a lot of time. If the commander is wounded, this almost always leads to his death.
      It is necessary to make the cupola hatch one piece and easy to open.
    3. There were cases of penetration of the cupola by enemy aircraft, as the cupola does not have a shape that facilitates ricochet and the armour is thin.
      Using mirror periscopes will allow for the reduction of the cupola's height and introduction of an aerodynamic shape.
  2. The escape hatch on the T-34 is inconvenient as it opens outwards by unscrewing nuts holding it to the floor. It is necessary to make the hatch open inwards and unlatch easily, while making sure that it cannot be blown off and that it remains watertight.
  3. The trigger mechanisms in our tanks are slow, which can lose a target if the tank is moving. In addition, they can jam.
    It is desirable to use electric firing mechanisms in our tanks like the German StuG tank or English Matilda and Valentine tanks. In case this is not possible, put a manual firing mechanism on the elevation or traverse handles like on the PzIV German tank.
  4. Sights: the existing diopter sight for the hull gunner/radio operator gives a very small range of vision. It is hard to find targets through it. Experienced hull gunners observe and correct fire through the upper driver's periscope (KV-1S).
    The hull gunner in the T-34 is in an even more difficult position.
    It is necessary to install either a sniper's sight or a periscopic sight. Add a mechanism to clear the periscopes of snow.
  5. The spare tracks on T-34s are placed on the fenders. Experience shows that the fenders are torn off in battle and those tracks are lost. Immobilized tanks are left without spare tracks.
    It is necessary to place the tracks on the rear angled armour, the least vulnerable area to enemy fire.
  6. Spare fuel tanks installed on the rear of the T-34 tank at factory #184 are inconvenient to use. After they are emptied, they are thrown away due to their inconvenient angled shape. The best fuel tanks are installed at the Kirov factory, and all factories should produce these. For rapid identification, it is desirable to label the tanks "fuel" or "oil".
  7. Install smoke grenade launchers on subsequently produced tanks in order to conceal the tanks if they are disabled. A deployed smoke grenade will help the crew leave the tank. In addition, smoke can play a significant role after penetration of the enemy's defenses, hiding the tank from the AT guns that it passed.
  8. It is desirable to install additional spaced armour on the sides of the tank, along the turret platform. 
  9. It is necessary to install the D-5 85 mm gun on T-34 tanks. In the future, include a high velocity gun. When installing the D-5 gun, make sure that:
    1. The gun does not stick into the ground when driving off road.
    2. The gun barrel is protected.
  10. Replace glass periscopes with metallic ones..."
From the report of the 2nd Ukrainian Front:

"The commander's cupola on the T-34 still has not proven itself, as it is easily penetrated by even small caliber artillery and the hatch jams in battle, which can lead to wounding or isolation of the commander.

The most convenient way to open the cupola hatch is not upwards, but to the side, similar to how it's done on the German Panther tank."

I ask you to give your conclusions regarding these suggestions and send them to the commanders of the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Front Armoured Forces, and a copy to GBTU.

Chief of the GBTU UET, Major-General of the Tank Engineering Service, Pechenikin"

Heroic Driver

$
0
0
"Award Order
  1. Name: Kharitonov, Nikolai Pavlovich
  2. Rank: Starshina
  3. Position and unit: mechanic-driver of a T-34 tank, 1st Tank Battalion, 65th Volnovakha Order of the Red Banner, Order of Suvorov Tank Brigade
    is nominated for the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.
  4. Year of birth: 1915
  5. Nationality: Russian
  6. Party affiliation: VKP(b) member since 1944
  7. Participation in the Civil War and subsequent combat action in defense of the USSR: Western Front, 1st Belorussian Front.
  8. Wounds or concussions in the Patriotic War: none
  9. In the Red Army since: 1937
  10. Recruited by: Kuzovatskiy recruitment office, Ulyanovsk oblast.
Brief and specific summary of personal heroism or achievements: While fighting as a part of the 1st Tank Battalion on the 1st Belorussian Front from January 14th to January 20th, 1945, T-34 tank driver Starshina Kharitonov executed his orders flawlessly, demonstrated bravery, tenacity, skill, and heroism.

Maneuvering with skill on the battlefield, he allowed his crew to complete their objectives. His tank travelled over 400 km without a single breakdown, despite having already exhausted its warranty period during summer battles. As a result of his skilled maneuvering, his crew destroyed 2 150 mm guns, 1 75 mm gun, 3 MG nests, 12 cars, and 22 fascists on January 15th in battles for Bortodsee,Yusefuv, Druzhanki, and Kuchki.

On January 16th, 1945, in the Milishsk settlement, the destroyed one PzV tank, a tractor with an 88 mm AA gun, 6 cars, and 13 fascists.

On January 19th, 1945, he was the first to ford the Pilitsa river under enemy fire south of Tomanluv and, catching up to an enemy column retreating to Lodz during a night reconnaissance mission, he crushed 28 carriages with military cargo and 17 fascists.

He is worthy of the title of Hero of the Soviet Union."

CAMD RF 33-793756-51

T2 Medium: Scaling Up

$
0
0
Starting with the M2 Medium Tank, American medium tanks were based on the M2 Light Tank. The method of their creation was as follows: novelties were tried out on a light tank, then the tank was proportionally scaled up in size. Of course, many changes were introduced into the design, like increasing the number of bogeys or return rollers. Overall, this method was successful. However, this was not the first attempt at using this method by American tank designers. The first time they tried it, they got something different...

Choosing Concepts

American tank production began with foreign tanks. This approach was the most correct during the war, as it saved the most precious resource: time. This way, by the end of WWI, the American army ended up with M1917 light tanks, reworked French Renault FTs, and heavy Mk.VIII International tanks, made in the likeness of British heavy tanks. The latter were built using American components, most importantly, Liberty L-12 engines.

The issue with medium tanks was never resolved. By the end of WWI, the Entente only had a Medium Mk.A Whippet in this category, an example hardly worth following. The Medium Mk.A didn't survive for long, and the Mk.B and Mk.C that replaced it were more similar to the heavy "rhombus" tanks.

As for the Americans, they placed their bets on John Walter Christie. In April of 1921, the M1919 Medium Tank entered trials. On one hand, it was a very progressive design with a very powerful 6-pdr (57 mm) gun and decent mobility for the time. In addition, it was the first successful convertible drive tank.

On the other hand, only the central bogey actually had a suspension. As a result, driving off-road was torture for the crew. There were also problems with Christie's engine. A request was made to rework the tank, especially the suspension. Christie interpreted the request in a peculiar way. He did rework the suspension, but the tank turned into an SPG. This forced the military to say goodbye to Christie, but as it turned out, not for long.

In parallel with Christie's tank, a program was launched by the Bureau of Ordnance in 1919 to develop a tank based on the British Medium Mk.D, an innovative design compared to its predecessors. The British didn't evolve to the point of rotating turrets yet, but the tank already had a classic layout. By December of 1921, the Rock Island Arsenal finished construction of the Medium Tank M1921. This was an impressive vehicle for its time, with fearsome armament, a rotating turret, and effective power of 10.7 hp per ton. The armour was also decent, reaching 25 mm in the front. The top speed of this 18.5 ton vehicle was 16 kph (to compare, the light M1917 could only reach a maximum of 14.7 kph, even after modernization).

Sadly, the engine caused delays in trials. The Medium Tank M1921 was later developed into the Medium Tank T1. Thanks to the more powerful Packard engine, the tank became a bit faster, and in January 1928 it was standardized as Medium Tank M1. However, by this point, it was already hopelessly obsolete.

It was obvious that the Medium Tank M1921 was headed for a dead end in the mid-1920s. Any improvements to the tank came at the cost of weight. The Bureau of Ordnance began a new project to design a tank in the 15 ton class. This project, indexed Medium Tank M1924, looked like a scaled down M1921. The turret remained, but there was also a gun in the front hull. On March 11th, 1926. the Ordnance Committee approved work on the Medium Tank M1924 in parallel with work on the Medium Tank T1.

Wooden model of the Medium Tank M1924.

The developer of the new tank was the Rock Island Arsenal. However, by fall of 1926, the project was sent to Maryland where the Tank Bureau was located. After a change of venue, the very concept of the tank began to change. As a result, nothing was left from the initial Medium Tank M1924.

Cutaway of the Medium Tank T2. As you can see, it has nothing in common with the Medium Tank M1924.

Bigger Copy

Harry Knox, the father of the T1 light tank series, took what would later become the Medium Tank Mk.I as a basis. This distant relative of the Medium Tank Mk.A Whippet had a front engine, but a rear transmission. As a result, the turret and fighting compartment were shifted to the back. Thanks to this layout, the vehicle was much shorter than the Medium Mk.D. At the same time, the weight was reduced.

Medium Tank T2 at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, January of 1931. This was the original design of the tank.

The first American tank made in this image was the Light Tank T1. The prototype of the tank that was to become the main light tank of the American army was finished by September 1st, 1927. As a result of trials, changes were made to the design, resulting in an improved Light Tank T1E1 in early 1928.

This tank was used as the foundation for developing a medium tank. Fort Meade was chosen to develop this vehicle, indexed Medium Tank T2. Often, James Cunningham & Sons is credited with the development of the tank, but they were only the contractor who built it. The tank was designed by Harry Knox.

The tank as of May 1931. The T3E1 system was replaced with the T1 system with a short 37 mm gun and a counterweight on the gun mantlet.

Work on the new medium tank began in 1929, and an experimental prototype was ready by the end of 1930. The layout of the Medium Tank T2 was very similar to the Medium Tank Mk.I. The engien was in the front, shifted to the right, the driver was to its left. The transmission and drive sprockets were in the rear. The rear fighting compartment was roomy enough for the crew to not feel like sardines in a can. A large two-piece hatch was installed in the rear for crew entry and exit. The crew was less numerous than in the British equivalent. While the British tank had 5 crewmen, the American one only had 4: commander/gunner, loader, second gunner, and driver.


The tank lost its T1 system in the summer of 1931. Instead, a machinegun mount was placed in the hull, but no machinegun was ever added there. The amount of fuel tanks increased to two.

This was the end of the similarities between the tanks. Its suspension had nothing in common with that of the Medium Tank Mk.I, and was a further development of the Light Tank T1E1 with 12 road wheels and 4 return rollers. The hull and the track links, widened to 381 mm, were also inherited from the Light Tank T1E1.

The Medium Tank T2 was a much better design than its older brother. The small size and compact layout of the T1E1 made life difficult for its crew. This was especially true for the driver, who was forced to operate the tank with his feet wrapped around the engine. In the medium tank, the engine was covered with a bulkhead. The air filters were inside the fighting compartment, which made servicing them easier.

The 12 cylinder Liberty L-12 was used as the engine, with its power reduced to 318 hp. Thanks to such a powerful engine, the tank had impressive effective power: 22.4 hp/ton, a decent figure even in our time. The front armour of the 14.2 ton tank reached 22 mm. This was enough to protect the tank from small arms and light machineguns. Placing the fuel tanks in special containers outside of the fighting compartment was a good move.

The box on the right side was made for the radio.

The issue of armament was solved in a very interesting way. The main weapon of the tank was a 47 mm gun in the turret, based on the 37 mm AA gun, developed by Browning since the early 1920s. Like the AA gun, the 47 mm gun was fed with 5 round clips. A Browning M2HB machinegun was paired with the gun. This combination was enough to deal with any tank that existed at the time. However, this was not enough for the creators of the Medium Tank M2. They installed the T3E1 system to the right of the driver with a 37 mm semi-automatic Browning gun and a Browning M1919 machinegun. This gun also used 5 round clips.

Road to Nowhere

The experimental prototype of the Medium Tank T2 arrived at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in late December of 1930. Mobility trials began that same month. Overall, the tank was very modern, and suited for mass production. However, the United States was hit with a financial crisis in 1929, which had a serious impact on the defense budget.

The last modenization of the Medium Tank M2, January 1932. The long object under the right fender is the exhaust pipe.

There was another problem. On January of 1931, in Rahway, New Jersey, a public demonstration of the Christie M1931 Medium Tank was held. The new tank was only inferior to Knox's design in armament, but this wasn't a big factor. The 37 mm M1916 gun and M1919 machinegun on the tank was enough for the military. The Christie tank surpassed its competitor in all other parameters. The same Liberty L-12 engine allowed it to reach unseen speeds for the time. On wheels, the difference grew even more. Christie's design was a huge step forward, and the Medium Tank T2 looked like a relic in comparison.

A large hatch in the rear was used for the crew to enter and exit.

Despite the appearance of such a dangerous competitor, the Department of Ordnance continued the trials of their tank. The trials revealed the same problems as the Light Tank T1E1 had: the front engine limited the driver's sight. Problems with the suspension cropped up. Theoretically, the tank could reach a speed of 40 kph, but in practice, it could only drive at 32 kph, as the suspension began to fall apart at higher speeds.

Problems with the armament were also discovered. The 47 mm gun was unbalanced. To solve this problem, counterweights were installed on the gun mantlet. Around this time, the T3E1 system was removed, replaced with the T1 system: a 37 mm gun M1916 gun.

Interior of the Medium Tank T2. The conditions were very comfortable for a late 20s tank.

After the mobility trials, the tank was sent away for improvements, returning to Aberdeen in January of 1932. By then, the T1 system was removed, and replaced with a ball mount for a machinegun. The main armament in the turret was also removed. One of the novelties was a new type of track link, similar to the one on the Medium Tank Mk.II. A mount for an AA machinegun was also added. Sadly, these additions made no difference.

The problems with the suspension were not solved. In addition, changes to the turning mechanisms were needed. Even though the Bureau of Ordnance considered the Medium Tank T2 the best available tank, it was obvious that pushing through their design wouldn't happen. At that point, the budget could only cover three Christie Medium Tank T3 and four Christie Combat Car T1. To sell them, Christie was ready to make them with no engines or armament. They would be installed by the military. It could only afford 6 T1 systems, so one Christie Combat Car T1 was armed with a machinegun.

Tanks of the 67th Infantry Company, Fort Benning, 1932. Staff of the Bureau of Ordnance could not have through of better advertisement for Christie's tanks.

The last attempt to push the Medium Tank T2 through was made at Fort Benning, the center of infantry tanks at the time. The tank was included in the 2nd Tank Company, reformed into the 67th Infantry Company in October of 1932. The company also had T1 light tanks, the experimental Medium Tank T1E1, and three Christie Medium Tank T2.

American congressmen periodically visited this unit. Representatives of the Bureau of Ordnance expected a demonstration to move things forward. The result was the opposite. A comparative demonstration of their tank against Christie tanks was the worst thing they could have thought of. Even a layperson could see which tank was better. Fort Benning became the swan song for Cunningham tanks.

In the late 1930s, the Medium Tank T2 was sent to Aberdeen, where it remained in the Museum of Armament. Several years ago, the tank was sent to Fort Lee, where a new museum was planned. Sadly, the future of the museum is uncertain. The tank is rusting in Anniston, Alabama, awaiting restoration.

KV-7: Lock, Stock, and Three Smoking Barrels

$
0
0
Work on heavy SPGs in the Soviet Union began in the early 1930s. By the end of the decade, development stopped, but began anew in early 1940. The Red Army needed tanks to destroy enemy pillboxes. The result of this requirement was the 212 SPG which, for various reasons, was never built. In April of 1942, the 212 project was finally closed, giving way to another no less interesting project: the KV-7 assault tank.

From the Top

November of 1941 was a difficult time for the Soviet Union. The Germans were pushing to Moscow, only tens of kilometers away. Battles were fought on the approach to Tula. Rostov-on-the-Don was lost. Factories evacuated to the east were just beginning to produce tanks. The Chelyanbinsk Tractor Factory, renamed ChKZ (Chelabinsk Kirov Factory), became the only factory to produce heavy KV tanks. Tankograd first managed to ship over 100 tanks this month, as its numbers were boosted by workers and engineers evacuated from Leningrad.

In these difficult times, a project of a quite unusual vehicle with hardly any analogues in tank building worldwide appeared. The first mention of this tank on the KV-1 chassis is made in P.F. Solomonov's report about his trip to Chelyabinsk, dated November 28th, 1941. The goal of this trip, initiated by GAU, was the investigation of the issue of gun supplies for the KV-1 tanks. Aside from supply issues, the report had room for experimental works, which included the following:

"On Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin's orders, the Kirov factory is developing a mount for a KV tank with 1 F-34 gun and 2 45 mm guns (barrels without recoil mechanisms), with recoil mechanisms for the triplex taken from the ZiS-5. There is no 360 degree traverse, the traverse is +/- 7.5 degrees or +/- 15 degrees, depends on how the ammunition racks are placed. Ammunition capacity: 300 rounds (100 per gun), in addition to which there are 3-4 machineguns.

In December, 1/5 KV tanks are to be equipped with these triplexes."

It could be imagined that the factory namedropped Stalin as a cover, but this is not the case. The fact that Stalin was the initiator of this project is mentioned in many documents. In addition, the GKO decree that relates to the KV-7 is written in Stalin's trademark pencil.

The KV-7 appeared because of many complaints from the front asking for improving the power of tank weapons against unarmoured targets, including light field fortifications. In theory, the triplex could fire each gun individually, or all three in a volley. The KV-7 was not the only project of this type. At the same time, in November-December 1941, a similar project was designed by factory #183, evacuated to Nizhniy Tagil. The tank, indexed T-34-3, was developed under A.A. Morozov. It consisted of a T-34 whose turret also had two 45 mm guns in addition to the F-34. The crew increased to 5 men, and the commander was freed from gunner duties. There is no information on who was the initiator of this project, but it's possible that it was the same person that ordered the KV-7. The T-34-3 technical project and design documentation were completed, but a prototype was never built.

T-34-3, an attempt to make a medium "volley" tank with a rotating turret.

The situation with the KV-7 was different, and the project was very different from what was proposed at Nizhniy Tagil. As with the "bunker buster" from the Urals, work was split between ChKZ and UZTM. SKB-2 in Chelyabinsk designed the chassis, supervised by G.N. Moskvin. OKB-3 at UZTM designed the weapons. Work on the gun system, developed by engineers N.N. Efimov and K.N. Ilyin began in November of 1941 and finished on December 10th. F.F. Petrov was the chief designer of this system, indexed U-13. A significant part was played by L.I. Gorlitskiy, who arrived from Leningrad and became the chief of the artillery design bureau at the Kirov factory.

U-13 gun system used on the KV-7.

Unlike the T-34-3, the KV-7 had no turret, as it was decided that the U-13 took up too much space. The turret and fighting compartment ceiling were replaced with a casemate. However, the word "casemate" was never used by the designers, who preferred the term "immobile turret". The casemate took a prismatic shape to improve crew conditions, the lower part of it spreading out to completely cover the fenders. As many parts from the KV-1 as possible were used during the design, including the rear machinegun mount, hatches, and observation devices.

Blueprints of the U-13 brass catcher, dated December 10th, 1941.

It's worth mentioning that the KV-7 was not referred to as an SPG in period documents. It was only called "KV-7 tank" or "assault tank". Nevertheless, it had all the features of an SPG. The KV-7 became the first SPG to be developed in the Urals that reached the prototype stage. According to factory documentation, repair tank #5161 built in September of 1941 was used for the prototype. The vehicle received a new casemate and armament, and some suspension elements were changed. 

Attempt at a Duplex

ChKZ treated the KV-7 project very seriously. The mention of every fifth tank was no joke. In parallel with production of the experimental prototype, factory #200 prepared for mass production of hulls. On December 30th, 1941, the chief engineer of factory #200, L.I. Eiranov, signed the technical requirements for a pilot batch of 20 hulls. It is not known how many hulls were really produced, but based on further developments, it is likely that the pilot batch was assembled.

KV-7 at factory trials, late Decembet 1941.

On December 27th, 1941 (10 days late), the KV-7 finally completed trials. Due to the hurry, no sight was ready, but there were some more serious complaints. According to the report, the screw type two-ball turning mechanism was poorly designed and led to high dispersion during firing. Captain P.F. Solomonov, the supervisor sent by GAU, made a list of over 10 defects that needed to be corrected. However, there was no time to fix most of them: the tank was awaited in Moscow on January 5th.

KV-7, side view.

On the scheduled day, trials were performed at factory #8 in Mytishchi. The vehicle was also inspected by a commission from GABTU, GAU, NKV, as well as Voroshilov and Kotin. When shooting from standstill, the gunner managed to fire all three guns at once on the third attempt, and the precision at 400 meters ended up being quite low. Trials showed that the rate of fire was 20-24 RPM. Individually, the guns fired about as quickly as they did in regular tanks, which cast doubt on the idea of volley fire. The F-34 could fire 3 rounds every 34 seconds, but the 45 mm guns could fire 5 times. The rate of fire was deemed unsatisfactory by the commission. In addition to unsatisfactory precision, especially when firing in a volley, the thickness of the front armour was deemed insufficient. A proposal was made to increase it to 110-120 mm. In addition, it was proposed that the SPG should instead have two 76 mm guns.

After receiving the results of the trials, Stalin personally wrote GKO decree #1110ss "On production of KV-7 and KV-8 tanks". The first point read: "cancel the proposed 3-gun KV-7 tank". The KV-7 was not cancelled entirely, but the pilot batch was never produced. On January 27th, 1942, tactical-technical requirements for a tank with two ZiS-5 guns were composed.

KV-7 with two ZiS-5 guns, March 1942.

As with the first variant of the KV-7, work on dual ZiS-5 guns was assigned to UZTM. L.I. Gorlitskiy directed both projects. The new system, indexed U-14, was also worked on by N.V. Kurin and G.F. Ksunin. According to dates on various blueprints, work began no later than January 25th, before receiving tactical-technical requirements. Work on the U-14 was finished in mid-February, and work on the modernized KV-7 began in the second half. The new tank wasn't built from scratch, the old KV-7 with the U-13 was used. Only the gun mantlet and ammunition racks were changed.

This is how the KV-7 sent to trials would have looked like.

The trials of the new KV-7 were planned for March 7th, 1942, consisting of 400 shots and a 50 kilometer drive. In reality, everything happened differently. Since ChTZ was very busy and the priority of the KV-7 was reduced, the tank only began trials on May 14th. A rate of fire of 6-7 RPM was reached, but the system was unbalanced, which resulted in the sights shifting with each shot. The ammunition rack was deemed inconvenient and the turning mechanism had to be operated with both hands. The trials ended and interest in the KV-7 waned.

The KV-7 resurfaced in October of 1942. During P.F. Solomonov's trip (now as a Major) to the Kirov factory, he inspected experimental SPGs. Mobility trials were also held. In November, GAU proposed that the tank should have a commander's cupola installed, all systems should be tuned, and it should be sent to military trials. The idea was binned, but the KV-7 managed to serve Soviet tank production. A planetary transmission developed at the Baumann Institute in Moscow under the direction of G.I. Zaichik. After that, the KV-7 ended up in storage at factory #100 and in December of 1943, the KV-7, along with the KV-9 and KV-12 were scrapped.

Last photo of the KV-7, made in the fall of 1943 in the storage area of factory #100 storage.

Waste Not, Want Not

In early January of 1942, GABTU started discussing the idea of installing something more powerful than a 76 mm gun into the KV-7. The initial proposal was the 152 mm M-10 howitzer.

In late January, S.A. Ginzburg prepared the requirements for a 152 mm howitzer on the KV-7 chassis. In the plan of work for 1942 approved by the People's Commissar of Tank Production Malyshev, this vehicle is listed at #59. According to the plan, Kirov factory was responsible for the chassis and UZTM was responsible for the gun. Blueprints were due on March 15th, an experimental prototype by May 1st, and mass production blueprints by May 10th. 300,000 roubles were issued for this project. This was not a lot of money compared to, say, the 212 project, but this was not a vehicle built from scratch, only the conversion of existing KV-7 hulls.

GAU had a mixed reaction to this new project, since the artillerymen still wanted a Br-2 gun on a KV-3 chassis. An artillery system on the KV-7 chassis seemed lacking. However, they soon had to shrink their appetites, as it became clear by early April that there won't be a bunker buster with a Br-2.

152 mm U-18 SPG

On April 15th, 1942, a meeting of the Artillery Committee was held to discuss self propelled artillery. It determined the direction in which Soviet SPGs developed. This is what was said on the issue of a heavy SPG:
"2) Bunker buster: 152 mm Br-2 gun on a special chassis from KV tank components

Assign the work to Kirov factory in cooperation with factory #221. Since the creation of a chassis for this project is difficult, consider it acceptable for the moment to settle for a design of this SPG.

Temporarily accept the installation of a 152 mm mod. 1937 gun-howitzer into a KV-7 hull. Assign this work to the Kirov factory."

Soon, instead of factory #172, UZTM was assigned work on the gun. Cooperation between ChKZ and Uralmash on the KV-7 project continued. The project, developed at Sverdlovsk since early 1942, was finally indexed U-18. As with the U-13 and U-14, L.I. Gorlitskiy directed the installation of the ML-20 into the KV-7.

Reconstruction of the overall view of the U-18.

For various reasons, the installation of the 152 mm gun into the KV-7 casemate lagged behind. The draft was only ready by August 4th and presented a month later, on September 3rd, 1942. UZTM engineers tried to satisfy the military's requirements while altering the KV-7 as little as possible. As a result, the U-18 consisted of only 13 components, while the KV-7 hull and casemate had no changes. This kind of approach can be easily explained by this phrase from the U-18's description:

"The KV-7 is most suitable as the chassis for this SPG. Dozens of hulls and turrets for this tank are present at the Kirov factory in Chelyabinsk, designed for one 76.2 mm and two 45 mm guns."

It would appear that this approach by the UZTM design bureau was perfect for using up these hulls, but that just makes the ending to this story that much more surprising. On September 24th, 1942, the chief engineer of UZTM, M.G. Umnyagin, received a letter from the chief of the 6th department of the GABTU BTU, Engineer-Colonel Kovalev.

"In response to your letter #3655/48s about the U-18 SPG, an analogous project was proposed by comrade Petrov on September 12th and was discussed by the Technical Committee of the Commissariat of Armament."

Suddenly, the story of the U-18 was over before it even began. The U-18 and U-19 SPGs designed under Gorlitskiy's direction remained on paper and sank so deep into the archives that they were completely forgotten. Only their indices remained, which, due to a lack of information, were erroneously assigned to projects developed at factory #8 under F.F. Petrov. Each of them is worth their own story.



Tanks in the East

$
0
0
"To the Chief of the 8th Main Directorate of the NKOP, Brigadier-Engineer comrade Sviridov

I send you these materials on trials of fighting and armoured vehicles BT-7A, T-38, FAI and trucks GAZ-AA, ZiS-5, ZiS-6 regarding their performance during border and internal maneuvers executed by the NKVD Internal Forces in 1937-1938.

Experience in using these vehicles in conditions of middle Asia revealed several design defects that must be corrected when building these vehicles.

I ask you to inform me of your decision.
Division commander Kovalev

RESULTS
Of trials of BT-7A, T-38, FAI armoured car, GAZ-AA, ZiS-5, and ZiS-6 trucks.

Trials were performed in the following conditions:
  1. Total distance: 2500 km (without assistance, combined on tracks and wheels)
  2. Terrain: various
    1. Mountains with steep grades, mountain passes at an elevation of 2500 m to 4000 m, mostly off-road, up to 1000 km long.
    2. Rocky bed of a mountain river, 200 km.
    3. Off-road on a salt marsh, 250 km.
    4. Dirt roads with up to 50 cm of loess dust, 100 km.
    5. Loose sand, from flat sand roads to loose dunes with grades up to 40 degrees, up to 1000 km long.
  3. Climate conditions:
    1. Mountains with a normal temperature of +15, salt marshes with a temperature of +50, mostly through regions without water.
    2. Sand-salt marsh terrain with air temperature ranging from +10-15 degrees to -15 degrees.
    3. Mountain passes up to 4000 m high in winter conditions with snow banks with temperature ranging from -20 to -40.
The results of the trials showed the following behaviour of vehicles on various terrain:

1. BT-7A tank

Light gravel highway, average speed of 30 kph: Tanks worked normally. Since the tracks weren't broken in, locking pins were cut off and track pins fell out. 

Mountain terrain with passes from 2500 m to 4000 m high: The effectiveness of the fuel mixture decreased, had to be enriched. The result was excess use of fuel, black smoke from the muffler, engine overheating. The engine power decreased by 30-35%. Due to a large power reserve, a 30% decrease in performance did not have a noticeable effect on the vehicle's performance.

The performance of the BT-7A in these conditions showed that they can, without significant changes, especially without an altitude corrector for the carburettor, cross mountain passes over 4000 meters high.

On steep slopes, fuel could drain out of the carburettor, causing the engine to desynchronize. The water temperature reached 100-110 degrees and oil temperature 80 degrees in August.

Suspension: the track pin and horizontal spring plug have significant drift after 500 kilometers of use.

Marching on a mountain approach, flat road on salt marsh, and loess dust: On rocky terrain, the existing design of drive wheel and track links results in frequent jamming due to saturation of the tracks with mud and rocks.

It is possible to cross salt marshes at high speeds, but only without turning and over new places each time.

The BT-7A tank is completely unusable in loess dust conditions and is not protected against it. The lack of protection from dust of transmission components is noticeable. Initially, the complete saturation of tracks, bearings, and disks did not allow for changing gears. It is not possible to clean the main friction clutch in this design without removing the gearbox. In the last stages of moving across loess dust, the main friction clutch disks showed grit up to 2 mm in size, which disabled the clutch. Further use of tanks involved only using the final drives without disengaging the main clutch.

Due to dust getting into the magneto, the tank could not be started. Other electric components were disabled due to dust, such as the starter, the generator, etc.

Engine: the loess dust gets in with air through the air filter, side pockets and cracks, gets into the engine, and forms and abrasive mass when mixing with the oil, resulting in fast wear of cylinders, rings, pins, floating pins, and bearings. As a result, the engine starts working unreliably. The oil system stopped working due to wear of the oil pump gears.

Note: two engines broke down over these trials due to tearing of the piston rods of the 1st and 2nd cylinder. The VVS M-17F manual describes this as a manufacturing defect.

Suspension: the final drive bearings wore down quickly.

Overall conclusions: 

The BT-7A tank is adequate for use in the mountains. The tank needs improvements for use in sandy or dusty conditions to protect the transmission, engine, and electric equipment from dust.

Engine group:
  • Requires dust protection with a more powerful oil filter, better sealing of the carburettor and coil pipe housing.
  • The fuel nozzles should be moved in order to avoid a chance of fire if gasoline leaks on the magneto contacts.
  • The valve rocker leaks oil during use and cannot be repaired.
  • The gear-based oil pump and its connector wear quickly.
  • The nozzles cannot be regulated without removing the top armour plate.
  • It is difficult to access the engine during use.
Transmission compartment:
  • The main friction clutch must be protected by a special case (from the engine to the gearbox)
  • There must be an intermediate connector between the main clutch and gearbox that allows for work on the clutch without removing the gearbox.
  • Strengthen the bearings of the main friction clutch and improve access to them and the ratchet disk.
  • Improve access to the oil nozzle of the final drive bearings.
  • Cover the control pull rods with a special casing.
  • Improve the gearbox link (springs break, locks pop out, other breakdowns).
Final drives:
  • Install strengthened ball bearings.
  • Redesign the drive wheel in order to strengthen the disk and rim.
  • Change the tracks to use finer links.
Electric equipment:
  • The lights turned off due to poor quality of lightbulb sockets.
  • Up to 80% of ammeter and voltmeter breakdowns were due to poor quality of materials or assembly.
  • Starters broke down due to poor quality of relay contacts.
  • Bronze bearings of the launch magneto wore quickly.
  • The generator plug connectors are unreliable and hard to reach.
  • The electric equipment layout is complicated and hard to reach during repairs.
  • The ignition button contact (made from a latten brass spring) is low quality and breaks quickly.
  • Electric wiring close to the turret creates a fire hazard.
It is necessary to:
  • Protect the magneto, generator, and starter from dust and moisture. The started magneto should be installed on ball bearings.
  • Remove the plug connectors from the generator and lead the wires up to the control panel near the generator.
  • Allow access to the starter relay without removing the starter.
  • Note: a Bendix gear starter is desirable. In addition, the tank should have another way of starting the engine aside from the starter.
  • Wiring inside the tank should be done in accordance with fire safety. Wires in the turret should be covered in pipes until they reach their contact.
  • Small connectors should not have friction contacts, and should be connected with either bolts or solder.
  • The battery should be moved to the rear of the tank, as during operation water, oil, and dust gets on it, and leaking electrolyte corrodes the radiator.
It is also difficult to remove the batteries for charging, and in the winter impossible to install the engine heater without it. It is also impossible to charge the batteries without removing them.

In the same conditions, other vehicles were tested:
  1. T-38 tank: demonstrated excellent performance in all conditions, aside from:
    1. Fast wear of final drive gears.
    2. Insufficient engine power for the vehicle's weight, causing overheating, and low speed on land and water.
    3. It is necessary to add air filters to the engine.
  2. FAI armoured car: showed good results. It is necessary to add an air filter and improved radiator.
  3. GAZ-AA: showed good performance and endurance. Needs an oil air filter and an improved radiator.
  4. ZiS-5: performs poorly on sand. The reductor is very weak, mostly the gears and bearings of the main gear break. Needs a stronger radiator and a rigidly installed differential like on the GAZ truck.
  5. ZiS-6 (three-axle): needs a more powerful engine. The existing engine can only provide a speed of 12 kph on the described terrain. The demultiplexor is very weak, the gears of the first gear break often. Needs a stronger radiator.
Military Engineer 3rd Grade, Babushkin
Lieutenant Sherbelev
Military Technician 2nd Grade, Kurochkin"

Slapfight in the Armoury

$
0
0
"To the Chief of the BTU 4th Department, Engineer-Lieutenant-Colonel comrade F.A. Nenarokov

In connection with your questions on 37 mm guns produced by the NKV, I report the following.
  1. Technical Council member comrade Tolochkov misinformed you, giving you imprecise information about OKB-16's gun.
    As facts at factory #174 show, the number of hours spent on producing the OKB-16 gun is over 450 hours, out of which 100 is spent on fine tuning and 350 on machining.
    The production of OKB-15's gun takes 286 hours of machining and then a negligible amount of time for fine tuning: the guns can be shipped immediately.
  2. Comrade Tolochkov "forgot" to inform the BTU the most important thing, the fact that the OKB-16 gun's muzzle velocity is 790 m/s, which allows it to penetrate 35-38 mm of armour, unlike the 50-60 mm that OKB-15's gun can penetrate. The reduced muzzle velocity is explained by the fact that the OKB-16's gun has a light and movable barrel. The barrel moves back and eats up velocity of the shell.
  3. Similarly, the members of the Technical Council did not inform the BTU that OKB-15 developed AP-I shells for their gun. It is enough to say that these shells, when loaded into the OKB-15 gun, can penetrate a steel plate up to 100 mm thick.
All of the above points to the fact that the Technical Council members did not fully illustrate the drawbacks of OKB-16's gun and advantages of the OKB-15's gun, which we ask you to consider when making decisions regarding these two systems.

Hero of Socialist Labour, Shpitalniy"
CAMD RF 38-11355-697

Shpitalniy was trying to squeeze out Nudelman's 37 mm gun, but that didn't help him. His design didn't make it into the T-70 at all and only saw limited installation into the Il-2 before being replaced by Nudelman's design.

Repair Issues

$
0
0
"To the Chief of the Technical Directorate of GBTU, Major-General of the Tank Forces, comrade Afonin

Despite exhaustive instructions given to the factory (GBTU Chief Lieutenant-General Vershinin's letter on January 26th, 1944 #520384, your letter on November 20th, 1943 #1142089, a letter from GBTU representative Engineer-Lieutenant-Colonel Markin and my repeated requests) on the issue of repairing KV-1S, T-34, and SU-152 vehicles requiring major repairs and shipment to the army, the factory has done nothing on this issue up to now, and Acting Director comrade Solodukhin has not responded to a single letter.

The factory does not formally refuse to repair tanks, but also does not repair them, blaming a series of issues, mostly lack of personnel, lack of spare parts, and the impossibility of getting any from the Kirov factory (where, according to Engineer-Lieutenant-Colonel Davidenko there are no parts for the KV-1S, T-34, or SU-152 at all).

I ask you to either back all your aforementioned letters with an NKTP decree where a strict timeline of repairs is specified, or give orders to send the tanks to NKO repair bases where they will certainly be repaired faster.

Senior Military Representative at factory #100, Guards Engineer Lieutenant-Colonel Vovk"
CAMD RF 38-11355-2214

Half-size Track Problems

$
0
0
In 1941 (and later in 1943), a curious experiment was undertaken by Soviet track manufacturers, half-size "idle" (without a tooth) tracks for the T-34 and vehicles on its chassis. 
Half-sized track (early)

Half-sized track (late)

Unfortunately, this was not a great experiment.

"To the Director of the Kirov factory, comrade Dlugach
To the Senior Military Representative of GBTU at the Kirov factory, Engineer-Lieutenant-Colonel comrade Kozyrev

I report to you preliminary results on the use of half-width toothless T-34 track links in units of the 1st Tank Army.

According to messages from Engineer-Major comrade Fedoseev, mass track pin breakage is observed when using half-width track links. On 72 T-34 tanks, 900 track pins were replaced over a 110 km march.

The reason for track pins breaking is the unsatisfactory design of the limiter. Instead of sliding along the limiter, the pins smash jam into it and get cut off or slide along other surfaces, which results in rapid wearing of the pin heads. In addition, the pin heads are much smaller than the mass production ones, and wear faster.

I consider it necessary to revisit the design and position of the limiter in order to produce reliable retention of track pins, as well as a redesign of the track pin heads.

Report on measures taken.

Deputy Chief of the GBTU TU, Engineer-Colonel Alymov
Chief of the 6th Department of the GBTU TU, Engineer-Lieutenant-Colonel Kovalev"

A similar letter was sent to Kirov factory's offshoot, factory #100:

"To the director of factory #100, Major-General of the Technical Forces, comrade Kotin
To the GBTU TU military representative at factory #100, comrade Skribdov

I cannot agree with your decision to recommend stamped toothless half-width tracks for the T-34.

A similar design produced at the Kirov factory in combat conditions showed negative results. (After a 110 km match, 900 track pins were replaced on 72 tanks due to pin heads getting cut off).

Replacement of whole tracks with halves can only be done if the quality of the half-width track links is as good or better than mass produced tracks. Trials of the half-width track links must be done according to the program approved by the GBTU TU.

Deputy Chief of the GBTU TU, Engineer-Colonel Alymov
Chief of the 6th Department of the GBTU TU, Engineer-Lieutenant-Colonel Kovalev"

CAMD RF 38-11355-1700

Mythical Tanks

$
0
0
German secret tank projects are a common topic for internet arguments, reshuffling of facts, or outright falsifications. Some of this is done as a joke, some out of ignorance, and some intentionally. Today, let's seriously try to discover which of these phantom German creations are real and which are not.

Waffentrager auf E-100



The most frequently discussed and unusual vehicle in the German World of Tanks tech tree. This vehicle is completely made up by Wargaming. Initially, it was supposed to have dual 128 mm guns, but due to a lack of multiple gun support, it received an AA gun with an autoloader. Soon it will be replaced with a much more realistic project found in the archives. The reason for this replacement is primarily that it's too different from other vehicles in the tank destroyer branch.

GW Tiger (P)


This is the second SPG developed by Wargaming with no historical prototypes. It appeared as a result of lengthening the artillery branch to tier 10. Conceptually, the GW Tiger (P) is a logical predecessor to the GW Tiger, or Grille 17/21. Unlike the Waffentrager auf E-100, there are no plans to remove this vehicle from the game, as it fits into the tech tree perfectly. In addition, no real projects were found to replace it.

E-50 Ausf. M


The vehicle was developed by Wargaming and even patented. Nevertheless, it is not a complete fabrication. The E-50 Ausf. M is a conceptual vision of further development of the E-50 medium tank. The hull and parts of the turret are developed from ides from the original E-50 project. According to documents, a rear transmission was planned. Later, this idea was developed by the French when creating their own medium tank, the AMX M4. The E-50's engine migrated to that project as well.

Jagdpanzer E-100


Unlike the Waffentrager auf E-100, this vehicle was not created by Wargaming. This vehicle was originally called Sturmgeschuetz E-100, but don't let the name fool you: it was designed as a tank destroyer. Blueprint BZ 3364, as well as fragmented information from other sources, laid the foundation for this design. You can read more about this vehicle in a separate article. Despite the fact that no proper blueprints of the vehicle exist, its design is in tune with what Krupp was designing in the summer of 1944.

Jagdpanther II


Some over-eager "specialists" assign the credit for this vehicle to Wargaming. In reality, the vehicle was designed by Krupp engineers. In November of 1944, a project called Panzerjäger Panther mit 12,8 cm L/55 (Pak 80) was being worked on, a Panther-based tank destroyer with a rear fighting compartment. This design allowed the installation of a much more powerful 128 mm Pak 80 gun, the same one as was used in Jagdtigers. Since no changes to the chassis were mentioned in the documents, the in-game model uses the unchanged chassis of the Panther II.

VK 72.01 (K)


Another design attributed not only to Wargaming in general, but to the author of this article in specific. While he is honoured, he must admit that the VK 72.01 was also designed by Krupp. The VK 72.01 index appeared in early 1942. The requirements initially described a mass of 72 tons, but it rapidly grew to 90 tons, the same weight as the VK 70.01 by the end of 1941. A 105 mm or 149 mm gun was chosen as this tank's armament. In the spring of 1942, Krupp engineers began working on a variant of the tank with a rear fighting compartment. The VK 72.01 project changed so often over the pan of several months that claiming that the in-game implementation never existed is a very bold move.

E-90 (Pz.Kpfw. Tiger III S)


This tank is the product of the wild imaginations of internet historians that came about in the late 2000s. According to the creators, the Pz.Kpfw. E-90, or Tiger III S, is a lightened variant of the E-100. This statement bumps into a logical problem: the E-75 was supposed to replace the Tiger II, and the E-100 was supposed to share many components with the Tiger II. Why the Germans needed another heavy tank is something that human logic cannot explain. Nevertheless, this creation managed to break out from the internet and into print.

E-79 Schwartzwolf VK 66.01



10 years before World of Tanks, ASCII Corporation published a game called Panzer Front for the Sony Playstation. Aside from real tanks, it had made up ones like the E-79. World of Tanks developers are often asked when the E-79 will appear in their game. This is an interesting question, but there are enough made up tanks in the game that adding another one makes no sense. Plus, the issue of copyright must still be considered.

E-100 Henschelturm/Adlerturm


This tank was designed by a Chinese plastic model company. According to their design, Henschel developed a turret for the E-100 as an alternative to the stock turret. Internet historians took it one step further, alleging that Adlerwerke designed another turret. Both "engineers" are lousy specialists of German armour history. Henschel never designed tank turrets, that was the job of Krupp. Adler also had nothing to do with turrets, as they were working on the E-100's suspension. In other words, the E-100 Henschelturm and E-100 Adlerturm are fantasies of people who have no knowledge of German tank design.

Sturmgeschuetz 40 T-34


This strange apparatus (top photo) appeared several decades ago in magazines and books dedicated to the StuG III. Allegedly, the casemate of a StuG 40 Ausf. F/8 was installed on a captured T-34 chassis. Particularly eager publishers even provide a coloured projection of the tank. In reality, it is nothing but a photoshop (original photo on the bottom).

Flakpanzer T-34


According to unconfirmed sources, Kampfgruppe Kienast used a captured T-34 converted to use an 88 mm Flak 18 AA gun. A photo of this vehicle is shown as proof. With stunning regularity, this photo comes up on forums along with demands to add this vehicle to World of Tanks. A simple search quickly reveals that this is a photoshop with a captured T-34-85 as the base. There was a real Flak 18 carrying tank, the PzIV, discovered by Americans at a junkyard for German vehicles in the Czech Republic.

Jagdpanzer E-50


This unusual design is the product of French artist Hubert Cance. According to the author, this is was a tank destroyer on the E-50 should look like. In reality, no SPGs were designed on the E-50 chassis, and even the E-50 itself did not move past the concept stage. Consider the fact that Hubert Cance shoved all crew members into the casemate. He managed to do the same with the Jagdpanther II. On factory blueprints of the Panzerjäger Panther mit 12,8 cm L/55 (Pak 80), there are clearly seats for the driver and hull gunner in the hull. The place where Hubert Cance put them is actually occupied by the cooling system.

15 cm Sturmgeschuetz E-75


Not too long ago, Trucks & Tanks magazine published this monstrous design by Hubert Cance. It was based on rumours of an SPG allegedly developed on the E-75 chassis with a 149 mm L/52 gun. There is some information on this SPG in literature, but it is a mistake. The gun was indeed planned, at least on paper, but for the VK 70.01 in early 1942. Judging by the documents, the plan was for a tank, and not an SPG. As for this reconstruction, its realism is rather dubious. The load on the front road wheels would be absolutely horrible.

Sturmgeschuetz Maus


This project has a basis in reality, but Hubert Cance failed us yet again. It is completely unclear where the engine goes in this design, or the generator, or any other components. A rear fighting compartment would have been much more logical.

Kampfwagenvernichter Ausf. F (E-100) Krokodil


Another one of Hubert Cance's creations, published in 2007 in the Battailes & Blindes magazine. The concept of a tank destroyer on the E-100 chassis was taken as the basis. The author applied his creativity and came up with a design inspired by the Jagdpanther. He clearly did not think about the load on the front wheels. In reality, this design would have been impossible, as the front wheels and suspension elements would break down constantly. Nevertheless, the "Crocodile" gained popularity, and is frequently requested in World of Tanks.

Kampfwagenvernichter E-90


An evolution of the E-100 Krokodil by internet "historians". This is a Krokodil on the chassis of the fictional E-90 tank. This design has the same flaws as the original, except this time, even its suspension has nothing in common with reality.

Geschuetzwagen E-100


Lastly, let's talk about a completely made up SPG from World of Tanks was was not made up by Wargaming. In late 2000s, a scale model builder made a Geschuetzwagen E-100. Despite the fact that the vehicle was completely fictional, the design was very convincing. It is very similar to the Grille 17/21 and logically takes the top place on the German SPG branch. Removal or replacement is not planned.


Mauschen: Rat Race

$
0
0
The history of the Pz.Kpfw. Maus is still full of blank spots, despite the popularity of the subject. The beginning of the tank's development from March of 1942 to 1943 is the least studied area. During this time, the project indexed Typ 205 radically changed. Essentially, the only constants were the index and the idea of using an electric transmission. Thanks to new publications and archive research, it is now possible to remove the veil of mystery from many parts of the project.

100 Ton Mouse

After the fall of France in 1940, German designers got access to French developments, including full scale models of superheavy tanks, the FCM F1 and ARL Tracteur C. Compared to these tanks, the German VK 65.01 (Pz.Kpfw. VII) that started development in January of 1939 seemed obsolete. It's possible that this discovery led to the cancellation of the mild steel prototype.

Under the same index, a new, more powerful tank was designed. It seems that this is the tank mentioned in the intelligence report sent to the Red Army General Staff, dated March 11th, 1941. This report triggered work on the KV-3, KV-4, KV-5, A-44, and made serious ripples in other directions. The 90 ton mass fits in with later information about the vehicle known as VK 70.01. It really had a 105 mm gun and the mass was limited to 90 tons (the current limit of German railroad platforms).

Another confirmation that the VK 70.01 started its life before the fall of 1941 is the correspondence with Krupp regarding a new, even more powerful, 149 mm gun, which started no later than April. This same gun, with a length of 40 calibers, pops up again in November of 1941. The "heavy tank type VII" turned out to not be disinformation, fed to Soviet intelligence.

The vehicle that Soviet intelligence discovered wasn't anything like the commonly known VK 70.01. The hull and turret with sloped armour appeared only in late 1941, after the Germans ran into Soviet T-34s. Despite the index suggesting the vehicle was in the 70 ton class, the mass of the vehicle varied from 70 to 90 tons.

The same thing happened to the armament. The "canonical" version of the VK 70.01 is dated late January of 1942, and by early March, the project splintered. The VK 72.01 appeared, with either a 105 mm L/70 gun or 150 mm L/35 gun.

At the same time, Krupp received an order for another vehicle in the 100 ton class "no later than Spring of 1943". This splintering was very arbitrary, as this vehicle was later named Pz.Kpfw. VII (Lowe). In April, its mass returned to 90 tons, and in May, the 15 cm KwK L/40 became the main weapon of this new tank. Krupp was also designing an alternative with a rear turret. Judging by further developments, 90 tons was not enough, and the 100 ton limit was crossed in June of 1942. However, in March, a dangerous opponent for the "Lion" appeared. Here is its story.

In September of 1939, the tank commission (Panzerkomission) was created, which acted independently of the 6th Waffenamt. It was headed by Ferdinand Porsche. A conglomerate headed by Porsche K.G. was in charge of conceptual design. The conglomerate also included Steyr-Daimler-Puch, Friedrich Krupp AG, Siemens-Schuckert AG, Skoda, and Nibelungenwerk, which were responsible for the engine, hull, electronics, suspension, and assembly, respectively. On March 22nd, 1942, this conglomerate was tasked with development of another 100 ton tank. This project was indexed VK 100.01.

The first mention of the VK 100.01 in Krupp's correspondence. The same letter mentions a 128 mm L/50 gun.

According to preliminary classification, the 100 ton class tank would have a 15 cm KwK L/40 gun with a capacity for at least 100 rounds. A part of the ammunition would be stored in the rear of the turret. Initially, the rounds would have been two piece, but a sketch of a one piece round was attached to a letter regarding the turret, dated April 18th, 1942. The overall length of the round was 1.6 meters, and it weighed 57.4 kg, 34 of which were for the shell. This was the lightened variant: initially, the 15 cm K18 round was used, which weighed 43 kg. The muzzle velocity of this shell was 875 m/s, and the rate of fire was an optimistic 4-5 RPM. As an alternative, the 12.8 cm KwK L/50 was proposed, with a 29.3 kg shell and 810 m/s of muzzle velocity. The design of the VK 100.01 was to be done by May 15th.

The first ever mention of the name "Maus" in documentation, dated May 18th, 1942. The gun was also changed on this day, shortened by 3 calibers.

Questionable Innovation

Some changes were made to the tank design. First, the length of the gun was reduced to 37 calibers, dropping the muzzle velocity to 750 m/s. The length of the one-piece round decreased to 1530 mm, while the mass increased to 69 kg due to returning to the K18 shell. Second, the length of the 128 mm gun was deemed insufficient by Hitler, who personally supervised the project. He wanted an L/60 or L/70 gun. Finally, in a meeting on May 13th, Hitler proposed that even the 100 ton limit might not be enough, raising the bar to 120 tons. Hitler tried to accelerate the work on this superheavy tank with all his efforts. According to German intelligence, new Soviet heavy tanks would be ready by spring of 1943.

The change of name also happened around this time. The myth that the tank was initially called Mammut (Mammoth) is connected with this change. The date of this name's appearance was allegedly May 21st, 1942. Documents found in Bundesarchiv dispel this misinformation. By May 18th, the tank was already called Maus, and since summer of 1942, it was called "Mauschen" (little mouse) at least once.

As for the Mammut, this designation does appear elsewhere: in British intelligence reports, dated January 29th, 1945. This information was received from German POWs. Allegedly, two tanks were built under this name. Other tanks "discovered" in such a way include the exotic Adolf Hitler Panzer with two 88 mm guns (one in the turret and one in the hull). In other words, the name Mammut has no relevance to reality.

This is how the Typ 205 was initially: 120 tons, 16 cylinder air cooled diesel, 149 mm L/37 gun

On June 4th, 1942, Porsche K.G. presented Hitler with a draft numbered K.3381. This blueprint, labelled "heavy tank project" contained Porsche's vision for a competitor to the Pz.Kpfw. Lowe. The tank's mass was about 120 tons. The overall view of the tank was defined by a strict railroad transport limit and Porsche's refusal to use transport tracks. The turret was designed by Krupp, which also had a characteristic effect on the tank's looks.

The superheavy tank from Porsche K.G. was similar to the Pz.Kpfw. Lowe. Unlike later redesigns, this was a classically laid out vehicle with a turret in the center of the hull. The length of the hull was slightly longer than the Pz.Kpfw. Lowe in May of 1942 (8331 mm vs 7740 mm), but the overall length was less (10,620 mm vs 10,760 mm). The tank's height was 3.3 meters and width was 3.45 meters.

Seeing this tank, Hitler agreed that it could serve as a "mobile fortress". This was not only because of the tank's size. Porsche K.G. developed a new 16 cylinder V-shaped engine for the new tank. With this engine, the vehicle's maximum speed was rated at 20 kph. The engine was connected to a generator, which transferred the energy to electric motors in the rear of the hull.

Due to the tank's weight, it received a massive suspension. It used two-wheel bogies with a torsion bar suspension from the Typ 101 (VK 45.01), which were attached to the spaced armour and hull sides. Each side would have 6 bogies. It must be said that servicing this arrangement would have been difficult. This dual layer design was made necessary by the fact that the tracks were about a meter wide. As a result, the compartment where the driver and radio operator were placed was very narrow. Porsche's engineers spread the tank's hatches very widely, so climbing into the tank or getting out was not a simple task.

Reconstruction of the overall view of the VK 100.01, June 4th, 1942

Of the tank's 120 tons, 23 were used up in the turret. It had many elements of the Pz.Kpfw. Lowe, down to the gun mantlet that almost perfectly repeated the contours of its lighter competitor. The turret had a 149 mm L/37 gun with a massive muzzle brake. 30 one-piece rounds were stored in the turret. Another 36 were going to be stored in the hull. The question of there they would have gone is an interesting one indeed.

105 mm L/67 gun, proposed by Krupp as a alternative weapon for the Pz.Kpfw. Maus in June of 1942.

Upon seeing the project, Hitler agreed with the general idea, but proposed that Porsche think about thicker armour and protection from enemy infantry. The project had no machinegun. Porsche's engineers thought for a while and came up with draft K.3382 on June 17th, 1942. The name Maus can be seen on this blueprint. On July 23rd, Hitler rejected the idea of infantry protection, suggesting that the tank should be accompanied by separate tanks with short 75 mm guns for support.

This is not surprising, as the new tank resembled a pagoda. Krupp's engineers placed another smaller turret on top of the main one, equipping it with a 75 mm L/24 gun from the PzIV. As a result, the tank grew to almost 4 meters in height. A 105 mm L/70 gun was offered as alternative armament. Hitler preferred it, since it had a higher rate of fire.

Blueprint K.3382, made on June 17th, 1942, in response to Hitler's suggestion to increase the armour thickness and install a gun to protect against enemy infantry.

Hitler approved Porsche's concept, but even the thicker armour did not satisfy him. He wanted more armour, which led to more mass, which led to a complete redesign of the tank. Pz.Kpfw. Lowe couldn't compete and was cancelled on July 20th, 1942.

This is the Song That Never Ends

On June 25th, 1942, Krupp supplied the first draft of a completely reworked turret. Almost a month later, on July 17th, the 6th Waffenamt and Krupp signed contract #SS 006-4467/42 for the development of a turret for the Pz.Kpfw. Maus. The 128 and 105 mm guns were left out, and the designers settled on a 149 mm gun. The length of the barrel was reduced to 31 calibers, which was about the same as the sFH 18 gun family. The gun, indexed 15 cm KwK L/31, had one piece ammunition.

Nevertheless, the 15 cm L/31 gun remained in correspondence until March of 1943. A coaxial 75 mm L/24 gun was meant to fight infantry and lightly armoured targets. The armour thickness of the turret was 250 mm in the front, 200 in the sides and rear, and 80 mm in the roof. Overall, the turret weighed 57 tons, including the weight of 25 149 mm shells and 50 75 mm shells.

Even though the turret was designed for the 15 cm KwK L/31, the Porsche K.G. project supported the guns proposed in June requirements: the 15 cm KwK L/37 or 12.8 cm KwK. Both guns had a portion of their ammunition in the turret and a portion in the sponsons. None of the guns had the 100 rounds that Hitler demanded. By October of 1942, the mass of the turret and armament was estimated at 47 tons.

The redesigned Pz.Kpfw. Maus was presented by Porsche on October 5th, 1942. By October 28th, blueprint K.3384 was ready. The mass of the tank increased only a little bit compared to the late June version, a mere 10 tons. The tank, however, changed beyond all recognition. The new turret had a larger turret ring, so the sloped sides had to go. The hull resembled a box with a sloped rear and front. There was a new feature, a machinegun mount in the hull. Due to the longer and heavier hull, there were now 8 road wheels per side. For ease of service, instead of one wide track, there were now two narrower ones, like on the VK 40.01(P). 

Blueprint K.3384, October 5th, 1942. The Pz.Kpfw. Maus changed beyond recognition.


The project was proposed in two variants. The first, indexed Typ 205A, had a 12 cylinder V-type water cooled 42.4 L Daimler-Benz diesel engine, which produced 1000 hp at 2400 RPM. The second, Typ 205B, had a Typ 141 engine developed by Porsche K.G. This was an 18 cylinder air cooled 41.5 L diesel engine that produced 780 hp at 2400 RPM.

A decision was made to keep it safe and develop both projects in case one engine doesn't work out. In November, the main candidate for installation became the Daimler-Benz 603 aircraft engine. Its power output could be increased to 1500 hp with a compressor.

A wooden model of a turret. Note the somewhat different observation device design.

This increase in power was mandated by the fact that the tank's armour kept growing and it now weighed almost 170 tons. Understanding that this kind of weight will cause trouble, Porsche allowed the turret armour to be decreased by 10%. Thanks to this, the mass of the turret dropped to 43 tons. In early November of 1942, the tank was reworked again. By November 14th, blueprint K.3385 was ready, where the turret moved to the rear of the hull. Similar metamorphoses happened to the Porsche Typ 180 heavy tank (VK 45.01(P)).

This is what the tank looked like in mid-November, 1942.

From December 1st to 3rd, 1942, the redesigned tank was examined by a commission headed by Hitler. The vehicle was finally approved, with a ton of conditions regarding the armament and other features. The 128 mm gun resurfaced. The approval of the Pz.Kpfw. Maus meant the end of the competing Tiger-Maus project developed by Krupp. Work on that vehicle was stopped on December 15th. As for the Maus, its next reincarnation came on January 1st, 1943 (blueprint K.3387). The turret was simplified, the commander's cupola was changed and shifted back. The loader's hatch was removed. The coaxial 75 mm gun was lengthened (later this gun was indexed 7.5 cm KwK 44 L/36). The hull also changed, but negligibly.

Reconstruction of the Pz.Kpfw. Maus as of January 1st, 1943 (blueprint K.3387). These were the last radical changes, and from here on out the tank changed a lot less.

The project changed once again only a week later. By spring of 1943, numerous changes were made. Nevertheless, a tank was built according to K.3387, and it even moved. Of course, this is a 1:5 scale remote controlled model, which was demonstrated to Hitler on May 14th. At the same time, a 1:1 model was shown. This was another tank a much heavier one, very similar to the one that was eventually built in metal.

Demonstration of the Maus tank model to Hitler, "Wolf's Lair" headquarters, May 14th, 1943

The Lend Lease Act

Secondary Armament Boost

$
0
0
"Conclusions on the design project for a breech-loaded mortar and grenade launcher installed in T-34 and KV-1S tanks, as designed by the factory #455 design bureau

The mortar and grenade launcher proposed to GBTU USA are analogous in their design.

The main difference between these two devices are the caliber of the barrel and a lack of stoppers in the grenade launcher.

The grenade launcher's caliber is 57 mm.
The mortar's caliber is 52 mm.

The role of the stoppers in the grenade launcher is performed by a metallic plate that prevents the propellant charge from falling out. The metallic plate is screwed into the rear part of a wooden plank.

The mortar is simple to use and produce. Compared to the English design, it has many significant technical advantages, mostly a smaller amount of required parts and a simpler loading process.

The ballistic characteristics of the mortar (300-400 meters range for mortar shells, 200 m for grenades) is unacceptable. The mortar is designed for the 50 mm infantry company mortar round, which offers no advantage as that mortar has been removed from production.

The project proposes the installation of the mortar in the front of T-34 and KV-1S hulls instead of the DT machinegun. This solution, for obvious reasons, decreases the firepower of the tank instead of increasing it.

The mortar mount has several design flaws, which can be summarized as the following:
  1. No mantlet has been designed for the mortar mount. The barrel of the mortar is also not armoured.
  2. The mortar is easy to aim vertically and horizontally, but has no means of fixing its position. There is also no travel lock mechanism.
  3. Putting the mount outside of the tank increases the area of weakened armour.
Conclusions: the installation of a mortar in T-34 and KV-1S tanks instead of a DT machinegun as proposed by the factory #455 design bureau is not reasonable, as neither the mortar nor grenade launcher can adequately fight enemy personnel.

Chief of the 3rd USA GBTU Department, Engineer-Lieutenant-Colonel Kovalev
Senior Assistant of the 3rd USA GBTU Department Chief, Engineer-Major Vasilevskiy"

One Armed Driver

$
0
0
"Award Order
  1. Name: Khomenko, Ignat Stepanovich
  2. Rank: Senior Sergeant
  3. Position, unit: SU-122 mechanic-driver, 1817th SPG Regiment
    is nominated for the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.
  4. Year of birth: 1914
  5. Nationality: Ukrainian
  6. Party affiliation: VKP(b) candidate
  7. Participation in the Civil War and in subsequent action in defense of the USSR, Patriotic War (where, when): in the Patriotic War since August 1943
  8. Wounds and concussions in the Patriotic War: deceased
  9. In the Red Army since: 1941
  10. Recruited by: Komsomolsk recruitment office, Komsomolsk-on-Amur
  11. Prior awards: Order of the Red Star
Brief and specific description of personal heroism or achievements: A master of driving tanks and SPGs, Senior Sergeant I.S. Khomenko showed fearlessness, courage, bravery, heroism, and patriotism for his socialist Motherland and his people in battle for Gerasimovka and Russkaya Polyana.

On the night of November 16th to November 17th, he burst into the positions of fascists from SS Viking. division carrying infantry riders. With fire and tracks, he remorselessly destroyed any fascists that did not escape.

On the night of November 20th, 1943, he moved out at a breakneck pace and was the first to reach the Cherkassy railroad station with his submachinegunner riders at 8:00. In 20-25 minutes, the tracks of his menacing fighting machine were already on Cherkassy streets, remorselessly crushing fascists and their weapons.

An enemy shell tore off his right hand. Comrade Khomenko overcame his pain and refused to let go of his levers. With the last of his strength, using only his left hand, he drove on, crushing enemy vehicles and weapons. Without letting go of his controls, he met the death of brave men on the streets of Cherkassy.

His heroic deeds in the name of his Motherland make him worthy of the title of Hero of the Soviet Union."

CAMD RF 33-793756-51

World of Tanks History Section: Tiger Armageddon at Lisow

$
0
0
By noon of the first day of the Sandomierz-Silesian Offensive Operation, Soviet infantry penetrated the first line of German defenses and hit the second. Quickly realizing the situation, Marshall Konev, the commander of the 1st Ukrainian Front, played the ace up his sleeve: several hundred tanks and SPGs. Thanks to them, Soviet forces were ready to assault the second line by the second half of January 12th, 1945.

Seeing the threat of a breakthrough, the Germans decided to deliver a powerful counterattack with General W. Nehring's 24th Tank Corps on January 13th. Success would allow them to encircle a portion of the Soviet forces and bog down D. Lelyushenko's 4th Guards Tank Army in drawn-out battles. Documents of the 4th GTA called it the Battle of Kielce-Chmielnik. The engagement at the small Polish village of Lisow marked the beginning of the end of this battle.

Flexing Muscles

Nehring's corps was not just a weighty tank fist with 250 tanks and SPGs. His fist had brass knuckles: the 424th Heavy Tank Battalion, including 29 Tigers and 23 King Tigers. The corps commander planned two converging strikes: from Chmielnik from the south and Kielce from the north. On paper, Lelyushenko had a triple advantage, but his 750 tanks and SPGs were spread out across the front of the offensive, so Soviet tankers had it tough.

The Germans did not manage to coordinate the offensive to hit with all forces at once. Nevertheless, Lelyushenko's army engaged German tank reserves across the entire front on January 13th. The fiercest fighting was done by the 10th Guards Tank Corps. German infantry and tanks attacked it from three sides: south, north, and center. The corps commander, Colonel N. Chuprov, had to apply all his skills to not only defeat the enemy, but continue his offensive.

The 10th Corps was the one to fight Nehring's tanks at Lisow. The battle here was not only the most difficult, but the most successful. Everything began with a Soviet advance guard running into a German attack near Maleszowa. Knocking out 10 German tanks at the cost of 7 of their own, our tankers took the village and defeated the German forces that were present in it. The enemies around the village were left behind, and the tanks continued to advance to Kielce. The 61st Guards Tank Brigade that followed them met fierce enemy resistance.

The brigade commander, Guards Colonel N. Zhukov left 20 tanks at Maleszowa as cover and moved out with the rest of the tanks westward. In the morning, brigade scouts captured an informant who revealed that 60 German tanks were making their way to the village. With this information, Zhukov decided to turn his tanks to the north-west and take Lisow. 40 T-34-85s with tank riders rushed towards the settlement.

Tigers in the Mud

At about 9:00 on January 13th, Soviet tanks reached Lisow. Their arrival was an unpleasant surprise for the Germans. Without offering any resistance, the enemy began to flee. The tank belonging to platoon commander Guards Lieutenant M. Pobedinskiy was the first to enter the village. His tank riders opened fire at the fleeing Germans straight from the tank. Soon, Lisow was captured. Tankers of the 61st brigade won many trophies: abandoned cars and warehouses with munitions. In addition, two anti-tank guns and 40 Germans were captured, among which was the commander of the artillery regiment of the 168th Infantry Division.

Despite success in Lisow, the 61st brigade could not continue its advance. Just the opposite: they were forced to spend the whole day in the village defending. Here, Zhukov's troops carried out the most difficult task of the day, deflecting a total of 12 attacks of German heavy tanks with infantry support. The Germans attacked Lisow from three directions. 27 Tigers and 23 King Tigers attacked from the south and west, while 13 Panthers from the 16th Tank Division attacked from the north.

The Soviets held the village for less than an hour before the first attack began. The Germans sent in up to battalion of infantry (400-500 men) with 20 Tigers. However, not all tanks made it to the attack. One collapsed a bridge on approach to the village, and then a few more became bogged down trying to get around. The remaining Tigers continued moving, aiming to reach the south outskirts of Lisow.

Soviet tanks hid behind houses and waited for the enemy to draw closer. At 150 meters to the Tigers, the T-34s opened their deadly fire, immediately knocking out 4 German tanks, followed by a few more. Tanks that could still move were forced to stop their offensive and retreat. During the retreat, Tiger #332 attempted to tow one of its comrades that was stuck south of the village, but also broke down, and had to be blown up. As for the other bogged down tanks, some had to be abandoned or blown up due to being impossible to retrieve.

Fragment of the diagram of the battle.
Maleszowa, 23:30, January 12th: up to 15 enemy tanks with infantry.
Lisow, 9:00, January 13th: 2nd and 3rd company of the 61st TBr. 2 companies of motorized infantry. The enemy had 60 tanks, 30 APCs, regiment of infantry. North arrow: 10 tanks.

Slaughter at Lisow

After one failure, the Germans caught their breath and decided to redouble their efforts. This time, 30 Tigers attacked, half of them King Tigers. The enemy attack was supported by 10-barrel rocket launchers. Even this time, the Soviet tankers held, although with losses.

In the second half of the day, Lisow was attacked by 13 Panthers coming from the north with a battalion of infantry. The battle grew fiercer by the minute, German tanks and soldiers clawed their way into Lisow from every direction. They were met with fire from Soviet cannons and submachineguns. The enemy rolled back and attacked again, and so on until nightfall.

Despite the German numerical advantage at Lisow, they were unable to achieve victory. T-34-85s constantly maneuvered in between houses and kept on their fire, often at close range. Senior Lieutenant M. Verteletskiy's tank company performed exceptionally well. His 10 T-34s maneuvered behind buildings and terrain, destroying six Tigers and King Tigers with negligible losses. Verteletskiy himself was wounded during a German attack, but did not leave the battlefield until the end, earning an Order of the Red Banner.

While fighting King Tigers at Lisow, Soviet tankers confused them for Panthers due to a similar silhouette. Of course, knocking out a King Tiger is harder. On the south outskirts of the village, both tracks had to be knocked off one of them to stop it completely. Nevertheless, the German crew commanded by Lieutenant Oberbracht continued to fight and even knocked out several T-34s. The crew was forced to leave, and their tank joined the list of German losses.

During one particularly fierce attack, Colonel N. Zhukov died in the fighting. There was no other choice: every tank at Lisow was precious, and the brigade commander could not avoid using his own. A shell that hit his T-34 detonated its ammunition. Some time later, Guards Lieutenant-Colonel V. Zaitsev took command of the 61st brigade. The commander of the German 424nd Heavy Tank Battalion, Major Saemisch also met his end in Lisow during one of the attacks.

The Germans continued their attacks until about 8:00 pm on January 13th, leaving 7 Tigers, 5 King Tigers, and 5 Panthers around the village. Several more damaged tanks were evacuated. The 61st Guards Tank Brigade lost 4 tanks permanently and 19 disabled. Many of those tanks were back in action by the morning of January 14th.

The German failure at Lisow had many consequences. The enemy could not stop or bog down the 4th GTA. Colonel Chuporov's 10th Corps pulled up its forces and continued the attack. The German 17th Tank Divison was defeated by the corps and P. Rybalko's 3rd Guards Tank Army on January 13th and 14th near Chmielnik. Nothing was left of the 424th Heavy Tank Battalion but the name. Two days after Lisow, its Tigers ran out, and any odd vehicles were collected from repair bases to replace them.

Soon, the German defenses in front of the Sandomierz foothold collapsed, and Marshall Konev's forces began pursuing their fleeing enemy.

Original article available here.

In one of my favourite examples of why German kill claims have very little in common with reality, the Germans claimed to have destroyed 50-60 IS tanks in this battle instead of the actual 23 T-34s (or only 4, if you want to go by German loss standards). 
Viewing all 1900 articles
Browse latest View live


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