Second Spanish Republic (1936-1937)
Improvised Armored Car/APC – ~10 Built
Barcelona’s Boiler Truck
The Constructora Field (sometimes known as the “Barcelona” or even “Camion Blindado 4×2 No.8”, they are all unofficial names) was a series of armored cars from the early Spanish Civil War. With its streamlined design made from boiler plate, and its iconic lettering placed on the front of the vehicle, it truly is unmistakable. A series of around ten was made at the Constructora Field factory in Barcelona. Constructora Field No.1 Armored Car in Barcelona, San Jaime’s Square, just outside the town hall. This photograph was taken a day after it was presented to the press.
Armored trucks in Spain were not made exclusively during the Spanish Civil War. In fact, small batches were produced in Spain and Morocco in the 1920s for convoy duties. However, with the unstable political climate in Spain in the early 1930s, they were produced in greater numbers. When the Civil War broke out in July 1936, at least 400 were produced for Republican militias, with 159 in Catalonia alone, 1936-1937.
Design
The exact truck used for the Constructora Field is unknown. It seems likely that various trucks were used, one of which might have been a Chevrolet SB M1936, and other government issue lorries. It appears as though it was mostly made of four, large, boiler plates, which were all welded together (although there may have been some minor riveting). Holding the superstructure together was likely a wooden framework. Entry was given through the rear, including for the driver, as there were no side doors. They also appear to have all been given large naval-type ventilation pipes which were fitted close to the front of the vehicle.
The prototype Constructora Field was completed on 29th August 1936 and, on the same day, it was presented to the press. The following day, it was presented to locals, with FAI painted on the front. There to greet it was Lluís Companys, the President of Catalonia. The main differences between this prototype and ‘serial production vehicles’ are the rear facing crew ventilation tubes and the lack of the turret. This particular vehicle reportedly saw service with the Columna Ford, made up of members of the UGT and CNT-FAI, possibly on the Aragonese front. It featured nine portholes and could carry eight soldiers, plus a driver. It weighed an estimated 5000 kg and was powered by a Chevrolet 6-cylinder engine. Workers with the Constructora Field No.1 Armored Car, 29th August 1936, at the Constructora Field factory.
The series remained in production for about a year, with the final of this series made in August 1937, but the exact number built is unknown. Some sources mention only four being built, but perhaps mean four types of the vehicle. It is known that, at very least, nine were built, because each one was numbered (and photos of No.9 exist). The largest figure stated by sources is 12. However, plenty of other improvised vehicles were made in Barcelona, which might have been mistaken for another Constructora Field.
There were various types of the Constructora Field, and at least four are mentioned by sources – however their exact difference are not explicit. There is also a lack of photos of distinct models – in fact, only photos of No. 1, 2, 9, and another unknown knocked out Constructora Field are readily available to view (although many photos may exist in private collections).
It seems as though all types (with the exception of the prototype) featured a large, cylindrical turret, usually armed with a Vickers machine gun. These turrets were not exactly standardized – some were tall and some were short. The exact shape of the hull and number of boiler plates used appeared to vary, also, giving very slightly different rear hull shapes, as photographs reveal. Another variable feature is the tire protection – it seems that some had metal plates covering at least the front set, but others had metal chains around the skirt of the vehicle. Their protective qualities are dubious at best. Constructora Field of the CNT-FAI. This one featured a short machine gun turret, and tires protected by steel plates.
The protective quality of the armor is also dubious. It was probably ~8 mm (0.31 in) thick, but it was only boiler plate, not armor plate. That being the case, it is possible that anything the slightest bit larger in caliber than rifles would penetrate the vehicle. However, the armor was curved, which was a clear consideration in its construction, meaning that it would be more reliable than the flat constructed improvised armored cars, because bullets would have a chance of ricocheting.
Another problem with the armor was that there is no immediately apparent way of accessing the engine. Whilst there is a small hatch at the front, this would not provide access for major repairs. According to photos, there are small plates on either side of the hull which might give access to the engine. It is suggested that perhaps the top armor plate could lift up, but this seems dubious. Also, another major consideration regarding the engine is overheating. The chassis, especially with turreted versions, would be heavily stressed, and during hot summers, the engine would inevitably overheat. The armor would certainly insulate the engine, meaning that a breakdown and cooling period could last a very long time. Like most other gun trucks, due to their high ground pressure, they could also not be used off-road.
Other types?
Stranger types might exist, too, with concave armor, as opposed to the more commonly seen convex type. Their turrets are much different in construction to the ones seen on others, too. Whilst they might be a different vehicle all together, their plaques on the front fender appear similar in design to the Constructora Field’s, although the words appear to be different. They may be a different, but similar vehicle series made in Barcelona.
Sources
“Carros de Combatante y Vehículos Blindados de la Guerra 1936-1939” by F.C. Albert “Las Armas de la Guerra Civil: El Primer Estudio Global y Sistematico del Armamento Empleado por Ambos Contendientes” by José María Manrique García and Lucas Molina Franco “Spanish Civil War Tanks: The Proving Ground for Blitzkrieg” by Steven J. Zaloga Modellingmadness.com Mundogsm.com (1st thread, Spanish) Mundogsm.com (2nd thread, Spanish)
Unknown camouflaged Constructora Field of the CNT-FAI.
The Constructora Field No.9 later captured by Nationalists.
Knocked out Constructora Field No. 2 Armoured Car of the Columna Ascaso, probably on the Aragonese front. This vehicle was captured by the Nationalists. More photos. Constructora Field “No.9”, Caspe, March, 1938. Slogan “[Spanish]: Tereul will be the grave! [Catalan]: Long live freedom of the people”. This one features metal chains to protect the tires and undercarriage. Other side of Constructora Field No. 9 at the “Exposicion de material de guerra tomado al enemigo” in San Sebastian, 1938. Slogan: “[Catalan]: Down with Fascism! [Spanish]: They will not pass!” The front part of the hull appears to be held up by a trolley jack, as it is missing its front wheels (and possibly the entire front axle). Possibly a late type Constructora Fields next to other unknown improvised vehicles. The iconic lettering plaques on the front of the fenders indicate that these are possibly Constructora Fields, even though they appear to be a different type of vehicle with their convex armor, and differently shaped turrets. Another possible late type Constructora Field. It features many common features with its predecessors, such as the pistol ports, chains to protect the tires, hinged armor skirts around the tires, and this turret is slightly similar to earlier types. Constructora Field “No.1” in Barcelona. San Jaime’s Square, just outside the town hall.
The “T-55/130” is the unofficial name given to a very mysterious SPG that was photographed in Diyala, Iraq, 2007. According to a series of photos, it is simply a 130mm Type 59-1 field gun mounted on a T-55 chassis. However, the exact date of its construction, its location (then and present day), and its history are unclear. There appears to be only one that has been photographed, which may be the sole T-55/130. A likely story has been pieced together using clues such as unit markings – those of MEK (Mojahedin-e-Khalq / People’s Mujahiden of Iran), giving some insight as to its origin.
Design
The exact model of the gun is unclear – however, it appears to be a 130mm Type 59-1. Some sources have also suggested that it is a 130mm M-46, or a 122mm D-74, but this does not appear to be the case. The muzzle of the gun is, unfortunately, covered up, which is one of the best clues as to identifying the gun. However, the following can be deduced:
1. The gun is not a Soviet-built 130mm M-46, as the M-46 has only a single cylinder recuperator above the barrel. Many sources mistakenly believe that the M-46 and Type 59-1 guns are the same, but in actual fact, these are very distinctly different guns.
2. Whilst the wavy-topped gunshield appears typical of a 122mm D-74, these guns were not exported to Iraq. Some were sent to Iran, and it is possible that some were captured by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. However, the gun is almost certainly 130mm, not 122mm. The breech block is stamped “130 Gun”, and this is likely a warning to troops not to load 122mm shells. Also, the 122mm D-74 looks very similar to the 130mm Type 59-1, except for the muzzle brake, and according to photos (see comparative photos below), a slightly shorter and narrower barrel (finding exact measurements has been near impossible). Therefore, the gun is not a Soviet-built 122mm D-74.
It is also unlikely that this gun is a local production copy/conversion of a D-74, which has been built to 130mm, especially given the time frame of the vehicle’s existence (circa 1988), as local conversion and production of high caliber guns only took place in the early/the mid 1990s. For example, according to “Military Industry and Regional Defense Policy: India, Iraq, and Israel” by Timothy D. Hoyt, Iraq was actually producing the 122mm D-30 under license from Yugoslavia, although this was not until after 1990, and Iraqmilitary.org user “Hawkeye” remarks that these were made between 1994 and 1996, costing barely $300 (USD) each.
3. The gun must, therefore, be a Chinese Type 59-1 (or a similar North Korean copy) – and all of the details of the gun support this. The Type 59-1 was a copy of the Soviet 130mm M-46 with a new double baffle muzzle break combined with a new gun carriage based on the 152mm Type 66’s carriage. The end result looks incredibly similar to the 122mm D-74, save for the muzzle brake and slightly longer and thicker barrel. It seems as though it has a rare type of gunshield which is rarely seen on Type 59-1s.
According to one source, due to the apparent crude construction of the gun, it may, in fact, be a North Korean built Type 59-1. This would mean that this particular gun was captured from Iran, as North Korea is not known to have sold arms to Iraq directly, due to North Korea severing relations with Iraq at the outbreak of the war; although it is suggested in a CIA intelligence report from the 1990s that North Korea may have sold arms to Iraq via a third party. Information and photos suitable for comparison of locally produced North Korean guns are, inevitably, hard to find, and therefore no further conclusion can be made.
The gunshield has also had a piece sawed off so that the gun can be offset to one side, thus keeping the driver’s hatch clear of any gun mechanisms, as can be seen in the below photo. A new gun turning and stabilization mechanism has been added, to allow the gun to be mounted properly. The rod just in front of this mechanism appears support rod to keep the gun in place whilst driving. Superstructure close up. The gun shield does not appear to be a common Type 59-1 gun shield, but it has been seen on some examples. The gun shield is also clearly modified to be offset to one side – the left side has had a piece taken from it. Behind left is a T-55.
Whilst Iraq had T-54s, T-55s, and Type 59s, the chassis is most likely a Polish T-55 LD. By analyzing the road wheels, the first road wheel has a larger hub than the rest – a key indicator of a T-55 or a rebuilt T-54 to the T-55 standard. Further evidence to suggest that it is a T-55 LD are the ‘anti-slap’ brackets under the fenders and tubing on the back of the rear deck.
The rest of the design appears fairly crude. The superstructure is most likely for protection against small arms fire – although how effective it would be against a machine gun, especially at a close range, is dubious. According to interior photos, the roof is very crudely welded or riveted together from many plates, although the superstructure does appear to be fairly thick. The roof appears to feature a hatch, probably for an artillery observation device. On the inside, the turret ring is open, with an ammunition stowage rack for an estimated 12 rounds (based on a photograph). On the rear mudguards, a pair of ladders can be seen. They are probably not feet, as they appear rather flimsy.
Known History
According to Armorama user “dhasset“, who was stationed in Iraq in 2007, the tank was found in a tank graveyard at near his Forward Operating Base at Diyala river valley. He took a series of roughly 16 photos of the tank and others in the same graveyard – This might be the Abu Sayda vehicle graveyard, but it is unclear whether or not this is the case. Side rearview.The small ladder-like structures on the mudguards are probably not feet, due to their flimsy design.
The likely story
In “Unheeded Warnings: The Lost Reports of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Volume 2″, there is a short section which discusses Iraq’s use of artillery and field guns. Since 1988, the Iraqis had increased the quality and quantity of its missile and artillery forces via local production. Field guns and rockets were locally mobilized onto the T-54/T-55 chassis, including the M1943 160mm mortar, 4x 120mm MT-LB, 120mm D-30, 130mm M-46 or Type 59-1, and locally converted 155mm M-46s.
This was being done in response to lessons learned during the Iran-Iraq War, and due to Iraq’s preferred use of artillery – denial of enemy activity by fire. According to Iraqmilitary.org user “Hawkeye”, during the Iran-Iraq War, there was a need for SPGs with off-road capabilities, as a result of the lack of paved roads. Iran was sold an unknown number of M1978 Koksans (based on the Type 59 chassis), and therefore, Iraq could have copied the concept of the Koksan with their T-55/130. This does not seem at all implausible. Interestingly, Iraq actually captured a Koksan during a Battle at Zubeidat, 12th July, 1988, along with 92 tanks, 120 artillery pieces, 60 APCs, and 448 other vehicles.
Not only this, but Iraq also procured foreign SPGs such as the GCT 155mm (85 of which were delivered between 1983 and 1985, some of which were mounted on T-72 chassis), among others, which could be seen in a vehicle graveyard at Camp Taji. These vehicles probably did not see service during the Gulf War or Iraq War. This being the case, it seems that the T-55/130 fits perfectly with Iraqi military doctrine, but if Iraq could procure foreign SPGs, it seems odd to build one for their own army.
This being the case, the most plausible theory is that the vehicle was made by MEK (especially owing to the crude design) using a donated hull from the Iraqi army as a highly mobile, off-road-capable SPG. This is clear because unit marking seen on the side of the hull superstructure is written in Persian and appears slightly Marxist in nature – a calling card of MEK. Superstructure side closeup, the symbol appears to be that of MEK.
If the vehicle saw any service, it was most likely during the final stages of the Iran-Iraq War – Operation Mersad. On 26th July 1988, Operation Mersad began with roughly 7000 MEK soldiers and 90,000 Iraqi soldiers taking part in the incursion into Iranian territory. There were an estimated 300 tanks that took part, too, but the Operation has been poorly documented. These were probably mostly with the main Iraqi forces. MEK was heavily armed, supplied, and covered by Iraq, but it is difficult to find any documentary proof of MEK operating tanks during that Operation, although they almost certainly did.
There is clear evidence to suggest that MEK operated tanks at least after 1988. Although MEK renounced violence in 2001, after the coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK compounds in Fallujah and Camp Ashraf in Diyala were raided by coalition forces and tanks were found at both. At the compound in Fallujah, 19 Chieftain tanks were found. Camp Ashraf was also home to a reported two thousand well-maintained tanks, APCs and field guns.
That being the case, it is more than plausible that the tank could have been created anytime between the late Iran-Iraq War and 2001. One important dating feature is the amount of rust on the vehicle – this one was clearly not too well-maintained, not even by 2003. This puts the likely date of its creation and operation closer to the Iran-Iraq War.
Since 2012, MEK is no longer considered a terrorist group by the USA.
Sources:
“Unheeded Warnings: The Lost Reports of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Volume 2: The Perpetrators and the Middle East” by Richard J. Leitner and Peter M. Leitner
“Military Industry and Regional Defense Policy: India, Iraq, and Israel” by Timothy D. Hoyt The expert opinions of Jacques Duquette and Steve Osfield Albasrah.net esotericarmor.blogspot Iraqimilitary.org Network54.com network54.com 2nd page armorama.com Chicago Tribune archives CNN.com Terrorismbreedsterrorism.wordpress globalsecurity.org
A rendition of the T-55/130 by Tanks Encyclopedia (click to enlarge). Front view of the T-55/130. A Scorpion can be seen in the background near the building. An Iranian Scorpion captured during the Iran-Iraq War, as seen in the background of the above. Sideview of the T-55/130. Other side view of the T-55/130. Rear. The vehicle also appears to have an Iraqi license plate. Interior details. Ammunition stowage can be seen to the below-right. The gunshield is clearly modified in that the right side has been cut to allow the gun to be offset. Gun breech detail – Stamped “130 gun 2600720” Side rear Close-up of the emblem on the side of the superstructure. The symbols indicate it belonged to MEK. An Iraqi Type 59-1 field gun. The barrel and gun mechanisms appear identical to the ones on the T-55/130. The only exception is the gunshield, which appears to be the more common type on this example. Credits: Lance Cpl. Lanham, US Army, as taken from Wikipedia. For comparison, a Soviet 122mm D-74. Whilst the gunshield looks more like the one on the T-55/130, the gun barrel is clearly not as thick or as long as the one on the T-55/130. This leads to the conclusion that the T-55/130 has a 130mm Type 59-1. Credits: SVSM.org
Second Spanish Republic (1937-1939)
Heavy Armored Car – Approximately 70-90 Built
The Spanish BAI / BA-6
The AAC-1937 (Autometralladora blindado medio Chevrolet-1937), sometimes known as the “Chevrolet 6×4 1937”, was an armored car made by the Republican forces in Spain during the Civil War. It was, essentially, a copy BA-3/6 (although it closely resembles a BAI).
Its armament varied quite a bit – usually two machine guns (various models), but sometimes a French 37 mm (1.46 in) gun, and even cannibalized Soviet turrets with 45 mm (1.77 in) guns were used. Like many AFVs in the Spanish Civil War, it changed hands quite a lot, and saw service with Republicans, Nationalists, and even with the French and Germans during WWII. With such an impressive list of users, it seems odd that it is such an obscurity.
Context: Soviets in Spain
The Soviet Union had a major interest in Spain before the Civil War even began. The possibility of securing a satellite state in Western Europe would be excellent for Comintern. After the overthrowing of the monarchy in 1931, the radical left political parties, such as the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers Party), PCE (Spanish Communist Party), and unions such as the UGT (General Workers Union), and Anarchist CNT (National Confederation of Labor) were able to secure power.
Knowing that the balance between traditional, Catholic Spain, and modern, socialist Spain could be tipped one way or the other at any moment, the USSR attempted to influence the situation. After successive failed governments, and several elections, 1931-1936, whereby power swung from the far left to the far right, Civil War inevitably broke out between Republican forces (a conglomerate of left-wing parties and organizations) and the Nationalist forces (a similar conglomerate of traditionalist forces such as CEDA, Carlists, and the Falange, supported by much of the armed forces and Guardia Civil).
The Republicans desperately needed arms, as the Nationalists controlled half of available rifles, and two thirds of the machine guns and artillery pieces, thus giving them the upper hand. Worse still, due to an agreement of non-intervention from France and Britain, the only viable option was to buy from the Soviet Union (although small shipments were secured from France, it was far from sufficient). By this time, the Soviets were less concerned about receiving a new satellite state as much as they were about stopping the spread of Fascism.
By spending some of its gold reserves to pay for the aid, it is estimated that Spain received 242 aircraft, 703 artillery pieces, 731 tanks, 300 armored cars, 15,000 machine guns, 500,000 rifles, and 30,000 sub-machine guns from both Soviet and Comintern sources, as well as over 2000 Soviet personnel, mainly consisting of pilots and tank crews, but also engineers and military advisers.
Design process
By 1937, the German and Italian navies had control of, or were blockading, all Spanish ports, meaning that the USSR could not supply more tanks and armored cars to the Republicans. Knowing this, the Republican government turned to local industry to produced AFVs.
There was, apparently, a specification for a heavy armored car, and a number of prototype armored cars were made in April, 1937, generally based on the BA-6 design. One which the Republicans liked the most was a prototype of the AAC-1937. It was based on a Chevrolet SD 1937 lorry chassis, and produced at the General Motors Factory in Barcelona.
However, there was a problem – the Chevy SD 1937 only had two axles which was a problem for heavy armored cars, as the vehicle would not be stable enough. To fix the problem, a GAZ-AAA truck, taken from a damaged BA-6 was cannibalized, and the Chevrolet SD 1937 was modified to have three axles.
This was only made possible by the fact that Soviet lorries were, in effect, copies of American designs. As a result, the newly modified armored car was similar to the BA-6, but it was slightly more agile because it had a stronger engine with 10 hp more than its counterpart. The original Chevrolet SD 1937 lorry.
The armor for the hull was made at a factory in “Altos Hornos de Sagunto“, Valencia; the same place where armor for the UNL-35 (a Spanish copy of the FAI / BA-20) was made. It was made from 8 mm (0.31 in) plates welded together. The bodywork looked like a typical Soviet armored car. The major differences were the engine access hatches, the tires, and the mudguards.
The AAC-1937 usually had a four man crew, including a driver, commander, gunner (to operate the turret gun/guns), and a co-driver (to operate the hull machine gun). However, the main armament and turret configuration seem have varied a lot. Some appear to have locally built BAI-like turrets (although not round, but welded from many plates), sometimes featuring a machine gun, and sometimes a machine gun and a 37 mm (1.46 in) Puteaux gun. The original configuration is unknown, however. Sources give the following suggestions:
1. Single machine gun (MG-13s, DTs, and Maxim guns being the most common), in what appears to be a locally built turret, fairly similar to the BAI turret.
2. Cannibalized T-26, BT, and BA-6 turrets – which there is photographic evidence for the AAC-1937 using.
3. Other sources also suggest that the original locally built BAI turrets were later rearmed with French 37 mm Puteaux guns, believed to be taken from old FT tanks. Photographs certainly show 37 mm guns, but whether they were originally designed to feature them, or were later upgraded to feature them, is a mystery. A variety of AAC-1937 models in Republican service, circa 1937. Some appear to have cannibalized BT/T-26/BA-6 turrets, and others appear to have only an offset machine gun in their locally built turrets.
It is most likely the case that their armaments varied from batch to batch – each batch dictated by what was available – Spanish armored cars of the period are not known to have been too well standardized. As mentioned, the original configuration remains unknown. Whilst it does make sense that these armored cars would follow the Soviet heavy armored car doctrine, and therefore feature a large caliber gun as the original, the Spanish also followed a more European doctrine of just having machine guns.
In any case, AAC-1937s, in their various models, started leaving production lines in April 1937. Four were made every month, but by March, 1938, there was a shortage of steel armor plates as a result of the Nationalists dividing Republican held territory in two. Small numbers were made until February, 1939, when Catalonia was captured by Nationalists. A reported 70 were built in total, but perhaps as many as 90, according to combat data. Nationalist T-26 and AAC-1937 with a T-26 turret (and original Republican hull colors). They both appear to be knocked out. Date and location unknown.
In Combat
Parallels with the UNL-35 do not end with the design process. Similar to the UNL-35’s combat history, the first piece of combat that the AAC-1937s saw was during the suppression of an anarchist uprising in Barcelona in May, 1937. After this, they were in service with the Republican 1st (Catalonia) and 2nd (Center South) Armored Divisions. During the war, an estimated thirty were captured by the Nationalists. They were reportedly rearmed with MG-13 machine guns.
Fighting in Spain might have been troublesome for a heavy armored car. If the UNL-35 is anything to go by, they would probably suffer from engine overheating. However, it must be remembered that these were not crudely built improvised gun trucks which would be mechanically stressed by the weight of their armor. These were fairly professionally built with high quality materials – in effect, they might have been mechanically better than their Soviet counterparts!
With the Nationalist victory in the Catalan Offensive in February, 1939, AAC-1937s crossed over into France with retreating Republican forces. Those which were left operational in Spain were used by the Nationalists until the 1950s with Cavalry units. AAC-1937 in Nationalist service, possibly post-Civil War. The machine guns appear to be dummies. The hull marking appears to be a Cavalry unit.
The total number of those captured by France is unknown, but probably few more than twenty. At some time around May, 1940, France took out roughly twenty AAC-1937s from storage to fight against the Germans. According to photos, they saw very limited service, seeing as though France was quickly defeated.
German AAC-1937
The remaining AAC-1937s (believed to be about thirty) were then used by the Germans for security operations in the Eastern Front. Designated “Pz.Kpfw 612“, many of these received nicknames, such as “Tiger“, “Cheetah“, “Leopard“, “Jaguar“, and “Panther“. Various models were used by the Germans, mainly comprising of their own field conversions such as: A troop transporter (by removal of the turret), a SPAAG (by replacing the turret with an AA dual-MG 34), and one modified to fit an MG 34 in the turret. Sources also discuss rail conversions, and a command version, but photographic evidence of these has not been seen by the author.
Germany deployed their AAC-1937s on June 22nd, 1941, in reserve duties near Moscow. However, the fighting at Moscow was brutal and as a result, these armored cars were called upon for front-line duties. They were knocked out in a matter of days.
At least three AAC-1937s reportedly saw service at Leningrad with the Division Azul, but were also quickly lost.
By winter, 1942, it is believed that there were three remaining AAC-1937s in German service, which were sent for security/anti-partisan duties, although exactly where is unclear. Probably in the RSFSR. German Army, Spanish Built AAC-1937 armoured car named ‘Jaguar’ captured by Soviet forces. As taken from “Tanks Illustrated No. 16, Operation Barbarossa” by Steven J. Zaloga and James Grandsen. Grandsen suggests that AAC-1937s were purchased by Germany and “presumably used by Brandenburger units to confuse Soviet forces” but this does not seem to be true at all.
Links/sources
“Las Armas de la Guerra Civil: El Primer Estudio Global y Sistematico del Armamento Empleado por Ambos Contendientes” by José María Manrique García and Lucas Molina Franco “Spanish Civil War Tanks: The Proving Ground for Blitzkrieg” by Steven J. Zaloga “Tout les blindés de l’armée française 1914-1940” by Francois Vauvillier “Comintern and the Spanish Civil War” by Svetlana Pozharskaya “The Battle for Spain, The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939” by Anthony Beevor “A Short History of: The Spanish Civil War” by Julian Casanova “The Spanish Civil War” by Stanley G. Payne Amonov.livejournal.com beutepanzer.ru knigo-man.livejournal.com fdra.blogspot.co.uk regimiento-numancia.es dishmodels.ru guerra-abierta.blogspot vehiculosblindadosdelaguerracivil.blogspot
AAC-1937 reported specifications
Dimensions (L,W,H)
4.4 x 2.25 x 2.4 m (14.4 x 7.38 x 7.9 feet)
Total weight, battle ready
4.8 tons (4354 kg)
Crew
4 (commander, gunner, driver, secondary gunner)
Engine
Chevrolet, 78 hp, 8 cylinder gas
Speed (road)
62 km/h (39 mph)
Range
Unknown, estimated 250 km (155 miles)
Armament
Various. Usually 2x machine guns
Armor
8 mm (0.31 in)
Total production
Approximately 70 to 90
A Soviet BAI, for comparison. Republican AAC-37 in green livery. Turrets are believed to have just been armed with single machine guns, originally. Nationalist captured AAC-37 with a T-26 turret. Some others received BT turrets. French camouflaged AAC-37 as shown in a depot, possibly 1940. French AAC-37 used in 1940, captured by German troops. Probably original Republican colors. Camouflaged AAC-37 at a French depot, possibly 1940. Probably original Republican colors. Beutespähpanzer AAC-37(f). About 20 captured were used in the Eastern Front, some were named after animals, like this “Jaguar”. armed here with a MAC Mle 1931 machine gun. AAC-1937s in Nationalist service. The first one did not have a 37 mm gun, just an off-set machine gun. The one behind appears to be a BA-6, as it features a BT turret, but the differently shaped and notably lower placed mudguards indicate this to be an AAC-1937. Camouflaged AAC-1937, in a storage warehouse in France. French tanks can be seen behind it. Possibly in original Republican colors. AAC-1937s in France- possibly 1939, shortly after they were captured from the Spanish Republicans. However, the camouflage appears more like a French type. Different view of the above. German soldiers pose with a French AAC-1937 – one of the few to actually see combat with France. Possibly in original Republican colors. German AAC-1937 converted into a SPAAG with twin AA MG-34s. The different wheel shape and lower mudguards are the only real giveaway that this is not just a BAI. German conversion of an AAC-1937 into a turretless vehicle. This photo was likely taken around Moscow, winter, 1941-2. Interior of a German AAC-1937 turret. The MAC Mle 1931 machine gun is distinctive with its round drum on the side of the gun.
Video
Short footage of AAC-1937 “Jaguar” in combat on the Eastern Front. Probably near Moscow, 1941.
Soviet Union (1933-1936)
Light Tank – 4 Built + Prototypes
The BT meets the T-26
The T-46 was an attempt to fix the low mobility of the T-26 by adapting the design to include the BT’s Christie suspension. However, there were many problems – with thin armor, huge production costs, and little overall benefits over the BT series, it was deemed a failure, and the project was canceled.
The OKMO experimental design bureau was eventually broken up by 1939, but the story of the T-46 does not end there, as some T-46s apparently saw service in 1940 against Finland and possibly Germany, as static bunkers. Information on both the T-46 is incredibly scarce and often unverified. This article may include some inaccurate information, but at no point will unverified information be presented as anything other than that.
T-46, shown here using wheeled drive. Note the hang-rail antenna on the turret. This version has the lamp housing in the center of the upper glacis.
Design process
In mid 1930’s the Soviet military elite believed that the Christie suspension used on the BT series of tanks was the most ideal system for a fast “cruiser” tank, and the ability to remove the tracks and drive on road wheels was equally desirable.
The BT-7, for example, could drive as fast as 72 km/h (45 mph) without tracks, while the most common tank in the Soviet forces at the time, T-26, could only achieve a measly 31 km/h (19 mph) on pavement, and about half that off-road. So it is not surprising that in 1932 VAMM (Military Mechanization Academy) was tasked with developing a version of T-26 with Christie suspension and wheeled (track-less) drive. The academy soon produced a prototype named KT-26 (K for Kolesnyi, or wheeled). A rare clear image of the Soviet T-46 tank.
However, the suspension improvements increased the weight of the tank as well, and seeing how it still used the 90 hp engine of the T-26, it produced a disappointing 40 km/h (25 mph). Only a scale model was built and the project was stopped. But the Soviet government was not about to give up on the idea.
In 1933 the same task was given to the Department of Experimental Vehicles, or OKMO, at Leningrad Factory #174. OKMO was soon moved to Leningrad Factory #185 (a.k.a. Kirov Plant) where by 1935 the first prototype was ready, by then given the designation T-46. It too was not perfect: while designing the new hull and turret, larger than those of T-26, the weight of the tank increased to 14-15 tonnes. As the gearbox and the final drive gears were designed with a 10-tonne tank in mind, the weight placed unacceptable stress on the mechanisms, and even the new 200 hp engine, planned in gasoline and diesel variants, could not solve this issue.
Three plans of improvement were proposed, designated 46-1, 46-2, and 46-3. The latter of those, 46-3, was chosen, and received official designation of T-46-1. The original prototype was redesigned with the extra weight in mind, which now approached 17.5 tonnes. To improve mobility the new MT-5 (sources differ, Svirin: 300 hp, Solyankin: 330 hp) gasoline engine was installed. A prototype performed admirably during trials.
This version was accepted for production and the factory received an order to produce 50 vehicles. However, the large number of technological improvements turned the cheap T-26 into a prohibitively expensive machine, and a senior official was quoted equating the cost of a T-46-1 to the triple-turreted T-28. According to several sources, only 4 serial vehicles were built in November-December of 1936.
Layout
The layout of T-46-1 is similar to that of a T-26 with many improvements. The most obvious was the replacement of T-26 twin-bogie suspension with Christie suspension, with 4 wheels on each side. The tracks could be removed and the tank driven on wheels. During wheeled drive the rear-most pair of wheels drove the tank, and the front-most steered using a differential. The tank featured levers for tracked mode and a steering wheel for wheeled mode.
Its 390 mm wide tracks were an improvement over the 260 mm T-26 tracks. A noted feature of the new powerful engine was that it required only grade 2 (low-octane) gasoline, as opposed to the high-octane fuel needed for T-26.
Both the hull and the turret were enlarged. The design intended for the tank to be welded, but all images show riveted construction. 15 mm armor plates were used for vertical surfaces, and 8 mm elsewhere. The larger turret was designed to accept either the widely used 45 mm 20K gun or the short-barreled 76 mm PS-3 gun. The latter gun would turn T-46 into an artillery support tank similar to a BT-7A. However, there are no records of this gun ever being installed on T-46.
The tank carried three DT-29 machine guns: one was coaxial to the main gun, the second installed in the rear of the turret, and the third MG stowed for anti-aircraft use. A KS-45 flamethrower was installed to the immediate right of the main gun, although on some images the flamethrower port is covered with a metal cover. The enlarged turret bustle now housed a radio set (71-TK-1), and some pictures of T-46-1 show the “hang-rail” turret antenna.
Further development and variants
Please keep in mind that the information on improvements and variants comes largely from a single source, that being either “Soviet Light Tanks, 1920-1941” or “Soviet Flame and Chemical Tanks, 1929-1945”, both by the same team of writers featuring A.G. Solyankin, M.V. Pavlov, I.V. Pavlov, and E.G. Zheltov.
According to these sources, the first improved modification was designated T-46-2 and would feature various armor improvements, a conical turret, gun stabilizer, and improved transmission and tracks. A major improvement in the next version, designated T-46-3, was the addition of sloped armor. One hull was built and subjected to testing at the Izhora Factory range. Solyankin provides a blueprint of this project, as well as a photograph of the hull. Solyankin provides a blueprint for a T-46-3 tank, according to him, a further improvement of T-46-1 tank with sloped armor.
Other projects apparently included a chemical (dedicated flamethrower) tank called KhT-46, with increased range and 500 liters of flamethrower fuel, compared to the 50 liters on the regular T-46. Also in development were a command tank (T-46-4) and a self-propelled support tank with the 76.2 mm PS-3 cannon (AT-2). There is no substantial evidence that any of these vehicles existed. One version that did exist, however, was T-46-5, also known as T-111, a tank with much better protection but having little in common with T-46-1, besides the name.
In summary, the T-46 was expensive and did not offer many benefits over the rival BT series. But it is possible that T-46 provided Soviet engineers with experience that led to work on other prototypes, such as T-126, T-127, BT-IS, BT-SV, A-20 and A-32, eventually leading to the legendary T-34.
Operational History
This is where the history of the T-46 becomes very murky. In “Tough Armor: History of Soviet Tanks” Svirin notes that the production vehicles went to combat trials, where they remained for around a year and proved themselves as “very good” vehicles, even outperforming the BT in wheeled performance. What happened next is unknown. Years later it became known that at least two vehicles were used as dug-in emplacements.
One of those vehicles was restored by Russian Defense Ministry in 2004 and is now displayed at Central Museum of the Great Patriotic War 1941 – 1945 in Moscow, missing its tracks, wheels, and suspension but otherwise seemingly intact. The plaque next to the exhibit states that it was found on by the association ‘Vysota’ in the Karelia Isthmus near the village of Sosnovo, Leningrad Oblast.
Another T-46-1 is a partial hull donated to Kubinka in June 2013. The latter, according to an article by Komsomolskaya Pravda, was found at a scrap metal collection point – information which the source says is unconfirmed. It was then purchased by a third foreign party, until Dmitriy Bushkakov, an antique store owner, bought it from them for the museum. It does show that there may be more undiscovered T-46 tanks buried in an old hill somewhere. One can hope, at least. A T-46 is being used somewhere as a dug-in emplacement, probably somewhere along the Soviet-Finnish border. The hang-rail antenna (if it had been installed) is gone, and so are the two periscopes. The gun, like in every image of T-46, is a 45 mm 20K. An article by DrTankMan Sources:
“Tough Armor: History of the Soviet Tank 1919-1937” Mikhail Svirin / “Броня крепка: История советского танка 1919-1937” Михаил Свирин.
“Soviet Light Tanks 1920-1941” A.G. Solyankin, M.V. Pavlov, I.V. Pavlov, E.G. Zheltov / “Советские легкие танки 1920-1941. А.Г. Солянкин“, М.В. Павлов, И.В. Павлов, Е. Г. Желтов.
“Soviet Flame and Chemical Tanks 1929-1945” A.G. Solyankin, M.V. Pavlov, I.V. Pavlov, E.G. Zheltov / “Советские огнеметные и химические танки 1929-1945” А.Г. Солянкин, М.В. Павлов, И.В. Павлов, Е. Г. Желтов.
“Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1917-1945 – an illustrated reference” by Wolfgang Fleischer. The T-46 on Russian Wikipedia aviarmor.net kp.ru dogswar.ru mihalchuk-1974.livejournal.com alternathistory.com
T-46-1 estimated specification
Dimensions (L-w-h)
5.7m x 2.7m x 2.4m (19ft x 9ft x 8ft)
Total weight, battle ready
17.5 tonnes
Crew
3
Propulsion
MT-5 330 hp petrol engine
Speed (road)
Tracks: 58 km/h (36 mph), Wheels: 80 km/h (50 mph)
Range
Road, tracks: 220 km (137 mi) Road, wheels: 400 km (249 mi)
Armament
Main: 45 mm 20K cannon (101 rounds)
Secondary: 3 x DT-29 7.62 mm machine guns and KS-45 flamethrower.
Armor
15mm
Total production
Four, plus prototypes
Tanks Encyclopedia’s rendition of the Soviet T-46 light tank. T-46-1, the “production” version of which 4 total were probably produced. The caption (from Solyankin’s “Soviet Flame and Chemical Tanks”) labels it as a “flamethrower tank”, but its flamethrower capability was limited to 12-13 shots. Svirin labels the same image in his book as “T-46A”. The rear of the T-46-1. Notice the rear mounted DT machine gun. Side-view of the T-46-1. A more modern image of a T-46-1. According to the image author, it was taken at Karelian Isthmus. This one reportedly ended up in the museum at Poklonnaya Gora. No antenna or periscopes. The removed barrel was probably that of a 45 mm 20K. The T-46-1 from the image above, being pulled from the ground. There is a Japanese website hosting a number of close-up images of this particular tank before it was restored can be found
Surviving T-46
This Surviving T-46 is now on display at the Central Museum of the Great Patriotic War 1941 – 1945. Photo credit This one has the antenna and the periscopes, but they were likely mock parts fitted during restoration, as they look different from the original photographs. A rear view of the restored T-46-1. It is the same tank as in previous image. It is unknown whether the number is historical. The rear-facing MG is visible, but the turret door looks different from previous images. It is likely a restoration replacement since it was seen missing on a previous image. The other recovered hull in Kubinka, after being saved from a scrap yard (presented at the museum as T-46/1). The hull and the turret are facing forward. This hull is missing its upper glacis, the driver’s box, and the gun mantlet. A display to the left of the tank tells the story of its retrieval; however, there does not seem to be a high-resolution image of the display available online. Another image from Solyankin’s “Soviet Light Tanks 1920-1941”. According to the book, one hull of T-46-3 was completed and tested at Izhora Factory range. The T-46-5 or T-111 was a related prototype which was developed alongside the T-46. It was built in 1938, but was deemed unsatisfactory. It was one of the precursors to the T-34. This image appears in “Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1917-1945 – an Illustrated Reference” by Wolfgang Fleischer, where it is labeled as a T-46-1 tank. While vaguely resembling a T-46-1, it has a few differences: the turret appears conical, the main armament is a strange unidentified gun and not the usual 45 mm 20K, and the driver is armed with a machine gun. Either this is an image of one of the prototypes, or the illustrator did not have a good reference image for the T-46-1. ww2 Soviet Tanks Poster
Soviet Union (1944-1952?)
Heavy Self-Propelled Gun – Estimated 2,410 Built
An under-gunned ISU-152
The ISU-122 was a heavy self propelled gun, and de facto tank destroyer. The vehicle came to be because the Soviets were able to produce ISU-152 hulls faster than they could produce their 152 mm (6 in) ML-20S armament. Not wanting to slow down heavy tank production, it was realized that there was a surplus of 122 mm (4.8 in) A-19 guns, and thus the problem was solved – the two were mated. Much like its older brother, the ISU-152, the ISU-122 saw action as a multi-role vehicle, but it was used as a tank destroyer more than the ISU-152 because its 122 mm gun was much more accurate than the 152 mm ML-20S howitzer. However, postwar, the ISU-122 was deemed unsatisfactory, and many were later refitted for other military uses, such as armored recovery vehicle. Many were disarmed, and handed over for civilian purposes, such as working on railways.
Design process
The creation of the ISU-122 was a direct result of ISU hulls having production speed stepped up, but their ML-20S armament’s production speed being kept the same. State authorities wanted to speed up tank production, and were not willing to wait for new 152 mm (6 in) guns to be produced. As a result of this lack of armament, the stock of surplus A-19 122mm guns were mounted instead, and, rather handily, the A-19 and ML-20 field guns were both mounted on the same towing carriage (the 52-L-504A), and so the gun mount in the ISU’s hull needed little redesigning to fit the new gun.
The A-19 was modified to fit tanks, and was designated A-19S, but as a result of the manual-piston breech, the rate of fire was reduced from 2.5 to a mere 1.5 rounds per minute. This was hardly an under-armament, because it excelled at providing effective direct fire at enemy heavy tanks – something that the ISU-152 was known for, but did not excel at in reality. Seeing the huge benefit over the ISU-152 for this role, the State Defense Committee accepted the Object 242 (as it was known during tests) as a new design, as opposed to a stopgap improvisation on April 12th, 1944, and the first vehicles left the ChTZ factories in the same month.
When the ISU-122’s production ended seems to be open to debate. According to some sources, production was concluded at the end of 1945, but, according to other sources, most notably, Zaloga’s “IS-2 Heavy Tank, 1944-1973”, production resumed in 1947 until 1952, with 3130 produced, for unstated reasons. It is possible that there were large stocks of A-19 or D-25S guns that needed using up. The total number produced remains unclear, with many sources giving figures not even close to the other. The highest estimate is over 5000, and lowest at roughly 2000.
In the 1950s, many ISU-122s were converted for civilian use (such as on the railways or even reportedly in the arctic as transport vehicles). Many others were converted into ARVs, and some others into heavy rocket launching platforms. However, the few ISU-122s that were not converted were modernized in 1958, similar to the ISU-152 modernization. However, it was not as thorough, and most only received upgraded gun sights and radio sets, with some few getting a new engine. The ISU-122 was totally withdrawn from service by 1960.
Variants
ISU-122S
Realizing that the A-19S had a slow rate of fire, the famous D-25 gun was later fitted. D-25S production was prioritized to be fitted to IS-2s, but as more became available in late 1944, they were fitted to the ISU hull. This variant passed trials in late 1944 and was referred to as the Object 249 or ISU-122-2. Rate of fire was now 2-3 shots per minute, and even 4 shots per minute with experienced loaders.
The easiest way to spot this variant is by the double baffle muzzle brake or by the ball-shaped gun mantlet. The D-25S’ muzzle brake reduced the recoil force from firing the gun and made working conditions better for the crew, as well as allowing a smaller, lighter gun mantlet being mounted, but with the same effective armor protection due to its round shape. 675 ISU tanks were fitted with the D-25 gun, but because of the huge stocks of the A-19, both the ISU-122 and ISU-122S were produced until the end of 1945.
BTT-1 and ISU-T
These were armored recovery vehicles based on the ISU-122. Because the ISU-122 was effectively redundant after WWII, they were converted for many other uses. The ISU-T was an early version that was made in the early 1950s, by simply removing the gun and placing a metal sheet over the top. However, this was little more than a cheap conversion. In 1959, the BTT-1 was designed as a more serious and better equipped vehicle.
Essentially the same as the ISU-T, they also had any combination of: a basket mounted on the rear deck, a winch, crane, a dozer blade (of various sizes) and other towing equipment. In 1960, modernization of these vehicles took place which saw another generator added to the vehicle to allow welding and field repairs of vehicles. There was also fairly little standardization of the vehicle, with some featuring local modernization with A-frame cranes.
Further details on the vehicle are scarce, but it appears that many different countries used this vehicle, such as Egypt, the USSR, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. Egypt seemed to get their BTT-1s along with a purchase of a regiment of ISU-152s in the early 1960s. At least one was captured by Israel during either the 1967 or 1973 war, and now stands at Yad La-Shiryon Museum. A captured Egyptian BTT-1 armored recovery vehicle at Yad la-Shiryon museum, Israel. An ISU-T armored recovery vehicle preserved in Poland.
ISU-122E
According to Zaloga, this was a very short-lived project designed with wider tracks and heavier armor. It was designed to be protected against German 88 mm (3.46 in) guns, but it was not accepted into service due to its significantly reduced mobility.
“ISU-122BM” projects
These “BM” or “High Powered” projects were attempts in mid-1944 at Zavod Nr. 100 at making the ISU chassis into a dedicated heavy tank hunter capable of destroying the King Tiger and Jagdtiger. Many designs were made from June 1944 right up to the end of 1945, using various calibers such as 122 mm, 130 mm, and 152 mm. For the 152 mm projects, see the ISU-152 article. None of the “BM” designs were accepted for a variety of reasons, such as poor gun handling, excessively long barrel length (thus making maneuvers in urban areas difficult), the lack of King Tigers (and similarly armored vehicles) expected to be encountered, and the relative sufficiency of ISU-122S and IS-2 tanks at dealing with these heavily armored rarities.
ISU-130
The ISU-130 was built in autumn, 1944 and featured a 130 mm (5.12 in) S-26 gun. This gun is sometimes referred to as a naval gun, but this is not entirely accurate – the S-26 derived from a naval gun, and featured a muzzle brake and horizontal wedges. In October, 1944, the ISU-130 underwent factory trials, and the following month, trials were held at the Polygon. Testing ended in 1945, and the gun was sent to the TaSKB for completion, but the war was over, and the project was disbanded. Its main advantage was that, whilst it provided similar ballistic results to the high powered 152 mm projects, it had smaller shells, which meant the vehicle could carry 25 shells, as opposed to 21. It had a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s, and a range of 500 m, placing it in roughly the middle of all “BM” project guns. It is currently preserved at Kubinka Tank Museum. The ISU-130 on display at Kubinka.
Object 243
The Object 243, or ISU-122-1, featured a 122 mm BL-9 gun – one of the infamous BL guns made at OKB-172. It essentially looked like a longer version of the A-19S, although the gun mantlet had some tweaking to fit the longer and heavier gun. It could carry 21 AP rounds. Its muzzle velocity was 1007 m/s, which was the highest of all “BM” guns.
Object 251
The ISU-122-3 (-2 was the ISU-122S with the D-25S) was derived from the ISU-130. It featured essentially a 122 mm version of the 130 mm S-26, which was designated the S-26-1. It had practically the same ballistics as the BL-9, but it had a muzzle brake, different components, and the chassis used a different mantlet. It could fire 1.5-1.8 rounds per minute, and had a muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s. It underwent field tests in November, 1944, but according to sources, something (probably the mantlet or gun mechanism) was simply not strong enough to withstand firing the gun. The gun project was totally completed in June, 1945, but was abandoned due to the war’s end. Photograph of an ISU-122-3. Its muzzle brake is very distinguishable, compared to the ISU-122-1, which featured a similar length gun, but no muzzle brake.
Another supposed ISU-130 name is scarcely referred to in Zaloga’s “Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two“. According to the book, it was a design that came about towards to the end of the war by Dukhov’s team. It was either an ISU-122 or IS-3 chassis (he later contradicts himself, but the drawing certainly appears to show an IS-2/ISU-122 chassis) with a 130 mm naval gun. It was not produced until after the war, and strongly resembled the Object 704. It is more than likely that this was a version of the above, and due to the lack of access to Kremlin archives at the book’s publication date, it is probably an inaccurate story and depiction. Drawing of an “ISU-130” as taken from Zaloga’s “Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two”. It closely resembles the Object 704, and appears to be based on an IS-2/ISU-122. Due to the lack of access to Kremlin archives at the book’s publication date, it is probably an inaccurate depiction.
An ISU-122 with winter camouflage, Germany, 1945.
The ISU-122 in action
The ISU-122 was a multi-role tank, much like the ISU-152. However, it had the advantage of a fairly accurate gun, with excellent AT capabilities. At a range of 1000 m, the ISU-152 could penetrate 120 mm (4.72 in) of armor (which was the Tiger’s maximum armor thickness), but the ISU-122 could penetrate 160 mm (6.3 in) (which is much closer to the King Tiger’s 185 mm/7.28 in maximum armor thickness), and was more accurate.
Whilst the ISU-122 tended to use armor piercing rounds, due to supply issues, they often found themselves firing high-explosive shells designated OF-471. These shells weighed 25 kilograms, had a muzzle velocity of 800 m/s, and had a 3 kilogram TNT charge. This proved absolutely excellent for AT duties as the explosion and shock-wave sent across the mechanisms on the targeted tank were sometimes enough to knock it out even without penetrating!
However, its AT capabilities were rarely taken advantage of due to the tactics used by heavy SPG regiments. It was used, like the ISU-152, for direct fire, and there was no practical distinction between the ISU-152 and ISU-122 at the time. An ISU-122 in Gdansk, Poland, 1944.
Many ISU-122s were often fielded in mixed units with the ISU-152, despite attempts by Red Army Commanders to avoid this within one tank regiment or at least a tank brigade. There were two main reasons for this – the first being that two sets of calculations would be needed for indirect fire orders, and the second being that the tanks took different ammunition types, which would cause supply problems as two different shell types would need transporting.
Aside from that minor problem, the ISU-122 fared very well in combat. Being based on the IS-2 hull, it had excellent armor performance, which was previously a problem for many Soviet SPGs, such as the SU-76 and SU-85, which would not be able to handle much attention from enemy armor or AT guns. An ISU-122S in Czechoslovakia. The D-25S’ muzzle is covered up, but still distinguishable.
Duties as a self-propelled howitzer with indirect fire were rare, but not unheard of. This was usually done during quick advances, when support from field artillery was not available. The gun had a maximum range of 14 km, which made it a viable role to take on, but it was simply not a common tactic.
In urban combat, the ISU-122 fared marginally less well than the ISU-152 for two reasons – first, the longer gun barrel made traversing difficult in small, rubble filled streets, whereas the ISU-152, with its smaller gun, did not have this problem. Secondly, the smaller, 25 kg HE shell, was not as destructive as the shells fired from the ISU-152. The ISU-152 was given a 43.56 kg HE shell, a 48.78 kg AP shell, and even a 56 kg long range, concrete-piercing shell which could obliterate enemy positions.
As mentioned earlier, the ISU-122 only had AP and HE shells, which were less destructive and therefore not as effective as the ISU-152. Despite this, it was viewed as a good urban assault gun (again, there was practically no distinction between the ISU-122 and ISU-152 by Red Army Command), and HE shells were usually sufficient at taking out enemy pillboxes, fortified buildings, and trenches. Even considering that the ISU-122’s shells were not as destructive, it must be remembered that the ISU-122 had just over twice the rate of fire than the ISU-152, even without experienced loaders.
After the war, most ISU-122s survived, although many were, as mentioned, scrapped, or converted in the 1950s and 1960s. Despite those programs, some are still preserved today and at least five stand in museums across Eastern Europe. Many others are preserved as memorials.
ISU-122 in Chinese service
Once the Red Army left Dailan, Liaoning Province, in former Manchuria, all weapons from that area were sold to the People’s Liberation Army. An unknown number of ISU-122 tanks (according to an available photo of a parade, at very least, six) were sold to the People’s Republic of China, along with SU-76s, ISU-152s, T-34/85s, T-34/76s, SU-100s, and SU-76s. It is unknown if any ISU-122S tanks were sold along with these. An ISU-122S at Konigsberg. An ISU-122S crosses a pontoon bridge. ISU-122 of the 59th Independent Breakthrough Tank Regiment, 9th Mechanized Corps, 3rd Guards Tank Army, in a strange winter livery, Ukrainian SSR, 1944. A column of ISU-122s, notice that the A-19S gun does not feature a double-baffle muzzle brake and has a heavier gun mantlet. An ISU-122 and an IS-2 pass through Transylvania, 3rd Ukrainian Front, 1944.
An ISU-122 passes through a parade in Lodz, Poland, 1945.
ISU-122 specifications
Dimensions (L-w-h)
9.85 x 3.07 x 2.48 m (32.3 x 10 x 8.1 ft)
Total weight, battle ready
45.5 tonnes
Crew
4 or 5 Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader and an optional second loader)
Propulsion
12 cyl. 4 stroke diesel, V-2IS 520 hp
Speed (road)
37 km/h (23 mph)
Range
220km (137 miles)
Armament
122 mm (4.8 in) A-19S tank gun (ISU-122) or 122 mm (4.8 in) D-25S (ISU-122S)
DShK 12.7 mm (0.3 in) AA machine-gun (250 rounds)
Armor
30-90 mm, plus 120 mm mantlet (1.18-3.54 +4.72 in)
Total production
2410 (1735 ISU-122, 675 ISU-122S), 1944-1945. Possibly at least 1000 more 1947-1952, although sources give wildly varying different figures.
ISU-122, summer, 1944
ISU-122, unknown unit, east Prussia, 1944
ISU-122, unknown unit, Germany, 1945
ISU-122, winter camouflage, Germany, 1944-45
ISU-122 camouflaged, unknown unit, 1944
ISU-122, 338th Guards Kirovgradarsky heavy self propelled regiment, 1945
ISU-122S, unknown unit, Poland, summer, 1944
ISU-122S
ISU-122S, Berlin, April, 1945
ISU-122S, Hungary, March, 1945
ISU-122 of the People’s Liberation Army, on parade in Beijing, 1954.
BTT-1 heavy duty armoured recovery vehicle after the war. Many were resold to the Egyptian Army, well into service in the 1980s.
Red Army Auxiliary Armoured Vehicles, 1930–1945 (Images of War), by Alex Tarasov
If you ever wanted to learn about probably the most obscure parts of the Soviet tank forces during the Interwar and WW2 – this book is for you.
The book tells the story of the Soviet auxiliary armor, from the conceptual and doctrinal developments of the 1930s to the fierce battles of the Great Patriotic War.
The author not only pays attention to the technical side, but also examines organizational and doctrinal questions, as well as the role and place of the auxiliary armor, as it was seen by the Soviet pioneers of armored warfare Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Vladimir Triandafillov and Konstantin Kalinovsky.
A significant part of the book is dedicated to real battlefield experiences taken from Soviet combat reports. The author analyses the question of how the lack of auxiliary armor affected the combat efficacy of the Soviet tank troops during the most significant operations of the Great Patriotic War, including:
– the South-Western Front, January 1942
– the 3rd Guards Tank Army in the battles for Kharkov in December 1942–March 1943
– the 2nd Tank Army in January–February 1944, during the battles of the Zhitomir–Berdichev offensive
– the 6th Guards Tank Army in the Manchurian operation in August–September 1945
The book also explores the question of engineering support from 1930 to the Battle of Berlin. The research is based mainly on archival documents never published before and it will be very useful for scholars and researchers. Buy this book on Amazon!
German Reich (Estimated 1942-1944)
Light Tank – At Least 1 Converted
A mystery mismatch
The R35/T-26 is an R35 chassis with a T-26 conical turret, with a near totally unknown origin. It is, unofficially, named the “Panzerkampfwagen 35R 731(f) mit T-26 Turm” for the purpose of this article, and for ease, R35/T-26 from hereon. There is another vehicle that can be titled “R35/T-26” – one with a round T-26 turret. This article will focus on the conical turreted version, which is likely a German field conversion, whilst the round T-26 turret version will be explored in the Vânătorul de Care R35 article.
R35s were used on the Eastern Front in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa, some as munitionspanzers, but some as security vehicles. This conversion has sparked substantial debate among the Tanks Encyclopedia team as to its origin, date, location, etc. One thing is agreed upon – practically nothing lasts four years on the Eastern Front, so the conversion was most likely done in 1942 or 1943; by which time, the R35 was generally deemed poor for even the role of munitionspanzer. However, the more believable theories place this vehicle in mid/late 1944. The only known photo of this conversion, having been cleaned up in photoshop (a slightly cropped version of the original can be viewed here). The markings are fairly unremarkable, and there are no soldiers clear enough to identify. The background and scenery is also fairly difficult to identify, not least because it is out of focus, but because it also appears very generic. It is most likely that this is an early/mid war conversion in Yugoslavia.
Context: R35s in Axis use
Large stocks of French tanks were captured by the Germans after the fall of France, and were pressed back into service with their captors. An estimated 843 R35s were captured, 131 of which were used for driver training, and in the Balkans for anti-partisan operations. Many others were converted into SPGs, and some even had parts cannibalized for armored trains, and bunkers. 124 were also used by Italian troops at Gila, 1943. Bulgaria also used 40 between 1943 and 1944 against partisans.
Theories – Origin
Details of R35s on the Eastern Front are unclear, and therefore, this R35 conversion could be in service almost anywhere at any given time after Operation Barbarossa began.
The sole photo of this conical turret version reveals little about the vehicle’s location or date. The architecture seems fairly generic, but shows a semi-urbanized area, characteristic of an Eastern European country such as the Ukrainian SSR, but it could also easily be a small town in Yugoslavia. Attempts to identify the coupe car in the background have failed, although the information that doing so would give would be minor at best. Worse still, there are no soldiers present to identify. The markings on the tank are generic – that of any typical Beutepanzer (which has ruled it out as being a Vânătorul de Care R35 prototype conversion, as Romania never used the balkenkreuz).
Thus, such a lack of evidence can only lead to broad and debatable theories. The main two issues with the theories are: “Would an R35 still be in service by then / there?” and “Would they be able to get a T-26 turret then / there?“. These are questions that are difficult to answer. Assuming that this vehicle is not a Vânătorul de Care R35 prototype (a discussion of which can be found on the respective article), then these are several main theories. The first two are effectively the same – a field conversion by a German sicherung division, and the third theory is that it is fake. Theory 1. Field Conversion by 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen, Yugoslavia.
The Prinz Eugen used French tanks from 1942 onward, and was stationed in Yugoslavia as an anti-partisan unit. They were heavily armed with captured weapons such as SOMUA S35s, Hotchkiss H39s, Renault R35s, and other foreign machine guns. They also had German field guns, such as the as the 10.5 cm Gebirgshaubitze 40 howitzer and 7.5 cm Gebirgsgeschütz 36 mountain gun.
The Prinz Eugen is reported as having done some field conversions. According to “Tankograd German Panzers & Allied Armour in Yugoslavia in WWII” by Bojan Dimitrijevic, the division operated at least one improvised armored car, thought to be based on a commercial Morris CS8, in 1942 for anti-partisan duties (see photo below). It is, therefore, possible that the T-26/R35 is another conversion by them. Admittedly, this is circumstantial evidence, but, nevertheless, it suggests that they had the capabilities for a field conversion.
There is, however, a major problem with this theory – how the division obtained a T-26 turret. The exact turret is a conical T-26 turret. Only in September, 1944, did the Division come into contact with the Soviet offensive and heavy Yugoslav partisan attacks, where it took heavy casualties. After this, in October, the Division took part in the defense of the Kraljevo Bridgehead, fighting against more Yugoslav partisans. Some theories as to how the turret was obtained are as follows:
1. It is possible that a T-26 was captured from the partisans or the Red Army, and the tank was cannibalized for the conversion. This makes a large assumption that there was still an operational R35 available for the conversion. 2. It is possible that the turret was given to them by another unit. The 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg was incorporated into the Prinz Eugen after its disbandment in November, 1944, who were armed with Italian tanks, and it may be the case that they had a number of captured T-26s, as the M15/42s that the Skanderbeg had was generally deemed unreliable, and may have been replaced with captured T-26s.
3. A T-26 captured from the front lines may have been sent back to the rear for a minor role such as security or munitions transport at any point after the start of Operation Barbarossa. It may have made its way to Yugoslavia, where it was cannibalized for the R35/T-26 conversion. Theory 2. Field conversion by a different unit.
Few Renault R35 tanks were still on record as being in service by 1943, even though they were probably mostly out of service on the Eastern Front by 1942. Sources vary between 58, and 47 (25 of which were with the Ordnungspolizei). The others were with Panzerbrigade 100 (which served in France), 708th Infantry Division (which served in France), 711th Infantry Division (which served in France, Hungary, Ukrainian SSR, and Czechoslovakia), and the 712th Infantry Division (which served in France, Low Countries, and Poland). The 711th Infantry Division served in Hungary and the Ukrainian SSR, presumably (but this is not confirmed) with those munitionspanzers in 1945. Similarly, the 712th Infantry Division was reformed in Poland, in late 1944. The division was totally unable to deal with the Soviet offensive, and was practically destroyed at the River Oder by January, 1945.
Again, it is plausible that either division (or perhaps any other division which used these munitionspanzers in the early/mid war) tried to increase their firepower by upgrading their munitionspanzer with a captured T-26 turret.
Yugoslavia did have 45 R35s, which saw service against the Germans in April, 1940. According to Bundesarchiv photographs, a handful of R35s were in German service alongside the 11th Panzerdivision for a few days in April, 1941, after which surviving vehicles were used by the Independent State of Croatia, a German puppet state, presumably for security duties. There is no chance that this conversion took place before Operation Barbarossa, because there were no captured T-26s available before then. Not only this, but the R35/T-26 conversion clearly has German markings – Yugoslav markings were different. Whilst 40 R35s were sold to Bulgaria by Germany, Bulgaria had its own tank markings, ruling it out as a possible user of this conversion. Some R35s that were in service with Croatia, to an unknown fate, would also have their own markings. Theory 3. Fake
As with these little known vehicles, of which only one photo exists, the question as to whether it is a fake or not does arise. The photo is fairly bad quality, but by comparing the lighting, shadows, etc between the turret and chassis, it seems highly doubtful that the photograph is a fake, because these details line up perfectly. If fake, this is a highly professional job. Another problem with it being a fake is that it would be a fairly unremarkable fake – such professional work for something so ‘bland’ is dubious. Apart from which, the original photo was taken from a reputable online wartime photo shop.
Theories – Role
Like with many field conversions, information is scarce, owing to the fact that HQ was not necessarily informed of hasty work done on tanks, particularly Beutepanzers. The tank’s location and date are incredibly important to working out what role it would take on. However, there is a wealth of likely stories for this particular conversion, such as: 1. Designed for direct combat. It is suggested by some that the conversion was meant to fight in regular combat of some kind, whether front-line alongside other tanks, or in rear duties, such as anti-partisan/security. This would mean that the reasons for the conversion are numerous, such as the turret for the R35 being damaged, lack of 37mm munitions, or the 37mm gun being deemed insufficient, so a captured T-26 turret was mounted instead. If it were, as is most likely, made in Yugoslavia then it is more than likely that it is a security vehicle because there would be no need for any other type of vehicle until late 1944, what with the Belgrade Offensive in September. 2. Support vehicle. It has also been suggested that the tank was originally a munitionspanzer that has been converted for artillery observation purposes, with the turret being welded on and not intended to fire, because the turret rings would not match up due to the T-26 turret being larger than the original R35 turret. The overall suggestion of artillery observation is not unfair at all, as many Beutepanzers were relegated to such roles, some with improvised superstructures, such as some Lorraine VBCP-38L APCs modified for artillery observation purposes, and even the Kleiner Funk-und Beobachtungspanzer auf Infanterie-Schlepper UE(f), which was a small radio and observation vehicle based on an armored Renault UE chenillette chassis.
Both were in support of 10.5cm leFH-18/40 auf Geschuetzwagen Lorraine Schlepper(f) SPGs. However, it must be noted that these conversions were done much more professionally than the R35/T-26 conversion, but, it may be the case that this conversion was done much more hastily. Any division with artillery, such as the Prinz Eugen, would benefit from having an armored vehicle which can radio for adjustments of indirect fire. 3. Command Vehicle. The vehicle could also be a command vehicle of some kind, owing to its larger turret, which would allow better working space among other benefits. Whilst the radio would be considered a tell-tale sign of a command vehicle, all German R35s were given radios, and the photo shows a large antenna mounted on the right of the hull, which can be better seen on a scale model. According to photos, these new German radios were placed on various parts of the hull. French R35s did not have radios, except for some in the 507e Régiment de Chars de Combat, although their exact design is unclear.
The T-26 turret’s radio mount visible but it is empty, anyway. It is unclear what type of unit this vehicle would command – possibly units made up of other beutepanzers, or it could well be a very heavily armored mobile command center. This would not be the first time in history a captured T-26 turret has been used for a command vehicle – one Hispano Suiza MC-36 was given a T-26 turret during the Spanish Civil War for just such a role.
Conclusion
Practically all of the theories on the vehicle valid, but, as stated, the year and location are important to deducing its story. Evidence for each theory is, at best, circumstantial. There are no other apparent modifications to the vehicle, such as a new periscope, new fenders, etc, which could possibly indicate that it was either a hasty or unprofessional conversion, unlike the BA-10/Panzer II, which had a number of additional parts. However, there may be more, and due to the angle of the photo, they cannot be seen. Despite our best attempts at a likely story, we cannot say that one story of its origins or role is more likely than the other – and for those reasons it is highly unlikely that the true story will ever be known. An article by Will Kerrs
Tanks Encyclopedia’s rendition of the R35 mit T-26 Turm. The colors are speculative. For comparison, a fairly typical Panzerkampfwagen 35R 731(f) with tail, France, fall 1940. R35/T-26 with an M1935 turret. It appears as though it is being transported by rail along with a T-26. The nationality of the soldiers is unclear, but the vehicle has been attributed to Romania. Note: the image appears to have been watermarked. A scale model of the R35/T-26 showing the opposite angle to the original photo. Colors are speculative only. The sheer attention to detail on this model is astounding. Credits: Armorama user “Panzerserra”, 2011. Available here. A Renault R35 in service with the 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen. There appears to be a radio antenna visible on the rear of the hull just on the left. As taken from“Prinz Eugen Balkans archive” by Fraser Gray and Bruce Crosby. Often easily mistaken for an R35, this is a German Hotchkiss H39 stuck in a ditch, Yugoslavia, circa winter 1941/2. The radio antenna can be seen at the rear of the hull on the right side. The radio antenna was closer to the front on the R35/T-26 conversion, it is unclear if location of the radio mount was standardized. A column of Panzerkampfwagen 35R 731(f)s, location and date unknown. Possibly Yugoslavia. Between 1943 and 1944,thirty-six Romanian R35s were converted by Atelierele Leonida with a high-velocity Soviet 45 mm (1.77 in) gun jammed in the turret, and were renamed “Vânătorul de Care R35”. Due to the few known photos of this rare conversion, and the fact that it has a 45mm gun, it may have confused some sources, and led them to believe that they are the same thing, when they are not. An improvised armored car that is believed to be based on a commercial Morris CS8. It was reported to be in support of, it not part of, the 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen in Yugoslavia. It was also reportedly captured near Ljubljana in May, 1945. This is circumstantial evidence to suggest that the Prinz Eugen, or a similar/nearby unit might have had access to field conversion equipment necessary for the T-26/R35 conversion. Four 155th Panzer Artillery Regiment, 21st Panzer Division 10.5cm leFH-18/40 auf Geschuetzwagen Lorraine Schlepper(f) SPGs on parade in France 1944. There are three Renault UE chenillette tracked infantry supply tractors behind them. The vehicle at the front of the photograph is a Lorraine VBCP-38L (Voiture blindee de Chasseurs Portes), an armored personal carrier modified to be an improvised artillery observation vehicle. The second vehicle is a “Kleiner Funk-und Beobachtungspanzer auf Infanterie-Schlepper UE(f)” a small radio and observation vehicle based on an armored Renault UE chenillette chassis. (Baukommando Becker converted 40 Renault UEs to this specification. They replaced the rear ammunition and supplies transportation box with a lightly armoured structure for observation and radio equipment). The larger vehicle would have been the Battery Officer’s command vehicle and the smaller one would have been used as an observation post vehicle – being small it would be fairly easy to conceal. This is an example of how beutepanzers were converted into artillery observation and radio vehicles, which is what the R35/T-26 might be. However, it must be noted that there is no proof that this is what the R35/T-26 was, and it also seems like a much hastier and cruder conversion that the ones in the above photo. A Hispano Suiza MC-36 with a T-26 M1935 turret. This vehicle originally had a fairly large, dome-shaped turret featuring a Hotchkiss machine gun. A number of these vehicles were used by the Republicans, but were captured by the Nationalists, probably somewhere between Madrid and Seville. It was reportedly used as the command vehicle for Agrupacion de Carros del Sur.
Soviet Union (1942)
Flying Tank – 1 Prototype Built
The Flying Tanks Concept
The idea of having a tank which could fly was first seen around in the early 1930s with Walter Christie’s flying M1928 tank, but other designs were made during WW2. The UK (Baynes Bat, 1943), Japan (Special Number 3 Light Tank Ku-R0 with a Kokusai Ku-8 glider, 1944), and the USSR (Antonov A-40, 1942), all attempted to make flying tanks, but none were successful. What each nation wanted was a fairly potent AFV which could fly into battle – something, even on paper, impossible. Having a large enough armament (larger than 12.7mm in caliber), and strong enough armor (at least 20mm) simply meant that the vehicle would be so heavy, that it could not possibly fly.
The Flying T-60
The Antonov A-40 (sometimes referred to as the A-40T or Krylya Tank, “tank wings”) was the Soviet attempt in 1942 to create a flying tank – only one prototype was produced. Soviet forces had originally strapped tanks and armored cars, such as the T-27, T-37A, and D-8, to the bottom of TB-3 bombers, and dropped them from a very short height; as long as the gear was in neutral, the tank would not break on impact. However, this required the crew to be dropped separately, which meant that the tank’s deployment was delayed. As a result of this, the Soviet Air Force ordered Oleg Antonov to design a glider for landing tanks…
Design
Antonov came up with a very ingenious solution. He added a detachable cradle to a T-60 bearing large wood and fabric biplane wings and a twin tail. The wingspan is estimated to be just over 59 ft (18m) and an overall area of 923.5 ft2 (85.8m2). To put this in perspective as to how large it was, the small fighter aircraft, the Polikarpov I-16’s wingspan was 29 ft 6 in (9m), with an overall area of 156.1 ft² (14.5 m²) – the A-40’s wingspan was nearly double, and the overall area was nearly six times greater (although the A-40 cradle was dual-winged)!
The idea was for the A-40 to drop the cradle once deployed onto the battlefield – and this was necessary, for obvious reasons. No tank could possibly be deployed effectively in combat with near 60 foot wings sticking out of it. The wings would not only make the vehicle slower due to their weight, but they would create quite a lot of drag.
One T-60 placed into a glider in 1942, intended to be towed by a Petlyakov Pe-8 or a Tupolev TB-3. The tank was lightened for air use by removing its armament, ammunition and headlights, and leaving a very limited amount of fuel (and, according to some sources, its turret was also removed).
First Flight
According to the official story (which is dubious), there was a test flight on September 2, 1942. Even with the modifications, the A-40 was too heavy to be towed. A TB-3 bomber was towing it, but it had to ditch the glider to avoid crashing. The drag was simply too much, and the bomber could not handle the weight of its payload. The A-40 was piloted by the famous Soviet experimental glider pilot Sergei Anokhin, and, once ditched, it supposedly glided smoothly. The T-60 landed in a field near the airdrome it was being tested at, and after dropping the glider cradle, it was driven back to the base. There was no aircraft which could handle the weight of the vehicle, and therefore tow the A-40 at the correct speed (160km/h), and, for that reason, the project was abandoned.
Viability of the A-40
The first major problem with the Antonov A-40 is that it had huge wings. These would have to be ditched before combat, which would surely delay its combat deployment (although probably not nearly as much as dropping the crew separately). Secondly, if the vehicles were to only have limited fuel and no munitions, in order to be light enough to be dropped, then munitions and fuel would have to be dropped separately, thus meaning that the combat deployment is, yet again, delayed, because crews would have to scramble to get munitions and fuel loaded into the tank – and there is no guarantee that wind would not glide these airdrops away from their intended users.
Thirdly, the T-60 itself was not a particularly potent tank – not even in 1942. Its 20mm TNSh gun would only be viable for engaging lightly armored, or unarmored targets, and its armor, 20mm at best, could hardly withstand even the lightest of German AT guns.
Fourthly, it is unclear as to whether or not the vehicle was even successful. The official story, as recorded above, might be a gross exaggeration, or a total fantasy. The purported photo of the A-40 in flight is actually a drawing produced by the Antonov factory.
Rendition of the Antonov A-40. The colors are speculative, and it may be the case that some bare wood or tarp is showing. A drawing (or perhaps a photograph of a model), of the A-40 in flight. This image was produced by the Antonov factory and is not, as some claim, a photograph of the real prototype. The T-60 appears to be an M1942 GAZ production, as shown by the stamped wheels. A T-37 tank being dropped by a TB-3 bomber. It is incredibly low to the ground, which would make serious combat deployment dangerous, due to enemy fire. A D-8 armored car strapped to the bottom of a TB-3 bomber during 1932 drills, Ukraine.
People’s Republic of China (1960-1965)
Heavy Tank – 1 Chassis and 1 Turret Built
A mysterious Chinese heavy tank
Since being brought into the limelight by World of Tanks, the PRC’s heavy tank designs have become very popular. With sketchy information, and dubious recreations, it is often hard to tell fact from fiction. Many Chinese prototype vehicles were reportedly destroyed during nuclear testing (and whilst tanks were tested in blast zone conditions, it is perhaps unclear if any vehicles were actually destroyed), but the WZ-111 survived this period of nuclear testing and stands today at a museum in Beijing. Very little is known about the vehicle’s history, seeing as though access to Chinese archives is highly restricted (similar to the restrictions on Kremlin archives during Soviet times), and known information may not be as accurate as it seems.
Development
According to reported information, on October 19th, 1960, the order to create a heavy tank was placed by the Commission of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense. Between 1960 and 1964, various plans (of which, there are no apparent descriptions available) were created with at least one major revision to the overall design. In any case, the final plan was ready on June 10th, 1964, at the University of Tank Technology, and in 1965, a turretless prototype was made. It was tested with a weighted dummy turret, but problems were found with the suspension.
Later in 1965, a turret and gun were also reportedly produced, but were never mounted on the chassis. It is unknown what happened to the turret and gun, but they were supposedly tested, although the results are not available.
The turret was supposed to feature a 122mm main gun – designated “Y174”. Some commentators have speculated that it may be a tank variant of the Type 60 field gun (itself a copy of the Soviet D-74), with an auto-loader, night vision, and an electric rangefinder incorporated into the overall design.
A 130mm gun was also reportedly planned. This is possibly because progress of the Y174 production was slow, and a stopgap might have been needed, however, details are incredibly sketchy on this development, and may be fictitious in order to enhance the WZ-111 within the video game that brought it to mass attention.
Development of the WZ-111 appears to have ultimately stopped due to the technical and mechanical problems – the suspension being one of these. However, it also possible that there may have been issues with creating a suitable main gun (in fact, the Chinese found themselves having to import and copy the L7 105mm gun to make the Type 85 MBT). Consider also that the Main Battle Tank concept taking the forefront of tank designs (and the lack of apparent use for a heavy tank) might have led to the cancellation of the project.
The vehicle is now displayed in Beijing, with its dummy turret. It has been painted in several different liveries:
The first was plain dark green all over.
The second was the same as the first, with the addition of a large PLA star on the front of the dummy turret, and the numbers 304 in white on either side of the turret.
The third livery is three tone, consisting of sand, dark green, and a greyish-green in wavy bands, the numbers 304 in white on either side of the dummy turret, and a small PLA symbol next to the number, closest to the front of the turret. The front PLA symbol was painted over.
12-cylinder, supercharged diesel 750 hp (390 kw) P/w 12.5 kw/t
Suspension
Torsion bars
Armament
Main: 122 mm “Y174” tank gun OR unknown 130mm gun. Secondary: Probably a Type 54 12.7mm air defense machine gun and coaxial Type 59T 7.62mm machine gun.
Armor
80-200 mm
Gallery
WZ-111 displayed at a museum in Beijing. A blueprint showing a what-if design for the WZ-111. It appears to have a 130mm gun, and it is unclear how accurate the turret is compared to the original design.
A “what-if” reconstruction of how the WZ-111 would like completed with the turret, according to online blueprints (which are almost certainly artist’s interpretation). The actual WZ-111 with the dummy turret preserved in Beijing.
German Reich (Circa 1943)
Armored Car – 1 Converted
A little known conversion
Large numbers of Soviet vehicles were captured by the Wehrmacht during the war, and were pressed back into service, generally in lesser roles such as artillery observation, munitions transport, and anti-partisan duties. Some even had conversions done to them – the most well-known being new commander’s cupolas, or in the case of one famous KV-1 in 1943, a new KwK 40 L/43 gun was added (22nd Panzer Division, 204th Panzer Regiment). However, this BA-10M has been given more than just a new cupola – it has a Panzer II firing system and mantlet added to the turret.
Design
The designation “Beutespähwagen BA-10M mit 2 cm Kampfwagenkanone 30 L/55” is an unofficial name for the vehicle created by the TE team, but sums it up rather simply (from hereon, it will be referred to as “BA-10/Panzer II”, for simplicity). According to several known photos, it appears that the mantlet of a Panzer II was added to a BA-10M turret (that has had its original mantlet removed). The Panzer II mantlet also appears to have not been simply sliced off the original Panzer II turret, either. It appears as though the turret has had its sides cut off, making it look flat at either side, in order to make it narrow enough to fit the BA-10 turret.
It seems as though the vehicle was converted by expert engineers, with a lot of attention to detail, in what must have been a well-equipped workshop. Further modifications include: a new set of headlamps and a new fender/bumper. The radio above the hull DT has been removed (its original mount can still be seen), and in the center of the roof, a new, rectangular periscope has apparently been added, seen most clearly on the second photograph. On the left of the hull DT, it seems that a new, wider vision slit has been added, most likely because the original vision slit was deemed too small for purpose.
Possible explanations…
As with many field conversions, further details other than those seen in the photo are unknown. The vehicle belonged to the NSKK (Nationalist Socialist Motor Corps), as proven by writing on the side, which would suggest that it was likely a munitions carrier, or perhaps a convoy protection vehicle. The winged dagger on the vehicle’s engine hatches has not yet been identified, but is speculated to belong to a foreign SS division.
The soldiers, indeed, appear to be SS, perhaps from a foreign volunteer unit, and it appears as though the vehicle is traveling through a thick forest / shrubbery, meaning that the vehicle is more likely to be an anti-partisan / security vehicle. The presence of the dog, too, as seen in the third photo, would suggest that it was an anti-partisan unit, as it could have been used to track partisans.
The vehicle was possibly made during 1943 at FAMO’s Ursus Factory in Warsaw. This is because many Panzer II turrets would have been discarded during the production of the 676 Wespe SPGs at that factory. It is possible that a turret from a Panzer II (that was converted into a Wespe) was cannibalized for the conversion.
It is unclear why the original 45mm gun was removed. It is possible that the original BA-10 mantlet or gun was frontally damaged, there was insufficient 45mm munitions to have the gun operational, or perhaps the 2 cm autocannon was preferred for light convoy protection / anti-partisan duties because of its superior rate of fire.
Possible fake?
The vehicle has caused some debate among the Tanks Encyclopedia team as to whether the photos are photoshopped or not. It has been suggested that the vehicle appears to have characteristics of both the BA-10M and BA-6M (BA-10 original prototype). The hull DT does not appear to bulge out slightly beyond the driver’s slit like the BA-10M. A flat front plate was seen on all previous Soviet heavy armored cars, but was modified in the BA-10M to bulge out. The vehicle is unlikely to be a BA-3 or BA-6 because it does not have as many rivets on it, and, apart from which, the engine hatches have internal hinges, which is characteristic of the BA-6M and BA-10M. It does appear as though the bulge can, however, be seen, and poor lighting is the explanation for this illusion.
Another discrepancy is seen with the roof shape – the second and third photos are best for seeing this. The left side (facing) appears to be curved, like the BA-10M, but the right side appears to be flat, like a BA-6M. However, on the third photo, the right side is shown to be curved. Comparing the first and third photos shows that the commander is the same person, making it unlikely that there were two of these conversions. The BA-6M was also a prototype, and did not see mass production, so it is highly unlikely that this is an explanation. In the second photo, above the hull DT position, is a large, inexplicable bulge on the roof. It has been suggested that this is possibly a hatch, but the shape seems dubious.
The retort to those claims is that these discrepancies can be explained by a trick of the light, the low quality of the photos, and the camera angle. There are several photos, two of which appear to be taken almost at the same time, which means that it is highly unlikely to have been photoshopped, as it would be a very difficult job. The fact that the same commander can be seen in two different photos, and the sheer attention to detail with the commander’s hands on the turret’s hatch (1st and 2nd photo), would make this a very professional job, if fake.
Our reconstitution: It seems seems as though photos of this vehicle show that it was camouflaged, although we have no clue of the colors. However, it is also possible that an illusion of camouflage is also given from the sun casting shadows of leaves and branches onto the vehicle. It also most likely had a German radio, and the original whip antenna was removed. The BA-10/Panzer II. The commander can be seen at the top with his hands on the hatch. A new fender/bumper and headlamps are apparent. The DT bulge appears to be visible in this photo, hence the shadow on the right of the DT mount. It is likely that this was an anti-partisan vehicle in Poland, 1943. Seemingly taken shortly after the above photo, it reveals that the Panzer II turret has been made narrower (this the sides appear flat as opposed to sloped). On the left of the hull DT appears to be a new and wider vision slit. Above, the original periscope radio has been removed, and it appears as though a new, rectangular one has been added in a newly molded mount in the center of the roof. There is also an inexplicable bulge behind the original radio mount. The right side of the roof also appears flat as opposed to curved. The soldiers also appear to be the same as above, as their faces are the same. Their uniforms indicate that they are SS soldiers, likely a foreign volunteer unit. A sideview of the BA-10/Panzer II. Unfortunately, the dog is directly covering the joint between the Panzer II mantlet and BA-10 turret. This photo reveals that this vehicle was with the NSKK. The commander appears to be the same person as in the above photo. The roof is curved, indicating that the vehicle is a BA-10M. Germans Tanks of ww2
United Kingdom (1941)
Improvised APC / Ambulance – 1 Built
The armored might of the Home Guard
When the Home Guard first began in 1940 (under the name ‘Local Defense Volunteers’), there was barely any provision of weapons due to the huge loss at Dunkirk forcing arms production to go directly to the main core of the armed forces. Even with orders placed with the US for old WWI weapons, the HG still lacked firepower, thus leading to Volunteers carrying shotguns, knives on brooms, and even breaking in to museums in order to appropriate weapons. Vehicles were no exception. To mount an effective defense and rapid response against German paratroopers, vehicles were seen as a necessity. This article will focus on Lance Corporal Jones’ Van (unofficially named the Walmington-on-Sea APC in this article’s title), which was a humble butcher’s van converted into an APC/Ambulance, for the Walmington-on-Sea Home Guard.
Of course, the vehicle came from the hit British comedy TV series Dad’s Army (BBC, 1968-1977), and was a plot point for only one episode of the show, and after that, a recurring, but minor gag. For the purposes of this April Fool’s article, a section on the story of the van (according to the show’s canon) has been written, followed by a speculative section on how the vehicle might well perform in real WWII combat. There is a section on the van in real life which gives a glancing look at its history after the end of the show, and there is also an integrated overview of real life Home Guard armored vehicles.
Design process
The idea came from two members of the Home Guard from the coastal town of Walmington-on-Sea. In roughly March, 1941*, Private Walker convinced Lance Corporal Jones, the local butcher and five-time war veteran, to loan his 1935 two-ton Ford BB Box Van to the platoon as transport, in order to gain petrol coupons from the military (and so that Walker may also use the van at night to “transport certain things“).
After working “practically non-stop” over three days, the van was converted into an APC. It was hardly luxurious. There were no seats provided to sit on in the rear of the van, although there were also roughly four racks provided for stretchers, which also doubled up as seats. It was also hardly sophisticated – sandbags were placed knee-high, which “made it bulletproof“, and marble slabs (as taken from Jones’ Butcher’s shop) were placed on the floor in order to make the vehicle landmine-proof; although these slabs were ordered to be removed until an actual invasion takes place. There were five pistol ports on each side of the truck, and another five on the roof for shooting at aircraft.
However, the roof-portholes would be useless after their demonstration to the rest of the platoon. Captain Mainwaring had telephoned GHQ about the vehicle and the reply was that the vehicle should be taken to RAFC transport pool and converted to gas power in order to save on petrol. This led to the van having a large balloon of gas placed on top with a pipe leading down the crew cabin, which fueled the engine.
Combat
The biggest limitation of the vehicle was its gas powered system. The balloon on top now meant that it has hardly an aerodynamic vehicle. Worse still was its safety – the fuel pipe was very brittle. During the drive back to Walmington-on-Sea from the RAFC transport pool, Lance Corporal Jones’ bayonet accidentally put a hole in the pipe, which caused both him and Walker to laugh and sing incessantly, feel light-headed, drive erratically, and even a gas-explosion was almost caused when Walker lit a cigarette. If the vehicle were to see any combat, it would take only a few rounds from small arms to render the vehicle little more than a static pillbox.
With space for roughly 5 passengers, plus a driver and co-driver, it was also hardly a spacious vehicle – Bedford and Opel Blitz trucks could carry at very least 12 soldiers and two drivers.
The inclusion of the marble floor slabs is also dubious. Whilst not only making the vehicle heavier, it is unlikely that they would protect against landmines. In fact, they would probably create more shrapnel, thus making the vehicle a huge hazard.
The vehicle’s capabilities were also directly correlated to its crew’s competence – something that was lacking. For example, Lance Corporal Jones once forgot the key for the rear doors during a first aid exercise, thus meaning that all crew and casualties would have to embark through the small hatch in the cab. Communication between the driver and platoon commander was also done by banging on the side of the van. This was a highly confusing system, which meant that the vehicle often drove off before its crew could embark on several humorous occasions.
One good thing to say about the vehicle is that it had an ingenious camouflage system. By keeping the original paintwork, it would hardly be associated with military purposes, thus meaning that it would be inconspicuous during a German invasion, and would not necessarily be stopped at German checkpoints.
The W-o-S APC in reality
In real life, the van was found in a terrible state in Streatham, London, by Frank Holland, a BBC assistant property manager, and was fixed up for use during the filming of the hit comedy-WW2 TV series, Dad’s Army. The first episode the van featured in was “The Armoured Might of Lance Corporal Jones“, season 3, episode 1, and could be seen in further adventures in the fictional town of Walmington-on-Sea, mainly used as general transport for soldiers. After Dad’s Army ended, it was sold to a Ford Dealer in Finchley, and sold again in 1990 to the Patrick Motor Museum, Birmingham for £11,200 ($16,197). It was then sold at auction with four manikins of Dad’s Army characters in 2012 by Bonham’s for £63,100 ($91,256). It was bought by a syndicate of two Norfolk families for the Dad’s Army museum (located in Norfolk), although since its purchase, there has been fundraising in order to repay the families. In February, 2016, apprentices at the Ford Dagenham plant gave the vehicle a full mechanical overhaul.
Real Home Guard armored cars
Using Jones’ van as an APC was not exactly a far cry from the reality of the real Home Guard. Details of Home Guard improvised armored cars are sketchy at best, but according to photos, the Home Guard made plenty of improvisations ranging from a Humber Saloon car being armored up, all the way up to taking Mark IV #2324 male tank out of a local museum for active service! One of the most interesting examples is the “Malcolm Campbell Cars“. The famous land and water-speed record holder, Malcolm Campbell, was the commander of the 56th London Division Home Guard unit, and built a prototype of a Dodge armored car. Seventy were built in by Briggs Motor Bodies of Dagenham by August, 1940. Some even featured weapons taken from crashed German aircraft, in order to increase firepower. These vehicles should not be confused with the French improvised “Automitrailleuse Dodge” trucks.
The similar “Bison” was a series of lorries which were converted into ‘mobile pillboxes’ for use by the RAF to protect airfields, as well as use by the Home Guard. The concept came from Charles Bernard Matthews, who was the director of Concrete Limited in Leeds, and previously in the Royal Engineers in WWI. After presenting some prototypes to military officials, and having made some changes, several types of this truck (based on any available trucks) were produced using concrete armor, due to a steel shortage. Somewhere between 200-300 trucks were made. Whilst hardly effective protection against heavy weapons, they would defend nicely against German paratroopers. One semi-replica remains in Bovington Tank Museum today.
However, by 1942, as weapons became available to the Home Guard, these improvised weapons and vehicles were almost certainly replaced with things such as the Standard Beaverette. Apart from which, the threat of a German invasion had substantially diminished by this time. Sources: Dad’s Army, Season 3, Episode 1: “The Armoured Might of Lance-Corporal Jones“, first broadcast 1th September, 1969, BBC.
“History Revealed, Issue 26, February 2016“, a magazine publication
“Arming the British Home Guard, 1940-1944” by D.M. Clarke, Cranfield University Dailymail.co.uk (Information on the auction) bonhams.com (Online auction listing) bbc.co.uk (1st story) (Information on the vehicle after auction) bbc.co.uk (2nd story) (Information on the vehicle after auction) classiccarsforsale.co.uk (Information on the vehicle after auction) Dad’s Army on Wikipedia Jones’ Van on Wikipedia Bison Concrete Armoured Lorries on Wikipedia ifelic.co.uk (Home Guard Mark IV tank) Note: Not necessarily reliable militaryhistorynow.com (Improvised weapons of the Home Guard) war44.com forums (More Home Guard vehicles) ww2incolor.com (More Home Guard vehicles) ww2photo.se (More Home Guard vehicles) *date based on a later episode which announces the sinking of the Bismarck
Rendition of Jones’ van. Jones’ van as it stands today. The Walmington-on-Sea APC during presentation to the Platoon. There was a total of fifteen pistol ports. View of the cab interior after conversion to a gas-system. The gas-feed pipe can be seen. Photo taken moments before the bayonet caused a gas leak. Left: Lance Corporal Jones. Right: Private Walker.
Mark IV tank #2324 at the HMS Excellent (onshore training school), 1940. It was reportedly refurbished for Home Guard service the same year.
An improvised armored car based on a Humber Saloon in service with the Home Guard. It had space for six passengers, and windows were replaced with metal sheeting with slits as firing ports. Type 3 “Bison” armored car. It used concrete for armor due to the steel shortage. Another improvised armored car of the Home Guard, London, 1940. Believed to be based on a Rolls Royce. Many other unnamed one-off improvisations exist.
Second Spanish Republic (1935-1936)
Armored Car – 5-15 Built
A pre-war homegrown
The Hispano Suiza MC-36 was a truck-based, little-known vehicle from the Spanish Second Republic. It was actually only a prototype vehicle, and was intended to see service with the security forces, but it lost out on the contract to the smaller Bilbao armored car. Very little is known about the vehicle, seeing as though it was produced in such small numbers, but some photographs do exist, and they provide a wealth of information.
Nationalist MC-36. Slogan: Viva Espana!
It was based on the very large Hispano Suiza T-69 truck chassis. Hispano Suiza was a Spanish engineering firm founded in 1904, which, among other things, made luxury cars and commercial trucks. The Republican government took control of the Spanish side of the company during the Civil War in order to produce weapons, armored cars, and other vehicles. Similarly, it also had a French subsidiary which was taken under control by the French government in 1937 (by owning 51% of the shares) for the same reason – war-material production. However, the MC-36 was actually a pre-Civil War armored car, which was in direct competition with the Bilbao to be produced for the Republic’s security forces – probably the Assault Guard or Police.
They were reportedly built in Barcelona, with the hulls made in Madrid by La Sociedad Comercial de Hierros. It ultimately lost the competition, perhaps due to the Bilbao’s simpler design and smaller size.
The MC-36 looks as though it would have been very unwieldy in urban combat – a rough estimate based on a scale model reveals it to be 7.4 meters long, which could make traversing around narrow streets an issue.
The shape of the armor is interesting as well. Such a sleek design would allow it to be fairly aerodynamic for such a large vehicle, although the overall benefit is dubious due to the weight of the vehicle. The engine cover also appears to be very well designed – its grill system would allow the engine to be air-cooled (although the engine was probably water-cooled, also). This is important, as armored vehicles in Spain tended to suffer from engine problems as a result of overheating. However, the protection from shrapnel and even small arms fire offered by the grill design is dubious.They were armed with a dome-shaped turret (which appears riveted together from many plates) with a Hotchkiss machine gun. It appears as though the machine gun would have had minimal elevation, as a result of the basic pistol port that it was poked through, as opposed to having an integrated ball-mount design. Two or four pistol ports can be seen on the side of the hull (sometimes seen with two light machine guns poking out, although photos are not clear enough to definitively say how many there were), and the rear windows could also open. Entry appears to have been done by side doors, certainly for the drivers, but possibly for the passengers as well, as no other discernible entrances can be seen. The tires were each protected by a slightly smaller armored tire, as seen in photos. It could reportedly carry up to ten people, which was quite a lot, and perhaps shows that there was an intention for use as an APC during riots, too.
Riot control is certainly something that would be on the minds of the security forces of the time. There were three elections, 1931-1936, and various deadly events across Spain, such as the Asturian Miners’ Strike (1934) – a protest against the entry of CEDA (a right-wing Catholic-conservative party) into government, which had to be crushed by the armed forces, and cost the lives of over 2000 (260 of which were Republican soldiers). Spain was simply unstable. Armored cars would give security forces a means of protected transport for their staff, but also allow effective fire to be laid down onto armed rebels, thus minimizing casualties for the security forces. One of the biggest concerns during unrest in Spain was rebels capturing buildings and locking the area down with snipers. Having an armored car that could fit ten men meant that the vehicle could easily drive up to the building and allow the crew to storm the building, without fear from being shot by snipers. Supposed prototype MC-36 being presented to police officials.
An estimated 5-15 vehicles were built (probably closer to 5), and were committed to combat in the Civil War with Republican forces. They were most likely sent to the southern front, with unknown combat results. Interestingly, the T-69 truck was used for towing field guns and artillery pieces during the Civil War, but there is a substantial lack of information on them.In CombatMore is perhaps known about their service with the Nationalists. According to slogans on the side of one vehicle, they were in service under Lieutenant Colonel Carlos Asensio Cabanillas (hence the slogan: “Columna Madrid, Tte. Coronel Asensio“). Assuming that this is more than just a slogan, these MC-36s were captured somewhere between Seville and Madrid, as this is where Cabanillas’ forces saw combat.
The Nationalists also did one huge modification – adding a T-26 turret to at least one. It is unknown why this was done, and if only one was modified in this manner. It was, reportedly, the command vehicle for “Agrupacion de Carros del Sur“. The Nationalists would have quite liked to operate a captured T-26, seeing as though they were easily the best tanks in the war, owing to their deadly 45 mm (1.77 in) gun. Perhaps the T-26 it came from was damaged, save for the turret, and this is why the turret was salvaged and placed onto a suitable chassis. Whilst quite a heavy turret (an estimated 0.94 tons), the chassis would be able to carry such a load, although it would raise the center of mass substantially, thus making it top heavy and more prone to toppling over. The MC-36 with a T-26 turret has been photographed in service with Agrupacion del Ejercito del Sur during the Victory Parade in Seville, 17th April, 1936, and again in Andalucia.
The MC-36’s production run remains unknown, as do specific details about its armor thickness, weight, and top speed. It is likely that the armor was roughly 10 mm (0.39 in) thick, as per most armored cars of the period. Its very streamlined shape (more so with the Hotchkiss turret) would mean it was aerodynamic, but at the speeds of most armored cars of the time, this would have been very close to irrelevant. Moreso, it would undoubtedly be a heavy and road-bound vehicle, therefore, it is likely that it could hit speeds of no higher than 40 km/h (25 mph) in the best of conditions.Side-note: A Chinese Copy?Photographs of this vehicle must have also appeared in China, too, in around 1936/7, as the Nationalists built an improvised armored car that is simply too similar-looking to be a coincidence, especially with regards to the turret, although nothing is known about this vehicle, aside from what can be seen from the photograph. It is also unclear what gun is used in the turret, although it appears to be a low caliber gun, possibly a mountain gun, mortar, or some kind of jacketed-machine gun, such as the Lewis gun. Sources: Las Armas de la Guerra Civil: El Primer Estudio Global y Sistematico del Armamento Empleado por Ambos Contendientes” by José María Manrique García and Lucas Molina Franco “Spanish Civil War Tanks: The Proving Ground for Blitzkrieg” by Steven J. Zaloga “The Battle for Spain, The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939” by Anthony Beevor “A Short History of: The Spanish Civil War” by Julian Casanova “The Spanish Civil War” by Stanley G. Payne Automania.be Miniarons.eu ww2history.ru vehiculosblindadosdelaguerracivil.blogspot shushpanzer.ru
The original MC-36 featuring the ‘Hotchkiss hemispheric turret’ in Nationalist service, “Columna Madrid Tte. Coronel Asensio“.
The field conversion T-26 turret-armed MC-36 in Nationalist service. Nationalist MC-36. Slogans: Columna Madrid, Viva Espana. Different view of the above MC-36. Slogan: Columna Madrid, Tte. Coronel Asencio. Nationalist MC-36. Possibly the same as above at a different point in time (hence the similarity of the slogans, particularly when “Columna Madrid” is compared closely), or, at least part of the same column. This one does not have the additional armored wheels protecting the tires. Republican MC-36. Slogan: Partido Comunista Unknown MC-36. Republican service. Appears to be the same vehicle as above. Nationalist MC-36 with a T-26 turret. Falangist markings are seen on the wheelguards. Different view of the above MC-36. Postwar parade in the south. Possibly a second MC-36 in Nationalist service with a T-26 turret. Above photos do not show a headlamp on the gun, but it may have just been removed or added at a different point in time.
United States of America (1932)
Tractor Tank – 1 Prototype Built
One-Armed Sutton’s masterpiece
The Sutton Skunk was a little-known tractor tank from early 1932, built for the Chinese export market by Frank ‘One-Arm’ Sutton – Englishman and adventurer. In his time, Sutton made many inventions, and this was perhaps one of his most ambitious. It was simply a Caterpillar 5-ton M1917 tractor that was borrowed from the military and armored up. Featuring two 82mm Stokes mortars and a pair of Browning machine guns, it was a fairly well-armed tankette, almost certainly designed with infantry support in mind.
Who was One-Armed Sutton?
Francis Arthur Sutton (1884-1944) was an English soldier and adventurer who spent no less than 29 years of his life traveling across the globe, having come up with various money-making schemes. His story begins in WWI, at Gallipoli whilst serving with the Royal Engineers. There, he lost part of his hand by throwing no less than six enemy grenades back into the trenches they were thrown from, with a seventh exploding in his hand, for which he earned the Military Cross, and the name “One-Armed Sutton“.
From 1915 onward, he began inventing various weapons such as heavy trench mortars and new fuse systems, which saw him travel to America in 1917 on business, after being released from duties with the British army. After earning a huge fortune for his designs, he invested his money in a gold-dredging business in Siberia. He traveled out there himself, but was forced to leave after the Red Army took control of Blagoveshchensk by 1921. After his dredging machinery was confiscated, he entered negotiations with a Red Army Commissar, who generously paid him off, and Sutton promptly left for Manchuria to cash the cheque the Commissar had written.
Finding the cheque to be good, he spent the next few years hopping back and forth between the two countries, but eventually had to stay in Manchuria, when he had spent all of his small fortune. In Manchuria, he became an advisor to Chinese Warlord Zhang Zuolin (Chang Tso-Lin), and was made a General of the Chinese Army. In 1927, however, he went to Canada, and invested his new fortune in real estate. However, as a result of the Great Depression, he lost that fortune in 1929.
He sold all of his possessions, bar two sets of clothes, paid off all of his debts, and with a few thousand dollars in hand, he began traveling across the USA to search for sponsorship for arms deals to China. His initial proposal to sell aircraft was rejected by most companies, but once he went to Peoria, Illinois, where the M1917 5-ton semi-armored tractor was built, he came up with an ingenious idea.
Sutton took a train to Philadelphia, and, somehow, convinced the Colonel Commandant of the Frankford Arsenal to lend him a tractor for “the purpose of taking some measurements”. He drove the tractor over to Henry Disston’s Steel Works and set to work…
Design
The Sutton Skunk was essentially an armored body placed on the Caterpillar semi-armored 5-ton M1917 artillery tractor. In 1918, the American Army had huge numbers of the tractor, and by 1932, still had 600 in surplus. Trying to get rid of them, the vehicles were actually up for sale, and the US army eventually lowered the price from $8000 ($140,000 in today’s money) to $800 ($14,000 in today’s money). This is likely one of the reasons that the Colonel simply lent federal property to the silver-tongued Sutton.
At Disston’s steel works, the back seats, fuel tanks, and other ‘unimportant’ components were stripped out, and Sutton said: “I’d like to see the Frankford Colonel’s face if he happened to walk in here now!”
The engine and driver’s seat were enclosed in bullet-proof steel and he built a large superstructure on the rear, which made the vehicle eight feet tall. Two Browning machine guns were mounted on either side of the driver, forwards facing, in crude gun ports. There were also two pistol ports on both sides of the hull for automatic weapons and smoke grenades.
In the rear, two 82mm Stokes mortars were also fitted, which Sutton helped design a new and improved fuze for back in 1917 (which made him his first fortune). This was in fact the source of the name, as Sutton is reported as saying “I’m calling it the Sutton Skunk, as both big guns shoot out of the rear“. According to a technical drawing as included in “General of Fortune“, it seems as though the vehicle would only have one crew member, but it is probable that possibly one or two others would operate the guns.
Fate of the Sutton Skunk
Sutton had the intention of selling the vehicle to the Chinese, whom he had spent many years with, as mentioned, in service with one of the strongest warlords in China (in fact, Sutton deemed Zuolin the greatest of them all). For the far east, it could easily be deemed an excellent vehicle with serious export prospects, because whilst quite unimpressive to western militaries, it would impress the Chinese, who had little or no experience of armored warfare. The armaments might sound unimpressive in retrospect, but would be little need for a vehicle to combat other tanks. Apart from which, the Sutton Skunk would be fairly cheap.
However, this is where all clear-cut and clarified information on the Sutton Skunk ends.
Sutton stated that he was going to ship this prototype to China and sell them like hot cakes, and in August, 1932, he indeed sailed for Shanghai, but the only source for this journey is the book “General of Fortune“, which does not clearly state any substantial information about the negotiations behind the sale of the Sutton Skunk.
At this time China was preparing for war against Japan, that had already seized Manchuria practically unopposed, and the preparations for war were in the hands of a German Military Mission headed by General von Seekt. According to “General of Fortune” – “there was no need for talented amateurs like Sutton, nor his ingenious improvised tractor tank“. This seems to imply that he attempted the sale of the vehicle, but had to deal with the German military in doing so, and was ultimately unsuccessful.
In terms of selling arms to warlords, even though they still operated independently and therefore he could negotiate with each on a separate basis, he felt as though he had already fought with the best – Zhang Zuolin (Chang Tso-Lin), who died four years earlier in 1928. He simply refused to side with, and therefore sell arms to, any other warlord. There were also Communist rebels, but having had his fill of Communism in Siberia, Sutton refused to sell arms to them, too.
Possible arrival in China?
The fate of the prototype Sutton Skunk remains unknown, and it is unclear whether or not it was actually brought to China or not, as it is not mentioned again in the book ever again. It might even be possible that the vehicle was assembled, photographed, and returned to the Frankford Arsenal in one day.
According to “Armour in China, Military Modelling Annual (1983)“ by Steven Zaloga, the Chinese were building improvised armored cars since 1930, and improvised tanks in 1932. There is clear photographic evidence for the existence of improvised armored cars in China, but none for the existence of improvised tanks. The Studebaker tank is a well-known mystery, and it was most probably smuggled in by foreign arms dealers.
In April, 1932 Marshal Liu Hsiang formed a unit for armored cars and tanks in Chongqing.
Liu Hsiang’s story is seemingly hard to trace, but according to “China’s Wings” by Gregory Crouch, in 1931, he controlled Sichuan Province (which is just next to Chongqing – therefore, the story makes sense at least geographically), a huge army, and plenty of airplanes smuggled from Indochina by French arms dealers.
It is suggested that six improvised tanks were built based on tractors – five on a Cletrac 20 featuring a Lewis Gun, and one on a larger Cletrac 30 featuring a Lewis Gun and a 37mm gun. However, there are no photographs of either vehicle.
The connection to the Sutton Skunk would be that the Chinese designs were inspired by the Sutton Skunk, thus proving that the Sutton Skunk did, in fact, make it to China. Unfortunately, Sutton set sail for China in August of 1932. Assuming that the date of April 1932 for the formation of the tank unit is correct (and, indeed, that it truly happened), then these Chinese tractor tanks seem to have developed independent of the Sutton Skunk earlier in the year. This also assumes that Sutton did not market the idea earlier in the year before setting sail to China, or that he did not send the Sutton Skunk to China before his departure in August.
Sutton’s final years
Sutton later moved to Korea with another mining operation, but he was expelled by the Japanese in 1941. He later died in a POW camp in Hong Kong in 1944; the amazing man lost to history. Sutton’s story was written about by use of diaries, journals, and letters in the 1963 biographical book by Charles Drage – “General of Fortune, the fabulous story of One-Arm Sutton“, but Sutton still remains an obscure footnote in history, this article only scratching at the surface of his story.
Rendition of the Sutton Skunk.
The schematic and only known photo of the Sutton Skunk, as taken from “General of Fortune, The fabulous story of One-Arm Sutton“, by Charles Drage.
Sidenote I: Stolen idea?
The Disston Tractor Tank was a slightly later and similar design that was most likely made after the Sutton Skunk (although information on both vehicles is very limited). The date of creation of the Disston is a very important fact, as it may be possible that the Disston company stole the concept and design elements from Sutton.
The Disston is almost as obscure as the Sutton Skunk, and its exact year of production is also hard to pinpoint. According to sources, the earliest possible year that the Disston was seen was in 1933, when the prototype was likely built, as the earliest known hard evidence suggests that the Disston was marketed in January 1934, with a photograph of the prototype included.
Either way, all evidence places the Disston being made after the Sutton Skunk. Whilst bearing the name “Disston” (likely as a marketing technique to use the trusted brand name), it was the idea of the Caterpillar Company, and therefore, the concept of this tractor tank appears to have developed independently of the Sutton Skunk. However, the Caterpillar Company was based Peoria, Illinois, where the Sutton Skunk was made, and it may have perhaps been seen by them. Also, the specifics of the deal between Disston and Caterpillar are unclear – it is known that Caterpillar supplied the tractors, which were, almost certainly armored up at the Disston works. That being the case, it remains unclear which company made the exact design, and it is possible that if Disston made the exact design, then elements of the Sutton Skunk were borrowed.
The book, “General of Fortune, the fabulous story of One-Arm Sutton“, the only source for the Sutton Skunk, reveals few details on the tank’s construction. It will remain unknown if the Disston Tractor Tank was inspired by the Sutton Skunk or not.
Sidenote II: Mercier Tank
The Mercier tank or “Aragón Tank” was a tank based on a Caterpillar 22 tractor from 1937 (during the Spanish Civil War). A single prototype was made at the Mercier works in Zaragoza, Nationalist-occupied Spain. It featured a pair of Hotchkiss machine guns mounted in a superstructure very similar to the Sutton Skunk, except for the machine guns being mounted in specially built mounts, as opposed to simplistic holes cut in the armor. The project was never developed past a single prototype, but it, strangely, looks very similar to the Sutton Skunk. There is no likely connection between the two. The Mercier Tank or “Aragón Tank”, circa 1937. It looks very similar to the Sutton Skunk, but there is no likely connection between the two.
People’s Republic of China (1960s)
Main Battle Tank – Fake
From the Wargaming design bureau
Video games and historical accuracy are rarely used together in the same sentence. World of Tanks is perhaps one of the worst offenders, giving rise to some interesting, yet laughable fake tanks. This article will focus on one of the latest fake tanks to flood World of Tanks servers, the 59-Patton – An obviously fake mash-up between a Type 59 hull, and an M48A3 Patton turret. Many were quick to point out on WoT forums that it simply is unfeasible as a design. Nevertheless, considering how the creation of such a vehicle would be possible is a very interesting endeavor.
“Historical Information” and overall credibility
World of Tanks gives the following information about the 59-Patton –
“After 1960, Chinese government launched the development of a new tank. The engineering experiments included a wide use of previously produced Type 59 tanks. One vehicle was equipped with the turret, gun, and fire control system of an American M48A3 tank.”
This is rather vague information, and also almost certainly untrue. It is true that the Chinese were experimenting with tank development from the 1960s onward, particularly with heavy tanks and upgrading the Type 59 (although most of the prototypes were allegedly destroyed during Chinese nuclear testing, according to WoT).
The concept of fitting an M48 Patton turret to a Type 59 as some kind of basis for an improvement does not fit the reality of Chinese MBT tank development at the time. Having said this, little detail is available on Chinese tank development.
Development on medium tanks / MBTs was slowly giving solid results, but did not include any ideas of giving the Type 59 a new turret. In fact, it was more about improving the Type 59, as opposed to the development of totally new vehicles, turrets, or chassis. 617 factory, who produced the Type 59, were given orders to make improvements based on the same chassis, shortly after production started. The result was the creation of the well-known Type 69, which later developed into the Type 79 MBTs. The hulls and turrets of these new vehicles were practically identical to the Type 59. The only real differences were the new technology and the inclusion of a ‘new’ and improved 100 and 105mm gun, respectively. None of the new technologies used can be attributed to an American source, let alone a new Patton turret. For example, the Chinese captured a Soviet T-62 tank (during the 1969 Sino-Soviet border conflict) and copied many components, such as the Luna Infrared searchlight and integrated this into their MBT designs.
Whilst the M48A3 Patton was a good design, it was, by 1960, somewhat outdated and was therefore replaced with the M60 Patton, which featured a 105mm gun (although the M48 stayed in service until the 1990s). The M48A3’s 90mm gun would not be the best weapon to use against modern armor (particularly against Soviet armor, which became a priority for the PRC, due to the major breakdown in Sino-Soviet relations). Even if the M48A3 turret were modified to take a more potent Chinese gun, it would be far easier to upgrade existing Chinese turrets. This would allow a much quicker design process and faster production, seeing as though the same basic design would be used. In reality, the Type 69 followed exactly this – it was an upgrade of the Type 59.
However, the overall notion of an M48 Patton turret on a Type 59 chassis is absurd. The turret rings are a serious mismatch – the Patton turret is far too big for the Type 59 hull. A whole new hull (possibly but not necessarily based on the Type 59) would have to be developed in order to make this vehicle work, or the turret section would need substantial modifications.
A more credible story?
The other non-WoT suggestion behind the existence of the 59-Patton is to use the vehicle as a means to test the M48 Patton’s capabilities. There is a suggestion that perhaps the Chinese captured a damaged M48 Patton, or at least the turret (which will be discussed later in the article). In order to test the M48 Patton’s capabilities, the Chinese could mount the turret onto a chassis. The M48 Patton was in service until the 1990s, and it would perhaps be worth the Chinese knowing the M48’s capabilities. Whilst a more likely theory, given the path of Chinese tank development during the period, it does not address the fact that the vehicle would not work due to the turret ring mismatch. Perhaps the Type 59 chassis could be, in some manner, modified to take the turret, perhaps by means of a small superstructure on top of the chassis, which would make the hull wide enough to fit the turret, as seen with the supposed “T-34/62” tanks, essentially a T-34 with a T-62 turret, which were used as bunkers, circa 1980. (See Sidenote: II) The turret would not even necessarily need to rotate for tests, but could be welded on and the hull of the vehicle would have to be turned precisely for accurate aiming.
Entertaining the theory of how the Chinese would even get a Patton turret to experiment on is also very difficult, but, nevertheless, there are two major theories, neither of which are suggested by World of Tanks. However, it must be noted that there is no real proof that the PRC ever had a Patton to experiment with, nor did they ever experiment with making the 59-Patton a reality. If the concept of the 59-Patton is true, then it probably was little more than a passing thought.
Theory 1 – Vietnam gave the PRC a Patton
It is highly unlikely that the Chinese would get hold of a Patton until the Vietnam War. This would require the NVA to hand over a captured Patton – something not easily done. The most likely time that Pattons would be captured is whilst they were in service with the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. In 1972, many of the 600 M48 Pattons to see service in Vietnam were given to the ARVN. These and M41 Walker Bulldogs would see sporadic fighting against NVA T-54s and PT-76s, but some were lost to Sagger missiles, such as in one incident in 23 April, 1973. In May, 1975, Patton tanks that belonged to the ARVN were abandoned due to running out of munitions and fuel (as a result of a US congressional ban on sending fuel and munitions to Vietnam). They were then in rather short service with the People’s Army of Vietnam. At least one Patton still stands at the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh city. From this, it is clear that the most likely time that Pattons would be captured is during the later stages of the Vietnam War, and by this time, the Vietnamese had sided with the USSR, not the PRC, as part of the Sino-Soviet split.
The Sino-Soviet split occurred when the USSR and PRC were feuding for ideological control of Communism. By the mid-1950s, Nikita Khrushchev cemented his leadership of the Soviet Union, and he denounced Stalin’s cult of personality. He also pursued a policy of Peaceful Coexistence with the US and the West. However, Mao believed that it was every Communist’s duty to destroy the West. The idea of seeking peace with them was wrong and against Marxism. He called Khrushchev a traitor or ‘revisionist’ for this. Apart from which, after the death of Stalin in 1953, Mao considered himself the leader of the Communist world, as he is the ‘next most senior leader’.
Khrushchev was also at odds with Mao for a number of reasons. Khrushchev was also very critical of Mao’s leadership of the PRC, especially the failure of the Great Leap Forward, the brutality of the invasion of Tibet, and the assertion of independence from the USSR. He thought that Mao was dangerous. Mao had intentions to invade Taiwan, which was considered a sure-fire way to start a nuclear war. On top of this, Mao declared himself the leader of the “third world” in 1974, stating that the USSR was just another form of imperialism, and that Chinese Communism was the way for newly revolting countries to go. He wanted to form a third belligerent in the Cold War.
Vietnam was only a new chapter in this split. When Vietnam started its Communist revolution, both the USSR and PRC thought that they could gain a new ally. The Vietnamese were happy to keep sitting on the fence between Soviet Communism and Chinese Communism so that they would get more weapons from both sides.
Originally, the Soviets sent their supplies through the PRC, but it was discovered that the Chinese were stealing some of these for themselves, so they used alternative routes. The Soviets also sent advisers to the NVA. The PRC was a little more direct. They sent in engineer soldiers to aid the NVA, as well as tanks and other weapons. After the Vietnam War ended, the USSR became Vietnam’s strongest ally, and Vietnam sided with Soviet communism. This is mainly because the Chinese backed the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, at a time when Vietnam’s Communist party was strongly against the ideals of Pol Pot. In 1979, the Chinese even invaded Vietnam because of Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia in 1978, which effectively ended the Khmer Rouge rule over Cambodia. This was another result of the Sino-Soviet split, with the Chinese Vice-Premier stating that the invasion was in response to ‘Soviet expansionism’ in the region.
History lesson aside, this shows that the Vietnamese and Chinese were hardly likely to collaborate on anything in the late war, which is when the Pattons were most likely to have been captured, and therefore there is little or no chance that the Chinese would receive a Patton tank this way.
It is reported by one Tanks Encyclopedia commenter that Vietnam gave China a Patton to test, and is currently on display at China North Vehicle Research Institute, but this is not proven to the satisfaction of the author.
Theory 2 – Pakistan gave the PRC a Patton
Pakistan and the PRC had a good relationship stretching back the 1950s. When most countries severed diplomatic ties with the PRC in protest over their claims of being the ‘real China’, Pakistan did not. Since 1962, Pakistan has received substantial military, economic, and technical assistance from China, with collaborations on military hardware such as the Al-Khalid continuing to this day. However, back in the 1950s, the USA was very interested in relations with Pakistan for strategic reasons. The USA did not want the domino effect to take place in Pakistan (whereby neighboring or nearby Communist states aid local Communist parties into revolution and take over the country), so various forms of economic and military aid was sent in order to ensure Pakistan stays loyal to the West.
After a mutual defense treaty in 1954, Pakistani tank officers were trained in the US at Fort Knox. During the mid-50s, Pakistan’s cavalry regiments received 230 M47 and 202 M48 Patton tanks (although none seem to have been M48A3s). However, by 1966, in the context of the aftermath of the Indo-Pak war of 1965, China and Pakistan began military relations. The aim was to counter Indian (and US) dominance in the region. China was wary of India because of its ties to Tibet. India had trade links with Tibet that it did not want disrupting, following the Chinese annexation of Tibet and incorporation into the PRC. Despite an agreement of coexistence in 1954, border disputes between India and China ensued in the early 1960s, thus leading to the Sino-Indian War in 1962, and other events such as taking in the Dalai Lama as a political refugee after the 1959 Tibetan uprising only made things worse. Due to Pakistan’s shared interest to avoid Indian influence, Pakistan and China saw each other as viable allies – an alignment of mutual interest.
This being the case, it is possible that Pakistan could send a Patton to the PRC for testing. However, many Pattons were lost during the 1965 Indo-Pak War, particularly at the Battle of Asal Uttar, September 8-10, with a minimum of 99 tanks lost out of the 176 Patton tanks and 44 Chaffees committed to the battle. This even led to the creation of Patton Nagar at the site of the battle, where many captured Pakistani tanks, mainly Pattons, were displayed – seeming to be mostly M47s, but some M48s, too (in all, an estimated 72 Pattons, of which 28 were in running condition). These vehicles were later shipped across India and were displayed as trophies. Whether or not Pakistan would therefore donate a tank to China in the 60s is doubtful.
A prototype Merkava M48 – a real vehicle. One prototype Merkava chassis had an M48 Patton turret in order to test out the chassis, particularly the feasibility of a front-engine hull design. This may have perhaps inspired the 59-Patton.
A 59-Patton as seen in World of Tanks. The release article for the 59-Patton, as taken from Worldoftanks.com. It is obviously a pure work of complete fiction. The Chinese ‘tech tree’ from World of Tanks. It is filled with mysterious prototypes, most of which are probably fake or speculations at best. A WZ-111 prototype in China Tank Museum, Beijing. It was constructed without a turret and the project was cancelled in 1966 due to a vast number of mechanical issues. Courtesy of Wikipedia user 颐园新居. A Type 69 tank on display at the Tank Museum of the People’s Liberation Army, Beijing. The Type 69 was the next major Chinese tank development and began in 1963. It was hardly more than an upgraded Type 59. There was seemingly no intention to create a new turret, nor was there any need – the improved 100mm gun was incredibly similar. It was also an unsuccessful tank, and the Type 79 was produced, although it was little more than an improvement on the Type 69, featuring a copy of the L/7 105mm gun. An M48 Patton at the War Remnants Museum, Vietnam. It has been suggested that one could have been sent to China from Vietnam, but this seems unlikely, as after the war, the two nations had a dramatic diplomatic fallout.
“Patton Nagar”, 1965. Photograph taken by Brig. Hari Singh Deora A.V.S.M, 18th Cavalry, Indian Army. As taken from Wikipedia. The suggestion that Pakistan might have sent the PRC M48s to test is unlikely, as many were lost in the 1965 Indo-Pak war.
One of possibly two Merkava prototypes featuring an M48 Patton turret. This may have inspired the 59-Patton, however, there is no proof of this.
Side-note I: Merkava M48
Prototype Merkava chassis were fitted with at least one or two M48 Patton turrets in the early 1970s in order to test the new front-engine layout. A Centurion “Shot Kal” turret was also used for this testing. It is possible that the prototype Merkava tanks with the M48 Patton turrets inspired the 59-Patton.
Side-note II: T-34/62 tanks
There were some T-34 tanks that were modified to take a T-62 turret circa 1980 (believed to be in Bulgaria). They had the turret rings and hulls modified to fit the larger turret, and were used as bunkers near the Turkish/Greek borders. Despite reports that they could reportedly still drive, it seems to be the case that they were just immobile bunkers. They also reportedly remained in service at least 1996. Only a few photos of a rusted wreck can be found online and there is simply a lack of information on the vehicles. This shows that the 59-Patton could exist in much the same manner. Other strange Bulgarian mix-ups exist such as a Panzer IV with a SU-76’s gun modified to fit into the turret with a small superstructure built on the existing turret to make the gun fit.
Los Zetas (And Other Cartels) (Circa 2010)
Improvised APCs – 120+ Built
The real Mad Max cars
“Narco Tanks” (known as “Narco tanques” in Spanish) is an umbrella term made by the media for the improvised armored cars used by modern drugs cartels in Mexico. SUVs and commercial vehicles serve as the chassis for Narco Tanks, and they are tooled up with armor, turrets, mounted weapons, and even James Bond-like gadgets. They are seen mostly in the Mexican states bordering the USA because these areas have become zones of intense conflict between cartels competing for drugs smuggling routes into the USA. These vehicles typically look like something from the post-apocalyptic film, Mad Max, and were first reported at some point between 2010 and 2011; although the Mexican mass media is often deliberately slow to report on certain cartel-related stories for fear of reprisal attacks.
Created in illicit workshops, these vehicles are well-known for their exotic designs, but for the local Mexicans, they are weapons of an ever-escalating and ever-deadlier inter-cartel war that even the military has been involved in for over ten years.
Narco Tanks were first reported around 2010. They have seen prolific use until 2012, mostly in Tamaulipas, by Los Zetas (and sometimes other cartels), and some limited combat with the military has occurred.
Context: Los Zetas and the drugs trade
Los Zetas (The Z’s) has been described as the most technologically advanced, sophisticated, and dangerous drugs cartel operating in Mexico. Perhaps surprisingly, it only began operating as a truly independent organization in 2010, but its roots stretch back the the late 1990s after a group of Mexican army commandos deserted and began working for Cártel del Golfo, one of the oldest cartels in Mexico. It appears as though these commandos formed the core of the Los Zetas contingent, and eventually split from Cártel del Golf – the exact reasons seems unclear, but the conglomerate structure of cartels means that fractures are fairly common.
Owing to the fact that their original members belonged to an elite military unit, Grupo Aeromóvil de Fuerzas Especiales (now Cuerpo de Fuerzas Especiales), Los Zetas members tend to be exceptionally well-trained in urban and commando combat. In fact, many of their members are also known to be former US army personnel, Guatemalan ex-special forces, and corrupt officials / police officers. Combining their elite membership with their proven brutality and vast array of military grade weapons, it is clear to see why this group is considered so dangerous.
Since 2010, Los Zetas has used Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas (north east of Mexico, close to the border with Texas) as its base of operations. Los Zetas are perhaps one of the most brutal cartels operating in Mexico, gaining infamy for events such as the massacre of 300+ civilians in Allende, Coahuila, north East Mexico, simply because two local men betrayed Los Zetas – this being just one of many other high profile incidents. Crucial to understanding the existence of Narco Tanks is that only half of the income of Los Zetas comes from drugs trafficking, whereas the other half comes from activities against civilians and war with other drugs cartels, which has, in turn, created a desire for armored vehicles.
Over the last ten years, Mexico has seen high levels of violence due to competition between cartels, each competing for control of drugs routes into the USA. Border areas very useful territory, as they give shorter smuggling trips, which means that there is less time and opportunity for the smugglers to be intercepted by Mexican authorities. Knowing the importance of this to a successful smuggling run, cartels are willing to fight for every single street in border areas.
This escalation in fighting, such as the murder of the local-police chief in Nuevo Laredo, has reportedly led to increased military efforts against the cartel. It is even reported (albeit without proper source citation) that there was a decision as early as 2000 by then-President Vicente Fox to send soldiers to fight against the cartels directly, seeing as though local law enforcement lacked the training and raw firepower to deal with the threat. Regardless of the authenticity of this report, it seems that there are some small evidence and reports of soldiers fighting against Los Zetas.
This increased fighting has meant that a small arms race has begun between rival cartels, who want strong firepower from vehicles (thus allowing them to perform fast and deadly mobile attacks) and effective protection for their crews during these attacks. As well as this, the role of the military may have meant that cartels have sought to protect their convoys in case of an ambush or quick strike mission.
However, it is important to keep in mind a broader context, as more than just an arms race has come as a result of cartel-violence. Conservative estimates give the figure of 70,000 for those killed in cartel-related attacks from 2006-2012, military intervention having greatly exacerbated this. Of course, this intervention was far from uncalled for, as massacres and constant cartel-related violence were on the rise before 2005.
Production of Narco Tanks
Narco Tanks are produced in improvised production lines or underground workshops which are hard to detect by law enforcement, and only two have been reported captured since 2011, the latest being in February 2015. Analysis of captured workshops by the military has shown that some vehicles had suspensions modified to take up to 30 tons of weight which allow the vehicles to feature armor of 5-25mm thick, which can withstand small arms fire and even 40mm military grenades.
These vehicles can differ greatly, having been based on SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles) like the Ford F-350, and even larger vehicles like commercial vans, dumper trucks, and even tractors in rarer instances. Whilst cartels could probably afford military grade vehicles, they are large, conspicuous, and spare parts are not readily available. Whereas, larger civilian and commercial vehicles tend to blend in (as they would attract less attention from authorities, both on the road and during purchase), are easy to maintain, and spare parts are easy to come by.
Types of Narco Tanks
According to an article in Small Wars Journal by Robert J. Bunker, the Narco Tanks can be classified in five categories – I (Defensive), II (Defensive), III – Early (Offensive), III – Mature (Offensive), and IV (Offensive). Level I vehicles are hastily improvised vehicles with minor innovations, an example of such is the use ballistic vests inside a delivery truck to provide protection for cartel hit squads, as seen in one incident on July 11th, 1979, at Dadeland Mall, Florida. Indeed, this precedes the modern Narco Tank, but such vehicles are very likely to exist due to the reduced chance of attracting attention.
Level II vehicles tend to be professionally armored SUVs using internal armor kits, ballistic glass, and bullet-proof tires, all of which are common in Mexico. Since the late 1990s, middle-class civilians have begun purchasing these armor kits to protect themselves from kidnapping and general cartel violence. Furthermore, in recent years, these armor kits have become readily available at a low cost for mass consumption, seeing as though the market has grown so large, which means that they are even more common, and have become the most common type of Narco Tank.
Level III (early) vehicles have improvised pillboxes or similar firing positions on the bed of a truck, can possibly be armored, and have been seen around northeastern Mexico from 2010-2011.
Level III (mature) vehicles make up the bulk of sensationally photographed Narco Tanks (although many examples of Level III Early vehicles exist). They are usually (but not exclusively) work trucks featuring exterior armor, 5-25mm thick, gun ports, air conditioning for passengers, external gun mounts, battering rams, and even small turrets. The key difference between Level III and Level I-II vehicles it that Level III vehicles are considered offensive weapons, as opposed to defensive. They can be operated like gun-trucks similar to the ones seen employed by the US during the Vietnam War. Level III Narco Tanks can be split further into two categories – SUVs and large commercial vehicles.
Level IV is a predicted evolution of Level III – an Improvised Armored Fighting Vehicle with an anti-vehicular main gun (probably some form of AA gun) and possibly thicker armor. For various reasons that will be explored later in this article, this evolution has not happened.
What makes larger Level III vehicles particularly dangerous and well-known is their sheer size, intimidating appearance, high passenger capacity (often as many as 20 men), and the fact that they may carry heavy machine guns or even RPGs. Analysis of photographs reveals that some weapons seen include personal weapons, mounted .50 cal snipers, mounted machine guns, and perhaps other heavy infantry or anti-tank weapons such as rocket propelled grenades. Unconventional weapons are used on these vehicles, too. Many of them have battering rams, perhaps to burst through gates, enemy vehicles, or even general traffic. Whereas some vehicles even reportedly have gadgets that chuck nails or oil onto the road, presumably to help lose a tailing vehicle.
Smaller Narco Tanks are generally based on SUVs and pickup trucks. They are easy to conceal and are known to feature very powerful V10 engines, making them perfect for the type of combat they are involved in. These also often feature turrets, a curious innovation perhaps, but they allow effective fire to be laid down on enemies. For example, one vehicle had a turret designed for a sniper to cover a 160-degree radius towards the front. They can provide crucial forwards fire that most comparable gun trucks lack.
SUV Narco Tanks tend to be light, but there are examples of extensively modified and heavily armed types. Both of these types were made at roughly the same time, but only the lighter SUV Narco Tanks are seen today – the heavy ones tend to be very conspicuous, such as the infamous examples of Monstruo 2010 and 2011 (see below). Such designs are also rather short-lived designs owing to their inherent flaws such as being far too conspicuous, unreliable, and slow. A ‘light’ Narco Tank – a large pick-up truck (possibly a 1999 Chevrolet Silverado 2500) featuring an armored pillbox on the rear. It has space for four passengers, and its armor 19mm thick. It is less likely to attract attention from authorities. Being barely modified, it could probably hit speeds of 110km/h (68mph). Seized June, 2011, Tamaulipas.
Lighter SUV Narco Tanks tend to have internal armor kits, or just small pillboxes mounted on the rear. As mentioned earlier, internal armor kits are becoming commercially available, which, whilst providing similar armor characteristics as external improvised armor, are also nearly impossible for authorities to detect from the outside of the vehicle. Vehicles modified with these kits are also not blatantly cartel-related, save for all of the firearms inside, meaning they cannot be seized without serious proof of criminal intent. They are also substantially lighter than those equipped with heavier external armor, which means that these Light Narco Tanks can travel much quicker. These two advantages alone have meant that the chances of seeing the larger, more spectacular Narco Tanks in the future is slim.
In Combat and Tactics
The smaller vehicles based on SUVs tend to be stealthy and defensive weapons, usually to defend territory or protect drugs shipments. They may still carry heavier weapons such as .50 cal sniper rifles, but rarely anything larger. There are reports of videos that show them to be operated in convoys of 10-20 vehicles, each carrying up to five men. Again, to make the point very clear – this type is more and more common, seeing as though they have many benefits over the larger vehicles, as they are more difficult to detect, can travel faster, and attract less unwanted attention. A Chevy Suburban with a mounted Browning M2 machine gun. Found in Nuevo Laredo, circa 2010. This type of Narco Tank is becoming more common, because it is more stealthy, although the machine gun is very obvious, and it seems as though it would be near impossible to aim. It would also be very dangerous to operate in such an enclosed space without military-grade ear defenders.
Larger gun trucks are seen in fewer numbers, perhaps alone or in small groups. These vehicles seem to be used exclusively as an offensive weapon against rival cartels. However, they feature a major weak point – tires, which are rarely bulletproof and are seldom protected by armor plating.
Narco Tanks are far from indestructible and have not overwhelmed opposing cartels or the Mexican military. They are not often engaged by the military, but the military has been known to employ handheld AT weaponry against them, such as the RL-83 Blindicide bazooka, which was used during one engagement in May 2011, at Escobobo, Nuevo Leon. Some photos exist of abandoned Narco Tanks having been severely damaged by RPGs fired from opposing cartels, and some knocked out vehicles have even been graffitied, daring Los Zetas to send more Narco Tanks to their doom. An abandoned Narco Tank based on a truck which appears to have been destroyed by an RPG hit and a subsequent fire. RPGs are common in cartel arsenals, and seemingly with good reason.
They have also not been used against civilians as an offensive weapon. Los Zetas seems to act in a military-fashion, by wearing military uniforms and setting up roadblocks with their Narco Tanks, which sometimes look similar to military vehicles, save for a few details. Despite seeming as though they want to have political and social control over areas, Los Zetas and other cartels are not wholly hierarchical in their structure. In fact, they operate as federations, thus meaning that they can become fragmented very easily (it was fragmentation of one cartel that led to Los Zetas’ formation), thus meaning that they cannot form any kind of governing body. Furthermore, Narco Tanks may become redundant, as the necessary coordination of these military-like vehicles (mainly avoiding capture by authorities) may not be present in a fragmented group.
Infamous: Monstruo 2010 and 2011
Two of the most famous Narco Tanks are known as Monstruo 2010 and Monstruo 2011. It is unclear whether or not they were made by the same workshop, but they both share very similar features, although it may be the case that they are unrelated vehicles, save for the name. These are the vehicles which truly do look like they were straight from the Max Max franchise, owing to their entirely armored exterior and unique appearance. “Monstruos del Narcos” (infographic in Spanish on Monstruo 2010) Monstruo 2010 is the more crude looking version, based on a large SUV. According to the above infographic, it could transport up to 19 or 20 men carrying assault rifles. It features a single turret at the front of the crew compartment for a sniper. All glass was removed from the vehicle and replaced with armor plating; although small vision slits featuring armored glass (polycarbonate and Duplex) were added. The tires, too, were partially covered with a steel plate, but nevertheless, an ultralightweight, bulletproof, ballistic steel ring was added to each. The steel hull was an inch (25.4mm) thick and angled upwards. The front of the vehicle featured a large steel pole 4×4 inches big, to smash through obstacles, and, strangely, the grill was reportedly electrified with up to 700 volts! It also had nail-dropping, oil-slicking, and smoke screen devices which could throw off pursuers, which would be necessary, as it could only travel a mere 40-50km/h (25-31mph).
It also featured a satellite communication system for listening to police / military communications – perhaps one of the most inventive and ingenious devices ever attached to a Narco Tank. It would mean that the vehicle would not have to rely on lookouts using mobile phones to inform the Narco Tanks on police / military movements. Crucially, the lookouts could only do this once the authorities were in the process of carrying out a raid, whereas tapping into communication systems would inform the Narco Tank of potential threats before they have even begun moving. Nevertheless, Monstruo 2010 was captured by authorities in Jalisco, May 2011. Monstruo 2011 looked much more sophisticated than Monstruo 2010. The key differences are that it featured two turrets and looked fairly well put together, even featuring reinforced transmission. It is believed that two Monstruo 2011 vehicles have been found, which look almost identical. The first was found in Rancho San Juan, Municipality of Progreso, Coahuila, buried under tonnes of dirt, perhaps to evade detection. The other was found in Ciudad Mier, Tamaulipas, with its tires missing. AMonstruo 2011 found in Ciudad Mier, Tamaulipas. It is almost identical to the other Monstruo 2011, despite being found in a totally different part of the country. The only obvious differences are the turrets are very slightly different at the top, and the co-driver’s side window is longer. No photos of this one at Ciudad Mier exist of it with its suspension intact.
The vehicle is based on a Ford Super Duty pickup truck. On average, its armor is one inch (25.4mm) thick. The driver’s seating area remains totally unchanged inside, save for level V bulletproof glass. The nose of the vehicle was sharply pointed with a steel battering ram, showing a clear intention to smash through obstacles, although it could only travel at speeds of only 40-50km/h (25-31mph). It can transport an estimated 20 people, and it even features semi-enclosed steel firing compartments – six on both sides of the hull, two at the rear, and two sniper’s turrets. It does not seem to feature any gadgets like Monstruo 2010, but it was, undoubtedly, a sophisticated and well-planned design, probably created using blueprints, which would explain the existence of two Monstruo 2011s.
Monstruo 2011 specification
Dimensions (L-w-h)
7m x 3m x 3.5m (23ft x 9.8ft x 11.5ft)
Base vehicle
Ford Super Duty pick-up, estimated mid-2000s model
Crew
2 (driver, co-driver) + up to 20 passengers
Propulsion
Triton V10, five-speed, ten cylinder, petrol
Speed (road)
40-50km/h (25-31mph)
Armament
1x Large steel battering ram.
2x Sniper’s turrets
14x Pistol ports for personal weapons, usually assault rifles and .50cal sniper rifles.
Armor
Up to 25.4mm
Total production
2 almost identical models
Fate
Both seized by authorities. First in May, 2011. Second in June, 2011. Probably dismantled or scrapped.
Further development
As mentioned earlier, Narco Tanks like the Monstruos and heavy trucks have been seldom seen since 2012, perhaps owing to the fact that stealthy SUVs with internal armor are preferred by the cartels, and with good reason. The Mexican government states that at least 100 Narco Tanks have been seized so far, which has undoubtedly had a knock-on effect on Narco Tank production. Instead of getting bigger, as many commentators have speculated, they have actually gotten smaller and less conspicuous.
The most recent reported sighting of Narco Tanks was in February 2015, when a Narco Tanks factory hidden inside a winery was discovered by Mexican authorities near Nuevo Laredo, close to the US border. 13 vehicles were seized, but only 8 of them were Narco Tanks – the other five were in the process of being armored. Along with the haul of vehicles was a number of .50 cal bullets, bullet-proof glass panels, and AK-47 magazines. This is only the second widely reported raid on a Narco Tank factory, and it is almost certain that plenty more illegal workshops are still in operation and are producing Narco Tanks to this very day. Sources and further reading: Small Wars Journal (English and Spanish) Cartels.forumotion.com Insightcrime.org Borderlandbeat.com Polizeros.com M3report.com(Warning: Very graphic content) Carsguide.com Latino.foxnews.com CNN.com Businessinsider.com Univision.com (Spanish) Los Zetas on Wikipedia Cártel del Golfo on Wikipedia
The most famous, and perhaps one of the most heavily armed Narco Tanks, “Monstruo 2010“. It is believed to be one of the first Narco Tanks ever discovered by authorities. It features a satellite communication device to track police and military communications. It also has smoke-screen, oil-slicking, and nail-dropping devices. It has a heavy steel battering ram on the front, which is also electrified with up to 700 volts! Seized in Jalisco, May 2011. Not to scale.
Another famous Narco Tank – “Monstruo 2011“. Two almost identical models of it were built. It features space for 20 men, with individual steel firing stations for each porthole. Its two snipers turrets give all-around cover, and there is a heavy steel battering ram on the front. It is based on a Ford Super Duty. Seized in Ciudad Meir, May 2011. Not to scale.
Possibly the largest Narco Tank discovered yet. It belonged to Cártel Del Golfo. The cabin and vehicle platform are all one piece, meaning that the suspension is less likely to snap in the middle. There are no doors for a driver and co-driver, but there is a rear hatch for entry. There are twelve portholes with space for 13 crew members. Seized January 2012, Carmago, Tamaulipas. Not to scale.
A .50cal sniper riveted to the rear of a modern Narco Tank based on an enclosed people carrier. This type of Narco Tank is becoming more common because it is more stealthy and its interior armor is a lot less conspicuous.
“Popemobile Narco”, so called due to its resemblance to the “Popemobile“. This is a simpler conversion seemingly based on a GMC Sierra 2500 featuring a sniper’s cabin on the rear with space for four people. Despite the crude construction, the materials used in its construction are high-quality steel and bulletproof glass.
One of the more exotic looking Narcos Tanks featuring a turret. It is named “Monstruo 2010”, it is perhaps an early version of “Monstruo 2011”, although they are more than likely unrelated designs. Seized in Jalisco, May 2011. The interior of one of Monstruo 2011’s turrets. It seems as though the viewports featured shutters.
A ‘light’ Narco Tank, but still one of the larger pickup trucks (seemingly a 1999 Ford F-150 FX4 double-cab) featuring an armored pillbox on the rear. It has space for eight passengers and gives frontal coverage. The hood of the vehicle is reinforced with hand-cut steel plates, probably 19mm in thickness. Seized June 2011, Tamaulipas. One of the larger pickup trucks featuring an armored pillbox on the rear. It has space for eight passengers and gives frontal coverage. Seized June 2011, Tamaulipas. A large commercial moving van has been converted into a Narco Tank. It has an armored rear featuring many portholes, as well as a set of external cage armor for the cab. It could carry as many as eight men. Seized June 2011, Tamaulipas A large white truck with plenty of additional armor – the hood is 19mm thick. It has the rear wheels covered up, but the front ones remain exposed. There are ten portholes and eleven separate firing stations. Seized June 2011, Tamaulipas.
One of the larger Narco Tanks, it might be based on a dump truck, and it supposedly belonged to Cártel Del Golfo. Mexican Marines are guarding the vehicle. 25mm shells, a 40mm grenade, and some AP .50cal rounds were also reportedly found inside!
The interior of the above (or possibly below, sources differ) Narco Tank. It features air conditioning, and possibly fire-proof insulation.
A heavily armored Narco Tank nicknamed “Batmobile”, seized January 2012, Carmago, Tamaulipas. It has space for 18 passengers. It features a ram, and the hood is covered with 12.7mm inch steel. Also believed to be a Dodge truck (based on interior photos of the steering wheel) it supposedly belonged to Cártel del Golfo.
Interior of the above Narco Tank (or possibly the other above truck, sources differ). All the electronics have been rewired into the newly armored driver’s position. Another view of the heavily armored truck featuring a ram, seized January 2012, Carmago, Tamaulipas. Interior of the above Narco Tank. Despite its crude-looks, this is one of the more ‘polished’ interiors, featuring benches for crews to sit on and large firing ports.
A similar heavily armored truck featuring a ram, seized January 2012, Carmago, Tamaulipas. The front ram has been reinforced with steel plates.
A video of one of the Monstruo 2011s having been seized (Spanish).
The T-12 and the T-24 were attempts to improve the line of Soviet tanks deriving from MS (T-18) tanks, mostly consisting of failed prototypes such as the T-19, T-21, and T-23. On paper, it seemed like a good idea, seeing as though the Soviets had no medium tanks during the design phase of the T-12 and T-24, between 1925-1931. Whilst the tank as a whole seemed to be a sound design, it was simply unworkable and mechanical failures were common. These failures may not have derived from the design itself, but from the fact that the USSR had very limited number of skilled tank workers and resources. The T-24 is the model which was cleared for production and had 25 built. Having said this, the T-12/T-24 project was in direct competition with the somewhat infamous Tank Grotte-1, which later met the same fate as the T-12/T-24 project. Development of this project and the TG heavy tank project was ended in 1931 in light of adopting production of the Christie tanks, more commonly known as the BT series.
The T-24 tank. The commander’s cupola is very distinctive.
Design process
The Soviets knew that they needed a more heavily armored tank than the T-18, but were actually not willing to embark on any such project until they felt that they had sufficient tank designing experience. A tank design bureau was established at the Kharkov Locomotive Factory (KhPZ), Ukrainian SSR in 1928. It was headed by I. Aleksienko in cooperation with A. Morozov, the man who would be in charge of all Soviet medium tank projects from 1940-1970. The first tank project of the factory was the T-12 (or T-1-12). This was a larger version of the T-18 (or MS-1), with a more powerful 200 hp engine and bigger 45 mm (1.77 in) gun. The 1930 budget had funds for 30 T-12s.
The concept of the T-12 consisted of a synthesis of the experience gained during the design and mass production of the T-18, and the idea of a multi-tier deployment of weapons, which was consistently tested by American engineers in the design of prototypes of a medium tank – the M1 Medium (models 1921 – 1925). The T-12 had a simple hull structure between two tracks with small-bogie suspension.
It had a eight-sided turret with a rounded commander’s cupola and a crew of four. It weighed 19 tons, was 7.5 m long, 3 m wide, and 2.8 m high. It was armed with a typical Model 32 45 mm (1.77 in) gun, with space for 100 rounds, and it even had three 7.62mm DT machine guns in a Fedorov-Ivanov ball mount – one in the commander’s cupola, one next to the main gun, and one on the side of the tank’s turret. Like all Soviet tanks of that time, the T-12 had a removable “tail”, which increased the length of the hull by 690 mm, and gave the opportunity to overcome the trenches up to a width of 2.65 meters.
Building this prototype reportedly took place in absence of high-quality materials, special equipment and skilled personnel. Despite this, assembly of the prototype took place at record pace, and the tank was collected for testing on October 15, 1929. To reduce the cost and time spent on the tank, the armored hull and turret were made from steel more suitable for construction, not armor. During trials, the T-12 prototype was revealed to be flawed and it was decided that a new design was needed.
The T-24
The project was re-designated T-24, work was completed fixing problems with the transmission and fuel system, and a larger turret was designed. Externally, the new tank was significantly different from its predecessor. The hull was widened to overlap the tracks and the superstructure had a V-shaped front with the driver at the apex, instead of a flat front. The turret was rather roomy (a luxury by Soviet standards), and had a similar commander’s cupola, which now had a slightly taller hatch with a hinged lid, which enabled the commander (without leaving the machine-gun tower) to observe terrain, and guide the actions of the tank.
It also featured a rounded turret, whereas the T-12 had an eight-sided turret – they looked very similar, however. Another major difference is that the tracks on the T-12 were taller and there is less armor above them, as well as the front wheel being smaller. The T-24 also had a fourth DT machine gun in the hull instead of the flat space next to the driver’s hatch. Hatches on the tank were also changed a lot, especially the engine deck which was now accessible by two hatches, instead of four on top. Finally, it had an exhaust removed, so now it only had one. These differences are much clearer seen on their technical drawings.
The tank’s cupola was made from sheets of metal ranging from 12-22 mm (0.47-0.87 in) thick, and was riveted together. This tank only had a crew of 3, and was given the same 45 mm (1.77 in) gun, with four DT machine guns as well. Maximum armour was 25.2 mm (1 in), which was hardly noteworthy. It weighed 18.2 tonnes, which could be considered heavy despite the relatively thin armor. Its maximum speed was 24 km/h (15 mph), which was also deemed slightly unsatisfactory, given Soviet deep battle doctrines.
The T-24 prototype was completed in 1931, and permission was given by the VTU to make 24 vehicles. One of the first T-24s was urgently sent to Kubinka for comparative trials with the T-12. Initial trials were conducted, during which performance was found satisfactory, although the prototype’s engine caught fire, and the turret had to be transferred to a T-12 prototype for further testing. The 45 mm gun was not ready for any T-24 tanks, so tests were conducted without them. Having been accepted into service with only a DT, they eventually received guns in 1932.
Between 1930 and 1931, 300 more T-24 tanks were planned. In fact, only 24 tanks, 26 turrets, and 28 sets of running gears and transmissions were produced. The T-24 was found unreliable, and was used only for training and parades. After the first 25, production was discontinued.
It is believed that the T-24 was withdrawn from the production due to the complexity of manufacturing tanks and a whole host of flaws discovered on the first batch of the tank’s production. The T-24 was also more or less a designing experiment to give engineers experience. Similar experience building projects came from German designer, Grotte, who developed the T-22 or TG-1, which was produced by OKMO in Leningrad, headed by N. Barykov, who later went on to develop the T-28. The TG-1 was much more radical than the T-24 project, and three prototypes were developed. One had a 37 mm (1.46 in) gun with four DT machine guns, another had a 76.2 mm (3 in) gun and four DT machine guns, the final one had a 76.2 mm (3 in) gun, a 37 mm (1.46 in) gun and a single DT machine gun. This tank was huge, as it was 7.5 m long, 3 m wide and 2.8 m high. It had a vast crew of 11, and its 250 hp M-5 engine gave it a speed of 35 km/h. Armor ranged between a very poor 8-20 mm. It was considered horrifically complicated and was refused for production, along with its heavier sibling, the TG-3 (T-29). It would later go on to influence the T-28, T-35, and SMK designs.
Finally, all of these designs were rejected in light of complicated production and Soviet access to Christie tanks – more commonly known as the BT series. Although the T-24 tank was a failure, it gave the KhPZ its initial tank design and production experience, which was applied much more successfully in adopting production of the U.S. Christie tank as the BT tank series, starting in 1931.
Further development
The KhPZ’s Komintern artillery tractor was based on the suspension of the T-12 tank (50 built from 1930) and (reportedly), the T-24 (2,000 built from 1935 to 1941), powered by a 131-hp diesel engine. Despite the dismal fate of its predecessor tanks, the tractor was more successful and was put into mass production. The Komintern inherited several of the T-24’s disadvantages, but some of them were fixed by the designers and the others were not as significant for a tractor as for a tank. The Komintern was used to tow medium artillery such as the 152 mm (6 in) gun-howitzer.
The Voroshilovets heavy artillery tractor was also based on the T-24’s suspension, using the same Model V-2 diesel engine as the BT-7M and T-34 tanks, but detuned. About 230 were built at KhPZ from 1939, and after the German invasion of 1941 production was shifted to the Stalingrad Tractor Factory until August 1942. A Komintern tractor on parade.
The T-24’s story did, however, not end in the early 1930s. In 1938, there was a decision to take the at least one T-24 and some T-18s and use them as static pillboxes. The T-24 lost its tall commander’s cupola, but gained the firing system of a T-28 and the co-axial DT was replaced with a Maxim gun. It is unclear whether or not these saw combat, or whether they were ever finally placed as pillboxes.
Sources and further reading
“Russian Tanks of World War Two, Stalin’s Armoured Might“, by Tim Bean and Will Fowler
“Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two“, by Steven J. Zaloga and James Grandsen
T-12 specifications
Dimensions (L-w-h)
7.5 x 3 x 2.8 m
(21.33 x 9.84 x 9.19 ft)
Total weight, battle ready
19.8 tonnes
Crew
4 (driver, commander, gunner, loader)
Propulsion
200-250 hp M-6
Speed (road)
Estimated 25 km/h (16 mph)
Range
140 km (87 miles)
Armament
Model 32 45 mm (1.77 in) gun
3x DT 7.62 mm (0.3 in) machine-guns
Armor
12-22 mm (0.47-0.87 in)
Total production
At least 1 prototype
T-24 specifications
Dimensions (L-w-h)
6.5 x 3 x 2.81 m
(21.33 x 9.84 x 9.2 ft)
Total weight, battle ready
18.5 tonnes
Crew
4 (driver, commander, gunner, loader)
Propulsion
250 hp M-6
Speed (road)
25 km/h (16 mph)
Range
140 km (87 miles)
Armament
Model 32 45 mm (1.77 in) gun
4x DT 7.62 mm (0.3 in) machine-guns
Armor
8-20 mm (0.31-0.79 in)
Total production
25
A T-24 tank after preparations for use as a static pillbox. The firing system of a T-28 M1938 has been placed on the front of the turret, along with a Maxim gun instead of a DT. It also has no commander’s cupola, engine, trench-crossing tail, or tracks. The TG-1 prototype with both a 76.2 mm (3 in) gun and a 37 mm (1.46 in) gun.
The T-12. Notice the eight-sided turret, the flat rear and the fact the tracks reach the top of the hull. The T-24. Notice the rounded turret, the more elongated rear, the lower track height and the hull sponsons.
Gallery
A T-24 on a parade behind a twin-turreted T-26 Mod. 1931. T-12 technical drawing. T-24 technical drawing. Notice how the turret is rounded at the back, as opposed to eight-sided. A technical drawing of the T-24 detailing the interior design, tracks, and suspension. A T-12 outside a factory. A T-12 is posed on by workers and officers. The eight sided turret is very clear in this image. The T-24 is examined by a team of workers and officers. The 45 mm gun was not ready in time for trials, so the tests took place without a gun. A T-24 on trials. Soviet Tanks in June 1941 (Operation Barbarossa)
This tank is a little known fake, but a little too close to home to be ignored. In fact, the first ever illustration of this vehicle came from Tanks Encyclopedia, and is a result of not cross-referencing sources very carefully. The concept is simple – a T-34 with an IS-85 turret mounted on top. The direct reference to such a vehicle came from WWIIvehicles.com, but was picked up on by the author of our own T-34/85 article. In this Fake Tanks article, we will explain exactly what happened…
Available information
The only information given on this tank concept is on WWIIvehicles.com (the page can be viewed here under the title “variants”) and it states:
“T-34-85-I – Had turret that was designed for the KV-85. The turret ring had a diameter of 5.2′ / 1.56 m. Issued to Guard Tank units. The main gun was reported to be able to penetrate the front armor of a Tiger or a Panther.”
The source cited is “Russian Tanks of WWII, Stalin’s Armoured Might“, a book by Tim Bean and Will Fowler. It states under the title of T-34/85-I (page 103):
“With its 85mm (3.34in) gun, the T-34-85-I that appeared in 1943 was basically an upgunned T-34. The T-34-85 had a new turret originally designed for the KV-85 tank with a ring diameter of 1.56m (5.2ft). This created the space for an extra crew member and simplified tasks of the commander, who previously had helped with the gun. The T-34-85-I was first issued to elite Guards Tank units, and the new gun soon proved its worth. Based on the prewar M-1939 85mm (3.34in) anti-aircraft gun, it had an effective range of 1000m (1100yd) and, it was claimed, was able to penetrate the frontal armour of the German Tigers and Panthers.”
This paragraph is clearly referring to the T-34/85, but it was given a strange designation – T-34-85-I. Focusing on a particular problem with the paragraph “The T-34/85 featured a new turret originally designed for the KV-85 tank…”, we can clearly say that the book has made a blatant error.
Explaining why the source is wrong
What the book says is wrong, and it appears the authors have misunderstood how the M1943 T-34/85 turret came about. The KV-85 was put into battle by September, 1943, and the T-34/85 was only put into service in February 1944, meaning the KV-85 came first. The T-34/85’s M1943 turret was never going to be fitted to the KV-85, as by the time production of the T-34/85 started, the KV-85’s production (which was a stopgap) was replaced by the IS-85.
In reality, more detailed sources refer to elements of the KV-85G turret being used in the making of the M1943 T-34/85 turret. The KV-85G was the prototype of the KV-85, and it featured an 85mm gun jammed in a cast KV-1S turret. However, before production of the KV-85G began, the IS-85 turret was completed and was then mounted on the KV-85 chassis (essentially a modified KV-1S chassis) for testing, and this prototype was considered much more suitable for stopgap production. To reiterate, there was no immediate intention to serially produce the IS-85 turret on the KV-1S chassis, this was merely a means to test the IS-85 turret. However, it was deemed suitable for stopgap production because the KV-85G was not fit for service. The turret was simply far too small for a five man crew, the huge 85mm gun, and sufficient munitions. As a result, during testing of prototypes for the KV-85 project, the KV-85G was totally dropped as a design, and did not participate in any such testing.
The KV-85G turret was apparently not forgotten entirely, and was actually adapted for use on the T-34 (in order to make the T-34/85) in the summer of 1943, when Morozov took over from Koshkin as chief designer. However, it was immediately deemed unacceptable because, again, it lacked sufficient space, but did influence the M1943 T-34/85 turret. However, it must be noted that the M1943 turret was mostly influenced by the T-43’s turret, except it was simplified for production by removing some periscopes, etc, but nevertheless, the KV-85G turret proved that a simplified design was easier for production.
Nothing in the last three paragraphs is what the source suggests. Based on what the source actually says, you would expect that there would also be another prototype – A KV-85 hull with an M1943 T-34/85 turret, if Fowler and Bean were correct. However, this is not the case.
Explicit references to the fake tank
The first explicit mention of the T-34-85-I as a concept appeared on WWIIvehicles.com and cited “Russian Tanks of WWII, Stalin’s Armoured Might” as their source for this variant. To explain how this misconception appeared, we have to explore linguistics and semantics.
The first problem is that the paragraph had the title of “T-34-85-I” (on page 99, it is referred to briefly as the “T-34-85-1”, both of which are unique to the book) which would throw the reader off because they had probably never heard of the designation before. Secondly, the notion of the T-34-85 having a turret which was “originally designed for the KV-85” shows that the reader from WWIIvehicles.com must have thought that the IS-85 turret was intended for the KV-85, which they assumed to be true, and, as explained, is not true. Thirdly, the fact that the book is well-bound, well-produced, and seemingly well-written would perhaps make it a very credible source, as opposed to some spurious page on the internet. These three things combined must have meant that the author at WWIIvehicles.com thought that there was such a thing as the T-34-85-I – a T-34 with an IS-85 turret, which “was first issued to elite Guards Tank units…”
As a result of this mistake made on another website, Tanks Encyclopedia used this bad information in the writing of the T-34-85 article leading to the drawing of the T-34-85-I. In fact, this even made its way onto the Asian World of Tanks forums in May 2014, with nobody pointing out that this is a fake vehicle.
Overall credibility of the book
The book as a whole is a superb guide for beginners, because it offers detail on the behind the scenes of Soviet tanks. For example, detail is given about the political decisions made with regards to tanks, the problems the engineers faced, and Soviet armored warfare tactics. This book is also well-presented and has a plenty of photos and technical drawings.
However, the book does not appear to be a trustworthy source, which seriously compromises everything contained within it. There is no mention of any sources. This means that all of the information of the book is, as far as any reader is concerned, based on the word of Bean and Fowler – which may also be dubious for the following reasons.
Will Fowler is a prolific author. He mostly writes on special forces (at least 12 books) such as the SAS, but he is also a general historian of WWII (mostly general books, and mostly on the Eastern Front) and WWI (the Somme and Ypres). He has even written some reference books on weapons such as rifles, pistols, machine guns, etc. Fowler is not an expert on tanks. Furthermore, because reviews (although not academic reviews, they are numerous) of Fowler’s other works tend to condemn the accuracy of his works with regards to smaller details, it is possible that his credibility as a historian is somewhat undermined.
Tim Bean is perhaps more credible. He is stated to be “a senior lecturer at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. He is a specialist on the Red Army in the interwar years…” However, the entire Soviet military-political scene undergoes some drastic changes during the Great Patriotic War, as do Soviet tank designs, so his credibility on the subject of Soviet tanks of WWII is somewhat diminished. But on the other hand, his knowledge of military-political interactions is not worthless, because these drastic changes do not take place really until 1943/1944. This may perhaps explain why focus of the book tends to be on early war tanks, and skips over late-war tanks in a single chapter; because this is closer to Bean’s field of supposed expertise. Above all, he is able to refer to the way in which engineers and Soviet political elites interacted, which is seldom seen in tank reference books, but due to the lack of sources, what he says cannot be confirmed.
The book also seems plagued with inaccuracies. They have made up a designation for the T-34-85 (as mentioned), but have also labelled a photo of an ISU-122S as an IS-2 (page 26), confused a T-12 for a T-24 (page 63) (these are different but related designs), labelled a photo of an ISU-122S as an ISU-122 (page 134) (the designs feature different guns), and wrongly refer to an IS-2 (M1944) as an IS-2M Model 1944 (page 141) (the IS-2M was a postwar modernization), just to name a few problems. These small inaccuracies, combined with the aforementioned issues with credibility of the authors, and the overall issue of a lack of source citation all point towards this book being an unreliable source.
Plausibility of the T-34-85-I
This vehicle would have been fairly pointless to produce, as the IS-85 turret was not designed for the T-34/85, and the turret rings do not match. Even if they were made to match, the excess weight would slow the tank down, all in exchange for roughly 10mm more armor. It is possible that there would be an increased ammunition capacity at the expense of the radio operator (like on the KV-85 and IS-85), but the gun would be exactly the same as on the T-34/85, and there would be no other tangible benefits.
If it was made, it would likely take on the exact same roles as the T-34/85, as opposed to being used like the KV-85 or IS-85 (heavy breakthrough tanks), because its armor would not be as strong as real heavy tanks (the KV-85 had up to 30mm more hull armor, and the IS-85 hull had 75mm more armor than the T-34-85-I would have).
T-34-85-I Estimated specification
Dimensions (L-w-h)
4.95m×2.71m×1.82m (16.24×8.89×5.97 feet)
Total weight, battle ready
36 tons
Crew
4
Propulsion
V12 diesel GAZ, 400 bhp (30 kW)
Speed (road)
32km/h (20mph)
Range
170km (106 miles)
Armament
Main: 1 x 85mm (3.35in) D-5T. Secondary: 3 x 7.62mm (0.3in) DT machine guns
Armor
30 – 90mm (1.18- 3.54 inches)
The original T-34-85-I drawing that was featured on our very own T-34-85 page. It is a T-34 with an IS-85 turret on top. A KV-85 with T-34/85 turret;a possible variant that could be inspired by the source’s suggestion that the T-34/85 turret was originally designed for the KV-85. This is, of course, not true. An IS-2 tank disguised to look like a KV-1 from the film “Battle of Moscow”, 1985. This was most likely done with a dummy turret. In this illustration, we have made the turret the correct size, but the turret features an M1942 gun mantlet, but an M1941 turret shape. The KV-85G prototype. It was just a KV-1S with an 85mm gun jammed in the turret. It was rejected for having insufficient internal turret space. The cover of the book which inspired this fake. It is well presented, but often inaccurate.
More mash-ups?
In a Russian film – Battle of Moscow, 1985, you might spot IS tanks with KV-1 turrets. No, this is not a rare variant of the IS as a result of some kind of battlefield makeshift conversion, in fact, this film wants to portray a variety of tanks, including the KV-1 and Tiger (or Panzer IV, it is unclear which vehicle they tried to replicate). It is often that tanks such as the KV-1 or Tiger are not available, so available tanks are disguised to look like others. In this film, we see an IS-2 tank disguised to look like a KV-1 (probably with a dummy turret), and even other Russian tanks (probably T-34s) are disguised to look like Tiger tanks. Similarly, in the recent Russian 2012 film – White Tiger, an IS-2 tank is also disguised to look like a Tiger, although it gives a laughable likeness.
Could an IS feature a KV-1 turret for real during WWII? This is highly unlikely, as the turret rings would probably not match. If the IS’ original turret were damaged, and there just so happened to be a KV-1 turret lying around, it seems very unlikely that such a conversion would be made unless the Red Army was absolutely desperate, which, by the time the IS-85 was rolling off production lines, it hardly was. What would most likely happen is that the IS tank would be sent off for repairs, or it would be abandoned, and a replacement tank would be requisitioned.
Other known movie props include: an IS-2M with a KV-2 dummy turret (Tank: Kliment Voroshilov-2, 1989), a T-44 disguised as a Panzer IV (Battle of Moscow, 1985), an IS-2 disguised as a Panther (Liberation: The Fire Bulge, 1971), an IS-3 disguised as a Tiger (unknown film), and a T-54 disguised as a Tiger (One-Two, Soldiers Were Going, 1977). A still from the Russian film “Battle of Moscow”, 1985, showing an IS tank disguised to look like a KV-1. It was probably done with a dummy turret as opposed to a real one, hence why the turret is ridiculously over-sized and why the paint appears different between the turret and chassis. It appears as though this dummy turret has a general M1941 shape, but a M1942 gun and mantlet.
A still from the Russian film “Battle of Moscow”, 1985, showing Russian tanks disguised as Panzer IV or Tiger tanks. A still from the Russian film “White Tiger”, 2014, showing an IS disguised to look like a Tiger. It looks more like the Porsche design for the Tiger. Sources: “Russian Tanks of WWII, Stalin’s Armoured Might” by Tim Bean and Will Fowler “The T-34, the Red Army’s Legendary Medium Tank” by Anthony Tucker-Jones “T-34-85 vs M26 Pershing: Korea 1950” by Steven Zaloga WWIIvehicles.com Amazon.co.uk Spiritofremembrance.com “Battle of Moscow”, Mosfilm, 1985 “White Tiger”, Mosfilm, 2012 Fair commentary from the Tanks Encyclopedia Staff was used in the writing of this article.
German Reich
Medium Tank / Self-Propelled Gun – Fake
A Captured T-34 re-armed by photoshop
Clever and deceptive photoshops are one of the best ways to invent a fake tank. There are at least three reported “T-34(r) mit 8.8cm” tanks, all in German service. The first is rather popular – a captured T-34 with a Flak 88 mounted on top – the “T-34(r) mit 8.8cm Flak“. The second vehicle is a T-34/85 with a barrel reamed to fire 8.8cm shells – the “T-34(r) mit 8.8cm (85mm Aufgehbort)“. The third is a T-34/85 rearmed with a Tiger’s 8.8cm gun – the “T-34(r) mit 8.8cm KwK 36 L/56“. It appears as though the T-34(r) mit 8.8cm KwK 36 L/56 and the T-34(r) 8.8cm Aufgehbort were inspired by the same source – an interview with a former German tank commander. The Flak 88 version appears to have developed from a different source – a modelling magazine. Whilst the Flak version never existed, and the KwK 36 variant probably didn’t exist either, the reamed version seems slightly more plausible, although the concept is still riddled with problems.
T-34(r) mit 8.8cm Flak
This first version easily attracts the attention of modellers and tank fans alike. The idea is simple – a captured T-34 with a Flak 88 mounted on top to make an SPG. The only given history for this vehicle seems to come from Henk of Holland, a well-respected modeller. He states “This vehicle was in service with the battle group ‘Kienast’, and was used during the last battle in April 1945 in East-Sachsen [Saxony]”, although he does go on to remind us that the vehicle is fake. This battle group appears to be made up, and Henk of Holland may have obtained this information from a now-defunct internet source that cannot be traced any further.
In terms of combat, this vehicle could take on many different roles. 1. Tank Destroyer. We need only look at the well-decorated history of the Flak 88 from as early as the Spanish Civil War up until the final days of fighting in Berlin. It is almost certain that the T-34(r) mit Flak 88 would see service against the Red Army, and they knew that the T-34 and even the fearsome KV-1 could be destroyed by the Flak 88, even from long ranges. The Flak 88 was one of the most deadly and versatile artillery pieces of its time. For AT duties, its accuracy and power were realistically only matched by the Firefly’s 17-pounder gun and the Soviet 100mm BS-3 M1944 gun in the late war. The Flak 88 had a staggering effective range of just under 15,000 meters! It would simply be out of range of most enemy guns, whilst it could easily fire upon them. Apart from which, it was even given a telescopic sight for engaging ground targets, which meant that direct long range fire was done with ease.
In the Battle of France, the Flak 88 managed to destroy 152 tanks, including the Matilda II and Char B1, which the 3.7cm AT guns could not. By mounting the Flak 88 on a captured chassis, the users would have had a superb Tank Destroyer, because it would be able to quickly relocate (owing to the T-34’s rugged and reliable chassis), but deliver a knock-out blow with each shot. The Flak 88 was actually the basis for the universally-feared 8.8cm KwK 36 gun as mounted on the Tiger! The Flak 88 also had a more than agreeable gun elevation: -3 to 85 degrees, which would allow it to adopt many different firing positions, not dictated by the evenness of the ground. However, it must be noted that the Flak 88 even not mounted on a vehicle was often too tall to be camouflaged effectively, now atop a T-34 chassis, the vehicle would be approximately 18 feet tall giving it a huge profile – to put this into perspective, the Tiger was only 9 feet 10 inches tall. 2. Bunker destroyer. The Flak 88 saw prolific use mounted on vehicles at the Battle of France, with the Sd.Kfz.8 heavy tractor – the “Bunkerknacker”. Throughout the battle, the Flak 88 reportedly destroyed 151 bunkers, thus meaning that perhaps the T-34(r) mit Flak 88 could do the same job. However, the lack of protection for the crew would be problematic and could lead to casualties. Also, the T-34’s hull would not be able to take heavy punishment if it were to come up against an AT gun or any other tank that the USSR could field (excluding some lighter vehicles) at close quarters. Therefore, it may not be best suited to this role, but could certainly do so if needs be. 3. SPAAG. The Flak 88, whilst possibly better known for its anti-tank role, was originally an anti-aircraft gun. It was only turned on tanks when the 3.7cm guns were found unsatisfactory at engaging certain heavily armored tanks. However, overall it may not be worthwhile using the vehicle as a SPAAG, as the Flak 88 had a rather limited firing ceiling of just under 8000m, which meant that many aircraft could fly above this range. Seeing as though it would likely only fight against Soviet aircraft, it would be able to engage the most produced aircraft that the USSR had – the IL-2 with its maximum service ceiling of 5500m, although the Yak-9 (the second most numerous Soviet aircraft during the war) had a maximum service ceiling of 9100m, which would put it out of range in theory, although they often operated below this. Having said this, the effectiveness of anti-aircraft guns can, and was, called into question during the war, and it may not be worth using the vehicle for this role.
General problems with this vehicle would be apparent. Firstly, the gun arc would be problematic. The fact is that the T-34 chassis would not necessarily be wide enough to allow the crew manning the Flak 88 to turn the gun too far to one side, unless they welded on a platform on which to stand and operate the gun from. Standing on the T-34’s sloped sides would be a dangerous and tricky affair when handling artillery shells. The Flak 88 is a little under 8 ft (excluding the barrel), and the T-34’s chassis is only 9ft, so there would be little space for the crew to operate the gun in.
Secondly, there would also be little space to stow munitions. As seen on a scale model, it would be likely that munitions would be stowed on deck, but this can be dangerous, as they could be hit and would explode directly next to or on top of the engine compartment. It is also important to note that by doing this, there would be no space for external fuel tanks, thus significantly reducing the range of the vehicle.
Thirdly, the crew would be vulnerable to small arms fire. Despite a large gunshield on front, as with any open-cabin vehicle, enemy snipers or heavy machine guns (such as the DShK) would have little trouble making quick work of the crew, thus rendering the vehicle near useless. This is actually very important because the crew being killed by simple small arms fire is a significant risk to the overall capabilities of the vehicle, and therefore its usefulness as a viable weapon come in to question. For example, many loaders of the American M58 Ontos were killed by enemy small arms fire when reloading the external recoiless rifles. Similarly, crews of the SU-76 were incredibly vulnerable in urban combat, so good teamwork with infantry to support the tank was needed to avoid crew casualties.
Finally, the Flak 88 actually weighs roughly 1.4 tons less than a common early model T-34/85 turret (with an S-53 gun), but this weight would be heavily concentrated near the front of the vehicle, making it very nose heavy. This could stress the chassis in one particular area of the vehicle instead of giving more even distribution as with a turret. Also, top speed might be slightly lower as a result of the wind resistance from the enormous flat gunshield, but the lowered weight might roughly compensate for this. However, the bigger problem would be the center of mass being raised on the vehicle. The Flak 88 was normally fired from a secure and wide ground mount, thus the vehicle might be prone to toppling into ditches, or wobbling when firing as a result of the recoil, thus impairing aiming. This could be particularly dangerous to the crew if engaging multiple targets which are within range of returning fire, meaning that the effective rounds per minute is decreased.
Overall, the T-34(r) mit 8.8cm Flak would be comparable to the Nashorn (Sd.Kfz.164), with its 8.8cm Pak 43/1 (a gun designed by Krupp in competition with the Flak 41), generally similar construction, and similar likely roles. Of course, the Nashorn would have had one major advantage over the T-34(r) mit 8.8cm Flak, which is that it had all around protection for its crew, except for the roof. The Nashorn had a very high profile – 8ft 8in, but the T-34(r) mit 8.8cm Flak would be, as mentioned, 18 ft tall, meaning that the vehicle would be incredibly conspicuous. In fact, Nashorn production was cancelled in favor of the Jagdpanzer IV because it had a lower profile and thicker frontal armor, even despite having a less potent 7.5cm gun, so it is clear that unlike the USSR, which favored mounting the biggest guns available, Germany would favor vehicles which can be used for ambush attacks, as part of their overall defensive campaign during the late war.
Reality
This fake tank came about as a result of a single photoshop showing a T-34 chassis mounting a Flak 88 instead of a turret. This is actually a very plausible vehicle on numerous levels. Firstly, the Germans did mount Flak 88s on their own vehicles – such as on Panzer IVs, or on prime movers, such as the Sd.Kfz.8, in large numbers. Secondly, the Germans were known to mount weapons on captured vehicles in a similar manner – for example, some captured T-20 Komsomolets were modified to carry a 3.7cm Pak 35/36, a concept as seen first with the Soviet ZiS-30. Finally, after WWII, a lot of countries that used the T-34 made similar modifications – for example, the Cubans mounted a 122mm gun on a T-34/85, after cutting away some of the turret, the Syrians mounted a 122mm on a T-34 chassis by reversing the hull, and the Egyptians even made a new superstructure to fit a 122mm gun, these three designs thus showing that a modification of a T-34 into a self-propelled gun was more than possible.
However, one thing must be noted about the D-30 122mm gun – it weighed less than half of the Flak 88, in fact, it was a staggering 4.6 tons less! Whilst the D-30 was 34mm larger than the Flak 88, it was also 18 calibers smaller, and apart from which, it was a much simpler gun. Weight is particularly important when considering possible modifications to the T-34 chassis, as whilst it was a very rugged chassis, it had its limits, and such SPG modifications of the T-34 are perhaps the most the chassis could bare. Similar to the Flak 88 as mounted on a Panzer IV, the chassis would be seriously lowered as a result of the excess weight, and this is evident in photographs. Having said this, the T-34 had a weight load of 15 tons more than the Panzer IV, which might accommodate the Flak 88 with more ease.
According to Network54 forum, the photopshopped image of the T-34(r) mit 8.8cm Flak seems to have first appeared in around 2007 in a Japanese modelling magazine – “Armour Modelling“, along with a number of other ‘what-if’ models. One user, Hisato Shinohara (who claims to have even been asked to make the image for the magazine) remarked that: “We only wanted to see what sort of things we can come up with. Please look at them as an alternative way to ‘just to enjoy and be playful’. We did say that they are all fake at the end. However, come to think of it, that it was not written in English and I can see that it can be a big problem! The intention was to surprise the readers for a moment, and for this reason, it was clearly stated that they were all fake right at the beginning.”
Since then, it has circulated prolifically across the internet. Often, this vehicle appears on World of Tanks and Warthunder forums, which almost certainly contributed to its popularity. In fact, since the creation of the “waffentrager research line” on World of Tanks, its popularity probably increased even more with fans demanding the companies make this tank in the game. In the last few years, the original photo of the T-34 used for the photoshop has been found and is commonly posted following any mention of the T-34(r) mit Flak 88.
T-34(r) mit 8.8cm (85mm Aufgebohrt)
The second and third version of the T-34(r) mit 8.8cm appear to be related. This version of this T-34(r) mit 8,8cm was a simple T-34/85 with a gun reamed to 8.8cm from 85mm (probably an S-53 as the D-5T saw limited production).
According to an interview with Wolfgang Kloth (a German tank commander during the war) at the 2008 AMPS (armor modelling and preservation society) international show, he discusses a Panzerbrigade in Courland, Latvia (spelled Kurland by the Germans):
“There was an interesting unit in Kurland; Panzerbrigade Kurland, and they only had captured tanks. They had a Sherman and a General Lee and two T-34s. They took Russian 87mm, and took it to the ship wharf, and reamed it to 88. They shot 88 ammunition out of it. They were very inventive! Because up in Kurland, your back was against the water, you know.”
The suggestion of re-boring the barrel to fire 88mm shells sounds dubious. It would be wrong to dismiss Kloth’s story based on the fact that he suggests the Soviets had 87mm guns. He did serve at Kurland, lending some credibility to the story – In 1944, he was transferred to the surrounding areas of Kurland with a Panzerjager unit until May 1945. He is the only source for this story, and this makes it hard to definitively say whether or not this story is true.
The only other way to determine whether or not this is true is to consider ballistics. There is a long standing debate on whether or not captured shells of similar or the same caliber can be fired by tanks. It is possible that the S-53 barrel could be rebored to 88mm, assuming that any ships at Courland had the right equipment, as stated in Kloth’s story. However, it is unclear whether or not the Pz.Gr. 39 shell would work in the breech of the modified S-53 gun. There is no firing chamber like with rifles in tank guns. Assuming that the casing of the shell fitted inside such a modified gun, it is possible that it would fire. However, the length and diameter of the shell case, powder charge, and tapering of the neck and shell case might need to match, too. If the shell has too much powder charge, the shell might misfire to varying degrees – It might fire inaccurately, it might blow the breech block apart and damage the gun mechanism. Finally, the ammunition used for the KwK 36 was electrically primed. Normally, shells of higher calibers have a self-contained primer which is ignited using a percussion cap – this is very different to the KwK 36 gun. This single fact means that the reaming of the S-53 gun might not have been enough to make the shells fire. It would require a drastic reworking of the gun with very complex mechanisms. For these reasons, it is almost certain that this vehicle is also a myth.
T-34(r) mit 8.8cm KwK 36 L/56
The final purported vehicle is a T-34/85 sporting an 8,8cm gun of a Tiger. This is rather unlikely. The original source for this vehicle is difficult to track down, but it appears to have come from mc-modellbau.de (although the page for this vehicle on that website does not appear to exist). This website is referenced on beutepanzer.ru, which talks about unconfirmed and hypothetical conversions. Beutepanzer.ru states (the following extract has been edited to make grammatical sense):
“In July / August, 1944, at the shipyard in Libau [in Latvia, now known as Liepaja], an 8,8cm gun from a damaged Tiger I was mounted [onto a T-34/85]. From the end of 1944, this tank was used by the 12th Panzerdivision in Kurland [possibly referring to Heeresgruppe Kurland]. The tank’s color was kept the same, dark green [the source is not clear whether this is Soviet tank green, or a German green color], and a large cross was drawn on the turret for identification. The [identification number] was supposedly ’18’. The tank was [later] given the identification mark ’12’, and was given the Kurland sign [identification markings]. The crew drew eight white tanks on the barrel and wrote ‘Hi Kommet’ on it, too. However, this conversion is highly improbable.”
Other sources explicitly refer to additional modifications such as a Tiger’s exterior ammo box, although Beutepanzer.ru did draw one on their illustration. The vehicle even appears to have made it into the World of Tanks Xbox game under the designation “T-34-88“, with the “Historical Information” stating: “For the armies of WWII, pressing captured vehicles into service was fairly commonplace. There were unconfirmed reports of a German unit refitting a captured T-34-85 with an 88mm gun. Allegedly this tank saw fighting with the 7th Panzer Division in East Prussia. Hence the concept for the T-34-88 was born.”
Reality
The T-34/85 turret is hardly a likely candidate for holding such a long, heavy gun. It would probably cause the suspension serious problems – it is widely known that the attempts by the Soviet to fit a 100mm gun to the T-34/85 caused the suspension to buckle and break during firing. Secondly, there would have to be extensive and incredibly precise engineering in order to actually fit the huge gun in the T-34’s gun mount (and being able to give it any elevation or depression), something probably not available to any units outside of heavy factories of Germany. Thirdly, the gun itself was huge and complicated. In fact, the KwK 36 L/56 took up most of the internal space for the Tiger I turret. It is extremely unlikely that there would be internal space in a T-34/85 turret in which to accommodate such a large gun.
Fitting a new parts to captured Soviet tanks is not uncommon. For example, many early war tanks such as the KV-1, KV-2, and early model T-34s received new commander’s cupolas and headlights. However, fitting a new gun is somewhat more rare. It is known that a 75mm KwK 40 was fitted to a KV-1 and saw action at Kursk, but this seems to be a very rare occurrence, probably owing to the difficulty of the task. This may have inspired this monster T-34 in part.
Overall, the vehicle appears to have been inspired by the reamed T-34 that Kloth mentions in his interview. Although he explicitly states that the gun was reamed (that is, rebored), it is obvious that both of the vehicles have the same story, and it is likely that an internet source either misinterpreted the interview, or used it as inspiration for a fantasy vehicle.
T-34(r) mit 8,8cm Flak estimated specification
Dimensions (L-w-h)
5.92m x 3m x 5.4m (19.4 ft x 9.84 ft x 17.7 ft)
Total weight, battle ready
29 tonnes (58,000 lbs)
Crew
6 (Driver + 5 to operate the Flak 88)
Propulsion
V12 diesel, GAZ, 400bhp (30kW)
Speed (road)
36km/h (25mph)
Range
250km (155 miles)
Armament
Main: 1 x 8.8cm Flak (Probably a Flak 36). Secondary: 1 x 7.62mm (0.3in) DT machine gun
Tanks Encyclopedia’s own rendition of the T-34(r) mit 8.8cm KwK 36 L/56. Tanks Encyclopedia’s own rendition of the T-34(r) mit 8.8cm Flak. A typical T-34(r) Beutepanzer. From the outside, it would be impossible to tell if the gun has been reamed to fire 8.8cm shells. A photoshopped image of a T-34(r) mit 8,8cm Flak 88. This is a highly convincing image, and the only immediate giveaway for it being a fake is the fact that the chassis appears remarkably unstressed. Notice how tall the vehicle is compared to the soldiers. It would have a tall profile, making it very difficult to camouflage, and its relatively thin armor (80mm hull, and mere gunshield) would mean that if it were targeted by enemy AT guns, it would most likely be destroyed. This is unlike the KV-2, which, whilst it was a very tall tank, it had the armor to cope with the attention it received. The unphotoshopped T-34/85 before it was given an 8.8cm Flak. From this, we can deduce that the photoshoped image has been shortened, and the soldiers have been somewhat edited. The gun with the muzzle brake on the right has also been mysteriously edited out in the fake image for seemingly no reason. The markings on this vehicle are also unknown, and do not appear on the photoshopped image. A drawing of the T-34(r) mit 8.8cm Flak. The Flak 88 in this drawing appears rather low, and it is possible that the artist has neglected how the gun actually works. Certain controls, such as the elevation crank would be difficult to operate by the crew, given this layout. A model of the T-34(r) mit 8.8cm Flak by Henk of Holland. Similar to the above drawing, the Flak 88 in this model appears too low, and the crew would have to crouch down to operate certain controls. There also appears to be no space in which to carry munitions, and it is likely that it would need to tow a limber carrying munitions. Another more detailed model of the T-34(r) mit 8.8cm Flak. It is likely that ammo would be stowed on deck, if this vehicle were real. Notice how the munitions are stacked right next to the engine compartment. If hit, the munitions might explode, thus causing a catastrophe for the vehicle and its crew. A knocked out beutepanzer Komsomolets featuring a 3.7cm Pak AT gun. This is a rare modification of the Komsomolets, and it is unclear how many were modified in this manner. They appear similar in design to the ZiS-30, which featured a large gunshield, too. However, this vehicle would be more stable than the ZiS-30, as the gun was not nearly as big. Perhaps this modification helped inspire the T-34(r) mit Flak 8.8cm. An Sd.Kfz.8 with a Flak 88. Notice how the Flak 88 is significantly taller than the ones seen on the models and drawings of the T-34(r). It weighed 22 tons, but had very limited armor – only 14.5mm at most. It was 24.1 foot long, 9.2 feet tall, and 8.7 feet wide. The gunshield limited traverse of the turret to 151 degrees either side. Only ten were made and three were lost by March 1943. These vehicles first saw action in Poland, 1939, but it was in the Battle of France, 1940, in which it performed both anti-bunker and AT duties. They excelled at both, being able to destroy even the heaviest tanks that the Allies could send at them – the Matilda and Char B1. Notice that there is rather limited space for the crew to operate on the deck, and the vehicle itself is huge, making it rather conspicuous. An Egyptian T-34 with a 100mm BS-3 mounted in a new superstructure. There was also reportedly a D-30 howitzer version featuring a very similar superstructure. The Egyptians were particularly inventive with their design, given that they were the only ones who modified the D-30 gun mounted inside an enclosed superstructure (notably larger than the T-34/85 turret). Enclosed superstructures can be cramped, and create significant weight problems – this T-100 (Egyptian designation) at Yad La-Shiryon Museum, Israel, is almost certainly dangerously nose heavy, and the chassis appears very low. This turret and gun still probably weigh less than the Flak 88, and still they stress the chassis. A Cuban T-34 with a 120mm D-30 gun mounted in a cutaway T-34/85. This modification proves that mounting a large gun on the T-34 is possible, but the BS-3 weighed less than half of the Flak 88 (in fact, roughly 4.1 tons less). The BS-3 and D-30 guns were widely exported by the USSR, and are a very common sight in armies, even today! By cutting away the turret, more space is given for the crew, and there is less weight and thus vehicle has less stress on the suspension. A Syrian modification of the T-34 to fit a 122mm D-30. Notice that they reversed the hull and fitted the gun on to the rear in order to avoid difficulty in creating a new turret or superstructure in which to house the gun. This means that the vehicle can maintain a very low profile, avoid weight problems and thus keep its maneuverability. A scale model of a T-34 with a Tiger’s 88mm gun and ammo basket mounted on it. This is one of many scale models as seen on the internet. This one shows it to feature a more common German green color, despite other sources referring to other colors. A KV-1 with a KwK 40 gun as seen at Kursk. Conversions of guns onto captured vehicles appears to have been rare, this being the only known photograph of the modified KV-1. The monumental task of mounting a German gun onto a Soviet tank would be staggering, but it is more than possible.
The KV-VI, or KV-VI Behemoth, is one of the most famous fake tanks on the internet. A super-heavy tank project armed to ludicrous proportions, with three prototypes claimed to have been built 1941-1942, serving against the Germans near Moscow and Leningrad. This was not a hoax as many will claim, but in fact a fantasy model which was entered in a sci-fi scale model competition that has been taken out of context since it was posted on the internet back in 1997 by its creator.
Brian Fowler’s original model, as it appeared on Track-Link. Despite this being the original, there are many variations on the design from all the other illustrations of the type in the way the armament is arranged.
The vehicle originated as a model built by Brian Fowler in 1995 by using parts from two Tamiya KV-2 kits, two Tamiya KV-1E kits, an AER T-38, an Italeri BT-5, an Italeri Katyusha, a Zvezda T-60, and Dragon tracks. Three KV hulls were cut and welded together with epoxy glue, the central dual-KV-2 turret’s pedestal was made using a shaving cream lid, and most of the details such as the DTs, ladders, and flamethrowers were carefully scratch built.
Photos of the KV-VI model were posted on the Track-Link website in 1997, alongside a fake history, some specifications and a set of reference books (none of which actually exist and are spoofs of real books – EG. “Dreadful Din on the Eastern Front” is a spoof of “All Quiet on the Western Front“, and “The Behemoths are Burning” is a spoof of “The Tigers are Burning“). The original page can be seen on their website.
In recent years, the KV-VI’s popularity can largely be attributed to the cutaway illustration by VonBrrr on Deviantart in 2010, which is used very often when discussing the KV-VI. Similarly, with the proliferation of easy-to-use photoshop technology, some historical-looking photos also appear often, supposedly of the KV-VI. These photos and the originals can be found in the gallery present on this article. Some other illustrations and photoshopped images often float around the internet, and it is likely that more will appear in the future.
The fake history
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, new facts have surfaced about the secret weapons developed by the Red Army during WWII. One of the most fascinating of these was the KV-VI Behemoth. In July 1941, Stalin learned of a single KV-II that had held off the entire 6th Panzer Division for more than a day [at the Battle of Raseiniai on 24th June]. With the incredible success of this single tank, Stalin ordered a crash [quick] program for a land battleship based on the KV-II design. It was to have three turrets and be very heavily armed and armored and able to defend itself against all types of attack. The project was given to the joint team of Kotin/Barykov. When the designers complained to Stalin that the insistence on three turrets made the vehicle too long to have an acceptable turning radius, Stalin’s answer was: “It doesn’t need to turn, it will drive straight to Berlin.”
The final design became known as the KV-VI “Behemoth”. The KV-VI was a multi-turreted tank using components of the KV-I and II, BT-5, T-60, and T-38. The use of existing tank designs was necessary because of pressure from Stalin and the strains put on Soviet industry by the German invasion. Because of its massive weight, the tank was equipped with wading devices permitting it to traverse rivers up to 9 feet deep. The team also designed a removable observation tower that could be used to direct the fire of the howitzers and rockets while the tank was in a turret down position.
Operational History The first prototype was completed in December 1941 and was rushed into the defense of Moscow. In its first action during a dense winter fog, the rear turret accidentally fired into the center turret. The resulting explosion completely destroyed the vehicle. The second prototype was completed in January 1942, and was sent to the Leningrad front. This one had indicators installed to show when another turret was in the line of fire. In its initial attack on the Germans, the tank broke in half when crossing a ravine. A spark ignited the leaking flamethrower fuel and the resulting explosion completely destroyed the vehicle.
The third prototype had a reinforced hull and was also sent to the Leningrad front in early 1942. It did manage to shoot down three German aircraft. In its first ground engagement, the KV-VI was firing on German positions when coincidentally all of the guns fired from the 3 O’clock position a the same time. The tremendous recoil tipped the tank into a ditch and the severe jostling set off the 152mm ammunition, which completely destroyed the vehicle. After these failures, Stalin cancelled the project, and many of the design team members spent the rest of their lives in the Gulags of Siberia. The KV-VI was nicknamed “Stalin’s Orchestra” by the few Germans that encountered it because of the variety of weapons it deployed.
Brian Fowler’s Legacy
Since the release of this article, there has been an email correspondence with the original creator of the KV-VI article, Brian Fowler. He has kindly provided some additional photos of the original model, and a personal insight on the legacy of the KV-VI. He has made many prize winning models (both national and regional), but none have gained the sheer fame (or infamy) of the KV-VI. He said that the KV-VI was built as a bit of fun after building some very accurate and detailed models that required substantial research, and was entered in a sci-fi scale model competition – it won the following awards: “Best Sci-Fi IPMS Buffcon Show, 1996“, “1st place, Hypothetical, Noreastcon, 1997“, “1st place IPMS National Show, Columbus, 1997“, and many more awards from regional shows. In fact, it was so popular, it even made it onto the April Fools cover of Boresight in 2008. The KV-VI even attracted the attention of Steven Zaloga, who said “Your tank is famous with Russian modellers… They don’t know you, but they know your tank.”
The KV-VI was not an intentional hoax, and he had hoped that the fake books would tip off the readers that it was a fake tank, what with them being spoofs of real books, but “unfortunately my humor is a little too subtle for some“. Furthermore, Fowler said “The KV-VI was the most fun I ever had building a model, as it allowed me to be much more creative and imaginative, coming up with a cool looking design and not having to correct kit errors or 100% accurizing.” With regards to the spreading of the KV-VI on the internet, he said “It gives me personal satisfaction that many around the world enjoy it for what it is, and I regret what has happened on the internet that leads many to be fooled or believe it was a hoax.”
Probably the most famous photoshopped image purported to show a KV-VI prototype during a parade in the Red Square. Besides the fact it looks quite different from other illustrations of the type, it is actually just several T-28s on parade photoshopped to look as one vehicle. The original photo can be seen on the right.
Another photoshopped image alleged to be the KV-VI. Again note that it does not look similar to any of the other representations. The original photo of the KV-1 M1939 can be seen on the right.
KV-VI by Sir-Zora-Crescent, 2013, taken from deviantart. Despite being clearly fake, this image at least appears faithful to the original model.
Perhaps the most famous cut-away illustration of the KV-VI made by VonBrrrr. The design varies from the original in having an extra BT-5 turret, having the T-60 turret armed with 2 x 20 mm (0.79 in) guns instead of machine-guns and replacing the center T-38 turrets with a single T-70 one.
A side illustration of the KV-VI, as it appeared in Shpakovsky’s Tanks. Unique and paradoxical.
A render of the KV-VI made by an unknown World of Tanks EU forum member. Please note that this is not an official Wargaming render, despite the arrangement and logo.
Photos of Brian Fowler’s original KV-VI model. Courtesy of Brian Fowler.
Previously unseen photos of the KV-VI model before painting. It shows that there was an observation tower for the dual KV-2 turret, and these components are stowed on the hull.
The KV-VI as it stands now, in a display cabinet. Below is a DML T-35, which it dwarfs!
KV-VI supposed specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
15.6 x 3.3 x 4.65 m (51ft 4in x 10ft 10in x 15ft 3in)
Total weight, battle ready
138 tons (276,000 lbs)
Armament
2 x 152 mm (6 in) L20 howitzers
2 x 76.2 mm (3 in) L32 guns
1 x 45 mm (1.77 in) Model 37 gun
2 x 12.7 mm (0.5 in) DShK machine-guns
2 x 7.62 mm (0.3 in) Maxim machine-guns
14 x 7.62 mm (0.3 in) DT machine-guns
16 x BM-13 rocket launchers
2 x Model 1933 flamethrowers
A short history lesson in Soviet tank designing is needed to explain the absurdity of the KV-VI. The idea of a land battleship is not something uncommon with interwar Soviet tank projects, but almost all of them had been abandoned before WWII began, such as the Tank Grotte, T-35, SMK, and T-100. Even more conventional superheavy tank projects (if such words can be used in the same sentence) designed during the war like the KV-3, -4, and -5 never left the drawing board, although this was for a variety of reasons, including the problems with weight, cancellation of the 107mm gun project, and fall from favor of heavy tanks. Heavy and superheavy tanks had proven too expensive, inefficient, with their low mobility and huge structural problems due to their sheer weight. In fact, the only real success from any of these heavy and superheavy projects comes from the SMK, which was redesigned into the KV-1 in 1939.
In the history, it is suggested that the team was headed by Kotin and Barykov. Barykov was part of the experimental OKMO design bureau since 1930, and handled projects such as the T-41 superheavy tank, T-35, T-29 (experimental upgrade of the T-28), the T-111 breakout tank, and the T-100 superheavy tank, as well as other more conventional projects such as the T-26 and T-50. The OKMO design bureau was broken up during the Great Purge by the start of WW2, and Barykov’s name does not appear on any further projects.
Kotin, on the other hand was busy with other projects during the time in question. These include, but are not limited to: the T-60/70/80 series, the real KV series, and the IS series – he would never have time to supervise such a large project. It is true that Kotin had a history of working with multi-turreted tanks, as some of his first work focused on improving the T-28, and he oversaw the design team of the SMK prototype, but this is not the full story. Even before the war, Kotin was apprehensive about tanks with more than two turrets, but Stalin was not. Stalin was heavily involved in military affairs even in 1938, and tank designs were often presented to him and a committee of his advisers. According to Tim Bean and Will Fowler’s “Soviet Tanks of World War Two, Stalin’s Armoured Might” (which lacks proper source citation, and therefore may be untrue), when the SMK and T-100 wooden models were presented at a meeting of the State Defense Council on 4th May, 1938, Kotin argued against having three turrets, because he knew that it severely undermined the mobility of both prototypes. Stalin agreed, and reportedly responded by ripping a turret off of one of the models whilst shouting “Why make a tank into a department store?!”
Joseph Kotin, who was said to be the leader of the KV-VI project, was a real tank designer, and perhaps the USSR’s most successful and prolific.
Frequently enough, Stalin seems to have been willing to listen to his engineers and field commanders on matters such as this, so the suggestion that he would overrule his engineers, as mentioned in the fake history, is unlikely. Once both SMK and T-100 vehicles had been modified to have two turrets, prototypes were produced and were sent out for testing at Kubinka in May 1939. Kotin and his assistant, A. Yermolayev were now beginning to think that having two turrets was still too many. They remarked that the crew compartment was cramped, and there were still weight problems. Acting without any higher approval, Kotin set his team to work on a single-turreted SMK which would become known as the KV-1.
The SMK tank is covered in snow, having been knocked out by an AT mine in August, 1939. It was not recovered for two months as a result of its weight. A T-100 prototype tried to tow it away, but to no avail.
Once the plans for the KV-1 were presented to Stalin, they were approved for trials alongside the SMK and two T-100 prototypes in the Winter War. It was there that the SMK was destroyed by a landmine, and the T-100s proved ineffective as a result of poor mobility, although one was later converted into the SU-100Y. It was the KV-1 prototype which excelled (except for the problems faced against heavy bunkers at the Mannerheim Line, thus leading to the creation of the KV-2). This success of a conventional heavy tank was effectively the end of the line for any multi-turreted tank designs; it is clear that Kotin would never allow such a project to take off.
The T-100 tank. It was a similar design to the SMK, but nevertheless, its construction was different. Both were considered too bulky and unreliable to warrant production, and they were less than half the weight of the purported 138 tons of the KV-VI!
Loss of faith in heavy tanks in 1942
However, heavy tanks were not necessarily favored by Stalin after the early stages of the war, due to reports of their effectiveness, or lack of. It is true that at the very beginning of the war, the KV-1 was the most formidable tank that the Red Army fielded, but this quickly changed by 1942 as a result of the Germans upgunning their Panzer IIIs and IVs in order to deal with this threat. The report of the KV tank at Raseiniai as mentioned in the story is true, but Stalin was also hearing scathing reports from Soviet generals such as Pavel Rotmistrov of their overall performances as a result of their mobility and outdated gun.
The Red Army needed mobility to chase down retreating panzerdivisions and close gaps in broken Soviet defenses as quickly as possible, something which the T-34 gave. The T-34/76 was arguably a superior vehicle to the KV-1, at least for the purposes of the Red Army, as it featured the same gun, but it was much more mobile, it was cheaper to produce, and the lack of armor was compensated for by the numbers in which the T-34 could be fielded in – simply put, what it lacked in armor, it gained in mobility and cost-effectiveness.
Having said this, not all generals agreed with Rotmistrov, and there was a real division in Soviet leadership over heavy tanks. Many saw the KV-1 as one of the greatest assets to the Red Army at the time, because it could be used to break through enemy lines, and defend against some of the heavier German attacks, relatively unscathed. In fact, the KV-1, in theory, had a much longer ‘life expectancy’ than a T-34 because of its superior armor, but on the other hand it could not always perform the same crucial roles. So, even despite the KV-1’s qualities over the T-34, it was clear that the T-34 was rapidly gaining favor with Soviet leadership, so in order to keep heavy tanks in production, a compromise was needed – a compromise that was an absolute disaster.
Enter the KV-1S – an attempt at trying to balance the armor of a heavy tank, and the speed of a medium tank. Unsurprisingly, this ambitious project could hardly do either, leading to its cancellation in late 1943, just a year after production started! It was as expensive as the KV-1, but gave combat results no better than the T-34 due to its similar armor, but still inferior speed.
The success of the KV-1 and the T-34 were based on their respective extreme qualities (speed for the T-34, and armor for the KV-1). The medium and heavy tank classes were very different things – any balance between these two extremes would not, and did not, give the desired effect.
By 1943, at least 43 heavy tank designs and proposals were rejected, even though the majority seemed conventional and sound designs, thus showing the lack of faith that most in the Soviet leadership had in heavy tanks. Also remember that many of these projects would feature the then-experimental 107mm gun – a project developed at Leningrad which was canceled, due to fears of Germany capturing Leningrad.
This was not the end of the heavy tank, of course. Thanks to lobbying from the NKTP (People’s Commissariat of the Tank Industry of the USSR), and as well as the need to combat new German heavy and medium tanks, heavy tank production was finally saved by the introduction of the IS series, and the KV-85 stopgap – modern, well-designed, and from a time when the USSR was on firmer footing in the war.
Based on this information, it is clear that if the KV-VI project were to exist, nobody would support it. Top engineers (such as Ginzburg, Kotin, Yermolayev, etc) would see it as near technically impossible and exceptionally unreliable. Generals and commanders would probably just consider it a bunker moving at a snail’s pace, which would be of little use to the Red Army, as it would not be able to fall back to defensive positions, or be moved into a new position with ease – the Germans could simply flank the vehicle as a result of their refined armored warfare tactics, owing a lot to their prolific use of radio. Above all, it would take so long to complete and it would cost so many resources that it would wipe out Soviet tank production, probably meaning that the Wehrmacht would be able to break Soviet defenses before the vehicle would be complete.
Lack of resources
One key problem of making a wartime project of this scale is that the USSR needed tanks in vast quantities. This is for three reasons. Firstly, the sheer size of the Eastern front required the USSR to field vast numbers of AFVs to simply keep the land covered! Secondly, during late 1941 and early 1942 the Soviets were desperate to get as many armored vehicles to the front as possible in order to replace the rapid losses incurred by the Germans – the sheer need for AFVs meant that even semi-armored vehicles and tractors were being converted in order to supply more tanks to the troops. This improvisation was not just comprised of field conversions, but it was done through serial production with three different vehicles – the Odessa Tank (Na Ispug), KhTZ-16, and ZiS-30 – needless to say, this is a hallmark of a desperate industry. Thirdly, during the period in question, most tank factories were being relocated to the safety of the Urals, which seriously disrupted Soviet industry, and would mean that a huge project like this would be disrupted beyond completion due to logistics alone.
In these conditions, it is extremely unlikely that even with all the support from generals, engineers, and politicians, the Soviets simply could not have wasted time, resources, and skilled workers on developing even one such vehicle, let alone three. In fact, even if Soviet factories were not disrupted by relocation, they may not have even been well-equipped enough for such a project – there was a huge lack of resources, especially in Leningrad, which was under siege, so much so, that they had to cancel a highly promising, and conventional armored car design that was due to enter mass production, the BA-11.
More costs and problems are prevalent when the logistics of creating such a vehicle are considered. Turrets and guns would have to be delivered from many different factories. These include, but are not limited to: the BT-5 parts coming from Kharkov Komintern Locomotive Plant, the Katyusha rocket launchers from Voronezh Komintern Plant, the KV parts from Leningrad Kirov Plant or Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant (after 1941), and the T-60 parts from GAZ in Moscow, or Leningrad Kirov Plant.
Based on this information alone, a wartime superheavy project of such proportions would be a sheer impossibility.
The design makes no sense
Coming back to the design of the KV-VI, the most ludicrous feature is the armament. With no less than 5 guns, 16 rocket launcher rails, 2 flame-throwers, and 18 machine-guns. The twin 152 mm (6 in) gun turret is especially dubious. The original KV-2 turret could only be traversed on relatively level ground, and it also posed stability problems as it was, while the KV-VI is supposed to have two of those guns, which are also pictured to be independently aimed. This is why 152mm guns were never used on turreted Soviet tanks again, for example, the late war SU-152, and ISU-152 used casemate 152mm guns, because they made the vehicle more structurally sound.
Even the flamethrowers are a peculiar weapon to put on the KV-VI, as these close ranged weapons which would have been very hard to use given the limited mobility of the vehicle.
The idea of mounting a turret on another turret is rather impractical. This arrangement would have made it necessary to mount a traverse engine on top of the first turret, thus making the tank top heavy and cramped further, or traverse the upper turret by hand, which was very slow. Secondly, any movement of the lower turret would have impaired the aiming of the upper turret, which throws the practicality into question. Thirdly, if the upper turret were to fire, it would have greatly stressed the turret mounting of the lower one and could alter the shape, if not eventually break the turret ring. Finally, in order to fix any of the aforementioned problems, it would take years, if not decades of precise engineering with a vast budget and expansive team of engineers that would never have been available to the USSR during the war or even before.
A big problem with the placement of turrets and weapons is the location of the BM-13 rocket systems. The sketch from DeviantArt shows it to be placed on top of a BT-5 turret, which is placed on top of a giant KV-1 turret (although in the original model, it is just placed on top of a single KV-1 turret). It would be difficult to reload the rocket system as it is placed much higher than on other vehicles such as a ZiS truck or a turretless T-60 tank. According to the model, a large piston controls the elevation of the BM-13 systems which is connected to the KV-1 turret. This is simply not possible, as there would be little space in which to mount such a large piston inside the lower KV-1 turret, especially as space is needed for the crew members, gun, and ammunition. There also appears to be no space for storing rockets, except for on the exterior of the tank where on the model, a wooden crate can be seen. This is a practice sometimes done by tanks that have little space for ammunition, such as an ISU-152, but this was rather dangerous, as the munitions could be hit and could, at best, unusable, or at worst, detonate.
The DT machine guns are also placed in unorthodox places – the sides of turrets. This is only seen on very early Soviet tanks, such as the T-12 and T-24, as well as armored trains. The usefulness of fixed DT machine guns is dubious even on conventional tanks (which is why they were not featured on post-war tanks), and it is unlikely that they would be able to effectively engage and track a moving target, as the turret would traverse too slowly. Apart from which, these would be an unnecessary weak point which would also cramp the already overloaded turrets.
What looks like some kind of KV-VI is just an MBV-2 armored train at the Leningrad front. The USSR had many built before the war (as a result of successful use during the Russian Civil War), but many were lost in 1941. This is an early train, as the later ones featured T-34/76 and KV-1 turrets.
The KV-VI was purportedly powered by 2 or 3 KV-1 engines with 500 hp each, and that would have given a power-to-weight ratio of 11 hp/ton. While that is not exactly abysmal, the sheer track length and narrowness of the vehicle would have made turning the KV-VI similar to the way a train turns. Traversing, that is turning on the spot, would have been highly improbable if not downright impossible. The 2 or 3 such engines would have also taken a lot of space, and it is not clear where they would have been mounted. Based on the model, an engine was present behind each turret, but getting their power to the rear drive wheels would have required a transmission which is probably not feasible even today.
There were few, if any, bridges at the time which would have been able to sustain the 138 tons of the KV-VI. Crossing any kind of hill or ravine would have over-stressed the chassis to the point where it was very likely to break in two, which would have also made river wading impossible – despite the fake history suggesting that wading devices were fitted. Also, the ground pressure was abysmal, meaning any attempt to cross a river would have left the tank stuck in the mud almost instantly.
Another peculiarity is the fact that the number of weapons greatly outnumbered the number of crewmen, which stood at just 16, including the driver and a commissar. They had to aim, load, and fire 5 guns, 18 machine-guns and 2 flamethrowers mounted in 7 turrets. Having a crew which could fully man every gun would perhaps number as many as thirty men. This would be impossible to control by one single commander, and the vehicle would have to work more like a naval battle ship, meaning that a commissar (who acts as a ‘supreme commander’) would have to give general orders (such as which direction or when to commence fire), and each section would need a dedicated commander in order to control which guns fire where. This would require multiple radios or intercoms, and it is imperative that all of these advanced electronics are maintained in perfect working order, or the vehicle could face a disaster.
Lack of sources and other holes in the story
A more fundamental concern with this vehicle is the fact that there have been no purported reports from the Wehrmacht about this vehicle. If there were three prototypes sent to Moscow and Leningrad, it would be incredibly conspicuous. Explanations could be made up for why this is so, such as considering that the Germans knew about the SMK prototype in Finland, but they wrongly called it the T-35C, this might suggest that German intelligence was far from perfect, and could lead to an overlooking of the KV-VI (and even this suggestion is incredibly ropy). However, this is a different situation all-together – the KV-VI would dwarf the SMK, and Germans themselves were reported to have faced off against three prototypes at Moscow and Leningrad, some of the busiest fronts of the entire war. This should have cast immediate doubt on the KV-VI as a real tank before even considering how unbelievable the vehicle itself is.
A final and fundamental mistake is the way the name is spelled. No Soviet tanks, from the early T-18 (1928) to today’s T-14 (2015), have had Roman numerals in their designations. With regards to the real KV-6, it is speculated that there are at least two candidates for the KV-6 name, one being a KV-1 with a flame-thrower installed in the hull (according to Henk of Holland), while the other is a version of the KV-7 self-propelled gun (the KV-6 featured a 76mm and twin 45mm guns, whereas the KV-7 had twin 76mm guns) according to Steven Zaloga in “Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two“. However, the KV-6 index seems to be unknown, and any documentation may have gone missing during the war.
Could the KV-VI work?
It is difficult to entertain the practicality of the KV-VI, but perhaps it would have been best suited to defensive combat along a paved road, as paved roads would cause the fewest problems for moving this land-ship, and it could never be mobile enough to be an effective assault weapon. It would require a long, even, and accessible road. Perhaps the most suitable and nearest at that time would have been Nevsky Prospekt, in Leningrad, which is nearly six kilometers long. However, German boots never set foot in Nevsky Prospekt, but if they were to do so, the KV-VI could demolish entrenched positions on either side of the road at the same time. This could possibly have been appealing to Soviet leadership, as at Stalingrad, mere floors of buildings were fought over for days.
Kirov Plant in Leningrad would logistically be the best candidate for where this vehicle would be built, as it was very close to Nevsky Prospekt, and it spent the early war building KV tanks, but the blockade meant that there were few resources with which to build tanks. If Leningrad was able to get sufficient resources (which is an exceptionally big ‘if’) the KV-VI could possibly be sent along Stachek Prospekt passing by the Naval Triumph Arch, then on to Staro-Petergofskiy Prospekt, along Sadovaya Street, past Sennaya Square, and up to Nevsky Prospekt. It could then use the Palace Grounds to turn around, if necessary. Alternatively, the KV-VI could be sent via barge along the Neva River up to a temporary dock at the Admiralty Embankment or Palace Embankment, leading directly onto Nevsky Prospekt.
Instantly, problems with these theories arise. Firstly, the KV-VI would be incredibly vulnerable to any German aerial attacks, especially as the Red Army did not field any vast numbers of SPAAGs (or even fighter aircraft with which to defend against aerial attacks) during the war with which to defend such a high profile target. However, if the KV-VI were able to shoot down German aircraft, such as mentioned in the fake history, then it may be able to defend itself against lighter aerial attacks for a short time. Secondly, the assumption is that there would be sufficient resources for making the KV-VI, a suitable barge, and a temporary landing dock, which would, of course, never be possible at Leningrad until after the siege was broken, and even the probability of a barge or ship which can transport 138 tons being available is small.
Thirdly, the KV-VI making its way to Nevsky Prospekt via road would be incredibly difficult if any of the roads were bombed out, as it would need plenty of road space and a path that is as straight as possible. Also, the tram lines on Nevsky Prospekt would need taking down, or else face being destroyed by the KV-VI.
Finally, when several KV-2 and KV-1 tanks, a BM-13 Katyusha mounted on a T-60, and a few other light tanks would be far more efficient to design, build, battle, easier to transport, etc the KV-VI seems like a pointless endeavor in every manner – its only benefits would be its propaganda value, and its psychological impact on German soldiers. Nevsky Prospekt as pictured during the war. It may have been one of the few places the KV-VI might see any real effective service, had it been invaded, and if the KV-VI were real.
Illustration of the KV-VI By Tanks Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.
The tests done between 1930-1932 by the Red Army to create a fighting vehicle based on tractors were totally unsuccessful, so the appearance of the KhTZ-16 was a sign of sheer desperation by the USSR. In 1941, as a result of the Soviet need for more tanks and slow production of more conventional designs, numerous improvised vehicles appeared on the front-lines. The KhTZ-16 was Kharkov’s improvised tank, and showed similar traits to its brothers, such as the NI, which was produced at the same time. Featuring a 45 mm (1.77 in) gun and a crude, yet sophisticated-looking superstructure, the KhTZ-16 was actually good enough to almost enter mass-production. As with all improvised vehicles, there is little available documentation on the KhTZ-16, and, therefore, sources are often of a questionable nature. However, unlike its other improvised cousins (such as the NI, and ZiS-30), there are many photos, which provide us with plenty of details.
An author’s note on credibility of sources
Using internet sources only is terrible practice for a real historical account. Direct links to them have been included. Using photographs and fair reasoning, this article tries to piece together the story of the KhTZ-16. It must be noted that Kharkov is not a Hero City, and thus little has been written on the story of what was a very valiant defense. The KhTZ-16 will perhaps remain a mystery – so much so that it had Zaloga stumped in his book “Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two”, stating: “the Kharkov Tractor Tanks had fixed superstructures armed with 45mm guns. It is not known where these vehicles were built, but photographs exist of several vehicles which were all obviously based on a standard plan.” This is, perhaps, as much as we can actually confirm as true, although photos certainly show more than three KhTZ-16s.
Design process
After huge defeats in 1941, Soviet authorities went to desperate measures to stop the German advance. After a series of meetings, by July 20th, 1941, Resolution 219 was adopted, which ordered agricultural tractors to be fitted with armor plates and AT guns. The Kharkov (HTZ) and Stalingrad (STZ) tractor factories were ordered to produce these improvised fighting vehicles. However, STZ was unable to start work on the vehicle because they were experiencing supply problems. Desperation meant that production needed to be hurried, so four engineers from Moscow were sent to the HTZ plant – E.G. Popov, A.V. Sapozhnikov, V. Slonimsky and A.M. Cherepin.
At first, they tried to mount a 37 mm (1.46 in) AA gun, but this was deemed unsatisfactory. Instead, a 45 mm (1.77 in) 20K was tried, and this was deemed suitable.
Once the weaponry was agreed upon, they experimented by using various tractors – the STZ-5 and STZ-3 (sometimes called STZ Nati) artillery tractors. The cab was removed from these tractors, and a new cab with armor ranging from 10-25 mm (0.4-0.98 in) was fitted. Both of these tractors shared a common suspension, but were different shapes. The STZ-3 looked more like a traditional agricultural tractor, and the STZ-5 was a much boxier shape. However, unlike the NI tank producers in Odessa, HTZ opted to use the STZ-3 (hence the rather difference shape between the NI and KhTZ-16). They did this because the front mounted engine meant that they would not have to redesign the structure of the vehicle in order to accommodate the weight of a rear mounted gun. The vehicle became known as the KhTZ-16, but some few wartime documents refer to it as the T-16.
This KhTZ-16 has had its ammunition unloaded, possibly after a breakdown. All hatches on the vehicle are clearly open. The vehicle also appears to be camouflaged.
The design of the hull was simple – welding and riveting held metal sheets together, which protected the crews from bullets and shrapnel. The vehicle was also divided into two sections: the front was for the engine, and the rear for the crew. The engine was protected by four sheets of rolled steel, and was fastened away with bolted armor, clearly seen on photos. The exhaust was also moved to the bottom of the vehicle, with steel shutters closing it off if necessary. For maintenance of the front hull, the vehicle had hatches on the side. Frontal armor was about 25 mm (1 in) thick, and the sides were roughly 10 mm (0.4 in).
Entering and exiting the vehicle was reportedly done by a hatch on the right hand side of the vehicle, but an emergency hatch was installed in the rear. The roof also featured two hatches. According to photographic evidence, the rear hatch and two top hatches were used more than any others, especially when abandoning the vehicle. Just to the right of the main gun, there was a small slit for the driver to look out of. The tank also featured three slit holes to fire personal weapons out of, just in case, but often, these were used by DT machine guns.
The chassis was changed slightly to accommodate the new weight. Rubber rollers were reportedly installed in order to improve the ride of the vehicle, and therefore the accuracy of the weapon, as well as crew comfort, but no photos show this.
Production commenced, even despite supply problems, but due to evacuations of factories as a result of the German advance, the KhTZ-16 (and similar vehicles) producing factories were evacuated from eastern Ukraine shortly after production began and only 70-100 KhTZ-16s were built. However, there was such a huge demand for tanks by August 1941, as a result of the huge losses, 800 vehicles were actually ordered.
There were still supply issues, however. Delivery of the armor plating was falling behind and it became increasingly difficult for the NKZM 9 factory (which produced the armor plates) to keep up with demand. According to some incomplete statistics, they sent up to 100 armor sets, but it is not known how many made it to HTZ. One of the last reports from HTZ before the evacuation stated that “809 KhTZ-16 tanks have been demanded, but this could not be produced due to the lack of steel armor plates.” Production finally ended on 20th October, when German troops surrounded the city. A Romanian soldier poses next to a broken down KhTZ-16.
However, the STZ plant was actually reorganized to produce the KhTZ-16 on September 16th, 1941, under the order of People’s Commissar of the NKPT (Ministry of Transport Machine-Building Industry) Malyshev. A document he sent reads as followed: “With the view of imminent production of an armored tractor KhTZ-16: A. Immediately ship STZ five hundred tractors to be prepared for upgrades B. Immediately send Plant N264 the drawings and specifications for the KhTZ-16 [referred to as the Bronektraktor in this document] C. Ship the relevant sets of weapons (guns, machine guns, ammunition). Ensure the plant has purchased these products. Delivery for STZ is to start no later than October 1 by the following schedule: the first five days – 10 units a day, the second five-days – 15 pieces a day, then 20, and more … “
However, these production targets were far too ambitious and were actually short-lived. STZ shortly after switched to T-34 production. It was not possible to open up a second production line for the KhTZ-16 due to a lack of resources and skilled workers. Having said this, during the autumn of 1941, STZ did produce an unknown number of KhTZ-16s, estimated to be at around 30, probably all made using evacuated hulls and materials from HTZ.
Kharkov managed to produce 50-60 units all in all, and Stalingrad did not manage to make more than 30. A KhTZ-16 missing some armor plates and a track, having been knocked out. In this image, the STZ-3 tractor it is based on can be seen clearly, as well as the personal weapons port on the left of the gun. A knocked out KhTZ-16 which appears to have been painted with camouflage.
The KhTZ-16 in action
Detailed information on how well it fared in combat is scarce. The KhTZ-16 was never referred to as a tank, but an improvised self-propelled gun. Its main role was to knock out enemy armor. Reports suggest that the 20K 45 mm (1.77 in) gun was able to knock out a German tank at a distance of 200-300 m (220-330 yd). Sources suggest that the gun was fixed in position and therefore, aiming required the entire tank to move, but photographs reveal this not to be the case. In fact, it is more likely that the gun had a very limited firing arc, which meant that the tank often had to move.
The 14th Tank Brigade received 8 of these tanks. Roughly 10-15 of these vehicles formed a separate battalion that took part in the defense of Poltava, in September, 1941, where they were quickly lost. In both of these cases, all tanks were totally destroyed. Reports do suggest that some were sent ‘modestly’ to the defense of Kharkov in October, but German armor had a huge advantage as a result of Soviet high command allowing the Germans to break through to the Vyazma and Bryansk areas. A group of Romanian soldiers inspect a KhTZ-16 in a rural town near Kharkov.
Almost all of these tanks were sent to the western defenses. However, defenders of the city put roughly 47 of these vehicles into a separate battalion. These units were sometimes fielded with T-27 tankettes, as well as no more than four T-35s and five T-26 tanks of various models, ranging from 1933 to 1938. Organized defenses in Kharkov effectively failed, but according to some memoirs of the KhTZ-16, these tanks were able to withstand the brunt of urban combat.
There is some evidence that 16 KhTZ-16s were used on another sector on the Eastern Front, with the 133rd Tank Brigade, and fought until the end of October on the Bryansk front. Available documents on the 133rd Tank Brigade do state that they had KhTZ-16 tanks, but do not state anything else about them. However, the existence of these tanks as part of the 133rd Brigade are not mentioned in a later report from 9th November, 1941, and it may be possible that the KhTZ-16 never served in combat with the 133rd.
In recent times, it has been suggested that the KhTZ-16 served near Leningrad in autumn, 1941, and in the May 1942 attack near Kharkov. It is almost impossible that these tanks served near Leningrad, but as for serving in at Kharkov, there are plenty of photographs of them in the city.
In summary, main disadvantages were low speed, poor armor, high silhouette, poor visibility and a stationary gun that required the entire tank to move to aim (if not a small gun arc). However, despite being based on a tractor, being hastily made and the whole design being deemed unworkable in the first place, their combat success is relatively commendable, especially in the demanding environments of urban and rural combat. Many of these tanks served in rural areas and fared less well. We know this, simply because of the number of photos of them knocked out and being inspected by Romanian troops in rural areas. It is probable that these tanks were knocked out because they were not suited to the terrain, and could not engage the enemy as effectively, or maneuver, like they would be able to do in urban combat. It was obviously a tank of particular interest to Romanian photographers, as well as the citizens of Kharkov, who wanted to see what they had managed to make in their most desperate hours. A German soldier looks at an abandoned KhTZ-16. There appears to be a dead crew member hanging from the rear hatch, and may be the same tank as the one reportedly outside the Kharkov central department store.
This knocked out KhTZ-16 appears to have been bogged down before being knocked out, hence the large amount of grass on the tracks. A rather poor quality photograph apparently shows a Soviet crew abandoning a KhTZ-16. An interesting photo shows a KhTZ-16 being inspected by a Romanian soldier. It appears as though there was a large internal explosion which blew the rear hatch off.
KhTZ-16 specifications
Dimensions (L-w-h)
4.2 x 1.9 x 2.4 m (13.8×6.23×7.9 ft)
Total weight, battle ready
Approximately 7 tonnes
Crew
2-4, however photos seem to suggest crews were usually two men
Propulsion
4 cyl. kerosene, 52 hp
Speed (road – off-road)
20 – 5 km/h (12.4-3 mph)
Range
120 km (75 mi)
Armament
45 mm (1.77 in) 20K AT gun
7.62 mm (0.3 in) DT machine gun
A camouflaged KhTZ-16 (probably in a rush, with a large paintbrush) as shown in photos. A KhTZ-16. The vehicle also appears to be camouflaged. A KhTZ-16’s crew surrender in a rural area near Kharkov. A knocked out KhTZ-16, supposedly near the Kharkov central department store. The charred corpse of a crew member can be seen hanging from the back, possibly killed by an engine fire. A broken down KhTZ-16 is inspected by citizens of Kharkov. Another view of the broken down KhTZ-16 being inspected in Kharkov. A KhTZ-16 on a farm is inspected by a local. He may be salvaging parts for local partisans. An intact KhTZ-16 is stuck in the side of a fence. Despite being produced in small numbers, there are a remarkable number of photos of this tank, when compared to its other improvised cousins. A reproduction NI tank with a ShVAK cannon on display – despite being labelled as an NI, it is often presented as a KhTZ-16. The historical accuracy of this tank is dubious. There is no credible information or historical photographs suggesting that it was armed with this weapon. Also, the construction and shape of this tank is dubious, although, it does appear to be based on an STZ-3 tractor, and there was an attempt in the design process of the KhTZ-16 to mount a ShVAK. Another supposed reproduction KhTZ-16 or NI tank. The historical accuracy of this tank is extremely dubious. The construction of this vehicle does not resemble that of a KhTZ-16 or an NI for that matter – especially with regards to the turret, main gun, and the suspension of the vehicle. Despite being presented as a KhTZ-16 or an NI, this was a postwar creation based on a postwar tractor as a replica, and looks nothing like any of the WWII improvised tanks. This tank, said to be “near Mongolia”, is often presented as KhTZ-16. However, this is a Disston Tractor tank with Afghan markings on it. It is actually in a now-closed Kabul museum in this photo and it now probably lies in a scrapyard. A KhTZ-16 has its track repaired. The vehicle also appears to be camouflaged. Now that some rivets are missing, this Romanian soldier is inspecting this abandoned KhTZ-16’s engine compartment. Another abandoned KhTZ-16. The vehicle also appears to be camouflaged. Another broken down KhTZ-16 is inspected by Romanian troops in a rural area. A perfect side-view of a KhTZ-16. Another broken down KhTZ-16. A STZ-3 tractor. The KhTZ-16 was based upon these tractors. A broken down KhTZ-16 is inspected and posed on by Romanian troops. A rather poorly lit photograph shows what appears to be a German AT gun crew having just successfully engaged a KhTZ-16 (upper left). A group of Romanian soldiers pose on a knocked out KhTZ-16. This photo reveals that the gun had a firing arc. Sources have previously suggested that the gun was fixed in place.
Ukrainian SSR (1941)
Tractor Tank – Estimated 55-70 Built
Odessa’s Forgotten Glory
The NI, or Odessa Tank, was one of the many improvised tanks of WWII. Due to the shortages of tanks at Odessa in 1941, Soviet workers in one factory began producing an improvised tank, seemingly without any substantial heavy machinery. The tank was little more than thin naval steel plates with a turret placed onto a militarized tractor. Despite their crude design, dozens were produced and sent out to the front-line to fight against Romanian soldiers, with claims of superb combat results. Their cultural significance and symbolism in the post-war Ukrainian SSR and wider USSR has been proven by at least four replicas (although each highly inaccurate) being built, and at least two films based on the defense of Odessa featuring the tanks as a plot-point.
These tanks were seldom photographed, compared to other improvised tanks, such as the ZiS-30 and KhTZ-16, and, therefore, not a great deal can be confirmed about them. There is much speculation about this vehicle on the internet, and various reproductions have been cited as the original. However, this article has found the most credible sources available, and will piece together the true story, as well as explain and debunk some of the myths.
Designation
The NI did not have an official designation. During the war, it was known to be referred to as – На Испуг, Romanized as “Na Ispug” (shortened to “NI” pronounced ‘Nee‘). This is sometimes translated as “For Fright” or sometimes wrongly translated as “Bluff into retreat“, which, whilst an accurate description of their role, is incorrect. In “Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two” by Zaloga and Grandsen, “Na Ispug” is translated as “Terror Tanks“. In the memoirs of Marshal of the Soviet Union Krylov, “Glory Eternal, the defence of Odessa 1941“, they are translated as “Strike Terror“, shortened to “ST tanks“, and are sometimes called “Odessa Tanks“, “Armored Tractors“, and so on.
Sometimes, they are called “Tractor Tank” or “Armored Tractor“, and in modern Russian accounts, usually all types of tractor tanks are referred to as Bronetraktor (or Bronetraktory). They are also referred to as “НИ-1″ or “NI-1” on replica NI tanks, but the -1 designation may have just come from a film.
In any case, the best candidate for the official designation is “NI” (“Na Ispug”), because it was the wartime nickname, but for clarity’s sake, “Odessa Tank” is perhaps a better designation, even if it is not historically accurate.
Design process
Background: Military production in Odessa
The vast majority of the credible information about the tank is taken from Marshal of the Soviet Union Nikolay Ivanovich Krylov’s memoirs – “Glory Eternal, Defence of Odessa, 1941“. During the defense of Odessa, he was a Polkovnik (western equivalent rank – Colonel), serving as Head of the Operations Department of the Army, and, after August 21st, 1941, he was Chief of Staff of the Maritime Army. His memoirs provide excellent first-hand accounts of otherwise poorly documented events…
In 1941, due to the sudden enemy advance, most factories in endangered areas, such as Odessa, were evacuated along with most of their heavy and important machinery. The little remaining machinery at Odessa was to be used to produce crude or improvised munitions, and even repair tanks that made it back from the front during the defense of the city. Worse still, there was a massive shortage of skilled labor, because men were conscripted into the army, meaning that housewives and untrained youths were the ones now working in factories. By the end of August, twenty Odessa factories were producing (or were at least organizing production of) weapons and munitions – many of which were improvised, such as trench flamethrowers made from soda water cylinders, and even AT and AP mines, made from tin cans (thus, somewhat humorously labelled ‘Caviar’, ‘Khalva’, etc).
Tanks in Odessa
On the whole, the Red Army was suffering from a lack of firepower in Odessa – especially tanks. At the start of the war, there were roughly 70 tanks, mostly T-37s, T-26s, and BT tanks, but most of those were knocked out after brutal fighting on the outskirts of the city during the early days of the siege, because the Romanians attacked on a daily basis. These 70 tanks were repaired numerous times, some receiving improvised up-armoring. Krylov recalls that at least three damaged tanks were loaded onto flatbed trucks, and were escorted behind Soviet lines to be repaired at the January Uprising Factory.
The January Uprising Mechanical Plant (note: the exact name of the factory has been subject to debate) was perhaps the best equipped factory in Odessa, and it had already made one thousand 50 mm (1.97 in) and two hundred 82 mm (3.23 in) mortar shells, as well at least one improvised armored train. It was also the main repair center for tanks. After they ran out of tanks to repair, there was another heroic, but wacky idea. They were going to make improvised tanks. They received help from workers from smaller factories, as well as engineers from the local naval base. Led by P.K. Romanov (the Chief Engineer of the factory) and Captain U.G. Kogan (an Artillery Instruments Engineer from Naval Base HQ, later transferred to Odessa Defense Area HQ), they decided to equip artillery tractors as tanks. Reportedly, “военинжинер” Obednikov (there appears to be no translation of his title) was also involved, but this name does not appear in more than a single unverified internet source, and it may be that this is a movie character from a postwar film (see Cultural Significance below).
The idea of armoring up civilian vehicles was not exactly new. There was a suggestion to turn even tram cars into armored trains, if fighting within the city took place. It is known that at least one tram was converted (as a contemporary Romanian newspaper article shows one after the fall of Odessa), but is seems likely that this idea was taken no further – perhaps Odessa Tank production was considered more important.
The idea of tractor tanks was met with some mistrust, too, but nevertheless, three STZ-5 tractors were set aside for an experiment. Captain Kogan received a letter stating that all city organizations were to assist on finding the necessary materials for the conversion experiment. They found a boring machine and turning lathe at the local tram workshop, which was necessary for making turret traverse parts (although possibly to make improvised turrets as well). Overall, the plan for the tank was actually fairly modest – a boxy, improvised hull built around the tractor, and a scavenged turret on top. All this was seemingly without any blueprints with which to heavily standardize production, although the few known images of the tank reveal a fairly high level of standardization.
Production
Prototypes
The first three NI tanks were ready within ten days and were presented on August 20th. The first two were reportedly armed with two DT machine guns, and the third with a 37 mm (1.46 in) mountain gun. This exact event is subject to debate – not least because it has been recreated in two films, and sources cite these as historical fact. According to some spurious internet sources, the first was pulled from the factory using ropes. According to another source, a worker wrote “СМЕРТЬ ФАШИЗМУ” (“Death to Fascism”) in chalk on the side of the tank. Two more NI tanks produced were reportedly called “Пролетарец” (Proletariats), and “Черномор” (‘Chernomor’, an evil Sorcerer from Pushkin’s 1820 poem ‘Ruslan and Ludmila‘). Writing “Death to Fascism” on a NI actually happened in a 1986 film – “Feat of Odessa, the second series“, and the others appear to be from the same film. The notion that the tanks had to be pulled from the factory using ropes is also spurious, and likely untrue.
According to newsreel footage (see clip #1 here), which is believed to show the first (if not a recreation of the first being presented for newsreel cameras, or perhaps one of the first NI tanks being produced), the tank drove out from within the factory and was presented by various factory workers and the foreman to Soviet officers and sailors. The tank was demonstrated by doing a 360 degree turn. As a result of the engine rattling the hull, it made a terribly loud noise when moving. The sailors, who were intended to drive the vehicle, thanked the workers, before driving off with the cry “On to Sevastopol!”.
The prototype NI tanks were sent to the Southern Sector with a repaired ‘real’ tank, although which tank this was is unknown. It is unclear exactly when this combat test was, but according to limited combat reports, it was possibly between August 28th and September 3rd. The crews of the NI tanks consisted of volunteers – sailors, soldiers, and reportedly even factory workers who were familiar with the vehicles. After the vehicles returned from their successful baptism of fire, the ODA Military Council immediately ordered 70 more tanks to be built, and three other factories were organized to help with the order.
Total production figures
The exact number built is unknown. Many internet sources refer to the memoirs of N.G. Lutsenko. According to these spurious sources, he oversaw the project and that he was the “former secretary for the ‘Leninist Party Committee“, but perhaps mean just a local party secretary. Lutsenko is never mentioned by Krylov in his memoirs of the Defense of Odessa, and he may not have even existed, or he was perhaps a film character. In any case, he did not oversee the project – this was done, as recalled by Krylov, by Kogan and Romanov. According to the almost certainly made-up memoirs of Lutsenko: “from August 20 to October 15, [we] manufactured 55 tanks, refitting them from the tractor STZ-5.” By September 14th, it is suggested that 31 tanks were made, but this figure is taken from another spurious source.
Spurious accounts aside, more common figures from sources suggest the total number produced to be 68 (a claim made by Steven Zaloga), 69, and 70. Other sources suggest the figure to be closer to 55, as the Odessa area “did not have sufficient resources or time to make more NI tanks“. According to the Romanian source, “Armata Romana 1941-1945” by Cornel I. Scafes, Odessa made 70-120 “tankettes, by transforming some tracked tractors“, but this is likely an overestimation.
It is known that three prototypes were made, and 70 more were ordered. It seems as though the four factories organized for the production of Odessa Tanks were actually part of a production chain, as opposed to each making tanks. It is likely that the tram workshop was used for making turrets, one factory was used for cutting the naval steel into shape, one factory was used for stripping down STZ-5s, and the January Uprising Factory was used for final assembly. Thus, it may be that the number produced is quite small. The bombing of the tram workshop late in the siege may also account for some turretless Odessa Tanks.
All in all, according to limited combat data, an estimated 33 – 40 NI tanks can be accounted for, and only 6 – 8 have been photographed.
Odessa Tanks after the siege
According to photographs, after the evacuation and fall of Odessa on October 16th, it seems as though all remaining NI tanks were abandoned. Some appear to be abandoned in the street along with other tanks, such as a BT-5, and others appear to be abandoned in a vehicle graveyard in the city, along with military trucks. These remaining tanks were reportedly either scrapped or used by Romanian troops for training. Romania is reported to have captured two Odessa Tanks at least, but their fate is unknown. The exact number of tanks that were left in Odessa after the evacuation is uncertain, but it is suggested by spurious claims to be about 10 – hardly an unreasonable claim. Photographs are believed to show four abandoned after the siege was over. It is more than likely that no Odessa Tanks existed after mid-1942.
Turrets
According to photographic evidence, it is apparent that various turrets were used – a T-26 M1932 turret modified to fit a DT (instead of a 37mm gun) was used for the first. It is also known that some NIs had improvised turrets, and it is the current belief of the author that most had improvised turrets. It is also highly likely that some NI tanks had no turrets at all, due to photographic evidence.
January Uprising Factory was the main repair station in Odessa, and turrets were reportedly taken from wrecked or damaged vehicles which were taken back behind Soviet lines for repairs, or perhaps to be melted down as scrap. The turrets that could be used had to be under a certain weight and size limit. Single man turrets were likely to be the only ones ever used, due to weight and space restrictions. It is unknown how many different types of turrets were salvaged, and the only salvaged turret known (beyond all doubt) is the prototype, with its modified turret.
T-26 M1931/2 turrets
The most commonly photographed turret was a T-26 M1932 turret that has been modified to feature a DT ball-mount instead of the 37 mm (1.46 in) gun. It is believed that this particular tank was the first Odessa Tank ever made. Whilst many of these turrets may have been stored after 1935 modernization of the T-26, the turret actually came from a wrecked T-26 M1932 tank still in service in the Ukrainian SSR. It was commonplace for outdated tanks to be used by Soviet Republics outside of the RSFSR. In fact, an estimated 1316 T-26 tanks (of various variants) were in service on the Southwestern Front (approximately 35% of all Soviet tanks on that front). Roughly 2037 T-26 M1931 tanks were ever made, but many were poorly built in the Izhora factory in Leningrad and used low quality, mild steel, so these vehicles may have been out of commission long before 1941. As well as this, there was a conversion program to turn twin-turreted models into single turreted models, too, so the overall number of T-26 M1931/2 tanks still in service by 1941 are unclear, as is the number in service at Odessa. It is believed that other T-26 M1931 turrets were salvaged and used for the construction of NI tanks, but it remains unclear due to a lack of photographic evidence.
T-37A/T-38 turrets?
According to a piece of footage from Roman Karmen’s 1965 documentary film “Great Patriotic War“, at least one Odessa Tank had a T-37A or T-38 turret. Due to their small size (and the fact that they have been known to be interchanged with a T-26 Model 1931 at least once by the Germans), there is nothing to suggest that a NI with a T-37A/T-38 turret could not have existed. Close examination of stills show that whilst it looks exactly like the T-37A/T-38 turret, the side viewport is too close to the front of the turret. Perhaps the unorthodox location of the viewport can also be accounted for by some kind of hasty repair or up-armoring. It is also highly likely that this is an improvised turret, but it is unlike other types seen. Until a better image can be uncovered, it will remain unknown.
Improvised turrets
Mathematically, even by taking the lowest NI production figure of 55, the majority of NI tanks would have to have improvised turrets, seeing as though most of the 70 original ‘real’ tanks defending Odessa would not necessarily have been recovered or have even had suitable one-man turret which could be mounted on NI tanks.
The existence of improvised turrets is also based on an inference from Zaloga, Krylov, and at least two known photos showing an improvised turret. This first photo clearly shows a non-standard turret. In the photo, there is a turret that looks nothing like any seen on other Soviet tanks. These turrets appear to have had a square armor box to house the main gun which was slightly offset to one side. It also appears to be larger, and more cylindrical than other turrets, as well as having a flat top, as opposed to the T-26 Model 1931’s ‘lipped’ design. Its weapons also appear to have been removed, but based on the diamond-shaped hole in the armor box, it appears as though this individual improvised turret would have featured a DT.
Two photos taken near the entrance to the port of Odessa show a NI with an apparent simple cylinder used as a turret. It probably had a hole to poke a DT machine gun through, but due to the quality and angle of the images, nothing more can be said. It may have had an armor box like the other non-standard turret, but it remains unclear due to a lack of photographs.
Turretless
There are three photos of NI tanks (all taken after the capture of Odessa) without turrets. The first without a turret may perhaps the the same turretless NI as seen outside the entrance to the port – this is something that is still in debate. There are two possible explanations of this, both based on pure speculation. The first is that they (assuming that these are separate tanks) had their turrets knocked off during combat. The second is that they never featured a turret and were sent out to fight with just the hull-mounted DT. Both are plausible explanations, but the turretless theory does make sense, seeing as though making improvised turrets would be quite laborious, and, if tanks were needed, they could be sent out to fight without turrets, in order to speed up production. As mentioned, the turning lathe from the tram station was appropriated for the production of the turrets, and the tram workshop was bombed later in the siege, so it may be that turret production was stopped.
Weapons
A variety of weapons are reported to have been used by the NI – a DT machine gun, a 37 mm (1.46 in) gun, a 45 mm (1.77 in) gun, a Maxim machine gun, a DShK, a ShVAK cannon, and even a trench flamethrower. In any case, there was always an option for a hull-mounted DT.
DT machine guns
All known photographs and videos show the NI tanks to be armed with a DT machine gun (with the exception of two which are unarmed). DTs were also optionally mounted in the hull, and were operated by a third crew member. One modified T-26 M1931 turret seems to feature a machine gun that is substantially longer than any DT available at that time (in fact, it looks a lot like a DTM, but this gun was not made until 1944). It is more than likely that it is a DT-29 with a flash hider which looks narrow and short due to the photo’s lighting.
37mm guns
There is some written evidence across various sources to suggest that a NI could also have had a 37 mm (1.46 in) gun. The candidates for the exact 37 mm gun are the PS-1, M1930 1K, and the M1915 Trench Gun.
Only some T-26s had a 37 mm PS-1 gun, and in 1933, a single 3-man turret was put into production with a 45 mm gun (the most commonly seen version of the T-26), thus ending the short-lived 37 mm gun variant. There is no photographic evidence of a NI ever having a 37 mm M1932 turret. However, in one photo, it appears as though a T-26 M1931 turret featuring a 37 mm PS-1 gun has been modified to fit a DT instead. There are a variety of plausible explanations for this, but if they removed a 37 mm gun, then it therefore seems unlikely that the 37 mm PS-1 gun was mounted on the NI.
In “Glory Eternal, Defence of Odessa 1941“, it is reported that a 37 mm mountain gun was mounted on the third prototype NI tank. There are at least two candidates for what this gun is. The first is the M1930 1k gun, which was known to be in service during WWII, albeit in unknown, and probably small numbers. The second candidate is referred to in “Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two”, where Zaloga suggests that the 37 mm gun used was a Model 15R mountain gun, possibly meaning the 37 mm trench gun M1915, which was compact enough to fit into machine gun emplacements, and was smaller than the 1K. Both accounts do not state how such guns were mounted. Zaloga suggests that NI tanks without a T-26 M1931 turret had “new turrets“, presumably improvised, and it is not a leap of the imagination to assume that a 37 mm gun was mounted in an improvised turret, although it remains unknown which specific 37 mm gun it was.
45 mm guns
A 45 mm (1.77 in) gun does not seem to be an unreasonable claim. There is no photographic evidence for a 45 mm gun being fitted. A claim of a 45 mm gun is made commonly across internet sources. The idea may have come from sources thinking that a KhTZ-16 (which was another improvised tank) and a NI are the same thing, but Zaloga, who certainly knows the difference, suggests that a new turret was made for both 37 mm and 45 mm guns. There is no real issue of weight load, and, seeing as though some turrets might have been improvised, there might be no issue of space in such a turret. It remains a mystery what these turrets might have looked like.
Trench Flamethrowers
One credible source, a documentary from Channel “PТР“, makes reference to trench flamethrowers being used by NI tanks. Krylov talks about trench flamethrowers made from soda water cylinders in his memoirs, but does not state that they were used on NI tanks. The NI tank’s success was based on its propaganda and psychological value, so it seems strange that more sources do not talk about trench flamethrowers, as these would be a perfect psychological weapon. In fact, flamethrowers would be highly conspicuous. It is possible that they were rarely fitted to NI tanks, seldom-used, or that NI tanks did not use trench flamethrowers at all. If they were, it is most likely that they were operated by the secondary gunner in his port, as firing a trench flamethrower from the turret would require it to shoot over the poorly enclosed engine deck and both crew compartments, which would be highly dangerous. It is also possible that the idea of trench flamethrowers came from a film “Feat of Odessa, the second series“, 1986, which seems to show an Odessa Tank firing a flamethrower (or perhaps a very fiery discharge from the firing of the main gun).
Maxim guns
According to one internet source, a document entitled “A report on the defense of Odessa” gives the most information. It states (the following has been slightly edited to make grammatical sense): “In mid-August, the plant, January Uprising, October Revolution [the meaning of this is unclear] was organized by tanks and armored equipment [made] from tractors and trucks. They have installed 45 mm cannons and two Maxim machine guns.”
This supposed report seems very spurious, and has not been seen by the author, although it is referenced in below sources. This report is believed to be a hoax, or highly inaccurate, having been supposedly written in 1943. However, the reference to “two Maxim machine guns” is backed up by a Russian documentary from Channel “PТР“. In it, an eye witness of the Defense of Odessa suggests that Maxim guns were mounted. It is probable that over the years, the witness has been confused by the names of the guns, like so many veterans are, and the claim of Maxim guns can probably be dismissed, due to a lack of evidence.
ShVAK cannons and DShK heavy machine guns
Internet sources discuss a DShK heavy machine gun and a ShVAK cannon as weapons, but neither Zaloga nor Krylov talk about a DShK, and it is a weapon only referred to by internet sources, and commonly seen on modern NI tank scale models. Similarly, the ShVAK (12.7 mm or even 20 mm) may come as a result of a replica NI which has one. It is possible that both weapons could fit inside a one-man turret, but there is no credible sources to suggest that they ever were.
Other weapons and turrets?
A final note on weapons and turrets is needed. It is more than possible that the NI tanks had more turrets than is known. It is possible that they featured the DT sub-turret from a T-28, seeing as though many were in service on the Southern Front, and because such a turret is a perfect size – however, it is unclear how turrets from wrecked T-28s would get back to the factories, as most other tanks were loaded onto flatbed trucks and transported back. A T-28 would be too big to be towed or loaded onto a truck. Single-man turrets from armored cars could also be used. Again, there is no evidence for this, but it is plausible. It cannot be overstated that they could seemingly only use single-man, small turrets, probably almost exclusively machine gun turrets, due to a lack of artillery gun munitions, seeing as though a 37 mm PS-1 T-26 ‘Model 1932’ turret was modified to fit a machine gun instead, and, finally, only turrets available in Odessa at that time could be seen on a NI.
According to a documentary, “Altar of Victory 6 – The Defense of Odessa” by Channel HTB, pipes were also welded over smaller guns to give the impression that they were larger than they are. This suggestion is not backed up particularly well by other sources, but this would, if true, explain sources claiming to have seen other guns larger in caliber than 7.62 mm (0.3 in) machine guns – this is particularly important, seeing as though photographs do not show any guns other than DT machine guns. However, this claim was previously dismissed in this article because it was believed that this suggestion only came about as a result of post-war replica Odessa Tanks featuring pipes to represent their main guns. Unfortunately, this will likely remain a mystery.
Hull
The NI was a very asymmetrically shaped vehicle from the front. The commander’s hatch was located further from the front than the secondary gunner’s hatch. Also, the secondary gunner’s hatch was lower down than the commander’s hatch. There are also some differences between NIs, and it is unclear whether or not this depended on how far into production each vehicle was. There appears to be the inclusion of an emergency escape hatch close to the front of the tank on either side of the hull, next to where the driver or hull DT machine gunner would sit. The WWII footage of the first NI being presented shows there to be no hatch, whereas a later photograph of a supposed improvised-turret NI shows an almost square-like hatch being fitted.
However, the NI with the T-37A/T-38 turret appears to be much taller. It is unknown whether or not the hatch shape corresponded to the turret used, and whether the shape of the hatch was always a standard shape as seen from known examples. It is likely that as production went on, hatches were added as per the request of soldiers, and the choice of turret was simply down to what was available. The other varying feature is the inclusion of small mudguards. All NI tanks had front mudguards, but the supposed improvised turret NI has a set of rear mudguards, too. It seems as though all NI tanks also had a large toolbox mounted on the rear of the vehicle. As well as this, they all appeared to have a small, rectangular hole towards the rear of the sides of the hull. The function of this is unknown, but it could be for light, ventilation, or, more likely, a pistol port.
Armor
The armor of the tank was totally improvised. Thin naval steel was provided from ship repair yards and the naval base. The armor had several layers – wood and rubber sandwiched between naval steel. It was approximately 10-20 mm (0.4-0.8 in) thick. Tests in the factory showed that the armor could withstand bullets and shrapnel at least, if not artillery shells. On the inside, wooden beams held the superstructure in place. There were two compartments – the engine at the front, and the crew compartment at the rear, with the driver sitting in the middle-right. A second gunner could sit on the middle-left of the vehicle in a compartment similar to the driver’s, where he could fire a machine gun from.
According to this cleaned up footage, at least the first Odessa Tank may have also not been fully painted the standard 4BO. It appears as though the rear was, for the most part, bare naval steel, with some sloppy paint which has streaked down over the hull sides. The front and sides appear to be covered (judging by the shading of the T-26 M1932 modified turret compared to the rest of the hull), but the rear appears a different color, with the paint streaking over. It is unknown whether others had the same sloppy paint job.
In combat
The NI was only intended to be a bluff, in order to fool the Germans and Romanians into thinking that the Soviets had more armored vehicles. It is said that they were slow, traveling at only 7 km/h (4 mph), and they were prone to toppling over in small ditches or when overcoming small hills. However, footage of the NI with the supposed T-37A/T-38 turret proves that the NI can travel much faster. In fact, Krylov even suggests in one account that the infantry the tanks were supporting could not keep up with the tanks!
Prototypes in combat
The first three NI tanks produced, the prototypes, were sent out to fight with volunteer crews of sailors, soldiers, and factory workers (who were familiar with the machines). They were organized under Senior Lieutenant Yudin, whose tank platoon headed one of the Chapayevites’ counter-attacks beyond Dalnik in the Southern Sector. Before any reports were even made, General Petrov made a request to Army HQ to leave them in his division. The results of the first combat involving NI tanks were remarkable. According to some sources, it was a night-time engagement. The Romanians in the Southern Sector had never seen any Soviet tanks there before, and as a result, retreated from their trenches by miles. This may have happened between August 28th and September 3rd, as the exact date is unclear.
Similarly, according to an article written by Alexi Krotov, almost certainly referring to the same incident: “Their baptism of fire took place on September 1st [although this date is dubious]. The Bronetraktory led a counterattack with the 25th Chapayev Division in the southern defense sector. When a hell of roaring engines, eerie rumbling slabs, and plated monsters, Romanian infantry hurriedly retreated into reserve positions due to the psychological impact. The NI tanks, left unharmed, were ordered to return to fall back, supposedly the order was given saying ‘Let the enemy [go], they [the NI tanks] will remain a mystery. An order from [Ion] Antonescu to the 4th army stated ‘I demand all moral stamina and energy… Are you afraid of the tanks? The whole of our [front] ran 4-5km, only at the appearance of 4-5 tanks. Shame on such an army.’
From the same article, a report (albeit written in rather difficult to comprehend Russian) seems to refer to a NI tank crewman raving about how German shells hit the vehicle at least two times, but as they were not direct hits, the vehicle kept on moving. This may be possible if there were no direct hits to any vital components (engine, suspension, etc) or any wounds inflicted on crew members. In fact, Krylov’s account supports this claim: “After the first battle, the tanks clanged through the city streets again and returned to the factory for inspection. As had been inspected, the [shrapnel] and bullets had only dented them. A 45mm shell that had hit one of the tanks went right through the stratified armour, and fortunately, neither the crew nor the engine was damaged. On the whole, the tanks had passed the test.”
Other sources commenting on this incident suggest and agree that the success of the tank was based on the psychological effect that it could create. They moved without artillery support to the Romanian trenches. However, it is clear that the Romanians retreated because they had no effective AT weapons, and did not expect to see the tanks in the sector.
Western Sector
At some point between August 30th and September 2nd, whilst reinforcements for Odessa were being organized, Major General Vorobyov was given several NI tanks, which served in the Western Sector (perhaps with the 95th Division). Krylov recalls: “On my way back from the 95th division, I was thinking about the people I had met there, Vorobyov in particular. He was having a hard time of it. A good deal had to be done differently from the way he had seen it from his academic chair or at staff games. … The war had taught him to disregard nothing that might help intensify our blows at the enemy. One could imagine his reaction to tractors covered with sheets of iron, had he been shown them in peacetime. But now he was happy that his division had been given a few of these machines, and kept asking for more, convinced that the fascists feared even such tanks.”
By September, all normal tanks at Odessa had either been drastically repaired, and the rest were NI tanks, mostly under the command of Yudin. Crews were, for the most part, trained on the spot, but the tank battalion was a real fighting force. Krylov even states “Wherever there were a few tanks, the men went into the counter-attack with confidence.” However, there were simply not enough to go around, Krylov recalls later at a counter-attack that “we could not provide the 421st Division with Odessa ST [NI] tanks.” In fact, when 70 more NI tanks were ordered, even with four factories organized to produce them, Krylov states that there was little chance they could be produced particularly quickly.
Yudin’s Battalion
The greatest combat that the NI tanks saw was yet to come. On October 2nd, a new Soviet offensive began. Krylov recalls: “It was the tankmen who particularly distinguished themselves that day. Senior Lieutenant Yudin’s battalion consisting in the main of armoured tractors (of the 35 machines committed to action there were only a few real tanks) actually operated independently, because the infantry could not keep up with it. Crushing the enemies with their tracks and mowing them down with fire, the groups of tanks had reached the depression of west Lenintal. Yudin later reported that his battalion had killed close to 1000 enemy soldiers. Even if this figure was not very exact, there can be no doubt that on October 2nd, the tanks built in besieged Odessa inflicted the enemy the heaviest losses since the first time they had been committed to action. Seeing that the infantry could not catch up with them, the tanks finally turned back. But they did not return empty handed. They steered straight for the positions of the enemy batteries, crushing and scattering the gun crews (none of the enemy hurled themselves with grenades against the tanks as our men did. Sofronov was right when he said that now no special resistance of the enemy in defense could be expected. The undamaged guns were then hooked on to the armoured tractors like the ploughs or combine harvesters these machines had originally been designed to tow. Thus the tankmen brought back with them 24 guns of various calibers, and as many mortars and machine guns as they could fasten to their tanks and guns. But the tank battalion also suffered some losses. Six or seven armoured tractors were damaged by artillery fire or immobilised through technical defects. Most of the crews of these tractors were rescued by other crews. Among those who were missing was the commissar of the battalion – Senior Political Instructor Mozolevsky.”
Leningrad and Saaremaa Island?
Some NI tanks were rumored to have served at Leningrad, but this is impossible, as all NI tanks fought at Odessa, mostly the western sector. However, very few may have served near Sevastopol.
It is rumored that there was another tractor tank made at Leningrad which had similar features to the NI, such as the use of an STZ-5 tractor, supposedly known as the Izhora Bronetraktor. However, there is exceptionally scarce information on this vehicle and it is hard to confirm any further details. There are also rumors of some kind of improvised tank based on an STZ-5 serving at Saaremaa Island (Moonsund), Estonian SSR. This explanation seems more likely, and explains the Arsenal Crossley armored car as seen in purported photos. Having said this, neither story about the “Izhora Bronetraktor” can be substantiated with credible sources.
Cultural Significance
The Odessa Tank has been a true symbol of Soviet / Ukrainian resistance against fascism. At least four replicas have been made (to varying degrees of accuracy) and are on display at museums across Russia and Ukraine. Not only this, but the Odessa Tank has appeared in two films! Often enough the events in these films are reported as irrefutable fact, when, in reality, some scenes are clearly enhanced for the audience’s enjoyment.
The first was in 1971, Vadim Lysenko’s “The Train to the Distant August“, where two mockups were made for the role. Despite only being on screen for a couple of minutes, photos taken during the film production are very famous, and are often mistaken for real Odessa Tanks. The second film to feature Odessa Tanks was Vladimir Strelkov’s “Feat of Odessa, the Second Series“, 1986. It featured a short scene of Odessa Tanks in battle, but also a reenactment of the original presentation of the first Odessa Tank to soldiers and civilians, which was shot on location at the January Uprising Factory! At least four were made for this film, but it is clear that there was a high level of postwar symbolism that was taken into account, and therefore, they were made more exciting and memorable with bold slogans painted on the side (which some sources cite as a real event), and shooting what appears to be a post-war jeep. Nevertheless, it captured the general euphoria of Odessites and soldiers who were glad to see that all could play their part in the resistance against fascism. All of this footage has been compiled here.
Odessa Tank / NI specifications
Dimensions (L-w-h)
Estimated 4.3 x 2.3 x 3 m (14’1” x 7’7” x 9’10”)
Total weight
Estimated 7 tonnes
Crew
2 or 3 (driver, commander, and an optional secondary gunner)
Propulsion
1MA, 4-cyl. petrol, 42-56 hp
Speed (road)
Estimated 29 km/h (18 mph), but at least 21 km/h (13 mph) – Sources state 7 km/h (4 mph), but a short piece of newsreel footage shows it to travel much faster, and Krylov’s memoirs state that the infantry the tanks were supporting could not keep up!
Range
Estimated 140 km (87 mi)
Armament
See notes
Armor
10-20 mm (possibly as much as 25 mm) (0.4-0.8 in) improvised
A final author’s note on credibility of information
It is very difficult to trace such an obscure and poorly documented vehicle. Specifics about this vehicle, such as the guns it used, its true armor thickness, and some of the names and roles of people involved (particularly N.G.Lutsenko) often remain unclear. Furthermore, no supposed wartime documents (such as the 1943 ‘Report on the Defense of Odessa’) have been seen by the author, but are referred to in the sources listed. Using internet sources is very bad practice for researching. Since discovering the book “Glory Eternal, Defence of Odessa 1941” by Marshal of the Soviet Union N. Krylov, a wealth of information about the NI tanks has been discovered, such as their true combat history and names of people involved, but little has been revealed about their exact physical construction details. By using photos and newsreel footage, more commentary about the vehicles, as well as the plausibility of the claims that sources make has been made. All ww2 Soviet Tanks Posters
Rendition of a NI improvised tank with a T-26 Model 1931 turret – Illustrator: Donald Stevens Rendition of a NI improvised tank with a DShK, only one photo shows a NI with what is believed to be a round improvised turret. It is also speculated that an improvised turret would be needed to fit a DShK. Slogan: “Death to Fascism”. In reality, slogans were probably never painted on Odessa Tanks, but in Vladimir Strelkov’s 1986 film “Feat of Odessa, the second series”, a worker wrote this slogan on in chalk – an event sometimes presented as reality by some sources. Rendition of a NI with a T-38/T-37A turret. There is a piece of footage that shows this type, except the location of its side viewport is moved higher and closer to the front of the turret, which has never been seen on other examples of T-37A/T-38s. It is most plausible that the turret that has had a repair, forcing the viewport to be moved. It is also highly likely that this is, in fact, an improvised turret.
All known footage of the NI tank, as taken from documentaries, films, and newsreels.
Gallery
Workers present a NI tank with what appears to be some kind of long DT, believed to be a DT-29 with a flash hider. The turret is taken from a T-26 Model 1931 and reportedly would have had a 37mm PS-1 gun; it appears as though it has been removed and replaced with a DT. This was likely done because of a lack of sufficient ammunition. The top hatch is also open in this photo. Senior Lieutenant N. Yudin (sometimes called Artillery Lieutenant) has been speculated to be the man second from the right. Different view of the above. The top hatch is closed in this photo. Mysteriously, the DT appears to be shorter in this photo, when compared to the above. There remains no explanation for this. Another view of the above – all three photos are believed to be on August 20th, 1941. It is unclear whether this photo has been altered for clarity of the image. Sideview of the above. This image is taken from a screenshot from footage. Whilst sections of this footage are available in this article, footage of this side of the tank is not. A photograph of a NI with an unknown turret, almost certainly an improvised turret – this turret appears totally cylindrical and is facing 7 o’clock in this photograph. A Romanian soldier stands on top. Notice how it also features an almost square-like emergency hatch and a set of rear mudguards. The toolbox is also clear on the right-hand side of the vehicle. The divisional marking is unknown.
Unknown Odessa Tank, unknown date, unknown location. This vehicle is likely one of the three first production vehicles on its way through Odessa to the Southern Sector to fight at Dalnik under Senior Lieutenant Yudin. Screenshot from untraceable footage.
Different view of the above. The turret appears to be a T-26 M1931 turret. There appears to something above the toolbox, possibly a crowbar, but possibly another escape hatch. The divisional marking is unknown. Screenshot from untraceable footage.
A still from Roman Karmen’s 1965 film “Great Patriotic War” (approximately 25 minutes in) showing a NI tank with what might be an improvised turret similar to a T-37A/T-38 turret. Close examination shows that the viewport is in a very unorthodox location for it to be a T-37A/T-38 turret – however, it may have just been repaired, thus moving the viewport forward. It is also quite likely to be an improvised turret.
A very grainy photo of a NI. It is unclear where this photo is taken, but it appears to be original. This one appears to feature some additional plates below both sides of the crew compartments at the front of the hull. These may be additional armor plates or additional escape hatches, but it remains a mystery. The engine access hatch also appears flatter than other examples, but, due to the quality of the photo, this, too, is unclear. The turret it features is very unclear, but according to shading, it seems to be an improvised turret. Three crew members can be seen, the commander and driver are easy to spot, but the third crew member of on the right of the gun, just a little to the below-right of the commander. Different view of the above, albeit in higher quality. Screenshot from untraceable footage. At least two Odessa Tanks can be seen in this photo near the entrance to the port of Odessa. According to the below photo (judging by the amount of snow), this was taken any time between November 1941 and January 1942. The one on the left has an improvised turret, and one without a turret is just behind it. This equipment was probably left behind after the Soviet withdrawal. The hatch on the turreted Odessa Tank appears to be tall, as in the above photo. Credits: Will Kerrs, private collection.
This is a different view of the above, taken in February, 1942 (according to writing on the reverse of the photo). The shot is taken from the other side. It reveals that one Odessa Tank has no turret turret, and that the other probably had a simple cylinder for a turret. The ZiS truck is visible in the left of the shot, and can be seen in the above. Because they are so close to the port, it is probable that they were used to police the evacuation of the city and were abandoned after. Credit: Frankie Pulham, Private Collection.
On the left, we can see the rear of a NI. In the background right, we see a NI without a turret. It is possible that there were no turrets left to scavenge or that no turrets could be made, and this one had to make do with just the hull DT. This is believed to be taken after the defense of Odessa was over. It is very possible that the two tanks in shot are the same as the above photos, and that the traffic known near the port of Odessa has been shifted by the occupiers, during 1942, however, this is still in debate. Note: This photo appears to have been lightly edited by use of a cloning tool on photoshop software. This photo has also been seen, heavily watermarked by CEGESOMA. It is unclear why CEGESOMA has a photo of the Odessa Tank. Traffic near the entrance to the port of Odessa. The small ‘pavillion’ hut structure between the closest telegraph pole on the right, and the one just to the left of it. It is probable that the Odessa Tanks were abandoned upon the evacuation of the city. A technical drawing of an STZ-5 tractor. A T-26 ‘Model 1932’ with a 37 mm gun (left turret) and a DT machine gun (right turret). The NI fitted turrets from wrecked T-26 Model 1931 tanks, but there are only photographs of the NI with the DT T-26 Model 1931 turret. This abandoned factory is believed to be the January Uprising factory. It appears as though it was abandoned decades ago, but was reportedly operational in the 1970s building cranes. Credits: yangur.livejournal.com (More photos) Photograph from a Romanian newspaper of what appears to be an armored tram at Odessa. This idea was likely quickly dismissed in favor of Odessa Tank production. The turrets are improvised and probably similar to those that Odessa Tanks would be fitted with.
Reproductions and Misidentified NIs
Some slightly odd-looking NI tanks leave the gates of the Odessa factory called “January Uprising”. Despite apparent authenticity, this is actually a photo from a scene from Vadim Lysenko’s 1971 film “The train to the distant August” (“Поезд в далекий август”). These tanks were specially made for this film and were probably scrapped afterwards. Another supposed reproduction KhTZ-16 or NI tank in a museum in Odessa. This tank is the most common vehicle cited as the NI across internet-based sources. The historical accuracy of this tank is extremely dubious. The construction of this vehicle does not resemble that of a KhTZ-16 or a NI – especially with regards to the turret, main gun, and the suspension of the vehicle. Despite being presented as a KhTZ-16 or a NI, this was a postwar creation based on a postwar tractor as a replica, and looks nothing like any of the WWII improvised tanks. Despite looking more like a KhTZ-16, this tank is actually labelled as a NI. The historical accuracy of this tank is dubious. There is no credible information or historical photographs suggesting that it was armed with this ShVAK weapon, although the KhTZ-16 prototype did feature one. Also, the construction and shape of this tank is dubious, although, it does appear to be based on an STZ-5 tractor. All mentions of a ShVAK being fitted to a NI may have come from this replica. This tank is often presented as a NI tank, but it is a reproduction. This replica is facing right. The historical accuracy of this tank is dubious. It does appear to be based on an STZ-5 tractor, but the shape of this tank could be mistaken for a KhTZ-16. Despite being presented as a NI, there is no credible information or historical photographs suggesting that this armor shape was that of an original NI. The turret, however, is likely somewhat accurate. Its gun was also probably stolen for scrap by criminals. Copyright Dmitry Lubomirsky, 2006. A fairly (but still far from) accurate replica NI tank in Prokhorovka Park, Odessa. It shows an improvised turret (likely quite accurate) with a supposed 45 mm (1.77 in) gun. This is not proof that the NI ever mounted this gun. This vehicle has been vandalized with paint in May, 2015, as seen in the photograph. A rear view of what appears to be an Odessa Tank. This can categorically be dismissed as being an Odessa Tank as the hull is totally the wrong shape. Other sources report two rumors of what this vehicle is – the ‘Izhora Bronetraktor’ at Leningrad, or a vehicle built on Saaremaa Island, Estonian SSR. Whilst it remains unclear if these rumors are true, it is fairly evident that the tractor tank in the photo is most probably a policing vehicle made by the Soviet Navy at Tallinn, Estonian SSR, for the unrest of June, 1941. See Soviet Navy Improvised ADG article.
Seemingly another strange type of Odessa Tank, as in the above photograph. As mentioned, this is more than likely a Soviet Navy policing vehicle in Tallinn. It appears to have toppled over into a ditch and is being inspected by Germans and locals. The turret is facing the rear, and it is possible that it was trying to flee before it fell over.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Second Spanish Republic (1936-1937)
Constructora Field “No.9”, Caspe, March, 1938. Slogan “[Spanish]: Tereul will be the grave! [Catalan]: Long live freedom of the people”. This one features metal chains to protect the tires and undercarriage.
Los Zetas (And Other Cartels) (Circa 2010)
_mit_88cm_Flak.jpg)
At least two Odessa Tanks can be seen in this photo near the entrance to the port of Odessa. According to the below photo (judging by the amount of snow), this was taken any time between November 1941 and January 1942. The one on the left has an improvised turret, and one without a turret is just behind it. This equipment was probably left behind after the Soviet withdrawal. The hatch on the turreted Odessa Tank appears to be tall, as in the above photo. Credits: Will Kerrs, private collection.
