Author: Gareth Lynn Montes

CZ-10/25E Alacrán

Kingdom of Spain (1997-Present)
Combat Engineer Vehicle – 38 Converted

Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s, the Fuerzas Armadas Españolas (Eng: Spanish Armed Forces) were looking for a new Combat Engineering Vehicle (C.E.V.) to support the troops and tank units of the Ejército de Tierra (Eng: Spanish Army). CEVs can trace their heritage back to the British AVRE (Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers) that landed on the invasion beaches on D-Day. They are designed to be operated by battlefield engineers and are used to construct fortifications, clear obstructions, and assist ground troops as well as armored vehicles.

Having received a large number of surplus vehicles from American stocks in Europe, the Spanish Army decided to base this new CEV on the M60A1 tank. The conversion was extensive and consisted of, among other things, replacing the main gun with an excavator arm and the installation of a large dozer blade.

In all, 38 M60A1s were converted into what was designated the CZ-10/25E Alacrán. Alacrán means “scorpion” in Spanish and comes from the Arab word ‘al’aqráb’. With a prototype appearing in 1995, the CEV entered service with the Spanish Army in 1997.

M60s in Spain

The M60A1 was the second version of the 105 mm Gun Tank M60. The A1 was produced from 1962 to 1980 and was armed with the same M68 105 mm Gun, and powered by the same 750 hp Continental AVDS-1790-2 V12, air-cooled twin-turbo diesel engine. It had improved armor over the initial model, with 109 mm to 250 mm (4.29 – 10 in) of protection. It had the same top speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) and rolled on the same suspension, which consisted of 6 road wheels attached to a torsion bar suspension, 3 return rollers, a forward idler, and drive sprocket at the rear. The idler wheel was of the compensating type, meaning it was attached to the closest roadwheel by an actuating arm. When the roadwheel reacts to terrain the idler is pushed out or pulled in, keeping constant track tension.

Spain had used the M60 AVLB (Armored Vehicle-Launched Bridge) since as far back as 1967 and the M88A1 Armoured Recovery Vehicle since 1982, but the new international context in the twilight years of the Cold War saw Spain receive the main variant of the famous US tank. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) negotiated in 1988 aimed to establish comprehensive limits on key categories of conventional military equipment in Europe. To reduce their tank numbers, the US armed forces in Europe would transfer older tanks and other materiel to their NATO allies. Spain, according to the CFE treaty signed in Paris in November 1990, was scheduled to receive 170 M60A1 RISE and RISE Passive and 270 M60A3 TTS. However, by the time Spain accepted the transfer in June 1991, the numbers had risen to 272 M60A1 and 260 M60A3.

With the effective end of the Cold War following the dissolution of the USSR, the Spanish Army reorganized its structure in 1991. They considered that such high numbers of outdated tanks were not needed, and decided to renounce their rights to 110 M60A1.

In the end, Spain received 48 M60A1 RISE, 2 M60A1 RISE Passive and 260 M60A3 TTS in five batches between September 1992 and March 1993. As they had done in the US Army, they replaced the M47 and M48 in the Spanish Army. However, they would have a very short career, being partly replaced by the Leopard 2A4 before the end of the Millenium and then completely by the Leopard 2E in the early 2000s. Sixteen M60A3 TTS were destined to the Infantería de Marina [Eng. Spanish Marine Infantry] where, as of 2019, they are still serviceable, although they are scheduled to be replaced.

An M60A3 TTS of the Infantería de Marina taking part in a mock beach assault. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Precedents

Since the early 80s, the Jefatura de Ingenieros del Ejército [Eng. the Headquarters of the Army Engineers] had seen the need to equip the Engineers Branch of the army with a modern engineering vehicle.

In 1981, Peugeot Talbot España was requested to design two vehicles based on the M47 Patton II, one for engineering and one for recovery. The engineering vehicle, the M-47E2I, had the turret removed and was equipped with a bulldozer blade, a hydraulic crane, and a 3-meter long hydraulic post hole digger. Only one prototype was built and was put in service in 1984. In 1986, new requirements were set for an engineering vehicle, or ‘carro de zapadores’ [Eng. sapper tank], without a crane or post hole digger, but with a backhoe, or excavator arm. Peugeot Talbot España again designed a vehicle for this role, but with the expected arrival of the M60, there was no need to modify such an old vehicle when a newer one was available.

Precedents. The M-47E2I designed and built by Peugeot Talbot España to serve as an engineering vehicle, which entered service in 1984. The vehicle in the background is the M-47VLPD ‘Lanzador’ also designed by Peugeot Talbot España – source: unknown

Concept art for the proposed M-47E2Z by Peugeot Talbot España. The planned arrival of the M60 put this project based on an M47 chassis on hold – source: Peugot Talbot

Development

The initial requirements from the Army for the zapador vehicle based on the M60 were less complex than the ones Peugeot Talbot had presented based on the M47 in 1988. The tank’s turret would be replaced by a fixed rectangular structure that would maintain the commander’s cupola from the M60. At the front, there was a winch mounted, and situated on the right would be the excavator arm which could turn 180º. After some further modifications, the final requirements were set by the Estado Mayor del Ejército [Eng. General Staff of the Army] in 1994. These requirements were published by the Ministerio de Defensa [Eng. Ministry of Defense] who set a tender for the delivery of a prototype of a vehicle fitting those requirements with an M60A1 facilitated by the Army before December 31st 1995.

Only two companies showed interest in this project: Peugeot Talbot España and Grupo Auxiliar Metalúrgico. The latter company was unable to complete the prototype (M-60VZ) before the cut-off date and was thus not considered. In the hope of gaining enough time to finish their prototype, Grupo Auxiliar Metalúrgico sued the Ministry of Defense, which only delayed the whole process.

The two contenders for the new carro de zapadores of the Ejército de Tierra, the M-60VZ designed and built by Grupo Auxiliar Metalúrgico (left) and the winning prototype, the PTE CZ-10/30E (right) – source: Mazarrasa, p. 17 and 18.

The prototype by Peugeot Talbot España was designated as the PTE CZ-10/30E and was quite different from their previous designs and army requirements. The vehicle was trialed for a few months with different equipment before a series of modifications and improvements were sent to Peugeot Talbot by the Estado Mayor. Once these were satisfactorily met, Lieutenant General José Faura Martín, on behalf of the Estado Mayor, made a formal request to the Ministerio de Defensa for the continuation of the project. On November 29th, 1996, the Spanish Government officially authorized the serial production of the now designated ‘Carro de Zapadores M-60A1 CZ.10/25E’. The abbreviation in the vehicle’s name is a description of what it is. ‘CZ’ stands for Carro de Zapadores [Eng. sapper tank], ‘10’ for maximum hoist capacity in tonnes, ‘25’ for maximum towing capacity in tonnes, and ‘E’ for ‘España’ or ‘español’ [Eng. Spain or Spanish]. The nickname ‘Alacrán’ was given to the vehicle by Peugeot Talbot España due to its similarity to a scorpion. Twelve days later, the contract was signed with Peugeot Talbot España worth 3,441 million pesetas (Ptas.) (around $22.5 million modern-day) for the transformation and delivery of 38 of these vehicles in three batches:

3 in 1997
15 in 1998
20 in 1999

Two different views of the PTE CZ-10/30E during tests before being accepted into service – source: Mazarrasa, p. 16.

Design and Equipment

As CEV conversions of existing gun tanks go, the Alacrán is one of the less extensive examples. Much of the vehicle remains identical to the base vehicle, the only main exceptions being that the 105 mm gun has been replaced by a large excavator arm and a bulldozer blade has been installed on the bow. The crew of the vehicle was reduced to three, consisting of the commander and operator in the turret, and the driver in the hull. The commander of the vehicle is responsible for directing the use of the excavator arm, providing navigation, and communications. The commander is also responsible for manning the Alacrán’s single armament, a .50 cal. (12.7 mm) M85 heavy machine gun. This was housed in the M19 Commander’s Cupola, a fully rotating ‘mini-turret’ held over from the M60. The operator is responsible for the operation of the excavator arm and winch.

Simple schematics of the PTE CZ-10/30E prototype which did not vary substantially from the serial Alacrán. Emphasis is given to the crew positions and some of the main components – excavator arm, dozer, hydraulic system, winch and ranging rods – highlighted – Source: Mazarrasa, p. 41.

Equipment

Excavator Arm

The excavator arm that replaced the gun was fixed directly into the space once occupied by the mantlet. It is controlled by the ‘operator’, positioned at the left front of the turret. Thanks to the fully rotating turret, the arm could reach around the entirety of the vehicle without the need for the vehicle to move. The arm was made by Case Poclain, an American company that specializes in the construction of excavators. It has a reach of 7.2 meters (23.6 ft) and can dig to a maximum depth of 2.65 meters (8.6 ft).

Digging a trench with the Case Poclian excavator arm, equipped with the 430 liter (.68 square-yard) bucket. This is the PTE CZ-10/30E during trials before being accepted by the Ejército de Tierra – source: Mazarrasa, p. 19.

Because of its universal coupling, other tools can be attached to the end of the arm, among which are:

H-7XA NPK Pneumatic Jack-Hammer: used to break through concrete or rock. For example, if a road was blocked by boulders, the jackhammer could break them up so the Alacrán could push through the smaller debris with its bulldozer blade.
Verachert VTC-30 Hydraulic Jaws: widely known as ‘Demolition Jaws’, this piece of hardware can chew through anything, be it metal or concrete. These would be used to break down blockades, tear through stubborn emplacements, and destroy railway tracks.
Verachert Hydraulic Claws: these claws provided the vehicle some dexterity, allowing it to grasp and clear logs or large chunks of debris.

The tools available to the Alacrán, L to R: Jackhammer, ‘Demolition Jaws’ and Hydraulic Claws. Photos: Super Weapons, Facebook

It is unclear as to what effect the stresses and strains of using the excavator arm would place on the turret and turret ring of the vehicle. After all, the turret was designed to stand up to the force of a firing 105 mm gun, or the impact of an incoming shell. The turret’s weight was balanced for the ring to allow smooth rotation. The turret and ring were not designed to swing a long, heavy arm and dig into the ground and pull up buckets full of debris, which would have placed great lateral stresses on the turret ring. Also, to what degree can the turret ring handle the 25 tonne pulling power of the winch mounted on the turret is unknown.

When use of the excavator arm is not required, the turret is traversed to the rear. The bucket is detached and placed in a cradle on the left-rear fender. The arm would then be folded low over the engine deck, with the universal joint resting at the level of tow pintle at the base of the radiator grills.

The digger bucket resting in its cradle at the rear of the Alacrán. Photo: Super Weapons, Facebook

Dozer Blade

Mounted on the bow of the Alacrán is a hydraulically activated bulldozer blade. The blade is 4 m (13.1 ft) wide and 80 cm (2.6 feet) high. The depth of the blade is 30 cm (11 in). It has the capacity to push 35 tonnes. On CEVs, bulldozer blades are used for multiple tasks, such as carving out hull-down positions for gun tanks, digging gun emplacements (the Alacrán has the capacity to dig 30 cm at a time), route denial (creating and filling anti-tank ditches), and improving bridge approaches. It can also be used aggressively to push barricades or debris from the path of attacking allies. On the Alacrán, the blade also acts as a stabilizer when the excavator arm or winch are in use by being planted into the ground, lifting the front section of the tank off the ground.

The driver of the vehicle is responsible for the bulldozer blade, all controls for it are located in his position. Additionally, a three-tooth dethatcher can be added on the bottom of the dozer blade to abrade grounds from organic matter. The bulldozer blade can also be exchanged for mine-clearing devices.

The bulldozer on the front of the Alacrán. This vehicle is a static outdoors display at the Museo de los Medios Acorazados (MUMA), near Madrid. Photo: Gareth Lynn Montes

Winch

On the rear of the Alacrán’s turret, where the ammunition stowage once was, a small hydraulic winch was added. To incorporate this, the stowage basket on the bustle was cut in half, and the winch mounted directly to the armor in between the two sections. This winch has a raw capacity of 25 tonnes (24.6 tons), however, this can be increased to 50 tonnes with the use of pulley blocks. These are stored around the exterior of the vehicle, the largest being stowed on the left turret cheek. The steel cable is 80 m long and 26 mm wide and can be actioned automatically.

The winch’s primary role is to recover other vehicles. As the turret spends most of its time traversed to the rear, this allows the winch to be used over the front of the CEV. In turn, this allows the Alacran to anchor itself with the bulldozer blade when pulling a heavy object such as a tank.

There is also an auxiliary pulley or cable which is 10 m long and has a maximum pulling capacity of 15 tonnes (16.5 tons).

The winch on the left, and the stowed pulley block on the right. Photos: Super Weapons, Facebook

Anti-Mine Warfare

As an engineering vehicle, the Alacrán also has the role of clearing and marking space through a minefield or other obstacles.

To clear a minefield, the vehicle can use a Rampta Anti Magnetic Mine Activation Device (AMMAD) mine plow instead of the bulldozer blade. The system consists of a strong steel frame with two parallel plows with five plowshares each. Each plow can be elevated and controlled independently. Between the plows, there is a roller that magnetically deactivates mines 2 to 5 m in front of the vehicle.

Once mines are cleared by the Alacrán or another vehicle, the Alacrán can also mark the path cleared which allows troops and other vehicles to safely cross. The Alacrán incorporates a IMI/Rampta CLAMS SP-06133 system for placing ranging rods. Situated at the back of the tank and actuated automatically by a 24-volt electric drive, it has a total capacity of 150 rods, which consist of either flags for day use or luminous tubes for night use, which are placed at a distance of either 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, or 48 m. This same system is used on the German Keiler mine-flail.

Inside the Alacrán is a GPS (Global Positioning System) which allows the crew to accurately determine where known minefields are placed not only for itself but it can also communicate to other units where one is and where a path has been cleared through one.

Interior Modifications

The interior was mostly left unchanged, however, some new components for the engineering equipment had to be added. In the driver’s compartment, the only additions were the mechanisms for controlling the bulldozer blade.

Beneath the turret, the hydraulic system producing 70.1 kW was placed, through which a transfer case transfers power to the excavator arm on the one hand, and the winch on the other. The system consists of a variable flow axial piston pump which powered all systems except for the bulldozer blade and the turret’s rotation, a fixed flow axial piston pump for the turret’s rotation and a third pump for the driving mechanisms. There is also an auxiliary hydraulic system for the bulldozer blade which can also serve as an emergency pump powered by a 24 volts electric engine to start any of the hydraulic systems, albeit at a reduced speed.

As other Spanish vehicles, the Alacrán is equipped with a Thales PR4G model 2 tactical radio phone, an external phone and intercom for all three crew members.

Defense

Being an engineering vehicle, the Alacrán is not intended to do any actual fighting, but it is always a good precaution to mount equipment for defensive capabilities.

The main form of defense is the .50 M85 machine gun (12.7 mm) which was retained from the original M60. 900 rounds are carried. Inside, eight handgrenades, a disposable 90 mm Instalaza C-90 rocket-propelled grenade launcher and the crew’s assault rifles, presumably the Heckler & Koch G36, are carried.

For passive defense, on each side of the turret there is a set of four smoke grenade launchers and a smoke generator. Each of the crewmembers has a NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) suit.

Service

The expected timetable for deliveries of the Alacrán was not met, as by February 2nd 1999, only nine vehicles had been delivered for inspection by the Inspección de Ingenieros [Eng. Engineers Inspection]. The following engineer and sapper units were equipped with the vehicle as of 2003:

Batallón de Zapadores X, Brigada “Guzmán el Bueno” X based outside Córdoba
Batallón de Zapadores XI, Brigada “Extremadura” XI based in Badajoz
Batallón de Zapadores XII, Brigada “Guadarrama” XII based in Madrid
Batallón de Zapadores XXII, Brigada de Caballería “Castillejos” II based in Zaragoza. Now defunct, its units have become part of the División “Castillejos”
Regimiento de Ingenieros n.º 1, Mando de Ingenieros based near Burgos
Regimiento de Ingenieros n.º 7 based in Ceuta
Regimiento de Ingenieros n.º 8 based in Melilla
Academia de Ingenieros based in Hoyo de Manzanares, north of Madrid

Three Alacráns of the Arma de Ingenieros del Ejército de Tierra during the Día de la Hispanidad military parade celebrating Spain’s national day on October 12th 2001 – source: Mazarrasa, p. 5.

The Alacrán has not been deployed to Bosnia, Lebanon, Afghanistan, or Iraq, as these are peacekeeping missions in which Spain has not sent heavy armor. As such, the most action the Alacrán has seen has been in training missions and army exercises.

In the summer of 2018, Integración Tecnológica Empresarial (ITE) won a bid put forward by the Ejército de Tierra for a 3 year project worth almost €5 million for the extensive maintenance of several of its engineering vehicles, including the Alacrán. The project is due to finish in 2020.

However, despite these efforts, the Ejército de Tierra is looking to replace the Alacrán and other engineering vehicles with a common platform based on the ASCOD and developed by General Dynamic European Land Systems and Santa Bárbara Sistemas known as VCZAP Castor. Five vehicles are expected to be delivered to the Ejército in May 2020. An earlier plan to replace the vehicle with the AEV3 Kodiak was abandoned because of budget constraints.

One vehicle is kept as a static display at the Museo de los Medios Acorazados (MUMA) at El Goloso military base, just outside of Madrid.

Alacrán in operation in February 2020. Photo: Public Domian

Conclusion

The Alacrán has proven to be yet another ingenious Spanish-based modification to complement the less famed but equally important role of engineering vehicles. Whilst crude in appearance, it has satisfactorily fulfilled its intended role. However, the base of the vehicle, the M60 tank, is quite old technology, so the need for a more modern basis has become apparent.

An article by Gareth Lynn Montes & Mark Nash.

The CZ-10/25E Alacrán, illustration by Ardhya Anargha, funded by our Patreon campaign.

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	6.94m (without excavator arm) x 3.63m x 3.27m (22’8″ x 11’9″ x 10’7″)
Total weight, battle-ready	Aprx. 47.7 tonnes (52.6 tons)
Crew	3 (commander, operator, driver)
Propulsion	Continental AVDS-1790-2 V12, AC TT diesel, 750 bhp (560 kW), 15.08 bhp/t
Transmission	General Motors, CD SD 2 fw/1 rv ranges
Maximum speed	30 mph (48 km/h) on road
Suspensions	Torsion bars suspensions, shock absorbers
Range (fuel)	300 miles/500 km (1457 liters)
Armament	.50 Cal. (12.7 mm) M85 Heavy Machine Gun
Equipment	Case Poclain Excavator Arm H-7XA NPK Pneumatic Jack-Hammer Verachert VTC-30 Hydraulic Jaws Verachert Hydraulic Claws 35 tonne capacity dozer blade 25 tonne capacity winch IMI/Rampta CLAMS SP-06133 lane marker system
Armor	RHA max. 6.125 in (155 mm)
Total Production	38

Sources

Anon., Carro de Zapadores “Alacran” CZ-10/25 E (22 January 2013) [accessed 03/02/20]
Antonio J. Candil, “Spain’s Armor Force Modernizes”, Armor Magazine, March – April 1998
Javier de Mazarrasa, M-60A3 (Barcelona: Reserva Anticipada Ediciones, 2003)
José Mª Navarro García, “El nuevo Vehículo de Combate de Zapadores del Ejército de Tierra”, Revista Defensa No. 470, June 2017

José Mª Navarro García, Importante esfuerzo de mantenimiento de medios acorazados de ingenieros del Ejército de Tierra (24 August 2017) [accessed 10/02/20]

José Mª Navarro García, Integración Tecnológica Empresarial se encargará del mantenimiento de los vehículos de ingenieros del Ejército de Tierra (22 August 2018) [accessed 10/02/20]

The Swedish Königstiger

Kingdom of Sweden (1947-1951)
Heavy Tank – 1 Tested

Not many tanks in history have achieved the legendary status of the Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.B or ‘Königstiger’. Despite all the research on this tank, not many know that after the war, several nations, among them Sweden, acquired examples to evaluate and test.

The Swedish Mission

During World War Two, Sweden had declared neutrality but was sandwiched between the invading Germans in Norway and the Soviet offensive in Finland, the latter probably being of more concern to Swedish authorities. Sweden aided both the Axis and the Allied powers during the conflict. For example, Germany was allowed to transport the whole 163rd Infantry Division, along with all its equipment and supplies, from Norway to Finland across Sweden to fight the Soviets in June-July 1941 and iron reserves continued to be sold all the way up to 1944. On the other hand, military intelligence was passed on to the Allies, and Danish and Norwegian clandestine resistance groups were trained on Swedish soil. From 1944 onward, Swedish air bases were open to Allied aircraft. In spite of its neutrality, Sweden was always afraid of a potential invasion, and as a result had developed a number of indigenous tanks in the period leading up to the war and during the war itself. Along with this, Sweden possessed a powerful navy which could have discouraged an invasion.

After the end of the war, sometime between 1946 and 1947, Swedish military authorities sent personnel across Europe to acquire intact or semi-intact German tanks for the purpose of testing. One of the main aims of these tests were to see how anti-tank mines and other weaponry in the Swedish arsenal fared against heavily armored tanks.

The first tank they acquired was a single Panzer V Panther at a tank depot outside Versailles, with a Königstiger as their next objective. Finding one of these famed tanks proved to be harder than anticipated until August 1947, when one was found in Gien, south of Paris.

Another burnt-out example, allegedly having belonged to sPz.Abt. 503, 1.Kompanie, was found near the town of Vimontiere (Normandy) and was rejected in October 1946, as it did not meet the requirements of the Swedish authorities. Both the Panther and the Gien Königstiger were handed to the Swedish by the French authorities free of charge.

Two photos showing the Vimontiere Königstiger being inspected, however, it was deemed unsuitable and was not acquired. Source: www.sphf.se

Skandinavisk Express was commissioned to provide transport for the tank to Stockholm as soon as possible. However, it would not be until 27th November 1947 that the Königstiger would be unloaded at Stockholm docks.

Swedish authorities inspecting the recently arrived Königstiger in Stockholm harbor, with the ship that transported it in the background (November 27th, 1947). Source: www.sphf.se

Initial Testing and its Journey

The Königstiger was transferred to the P 4 Regiment, also known as Skaraborgs regemente, in Skövde, 265 km (164.7 miles) west of Stockholm. There is no indication as to how the vehicle was transported to Skövde. After some time in which the tank was left in poor condition outside a workshop, work began to put the tank in running order, during which a German grenade was found within its hull. It would seem that the German crew or personnel in charge of the vehicle had in mind to destroy it rather than allow it to fall into Allied hands when they abandoned their tank. Once the engine was re-assembled, a short test run around the workshop grounds proved the vehicle was still capable of moving.

Part of the crew that had put the tank back into shape in Skövde. Source: www.ointres.se

The vehicle was further tested in Skövde, being subjected to several terrain driving tests. In one of them, the swing arm of one of the end-wheels broke. It was soon welded back together, but the testing team had to be more careful in subsequent tests.

After its restoration, some sources suggest that the L/71 KwK 43 8.8 cm gun was removed for testing, provided that suitable ammunition could be found. However, later photographic evidence suggests otherwise, and that unless the gun was removed, then re-fitted and then removed for one last time, the gun remained attached until early 1949.

The tank as it arrived in Skövde in December 1947. Note the missing tracks. Source: Carrasco

The Köingstiger following restoration and ready for testing. Source: Carrasco

In late 1948, it was decided to move the tank to the Karlsborg testing area, roughly 60 km to the east. There, the Königstiger would fulfill its intended role as a guinea pig for gun tests. This operation proved to be of a gargantuan scale and full of complications. The transport had originally been planned for between 24th and 29th September 1948, but the swing arm incident postponed the transport indefinitely. Due to the weight of the vehicle, the easy option, to transport it by train directly to Karlsborg and then tow it to the facilities, was not plausible, as the line crossed a canal bridge which would not support the extra weight of the tank. In the end, the tank was transported by train to Finnerödja and then transported by a convoy to its final destination in Karlsborg, 60 km away. The convoy needed to transport it was made up of a turretless M4A4 Sherman, the tractor unit of an M26 Dragon Wagon, a terrängdragbil (tdgb) m/46 (a Swedish Brockway B666), a 10-tonne (11 tons) recovery vehicle, a fuel truck, two cars for personnel and four motorbikes. The roads, not having been built to take this kind of weight, and the abundance of forest meant that the journey took between November 10th and 15th and cost a staggering SEK10,000 and a total consumption of 6,000 liters of gasoline. Once in Karlsborg, testing could resume.

A photo of the convoy transporting the Köingstiger from Skövde to Karlsborg. Source: www.sphf.se

The front of the convoy during a break. Source: www.ointres.se

Tests in Karlsborg

Throughout 1949 and up until 1951, the vehicle was subject to mine detonations and barrage tests to gauge the strength of the Königstiger’s armor and the effectiveness of Swedish ammunition. As far as can be confirmed, there were seven tests:

Tests no. 1, 1st-2nd December 1948: The Königstiger and Sherman armor were fired upon by a variety of weapons and calibres, among which were: a 8 cm raketgevär m/49 bazooka, 8.4 cm granatgevär m/48 ‘Carl Gustaf’ recoilless rifle, 10.5 cm pansarskott m/45 and m/46 disposable recoilless rifles, 10.5 cm infanterikanon m/45 and 7.5 cm pvkan m/43 onboard a pvkv m/43. The Könisgstiger was fired upon seventeen times and it was found that the majority of weapons could not penetrate it frontally, with the exception of the disposable recoilless rifles, which could disable the tank with just one or two hits. However, when fired upon from the side, the damage was noteworthy. After this first test, the engine and gearbox were removed.

Collection of test sheets recording the impact and trajectories of the different weapons used against the Köngstiger during test no. 1. Note that there are similar sheets for other tests which have not been included in this article but can be found in the link. Source: www.ointres.se

Test No. 2, 7th-21st November 1949: The vehicle was shot at 26 times to test different 8 cm and 12 cm HEAT ammunition and 10.5 cm ‘Wallburster’ HESH rounds. The latter rounds were discarded for future tests due to their limited success, despite creating some splits in the hull.
Test No. 3, 25th-27th January 1950: This test studied the effects of sub-calibre projectiles on heavy armor and were overall disappointing, with several projectiles breaking on impact. This was attributed to the use of sub-standard materials in their construction and production method.

The condition of the Köngstiger during test no. 3, showing several impact holes on the side of the hull and a destroyed track. Source: www.ointres.se

Test No. 4, 1st-2nd March 1950: Artillery pieces firing HE, two 10.5 cm and one 15 cm, were tested against the front of the vehicle and the side and front of the turret. HEAT mines were also tested. The 15 cm rounds caused ‘considerable but not serious’ damage to the welds, though this was put down to faulty construction, not to the merits of the gun firing. Some sources suggest that, after this test, the main gun was removed.

By test No. 4, the barrage to which the Königstiger had been subjected began to take its toll, with part of the frontal plate cracking. Source: www.ointres.se

Test No. 5: No details are known.
Test No. 6, 12th December 1950: This test was carried out to assess the damage different shells, grenades and launched projectiles had on a vehicle’s mobility from which the testing crew could calculate the average repair time. They found that, of the weapons, at the very least, a 57 mm HE round from a 57 mm pvkan m/43 was useful for stopping a vehicle such as the Königstiger, as long as the detonation happened near the tracks or at the front.
Test No. 7, 10th-11th May 1951: Again, for this test, a Sherman was used alongside the Königstiger to test different ammunition of the 7.5 cm lvkan m/37 anti-aircraft gun and the 15.2 cm fältpjäs M/37 coastal artillery cannon.

Two photos at some point between test no. 4 and no. 7 showing the extent of the damage inflicted on the Königstiger, including a rather large section of the frontal turret plate. Source: Sven Olof Ericsson via Arsenalen

By the end of testing, this intense firepower turned the vehicle into a small pile of scrap that would have fitted into “the backseat of a Volkswagen Beetle” and what was left of the hull was scrapped.

The turret was sent to the firing range in Kråk to be used as target practice, becoming a popular target for the crews of the newly arrived Strv 81 (Centurion Mk. 3). It was common to use training rounds for the 20 pdr (84 mm) gun armed Strv 81 which penetrated the turret all the time.

Final Fate

The gun was kept for some time in Karlsborg until it was sent to the Bofors HQ in Karlskoga, where it remained until eventually being scrapped in the late 80s. Unfortunately, two weeks later a member of the Swedish Armor Historical Society arrived enquiring about the gun. Had they arrived a fortnight earlier, the Kwk 43 would quite likely be found today at Arsenalen. The only pieces remaining are the original engine, the gearbox and the rear hatch, which was found lying about Kråk firing range in the 1970s. The engine and gearbox can now be found at the Swedish Tank Museum, though they have an exciting yet mysterious and confused story themselves. Allegedly, after having been removed and stored at the Garrison Museum Skaraborg in the tiny town of Axvall, under dodgy circumstances and poor communication, the engine and gearbox were lent to Kevin Wheatcroft, a collector in the UK. When the return package from the UK arrived, a shell and a scrap engine were found inside. Eventually, the original engine and gearbox were found by British police in 2010 in the workshop of Mr Wheatcroft, who denies any wrongdoing and has collaborated with the authorities. Contrary to what some internet sources have claimed, Mr Wheatcroft has at no point been trialed or convicted of any crime. The intermediary between the museum and the collector, Daniel Misik, was convicted of fraud and embezzlement.

The engine and rear hatch at the Swedish Tank Museum in Arsenalen. Source: www.ointres.se

Origins

It is unusual to have an origins story after the fate section. For decades, there was a debate over which German unit the Swedish Königstiger had previously belonged to or what exact model it was and there was no general consensus in the historiography.
It would not be until the excellent work of Herbert Ackermans and Per Sonnervik that the mystery would finally be solved, finding that the Swedish Königstiger was a test vehicle marked 211 from Kummersdorf, which was the sixth series-produced King Tiger tank with chassis number ‘280 006’.

The Swedish Königstiger had three main characteristics:

- It had a pre-production turret: The first 50 vehicles were produced with the pre-production turret (the incorrectly termed ‘Porsche turret’), while the subsequent tanks were equipped with the production turret (again, often incorrectly referred to as the ‘Henschel turret’).
- The gun was a single-piece barrel tube: The first version of 8.8 cm KwK 43 (L/ 71) consisted of an integral one-piece barrel tube with a larger muzzle brake (taken from the Tiger I). In May 1944, it was replaced by a two-piece barrel tube, which was easier to produce in quantity without deteriorating firing capabilities. According to production statistics, eleven tanks were produced before the barrel was changed and during the month when the barrel tubes were changed, 19 tanks were manufactured, so it is possible that some of these also had the single-piece barrel. So between 11 and 30 King Tigers had the early barrel.
- The turret had ‘two-eyed’ sights: The Swedish Königstiger had the early ‘two-eyed’ Turmzielfernrohr 9b/1 sight. This type of sight was changed in May 1944 to a newer model, the type Turmzielfernrohr 9d, which used only one opening in the frontal turret armor.

This allows the identification of the Swedish Königstiger as one of the first 50 tanks with the pre-production turret. With a one-piece gun barrel, the number of potential tank individuals is further reduced and production time can be set to May 1944 at the very latest.

The front of the Swedish Königstiger showing the pre-production turret (yellow), single-piece barrel (light blue) and ‘two-eyed’ sights (red). Source: The Swedish Tiger Ausf. B on Panzer Fatken with highlights by author

Additionally, the Swedish Königstiger had eleven details which make it such a fascinating example:

Two Flammenvernichter mit AbsatzKrümmer (flame suppressor with a bend): One of the most striking features at first glance on this tank are the horizontally placed flame suppressors, as these, on the Panther, were placed vertically.
‘Kgs 73/800/152’ track links and the 4th version drive sprockets: sPz. Abt. 506 unit had tested these new track links in the Winter of 1944-45 before they were standardized in March 1945. It is also likely that pre-production turret tanks in Germany could have been modified in a similar way. The drive sprocket is of the version 4 variant which was not introduced until March 1945, meaning that it was replaced from the original version 1 at some point.
Armor protection over the snorkel: this was only seen in the first 11 vehicles before February 1944.
Rain drainage at the loader’s hatch: a common feature in the first series vehicles.
Zimmerit on both turret and chassis.
Pistol ports on both sides of the turret (welded shut) but not the port for discarding empty shells.
No turret ring protection.
No opening for the pre-heating of the engine cooling system: This featured in tanks built after February 1944, so cannot be found in the first eleven vehicles.
No fittings to lock the front flat track guards: Prototypes V1, V2, and V3 featured this, so this is firm evidence the Swedish Königstiger was not one of the three prototypes.
No center mount on rearmost side mudguard: the prototypes and some early production vehicles lacked this feature.
No recess in the front armor on the right hand side at the machine gunner’s periscope: There is evidence this featured on vehicle ‘no. 280 009’, so the Swedish Königstiger predates this.

Rear-view image of the Swedish Königstiger with flame suppressors (blue), armor protection over snorkel (red), lack of center mount on rearmost side mudguard (yellow) and early pre-production turret (green). Source: The Swedish Tiger Ausf. B on Panzer Fatken with highlights by author

A combination of all these details means a few long-held theories on the origin of this vehicle can be discarded.

One such theory is that the vehicle had belonged to s.Pz.Abt. 503 (schwere Panzerabteilung 503 [trans. 503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion]) which was equipped with Königstigers and had fought in Normandy during Operation Overlord and the subsequent Allied push inland. However, this can easily be discounted as the unit would not have had access to the late tracks, gear ring, and muzzle brake because these had not been manufactured at that time. It is unlikely that, for some bizarre reason, French military authorities would have made these modifications on an abandoned vehicle. For similar reasons, the theory suggesting it belonged to Fkl 316 (PanzerKompanie Funklenk 316) can be rejected

Another theory suggests that it had belonged to s.Pz.Abt. 506 (schwere Panzerabteilung 506 [trans. 506th Heavy Panzer Battalion]), a unit that never fought in France. It is unlikely that a vehicle from this unit would have been moved to Gien from either the Netherlands or Germany. Even so, the muzzle brake could hardly have been in the field at the time when s.Pz.Abt. 506 was active with these tanks as the muzzle brakes had only just been fitted to the factory tanks.

Lastly, one theory points out that it was of the prototype (V1-3) tanks, though, as has been explained, this is not possible as it lacked an opening for pre-heating of the engine cooling system and it did not have the fittings to lock the front flat track guards.
A combination of factors sets this Königstiger as an early vehicle (pre-production turret, single-piece barrel, ‘two-eyed’ sights, etcetera) with some late modifications (version 4 sprocket and late-war track links). This means the vehicle was an early vehicle kept in Germany throughout the war for tests and modifications which explains the late-war features. As a result, it is safe to conclude that the Swedish Königstiger was a test tank marked with number 211 from Kummersdorf which was the sixth series-produced tank with chassis number ‘280 006’. The vehicle was sent to the winter testing facility in Sankt Johann (Austria) at some point, probably late-1944.

After the end of the war in Europe, the vehicle was transported to a ‘gathering place’ in Gien.

Vehicle chassis number ‘280 006’ in Sankt Johann (left) and Skövde (right). Source: www.sphf.se

Side-view of the vehicle in Sankt Johann. Note the version 4 drive sprocket. Source: www.sphf.se

Conclusion

Unfortunately, the Swedish Königstiger is a product of a bygone era when the heritage of armored vehicles was hardly at the forefront of anyone’s agenda. Despite its peculiarities, the vehicle did not stand out among the scores of destroyed and abandoned vehicles and debris which occupied most of Europe in 1945. The vehicle served its purpose: first as a German fighting vehicle, and secondly, as a target for Sweden to test its weapons.

Swedish Königstiger based on the tank shown in the available photos. Illustration by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.

Sources

Antonio Carrasco, Königstiger en combate (Madrid: Almena, 2013)
Anon., The Swedish King Tiger, (February 2019) [accessed 01/08/2019]
Anon., Wheatcroft-Tiger Tank Legal Statement, War History Online, (24 March 2011) [accessed 08/12/19] www.warhistoryonline.com
Rickard O. Lindström, Kungstigern i Sverige, (4 November 2016) [accessed 01/08/2017]
Thomas L. Jentz and Hilary L. Doyle, Germany’s Tiger Tanks VK 45.02 to Tiger II: Design, Production & Modifications
Private correspondence with Stefan Karlsson, Museum Chief of the Arsenalen Tank Museum in Sweden.
Special thanks to Wilhelm Geijer for assistance in this article

Cold War Ugandan Armor WW2 US Vehicles in Foreign Service

Medium Tank M4A1 (76) Sherman in Ugandan Service

Post author By Gareth Lynn Montes
Post date January 18, 2020
5 Comments on Medium Tank M4A1 (76) Sherman in Ugandan Service

Republic of Uganda (1969-1979)
Medium Tank – 12 Purchased

The M4 Sherman is, without doubt, one of the most recognizable and well-known tanks of the Second World War. Entering service in 1942, the tank would be mass-produced in many different variants and saw service with all the major US allies. After the war, the large number of surplus tanks meant that nations with little-to-no armor and limited budgets could purchase a decent and reliable tank in substantial numbers. Some of these, such as Argentina or Israel, would eventually modify and update their tanks to keep them in service. The Sherman tank would go on to see service and combat for many decades after its debut, with one of the last occasions being the Uganda-Tanzania War of 1978-79.

A Ugandan tank crewman reading a newspaper atop his M4A1 on January 25th 1971. The vehicle, registration number 05UA85, is parked outside Idi Amin’s Kampala house and belongs to the 5th Mechanized Regiment. Photo: SOURCE

Context and History

In October 1962, the Protectorate of Uganda achieved independence from Britain. The following decades would be turbulent and marked by instability. To counter new leader Milton Obote’s adoption of Socialism, Great Britain and Israel backed a military coup led by Colonel Idi Amin. This led to eight years of brutal military rule ending with the overthrow of Amin’s regime after defeat in the Uganda-Tanzania War.

Uganda and Tanzania share a border which, during the Nineteenth Century ‘Scramble for Africa’, had served as the border between the British and German empires. These boundaries, drawn on a map, often divided ethnicities and put together a mixture of ethnic groups ruled by ‘divide and conquer’, creating decades of conflicts after independence. The northern Tanzanian province of Kagera, with a landmass of 695 square miles (1800 square kilometers) and bordering Lake Victoria to its East, Rwanda to the West, and Uganda to its North, was, at least according to Amin, rightfully Ugandan territory. Coincidentally, the province also housed around a thousand Ugandan dissidents, opponents to Amin, who had moved there after a failed coup against the dictator in 1978. From Kagera, they mounted cross-border raids with the collusion of Tanzanian authorities. After a short build-up campaign, in order to crush the dissenters and the Tanzanians who aided them, Amin launched Operation Liberation in October 1978 without a declaration of war.

Idi Amin congratulating crewmen from Uganda’s M4A1’s. Photo: SOURCE

The Israeli Connection

In the early years of Obote, Uganda enjoyed very friendly relations with Israel. Because of its strategic location south of what was then Sudan, Uganda was a useful ally for Israel. Sudan had supported Egypt in the Six-Day War and would send troops to fight Israel during the Yom Kippur War. Uganda received Israeli military advisors and surplus Israeli equipment during this period, most notably, 12 M4A1 Shermans equipped with the M1A1C 76mm gun, and a number of M38 Jeeps in 1969. It is not known how the tanks got all the way from Israel to landlocked Uganda, but an informed guess is that they were ferried to Kenya and then rail transported.

Map of the region. Photo: SOURCE

One of the Ugandan M4A1 Shermans with HVSS suspension driving through the African bush. Photo: SOURCE

In early 1972, shortly after Amin had taken over, and with the intention of waging war with Tanzania to obtain a land corridor to the Indian Ocean, there were some talks regarding acquiring a second batch of tanks and 24 McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II fighter-bombers. Negotiations would not materialize and in revenge, Amin closed the Israeli embassy and severed diplomatic relations. The deterioration of relations would culminate in the Israeli raid on Entebbe airport on July 4th 1976 to free the hostages from the Palestinian PFLP-EO hijacked Air France Tel Aviv-Paris flight after Amin had allowed the hijackers to use Entebbe as a destination. After this, Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya became Amin’s main backer and supplier.

“Tankensteins” from Israel

The 12 Shermans Uganda purchased from Israel were the first tanks in the country’s inventory. Although all of them were of the M4A1 variant, they were a variety of sub-variants and not one was exactly the same as another. Israel had got their hands on their Sherman tanks in the first place from US Army depots in Italy and the Philippines through legal and illegal means. To modernize them, Israel had heavily modified their Shermans. Modifications included: the addition of French-made smoke dischargers on each side of the turret (presumably from the French supplied AMX-13); the addition of spare track carrying brackets on the side of the turret, and at the front of the hull; the fitting of aftermarket radio antennas; and the fitting of a bracket holding a searchlight on the gun mantle. In images of these tanks in Ugandan service though, the searchlights seem to have been removed, either by the Israelis before delivery or through wear and tear in Uganda.

This image shows a close up of some of the Israeli added turret modifications. These include the pair of smoke dischargers, extra radio antenna, the bracket for the spare US Army-standard T54E1 tracks and the canvas gun mantle cover. In addition, there was a mix of suspension types, turret hatches, hull fittings and track types. The crewmen have a variety of US (Israel supplied) and Soviet (Libyan supplied) helmets and the man furthest to the left in the sunglasses is Idi Amin. Photo: Still from THIS video.

A photo of three Ugandan M4A1’s on parade in the capital city, Kampala, which shows the differences between them. The lead tank shows the original WWII-style ‘split’ hatch for the loader in the turret, while the one at the rear appears to have the later style oval hatch. The Sherman in the center is missing the steel tow cable which can be seen on the left side of the other two tanks. The photo was probably taken in 1969 and all three vehicles belonged to the 5th Mechanized Regiment. Photo: SOURCE

Camouflage and Markings

Once they arrived in Uganda, the tanks were painted deep bronze green. Black and white photos taken in 1987 of a knocked out M4A1 on a road north of Kampala show what appears to be two-tone camouflage on the tanks, rather than just plain bronze-green. There are two possible explanations for this: 1. the locals have applied their ‘own camouflage’ or it has been covered in graffiti (See Cuban Comets for similar artistic expressions by locals); or 2. and most likely, the camouflage has weathered.

For markings, the tanks were given red and green diagonally halved rectangles on the sides, on the rear left mudguard, and on the frontal curving of the hull next to the tracks. The rear right mudguard seemed to bear a unit emblem. The tanks’ serial numbers were written in white on the rear.

The rear of a Ugandan M4A1 showing the serial number in white, the green and red rectangle on the left mudguard and a unit emblem on the right mudguard. Photo: Still from THIS video.

Service History

It is not known if the tanks played any part in the Amin-led coup in 1971 nor the brief border clash with Tanzania in 1971. They would, nevertheless, play a key role seven years later in the Uganda-Tanzania War. The twelve M4A1’s, along with ten T-34/85’s from Libya, a number of British Ferret Armoured Cars, thirty-six Czechoslovakian OT-64C’s and around sixty Soviet BTR-40’s, composed the armored forces of Amin’s army and led the attack into Tanzania in October 1978. All the M4 Shermans and T-34/85’s were part of the 5th Mechanized Specialist Reconnaissance Regiment ‘Suicide Regiment’ or ‘Malire Mechanized Regiment’ under the command of Colonel Bernard Rwehururu. The ‘Suicide Regiment’ was ordered to attack the bordering town of Mutukula along the Kyaka Road before meeting other forces Bumazi and advance to Bukoba. By October 30th, Ugandan troops were 20 miles inside Tanzanian territory and outside the city of Kyaka where their advance stalled. Uganda had not planned for a long war and hoped that their initial strike would make Tanzania sue for peace.

A rare and blurry photo of a Ugandan M4A1 Sherman being transported to the border with Tanzania before Operation Liberation. Photo: SOURCE

However, their initial advance had been met with fiercer resistance than expected and soon after, Tanzania sent their own forces and armor, consisting mainly of Chinese Type 59A’s, a Chinese copy of the Soviet T-54/55. With their stronger armor, lower profile and superior firepower, these tanks outclassed all of the Ugandan armor, forcing them to retreat. No M4A1 is believed to have been lost in the invasion, but one or two were destroyed during the November-December Tanzanian counter when stationed around the border in Mutukula. On December 24th 1978, Ugandan forces crossed the border back into Uganda. By this point, the M4A1’s had been fighting for almost three months with no maintenance.

On January 20th, Tanzanian troops crossed the border and commenced their drive up north. On the Ugandan side of the border of Mutukula, troops of the 208 Brigade of the Tanzanian Army engaged a platoon of Shermans, knocking one out before the rest retreated. In March, three M4A1’s along with around twelve Libyan T-55’s attacked the Tanzanian 201st Mechanized Brigade. Without previous scouting, the two forces collided into each other in the Lukaya swamps on the 10th. After initial success by the Ugandans, the Tanzanian forces regrouped and pushed all the way up to Entebbe, which fell on April 7th, and Kampala falling on April 10th. Two M4A1’s were knocked out in skirmishes on the outskirts of the Ugandan capital. There is no further recorded deployment of the M4A1’s and the war would end on June 3rd 1979. There are no official records, but it is presumed that six or seven out of the twelve Shermans were knocked out by Tanzanian forces or left un-operational.

An Australian military advisor to the re-instated Obote government poses with a non-operational M4A1 in Kampala in 1983. The photo shows the bronze-green camouflage, the attached turret smoke dischargers and the bracket for a searchlight on top of the gun mantle. Note the missing bow machine-gun. This is most likely due to it being removed by Ugandan forces once the tank was rendered non-operational to avoid it being stolen. Bow machine-guns were easy to remove. Photo: SOURCE

Some of the remaining Shermans were again used in 1985 during the coup of General Tito Okello in the closing stages of the Ugandan Bush War. In June 1985, Okello ordered his brigade to march on Kampala to overthrow Milton Obote. One of the two Shermans of this brigade was knocked out in the minimal fighting which took place.

Conclusion

The M4A1’s would remain in Uganda’s inventory according to some Western visitors until at least 1999, when three were reported to still be operational.

A photos taken north of Kampala in 1987 by a Western visitor showing a HVSS suspension M4A1. As usual, note the lack of bow machine-gun, the turret smoke dischargers and the bracket for a searchlight on top of the gun mantle. Exposure to weather has eroded the camouflage which now appears to be a two-tone scheme. Also note that the gun is still within its travel lock, meaning that it was probably not knocked out by Tanzanian fire, but by a breakdown. Photo: SOURCE

What appears to be the same vehicle in a photograph taken a few years later demonstrating the effects of weathering on the camouflage. Photo: SOURCE

Even by the time of the Uganda-Tanzania War, the Shermans were obsolete and had little-to-no chance against Tanzania’s more modern equipment. Despite this, the Shermans showed their resilience and longevity during the war.

An abandoned M4A1 with HVSS suspension being repurposed as a washing line in Kampala. Photo: SOURCE

Illustration of a Ugandan M4A1 (76) HVSS produced by Andrei Kirushkin, funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	6.15m x 2.42m x 2.24m (20’1″ x 7’9″ x 7’3″ ft.in)
Total weight, battle ready:	35 Tons (26000 ibs)
Crew :	4 (2 Drivers/gunners, Commander, loader)
Propulsion:	Continental R-975 Radial Engine
Suspensions:	Horizontal Volute Springs Suspensions (HVSS)
Top Speed	40-45 kph (25-27 mph) M51/M50
Range (road)/Fuel consumption	400 km (250 mi) for 380L – 50L/100
Armament (see notes)	Main: 76 mm (4in) Tank Gun M1 Sec: 1 x .50 Cal (12.7 mm) Browning M2HB Heavy Machine Gun, 2 x .30 Cal (7.62mm) Machine Guns.
Armour	Hull nose and turret 70, sides 40, bottom 15, rooftop 15 mm
Total Purchased	12

Sources

Tom Cooper and Adrien Fontanellaz, Africa@War 23: Wars and Insurgencies of Uganda 1971-1994 (Solihull: Helion & Company, 2015)
Esoteric Armour, Ugandan M4A1 (76)w/M.1 Sherman (2011) esotericarmour.blogspot.com [accessed on 22/05/2018]
wwiiafterwwii, Idi Amin’s Shermans (2015) wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com [accessed on 22/05/2018]
wwiiafterwwii, WWII weapons in Tanzania (2017) wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com [accessed on 31/05/2018]

This 1974 French footage shows an M4A1 being ridden by Idi Amin in a mock training which concludes with Amin claiming it represents the retaking of the Golan Heights from Israel.

“Tank-It” Shirt

Chill with this cool Sherman shirt. A portion of the proceeds from this purchase will support Tank Encyclopedia, a military history research project. Buy this T-Shirt on Gunji Graphics!

American M4 Sherman Tank – Tank Encyclopedia Support Shirt

Give ’em a pounding with your Sherman coming through! A portion of the proceeds from this purchase will support Tank Encyclopedia, a military history research project. Buy this T-Shirt on Gunji Graphics!

WW2 Republican Spanish Tiznaos

Improvised Armored Trucks of the Asturias Revolution

Post author By Gareth Lynn Montes
Post date July 6, 2019
1 Comment on Improvised Armored Trucks of the Asturias Revolution

Asturias Commune (1934)
Improvised Armored Truck – At Least 6-7 Built

Popular insurrections often lack the material capabilities of national armies. This desperation to provide armor can lead to creative alternatives by placing armor plates on truck, bus, or car chassis’ and equipping them with armament, thus creating an armored car or truck. In October 1934, leftist revolutionaries in Asturias used their industrial skills and know-how to create different models of armored (or semi-armored) cars and trucks in their efforts to establish and maintain the short-lived Socialist Asturias Commune.

The Asturias Revolution of October 1934

Popular myth and culture have led to an image of the Second Spanish Republic, established in April 1931, as a radical, progressive, and left-wing state. Whilst there is some substance behind this, it is not entirely true. In the second elections held in November 1933, the centrist Partido Radical Republicano (PRR) of Alejandro Lerroux came to power with the support of the right-wing Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas (CEDA). Following a crisis of government in September 1934, CEDA removed their support and demanded that the PRR enter a formal coalition with 3 CEDA members to take a ministerial portfolio. Despite opposition from the left, this was done, and as a consequence, the most left-wing elements began to mobilize.
An indefinite revolutionary general strike organized by radical elements of the Partido Socialista Obrero Español (POSE) [left-wing social democrat] and Union General de Trabajadores (UGT) trade union with the support of elements of the Anarchist Party and trade union (FAI and CNT) and the Communist Party (CP) was called for October 5th 1934. Following a few days of strike, the revolution was brutally put down in most of Spain, except in Catalonia, where an independent state was declared by the strikers, only to be toppled by Republican forces a few days later, and in Asturias.

Map of Asturias showing the location of several places named in the article, such as Gijón, Oviedo, Trubia, Mieres, and El Berrón – Source.
In contrast to those in other parts of the country, the Asturias revolutionaries were well organized and armed. They took their weapons from the Trubia and Oviedo arms factory in the region and dynamite from the many coal mines in the region. By October 8th, half of Asturias was under the control of the revolutionaries. According to historian Hugh Thomas, by the 17th, the revolutionaries numbered 30,000 men, though this figure may be exaggerated.
The revolutionaries managed to take most of Oviedo by the 9th, with the exceptions of two military barracks which would remain under siege for the rest of the conflict. Whilst the revolution was unsuccessful in Gijón, the revolutionaries managed to take Avilés and Trubia.
The government response was left to Generals Francisco Franco (who would later become the country’s dictator) and Manuel Goded. The attack on Asturias was made on four fronts. Moroccans and legionnaires from the Army of Africa under the command of Colonel Victor Yagüe landed in Gijón on October 7th and headed towards Oviedo, brutally quelling any resistance in the way. From the south, troops under General Bosch advanced into Asturias through the Puerto de Pajares [Pajares mountain pass] and combated revolutionaries around Mieres until the 15th. Troops under General Eduardo López Ochoa advanced from Galicia in the west and advanced on Trubia. The last front was to the east and was made up by army columns under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Solchaga, who clashed with revolutionaries in El Berrón, outside Oviedo.
On the 11th, the government troops advancing from the south entered Oviedo, promoting the revolutionary committee in charge of the Asturias comune to order a retreat from the city and to dissolve. Not all revolutionaries would follow these orders and a second revolutionary committee was formed to continue the fight. Despite this, Oviedo would fall completely on the 13th and the revolutionaries retreated to a coal pit of Langero where a third revolutionary committee was formed under the leadership of Berlamino Tomás. By the 15th, the revolutionaries sought a negotiated settlement with the priority of not surrendering to Yagüe’s troops, who had used brutal tactics in putting down the revolution. The terms were accepted by General López Ochoa and the last enclave would surrender on the 18th.
Over 1,500 had died on either side in the fortnight the revolution had lasted.

Map showing the main events of the Asturias October 1934 revolution – Source

The Plans for Armor

Except in Trubia (see Trubia Serie A and Tractor Landesa), there was no experience in the region of building armored vehicles, but, as Artemio Mortera Pérez (one of the better known authors of Spanish Civil War AFVs) points out, revolutionary elements had grown up with propaganda, newspapers, and films from the Soviet Union showing improvised armored vehicles built during the Revolution and Civil War, though how correct this is, is hard to determine.
Furthermore, Asturias was one of the most industrialized regions of Spain and had several metalworking factories, coal mines, and arms factories. As such, although mostly lacking specific experience in building armored vehicles, the workforce was industrially adept.
The Revolutionary authorities established requirements for armored cars in a revolutionary action plan as follows:

Sloped frontal armor from the mudguards to the top of the engine radiator so as to use less steel in thickening the plate, as it was believed sloped armor, even if using less steel, had a better chance of deflecting bullets than straight sheets.
A frontal plate with a small peephole, 4 mm in diameter, for the driver. 4 mm was chosen, as the minimum caliber of Spanish Army rifles and machine guns was 6 mm. This plate also had to have a loophole for a frontal firing machine gun.
The rear to be protected by steel plates and to have loopholes for infantry inside the trucks to fire from.

The Revolutionary authorities intended to use the vehicles aggressively. The trucks were to use their speed to surprise the enemy and catch them off guard, with infantry inside firing the guns and throwing grenades and dynamite. With their armor, they were also to be used to provide cover for advancing troops. The Revolutionary authorities believed that the trucks’ armor would be impenetrable and immune to enemy fire.

Design

All vehicles crudely followed the same principles and design.
The idea was to provide armor to civilian trucks with steel sheets and provide them with a frontal firing machine gun. The vehicle was also to have enough space at the back, also covered in steel sheets, for troops to be transported. Loopholes were to be made so they could fire from the inside.
The vehicles’ engines were covered with sloped armored plates. This sometimes also extended into mudguards for the frontal wheels. The positions of the driver and co-driver were made into an armored box, and the open-top behind them was surrounded with armored plates. The lower sides were often given armored plates too, as were the rear wheels. The materials used for the armor were steel sheets and railway rails. The vehicles were covered in grease, which the revolutionaries believed would enable them to repel more enemy bullets. This gave the vehicles a blackish aspect, hence the ‘tiznao’ nickname they received – from the adjective tiznado, meaning sooty.
The exact model of truck used for each vehicle is unspecified, so it is almost impossible to determine. Had these vehicles been converted from military trucks, it would be easier to determine as the options would be narrower.
Overall, their design was rather poor and the armor plates did not offer as much protection as expected.
Note – the different models are so named by the author based on available information and general nomenclature of this type of vehicles up to that point and in the Civil War which took place two years later. None of the vehicles are given a name in the literature and specific details are lacking.

Semi-blindado ‘Duro Felguera’

This was the first vehicle converted and used in action. Very minimally armored, with a metal plate put at the front of the cabin and the sides left unprotected. From photographic evidence, it cannot be seen if the engine position was covered in metal plates. The open-topped rear was covered with plates assembled in a triangular shape, though the rear seems to have been unprotected.
Built in the Duro Felguera metallurgical factory by anarchists of the CNT and FAI, it was first used in Oviedo on October 7th. Under the command of Arturo Vázquez (a PSOE member), it was used in the successful attack on the carabineers HQ’s on Calle Magdalena no. 15, after which it continued down the same street and helped to take the town hall. Its last mission was to head to the Civil Government building and help in its capture, but the driver was killed by a stray bullet, and the co-driver, also wounded, retreated the truck to the corner between Calle Cimadevilla and Calle San Antonio. It can be assumed that the vehicle suffered a breakdown of some kind as it was abandoned. The vehicle would remain in this position until after the revolution was crushed.

Civilians posing for a photo with the semi-blindado Duro Felguera once the revolution had been put down- The FAI and CNT graffiti indicated that the vehicle was converted in the Duro Felguera metallurgical factory as it was taken over by anarchist forces – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 14.

Blindado ‘Duro Felguera’

This vehicle had a very distinctive rounded armor. It seems to be much smaller than the other vehicles and not based on a truck. There was a semi-cylindrical armored structure on each side of the cabin, which resembled a sentry box and had a large hinged door to the left side. The front of the cabin had an aperture with a forward-opening hatch to provide vision for the driver and to fire from. It seemed to have a crank to start the engine behind the cabin. The sides of the frontal semi-cylindrical structure were decorated with FAI graffiti, whilst on the front, Felguera (the metallurgical factory where it was built) and CNT were written.
This vehicle may have been used on the 10th to attack the Civil Government building down the Calle Rúa approach. In the cross-fire, its two operators were wounded.

Blindado Duro Felguera being inspected from its rear. This conversion was smaller than other vehicles and had a very distinctive appearance. The graffiti indicated that this vehicle too was built by Duro Felguera – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 15.

Blindado ‘El Aguila Negra’

Not much is known about this vehicle apart from the fact that it was based on a truck used by the El Aguila Negra brewery of Colloto, on the outskirts of Oviedo. The vehicle seems to be wider than the others and has a rounded top. The sides do not appear to be armored.

Blindado ‘El Aguila Negra’ (at the front), another converted vehicle behind it (a Blindado ‘Oviedo’ model ‘b’), and several artillery pieces being inspected by government troops outside the Oviedo arms factory. Their armor of the armored truck is being stripped – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 18.

Blindado Oviedo Model A illustration by Yuvnashva Sharma. Funded by our Patreon campaign.

Blindados ‘Oviedo’

There were two different models (in this article called ‘A’ and ‘B’) and they were extensively photographed after their capture. Given the lack of graffiti on them, it can be assumed that they were not built by Duro Felguera but rather in the Fábrica de Mieres or Hulleras de Turón factories. However, there is also the possibility they were built in Duro Felguera but not given graffiti.
The ‘A’ variant was the best armored of all the revolutionaries’ vehicles. The frontal wheels were covered all round in a similar fashion to 1930s and 1940s cars. From these, some sort of metal bar joined them with the top of the crew cabin holding them in place. There was a plate at the front with two-louvered grills for the engine placed at an angle in front of the engine cover between the mudguards. On each side of this was a headlamp. The frontal plate in front of the crew cabin consisted of two sheets which met at the center forming a peak, and each had a horizontal vision slit in the middle of them. The cabin had a door to the left side and a hatched-window on the left. The truck’s open-topped rear was covered with a triangular-like shaped structure. The rear wheels were protected by an armored box-like structure.
A short film and photographs taken of it in various locations after the revolution had been put down prove that it was still mobile. As it was one of the sturdier built models, it attracted plenty of interest from government troops and civilians alike.

The ‘A’ variant of the Blindado ‘Oviedo’ pictured in the courtyard of the Oviedo Arms Factory following the end of the revolution – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 13 and 18.

A soldier poses with the Blindado ‘Oviedo’ serie ‘A’ variant after the end of the revolution – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 17.

More photos of the vehicle in the Oviedo Arms Factory courtyard with other captured military materiel and government forces posing with them – Source

Still from a film showing the Blindado ‘Oviedo’ serie ‘A’ being driven down Oviedo’s streets with a Spanish soldier riding on its side – Source (where the film can be found)

Soldiers posing in front of a Blindado ‘Oviedo’ serie ‘A’ with the Convento de Santa Clara on Alonso de Quintanilla street in Oviedo in the background- Source
The ‘B’ version was not as well armored as ‘A’ at the front, with its wheels and engine cover exposed. The cabin’s front was protected by a big two-part metal sheet. Each side had a slim vision slit in the lower center half. The plate covered the sides of the cabin too, with a small window hatch on the side. The open-topped back was also covered in a triangular-shaped structure, which had at least one loophole for militiamen to fire from on the left side. The rear had a door for entry and exit, which had an opening for rear fire.

Government forces pose with the Blindado ‘Oviedo’ serie ‘B’ in the aftermath of the Asturias Revolution. Note the soldier pointing his pistol out of the cabin – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 17.

Front, side, and rear view of the Blindado ‘Oviedo’ serie ‘B’ in the Oviedo arms factory in the aftermath of the failed revolution of October 1934 – Source

Blindado ‘Mieres’

According to a contemporary newspaper this vehicle was supposedly captured in Mieres, a town south of Oviedo, by government forces. If it was built in Mieres, it was most likely also built by Duro Felguera, which had their main installations in the town. This vehicle is slightly different to other vehicles of the revolution and is armored on all sides and it appears to be even riveted in some places. The frontal cabin area has a small hatch which would have allowed for the driver to see forward.

Civilians and troops inspect an armored vehicle in what appears to be Mieres, south of Oviedo. The vehicle seems to have parts of its armor riveted – Source

Unidentifiable Blindado

Only one not very detailed photo of this vehicle exists. It has two headlamps, a three-louver grill in its engine cover, and at least one vision slit in its frontal cabin.

Not much is known of this vehicle. Note the grease liberally applied to the mudguards – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 15.

Operational Use

Apart from the aforementioned use of the ‘Duro Felguera’ vehicles, very little is known about the operational use of these improvised vehicles.
On the morning of the 10th, one was used in an unsuccessful attack on government positions in Lugones, northwest of Oviedo, and was captured by the troops under General López Ochoa in the process. The identity of this vehicle is difficult to determine and there is a possibility that it was one which has not been described in this article.
On the 17th, the day before the revolution was finally crushed, a group of CNT anarchist militiamen attacked government forces who had advanced from the east in the town of El Borrón. They were supported by a converted truck allegedly equipped with four machine guns. This vehicle was initially successful and forced the government forces to retreat from their stronghold in the town railway repair facilities and abandon their artillery pieces. Concentrated fire forced the converted truck to retreat, but only after its crew and troop detachment blew up the railway lines. According to Francisco Aguado Sánchez, a leading historian of the 1934 Revolution in Asturias, the vehicle was destroyed by artillery fire.

Conclusion

Following the failure of the revolution elsewhere in the country, the revolutionaries in Asturias were doomed, and no matter how inventive they were with their improvised armored cars and personnel carriers, they were not going to succeed. The improvised vehicles themselves were brave efforts by inexperienced men, but ultimately, they were of poor combat effectiveness. After the revolution was put down they were most likely reconverted into their original truck or lorry form.

Sources

Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española. Teatro de Operaciones del Norte 36/37 (Valladolid: AF Editores, 2007)
Hugh Thomas, La Guerra Civil Española (Barcelona: Ed. Grijalbo, 1976)
Julio Gil Pecharromán, La Revolución de Octubre (España), ArteHistoria – Junta de Castilla y León [accessed 28/10/2018]
‘Lordo’, Información y propaganda en la Revolución de Asturias de 1934 (26 March 2010) [accessed 28/10/2018]
Octavio Cabezas, “Prieto, tras la revolución de Asturias”, El País, 16 October 2005

WW2 Italian Fast Tanks WW2 Spanish Other Armor

FIAT-Ansaldo CV35 L.f. ‘Lanzallamas compacto’

Post author By Gareth Lynn Montes
Post date April 9, 2019
No Comments on FIAT-Ansaldo CV35 L.f. ‘Lanzallamas compacto’

Kingdom of Italy/Nationalist Spain (1937-1939)
Light Flamethrower Tank – 8 Converted

In the everlasting quest of improving firepower, some of the tank manufacturing nations came to the conclusion that this could be achieved by equipping tanks with flamethrowers. In the 1930s, Italy decided to improve the firepower of their aging fleet of tanks by this method and modified at least one of their FIAT 3000’s with a flamethrower.
The CV33 and CV35 series would also have flame-throwing variants, this time by means of an attached trailer carrying the flammable liquid. These saw use in Ethiopia and well into WWII, with a few being sent to Spain for deployment with the Corpo Truppe Volontarie (C.T.V.) alongside Franco’s forces.
However, trailer equipped tanks had their limitations as maneuverability and combat value was restricted and, thus, alternatives had to be found.

Italian Tanks and Flame-Throwing in the Spanish Civil War

Soon after the Generals’ coup against the Spanish Republic in July 1936, Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany sent aid to Franco and airlifted his main fighting force from the Spanish possessions in North Africa to southern Spain and the road to Madrid. There was a very limited number of tanks in Spain at this time and those that were available were effectively obsolete. Therefore, Italy and Germany provided Franco with modern tanks (CV series and Panzer I respectively), whilst the USSR did likewise with the Republic (T-26’s and BT-5’s).
From the very first tank engagement between the forces, the Soviet T-26 proved superior, wreaking havoc at Seseña in October 1936 by destroying 11 Italian tanks (CV33’s including flame-throwing variants). The only Nationalist tanks able to counter the Soviet tanks were those Italian ones equipped with flamethrowers, or at least, when within the 60-70m of its firing range.
As a result, a series of projects to improve firepower by including more powerful guns such as the 20mm Breda (Pz.I Breda and CV33/35 Breda) and flamethrowers were proposed.
As early as October 1936, the first experiments were carried out with the German Panzer I by equipping it with the Flammenwerfer 35 flamethrower with the flammable liquid container inside the tank. Its firing range was a mere 25-30 m, so plans were made to equip it with larger, more powerful flamethrowers, but, due to the cramped space within the tank’s turret and interior, this was abandoned. The idea of attaching external flammable liquid containers was rejected as it had limited construction and usage value. However, with time this idea was revived for the Italian CV series tanks.

Topolino gets a Flamethrower

In total, 155 tanks of the Carro Veloce L3/33 (CV33) and L3/35 (CV35) variants (including flame-thrower versions [L.f.]) were sent to Spain. These tanks did not gain much of a reputation there and were nicknamed ‘lata de sardinas’ (sardine tin) because of their small space and poor armor, and ‘topolino’, the Italian name for Mickey Mouse.
The new ‘compact’ flame-thrower version did not undergo many changes from the main L.f. variant; the trailer was replaced by a smaller capacity flammable liquid container placed atop the engine deck. The container could be removed to access the engine or to reinstate the original trailer version. This was not a completely new idea as the Italians had used CV’s using the same principle in Ethiopia, though in a more improvised manner by utilizing a metal barrel as the container. Furthermore, the first two transformations carried out in Spain, according to Colonel Babrieri of the C.T.V., were based on plans he had designed himself back in Italy for the modification of tanks planned for the 3rd tank regiment Bologna.

Only known photo of a ‘lanzallamas compacto’ in action in Spain, presumably taken during the Catalan Offensive – Photo: Mortera Pérez (2011), p. 109.
In Spain however, the building of the containers and future transformations was requisitioned in ‘escrito nº455’ by Colonel Roberto Olmi of the C.T.V. to the Comandancia General de Artillería Nacional on December 14th, 1938. The construction of the armored containers, authorized on December 22nd, was undertaken in the recently captured Trubia factory, which had plenty of experience with heavy machinery.
The first two modifications were carried out with Babrier’s design and tested in front of a joint Italian and Spanish committee of members of the Reagruppamento Carristi (Tank regiment) of the C.T.V. and Comandancia General de Artillería Nacional who found the transformations satisfactory and drew up the final production plans.
After an additional six vehicles were transformed, production finished. The Italians found the vehicles satisfactory enough to transform more vehicles for the Regio Esercito.

Illustration of the FIAT-Ansaldo CV35 L.f. ‘Lanzallamas compacto’ by Alexe Pavel, based on an illustration by David Bocquelet.

Spot the Difference

Given that there are two different versions of this ‘compact’ modification (Spanish and Italian versions), confusion can arise in distinguishing them, but the differences are easy enough to spot. The key is in the flammable liquid container. The Spanish containers are bigger, making them stand higher than the top of the tank, whilst the smaller Italian ones are in line with the height of the tank. Even though this limited the flammable liquid capacity of the container to 100 liters, it meant it was less vulnerable to enemy fire. The capacity of the ‘Spanish’ containers is unknown, but it can be assumed to be more than 125 liters.

Side photo of an ‘Italian compacto’ with the substantially smaller flammable liquid container. Note that the height of the container is in line with the top of the tank. Photo: Molina Franco & Manrique García, p. 47.

The ‘Spanish compacto’ with the bigger flammable liquid container. Photo: Mortera Pérez (2013), p. 156.

Conclusion

Not much is known about their active use or how successful they were, but there is a picture of one being used during the Catalonia Offensive of November 1938-February 1939, and it is possible they were also used during the Aragón and Ebro offensives earlier in 1938.
The ‘compactos’ were seen during the victory parades in Barcelona and Madrid along with other Italian tanks. It can be assumed that like much other Italian equipment, the remaining ‘compactos’ were left in Spain.

The vehicle leading in the center was a ‘Spanish’ modified ‘compacto’ recognizable by its larger flammable liquid container. The photo was taken during the victory parade in Madrid and shows the tanks next to the Cibeles fountain. Photo: Mortera Pérez (2011), p. 109.
The main principal advantage the ‘compactos’ had over the normal flamethrower variant was their increased maneuverability, but they also had their drawbacks; increased mobility was gained at the expense of removing the trailer and thus, reducing the capacity for the flammable liquid (520 liters). Smaller capacity meant reduced operational time of the flamethrower, resulting in the vehicle having a very limited usage.

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	3.17 x 1.4 x 1.3 m (10.4×4.59×4.27 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	3.2 tons
Crew	2 (driver, flame thrower operator)
Propulsion	FIAT-SPA CV3, 6 cyl, 43 hp
Speed	42 km/h (26 mph)
Range (road)	125 km (78 mi)
Armament	Flame thrower
Armor	From 6 to 12 mm (0.24-0.47 in)
Total Production	8

Links & Resources

Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española Teatro de Operaciones de Aragón, Cataluña Y Levante 36/39 Parte I (Valladolid: Alcañiz Fresno’s editores, 2011)
Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española Teatro de Operaciones de Aragón, Cataluña Y Levante 36/39 Parte II (Valladolid: Alcañiz Fresno’s editores, 2013)
Javier de Mazarrasa, La Máquina y la Historia Nº2. Blindados en España 1ª Parte: La Guerra Civil 1936-1939 (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 1991)
Lucas Molina Franco and José M Manrique García, Blindados Italianos en el Ejército de Franco (1936-1939) (Valladolid: Galland Books, 2009)

WW2 Italian SPG Prototypes WW2 Spanish Prototypes

FIAT CV33/35 Breda

Kingdom of Italy/Nationalist Spain (1937-1938)
Light Tank/Tank Destroyer – 1 Built

When the Spanish Civil War broke out in July 1936, neither side was equipped to fight a modern war, so they sought allies to deliver up-to-date materiel, including tanks and planes. The situation of the Nationalists was especially desperate. At this point, they were a group of generals who had organized a coup and who had lost any central command. Their main army, led by General Franco, was stranded in North Africa with little hope of being able to reach the mainland.
Thanks to personal connections, Mussolini and Hitler came to Franco’s aid and airlifted the Spanish regulars across the Strait of Gibraltar.
Mussolini’s motivations to intervene and help Franco were probably not out of kindness or to support a fellow fascist, but a show of strength and power and to give the impression that any crisis within the Mediterranean region was to be solved by Italy.
All in all, Italian aid in Spain included 50,000 ‘volunteer’ troops, 758 planes, 155 tanks of the Carro Veloce L3/33 (CV33) and L3/35 (CV35) variants (including flame-thrower versions) and 8 Lancia IZ armored cars as part of the Corpo Truppe Volontarie (CTV). Their most notable action in the war was their defeat at the Battle of Guadalajara to a force largely made up of Italian members of the International Brigades. However, they were instrumental in the capture of Málaga and Santander.

The Need for a Bigger Gun

It was clear from the very first tank engagement around Seseña in 1936 that the Nationalists had no tank capable of facing the armament supplied by the USSR for the Republic. At Seseña, a company of T-26’s caused havoc among the poorly armed and armored Italian CV33’s. Even tactics involving overwhelming them with numbers did not succeed, and the 45mm gun on the T-26 and the BA-6 made it impossible to engage at a close enough range for the 8mm machine-guns of the CV33/35’s (Spanish designation for both the L3/33 and L3/35) or the 7.92 mm MG13 machine-guns of the Panzer I to do any harm.
To this end, an effort was made to improve the firepower of the existing machines by equipping the CV33/35 with a 20mm gun which would have enough penetration at a reasonable distance to confront anything in the Republican inventory. It is not clear whether the idea originated with the Italians or with the Spanish or both. It is also not clear where the conversion took place. A blueprint of the conversion is written in Spanish and Spanish accounts put the work as having been carried out under the direction of Lieutenant Colonel Ayuela. Italian records state that the conversion was carried out by technicians from the Italian CVT, sometime “between the end of 1937 and beginning of 1938”. In addition, the Italian Captain Oreste Fortuna, the commander of the 1st Tank Company ‘Navalcarnero’, noted in his journal that the main armament of the CV35 should be replaced with the 20mm Breda gun or with a Brixia Model 35 45mm mortar
Two guns were considered – the German Flak 30 (which would later be the basis for the main armament of some Panzer II variants) which had a significant recoil, and the gas-operated Italian Breda M-35. Both guns had ammunition that weighed 147 grams and could penetrate 40mm of armor at 250m and a 90º angle. The latter gun was selected mainly because of its gas-operated reload and its fewer moving parts which would ease the modification and would allow the larger gun to fit inside the already cramped interior of the CV33/35.
The vehicle chosen for the conversion was one of the CVT and that, after the conversion and the tests, the vehicle was returned to the Italians who put it through more trials. This explains the two photos showing the vehicle with Italian markings and with Italian soldiers in the background. While it is not implausible to think that the two sides cooperated on the matter, neither side acknowledges any help from the other in designing the vehicle.

The Transformation

Work on equipping the CV33/35 with the Breda gun commenced at the beginning of the summer of 37. By mid-August, the blueprints had been completed and a tank and gun were requested from the CTV which were supplied almost immediately. The tank is referred to in Spanish-language literature as a ‘C.V. 35 IIº tipo’, which can be assumed to be an L3/35 (CV35). The vehicle’s identification number was 2694. The modification would mean that the two parallel FIAT 35 machine-guns on the left frontal firing position were to be substituted by the individual 20mm Breda. Apart from that, no other substantial modification was to take place or was recorded.

1:5 original blueprints of the modifications to fit the 20mm Breda gun – Molina Franco & Manrique García, p. 30.
Whilst there is a lack of any empirical evidence, it can be assumed that the transformations of said vehicle would have been done in the Fábrica de Armas of Seville, which had been under Nationalist control from the very start of the war due to the actions of General Queipo de Llano. This assumption is based on the fact that captured T-26’s were sent to this city in Andalucía for repairs and the Panzer I ‘Breda’ modifications carried out during approximately the same time period were also done there. Prior to the capture of Bilbao in June 1937, Seville had been the main industrial hub for Franco’s side. The work was carried out by Spanish technicians, and according to Italian sources, supported by Italian artillery and technical service officers.
Even before the modification was completed on August 10th, a request to the Italian delegation for a further 40 tanks and guns for transformation were made by order of the HQ of Generalissimo Franco. However, this order would not fully materialize; though it seems that some of the requested Breda guns were sent at that or a later time. Even so, Spanish tank historians Lucas Molina Franco and Jose Mª Manrique García, agree that this request for more tanks with the prototype yet to be finished was a bit hasty.

Illustration of the FIAT CV33/35 ‘Breda’, produced by Alexe Pavel, funded by our Patreon Campaign.

The Lesser of Two Evils

The reason why the order did not materialize and that this modification was never mass produced or used on the field of battle was that an alternative was found. Halfway through the transformation, General Joaquín García Pallasar, an artillery officer and close friend of Franco, sent a report to Franco’s HQ recommending that the same modifications should be carried out on the German-supplied Panzer I. The request to the Italian delegations was consequently put on hold until the modification on the Panzer I had been done so it could be evaluated and compared to the Italian tank.
On the 2nd of September, General Pallasar notified Lieutenant Colonel Barroso of the Estado Mayor del Generalissimo that the modifications on the CV35 had been carried out and that it was ready to be shown to Franco if he had any interest. Franco was indeed interested and the vehicle was transported to his seat of government in Burgos.

One of two known pictures of the CV35 just after its transformation was complete alongside what are presumably factory workers – Molina Franco & Manrique García, p. 46.
Later that month, the vehicle was taken to Bilbao, where it was enlisted and trialed against the Breda gun modification carried out on the Panzer I, during which the German vehicle proved to be slightly superior. One of the main advantages was that the Panzer I had a turret, whereas the Italian tank did not. It is perhaps important to remember that the Italian tanks did not have much of a reputation in Spain and were given the nicknames ‘lata de sardinas’ (sardine tin) because of their small cramped space and poor armor or ‘topolino’, the Italian name for Mickey Mouse.

Further Testing

Even before the trials took place and probably in the knowledge that the Panzer I conversion would prove more satisfactory, the Italians requested the prototype to be given back on the September 1st with a second order for the return of spare Breda 20mm guns on the December 9th. Once it was given back, presumably in late September or October, the tank was assigned to the Reggruppmaneto Carristi where it was subject to more trials. The conclusions were not positive and three main flaws were found: 1. the increase in the gun’s size within the hull made it uncomfortable for the commander/gunner; 2. the left side visibility of the driver was limited by the increased length of the gun; and 3. There was an imbalance in the vehicle with the left side now weighing 200kg more than the right.
With this in mind, the Italians did not adopt this conversion and the final fate of this prototype is unknown.
After being trialed, it followed operations first at Rudilla (Teruel) on the 9th of March 1938, and later at Tortosa (Tarragona) on the 19th of April in the aftermath of the bloody battle of Teruel and the build-up to the Aragón Offensive.

The other known photo of this modification, presumably taken at the same time as the other. This photo shows Italian troops in the background, denoting that Italy had some role in the modification. Photo: SOURCE.

Legacy

Despite the failure of this tank, it is a fair assessment to say it influenced the development of other tanks. The aforementioned Panzer I ‘Breda’ was a direct successor of this tank and 4 were converted and saw action, though this project faced problems of its own.
Furthermore, Italian Army records of the period talk about another modification with the 20mm Breda, this time mounted on top of a CV33/35 in an improvised ‘rotary top similar to the Panzer I’. This may well be referring to the CCI tipo 1937, which was heavily based upon the CV33/35 and was equipped with that same gun.
Direct correlation with the WWII-era CV35 20mm gun conversion undertaken by the Italians in North Africa is harder to prove and seem highly unlikely. This field conversion consisted of equipping the Solothurn 20 mm Anti-Tank rifle to enable it to counter the lightest Allied vehicles. Initially, the gun was mounted at the top but it was moved into the hull. Unlike the Breda gun, the Solothurn rifle was heavy and had a considerable recoil.

Interesting note on markings

The photos of the CV35 ‘Breda’ show some interesting markings on the side of the hull. These are two white empty parallelograms which do not match up to any of the common markings of these tanks in the Spanish Civil War. However, this is because they are Italian tactical markings that correspond to the 2nd vehicle of the 2nd platoon, 2nd Squadron.

Links, Resources & Further Reading

Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española Teatro de Operaciones de Aragón, Cataluña Y Levante 36/39 Parte I (Valladolid: Alcañiz Fresno’s editores, 2011)
Lucas Molina Franco and José M Manrique García, Blindados Italianos en el Ejército de Franco (1936-1939)(Valladolid: Galland Books, 2009)
Italian Army records of July/August 1938
forum.warthunder.com
blitzkrieg1939-45.foroactivo.com

FIAT CV33/35 ‘Breda’ specifications
Dimensions	3.17 x 1.4 x 1.3 m (10.4×4.59×4.27 ft)
Crew	2 (driver, gunner)
Propulsion	FIAT-SPA CV1 6 cyl, 38 hp
Top speed	40 km/h (25 mph)
Range (road)	125 km (78 miles)
Armament	20 mm Breda M-35 gun
Armor	From 5 to 10 mm (0.2 to 0.39 in)

WW2 Spanish Prototypes

Carro de Combate de Infantería tipo 1937

Post author By Gareth Lynn Montes
Post date January 8, 2019
No Comments on Carro de Combate de Infantería tipo 1937

Nationalist Spain (1937-1938)
Light Tank – 1 Prototype

The Carro de Combate de Infantería tipo 1937, more commonly known as C.C.I. tipo 1937, was one of many Spanish attempts to create an indigenous tank superior to all the available tanks by cannibalising them. However, sometimes over-enthusiasm and a desire for quick results came at the expense of a well-thought-out design.

The ‘Carro de Combate de Infantería tipo 1937’ also known as the ‘CCI tipo 1937’. This photo shows the vehicle factory-fresh, without a coat of paint – Source: Molina Franco & Manrique García (2009), p. 44

Context – The Spanish Civil War in 1937

In mid-July 1936, a group of Spanish Army officers initiated a coup against the democratically elected government of the Second Spanish Republic. They failed in their initial goals and consequently, the country was divided in a civil war fought between the Republicans (also known as the ‘Loyalists’), and the Nationalists (the ‘Rebels’). Soon enough, foreign powers would become involved providing material and in some cases, troops. Italy and Germany came in support of the Nationalist and airlifted the core of their forces from Spanish North Africa onto the Peninsula, whereas the USSR supported the Republic. The Nationalists, led by General Franco, attempted to take Madrid and end the war in November 1936, but the city resisted.

Map showing the progress of the Spanish Civil War in July 1936, March 1937, March-April 1938, and February 1939. Note the Nationalists are in blue and Republicans in purple – Source: Gifex

By 1937, the Nationalists had the upper hand. Beginning in March that year, they commenced the ‘War in the North’, an operation to take over the Republican positions along the north coast. They would be successful in this, with Bilbao falling on June 19th, Santander on August 25th, and Gijón, the last main Republican holdout in the region, on October 21st.

This northern region of Spain was one of the only industrialized regions in the country and it also had important mineral resources. This area had also produced several armored fighting vehicle (AFV) designs over the years, including the Trubia Serie A, The Bilbao Armored Car, and the Trubia-Naval.

In this context, when Nationalist troops took the North, two unrelated tank projects would emerge, the Verdeja, and the CCI tipo 1937.

Genesis

After capturing Bilbao and the Vizcaya region in June 1937, the Nationalist wanted to take advantage of the facilities which came to be at their disposal for the purpose of tank production. One of these facilities was the Sociedad Española de Construcción Naval (SECN), located in Sestao, northern Bilbao. Until the city fell, the factory had been building and repairing Trubia-Naval tanks for the Republicans. Nationalist authorities however, declined to continue the production of this tank given how unreliable and deficient it was. They would, though, use the expertise of the factory workers. For this purpose, a Panzer I, a FIAT-Ansaldo CV.33, and a T-26B, the three most common tanks in the conflict, were taken to Sestao to be studied with the goal of creating a new tank based on the best features of each, although it seems no features of the T-26 were actually adapted. A cursory glance at the Trubia-Naval should make it obvious that it also had some influence, with the rear being almost an identical copy and sharing the same engine. The separate Verdeja project which began a year later would commence in a very similar way.

The CCI tipo 1937 resembled the Trubia-Naval in several ways – Source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 66

The design for the new tank was agreed upon at some point in August-September 1937. On September 15th 1937, the Nationalist Army gave a contract to SECN to build an initial series of 30 tanks, soon after, construction of a prototype began.

Design

Exterior

The tank’s sides consisted of slightly angled plates. To the front, below the turret, to each side were double-hinged-doors for crew access. At the very back of the tank was a ventilation radiator with eight louvres. The rear resembled a Trubia-Naval in appearance. Atop the rear was another radiator to allow the engine fumes to leave the tank. Behind the turret was a hinged hatch to access the engine from the outside. In appearance, the welded turret resembled that of a Renault FT, though the cupola was rather different. The upper frontal plate had a vision slit for the driver on the left and on the right, a position for two machine guns copied from the Italian FIAT CV’s, though on a different side of the vehicle.

Rear view of the CCI tipo 1937, the bit which most resembles the Trubia-Naval – Source: Mortera Pérez (2011), p. 110

Armor was poor overall and was incapable of deflecting 7.92 mm rifle fire. Inferior materials were used for its construction, as initially, chromium nickel steel for the armor was not available. The area where this was produced was still under Republican control. Whilst the exact armor thickness is unspecified, but given the factories experience with AFV production, they would have known that anything under 10mm was totally unsuitable. An educated guess on the armor thickness based on weight and dimensions of the vehicle would indicate that it did not exceed 10-12 mm. The 12mm bottom plate of the CV.33-35 was sufficient enough to withstand 7.92 mm rifle fire, so it can almost certainly be assumed that the armor was of an inferior thickness to this.

Suspension and Tracks

The suspension was copied from the CV, only it was slightly longer. This could have been done by adding links to lengthen the tracks. It consisted of two sets of three bogies and an additional solitary auxiliary wheel at the rear by the idler wheel. There were no return rollers at the top, instead, there was a simple wooden beam holding the track into place.

Side view of the CCI tipo 1937 which shows the the tracks to be almost identical to those of the CV33-35 – Source: Falessi & Pafi

Armament

The main gun, the 20 mm gas-operated Italian Breda M-35, was in the turret. The 20 mm Armor-Piercing (AP) round weighed 147 grams and could penetrate up to 40mm of armor at 250m at a 90º angle of impact. This gun had been used in the joint Spanish-Italian FIAT CV.33/35 ‘Breda’ prototype and the very limited production Panzer I ‘Breda’. The idea to equip the CV and the Panzer I with the Breda gun was to give them the capability to engage the Soviet-supplied T-26 of the Republican forces. Initially, there had been plans to equip the CCI tipo 1937 with a 45 mm main gun similar to that of the T-26, but this did not materialize. This was probably rejected as the turret was not big enough to house it and the gun was not available in large enough numbers. Furthermore, the suspension was probably not adequate enough to absorb the gun’s recoil. The frontal machine gun position housed two Hotchkiss Mod. 1914 7.92 mm machine guns which appear to be magazine fed from above.

Frontal-side view of the CCI tipo 1937 showing its 20mm Breda machine gun main armament and mount for two Hotchkiss machine guns – Source: Mortera Pérez (2011), p. 111

Interior

The hull was divided into three sections: the driving compartment at the front, the fighting compartment in the center, and the engine compartment in the rear. It is not specified how many crew-members the tank had, but it can be assumed that at least three: a driver, a frontal gunner in charge of the dual 7.92 mm machine guns, and a gunner in charge of loading and firing the main gun who was presumably also the commander. The engine was a 6-cylinder MAN 100 hp truck engine as used in the Trubia-Naval which was readily available in numbers in the factory. It is not known if this was a petrol or diesel engine though. The tank had three forward gears with a maximum speed of 24 km/h, and one reverse giving 5.5 km/h. Other mechanical elements of driving were probably taken from the FIAT CV tank.

Tests and Demise

Initial reactions to the prototype by those testing it, in spite of the feeble armor, were very satisfactory. Even in June 1938, by which point the serious deficiency of the CCI tipo 1937’s armor should have been noted, the template for the Bandera de Carros de Combate de la Legión [Eng. The Spanish Legion’s Tank Division] indicated that the unit was to have 30 CCI tipo 1937’s. However, despite the tank having successfully passed most of the tests with flying colors, including firepower, mobility, and obstacle evasion, the Army, by this point realizing the tank’s clear deficiency in regards to its armor, could simply not accept a tank with such thin armor, and thus rejected it.

Furthermore, the Nationalists had, by this time, captured enough Republican T-26’s to make up a capable tank force for the conditions and circumstances of the Spanish Civil War. A few years later, General Joaquín García Pallasar, an artillery officer and close friend of Franco, who had also been very closely involved with the FIAT CV ‘Breda’ project, wrote his reflections on the CCI tipo 1937 project. Writing in August 1940 for the ‘Ejército‘ magazine, he claimed that the tank had not been properly studied by its creators and they put their will to help and create a tank before taking the time to think how best to build it.

Side view of the CCI tipo 1937 – Source: Molina Franco & Manrique García (2009), p. 45

The experience of the CCI tipo 1937 would not be wasted though. Following the rejection of the CCI tipo 1937, SECN decided to build a lightly armored tank destroyer using a similar, but improved chassis and suspension. The Spanish Army showed no interest in this vehicle. After this, SECN took the gun off and presented it as an artillery tractor which was tested by the Spanish Army, though, with the Spanish Civil War ended and the country in ruins, there was no need for military investment.

The Controversy Over Who Built The Tank

Whilst photographic evidence of the tank being tested clearly shows it at the SECN factory in Sestao, it is important to note that according to Artemio Mortera Pérez, Lucas Molina Franco, and José María Manrrique García (three of the leading historians of AFV use in the Spanish Civil War) some Italian publications claim the tank was built by the Italian company of Ansaldo to be sold to Spain. They do not specify which publications make this claim, making their initial claim not stand as strong. However, some older Italian publications, namely, Cesare Falessi and Benedetto Pafi’s Veicoli da combattimento dell’esercito italiano dal 1939 al 1945, make the claim that the vehicle was built in Ansaldo in 1937 and called Trubia. Regardless, this is patently not true.

Interviewed factory workers are adamant that there was no foreign (German or Italian) contribution to the project. However, Colonel Valentino Babini, the commander in charge of the Raggrupamento Carristi of the Corpo Truppe Volontarie [Eng. Tank Regiment of the Volunteer Troop Corp], writes in his documents of an Italian artillery technician supporting the Spanish engineers building the tank, and highlights the fact that the CCI tipo 1937 copied some features from Italian tanks. This is by no means the only controversy between Italian and Spanish claims surrounding tanks during the Spanish Civil War, with the FIAT CV.33/35 ‘Breda’ being a notable example. This shows that alliances are not always as straightforward as it may seem and that tensions always exist.

Conclusion

The CCI tipo 1937 did not provide Nationalist forces with a significant improvement over the T-26’s they had. Its main armament was sufficient enough at the time to deal with Republican armor (including the Soviet T-26, BA-6 and FAI, and Spanish-built vehicles such as the UNL-35 or AAC-1937), but its speed was disappointing for a light tank, and its armor was simply appalling, being easily penetrated by 7.92mm rifle fire. It was a decent idea in principle, just poorly delivered. Although in most aspects superior to the FIAT CV (overall) and Panzer I (firepower and mobility), it could not compete with the T-26, and when the latter became available in sufficient number to the Nationalists, there was no need for a newer tank.

CCI Tipo 37 — Illustration of the ‘Carro de Combate de Infantería tipo 1937’ or ‘CCI tipo 37’, produced by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet (click to enlarge)

Specifications
Dimensions	N/A
Total weight, battle ready	8 tonnes
Crew	3 (Driver, frontal gunner, gunner/loader)
Propulsion	6 cylinder MAN 100 hp
Max speed	24 km/h (14.91 mph)
Armament	1 x 20 mm Italian Breda M-35 2 x 7.92 mm Hotchkiss Mod. 1914 machine guns
Armor	Not specified, unlikely to exceed 10-12 mm
Production	1

Sources

Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Carros de Combate “Trubia” (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 1993)
Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española Teatro de Operaciones de Aragón, Cataluña Y Levante 36/39 Parte I (Valladolid: Alcañiz Fresno’s editores, 2011)
Cesare Falessi and Benedetto Pafi, Veicoli da combattimento dell’esercito italiano dal 1939 al 1945 (Bologna: Intyrama Books, 1976)
Joaquín García Pallasar, “Progresos de la Artillería”, Ejército, August 1940
L. Curami and A. Ceva, La Meccanizzazione Dell’esercito Italiano Dalle Origini al 1943 (1994)
Lucas Molina Franco and José Mª Manrique García, Blindados Españoles en el Ejército de Franco (1936-1939) (Valladolid: Galland Books, 2009)

WW2 Republican Spanish Prototypes

Carro de Combate Ligero para Infanteria Modelo 1936

Post author By Gareth Lynn Montes
Post date January 8, 2019
2 Comments on Carro de Combate Ligero para Infanteria Modelo 1936

Second Spanish Republic (1936)
Light Tank – Paper Project

The Carro de Combate Ligero Para Infantería Modelo 1936, also known as the ‘Trubia L.A. nº1’, is one of the many tanks that were imagined but never delivered. Although it never left the drawing board, it went on to heavily influence the Trubia-Naval, the most heavily produced tank of the Second Spanish Republic.

Original blueprint of the tank from Trubia arms factory showing the side profile of the vehicle. Drawn by Victor Landesa Domenech and Rogelio Areces.

Context – The Landesa Domenech-Areces Partnership

In 1935, Commander Victor Landesa Domenech, an artillery officer attached to the Trubia arms factory in Asturias (Northern Spain) and Rogelio Areces, the Trubia arms factory’s Chief Engineer, teamed up with Captain Carlos Ruíz de Toledo, a Commander in charge of Batería de Carros de Asalto de Artillería [Artillery Tank Battery] in its first engagements during the Rif War, to design what would become Spain’s first indigenous tank on their own initiative . The idea was to design a tank to overcome the major faults of the Renault FT, Spain’s most readily available tank at the time. With increased firepower in an innovative system involving two overlapping, independently moving turrets, each armed with a Hotchkiss M1914 7mm machine gun and marginally better armor and engine power, the prototype improved upon the FT.
The design was deemed a success and a new improved model was ordered; this would be the Trubia Serie A. The main difference of the serial version compared with prototype was a larger size, an additional crew-member, and most importantly, a new suspension system (‘Orion’) and engine acquired in Germany. This system was supposed to improve upon traditional systems in addition to enhancing turning capabilities and minimizing the effects of the tracks on roads. In this integrated track design, the links were suspended from the chassis and held together by a lateral metal wall. This system was designed to prevent the tracks from coming off when maneuvering.

The first serial Trubia Serie A in the factory it was built. Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 8
Four of these tanks were built and tested in 1926. During the tests, deficiencies in the tank (especially in the new suspension system which kept breaking) were noted, and modifications were recommended, with at least one of the tanks being modified and re-tested far more successfully in May 1928. Although there was some interest in the tank, political instability and lack of funding condemned the vehicle.
Despite this setback, Landesa Domenech and Areces would collaborate again and in 1930-32 designed a tractor for military and agricultural use, which they christened ‘tractor Landesa’. This tractor would be pressed into Army service in 1935 following a series of successful trials. It also had a military upgrade which saw service in the October Revolution of 1934 in Asturias and during the Spanish Civil War.
The success of their tractor design (based on the same principles of the Trubia Serie A), prompted the two engineers to design a new light tank which they intended to exhibit to the Army.

Design

The design of the L.A. nº1 owed much to the Landesa tractor and shared many of its features.

External Appearance

It was basically the Landesa tractor but in reverse, with the engine at the back and the crew compartment at the front. The rearmost part had the engine ventilation consisting of eleven or twelve vertical lats in the front grille, with an additional twelve-lat grille placed horizontally on each side tilted slightly inwards. The hull side was angled at 64º-66º and had two large hatches on each side for crew access. The large size in comparison to the rest of the tank would have most certainly affected armor effectiveness.

An original blueprint from the Trubia arms factory showing a face on view of the tank with the turret traversed to the left. Drawn by Victor Landesa Domenech and Rogelio Areces.
The turret was placed atop the hull and consisted of a circular structure with a shallow dome at the top. To the front was the main armament and on each side, there appear to be oval stroboscopes with horizontal turn allowing for continual vision.
The uppermost frontal plate raises some questions. There appears to be both a vision slit on the left and another oval stroboscope on the right. This position would be used only by the driver, so it is difficult to understand why the designers considered two different vision devices. From this plate, the armor extended almost horizontally and then almost vertically creating a slightly angled plate which had a machine gun. Below this, the armor took a rounded shape.

The Carro de Combate Ligero para Infanteria Modelo 1936 compared to an Average height (1.7 meters/ 5 feet 9 inches) person.

Four-angle illustration of the Carro de Combate Ligero para Infanteria Modelo 1936

Both of these illustrations are by Saiful ‘Giganaut’ Adli Azari, funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Armor

The armor on the L.A. nº1 was one of the tank’s most innovative, interesting and distinguishable features. It consisted of conventional armor and composite armor.
The sides and front of the vehicle consisted of an outer layer which was 13mm thick and the inner layer a mere 3mm thick with a 25mm space in between. The rear was angled at 66º whilst the front was angled at 64º. It is unknown if the spaced section of the armor was filled with wood, cotton, sand, glass, or if at all. Due to simplicity, wood would have most likely been used as the filler. This type of armor would have been effective against HE rounds and small arms fire. The rear, top and bottom of the tank were 3mm thick. The turret armor thickness is unspecified. All armor was made from chromium-nickel steel.

Original blueprint from the Trubia arms factory, showing a top-down view of the Carro de Combate Ligero Para Infantería Modelo 1936 as drawn by Victor Landesa Domenech and Rogelio Areces

Armament

The tank was supposed to mount a 40mm gun but there are no details as to which one. However, considering that Landesa Domenech and Areces had intended their previous design (Trubia Serie A) to be equipped with a 40mm Spanish-built modified Ramírez Arellano 40mm infantry gun, it is not too far-fetched to imagine they would consider this gun again. The gun was to have 8º depression and 30º elevation.
To the right of the driver was a 7mm Hotchkiss machine gun.

Body-on-Frame and Tracks

Each track consisted of a long ellipse-shaped structure formed by two parallel steel sheets and was covered by a mudguard. Between the two sheets, there was a track for the track rollers to travel through. Between the steel sheets, there was some sort of drum brake.
Unlike in most other vehicles, the track rollers were integrated into the tracks and moved in unison with the track links along the tracks set between the two sheets.
This was an updated copy of the one on the Trubia Serie A and Landesa tractor, albeit, smaller.

Interior

The driving and combat compartment housed the driver, who sat at the front, and the gunner/loader, who was positioned behind him. Given the small size of the tank, the gunner/loader would have had to sit or crouch when inside the tank. Behind them was the engine compartment which housed the engine, an 80hp 6 cylinder MAN D-0530 engine. This engine was supposed to give the tank a top speed of 42 km/h. The gearbox had 3 forward gears and one reverse.

What Became of the Project?

Although the ascension of José María Gil-Robles to the Ministry of War in May 1935 revitalized interest in tank development, this would not last, and with the leftist Popular Front taking office in February 1936, the appetite would be satisfied for the time being.
The design did, however, resurface a few months later in August 1936 in the shape of a new almost identical tank, the Trubia-Naval. As such, this paper design could almost be considered its genesis.

Conclusion

How effective this tank would have been in the early stages of the Spanish Civil War is impossible to tell. Armament-wise it would have been the most powerful available and its speed was superior to any other Spanish tank at the time.
Nevertheless, there were some major flaws in the design as later demonstrated by the Trubia-Naval. The experimental suspension system was outdated and proved not to work, as its complexity meant it had a tendency to break. The armor, although innovative, had not been tested and what results it may have had in test conditions can only be speculated. The tank was probably too small and the crew was overburdened. Nonetheless, the design remains a brave and courageous attempt to modernize Spain’s armed forces and avoid dependence on foreign tanks.

Trubia Naval specifications
Dimensions	3.55 x 1.85 x 1.7 m (11.65 x 6.07 x 5.58 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	5.5 tonnes
Crew	2 (Driver/frontal gunner and Gunner/loader)
Propulsion	6 cylinder MAN D-0530 80hp
Max speed	42 km/h (26.1 mph)
Armament	40mm main gun
Armor	Outer plate 13mm; space between plates 25mm, inner plate 3mm

Sources

WW1 French Armored Cars WW1 Spanish Armor

Blindado Schneider-Brillié

Post author By Gareth Lynn Montes
Post date December 20, 2018
6 Comments on Blindado Schneider-Brillié

Schneider-Brillié ‘nº15’, Spain’s first armored vehicle, illustrated by Mr. C. Ryan

France/Kingdom of Spain (1910-1915)
Armored Car – 2 Built

Not long after the invention of the automobile, the concept was adapted and put to use for military objectives, first for the transport of troops and supplies, and later, when equipped with armor and weapons, for fighting purposes. One of the first examples, dating from before the Great War, was the French Schneider-Brillié, developed from a Parisian bus, and used by the Spanish army in Morocco.

A postcard of the Schneider P2-4000 bus on which the armored car was based – Source: Photography on the net

Context – A Vehicle for Morocco

Following defeat by the United States in the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the loss of its Caribbean and Pacific colonies, Spain’s colonial attentions shifted to North Africa. Colonial tensions between Britain, France, and Germany had led to Spain being given part of North Morocco, commonly known as the Rif, which added to the small enclaves it already had in the region as part of the Treaty of Algeciras of 1906. Soon after, rich minerals were discovered in the area, and French and Spanish companies rushed to exploit these riches and began to build railways to connect the mines and quarries to the coastal ports.

This aroused local opposition and, on July 9th 1909, a series of assassinations of Spanish workers and citizens in the area began. In response, Spain declared war, and thus began the Melilla War (July-December 1909). Initially, Spain responded by sending reservists, which created problems at home, such as the social unrest during la Semana Trágica de Barcelona, in which 78 people died and over 500 were injured or wounded. By the end of November 1909, Spain would win the war, but would do so unconvincingly. After a few more concessions and the creation of the Spanish protectorate in Morocco, war would break out again in June 1911.

The first quarter of the Twentieth century saw world-wide attempts to adapt vehicles for military use and Spain was not going to be left behind.

In March 1909, two unarmored Schneider-Brillié trucks were bought by the Spanish Army from the French Schneider company following a Royal Decree in November 1908. This purchase was part of a plan to buy vehicles for the artillery section of the army, in which two S.A.G. trucks and a Berliet car were also bought for the total sum of 160,000 pesetas. The two vehicles were given to the Comisión de Experiencias de Artillería [Eng. Artillery Testing Commission] and were given ‘Artillería nº4’ and ‘Artillería nº5’ as their number-plates. The two vehicles may have been transferred to either Ceuta or Melilla during the Melilla War, and there may have been a third unarmored Brillié bought in 1909.

A Suitable Candidate

In 1909, with views to acquire a suitable vehicle for the ongoing war in Melilla, a report was commissioned through the Real Orden Circular (R.O.C.) de 16 de Febrero [Eng. Order with Royal grant] by the Comisión de Experiencias de Artillería [Eng. Artillery Experiences Commission]. The report studied seven vehicle proposals from different European companies including: Armstrong Whitworth, Hotchkiss, Maudslay Motor Company, Rheinische Metallwaren und Maschinenfabrik (RMM), Schneider-Brillié, Süddeutsche Automobilfabrik Gaggenau (SAG), and Thornycroft. In the end, the Schneider proposal was recommended.

By the end of the year, the purchase was authorized by the king, Alfonso XIII, and a budget was approved on December 11th 1909 despite the fact that the Melilla War, the conflict for which the vehicle was being purchased, was about to end. An initial example cost 33,000 French Francs (27,000 pesetas) and was delivered by train to the border city of Irún on June 20th, 1909, subsequently being moved to the Escuela Central de Tiro [Eng. shooting range school] of Madrid on 30th. The reason for the delay in the delivery of the single example was that it was the first order for this vehicle Schneider had received and so they did not have the experience building it.

The vehicle was given ‘Aut. M. nº15’ as its number-plate and between July and December 1910 it was trialed as part of the Brigada Automovilista [Eng. Automobile Brigade]. These trials included several on-road and off-road trips to Segovia, over 70km (~45 miles) away, trasversing the 1,858 m (6,096 ft) high Puerto de Navacerrada. The results during the trials were so satisfactory that halfway through, in October, the purchase of a second example was authorized. However, for no apparent reason, the contract worth 32,500 French Francs would not be signed until March 3rd 1911 and the vehicle, given ‘Aut. M. nº19’ as its number-plate, would not arrive in Madrid until September 23rd 1911.

‘Nº15’ being transported atop a rail truck. This photo was most likely taken in Morocco – Source: Panzer Net Forum

Design

The two examples had slight differences in the exterior, but the interiors were much the same. Both were built over the chassis of a Schneider P2-4000 bus, which was a common sight on the Parisian streets at the time.

Inside, there were three different sections within two compartments. A frontal section divided into two parts. The frontmost was reserved for the driver and the officer in command and the engine, with a fighting and troop transport section directly behind it. At the rear, there was a compartment for ammunition and other loads with a total weight capacity of up to 1,500kg, though some other sources state that as much as 2,500kg-3,000kg.

The fighting section had four wide ‘letterbox’ hatches on each side at two different levels from which the soldiers inside could fire with rifles or machine guns. There was an additional hatch on each side of the driver’s section plus two frontal ones. These were mainly for the driver and commander to know in which direction they were going, though, they could have also been used to fire from if necessary. Above all these sections was a hinged-three-panel roof on each side, allowing the vehicle to be opened in the North African heat and providing another firing option. In the middle section there were benches on either side for the troops to sit on whilst on the move, but these could also be folded during combat operations.

Armor-wise, 5-6 mm steel shield plates covered the original chassis and were supposed to offer protection against 8 mm Lebel Model 1886 rifle bullets (the basic French infantry weapon at the onset of the Great War) from a distance of 148 m or further.

The vehicle had a 4-cylinder 40 hp Brillié engine with 800-1,000 rpm with a bore of 125 mm and a stroke of 140 mm and being able to deliver 40 brake hp. The gearbox had three forward gears and a reverse one. At 1000 rpm top speed in first gear, the Schneider-Brillié could move at a maximum of 5.65km/h, 11.3km/h in second gear, and 20.2km/h in third gear. The fuel tanks held up to 100 liters and were fed with petrol or benzene (a coal-tar product blended with petrol to be used as fuel). Without a payload, the car used 35-40 liters of fuel to travel 100 km, whilst with a payload, 73-77 liters were needed to travel the same distance.

Both vehicles were initially unarmed, but, prior to being sent to Morocco, they were equipped each with two 7 mm Vickers machine guns adapted to Spanish cartridges. Photographic evidence would suggest that the machine guns did not sit on any fixed mounting point, but were kept inside and moved around depending on the situation.

The four wheels were made out of wood with solid rubber tires.

The vehicle weighed 5.9 tonnes, which, along with a maximum payload of 3.45 tonnes, resulted in a combined weight of 9.35 tonnes. The pressure on the front wheels was 3.15 tonnes whilst the back wheels bore 6.2 tonnes. The wheels had a diameter of 94 mm and were equipped with covers, with the two on the front being removable.

Another photo of ‘nº15’. This photo shows the Vickers machine gun being fired from a rear facing ‘letter-box’. This would probably be one of the least effective firing positions given that gun depression would be severely limited given the length of the vehicle – Source: Panzer Net Forum

The principal differences were on the outside. Although both were covered all around by a 5-6 mm thick steel plate, enough to provide defense from Riffian rifle fire, the way these plates were laid varied slightly.

‘Nº 15’s’ front consisted of two parts, a straight plate where the radiator grille could be found and a second plate reaching the full height of the vehicle at a ~45º angle, making it slightly taller than ‘nº19’. The second example, ‘nº19’, had a front consisting of three parts: a grille plate very similar to that of ‘nº15’, a second plate at quite a pronounced (~15º) inwards inclination, and finally, a 90º plate all the way to the top with hinged holes for the pilot and commander to view from.

In addition, it seems that from the very beginning, ‘nº19’ had three headlamps at its front, whilst ‘nº15’ had had them removed by the time it arrived in Morocco or had them removed whilst being transported. The two on either side were most likely acetylene type headlamps, whilst the middstop lampas a movable stoplamp which would have been very useful in counter-insurgency operations.

Given the differences, in some sources, ‘nº15’ is described as Schneider-Brillié 1st Type and ‘nº19’as Schneider-Brillié 2nd Type. Furthermore, the vehicles are sometimes named Schneider-Brillié M1912, which would make sense given Spanish armored vehicles nomenclature between 1910 and 1930 (as for example ‘Camiones Protegidos Modelo 1921 or M1921/M-21).

The most famous picture of ‘nº15’. In this picture, it is equipped with the front headlamps and a horn. The ‘letter-boxes’ are open allowing for rifle and machine gun fire. This picture was apparently taken in the Madrid military camp of Campamento in the winter of 1910 or 1911 – Source: Villatoro

Similarly, the most famous picture of ‘nº19’ with the different style front. Note that this version lacks a horn – Source: Marin Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 13

Operations in Morocco

In January 1912, with the new war in Morocco having been going on since the previous June, both vehicles were sent to Morocco, arriving in Melilla on the 17th. ‘Nº15’ was assigned to the Primera Brigada Automovilística [Eng. First Automobile Brigade] and ‘nº19’ to the Segunda Brigada Automovilística [Eng. Second Automobile Brigade].

‘Nº15’ after it arrived in the port of Melilla surrounded by many curious onlookers. Note the headlamps and horn are missing, as they may have been removed for transport – Source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 13

Both were used for protecting camps, surveillance, convoy escort, transport of wounded troops, and for offensive combat operations, as the circumstances dictated. On January 20th, ‘nº15’ went on an expedition towards Nador, 16 km outside Melilla, and three days later, on the 23rd, it would go to Zeluán. Unfortunately, more details about their use are unknown.

In October 1912, ‘nº15’ was assigned to a health column to evacuate injured soldiers.

Their operational use in Morocco would be of historical significance, as it was one of the first uses of an automobile-like armored car in warfare.

At the end of the Kert Campaign, just before the start of the Great War, both were taken to Ceuta. In 1915, ‘nº15’ was stripped of its armor and used as a normal cargo lorry. However, later on, it would be given new armor. The other vehicle, ‘nº19’, was taken to Tetuán, in northernmost Morocco, to be used as a mobile fort, before being taken back to the Escuela Central de Tiro in Madrid where it was presumably scrapped.

Local North African males pose next to ‘nº15’. The photo was probably taken in or around Melilla in winter 1912 – Source: Marín Gutiérrez & Mata Duaso, p. 15

A Third Vehicle?

There have long been rumours of the existence of additional Schneider-Brilliés with the Spanish forces. Some of these can be dismissed as the source has mistaken the armored version with the unarmored one. In 1914, a local newspaper in the Rif, reported that 24 more vehicles had been purchased. There is no evidence that this was the case. However, it is likely that there had been negotiations with Schneider, but advent of the Great War made the purchase unavailable.

According to part-time historians Marín Gutiérrez and Mata Duaso, after the military defeat against Rifian forces at Annual in the summer of 1921, the Spanish High Commissioner in Morocco, General Berenguer, requested 10 more armored vehicles for convoy escort duties. The Spanish Ministry of War contacted Schneider, who offered an upgraded version of the Schneider-Brillié. This new version mainly differed from the older models in that it incorporated a toothed chain on the posterior wheels to imrpove traction.

One prototype was purchased for 55,750 Pesetas and arrived in the Escuela Central de Tiro on March 27 1922. The evaluation found that despite the increased price, the vehicle offered no notable improvements over the previous models and no more vehicles were purchased. The fate of this singular prototype is unknown.

Conclusion

The Schneider-Brillié proved to be highly effective in the North African conflict and would motivate the adoption of more armored cars in the following decade. Although the armored car was a relatively new invention, it was here to stay, not only with the Spanish armed forces, but around the world. However, it was not without flaws. It was a crude design and not built for a conflict in North Africa. The vehicle’s plans stipulated that 14 crewmember and passengers could be carried, but the desert heat made this impossible. In addition, the vehicle’s height gave it a very high center of gravity, making it very prone to toppling over, though it seems this never happened. Nevertheless, the Schneider-Brillié was crucial to the history of armored fighting vehicles in Spain and warrants recognition as such.

Illustration of the Schneider-Brillié ‘nº15’, Spain’s first armored vehicle.

Illustration of the Schneider-Brillié ‘nº19’. Both illustrations by Mr. C. Ryan, funded by our Patron Golum through our Patreon Campaign.

Specifications
Dimensions	6 x 4 x 2.25 m (19.68 x 13.12 x 7.38 ft)
Total weight	9.35 tons
Crew	2 (commander; driver) + up to 12 passengers
Propulsion	40 hp Brillié
Speed on-road	20.2 km/h (12.55 mph)
Range	100 km (62.14 miles)
Armament	2 x 7mm Vickers machine gun adapted to Spanish cartridges
Armor	5-6 mm (0.19 – 0.23 in)
Total Production	2

Sources

Anon., ‘Die firma Schneider & Co.’ Allgemeine Automobil Zeitung No. 15 (13 April 1913), pp. 70-71 [special thanks to Leander Jobse for finding this source]

Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española Teatro de Operaciones de Andalucía y Centro 36/39 (Valladolid: Alcañiz Fresno’s editores, 2017)

B.T. White, Mechanized Warfare in Color. Tanks and other Armored Fighting Vehicles 1900-1918 (London: Bradford Press, 1970)

Francisco Marín Gutiérrez & José Mª Mata Duaso, Los Medios Blindados de Ruedas en España: Un Siglo de Historia (Vol. I) (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 2002)

Javier de Mazarrasa, La Máquina y la Historia Nº13 Los Carros de Combate en la Guerra de España 1936-1939 (Vol. 1º) (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 1998)

Juan Carlos Caballero Fernández de Marcos, “La Automoción en el Ejército Español Hasta la Guerra Civil Española” Revista de Historia Militar No. 120 (2016), pp. 13-50

Manuel P. Villatoro, ‘«Schneider-Brillié», el primer «autobús» blindado del Ejército Español que luchó en Marruecos’, ABC, 12 May 2014, Historia Militar.

WW2 Republican Spanish Tanks

Trubia-Naval

Second Spanish Republic/Autonomous Basque State (1936-1937)
Light Tank/Tractor – 12-45 Built (Light Tank), 2-3 Built (Tractor)

War often creates a desperate situation in which second-rate options are pressed into service. In the world of AFV’s, these may be old designs which resurface when war is on the doorstep. One such example is the Trubia-Naval produced and deployed by the Republican Army of the North during the Spanish Civil War.

Context – A Divided Spain

After the failed General’s coup of July 17th-18th 1936, Spain descended into civil war. The main fighting force of the rebellious Generals (the Nationalist) was in the Spanish colonies of North Africa and was airlifted to peninsular Spain by the German and Italian air forces. Once they gathered with other rebellious forces in Andalucía, they advanced north towards the Republic’s capital, Madrid.
In the central north Spanish plateau, the rebels triumphed with a force made up of Carlist and Falangist militiamen. This meant that the industrial heartlands of the Basque Country and Asturias was cut-off from the main Republican territory.
On October 6th 1936, the Republican Courts (Parliament/Congress) enacted provisions for a statue of autonomy giving the Basque region quasi-de facto independence.
The Partido Nacionalista Vasco (PNV) [Basque Nationalist Party] leader, José Antonio Aguirre, would became ‘Lendakari’ [President] and also took on the Ministry of Defense portfolio.
Given their isolation, the autonomous Basque state created its own army and navy. In the state of war, the Basque military authorities considered building tanks and artillery tractors for their armed forces.

Digging in the Past

The first project to create an indigenous Spanish tank design dated from 1935. Commander Victor Landesa Domenech, an artillery officer attached to the Trubia arms factory in Asturias (Northern Spain), Rogelio Areces, the Trubia arms factory’s Chief Engineer, and Captain Carlos Ruíz de Toledo, a Commander in charge of Batería de Carros de Asalto de Artillería [Artillery Tank Battery] in its first engagements during the Rif War, teamed up to design a tank for the Spanish Army on their own initiative and financed out of their own pockets. The prototype and the serial production version, the Trubia Serie A, would closely resemble the Renault FT, what was considered to be the superior tank in Spain at the time. However, there were some differences. They had improved firepower in an innovative system involving two overlapping turrets with independent movement, each armed with a Hotchkiss M1914 7mm machine gun, a larger size, an additional crew-member (loader) and marginally thicker armor and engine power. It also included an innovative ‘Orion’ suspension system, which was supposed to improve upon traditional systems, in addition to enhancing turning capabilities and minimizing the effects of the tracks on roads. In this integrated track design, the links were suspended from the chassis and held together by a lateral metal wall. This system was designed to prevent the tracks from coming off when maneuvering. Four of these vehicles and a prototype were built with the former seeing service up to the Spanish Civil War.

The first serial Trubia Serie A in the factory it was built. Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 8
Landesa Domenech and Areces continued to work together designing a tractor for military use known as the Tractor Landesa [Landesa tractor]. Following a series of trials, 9 would be bought by the Army. They also designed an armored and armed upgrade. Both versions saw service in the Spanish Civil War.
Subsequent to their tractor success, Landesa Domenech and Areces designed a new light tank concept intending it to be used by the Spanish Army. The Carro de Combate Ligero Para Infantería Modelo 1936 as it was known would only be a paper project but it would serve as inspiration for the Trubia-Naval. The main features of this paper tank were: a small size; 2 crewmen; a 80hp engine; and a mix of composite and conventional armor. The sides and front of the vehicle were the composite element of the armor, with the outer layer being 13mm thick and the inner layer a mere 3mm thick. The space between plates was 25mm thick and was most likely filled by wood. The rear, top and bottom of the tank were 3mm thick; a 40mm main gun; and, an improved and smaller version of the suspension used on the Trubia Serie A.

Original blueprints from the Trubia arms factory of the side, top, and front of the Carro de Combate Ligero Para Infantería Modelo 1936 as drawn by Victor Landesa Domenech and Rogelio Areces in which the tank’s key features can be distinguished. Note the striking resemblance to the Trubia-Naval.

A Tank Requirement

The situation in the north of Spain for the Republic in the Summer of 1936 was dire. The Nationalist troops of General Mola (mostly militiamen) were reinforced with troops from General Franco’s Army of Africa and planned to cut the northern regions loyal to the Republic off from the French border, through which tanks and planes were being delivered. At the same time, Republican forces tried repeatedly to take Oviedo (Asturias), which, with its history of revolutionary activities, had surprisingly supported the coup, whilst simultaneously fending off Nationalist troops attacking from the west.
Given this situation, in August 1936, Captain Ignacio Cuartero Larrea was sent to Bilbao (Basque Country) from the Trubia arms factory to discuss the possibility of the production of war materiel for the Asturias Front. Cuartero Larrea was experienced in tank design as he had participated in the construction of the Trubia Serie A.
The Basque authorities convinced Cuartero Larrea to stay in Bilbao (which by October was the seat of government of the Autonomous Basque State) to direct the construction of war materiel, and offered him the installations of Sociedad Española de Construcciones Navales (SECN) [Spanish Society of Naval Constructions] to carry out his task.
Although SECN primarily focused on naval industry, it had, in the years leading up to the Civil War, been building SOMUA lorries and buses under license in its Sestao factory. More importantly, SECN also built the Bilbao Modelo 1932 armored cars, the most advanced pre-Civil War Spanish AFV design. Cuartero Larrea returned to Trubia arms factory with José Rufo Galárraga, the Chief Engineer at SECN, to study the vehicles and documents available there.
After some deliberation, they chose the blueprints of the Carro de Combate Ligero Para Infantería Modelo 1936 to take back to Bilbao.

Photo of the factory assembly line at the SECN in Sestao showing a line of Trubia-Navals being built. The first two, at least, have the driving mechanisms facing the engine, indicating that they are the tractor variant. Photo: SOURCE

Design

The Trubia Naval would be almost a direct copy of the blueprints from Trubia.

External Appearance

The rearmost part of the vehicle had the engine ventilation consisting of a twelve-lat vertical grille, with an additional four lat grille mounted horizontally on each side (unlike the blueprints, which had twelve lats). Those on the side were at a slight inwards angle.
The side hull, which was angled at 65º, had two large hatches on each side for crew access with a small loophole in the upper center. The large size in comparison to the rest of the tank would have most certainly affected armor effectiveness. The side went down and joined the mudguards which covered the entirety of the top tracks.
The turret was placed atop the hull and consisted of a circular structure with a shallow dome covering it welded to it at the top. To the front was the main armament and on each side there appears to be oval-shaped stroboscopes with horizontal turn allowing for continual vision.
The uppermost frontal plate consisted of two hinged plates opening outwards. The right plate had a headlamp, whilst the left one had a vision slit for the driver. From this plate, the armor extended almost horizontally and then almost vertically creating a slightly angled plate which had a machine gun. Below this, the armor took a rounded shape.
The composite armor of the blueprints was replaced by more traditional and simpler riveted chromium-nickel steel plates which were between 8mm and 16mm thick, though exact details are not known.

Armament

The 40mm armament from the blueprints was dropped due to unavailability of guns and was replaced with a machine gun.
The first model of the Trubia-Naval was equipped with two Lewis 7.7mm machine guns which had a cooling jacket, giving the appearence they were a larger caliber gun. There was a large supply of Lewis guns and ammunition as a Soviet ship carrying 200 of these machine guns had docked in Bilbao port on October 1st 1936. The rest of the series would be equipped with two Degtyaryova Tankovy (DT) 7.62mm machine guns. The DT was already carried by the Soviet-supplied BA-6’s and FAI armored cars. This gas-operated machine gun was simple, robust, and ideal for compact spaces, though it had a complex feeding system. The secondary frontal machine gun had limited use due to its position and having to be operated by the driver. The tank carried 9,600 rounds in total.

Series of photos of the first Trubia-Naval built by Sociedad Española de Construcciónes Navales in Sestao. The attention to detail in its construction and features and it being equipped with two Lewis 7.7 machine guns covered with a protector to give the appearance it was armed with a cannon all point to its being the first-built Trubia-Naval. Note the triangle denoting the manufacturer on the side. Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 65-66.

Body-on-frame and tracks

Although it had proved to be outdated and ineffective, the ‘Orion’ suspension system was used due to the urgency of the situation.
Each track consisted of a long ellipse-shaped structure formed by two parallel steel sheets and was covered by a mudguard. Between the two sheets, there was a track for the track rollers to travel through. Between the steel sheets, there were drum brakes slightly modified from previous designs.
Unlike in most other vehicles, the track rollers were integrated into the tracks and moved in unison with the track links along the tracks set between the two sheets.
This was an updated copy of the one on the Trubia Serie A and Landesa tractor, albeit, smaller.

Engine and Driving Mechanisms

In the rear of the tank was the engine compartment. Most tanks were equipped with 6 cylinder MAN engines with between 60hp and 100hp, which were plentiful in the Sestao factory where the Trubia-Navals were being produced. These engines had their limitations because of their low elasticity and high revolutions per minute, which meant that with any minor brake, power was lost. It is also stated that two Trubia-Naval were equipped with 6 cylinder Chicago engines and one had a 4 cylinder Chicago engine.
The gearbox, which was situated beneath the driver’s seat at the front, had three forward gears (40km/h, 30km/h, and 10km/h) and one reverse (10km/h).
The vehicle was driven with a steering wheel which activated the brakes and clutch. However, according to Galárraga, some of the tanks were operated by means of two direction levers.

Photo of the unarmored chassis of a Trubia-Naval being driven around the SECN factory in Sestao. Photo: SOURCE

Crew Positions and Responsibilities

The driving and combat compartment at the front of the tank housed the driver, who sat at the front, and the gunner/loader, who was positioned behind him. Given the small size of the tank, the gunner/loader would have had to sit or crouch when inside the tank. The driver also operated the frontal machine gun. Which one of the two was the commander was unspecified.

A Trubia-Naval being tested with the driver’s head emerging out of one of the enormous side doors. Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 67.

Photo of three unarmed Trubia-Naval being tested in the area surrounding the SECN factory. Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 67.

Name

One of the most controversial issues surrounding the Trubia-Naval is its name. The factory committee which had built them insisted the tank be named Tanque Constructora Naval [Naval Constructora Tank] in homage to the company building it, but Cuartero Larrea gave the name Areces-Trubia instead – Areces in honor of Rogelio Areces, one of the tank’s designers (Landesa Domenech had defected to the Nationalist, so his name was not an option), and Trubia after the arms factory from where the vehicle’s blueprints originated (conveniently, Cuartero Larrea worked at said factory).
The disagreement even reached Lendakari Aguirre, and it was decided that the Chief Engineer at the Trubia factory, Constantino Alzueta Estrada (who had been involved in the Trubia projects since 1925), should check the blueprints and assess the resemblance. Seeing the obvious similarities, a compromise was met, and the official name given was Trubia construido en la Constructora Naval [Trubia built at the Constructora Naval], with ‘Trubia-Naval’ being used for short. However, most tanks only had the Naval crest and shield on them. Again, despite all this, most official documents referred to them simply as Trubia.

The shield on Trubia-Naval no.12 which was captured by Nationalists in April 1936. Despite the fact that an agreement had been reached to acknowledge the involvement of both the Trubia arms factory and SECN in the design and construction of the vehicle, only SECN is represented. Note on the sides of the triangle the initials of Unión General de Trabajadores (U.G.T.), Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (C.N.T.), and Solidaridad de los Trabajadores Vascos (S.T.V.), all of which were trade unions. Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 88.
Some sources (such as F.C. Albert, Carros de Combate y Vehículos Blindados de la Guerra 1936-1939 (Barcelona: Borras Ediciones, 1980)) name the vehicle Carro Euskadi [Basque Tank], but this name was never used during the Civil War and is incorrect.
A nickname often associated with the Trubia-Naval is ‘tanque de juguete’ [toy tank] due to its small size.
To add to the confusion, when Trubia-Naval tanks were captured by Nationalist forces, their official documents sometimes referred to them as Carros Rusos [Russian [sic] Tanks].
Another point of interest is that Republican and Basque documents made a distinction between two models of the tank, Modelo 1936 and Modelo 1937. Artemio Mortera Pérez (one of the higher regarded authors on AFV usage in the Spanish Civil War and author of a book dedicated to the Trubia family), theorizes that there is a simple explanation to this.
The Modelo 1936 are the first ones built in Sestao, whilst the Modelo 1937 were a never completed improved version adapted following a series of complaints from Captain Luis Basterretxea de Arendia (Commander of the Trubia-Naval company of the Euskadi Light Tank Battalion in March 1937) and his men.
A last clarification to make is that the Trubia Serie A was not a prototype to this tank.
That is not to say that the two are unrelated. As already explained, the Trubia-Naval was based on and mostly developed from the Carro de Combate Ligero Para Infantería Modelo 1936 designed by Victor Domenech and Areces. This vehicle was influenced by another of the duo’s designs, the Landesa tractor. Landesa Domenech and Areces had also collaborated together to develop the Trubia Serie A. All these vehicles (the Trubia-Naval only partly) were designed with the intention that it be the new light tank for the Spanish Army. A common design feature was the ‘Orion’ suspension system which continued to be used from 1926 to 1937.

A camouflaged Trubia Naval of the Republican forces in the Basque country, 1937.

An unarmed Trubia Naval in hypothetical Nationalist colors. Most captured tanks had the red and yellow Spanish flag painted around the turret. In some cases a St. Andrew cross was painted on the top of the turret for air recognition. The machine guns on this model have been removed and it would have mostly been used for towing, as its combat value was minimal. The one photo that exists of one of these tanks in Nationalist service shows that it indeed had the red and yellow flag painted around the turret, but that it did not have the black St. Andrew cross on top, even though a white background had been painted on. Additionally, an engineer unit emblem is painted on the side in the photo, which is not included in this particular illustration.

Both of these illustrations were produced by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.

Numbers Built

Probably the biggest controversy and mystery surrounding these tanks is the total number produced.
The original documents from Departamento de Ferrocarriles de la Naval de Sestao [Naval of Sestao Railway Department], the department within SECN in charge of building the tanks, were lost, a fact that renders an accurate estimation of production almost impossible.
The original idea had been to create an initial series of 20 tanks and 2 tractors [see tractor section below].
Commander Casiano Guerrica-Echeverría, Chief of Industrias Movilizadas de Vizcaya [Mobilized Industries of Vizcaya] (a conglomerate of industrial companies from the Vizcaya province), estimated that only about 12 of the tanks were ever actually built.
When Bilbao was captured by Nationalist forces on July 21st 1937, the documents of the Republican Army of the North were confiscated. Among them was the organization of the Tank Battalion, which was made up of 2 companies of Renault FT’s, 1 company of gun-equipped armored cars, and 3 companies of Trubia-Navals. Each company consisted of three sections with five tanks in each, 15 tanks per company, 45 tanks in total. The document also stated that the battalion had to be ready in Corrales de Buelna (in the middle of Cantabria, northern Spain) before June 25th 1937. This means that the document was referring to available vehicles rather than a template of intended vehicles. However, Mortera Pérez, is skeptical. He does not think that that many tanks were ever built and believes the numbers on the document are a misprint or were compiled with erroneous information. It is also important to note that in a document of listing captured materiel compiled by the Nationalist General Luis Orgaz Yoldi on September 10th 1937, it states that 20 ‘Trubias’ and Renault FT were available. The exact composition of these 20 tanks is hard to tell. The truth will most likely never be known.

Three Trubia-Naval at the grounds of the SECN factory in Sestao with factory workers. Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 67.

The Tractor Version

In addition to tanks, the Basque authorities had also shown interest in artillery tractors. The tractor version was an unarmored and unarmed Trubia-Naval but with some modifications. Being a variant of the Trubia-Naval, it also resembled the Landesa tractor.
The driver’s position and that of his assistant were turned around and were now facing the engine, as in the Landesa tractor. Most of the driving mechanisms were relocated. In contrast to the Landesa tractor, seats for passengers were added in the rear.
This tractor is often referred to as Landesa-Naval, but this is a conventional denomination, and as already explained, Landesa Domenech had joined the Nationalist forces. The full name of this tractor was Tractor Landesa fabricado por la Constructora Naval [Landesa Tractor built by Constructora Naval].

Photo of inside the SECN factory showing 4 Renault FT, two improvised armored cars and a Landesa-Naval at the rear right. Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 80.

Photo often incorrectly described as a Landesa tractor. The background with the white walls is the Naval installations in Sestao denote that it was built in Bilbao, not Trubia. Furthermore, unlike the Landesa tractor, it has seats for passengers in the rear. Photo: SOURCE

Operational Life

There is not much detail about the operational use of the Trubia-Naval, but there is plenty of information about the campaigns in which it participated.
The first Trubia-Navals were probably ready by January-February 1937, and four were most likely sent to Asturias to take part in the last major offensive there in February. Given that there is no further information about these, it can be assumed that they were destroyed.
On March 23rd 1937, the Euskadi Light Tank Battalion was formed and included a Trubia-Naval company under the command of Captain Luis Basterretxea de Arendia. The Trubia-Naval were numbers 7, 8, 9, 11, and 13 and were given to their crews for training on March 29th. On April 5th, the Battalion Commander, Captain Carlos Tenorio Cabanillas, compiled a report with complaints about the tank, which included: the low engine power, the insufficient track grip to the ground, the fragility of the clutch, the low height of the mudguards over the ground, and the small and uncomfortable space inside. These complaints were noted and the recommendations were adopted for a new improved version of the tank, the Modelo 1937, though exactly how is not known.
On that same day (April 5th), the Trubia-Naval would see combat on the Urquiola road destroying a Nationalist ‘tiznao’ (an improvised armored car) and later taking a hill defended by the Condor Legion and capturing a car. On the 7th, No. 12 was lost to the Nationalists in Barazar. On the 27th, due Nationalist advance, the Trubia-Navals retreated to Durango/Yurreta, 26km from Bilbao, where they were reinforced with BA-6 armored cars. In Yurreta, they covered the infantry retreat and BA-6 assault on the Guernica road, before they themselves retreated.

Nationalist troops belonging to 51 Tabor de Tetuán posing atop the captured Trubia-Naval nº12 in Barazar. Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 87.
Throughout May, the Trubia-Naval were divided up and sent to cover different infantry retreats in the fallback to Bilbao.
On June 3rd, several Trubia-Naval with infantry support assaulted Peña Lemona and managed to retake the crag, though this resulted in 5 crewmen being wounded and the unit being taken to Algorta (north of Bilbao) for replenishment. By the 17th, they were back in action again covering a retreat. A day later, the general retreat was ordered and the Trubia-Naval returned to Bilbao to defend the city center whilst the city was being evacuated before the impending Nationalist entry into the city on the 19th. The Trubia-Navals would not be captured though and they retreated towards Santander.

Two photos of the same Trubia-Naval with Basque militiamen in Larrauri, north of Bilbao. In the second photo, the militiamen are posing for the camera. Note the box on the rear of the tank. Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 91-94.

The spoils of war following the Vizcaya Campaign. The photo shows two Somua-Naval armored cars, a Soviet BA-6 and the Trubia-Naval captured by the Nationalist at Barazar on October 7th. Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 107.
At the beginning of July, all available Trubia-Navals were sent to Laredo, the HQ of the Tank Regiment of the Army of the North. Initially, there were plans to send 11 to Noreña (Asturias) to take part in an offensive, but they were never sent and the offensive did not take place. By August 6th, the Trubia-Naval were incorporated into the Republican Army as the entire Basque region (and consequently the Autonomous Basque State) had fallen. In all, only one Trubia-Naval had been lost since March in the whole of the Vizcaya Campaign.

A Trubia-Naval with Republican troops somewhere in Vizcaya. Note how big the side doors were. Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 88.
Back in June, with Bilbao about to fall, it was planned to move tank production to Trubia. On the 15th, the order was given to build a Trubia-Naval Modelo 1937 in the Trubia arms factory, with a second order on July 4th demanding 9 be built. None of these vehicles had been manufactured by September as the factory was busy enough repairing already existing tanks, including 8 Trubia-Naval on September 25th.
On August 10th, the Trubia-Naval were divided into two sections, with one being sent to cover the Reinosa road and the other to Olea, to defend against the southern Nationalist advance on Santander. Not many details are known about the deployment of the Trubia-Naval in the Santander Campaign, but it can be assumed that they were again used to cover the retreat towards Santander. On the 14th, an unspecified number of Trubia-Naval and Renault FT’s were sent to the Escudo mountain pass in support of a section of BA-6’s and FAI’s, allowing for the retreat of the Soviet vehicles. Some would be used two days later in Reinosa. Following the surrender to Italian forces of the C.T.V. (Pacto de Santoña), Santander was taken on the 26th. 4 Trubia-Naval were captured in Santander by the C.T.V. They were divided between the Parque de Artillería de Valladolid [Valladolid Artillery Barracks] and the Fabrica de Artillería de Sevilla [Seville Artillery Factory]. Allegedly, one was kept by the Italians with the intention of sending it to Italy to study it, though it cannot be confirmed if this did indeed happen. However, Spanish figures by the Servicio de Recuperación Nacional [Nationalist Recovery Service] state that only 3 Trubia-Naval were captured, 2 at Muriedas and the other at a warehouse.

The spoils of war following the Nationalist capture of Santander on August 26th. The photo shows a Renault FT, a Soviet BA-6, and two Trubia-Naval (one is almost out of shot at the back). These tanks would be sent to factories to be put back into action. Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 144.

A Trubia-Naval pictured next to an Italian C.T.V. trooper. Location unknown, though possibly Santander. Photo: SOURCE
Following the capture of Santander and the collapse of the Republican Army of the North, Nationalist eyes were set on Gijón. The Republican armored forces consisted of a single battalion of Renault FT’s, a Trubia-Naval battalion, and a few armored cars. Due to the terrain and fierce resistance by Republican militiamen, the Nationalist advance was slow. This terrain also meant that tank deployment was limited. On October 20th, a Trubia-Naval was captured alongside a Renault FT in Infiesto, on the Oviedo-Santander railway. Gijón would fall the following day and with it, the War in the North came to an end.

The Trubia-Naval in Nationalist service

What was the exact and common use the Nationalist gave to their captured Trubia-Naval is not fully known, but they generally showed little appreciation of them. By the end of the ‘War in the North’, the Nationalist had plenty of superior tanks and did not need these unreliable and poorly armored machines for tank combat duties. Those which were put back into service were most likely just used to tow artillery pieces or other engineering duties.
The one existing photograph of a Trubia-Naval in Nationalist service supports this argument. The vehicle in question (see photo bellow) has a military engineer’s emblem on its side corresponding to the Arma de Ingenieros (Engineers Branch), and would have probably carried or towed the engineer’s equipment.
This photo also gives us indications as towards any camouflage or marking scheme modifications on the Nationalist vehicles. As with many captured vehicles, the Nationalist painted a red and yellow Spanish flag around the turret. The top of the turret was painted white, but unlike in other vehicles, a black St Andrew cross was not painted on this white background, though that does not mean it was not painted on other vehicles. Another curiosity of this particular picture is that on the front of the hull, just next to the machine gun position, is what appears to be a typical early war Nationalist tank markings which could be a ‘1’, an ‘H’ or an ‘I’, but from this photo it is impossible to tell with complete certainty.
Like many other captured vehicles, the majority were most likely scrapped.

Only known picture of a Trubia-Naval in Nationalist after having been captured. Note the red and yellow Spanish flag painted around the turret, lack of weapons and military engineer’s emblem on the side. Photo: Will Kerrs Private Collection

Trubia Naval specifications
Dimensions	3.55 x 1.70 x 1.80 m (11.65 x 5.58 x 5.9 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	5.5 tons
Crew	3 (commander/gunner, driver, hull gunner)
Propulsion	MAN water-cooled, 6 cylinder, 70 hp (52.2 kW)
Max speed	30 km/h (19 mph) on road
Suspension	None
Armament	2x 8 mm (0.31 in) Vickers light machine guns
Armor	16 mm (0.63 in)

Sources

Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Carros de Combate “Trubia” (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 1993)
Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española. Teatro de Operaciones del Norte 36/37 (Valladolid: AF Editores, 2007)
Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española. Teatro de Operaciones de Levante, Aragón y Cataluña 36/39 2.ª Parte (Valladolid: AF Editores, 2011)
Mark Kurlansky, Basque History of the World (London: Vintage Books, 2000)
Special thanks to Mr. Will Kerrs for allowing the author to use his photo.

WW2 Republican Spanish Tanks

Tractor Landesa

Second Spanish Republic (1932-1937)
Tractor/Light Tank – 13-14 Built (Tractor), 2-4 Built (Light Tank), 2-3 Converted From Tractor To Light Tank

Originally intended to be a tractor for military or agricultural use, it was given an armored and armed upgrade which converted it into a tank to attract new markets. In its original tractor form, it would prove to be effective and able to carry out its task reliably. The tank upgrade would see service as a product of circumstance during the Spanish Civil War.

Context – The Tank That Became a Tractor

In 1925, Commander Victor Landesa Domenech, an artillery officer attached to the Trubia arms factory in Asturias (Northern Spain) and Rogelio Areces, the Trubia arms factory’s Chief Engineer, teamed up with Captain Carlos Ruíz de Toledo, a Commander in charge of Batería de Carros de Asalto de Artillería [Artillery Tank Battery] during its first engagements during the Rif War (1911-1927), to design a tank on their own initiative. This tank would become Spain’s first indigenous tank and was to overcome the major faults of the Renault FT, Spain’s most available tank at the time. The prototype improved upon the FT with increased power in an innovative system involving two overlapping turrets moving independently and each armed with a Hotchkiss M1914 7mm machine gun and marginally improved armor and engine power.

The design was considered a success and an improved model was built, the Trubia Serie A. The main difference of the serial version compared with the prototype was its larger size, an additional crew-member, and, most importantly, a new suspension system and engine acquired in Germany. This apparatus was supposed to improve upon traditional arrangements in addition to enhancing turning capabilities and minimizing the effects of the tracks on roads. In this integrated track design, the links were suspended from the chassis and held together by a lateral metal wall. This system was designed to prevent the tracks from coming off when maneuvering.

The first serial Trubia Serie A in the factory it was built – Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 8

Four of these tanks would be built and tested in 1926. During the tests, deficiencies in the tank (especially in the new suspension system) were noted and modifications were recommended. At least one of the tanks was modified and re-tested far more successfully in May 1928. Although there was some interest in the tank, political instability, and lack of funding condemned the vehicle.

In this context, Landesa Domenech and Areces embarked on a new project, which would again be a private venture, this time with the aim of creating a tractor for military and agricultural use.

Design

The tractor would be built following the same main principles as the Trubia Serie A, but with updates and modifications.

External Appearance

Between the two tracks, there was a semi-open-topped platform above the engine and driver. The engine itself was covered by steel plates riveted together, with grilles on either side and at the front with eleven blades each. Atop this engine compartment was a headlight. Behind the engine was a steering wheel, the driver’s seat, which carried a small electrical lamp, and space for an additional crewman who acted as the driver’s assistant. The two lamps and the electrical equipment were made by Scinilla and were fed by a Tudor 24 volt battery.

Body-on-Frame and Tracks

Each track consisted of a long ellipse-shaped structure formed by two parallel steel sheets covered by a mudguard. Between the two sheets, there was a track path for the track rollers to travel through. The tracks on either side were joined to each other by 4 u-shaped bars traveling underneath the tank. Between the steel sheets were some sort of drum brakes.

Unlike in most other vehicles, the track rollers were integrated into the tracks and moved in unison with the track links along the tracks set between the two sheets. This was an updated copy of the one on the Trubia Serie A, albeit, smaller.

Engine

The first vehicle was given a Mercedes 60 hp engine. The second and third vehicles used a SEFA engine of unknown horsepower. At least the ones equipped with SEFA engines initially used K.L.G. spark plugs. Some Spanish produced spark plugs from the Toledo arms factory were tested, though, once they proved unsatisfactory, they reverted back to the K.L.G. ones.

At some point between October 1932 and 1934, it was decided that the Mercedes engines were superior to the SEFA, so the command was given to home-build the German engines. Some of the engine components were impossible to copy so they were ordered from Germany, which led to the accusation that Trubia, the factory building the engines, was carrying out an unauthorized copy (which indeed it was).

Fortunately for Landesa Domenech and Areces, this did not amount to anything more. Their justification was that Trubia was creating an experimental series of engines and did not intend to sell them. These new engines would be called Mercedes-Trubia and were presumably 60 hp. The next nine or ten vehicles would be equipped with this engine.

In late 1935 or early 1936, four BOMAG heavy oil engines would be purchased for four new tractors, but only one would be built before the Spanish Civil War broke out in July 1936.

Factory Life

The first tractor was built by Landesa Domenech and Areces with help of factory workers from the Trubia arms factory in the workshop of the Compañía Anónima Basconia in Bilbao, Northern Spain. There it was tested successfully by its inventors on the nearby Malmasín Hill. Landesa Domenech and Areces then decided to take their new tractor to Trubia with the intention of building it in series, despite not having a contract at the time.

An external company, the naval-focused Juliana Constructora Gijonesa S.A., was contacted for the production of more tractors, but Landesa Domenech and Areces wanted to remain in Trubia due to the expertise of the workers there. Therefore, they reached an agreement to lease the factory of Industrial Química de Nalón in Trubia for the production of more tractors. There, the pieces for the tractors were built before they were presumably moved to the Juliana Constructora Gijonesa S.A. factory in Gijón where the two Landesas with SEFA engines were put together, though there is a strong possibility they never left Trubia.

Operational Life

In October 1932, the two Landesa tractors with SEFA engines were sent to Palencia (central north Spain) to take part in the Maniobras del Pisuegra military maneuvers. These were the first military maneuvers of the new Second Spanish Republic (established in April 1931) and as such, attracted lots of interest and attention from the press and military officials from around the globe.

The two tractors were sent for experimental use, but only one was used at the time owing to the lack of crew.

They were attached to Grupo de Artillería nº1 [Artillery Group No. 1] and were put in charge of towing Skoda 76.5mm cannons. The artillery group had eight of these, so the tractors were kept busy. Inclement weather made matters worse, extremely muddy ground meaning that the already busy tractors had to pull immobilised and bogged down vehicles out of the mud.

The overall performance of the tractors during the trials was deemed satisfactory. However, both tractors had breakdowns caused by the snapping of the structure linking the engine to the body-on-frame.
Following the trials, a new Mercedes-Trubia engine was developed and one was installed in a newly built tractor. This tractor would be sent to the Escuela Central de Tiro (the Army’s testing ground) in Carabanchel (Madrid) to test its towing and overcoming obstacle capabilities. The tests were a major success, with the tractor being able to tow 15cm cannons and 155mm howitzers even through the mud of the Jarama River.

As a result, the Army decided to place the order for nine with Mercedes-Trubia engines (it is unclear if these nine included the one tested in Carabanchel or not) to equip the Grupo de Artillería Antiarea nº1 [Anti-aircraft Artillery Group nº1] barracked in Carabanchel.
Once these were built, as a publicity stunt, the nine tractors were intended to cover the 370km (230 miles) distance to Madrid by themselves driven by Trubia arms factory workers.

They managed to cover the first 60km with ease until they reached the Pajares mountain pass (1,378m in height). There, the lead tractor driven by Constantino Alzueta and Zenón Soler (the two men in charge of driving the tractor in all the trials) ventured through the pass and reached the other side. They recommended that due to the other drivers’ inexperience that they take another route. The nine tractors were put on a train to Collado de Villalba, 32km (20 miles) outside Madrid, where they were detrained and finished the trip by road.

They arrived in Madrid in the early hours of October 12th 1935 and were given Skoda guns to tow to take part in the military parade to coincide with the Fiesta de La Raza/Día de la Hispanidad (the national day of Spain, which commemorates the anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s first arrival in the Americas). The Trubia arms factory workers who had driven the tanks to Madrid were given army uniforms and participated in the parade, which went down the Castellana Avenue to the War Ministry, where they were inspected by the War Minister José María Gil-Robles y Quiñones.

It can be assumed that these nine tractors remained in service up to and including the Civil War and were used throughout it by the Republican forces defending Madrid and its surroundings, though any evidence is yet to be found to support this claim.
At the same time, one tractor (it is unknown if it was a newly built one or one of the already existing ones) was exhibited in front of a commission from the Ministry of Agriculture, but no contract was granted.

In late 1935 or early 1936, four new tractors with BOMAG engines were intended to be built, but only one would be before the Spanish Civil War broke out in July 1936. This tractor would later be taken to the Juliana Constructora Gijonesa S.A. factory in Gijón (Asturias) and may have been converted into a tank. When the Nationalist troops took the factory following the fall of Gijón on October 21st 1937, a Landesa tractor (which may or may not have been one which was transformed) was taken, and, by order of Landesa Domenech, sent to the small town of Porriño (Pontevedra) in north west Spain to be used for agriculture.

The Tank Version

Building on their success, at some point before October 1934, Landesa Domenech and Areces, with the assistance of Juliana Constructora Gijonesa S.A., proposed an armed and armored version of the tractor for the Army. Two (most likely the ones with SEFA engines) were converted at this point at the Juliana Constructora Gijonesa S.A. factory or at the Industrial Química de Nalón facilities in Trubia. However, the Army showed no interest and none were purchased.

The Landesa tank. Note the missing machine gun – Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 12.

Design

Quite simply, the tank version was the tractor with added armor and a machine gun. The space around the driver and his assistant was covered with slightly inclined steel riveted sheets. Atop this structure was a cone-shaped cupola for entry and access. The front sheet of the crew compartment had to its left a small rectangular hatch which opened to the left. Attached was an oval stroboscope with horizontal turn which allowed for permanent vision. The right side of the frontal plate had a small circular opening with a mount for a Hotchkiss M1914 7mm machine gun. The whole front of the vehicle remained the same with the exception of the headlamp, which had been removed. The overall armor of the tank was 15mm thick chromium-nickel steel plates riveted to each other.

A Revolution and a Civil War

Popular myth and culture have led to an image of the Second Spanish Republic as a radical, progressive, and left-wing state. Whilst there is some substance behind this, it is not entirely true. In the second elections held in November 1933, the centrist Partido Radical Republicano (PRR) of Alejandro Lerroux came to power with the support of the right-wing Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas (CEDA). Following a crisis of government in September 1934, CEDA removed their support and demanded that the PRR enter a formal coalition with 3 CEDA members to take a ministerial portfolio. Despite opposition from the left, this was done, and as a consequence, the most left-wing elements began to mobilize.

An indefinite revolutionary general strike organized by radical elements of the Partido Socialista Obrero Español (POSE) [left wing social democrat] and Union General de Trabajadores (UGT) trade union with the support of elements of the Anarchist Party and trade union and the Communist Party was called for October 5th 1934.

Following a few days of strike, the revolution was brutally put down, except in Catalonia, where an independent state was declared, only to be toppled by Republican forces a few days later and in Asturias, where the workers, mostly miners, were well armed and mobilized.

By October 6th, the town of Trubia was taken by revolutionary forces consisting of mainly factory workers who commandeered two modified Landesa tractors in the town, though these, apparently, for some reason, lacked their engines. The factory workers fought off the Civil Guard forces, though it is unknown if they used any of the available vehicles (there were also up to three Trubia Serie A in the town).

By the 14th, state forces were putting down the revolution. In a last-ditch attempt to save the revolution, an armored train was sent down the line from Trubia to the neighboring Grado where it defeated the state forces. Another armored train was hastily prepared in Trubia using locomotive number 2544 ‘El Cervera’ of the Northern Railway. The train itself was only minimally armed, but it had two open-topped carriages and upon each a Landesa tank was placed. Until the re-discovery of several photos in the October 1934 edition of Estampa magazine, it was believed that these two tanks on the ‘Cervera’ train were, in fact, Trubia Serie A’s.

Photos showing two converted Landesa tractors onboard flat trucks as part of the ‘Cervera’ armored train during the 1934 October Revolution in Asturias – Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 16.

By the 17th, the revolution in Asturias was crushed and what happened to the two Landesa converted tanks is unknown. War has the habit of creating new opportunities for rejected vehicles, and the Spanish Civil War started in July 1936 would be a testament to this.

To most people’s surprise given Oviedo’s history, the coup there was successful and the city would be the only main city in central northern Spain to join the nascent Nationalist forces. Trubia, on the other hand, remained loyal to the Republican government forces, and a Trubia Serie A tank and at least one converted Landesa tractor were pressed into service by the workers and militiamen in the town.

The two Republican tanks were first used in an offensive against Oviedo on September 10th 1936, seeing action in the small town of Las Cruces (north of Trubia and north-west of Oviedo) and Loma del Canto, on the outskirts of Oviedo. In Loma del Canto, both broke-down in no-mans-land apparently because of a burnt-out clutch caused by the inexperience of the crew. Efforts were made to recover the tanks, but this was not possible until October when Loma del Canto was captured.

On October 27th, a converted Landesa tractor was lost to the Nationalists near the Naranco Hill (north of Oviedo), who towed it back with a Trubia Serie A tank. This incident would receive lots of attention from the besieged troops in Oviedo.

Series of photos taken in Escandalera Square (Oviedo) on October 27th, 1936 showing the Nationalist Trubia Serie A nº3 towing a Landesa tank captured at Naranco Hill. The towing through the streets of Oviedo received lots of attention from the besieged Nationalist troops. Note the improvised camouflage on the Trubia Serie A with branches and foliage. Also note that the Landesa seems to be missing the tracks’ side cover – Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 41-43.

More photos taken in Escandalera Square (Oviedo) on October 27th 1936, this time with Nationalist troops posing with the captured Landesa tank. Note the cupola and front left hatch openings – Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 42-43.

The captured modified Landesa tractor would be repaired and pressed into service with the Nationalist forces. The last knowledge of this vehicle was at some point between the end of 1937 and the beginning of 1938 once the war in the northern part of the country had finished. It was reported to have been seen in the Santo Emiliano Hill, halfway between Mieres and Langero, attached to an artillery unit which was presumably using it for towing.

At the end of 1936 or the very beginning of 1937, the order was made to build four modified tractors in the Juliana Constructora Gijonesa S.A. factory in Gijón for use of the Republican Army of the North. Some days after January 23rd, Santiago Saiz Palacios, the Chief of the Tank Battalion of the Army of the North, visited the factory to assess the progress. It is known from photographic evidence that on January 5th the frame for one had been built and one had an engine but was missing the tracks, armor and machine gun. There is also a possibility that these were just the completion of the four BOMAG engine equipped tractors which had been intended to be built before July 1936, but this time in the tank version.

A document made by the Servicio de Recuperación Nacional [Eng. Nationalist Recovery Service] after the fall of Santander in August 26th 1937 noted that the total of Republican vehicles captured in the final push on Santander were “13 Renault … 3 Trubia … and 2 Trubia/Landesa in Guarnizo”. These ‘Trubia/Landesa’ were most likely modified Landesa tractors which could have been part of those built in Gijón in January 1937. Their ultimate fate is almost impossible to determine, but none survived the Civil War.

Series of photos taken on January 5th 1937 by Constantino Suarez at the Juliana Constructora Gijonesa S.A. factory in Gijón showing different developments in the construction of four Landesa tanks for the use of the Republican Army of the North. Clockwise: the frame of a Landesa tank with the tracks yet to be added; an engine being introduced into the minimally armored frame with tracks of a Landesa tank; a worker finishing the details of a sprocket wheel; a gearbox being built by factory workers – Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 73.

Names

The names and designations in the literature for the whole series of vehicles designed or inspired by Landesa Domenech and Areces are inconsistent and full of misinformation.

After the first trial of the tractor in Malmasín, its creators christened the tractor ‘tractor Landesa’, in honor of Landesa Domenech. It is unknown if they ever received an official army denomination once they were pressed into service.

The modified tank version is even more problematic. As it never entered service properly it was never given an official name, and it does not seem that Landesa Domenech or Areces gave it a name. As such, throughout the article, the terms ‘Landesa tank’ or ‘modified Landesa tractor’ have been used. However, Artemio Mortera Pérez (one of the better-known authors on AFV usage in the Spanish Civil War), calls them ‘Carro Areces’ [Areces Tank]. This is not an arbitrary decision. Landesa Domenech had joined the Nationalist side, so naming a vehicle after an officer of the opposition was not a good move. Mortera Pérez uses the name of the other inventor (Rogelio Areces) to designate the tank. Nonetheless, no documents from the period use this designation.

To make matters worse, as stated before, the Servicio de Recuperación Nacional document made after the fall of Santander names them ‘Trubia-Landesa’. This was an easy mistake given the striking resemblance with the Trubia-Naval tanks which were inspired by the Landesa tractor.

It is interesting to note that in the first edition of a booklet created by the Republican authorities to teach the soldiers and militiamen on the front how to read and write, a Landesa modified tractor was featured. This is very odd given how rare these tanks were. By the second edition though, it had been replaced by a Blindado tipo ZIS (UNL 35).

A booklet created by the Republican authorities to teach the soldiers and militiamen on the front how to read and write featuring a Landesa tank – Photo: SOURCE

Conclusion

The Landesa tractor was proof of the determination of Landesa Domenech and Areces, who after the failure of the Trubia Serie A, persevered to create a tractor based on the same principles as their tank. Even though it initially seemed that this new project was going to fail, they convinced the Army authorities to buy their tractor after a series of successful trials.

Despite the design flaws and the unreliability of their suspension, the tractors (including the tank version) managed to perform reliably and their field life-span seems to exceed that of any of the Trubia family.
The Landesa tractor would go on to heavily influence the Trubia-Naval, a light tank which entered service in 1936 and fought in most of the War in the North.

Illustration of the Landesa Tractor tank by Tank Enyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.

Specifications
Dimensions	Approximate values 3.6 x 1.8 x 1.7 m (11.81 x 5.9 x 5.58 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	5,500 kg
Crew	2 (Driver and Gunner/Loader)
Propulsion	Mercedes 60hp, SEFA, Mercedes-Trubia 60hp, and BOMAG
Max speed	30 km/h (19 mph) on road
Armament	1 x 7mm M1914 Hotchkiss machine guns
Armor	15 mm (0.59 in)
Production	15-18

Sources

WW2 Italian Vehicles in Foreign Service WW2 Kingdom of Spain Tanks

FIAT 3000 in Spanish Service

Post author By Gareth Lynn Montes
Post date October 30, 2018
No Comments on FIAT 3000 in Spanish Service

Kingdom of Spain (1925-?)
Light Tank – 1 Purchased

The FIAT 3000 was the first mass-produced Italian tank and owed many of its design features to the French Renault FT. The FIAT 3000 would see action in most of Italy’s interwar conflicts and even right into the Second World War, though, by this time, the tank was seriously out-dated. The FIAT tank would also attract foreign attention and in 1924 the Kingdom of Spain purchased a single example for testing.

Context: The Spain of 1924-25

As a result of German, French, and British colonial competition, Spain was granted extensive control over North Morocco in addition to its already existing enclaves. In 1912, after signing a treaty with France, the Spanish protectorate in Morocco was formed, with an area of 20,948 square kilometers around the Rif. This increased presence in Morocco and the loss of most other colonies gave wings to the group of military commanders known as ‘Africanistas’ (with a vocation for Africa) and military and private operations were carried out in the area.

Spain avoided the slaughter of the Great War (1914-1918), but following a series of incidents, the Riffian Abd el-Krim led an insurgency which would evolve into the Rif War (1920-27). Early in the war, Spain suffered the ‘Disaster at Annual’, their biggest ever military defeat, and the Rif Republic was created, factors which in part led to the successful coup in Spain led by Miguel Primo de Rivera and his dictatorship. Soon afterward, in 1924, France intervened on Spain’s behalf and after the amphibious landings at Alhucemas (North Morocco) in 1925 with Spain using its Renault FT’s in the first amphibious tank landing in combat, the war was all but won. In these campaigns, Spain used its Renault FT’s and Schneider CA-1’s bought from France in addition to Spanish-made armored cars.

The Search for a New Light Tank

Although the FT’s were serving admirably in the ongoing Moroccan conflict, in 1924 the War Ministry wanted to carry out a study of light tanks which would form the country’s armored divisions. To that end, the Spanish government authorized the Artillery section within the Ministry to purchase an Italian FIAT 3000A for the price of 183,400 Italian lira in October 1924. The tank would not arrive in Spain until February 1925. After that it was given ‘ATM-984’ as its number plate and assigned to the Escuela Central de Tiro in Carabanchel, Madrid (a military firing range), to be put through a set of trials.

The results of the trials are unknown but it can be safely assumed that they were not a success given that no more vehicles were purchased and the tank was stored away. It seems as though the FT’s were viewed similarly and in 1925, an indigenous tank design heavily based on the Renault FT and named Trubia Serie A was developed by the Spanish firm Trubia and was possibly considered to be the replacement and future Spanish light tank.

The End

After the unsuccessful trials and its rejection as the next Spanish light tank, ‘ATM-984’ was left at the Escuela Central de Tiro. Not much is known about its life after this, but it is assumed that the tank was either destroyed or scrapped in 1936 during the chaotic early stages of the Spanish Civil War.

The Controversies

For many years, the existence of a FIAT 3000 in Spain was regarded as somewhat of a myth. There was an agreement that the tank had in fact been ordered as there are documents to prove it, but there were doubts of its arriving and even more concerning the fact that it survived until the Spanish Civil War [For other controversies surrounding the arrival of another Spanish tank see Bolivian Vickers Mk.E article].
The controversy was cleared when this photo was released:

Juan Antonio Luceño – right – Captain of the Estado Mayor de la 31 Brigada Mixta holding a piece of artillery ammunition. Date and location of the photo are unknown. The FIAT 3000 in the photo has often been mistaken with a Renault FT. Note, the image has been restored (original can also be found in link) – SOURCE

The existence of this photo of a Republican officer alongside the tank is clear evidence that the tank existed. Other photos suggest Luceño was in the tank corps in Madrid during the early stages of the Civil War and it can be assumed that this photo is of a similar time meaning the FIAT 3000 was in Spain and did survive until at least 1936.
Other photos are more complicated.

This image has been put on the internet and has been claimed to represent the three tanks Spain had in 1925 – from left to right, the FIAT 3000, the Renault FT and the Schneider CA-1. However, this image is just a cropped version of an Italian photo of their tanks, which also includes a FIAT 2000 furthest to the right. Furthermore, the FIAT 3000 has an Italian triangle marking on the side of its’ turret. See photo below.

SOURCE for both photos.

The tank makes two further appearances in Spanish media of the Civil War period.

‘Fascist kid’ atop a FIAT 3000. This image depicts a child in fascist regalia atop a FIAT 3000. The image is thought to be the cover of the Pamplona francoist newspaper ‘Arriba España’, though this is probably not true. The photo was clearly not taken in Spain: 1. As explained, the only FIAT 2000 in Spain was on the Republican side; 2. The kid’s uniform seems to be that of the Italian fascist youth, not a Spanish falangist, and the rifle is the youth model of an Italian standard rifle; 3. The existence of very similar Italian war propaganda photos where the kids are wearing the same uniform and may well have been taken at the same time. Furthermore, a fourth reason, which may also disprove that it was for ‘Arriba España’, is the way the inscription on the bottom is written. “Espana” is spelled without an eñe (ñ) – as it would be in Spanish – which may suggest the photo was part of a campaign for support for Spain within Italy – source: WW2 In Color

Front cover of the Estampa magazine May 1st 1937 in which a FIAT 3000 can be seen under the title “nuestro tanques” – our tanks – source: ‘Nuestros tanques’ Estampa, 1 May 1937, cover.

This issue of the conservative pro-Republican magazine Estampa had tanks in Republican service as its main feature (The whole issue can be accessed HERE). The article uses a number of press photos throughout (an example is a photo on page 6 of Soviet twin-turret T-26 tanks during Soviet exercises) and it can be assumed that the cover with the FIAT 3000 is also a press photo. It is unknown if during trials the Spanish FIAT 3000 trained or was tested alongside infantry units, but even if it was, it is very doubtful if it was photographed and the photo probably corresponds to Italian Army exercises during the 1920’s.

Conclusion

This article hopes to shed light on a very confusing and often misinterpreted tank within Spain’s early armored history. A lack of concrete information has resulted in a few inaccuracies in otherwise respectable internet sources. Overall, it is clear that Spain did indeed purchase a FIAT 3000 in 1924 and conducted some testing of it. It is also certain that it remained in Spain until at least 1936, when it was in the besieged Republican capital of Madrid. After this, the fate is unknown as it may have been destroyed or scrapped.

Rendition of the Spanish FIAT 3000. Illustration by Bernard ‘Escodrion’ Baker, funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Specifications
Dimensions	4.29 x 1.65 x 2.20 m (14.07×5.41×7.21 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	5.5 – later 6 tons
Crew	2 (driver, gunner)
Propulsion	FIAT-SPA, 4 cyl, 50 hp
Speed	21 km/h (13 mph)
Range (road)	100 km (62 mi)
Armament	Model 1921: 2x Breda 6.5 mm (0.25 in) machine guns Model 1930: 37 mm (1.45 in) gun +Breda 6.5 mm (0.25 in) machinegun
Armor	From 6 to 16 mm (0.24-0.63 in)
Total Purchased	1

Links & Resources

No author, ‘Nuestros tanques’ Estampa, 1 May 1937, cover.
Javier de Mazarrasa, La Máquina y la Historia Nº13: Los Carros de Combate en la Guerra de España 1936-1939 (Vol. 1º) (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 1998)
www.sbhac.net

Has Own Video WW2 Kingdom of Spain Tanks WW2 Republican Spanish Tanks WW2 Spanish Tanks

Modelo Trubia Serie A

Kingdom of Spain/Second Spanish Republic/Nationalist Spain (1926-1937)
Light Tank – 4 Built

Spain has mainly depended on foreign technology for its tank forces but there have always been enthusiastic engineers, military commanders, and policy-makers who have wanted to break the mold and create indigenous designs. The first of these initiatives would take place in 1925 in the northern town of Trubia, Asturias. Following the satisfactory completion of a prototype, plans were put in motion to design an improved serial production tank which was to be known as the Modelo Trubia Serie A4, or ‘Trubia tank’ for short.

Context – Lessons from Morocco

Colonial competition and internal politics meant that Spain took possession of large areas of what today is Morocco. The locals loathed the Spanish colonial administrators, leading to the Melilla War (1909) and the Rif War (1911-1927). In the latter, Spain would use for the first time in its history the modern technology of aircraft, armored cars, and tanks. The Spanish brought 11 Renault FT’s and 6 Schneider CA-1’s from France which would take part in multiple actions throughout the war with mixed results. The main shortcomings found in the Renault FT, regarded by the Spanish as their finest tank, were: poor performance, speed, range of operation due to a poor engine, and its vulnerability when its only machine gun jammed.

To overcome these, a team involving Commander Victor Landesa Domenech (an artillery officer attached to the Trubia arms factory), Captain Carlos Ruíz de Toledo (a Commander in charge of Batería de Carros de Asalto de Artillería [Artillery Tank Battery] during its first engagements during the Rif War) and the Trubia arms factory’s Chief Engineer, Rogelio Areces, took it upon themselves to design and build a superior vehicle for the Spanish Army.

The Trubia prototype

Designed and built in 1925 on their own initiative and financed out of their own pockets, the Trubia prototype would be tested in 1926 with a very satisfactory reception. So much so, that, a budget was set for the creation of a tank producing workshop at the Trubia factory and a commission led by Areces and Ruíz de Toledo was established to travel Europe and investigate tank technological innovations they could use for an improved serial version of the prototype.

Appearance-wise, the tank resembled the Renault FT, as it was in the minds of Landesa Domenech and co. the best tank they had knowledge of. However, there were a few differences:
– To surmount firepower concerns, two overlapping turrets with independent movement and each armed with a Hotchkiss 7mm machine gun were adopted.
– At the front of the tank there was a small semi-circular plate attached to an elongated nose of the tank which acted as a ram to break through obstacles such as walls and barbed wire.
– Due to circumstances, armor and engine-power were only marginally improved.

The only known photo of the Trubia prototype, which, in this instance, is mounting a brick wall. Date and location unknown. Note the overlapping turrets, frontal nose ‘ram’ and general resemblance to the Renault FT – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 6.

The European Expedition, Notions of Tank Design

Areces and Ruíz de Toledo’s European adventure would not be as fruitful as they may have hoped and expected. Tank technology was in its infancy and most tank producing nations were wary of sharing their findings, and the technology they did exhibit and share was mostly outdated. Companies like Vickers did at the time sell custom-made tanks to the buyer’s needs, but it seems that Areces and Ruíz de Toledo did not explore this option as they probably did not want to spend much of their limited budget.

According to Artemio Mortera Pérez, author of the most complete book on the Trubia tanks, in Germany, they were shown a very peculiar suspension inspired by the one intended to be used on the K-Wagen behemoth. However, although the K-Wagen’s suspension was unsprung, the vehicle or suspension system they were shown was probably from or inspired by the earlier Orion-Wagen.

Artist’s impression of the K-Wagen. Apart from the fact it was unsprung, little is known about what is suspension would exactly be – source: The Vintage News

The Orion-Wagen Prototype with its Orion track system of feet treads – source: Landships.info

This undercarriage system was named ‘Orion’ and was supposed to improve upon traditional systems in addition to enhancing turning capabilities and minimising the effects on roads. In this integrated track design, the links were suspended from the chassis and held together by a lateral metal wall. This system was designed to prevent the tracks from coming off when maneuvering.

It is possible that the vehicle they were shown was a totally different vehicle. In 1926, the Leipzig-based firm Wotan-Werke built to test the differences between a suspended and not-suspended tracked chassis. When considering the suspension of this vehicle (see picture below) and the Trubia Serie A (later in the article), the visual similarities are uncanny. The vehicle was known as the Wotan-Werke Type A. The Trubia tank was designated as Serie A (Eng. Series A). Whilst type and series do not mean exactly the same, it is possible that there is some correlation. Notwithstanding, it could just be a coincidence.

The Wotan-Werke Type A tracked tractor, built in 1926 – source: Walter J. Spielberger

At a time when Germany was prohibited from having a standing army, the designers behind the Wotan-Werke Type A may have been eager to find a foreign buyer and saw in Areces and Ruíz de Toledo an opportunity.

Additionally, a few Daimler engines of different horsepower were shown to the commission. As a side note, the Wotan-Werke Type A used a Typ M 1574 100 hp Daimler-Mercedes 4-cylinder Otto engine.

Satisfied with what they saw, the Commission bought at least four ‘Orion’ systems and Daimler 4 cylinder 75 hp engines for the tank series, and two larger undercarriage systems based on the same principle and two Daimler 8 V-shaped cylinder 200 hp engines with the intention of building a large tank recovery tractor.

The team behind the design had several ideas to improve upon the Renault FT:
– Improving firepower and lessening vulnerability when the only machine gun jammed. For this, the same idea as on the prototype was adapted though the lower turret was intended to use a modified Ramírez Arellano 40mm infantry gun. However, this would not materialize.
– Enhancing the FT’s poor speed, range and performance by equipping the more powerful Daimler 75hp engine.
– Avoiding the vulnerability of the crew having to exit the tank to access the engine for repairs by creating a bigger engine compartment which could be accessed from the inside.
– Improvement of the undercarriage, which had caused many headaches. It is possible that early on a wheel-cum-track system was considered, but given the failures of the Chenilletts Saint Chamond in Spanish service which used this system, the idea was quickly abandoned. The ‘Orion’ system bought in Germany was to be used instead.

The design team was willing to sacrifice small size as they felt their improvements were more important.

Design

Blueprints of the Trubia Serie A. Note, not the original – source: Alabarda

Exterior Appearance

The square-shaped central hull part housed the crew compartment and above it was the turret. The back resembled that of an FT – rear tail included – but was much larger and housed the engine. At the front, to each side was a hinged door to access the engine. Behind it only on the right-hand side was a large exhaust pipe. To the front of the central piece was a sheet going down at a 45º angle. On the center-right were two boxes of different shapes. The most central and smaller one had a vision slit for the driver, whilst the larger one to the right had a forward firing machine gun. This position was a detachable piece which allowed the crew to enter and access the tank. The frontal and side pieces sloped inward meeting at the beak of the tank, upon which was a removable small semi-circular plate which acted as a ram to break through obstacles, such as walls and barbed wire. On the earlier version of the tank, there was a mudguard which covered the whole top of the tracks to prevent enemy infantrymen from planting explosives on them.

The side and frontal armor was 20 mm thick and made with chromium-nickel steel plates riveted to an inner frame.

Turret

One of the tank’s most recognizable features, the turret, was made out of two overlapping turrets with independent movement and each armed with a Hotchkiss 7 mm machine gun. Each turret consisted of a truncated cone forged in nickel steel 16mm thick. Each one had a ball machine gun mount which allowed for 65º of vertical and 110º of horizontal fire. On the direct opposite side of the ball mount was a small vision slit, and on either side of the turret there were small sliding windows to improve the gunners’ vision. On the top of the upper turret was a circular outwards opening hinged hatch upon which a cylindrical panoramic visor – a stroboscopic cupola – was fixed. The cylinder had vertical openings around it protected by ‘unbreakable’ glass and turned by means of a small electrical engine, providing a continuous panoramic vision of the exterior by means of the ‘persistence of vision’ phenomenon.

Armament

Armament consisted of three 7 mm Hotchkiss M1914 machine guns. Each turret had one (operated by two different gunners, one of whom was also the commander. The gunners would have to load their own weapons) and the third was at the front and operated by the driver. In total, for the three guns. the tank carried enough ammunition for 8,000 shots. Initially, the lower turret was supposed to carry a modified Spanish-built Ramírez Arellano 40 mm infantry gun, but the project behind this gun would not materialize until a few years later. The machine gun was a stop-gap solution, but with plans to fit the infantry gun in the future, though these never materialized. The sides of the tank also counted with small loopholes through which the crew could fire their personal weapons. Additionally, the first series production vehicle had a ball joint on the right side for a Mauser rifle, the purpose for which is unclear – this was later removed.

Engine

The engine could be started by means of compressed air provided by a compressor, but if this system malfunctioned, it could always be started up manually with a crank and an Bosch electrical system. The engines used were the Daimler MV1574 4 cylinder 75 hp with 900 rpm bought by Ruíz de Toledo and Areces in Germany fitted with Beru spark plugs.

However, these were modified to improve performance. To ensure that enough lubrication was provided for when the tank was at a 45º angle, the oil container was changed. A cogwheel and chain transmission was added to put the air compressor into motion.

Cooling for the motor and the interior was provided by two large ventilators. One was placed in front in the middle of the vehicle sucking air from inside the crew compartment inwards and was expelled to the exterior one through the second ventilator at the back.

The engine and two ventilators were built as one piece and were connected on each side to the body-on-frame.

The manual engine start was situated in front of the frontal ventilator and could be accessed from outside from both sides through the hinged doors.

Beneath the front ventilator was the double cone clutch which was activated by a pedal to the right of the driver.

The tank was capable of traveling at 30 km/h with a range of 100 km, a slight improvement over the Renault FT. The fuel tank held 180 liters.

Driving Mechanisms

The gearbox was beneath the driver and was made from cast steel. It consisted of four speeds with the first speed being used to overcome obstacles and for driving over uneven ground.

Changing direction was possible by means of a mechanism which immobilized or reduced the speed of one of the tracks.

Body-on-Frame and Tracks

Each track consisted of a long ellipse-shaped structure formed by two parallel steel sheets. Between the two sheets there was a track for the track rollers to travel through. The tracks on either side were joined to each other by 4 u-shaped bars traveling underneath the tank. The engine lay over the two furthest to the back. At the front of the tracks, there was an opening to the inside of the tank for the mechanism to connect them to the gearbox. Between the steel sheets were some sort of drum breaks.

Unlike in most other vehicles, the track rollers were integrated into the tracks and moved in unison with the track links along the tracks set between the two sheets. The track links had a cross pressed into them to improve traction.

Name

The tank’s name has caused some controversy over the years. Officially, it was named Carro Ligero de Combate para Infantería Modelo Trubia 75 H.P., Tipo Rápido, Serie A – meaning Infantry Light Tank Trubia Model 75 hp (the engine’s hp), Rapid Type (30km/h was considered quite fast in comparison to the Renault FT and Schneider CA) Series A. Ruíz de Toledo designated the tank Modelo TRUBIA. Serie A. – with this designation being used throughout the article. From the 1930’s onwards, official documents would add ‘A4’ or ‘4A’ at the end, possibly referring to the fact that 4 were built in total. The name Carro Rápido de Infantería [Rapid Infantry Tank] is also used.

It is, however, incorrect to call them Trubia-Naval, as this was a different tank entirely dating from 1936. Furthermore, many sources refer to the tanks as a prototype to the Trubia Naval, including the original Tanks Encyclopedia article on the vehicle. There was a direct connection between the two and they shared multiple features, but that is as far as it went. The tanks were two different projects with two distinct purposes.

The name follows a general Spanish tendency to name tanks and other armored fighting vehicles after the place where they were designed or built, or after one of the engineers behind the project.

The first Trubia Serie A still inside the Trubia arms factory. It was not yet completed, as it was missing its machine guns and mudguards (though the supports for these are visible) – Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 7

Photo taken shortly after the one above. The tank now has its three machine guns, mudguards, and Mauser rifle which only this version was equipped with – Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 8

The first Trubia Serie A mounted on an open truck bound for Madrid after its completion with all the men involved in its construction. Furthest to the right is the factory’s chief engineer, Rogelio Areces – Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 5

Testing

After their construction was rushed by demands coming from Madrid, four vehicles were finished at some point in 1926 as part of a pre-production series. This meant that as soon as they were finished (only one was constructed at each time), they were transported by train to Estación del Norte (modern-day Príncipe Pío) in Madrid. One, most likely the last one, was not even finished when it was transported, and a small workshop garage next to the train station in Madrid had to be hired to finish the vehicle off before it joined the other three at the Escuela Central de Tiro, the Army’s testing ground, in Carabanchel, South Madrid. Due to the hurry imposed from Madrid, the vehicles had not been properly factory tested and a group of factory workers were sent along with the tanks to make sure everything ran smoothly.

The testing of the four tanks would garner lots of interest and many officials would visit during the long demanding tests they were submitted to. These tests included cross-country travel, obstacle demolition, overcoming gradients, pulling heavy artillery and spare armor plates of the same thickness as the tank were fired upon with a 40 mm gun to test the level of protection it offered. The 40 mm gun was the same one as originally planned to be used by the tank. While the tank’s performance was generally considered to be good several important deficiencies were noted.
Pros:
– The engine was considered overall to be an improvement.
– The space and comfort inside.
– The fact that the engine could be accessed from within the tank.
Cons and recommendations:
– The main con was the undercarriage, which broke down several times.
– The ventilator blades and supports snapped because of their excessive weight and were to be replaced with aluminum ones. Changes were made to soften the abrupt halting of the blades when the engine stopped.
– The support for the ventilator at the back was to be changed from cast to forged steel.
– Improvements to the fuel feed.
– The spark plug was unsatisfactory and was first replaced by a Bosch one and later by a K.L.G. one.
– The compressed-air driving system was to be changed by a driving wheel and pedals.
– The vehicle was found to lack rigidity and its main structure had to be reinforced. The top of the vehicle supporting the turrets was of special concern.
– Adding a hinged hatch for the driver’s entry and exit to the left of the detachable boxes on the frontal plate.
– Eliminating the mudguards.
– Recommendations were made for overall improvement to make the undercarriage more durable.
The accompanying factory workers carried out multiple repairs during the tests and made notes of what went wrong. Along with the official recommendations, these would be used on return to Trubia.

One of the Trubia Serie A4 during trials in Escuela Central de Tiro in Carabanchel, Madrid. Note that because the of the hasty construction, this example has the side door to access the engine open, and the machine guns, detachable frontal piece and detachable ‘ram’ piece not yet fitted – source: World of Armor

Another of the Trubia Serie A’s being trialed in Carabanchel. It may well be the same one as in the previous image, but in this photo it now has had the ‘ram’ piece attached – source: Vehículos Blindados de la Guerra Civil

Death of the Project

The four tanks were taken back to Trubia by train to be disassembled and at least one was modified. The modified tanks are often called ‘segunda serie‘ [second series] to distinguish them from the original ones. The idea was to create a production series from the lessons learnt.
A modified tank was tested in the factory grounds in front of the military commanders of the Asturias region, led by General Zuvillaga. During these tests, the vehicle lacked the detachable frontal boxes, ‘ram’ piece, and machine guns.

One of the modified Trubia Serie A (segunda serie) undergoing balance and slope trials. The man next to the tank is thought to be Captain Carlos Ruíz de Toledo – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 9

The same modified Trubia Serie A (segunda serie) as in the above picture during trials at the factory’s grounds. Note the lack of the detachable frontal boxes, ‘ram’ piece, mudguards, and machine guns – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 10

The same modified Trubia Serie A (segunda serie) as in the above pictures being inspected by General Zuvillaga and other officers of the Asturias region outside the Trubia arms factory – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 10

This vehicle was later sent to Madrid in May 1928 for a second round of testing which took place on the 19th under the watchful eye of Lieutenant Colonel Antonio García Pérez, Secretary General of the Estado Mayor Central, the person in charge of supervising military centers.

The results were judged satisfactory and the tank was given ‘A.T.M. 2204’ as its number-plate and was incorporated into the Army. The commission in charge of supervising the tests concluded in a report that [paraphrasing] “the Trubia light tank, had all the required capabilities for a tank of its nature” and the order was made to build one of the heavy tractors envisioned by Ruíz de Toledo and Areces with the larger suspension system and 200 hp engine. As far back as November 1926, plans were made to equip a section within the Tank Group with an undefined number of Trubia Serie A tanks depending on how many could be made available by the Trubia factory.

Unfortunately, none of these projects would materialize. To understand why, it is important to note the context of what had been happening in Spain. In September 1923, the Captain General of Catalonia Miguel Primo de Rivera led a successful coup with King Alfonso XIII’s blessing. Primo de Rivera’s aim was to put an end to the problems associated with the ongoing war in Morocco and labor and trade union unrest. From his position of power, Primo de Rivera attempted to carry out military reforms. These were very unpopular among Army officers, especially those in the artillery section, leading to the dissolution of the latter. The artillery had been up to then responsible for the production of the Trubia Serie A’s and other military vehicles, and without their budget and blessing, the project was all but dead.
The project was never officially canceled, but without the stimuli and finance, it faded away. However, this would not be the end of the Trubia Serie A nor of Landesa Domenech and Areces’ adventures with tank and military vehicle production.

Active Service

Asturias Revolution of 1934

Popular myth and culture has led to an image of the Second Spanish Republic [established in April 1931] as a radical, progressive and left-wing state. Whilst there is some substance behind this, it is not entirely true. In the second elections held in November 1933, the centrist Partido Radical Republicano (PRR) of Alejandro Lerroux came to power with the support of the right-wing Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas (CEDA). Following a crisis of government in September 1934, CEDA removed their support and demanded that the PRR enter a formal coalition with 3 CEDA members to take a ministerial portfolio. Despite opposition from the left, this was done and as a consequence, the most left-wing elements began to mobilize.
An indefinite revolutionary general strike, organized by radical left-wingers within the Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) [left wing social democrats] and Union General de Trabajadores (UGT) trade union with the support of elements of the Anarchist party and trade unions (FAI and CNT) and the Communist Party, was called for October 5th 1934. Following a few days of strike, the revolution was brutally put down, except in Catalonia, where an independent state was declared, only to be toppled by Republican forces a few days later, and in Asturias, where the workers, mostly miners, were well armed and mobilized.

Asturias was where the Trubia Serie A’s were, too. On October 6th, the revolutionary forces (in Trubia led by the Communists among the factory workers) took control of the Trubia factory (the revolutionary forces felt that for their success they had to capture the factory with its large weapons deposits) and with up to three of the tanks inside, some or all of which were without engines. It is likely that two Landesa tanks were in a nearby factory also in Trubia and in much better running condition. In the town, the factory workers fought off the Civil Guard forces, though it is unknown if they used any of the available vehicles.

By October 14th, state forces were putting down the revolution. In a last ditch attempt to save the revolution, an armored train was sent down the line from Trubia to the neighboring Grado where it defeated the state forces. Another armored train was hastily prepared in Trubia using locomotive number 2544 ‘El Cervera’ of the Northern Railway. The train itself was only minimally armed, but it had two open-topped carriages. Upon each carriage a Landesa tank, without an engine, was placed. Until the re-discovery of several photos in the October 1934 edition of Estampa magazine, it was believed that these two tanks on the ‘Cervera’ train were in fact Trubia Serie A’s. By the 17th, the revolution in Asturias had been crushed.

Following the revolution, the 3 Trubia Serie A’s which had been left unmodified following the Madrid trials of 1926 were put back into service with a series of modifications, including the removal of the mudguards which covered the top half of the tracks and the addition of the hinged hatch for the driver’s entry and exit to the left of the detachable boxes on the frontal plate. Three of them had ‘Carro Ligero nº’ [Light Tank No.] written on the sides followed by a 1, 2 or 3 and were attached to the Infantry Regiment <<Milán>> nº 32 which was barracked in Oviedo, the capital of Asturias. The vehicles were in a poor condition, but there were plans to continue to carry out tests on them. The fourth vehicle, which may have had a number 4 written on its side, remained in the factory.

Spanish Civil War

The failed General’s coup which drew the country into a bloody civil war gave the Trubia Serie A’s their chance to prove themselves in combat for the first time, ten years after they had left the factory.
To most people’s surprise, given Oviedo’s history, the coup there was successful and the city would be the only main city in central northern Spain to join the nascent Nationalist forces. In Oviedo were the three Trubia Serie A’s of the Infantry Regiment <<Milán>> nº 32 which would serve the war in Nationalist service. On the other hand, Trubia remained loyal to the Republican government forces, and the tanks within the factory, along with a Landesa tractor (which was transformed into a tank), were pressed into service by the workers and militiamen in the town.

The two Republican tanks were first used in an offensive against Oviedo on September 10th 1936, seeing action in the small town of Las Cruces (north of Trubia and north-west of Oviedo) and Loma del Canto, in the outskirts of Oviedo. In Loma del Canto, both broke down in no-mans-land, apparently because of a burnt-out clutch caused by the inexperience of the crew. Efforts were made to recover the tanks, but this was not possible until October when Loma del Canto was captured. No more is known of the fate of the Republican Serie A4 and it was possibly scrapped.

Fortunately, the history of the three in Nationalist service is slightly better recorded; most likely they were used to quell the first attacks by militiamen on the city and helped consolidate Nationalist control of the city.

On August 22nd 1936, the three Trubia Serie A’s, accompanied by two rifle companies and one machine gun company from the Infantry Regiment <<Milán>> nº 32, a Civil Guard detachment, and a battery of Schneider 105/11 guns, were used offensively against Loma del Campón, on the road to Trubia. The objectives were reached, but nº2, under the command of Engineer Brigadier Antonio Morales Elvira broke down. The vehicle was towed back during the night, but because of the general poor condition of the tank and the unevenness of the ground, the turret fell off. It is unknown if the turret was put back, but the vehicle remained in service.

Trubia Serie A nº2 after it broke down in Loma del Campón. The man furthest to the right is Engineer Brigadier Antonio Morales Elvira, the tank’s commander. The other men in the photo appear to be infantrymen or militiamen, though some of them could also form part of the tank’s crew – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 36

Still from a video showing the rear of a Trubia Serie A4 in Oviedo with Moorish troops of Franco’s army marching past – source: Vehículos Blindados de la Guerra Civil

Following this small offensive, the vehicles were to be deployed defensively in the besieged city of Oviedo. Multiple further breakdowns meant that they were used statically in defensive positions; one defended La Argañosa (the western entrance to the city) and the other two, one of which was now operated by elements of the Civil Guards, were situated between Campo de los Patos street and the arms factory defending the eastern approach along the Santander road.
The one situated in La Argañosa was destroyed at some point before the end of the initial Republican offensive on Asturias in October by Nationalist forces to prevent Republican irregulars from capturing it, as it was broken down and could not be towed to safety due to the crossfire. The remaining two Trubia Serie A’s continued to be used for defensive duties.

The remains of one of the Nationalist’s Trubia Serie A in La Argañosa – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 38

On October 27th, nº3 was sent to the Naranco Hill to tow back to Oviedo a Republican Landesa tank which had broken through the lines but had broken down.

Series of photos taken in Escandalera square (Oviedo) on October 27th 1936 showing the Nationalist Trubia Serie A nº3 towing a Landesa tank captured at Naranco Hill. The towing through the streets of Oviedo received lots of attention from the besieged Nationalist troops. Not the improvised camouflage on the Trubia Serie A with branches and foliage – Photo: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 41-42

In January 1937, the Republican Army of the North planned a major offensive on Asturias with all available men and vehicles. The offensive would properly commence on February 21st with Republican Army forces penetrating the defensive perimeter near Campo de Patos, where the two remaining Trubia Serie A and Nationalist infantrymen managed to fend them off.

Two Nationalists posing next to a Trubia Serie A in Oviedo – source: Vehículos Blindados de la Guerra Civil

It is unknown if the two tanks survived the whole offensive (at least one did), but they were most likely scrapped once the offensive was over and plenty of German Panzer I’s, Italian CV 33-35’s and captured Soviet vehicles were available. It has been subsequently speculated that one was sent to Seville at the end of the War in the North, and was used in victory parades, but there is no evidence to substantiate this claim and no logical reason why this might have occurred. Unless or until firm evidence of their appearance in Seville is produced this has to be considered unlikely at best.

One of the Nationalist Trubia Serie A in Oviedo defending Campo de los Patos and the eastern entrance to the city – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2007), p. 76

A Nationalist Trubia Serie A still in its static position defending the weapons factory in Oviedo following the end of the war in Asturias in October 1937 – source: Artemio Mortera Pérez (2011), p. 143

Legacy and Conclusion

Following the unofficial termination of the Trubia Serie A project in 1928-1929, Landesa Domenech, now a Captain, and Areces embarked in a new project, a tractor for military and agricultural use based on the same, but improved and updated, mechanisms as the Trubia Serie A. The tractor, named Tractor Landesa [Landesa Tractor], would also have an armored upgrade which would be used in the Revolution of 1934 and the Spanish Civil War. In the Spanish Civil War, another vehicle, the Trubia-Naval, influenced by the original Trubia Serie A would see service with both Republican and Nationalist forces.

The Trubia Serie A was a brave, but ultimately, unsatisfactory effort to improve upon the existing Renault FT. Had the vehicle worked properly, it would definitely have been a major improvement; it had improved firepower, improved engine performance, which could be accessed from the inside, allowed for higher speed, range and performance, slightly thicker armor, and more comfort for its crew. However, the experimental suspension system used proved to be inefficient and too prone to breakdowns due to its delicate nature. The problem was, that for a variety of reasons, a copy of this suspension system was still being used in new tank designs as late as 1936.
Regardless, the Trubia Serie A was the first example of a Spanish designed tank to overcome the dependency on foreign tanks and valuable lessons were learnt by the designers and engineers.

Modern Reconstruction

In the Museo de la Historia Militar Española, el Cueto, in Asturias, along its impressive collection of Spanish Civil War era reconstructions, is one of the Trubia Serie A. Whilst due to its complexity and obsoleteness the Orion suspensions system has not been replicated, everything else seems to be an accurate reproduction of the vehicle, including the double rotating turret. The vehicle has been given an engine and is used to drive around the museum’s grounds. A video of the vehicle in action can be seen here.

The reproduction of the Trubia Serie A at el Cueto – source: Facebook, Museo el Cueto

Illustration of the Trubia A by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet, with corrections by Jaycee ‘AmazingAce’ Davis.

Specifications
Dimensions	Excluding tail 4.36 x 2.8 x 1.8 m (14.3 x 9.19 x 5.9 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	8.1 tonnes
Crew	3 (Driver/frontal gunner; Commander/gunner/loader; and Gunner/loader)
Propulsion	Daimler MV1574 4 cylinder 75 hp
Max speed	30 km/h (19 mph) on road
Range	100 km (62.14 miles)
Suspension	None
Armament	3 x 7 mm Hotchkiss M1914 machine guns
Armor	16-20 mm (0.63 – 0.79 in)
Production	4

Sources

Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Carros de Combate “Trubia” (Valladolid: Quirón Ediciones, 1993)
Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española. Teatro de Operaciones del Norte 36/37 (Valladolid: AF Editores, 2007)
Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española. Teatro de Operaciones de Levante, Aragón y Cataluña 36/39 2.ª Parte (Valladolid: AF Editores, 2011)
Chus Neira, “El primer tanque español salió de la Fábrica de Trubia hace 90 años” La Nueva España [Spain], 30 March 2017 (https://www.lne.es/oviedo/2017/03/30/primer-tanque-espanol-salio-fabrica/2081455.html#)

WW1 Mexican Armor

TNCA Salinas

United States of Mexico (1917)
Heavy Tank Prototype – At Least 1 Built

Mexico is not a country which is often associated with tank production of any kind. What is more, as of 2018, Mexico does not have any tanks at all in their army – their armored forces consist of armored cars, most numerously the Panhard ERC, which is nearing 35 years of service. As such, it may come to a surprise that in 1917, Mexico joined a very select group of tank producing nations with the TNCA Salinas, and by doing so, beating their bitter rivals north of the border.

Context – The Mexican Revolution

The Mexican Revolution is one of, if not the most important events in Twentieth-Century Mexican history, completely changing the sociopolitical fabric of society. For over three decades, Mexico had been ruled by what is known as el Porfiriato, in other words, the presidency of General Porfirio Díaz, until he was forced to resign in 1911. Shortly before that, after fixing an election result in 1910, the people were mobilized against Díaz.

During his presidency, Díaz had made many enemies, and his successor was one of them, the liberal Francisco I. Madero who tried to introduce democracy and freedom of press and association. Following such a long lasting period of rule by one person, a political vacuum was created in which different political elites and social groups fought to take power. Madero had enemies on all sides of the political spectrum – some viewed him has too reactionary, and others as too liberal revolutionary – so he was forced to resign alongside his vice president in a coup in February 1913, with both being assassinated soon after. The counter-revolutionary General Victoriano Huerta took over after the coup and ruled in a dictatorial manner until July 1914, when he resigned and went into exile after a series of defeats of his Federal Army.

By this point, Mexico was submerged in a full-scale civil war. A coalition of revolutionary forces would take over the capital and therefore seized power, but not for long as they failed to land an agreement to form a government. The conservative Venustiano Carranza, who had been instrumental in the coup against Huerta in 1913 and had support from the USA, emerged triumphant from the chaos of the civil war, defeating the famous revolutionaries Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata along the way. With the signing of the Constitution of 1917, the situation would stabilize for some time.

Following the signing of the Constitution and up to 1920, clean-up operations were carried out and agrarian revolutionary leaders were assassinated or imprisoned. The general atmosphere of turmoil and uncertainty benefited radical ideas and banditry alike. The ten years of continuous warfare would leave between 1 and 2 million dead Mexicans, including military and civilian deaths.

The Steps Towards Tank Production

Mexico had never been a major arms producer and had always had to depend on foreign imports for any major military operation. The constant situation of warfare during the Revolutionary period exacerbated the need for armament. With this in mind, a pro-government group (Constitutionalists), under the orders of General Venustiano Carranza, led a project to build armament factories for home production in 1915. By 1917, the Escuela Militar de Aviación [Military Aviation School] and Talleres Nacionales de Construcción Aeronáutica (TNCA) [National Aircraft Construction Factories] were inaugurated in Mexico City.

TNCA had originated as a small repair workshop and spare part supplier for the equally small Mexican air-force but slowly increased in size with the introduction of heavy machinery imported from Europe. Eventually, it would even produce its own aircraft, including the TNCA A to H Series and a few licensed British and American aircraft.

At some point in between 1916 and 1917, Carranza’s nephew, the aviator Major Alberto Salinas Carranza, is attributed to having designed a tank which would receive the name ‘TNCA Salinas’ – TNCA after the factory where it was built and Salinas in honor of its designer – although the tank is more commonly known as ‘Tanque Salinas’ (Salinas’ tank).

The TNCA Salinas next to its presumed designer, Major Alberto Salinas Carranza. The five-barrel revolving cannon can be appreciated in this photo. The vehicle is probably perched on some sort of stand. The rollers for the track are visible as are the spaces for the track tensioners although no track is fitted – source: Reporte de Batalla

What ideas were behind the need for this tank are unknown. By 1917, the civil war and consolidation of power by Carranza were all but complete. One must also consider that unlike the Great War in (mostly Western) Europe, warfare in Mexico had not been limited to trenches. In the vast plains and deserts in the center and north, horses and mounted mobile warfare was still important, whilst in the jungles of the south, guerrilla warfare was favored. Tank technology at the time was not advanced enough for tanks to cover these large distances and to fight in this typically mobile warfare. The tank would have been more suited to the multiple urban combats that occurred during the Revolution and to put down uprisings within cities or towns.

Tanks were a new phenomenon and states around the world did not want to be left lagging behind in adopting this technology. Mexico would not be left either, and within an atmosphere of war favoring technological innovations, eager and adept engineers like Salinas could have been free to develop their ideas.

Visit of German Navy personnel to the Fábrica Nacional de Armas. Behind them, the TNCA Salinas. Unfortunately, there are no testimonies as to what impression the vehicle caused on the German visitors – source:

Design

Externally, the tank resembles the early British rhomboid tanks (such as the Mk. I) which had tracks on each side surrounding the hull and covered the entire length of the machine. Its main gun position, however, owes more to the contemporary French design of the St. Chamond.

On each side, there were sponsons to carry the secondary armament consisting of a machine-gun on each side (unlike the British tanks where the main armament would be on the sponsons). The sponsons, unlike the large square British ones, were curved and shaped like a British pillar-box. Also, unlike the British detachable sponsons, these seem fixed to the side. Atop the tank, there was a large box-like cabin – similar to those on the Mk.V (and other later ‘rhomboid’ tanks) – for the driver and commander.

It seems from photographic evidence that in front of the sponsons there were doors for crew access on each side, which, in combat, would have been quite a design flaw as: a) the machine guns would not be able to fire forward if the door was in use; and b) crewmembers would be vulnerable when exiting the tank in middle of combat if the door was facing forward.

Armor details are not described, but given that the vehicle is estimated to be around 7 m in length and 20 tonnes in weight and a similar vehicle, the Mk.I’s 7.9 m and 27-29 tonnes with 6-15 mm in armor, the armor of the TNCA Salinas can be approximated to 6-12 mm. This armor was riveted, and from the photos, it seems it was constructed onto an internal frame.

Armament

The front upper hull had a large square through which the gun was fired. It seems the gun was not fitted into the hull but rather mounted internally and the gun’s original gun shield was used for interior protection. Some sources state a 47 mm Hotchkiss revolver cannon consisting of five barrels as the main armament, but this may well be a typo. It is documented that at the time of the Mexican Revolution there were Hotchkiss 37 mm Revolving Cannons, also with 5 barrels, but there is not mention of a 47 mm variant, and the description provided matches that of the 37 mm. A typo between a 3 and a 4 is easy to make and with time, this typo has come to be accepted as a fact.

Martínez Hernández et al., probably the most reputable source on the tank, state that it was, in fact, the 37mm version, which could have been found on board the battleship Ignacio Zaragoza. This gun was accurate and had a quick reload time, but had its drawbacks, including the fact that it did not have a long range and that it was quite heavy as it was mainly intended to be used on ships or coastal defense (though it was used as field artillery during the war), not early tanks. Each round weighed around 1.1kg and that the gun with a muzzle velocity of 455 m/s. Firing a solid AP shot this gun could perforate 45mm of steel at close ranges.

Some sources mention that an unspecified 75 mm gun, though it could be the Mexican variant of the 75 mm St. Chamond field gun known as the Mondragón-St. Chamond, was also tested, but there is no conclusive evidence of this. The caliber or make of the side machine-guns is not known.

A Hotchkiss 37mm Revolving Cannon at Fort Copacabana, Brazil. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Inside the Tank

Inside there would be a crew of between 6 and 8. A commander, a driver, two to three crewmembers to operate the main gun in the front and two machine gunners (one on each side). The potential eighth crew member is unspecified but could have been an engineer.

Details concerning the engine differ, but what is assumed is that it would have been a diesel engine of around 90-100 hp. The 6 cylinder Aztatl 80 hp – the first Mexican indigenous airplane engine – could have, according to all available sources consulted, been used, as it was first produced in 1917. Alternatively, at this time in Mexico, there were Hispano-Suiza 150 hp, Wright 60 hp, and Renault ~60 hp engines for aircraft which could also have been used. However, it could make more sense to think that the tank would have used some sort of truck engine, which would have been much more readily available and in less demand than the latest type of aircraft engine. It is worth mentioning though that TNCA was a company involved in aircraft parts production and as such, could have used an aircraft engine which would have been available at the time.

On the other hand, Martínez Hernández et al. doubt that the tank had an engine at all. In the few available images of the vehicle, there are no obvious signs that it ever moved under its own power, so it could well be that whatever engine was desired was never actually fitted.

Side-view of the TNCA Salinas in which its postbox-like sponsons can be appreciated. The identity of the man posing with the tank is unknown – source: Reporte de Batalla

Short Operational History and Demise

It is unknown if any additional vehicles to the prototype were produced in series, but it is highly unlikely. There is also very little information regarding what happened to the tank.

Speculation exists within the sources that the tank could have been deployed in combat twice, though this is highly unlikely. The first supposed use would be in some period between 1919 and 1921, during the last stages of the Mexican Revolution, and the second in 1926 in putting down the Catholic clerical rebels during the Cristero War (1926-29). As previously stated, there is no supporting evidence of this, so, for now, these will be left as conjecture.

The company TNCA was eventually bought by Canadian Car and Foundry, but before then the company was on a spiral decline due to lack of government investment and a preference for foreign aircraft.

The ‘Tanque Salinas’ would end its operational life sometime during the 1930’s when it was converted into a guardhouse or checkpoint outside the air base at Balbuena, near Mexico City, not too far from where the tank was originally built. The main gun was removed and from photographic evidence.

It is unknown what happened to the tank after this, but it was most likely scrapped at some point. Mexico would not have any other tanks until the nine Marmon-Herrington CTVL tanks acquired from the USA in 1938.

The Tanque Salinas presumably at the Balbuena air base lacking its main armament. In this picture, it can be perfectly appreciated that the gun was not affixed to the frontal plate but rather mounted internally and protected on the inside only with its gun shield. The open space seen through the gun opening would have been the open right-hand-side door – source: Reporte de Batalla

Conclusion

Although the TNCA Salinas was never going to blaze the trail for a new tank concept, but it was an important milestone in the history of tank design by being the first tank designed and built outside Europe. Unfortunately, not much is known about the tank and there is very little scholarly work on the history or development of the vehicle, which is unfair given its importance, meaning that it deserves a better legacy.

Its design proved that the Mexican engineers and elites were not only aware of events happening in Europe but were able to adopt various different ideas (a rhomboid design and forward facing main gun not mounted on sponsons) into one suited to their own purposes. That said, it is unknown how well, if at all, Tanque Salinas worked, and it was most likely never used in combat or even in training operations.

Illustration of the Salinas Tank modeled by Mr. C. Ryan, funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	Est. 7 x 3 x 2 m (22.96 x 9.84 x 6.56 ft)
Total weight	Est. Around 20 tonnes
Crew	6-8 (Commander, Driver, 2-3 Gunners, Two Machine Gunners, possibly 1 Engineer)
Propulsion	6-Cylinder Aztatl 80 hp
Armament	Naval 37 mm Hotchkiss revolver cannon 2 x machine guns
Armor	6-12 mm (0.24 – 0.47 in)
Total Production	1

Bibliography

Anon., Gral. Div. P.A. Alberto Leopoldo Salinas Carranza (2011). (LINK) [accessed on 30/08/18]
Anon., The Hotchkiss 37mm Revolving Cannon (2010). (LINK)
‘Coldown’, El primer tanque de Latinoamérica (2016). (LINK) [accessed on 29/08/18]
David Cummings, TNCA Salinas (Tanque Salinas), Mexico’s First Indigenous Tank (2013). (LINK) [accessed on 29/08/18]
Samuel Banda, TNCA Salinas: El primer tanque mexicano (2012). (LINK) [accessed on 29/08/18]
‘Tlileztly’, TNCA Salinas “Tanque Mexicano inicios del siglo XX (2017). (LINK) [accessed on 29/08/18]
Mario Alejandro Martínez Hernández (ed), Sentinel Dossier 1 El mundo de las fuerzas armadas mexicanas (Marzo 2016)
Philip Jowett and Alejandro de Quesada, Osprey Elite #137 The Mexican Revolution 1910-20 (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2008)

WW1 centennial: All belligerents tanks and armored cars – Support tank encyclopedia

Bolivian Armor WW2 British Vehicles in Foreign Service

Carden-Loyd Mk.VI in Bolivian Service

Post author By Gareth Lynn Montes
Post date April 10, 2018
11 Comments on Carden-Loyd Mk.VI in Bolivian Service

Bolivia (1932-1933)
Tankette – 2 Purchased

Introduced in 1928, the Carden-Loyd Mark VI tankette was one of the most influential designs of its time, serving as an inspiration for the French Renault UE, the Polish TK3, the Japanese Type 94, the Italian CV series, the Soviet T-27 and the Czech Tančík vz.33. More famously, the British Universal Carrier was a direct evolution of this vehicle.
Its ridiculously cheap price and the Vickers company’s global reach meant that the Carden-Loyd became a success story on the international market, serving in many armies worldwide and becoming the most extensively used tank in the world for a few years in the late 20’s and early 30’s. This period, marked by the 1929 Stock Exchange Crash, meant that smaller nations with limited military budgets were able to purchase tanks to equip their armed forces. One of these clients was the landlocked South American country of Bolivia.

One of the Bolivian Carden-Loyds somewhere in the Chaco 1932-33. Photo: SOURCE

Buying the Vickers

Bolivia’s reasons for wanting to purchase war materiel were the growing tensions with its neighbor Paraguay over the disputed Chaco region, territory claimed by both countries. In 1928, there had been border skirmishes, known as the Vanguardia Incident, but, with both sides recognizing neither was ready for a full-scale war, a peace settlement through the League of Nations was reached. Nevertheless, both nations remained bellicose and built up their forces in the region resulting in the outbreak of war in July 1932.
Acting upon the advice of Hans Kundt – a German who was Minister of Defense and Commander in Chief of the Bolivian forces and had who previously been a Lieutenant General in the German Army during WWI – a deal was sought with the British arms company Vickers to buy modern military equipment, aircraft and tanks. Originally, the contract valued at GB£3 million and was to include 12 tanks plus aircraft, though the financial crisis caused by the 1929 Stock Exchange Crash meant that a new, more austere deal had to be struck. In the end, this agreement, concluded in October 1932, was worth somewhere between GB£1.25 million and GB£1.87 million and included 196 artillery pieces, 36,000 rifles, 6,000 carbines, 750 machine-guns, 2.5 million rounds of ammunition, 10,000-20,000 shells, 12 warplanes and 5 tanks – 3 Mk. E’s and the 2 Vickers-Carden-Loyd.
However, not all that was agreed to was sent and what was sent was of dubious quality. To make matters worse, Argentina and Chile, who supported Paraguay, blocked the shipments in their ports for some time.
On arrival, all tanks were then grouped together in the ‘Destacamento de Blindados’ under the command of a German mercenary, Major Adrim R. von Kries.

The Controversy Surrounding Dates

Scholarship on tank warfare of the Chaco War is limited and what has been written is prone to errors. Usually, no distinction is made between the tanks used and they are just referred to as ‘tanks’. Further complications arise as dates given are often contradictory.
The most widely accepted date for the Bolivia-Vickers contract is October 1932, however, several authors have claimed that the Carden-Loyds were first used at the Battle of Boquerón, in September 1932.
Unfortunately, no photographic evidence exists to clear up this discrepancy.
An explanation is as follows:
[Disclaimer: This is a speculative theory developed by the author.]:
What is known is that Bolivia and Vickers had been negotiating an arms sale since 1928, so it is possible that the October 1932 deal was only the final one and that in the previous years, other deals had been struck, including the purchase of the two Carden-Loyds. Since then, it may be the case that for the sake of simplicity, authors have amalgamated all the sales from Vickers to Bolivia in that final one. Other explanations are possible, including the alternative that they were indeed never sent until October 1932 and only first deployed at Nanawa in July 1933.
Whatever is the case, this article will continue based on the assumption that Bolivia had two Carden-Loyds ready to deploy in combat in the Chaco in September 1932, thus making them the first armed tracked vehicle to be deployed in the field of battle in South America.

Design

The Bolivian Carden-Loyds were of the Mark VIb variant. The main export version had been the Mark VI with head covers, but the Bolivian VIb differed in that it had a slightly peaked transverse roof hinged fore and aft for overhead protection. It also differed in that it had two upper track rollers and had a Meadows 40HP engine with the conventional four speeds transmission.
Apart from that, it had the same features as most Mk.VI’s, including the dismountable machine-gun, two-man crew and armored front.

The Bolivian Carden-Loyd, Illustrated by Tank Enyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet

Combat History

As stated previously, the Carden-Loyds allegedly made their combat debut for Bolivia at the Battle of Boquerón in September 1932, which was also the first battle of the Chaco War. One was used between the 24th and 25th in support of infantry units in the fight to defend the fort of Boquerón, which had been captured the previous week from Paraguayan forces. One of the tankettes was commanded by the American mercenary John Kenneth Lockhart, who was wounded in the battle. The vehicle’s poor frontal armor was unable to stop Paraguayan rifle and machine-gun fire, a problem aggravated by the fact that the high temperatures meant that some of the fighting was done with the hatches open, making it very dangerous for the two-man crew. The battle resulted in a major triumph for the Paraguayans and the Bolivians were forced to retreat.
The two Loyds would be used again in the next battle of the war, the Battle of Kilometer 7. One, commanded by the Bolivian Lieutenant José Quiroga, was used in early December to support the infantry in a counterattack to maintain the line.
Later in that battle, Bolivian forces had used a truce to retreat to the Kilometer 12 of the Saavedra-Alihuatá road. On the 27th, a major counterattack was planned by General Hans Kundt to exploit a Paraguayan defensive weakness, despite Air Force intelligence reports advising otherwise. One of the tankettes, commanded by the then recovered Lockhart, was used alongside the 3rd Infantry Regiment ‘Pérez’. The frontal assault on Paraguayan forces would be a disaster resulting in hundreds of Bolivian casualties. The Loyd’s role in the assault was minimal and due to the high temperatures inside the tank, it was forced to retreat. Its commander, Lockhart, not wanting to give up the fight, left the tank and continued to fight on foot, but, by the end of the day, he was another name on the Bolivian casualty list.

A side view of a Bolivian Carden-Loyd with its crewmembers. SOURCE:
The tanks would not be used again until the Second Battle of Nanawa in July 1933. Here they were used alongside the Vickers Mk.E’s. The Bolivian offensive was divided into three groups: north, center and south. The North group, under the Austrian Captain Walter Kohn, consisted of two Mk.E’s, whilst group South was led by Major Wilhelm ‘Wim’ Brandt and consisted of the other Type B plus the two Carden-Loyds.
The battle would be another disaster for the Bolivians, who lost 2,000 men. On the tank front, a Mk.E was lost and the two Loyds went out of action early in the battle; one was destroyed and the other got stuck in a trench.
Following the battle, the immobilized Carden-Loyd was recovered and redeployed during the later stages of fighting around Gondra in mid-August.
Following this, there is no recorded use of the vehicle and it was presumably destroyed there, or soon after that at Campo Grande.

Conclusion

The value of the Carden-Loyds during the Chaco War was minimal and should have been a forewarning of the serious failings of this type of tank as exemplified in the Spanish Civil War and early stages of World War II.
Often used as mobile machine-gun platforms, they suffered from poor armor, no proper tank doctrine and being used as individual infantry support vehicles, rather than a larger tank unit. Moreover, the heat in the region, rising to as high as 50ºC, made fighting difficult for several reasons. Tanks had to fight with open hatches creating vulnerable spots; the metallic body of the tank absorbed the heat and made it impossible to touch and machine-guns became jammed as cartridges expanded due to the heat. Neither was the low-lying, densely vegetated geography of the area conducive to tank warfare in general and especially the Loyds, which were unable to play to their strengths using their mobility to roam the battlefield exploiting weak points.

Carden-Loyd Mk.VI specifications
Dimensions	2.46 x 1.75 x 1.22 m (8.07 x 5.74 x 4 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	1.5 tons
Crew	2 (driver, machine-gunner)
Propulsion	Ford T 4-cyl petrol, 40 bhp
Speed (road)	25 mph (40 km/h)
Range	89 mi (144 km)
Armament	0.303 in (7.62 mm) Vickers machine-gun
Armor	6 to 9 mm (0.24-0.35 in)
Total Purchased	2

Links, Resources & Further Reading

A de Quesada and P. Jowett, Men-at-Arms #474 The Chaco War 1932-35 South America’s greatest modern conflict (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2011)
Coronel Gustavo Adolfo Tamaño, Historial Olvidadas: Tanques en la Guerra del Chaco
Matthew Hughes, “Logistics and Chaco War: Bolivia versus Paraguay, 1932-35” The Journal of Military History vol. 69 No. 2 (April 2005), pp. 411-437
Michael Mcnerney, “Military innovations during war: Paradox or paradigm?” Defense & Security Analysis 21:2 (2005), pp. 201-212
Ricardo Sigal Fogliani, Blindados Argentinos, de Uruguay y Paraguay (Buenos Aires: Ayer y Hoy ediciones, 1997)
Robert J. Icks, Number 16. Carden Loyd Mk.VI (Profile Publications, 1967)
miniaturasmilitaresalfonscanovas.blogspot.co.uk
quellasarmasdeguerra.wordpress.com

Bolivian Armor WW2 British Vehicles in Foreign Service

Vickers Mark E in Bolivian Service

Post author By Gareth Lynn Montes
Post date March 10, 2018
5 Comments on Vickers Mark E in Bolivian Service

Bolivia (1932-1933)
Light Tank – 3 Purchased

Even though the Vickers 6-Ton (Mark E) was never adopted by the British armed forces, it was a very successful export, equipping the armies of China, Siam, Poland (where it influenced the design of the 7TP) and the USSR (influencing the T-26) among many others.

There were two main versions of the Mk.E: the Type A, which had two smaller turrets, each with a Vickers Mk.IVb class C/T 7.65 mm machine gun; and the Type B, with a single two-man-turret fitting a QFSA Mk.II L/23 47 mm gun.

Its modern design, for that time, made it the preferred alternative to the WWI-era Renault FT, its main competitor in the export market, which, by this point, was showing its age. The Mk.E was faster, more durable and more versatile than the French tank.

This article will deal with another customer of this tank, Bolivia, which became the third nation on the continent of South America to acquire armored fighting vehicles after Brazil (12 Renault FT’s bought in 1921) and Argentina (6 Vickers Crossley Armoured Cars).

Modern schematics of the Bolivian Mk.E Type B – source: Janusz Ledwoch (2009), p.16

Buying the Vickers

Acting upon the advice of Hans Kundt a deal was sought with the British arms company Vickers to buy modern military equipment, aircraft and tanks. Kundt was a German who was Minister of Defense and Commander in Chief of the Bolivian forces having previously been a Lieutenant General in the German Army during WWI. Originally, the contract was going to be worth GB £3 million and included 12 tanks plus aircraft. However, the financial crisis caused by the 1929 Stock Exchange Crash meant that a new, more austere deal had to be struck. In the end, this agreement, concluded in October 1932, was worth somewhere between GB £1.25 million and GB £1.87 million and included 196 artillery pieces, 36,000 rifles, 6,000 carbines, 750 machine-guns, 2.5 million rounds of ammunition, 10,000-20,000 shells, 12 warplanes, and 5 tanks – 3 Mk.E’s and 2 Vickers-Carden-Loyd Mk.VIs.

However, not all that was agreed to was sent and what was sent was of dubious quality. To make matters worse, Argentina and Chile, who supported Paraguay, blocked the shipments for some time and once they reached Bolivia, poor internal transport routes to the Chaco meant that the tanks did not arrive at the frontline until the 20th December 1932.

The E tanks were of both A and B versions. The A version vehicle had the serial number ‘VAE 532’ and the two B versions were ‘VAE 446’ and ‘VAE 447’. They were also slightly different to the normal Mk.E tanks. ‘VAE 532’ was up-armored to 17 mm from the original 13 mm and all three vehicles included a can for drinking water, two fire-extinguishers, wire cutters, a chainsaw, and two spades as non-standard additional equipment. On arrival, they only had dark green camouflage, but sand colored bands were later added. All tanks were then grouped together in the ‘Destacamento de Blindados’ under the command of the German mercenary, Major Adrim R. von Kries.

A photo of one of the Type B’s taken shortly before the 2nd Battle of Nanawa. In the background, some of its crewmembers can be made out – source: Algunas armas de guerra

Photo of the Type A ‘VAE 532’ in December 1933. The camouflage tones can be appreciated – source: A de Quesada and P. Jowett (2011), p. 35

The Chaco War

First Blood

Their first action in the war took place in the 2nd Battle of Nanawa, in early July 1933. The accounts of this battle are patchy and there is some confusion regarding which tank was where at which point. Before the battle, they were divided up to support the two main advances in the north and the south. The North group, under the Austrian Captain Walter Kohn, consisted of, presumably, the one Type A and one Type B, most likely ‘VAE 447’, whilst group South was led by Major Wilhelm ‘Wim’ Brandt and consisted of the other Type B plus the two Carden-Loyds. They were all under orders to act independently of each other supporting the infantry’s advance.

Initially, the Mk.E tanks were very effective, being immune to Paraguayan infantry fire, and they advanced destroying machine gun nests and wooden emplacements along the way. To a point, they were too successful, when one tank, presumably ‘VAE 446’, under the command of the NCO Juan Saavedra Acha, broke the enemy line, but was forced to retreat for fear of being surrounded and was then captured due to lack of infantry support.

The other flank was far less successful. The tanks advanced without any artillery support and got pinned down. Disaster struck when the Type B (‘VAE 447’) was knocked out on either 4th or 5th July. There are several theories as to what happened: 1. the tank was destroyed after grenades were thrown in through its open hatches (open due to the overwhelming and suffocating heat); 2. a 81 mm mortar round penetrated the top of the tank; 3. the tank broke down and was then destroyed by Paraguayan artillery; or 4. it was hit by a 75 mm artillery round leaving it immobilized and that it was later destroyed by Bolivian troops to prevent it from being captured. What is clear is that Captain Kohn, its commander, and the gunner were killed, while the driver was left wounded, and that the turret was in good enough condition to be then taken by the Paraguayans, who were victorious in what would be one of the largest battles of the war.

The remains of ‘VAE 447’ – source: Janusz Ledwoch (2009), p. 33

The Type A on this flank was also damaged when enemy fire jammed one of the machine guns.

From this very first engagement, a few conclusions were drawn that would remain persistent throughout the rest of the war. The Vickers Mk.E engine and suspension proved to be good enough to fight in these harsh conditions and had enough armor to defend itself against Paraguayan small arms fire, whilst the armament, especially on the Type B, ripped through the Paraguayan fortifications. However, lack of availability meant they were not used in large enough numbers, and their tactical use as independent entities in support of infantry proved to be inefficient. Moreover, the heat, rising to as high as 50ºC made fighting difficult and affected the tanks in two ways: 1. it meant they had to fight with open hatches creating vulnerable spots; and 2. the heat affected the gun’s closing mechanism, which slowed down loading making it an arduous task.

From Gondra to the Second Battle of Alihuatá

The following month, the two remaining Mk.E’s were repaired and transported for deployment in the Battle of Gondra. This clash took place between March and December 1933, but the tanks, along with the only remaining Vickers-Carden-Loyd Mk.VI, only fought between the 23rd and 26th of August. Here, they were deployed in conjunction against fortified Paraguayan infantry positions, where the 47 mm of the Type B proved to be particularly effective in destroying wooden fortifications.

The Type A (‘VAE 532’) undergoing maintenance somewhere in the Chaco region at some point between August and November 1933 – source: Algunas armas de guerra

Following the battle, they were assigned to the reserve of the 1st Army Corp and moved to the fort of Saavedra. In the subsequent months, they were employed individually as infantry support.
Even though their engagements were few, the Paraguayans were sufficiently concerned to create dedicated tank hunting groups and to set tank traps across the Chaco region. Lack of adequate anti-tank weaponry led these hunt squads to adopt unconventional methods. The tank hunting unit attached to the 7th Cavalry Regiment ‘San Martín’ would become renowned.

Beaten by Horses

The two remaining tanks were deployed together again in the Second Battle of Alihuatá in December 1933. In the last days of the battle (December 10th-11th), the two tanks were captured by the Paraguayan 7th Cavalry Regiment ‘San Martín’ at the 21st-22nd kilometer of the Zenteno-Saavedra road. Alerted by the rumble of the motors, the cavalrymen resolved to cut down trees to lay across the road in front and behind the tanks. With the road blocked and no way to escape, the tanks, commanded by the Germans Ernst Bertel and Fritz Stottuht, decided to defend themselves from the Paraguayan forces with machine-gun fire. After two hours of combat, with one of the commanders wounded, and with temperature inside reaching 50ºC, combined with fatigue and the lack of infantry support, the tanks had no option other than surrender.

Cavalrymen of the 7th Cavalry Regiment ‘San Martín’ celebrating the capture of ‘VAE 446’ – source: Aquellas armas de guerra

The two Vickers Mk.E’s (the Type A at the front and the Type B ‘VAE 446’ behind) being towed by a Paraguayan heavy tractor. It appears that the tanks caused lots of curiosity among Paraguayan forces – source: 2.bp

Life in Paraguay

After being captured intact at Alihuatá, the tanks were taken back to the Paraguayan capital of Asunción to be exhibited as war trophies. Even though they were never put into service, they were the first and only tanks Paraguay had until the arrival of American M3 and M3A1 Stuart tanks more than a decade later.

Colorised photo of the two Mk.E’s shortly after their capture and being transported to Paraguay – source: Aquellas armas de guerra

The two captured Mk’s alongside Paraguayan officers. Location unknown – source: Minairons

Sometime during or after the war, the Type A (‘VAE 532’) was moved atop a pedestal in the grounds of the Military School in Asunción where it would remain until the 1990s. The Paraguayans named this tank ‘Ina’. The turret of the ‘VAE 447’, which was captured after the 2nd Battle of Nanawa, was exhibited in the Paraguayan Armed Forces Museum.

The capture Mk.E Type A ‘Ina’ atop its pedestal in Asunción, Paraguay – source: Zona Militar

Frontal view of ‘Ina’. It is clear that at some point during its capture it was repainted – source: Aquellas armas de guerra

Tanks to the Second Spanish Republic?

For several years, in many books dedicated to the Spanish Civil War, there were claims that one of the captured Vickers, the ‘VAE 446’, was sent to Republican Spain as part of a weapons sale of excess and captured material in January 1937. There was a law in place (Decreto-Ley 8.406 signed on January 15th 1937) which authorized the sale of excess and non-necessary war materiel. Article 1 Point C refers to ‘VAE 446’ and puts the sale price at US $1040.

Records prove that Spain did indeed buy rifles and machine guns from Paraguay. However, there is no photographic evidence to prove the tank was part of a larger purchase and it cannot be confirmed. The story is that the Swiss arms trafficker Thorvald Elrich secured the tank for the Republic which arrived in Spain in September 1937. It is possible, that for the sake of cohesiveness, the turret was removed and replaced by that of a T-26 (a tank based on the Mk.E to start with).

To add to the confusion, some scholarship of the Spanish Civil War at times refers to the Soviet T-26 tanks as Vickers tanks. No trace of the tank can be found and if it was never sent to Spain, it is possible that it was scrapped. There are also claims that Portugal sent their two Vickers Mk.E’s, one Type A and one Type B, to fight on the Nationalist side, though these seems highly unlikely. The truth may never be known.

Final fate

In 1994, as a goodwill gesture, ‘Ina’ and the turret of ‘VAE 447’ were given back to Bolivia. Today they can both be found on display at the Colegio Militar del Ejercito in La Paz, with the turret being put on top of the rear of the Type A. A plaque on the tank’s front gives a brief history of it, with special emphasis on the 1994 gesture.

Two photos of the sole surviving Bolivian Mk.E ‘VAE 532’, also known as ‘Ina’ and the turret of ‘VAE 447’ in the military school in La Paz, Bolivia – source: Aquellas armas de guerra

Bolivian Vickers 6 ton Type B. Both illustrations by David Bocquelet

Sources

Antonio Luis Sapienza & José Luis Martínez Peláez, The Chaco War 1932-1935 Fighting in the Green Hell (Warwick: Hellion & Company Limited, 2020)

A de Quesada and P. Jowett, Men-at-Arms #474 The Chaco War 1932-35 South America’s greatest modern conflict (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2011)
Coronel Gustavo Adolfo Tamaño, Historial Olvidadas: Tanques en la Guerra del Chaco

Janusz Ledwoch, Tank Power vol.LXXXV Vickers 6-ton Mark E/F vol.II (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Militaria, 2009)

Matthew Hughes, “Logistics and Chaco War: Bolivia versus Paraguay, 1932-35” The Journal of Military History vol. 69 No. 2 (April 2005), pp. 411-437

Michael Mcnerney, “Military innovations during war: Paradox or paradigm?” Defense & Security Analysis 21:2 (2005), pp. 201-212

miniaturasmilitaresalfonscanovas.blogspot.co.uk

Specification
Dimensions (L-W-H)	4.55 m x 2.32 m x 2.21 m (14ft 11in x 7ft 7in x 7ft 3in)
Total weight, battle ready	7.3 tons
Crew	3
Propulsion	4-cyl gas flat air cooled Armstrong-Siddeley Puma petrol engine, 90 bhp
Speed (road/off-road)	31/16 km/h (19.3/9.9 mph)
Range (road/off road)	240/140 km (150/87 mi)
Armament	Type A: 2x Vickers Mk.IVb class C/T 7.65 mm machine gun Type B: Vickers QFSA Mk.II L/23 47 mm (1.85 in) gun
Armor	6 to 15 mm (0.24-0.59 in) The Type A had up to 17 mm (0.67 in)
Track width	28 cm (11 inches)
Track link length	12.5 cm (4.9 inches)
Total Purchased	3 (1 Type A and 2 Type B’s)

WW2 Spanish Prototypes

Cañón Autopropulsado de 75/40mm Verdeja

Post author By Gareth Lynn Montes
Post date November 22, 2017
1 Comment on Cañón Autopropulsado de 75/40mm Verdeja

Spain (1945)
Self-Propelled Gun – 1 Prototype Built/Converted

‘We need a bigger gun’

It is often said that three years of destructive Civil War (1936-1939) left Spain with little option other than to remain, for the most part, neutral during WWII. Spain had long been considered backwards and undeveloped by European standards and seen by many as past its former glory. General Franco, who had won the civil war with the help of Hitler and Mussolini and the passivity of Britain and France, managed to keep Spain out of WWII, or so the story goes. Quite simply, Franco’s demands to join the Axis powers were too ambitious (these included taking under Spanish control Gibraltar and large parts of France’s African colonies). Franco and Hitler could not reach an agreement during their meeting at Hendaye (on the French-Spanish border in the Basque Country) in October 1940. Hitler is famously quoted as saying he would prefer to have three or four teeth pulled than to negotiate with Franco again. Whether this strategy was due to Franco’s reluctance to put his country through another war or whether he was simply hedging his bets is open to debate. Nevertheless, 45-50,000 ‘volunteers’ fought under German colors as part of the ‘División Azul‘ while several Republicans who had escaped to France joined the French resistance.
Despite not taking an active part, Spanish military leaders and personnel paid close attention to what was occurring in Europe. The use of Self Propelled Guns (SPG´s) was one development which caused a great impression. All of Spain’s artillery at the time was towed and so, in 1944-45, the Dirección General de Industria y Matería (DGIM), a branch within the Ministry of the Army, proposed the creation of 75mm, 88mm, 105mm, and 122mm SPG´s to overcome and compensate for the lack of capable vehicles with these functions.
Apparently, the DGIM carried out experiments on a CCI tipo 37, fitting it with a 45mm gun. However, the caliber was too small and hence there was need for a bigger gun for the SPG. The project, which was to mount a 75mm gun on the CCI chassis or an alternative one was given to Captain Félix Verdeja, who had designed the Verdeja No. 1 and Verdeja No. 2 in the early 1940´s, and was approved by the Acta Nº189 on March 13th, 1945. This new task gave Verdeja the opportunity to revisit one of his previous projects, the Verdeja No. 1.

The Verdeja No. 1 was modified and converted to create the SPG version. Source: El Carro de Combate ‘Verdeja’

A new Verdeja

Verdeja set to work on the new project and envisaged removing the turret and opening up the rear of the vehicle to make space for the new, bigger gun. To protect the open area, housing the gun and the crew, a protective armored shield would be erected. Blueprints were soon completed after the project was authorized. However, to speed construction, a simpler model to the one of the blueprints was built, being finished a few weeks later. To speed up construction, it was converted from an existing vehicle rather than being built from scratch and it was finished a few weeks later. The project proved to be viable, but production of a series of vehicles would take more time.
Soon after, the vehicle was ready for testing. Its relative success during the trials could be down to the fact that Spain lacked any SPG. What is more, the chances of acquiring a better model were non-existent as a result of a ban imposed by the victors of WWII on the import of these and other vehicles. 6,000 meters was the maximum fire range achieved, which by 1946 standards was inadequate, and little more is known of the results of those trials.

Design

Being directly converted from another vehicle, the SPG version retained several features of the Verdeja No. 1 including the suspension, undercarriage, and most of the frontal section. The turret, the roof in the rear section and the rear wall which went down to the mudguards were completely removed.

Blueprints for the Verdeja SPG. These differ from the end product as the existing version was only intended as a prototype and was rapidly converted from the Verdeja No. 1. The blueprints were intended for the production line that never happened. Source: El Carro de Combate ‘Verdeja’
The hull of the tank had a trapezoidal shape made out of steel sheets both welded and riveted, obviously not together on the same sheet, with an inclination and curvature at the front and rear and vertical at the sides. The glacis was 10mm thick, angled at 12°, the front armor 25mm at 45°, the sides 15mm, the roof was 10mm, and the belly 7mm. The front section was divided down the middle creating a further two sections. The right side housed the driver’s seat, the steering mechanism, and engine control. The driving mechanism consisted of the three classic pedals of any commercial automobile, two brake levers for the tracks, a gear lever and the various speed, oil, water, etc. gauges. The driver accessed his seat through a hatch on the top of the vehicle, next to the periscope. The other side contained the engine and its power supply and cooling system, as well as gearbox and access doors to the exterior and the right side. The fuel tanks in the Verdeja No. 1 were in the rear half section of the vehicle, so these had to be relocated because of the new functions given to that rear area. A new bigger single fuel tank was put behind the driver all the way down to the separating wall in the middle.
Its suspension consisted of eight elliptical springs connected to the main body through two rigid axes. The undercarriage was composed of an eighteen-toothed-sprocket-wheel at the front, an idler wheel at the back, eight small bogey wheels divided into two quadruple transverse even levers, and four return rollers at the top on each side. The tracks were made out of 97x 290mm wide individual steel magnesium alloy fused links. This undercarriage allowed the vehicle to cross difficult terrain with ease.
As mentioned previously, a protective steel shield was built to protect the gun and crew. It consisted of a 10mm thick plate that was mostly straight at a slight angle going up from the vehicle’s chassis until it curved at the top. The top and back were left unprotected. Of the shield’s two holes, the first right in the middle was for the gun, allowing it to be elevated and giving a small amount of traverse. The second, on the upper left hand side, was for the aiming sights. The selected gun was the RR 75mm gun produced by Sociedad Española de Construcción Naval of Reinosa in 1939. It weighed 536 kg and was 2.94 meters long, having a gun elevation of 25º, a gun depression of 0.25º with 4.5º movement to both the left and right. Judging by the writing on the gun barrel, it can be assumed that it was the third of these guns produced, as it reads: “MARCA RR SECN REINOSA 1939 III AÑO TRIUNFAL 536 Kgs. Nº 3”. When the vehicle was on the move, the gun would be horizontal laying in place in its the gun travel lock situated on the frontal plate.
A mechanical brake was built into the idler wheel which guaranteed stability when firing and avoided damage to the transmission.

Photo of the Verdeja SPG with the gun lying horizontally in the gun travel lock. Date and location unknown. Source: SOURCE
In the interior of the fighting compartment, behind the gun there were two collapsible seats for the commander/gunner and for the loader. On each of the two walls there were four projectiles for quick use in combat. The other 24 projectiles were carried in a trailer towed by the SPG, which had a towing hook at the rear.

Reconstruction of the Verdeja SPG by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.
The rear of the Verdeja SPG where the interior and gun can be seen with more detail. Also note the towing hook that would have been used to tow the projectile carrying trailer. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdeja

End of the line

Despite impressing Spanish officials during trials, like the rest of the Verdeja family, it did not evolve from the prototype stage. This may be because of a lack of financial capital to seriously consider the project, as Spain had been devastated and needed rebuilding. Even so, there was less enthusiasm surrounding this project than its predecessors, probably demonstrating that although the idea of an SPG, at least on paper, seemed worthwhile, the Spanish authorities who ordered the project were not too serious about it, and the lack of mobile artillery pieces could be ignored for the time being.
Following the abandonment of the project, the sole existing prototype was left to rust alongside the Verdeja No. 2 at the firing range of the Escuela de Aplicación y Tiro de Infantería in Madrid.
In the late 1940’s, there were plans to mount an 88mm gun on a Verdeja chassis to use as an assault gun which would have had very low profile, although this project did not even reach prototype stage.
The lack of SPG capacities in the Spanish armed forces would end with the arrival of 28 M37 GMCs (Gun Motor Carriage) from the USA between 1953 and 1958. These were part of the deal reached in the 1953 Madrid Pact, an agreement to give economic and military aid to Spain in exchange for allowing the United States to use four air and naval bases on Spanish territory, in Rota, Torrejon, Zaragoza, and Morón.

Fate

Renewed interest in the Verdeja No. 2 following its appearance in a military magazine Ejército in the early 1970’s and its subsequent removal from the firing range led to the Verdeja SPG also finding a new home. This was atop a pedestal at the barracks of the Regimiento de Infantería Mecanizada (Motorized Infantry Regiment) “Wad Ras” nº 55, at Campamento (Madrid) on the Extremadura Road. When being moved with the aid of a crane, the welding between the top plate and the frontal plate where the driver’s viewing port was and the rear right mudguard was damaged.

This photo shows the damage done to the welding between the top and frontal plate when moved by a crane. Source: SOURCE
In 1985, the regiment was disbanded and the SPG was transferred to the Grupo de Artillería ATP. XII of the Brigada «Guadarrama» XII based in El Goloso, north of Madrid. The vehicle was left on the barracks’ parade ground until the armored vehicle museum was opened there in 1992 with the Grupo de Artillería ATP. XII donating their prized vehicle to the Regimiento de Infantería Acorazada “Alcázar de Toledo nº 61”, who are in charge of the museum. In June 1992, it was towed by a TOA M-806 (local designation for the XM806 variant of the M113) to the south ‘garden’ of the exhibition. After many years in the same place, the vehicle became somewhat fixed to the floor, but by attaching chains from the TOA to the tow hook on the rear of the vehicle, it was moved. In May 1995, when the museum was re-planned, the Verdeja SPG was moved one more time when it became the last exhibit in the pre-1940 vehicles section, as although the design was of 1945, the chassis was built before 1940. Today, the vehicle remains at the MUMA (Museo de Medios Acorazados) in a covered section along with Civil War and WWII era vehicles proudly resting between a German Opel Blitz truck and an American M8 Greyhound armored car.

The Verdeja SPG in its current position inside the MUMA in El Goloso, Madrid. Source: Photo by author

Cañón Autopropulsado de 75/40mm Verdeja
Dimensions (L-W-H)	4.498 x 2.152 x 1.572 m (14.76 x 7.06 x 5.16 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	7.1 tons
Crew	3 (commander/gunner, loader, driver)
Propulsion	Ford V8 Model 48
Speed	44 km/h (27.34mph) maximum 25 km/h (15.5) cruise speed
Range	220 km (136.7 miles)
Armament	75mm Sociedad Española de Construcción Naval of Reinosa
Armor	7-25 mm (0.27 – 0.98 in)
Total production	1 converted

Links, Resources & Further Reading

Francisco Marín and Josep M Mata, Atlas Ilustrado de Vehículos Blindados en España (Madrid: Susaeta)
Javier de Mazarrasa, El Carro de Combate ‘Verdeja’ (Barcelona: L Carbonell, 1988)
www.ejercito.mde.es
www.ejercito.mde.es

WW2 Spanish Prototypes

Verdeja No. 2

Nationalist Spain/Spanish State (1941-1950)
Light Tank – 1 Prototype Built

Rising from the Ashes of the Verdeja No. 1

By mid-1941, the Verdeja No. 1 project had hit the rocks. Bureaucratic, economic and financial issues had combined with a lack of enthusiasm to bring the project to a standstill. With tank development progressing rapidly in the ongoing European war, the vehicle was rendered obsolete. However, Captain Félix Verdeja, the Spanish artillery officer with a keen interest in armored fighting vehicles and creator of the Verdeja prototype and No. 1 models, was not going to give up so easily. He conceived a new model based on his initial design for the Verdeja while also drawing on what was happening elsewhere in Europe.

The Verdeja No. 1, which was also designed by Captain Félix Verdeja. Source.
The new model was to differ from the Verdeja No. 1 in several ways. To start with, the interior and turret position was to be totally redesigned. Previously, the interior had been divided into two sections, front and back, with the front section further divided down the middle creating two sections, with the right side housing the driver’s seat, the steering mechanism and engine control and the left side containing the engine and its power supply and cooling system, the gearbox and access doors to the exterior and the right side. The back section was the fighting compartment for the rear mounted turret.
By contrast, the Verdeja No. 2 was to be divided horizontally into two equally-sized sections, with the front for the driver and a new frontal mounted machine gun and its gunner. The rear would house the engine and transmission system. To create this new space, the front was to be brought further forward. The rear mounted turret was to be moved to the more conventional center. The armor was to be increased by 5-10mm all round with increased projectile penetration and gun caliber in more modern tanks and AT weaponry in mind. On the Verdeja No. 1, the suspension had consisted of eight elliptical springs connected to the main body through two rigid axes. The undercarriage had an eighteen-toothed sprocket-wheel at the front, an idler wheel at the back, eight small bogey wheels divided into two quadruple transverse even levers and four return rollers at the top on each side. The tracks were made out of 97 individual steel magnesium fused links which were 290mm wide. All of these features were to remain unchanged. Verdeja finalized the plans for his new tank on 31 December 1941 and submitted them to the relevant bodies for authorization.

Delay Nightmares and Testing

The Verdeja No. 2 project was not authorized until the 20th of July 1942. The incessant delays which had dogged the previous project (Verdeja No. 1) involving the creation of a corporation to produce the tank and building the necessary infrastructure (factories, etc.) and in purchasing an engine for either of the vehicles continued. As the planned Lincoln ‘Zephyr’ engine could not be acquired, the Maybach HL 62 TRM and HL 190 TRM (as used in several Pz.IV models and variants) were looked into and plans were made for their purchase.
The appalling economic conditions Spain was undergoing meant there was little funding available and the project took a long time to complete. The first Verdeja No. 2, the prototype version, was finally finished in August 1944, almost two years after it had been approved.

A photo of the Verdeja No. 2 before being converted into a monument. There are not many photos from this period. Source: El Carro de Combate ‘Verdeja’
The field tests lasted for a few weeks and took place at the Polígono de Experiencias de Carabanchel and the Escuela de Aplicación y Tiro de Infantería. The new tank did not cause as much excitement during these trials as had the Verdeja prototype and Verdeja No. 1 during their test periods (Generalisimo Franco himself had attended the second set of trials of the Verdeja prototype) and consequently, there is only a fraction of the written or visual evidence when compared to that of the other two.
The lack of enthusiasm and interest was partly down to the aforementioned problems with setting up a corporation to build the tank there being no point in promoting the project’s production without having the means to do so. Nevertheless, during the trials the vehicle showed it was capable of crossing 2.2m trenches, going over slopes of 45°, smashing through 0.35m thick walls and fording depths of 0.8m.
In the meantime, Captain Verdeja toured German tank factories and tapped into the knowledge of Spanish soldiers of the División Azul who had fought for Germany on the Eastern Front during WWII. This gave him the idea of creating a medium tank of modern capabilities to be known as the Verdeja No. 3. This new project failed to materialize and all that is known of it is that Verdeja made a few sketches of what it would look like.

Design of the Verdeja No. 2

The hull was divided transversely across the middle creating two symmetrical sections or compartments. The forward one housed the crew and their fighting stations whilst the engine and other mechanisms were in the rear one. Specifically, inside the forward compartment, the driver sat on the left and to his right the machine gunner/radio operator with both having semicircular outside-opening hatches above them. Between their seats there were fourteen machine gun magazines with two others on each of the vertical walls to their left and right respectively. Behind them could be found the fighting stations and ammunition deposit. The rear section had the 12 cylinder 120hp Lincoln ‘Zephyr’ engine which had finally been procured and the transmission. Weighing 9-10 tons, the Verdeja No. 2 had a power to weight ratio of 10.09hp/t and a fuel consumption of 0.91 liters per kilometer. To each side of the engine there were 100 liter armored fuel tanks and to the rear the 6 watt, 100 amp Bosch battery.
Externally, the armor consisted of 32mm frontal curved armor, 12mm upper glacis armor at 12°, the low 20mm silhouetted sides, the 24mm rear and the 12mm top. The thickest armor on the tank, 40mm, was reserved for the frontal plate with the viewing ports of the driver and machine gunner. The suspension, undercarriage, and tracks were more or less the same as before but with minor modifications. The vehicle’s increased length meant raising the sprocket wheel to a height of 797.5mm above ground and the idler to 641.5mm with 13 links added to the tracks.

Schematics of the Verdeja No. 2. Source: El Carro de Combate ‘Verdeja’
The turret’s design consisted of two overlaying structures. The outer frustoconical (a cone with the top removed) structure had the armament and aiming devices whilst the interior cylindrical structure housed the seats for the commander/gunner and the loader and space for the ammunition. The turret was 475mm tall and had a diameter of 1470mm at the bottom narrowing to1035mm at the top. Its armor consisted of 28mm at the front with a further 16-24mm on the gun mantlet, 20mm on the sides and 12mm on the top. To each side of the mantlet, there were viewing ports protected by 55mm of glass and a metallic cover. Both sides of the turret had a glass-protected window towards the back for peripheral vision. The top had one semicircular hatch for the commander/gunner and loader and to allow the ammunition to be replenished. Inside, the turret was split down the middle with a small passageway for the gun, its recoil, and the used shells. Each side had a rectangular seat. In the center, there was the Spanish built 45/44mm Mark I gun made by S.A. Plasencia de las Armas based on the Soviet gun used on the T-26 and two parallel German MG-13’s, one on either side.

Schematics of the Verdeja No. 2’s turret. Source: Atlas Ilustrado de Vehículos Blindados en España
The ammunition consisted of 46 projectiles on the left side of the turret, 40 on the right side of the turret and another 50 below the turret in the rear of the frontal compartment of the hull giving the Verdeja No. 2 136 AP and HE projectiles. The machine gun ammunition was divided into 14 magazines between the driver’s and machine gunner/radio operator’s seats with 2 others on each of the vertical walls to their left and right respectively, 70 magazines in the exterior boxes, 32 beneath the turret seats, 28 in the frontal side tray and a further 28 in the frontal-central tray giving the vehicle a total of 176 magazines.

Illustration of the Verdeja No. 2 by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet

Bad Luck and the Final Nail in the Coffin

Lukewarm support and lack of funding would not be the only difficulties Verdeja would face. In 1943, twenty Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf.Hs arrived in Spain. It has been falsely claimed that these arrived when a German ship carrying them was forced into a Spanish port by a British ship and that the tanks were interned as was convention given Spain’s supposed neutrality. However, it is more probable that these twenty tanks were part of the Bär Program through which Germany exchanged the Pz.IVs for tungsten and other minerals. These Pz.Kpfw IVs arrived in two batches by train to Irún, the first 18 on the 6th of December 1943 and the last two on the 15th of December. An additional consignment of 10 StuG IIIs was sent separately. With the arrival of these superior tanks, there was no need for the Verdeja No. 2 nor the No. 3 that Felix Verdeja was working on. The sole existing Verdeja tank was stored at the Escuela de Aplicación y Tiro de Infantería until 1946 when its engine was repaired and tested with a view to resurrecting the project but, unfortunately, this did not come to fruition.
By the early 1950’s, the Spanish armored forces were in a dreadful state, the main material being pre-war Soviet vehicles such as the T-26, BA-3 and BA-6 and a limited number of German Panzer I’s that had been active in the Spanish Civil War. These were not only horribly antiquated, but spare parts for them were impossible to come by, from the USSR for political reasons and from Nazi Germany because it had ceased to exist. Moreover, Spain had been isolated by the victors of WWII and could not import any modern tanks. In an effort to overcome this difficult situation, the Verdeja project was revisited. The Verdeja No. 1 was converted into a self propelled gun and the Verdeja No. 2 was given a new first series Pegaso Z-202 125hp engine made by the Spanish company ENASA. However, it was soon realized that by this point, the Verdeja No. 2 was seriously outdated and that it would require rethinking and redesigning.
Even so, the project was not completely forgotten until 1953 which was when the whole Verdeja project would receive the final nail in its coffin. The coming of the Cold War and the clash between the USA and the USSR prompted the former to look for new allies. Franco’s fervent anti-Communism and Spain’s ideal geographical position boasting both Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts and controlling the Strait of Gibraltar, led the USA to see the peninsular state as a potentially useful ally. Franco fit the Americans profile of ‘friendly tyrant’ perfectly. His was a non-democratic regime for sure, but, more importantly, it was anti-communist and in their view, the lesser of two evils. In 1953, Franco and American President, Dwight Eisenhower, signed the Madrid Pact. This was an agreement to give economic and military aid to Spain in exchange for allowing the United States to use four air and naval bases on Spanish territory, in Rota, Torrejon, Zaragoza and Morón. Thanks to this, Spain lost is status of international pariah. Part of the military aid consisted of 31 M24 Chaffee’s, 28 M37’s, 38 M41 Walker Bulldog’s and several other troop transporters and engineer vehicles between 1953 and 1958. With these modern vehicles, the Verdeja No. 2 was no longer necessary and it was forgotten.

Fate and Conclusion

The only Verdeja No. 2 was left at the firing range of the Escuela de Aplicación y Tiro de Infantería where it was used as a target until 1973. Luckily, no substantial or major damage was done. In 1973, an article on the Verdeja project was written by Gerardo Acereda Valdes (an author more accustomed to writing books on photographic cameras) for the Ejéricito magazine which revived interest in the tank and its history. As a consequence, the vehicle was transported to the Academia de Infantería de Toledo and put on a pedestal outside one of the administration buildings where it can be still found to this day.

The Verdeja No. 2 as it stands today at the Academia de Infantería de Toledo. Source.
The Verdeja No. 2, like the rest of the Verdeja tank family, was more a victim of unfortunate circumstances rather than faults of its own. Financial difficulties made the project unviable and the arrival of, firstly, more modern German tanks and, later, American armor spelled doom for the project. Though, it has to be said, by this point, the design was outdated and the Verdeja No. 2 would have been of little or no use. If the vehicle had entered service in 1942-43 as intended and envisaged, it would have been a decent all-round light tank of similar capabilities to those being produced by the USA, Germany, USSR or Great Britain. What’s more, it could have given Spain some of the political, militaristic and industrial muscle it lacked.

Photo of the side of the Verdeja No. 2 with the Alcázar of Toledo in the background. The Alcázar saw some very fierce fighting in the early stages of the Spanish Civil War. Source.

Verdeja No. 2 specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	5.116 x 2.264 x 1.735 m (16.78 x 7.43 x 5.69 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	10.9 tons
Crew	3 (commander/gunner, loader, driver)
Propulsion	Lincoln Zephyr 86H
Speed	46 km/h (28.58 mph)
Range	220 km (136.7 miles)
Armament	45/44 Mark I S.A. Plasencia de las Armas Dreyse MG-13 7.92mm
Armor	12-40 mm (0.47 – 1.57 in)
Total production	1 Prototype

Links, Resources & Further Reading

Lucas Molina Franco and José M Manrique García, Blindados Españoles en el Ejército de Franco (1936-1939) (Valladolid: Galland Books, 2009)
Francisco Marín and Josep M Mata, Atlas Ilustrado de Vehículos Blindados en España (Madrid: Susaeta)
Javier de Mazarresa, El Carro de Combate ‘Verdeja’ (Barcelona: L Carbonell, 1988)
Los Carros de Combate Verdeja on worldofarmorv2.blogspot.com.es
Carro de Combate Verdeja – Prototipo on worldofarmorv2.blogspot.com.es
1939: Carro de combate ligero Verdeja nº 1 on historiaparanodormiranhell.blogspot.com.es
Verdeja on vehiculosblindadosdelaguerracivil.blogspot.com.es
El Carro de Combate Verdeja on diepanzer.blogspot.com.es

WW2 Spanish Prototypes

Verdeja No. 1

Nationalist Spain/Spanish State (1938-1945)
Light Tank – 2 Prototypes Built

The pet project of an enthusiastic artillery officer

In September 1937, while the Spanish Civil War was raging, an artillery captain by the name of Félix Verdeja Bardules was put in charge of the maintenance company of the 1st Tank Battalion of Franco’s Nationalist army. This was to prove a fortuitous appointment as Verdeja’s team of mechanics, fitters and dogsbodies managed to shorten the time the battalion’s various Panzer I’s, T-26’s, and Renault FT’s were laid up being repaired and also to reduce the number of breakdowns suffered by these tanks once they had been fixed.
Through this, he gained first-hand experience of and insights into each tank’s strengths and weaknesses, their components, their potential and what caused them to break down. With this in mind, Verdeja, despite having no previous experience in the matter, set out to design a tank that would have all the advantages of existing Spanish tanks while eliminating all their faults. His idea would include a low silhouetted vehicle with 15mm armor on the sides and 30mm of curved armor at the front. Its armament would be a new Spanish-made 45mm gun, though provision would be made to increase its caliber, with parallel machine guns on either side, all of which should be able to fire 360° horizontally thanks to a rotating turret and 72° vertically so the armament could be used for AA purposes.
It was intended to mount a 120hp engine, giving the vehicle an estimated power to weight ratio of 18hp/t and a speed of between 65 and 70 km/h with a range of 200km maximizing the tank’s mobility. Experience had shown Verdeja that the principal causes of T-26 breakdowns were problems with the suspension and tracks so he envisaged an improved suspension inspired on that of the T-26. Further improvements would prevent internal temperatures being too high and enable certain repairs and maintenance to be carried out from the inside. It was Verdeja’s firm belief that his project was valuable “because of the unquestionable strategic and tactical advantages that it would provide to the national defense, as well as those for industry, economics and for employment” [original sentence in Spanish: “…por las indudables ventajas de orden estratégico y táctico que ello reportaría a la defensa nacional, así como las industriales, económicas y laborales”].
In October 1938, the project was presented along with a study demonstrating its viability to Lieutenant Colonel Gonzalo Díaz de la Lastra, head of the Agrupación de Carros de Combate de la Legión, the unit in which Verdeja served as chief of repairs. Lastra approved the project and authorized the construction of a prototype in the Agrupación’s workshop in Cariñena, south of Zaragoza on condition that the smooth running of the main task of repairing damaged tanks would not be affected. Nevertheless, he withheld official recognition and denied Verdeja any financial assistance or additional manpower.
In contrast, Colonel Wilhelm von Thoma, in charge of the Condor Legion German tank units in Spain, was opposed to the program, and he started to lay down a long line of obstacles that Verdeja’s projects encountered. In a document sent to General Luis Orgaz Yoldi, he claimed that it was not viable and had no chance of success due to Verdeja’s lack of mechanical and technical know-how and the fragile state of Spain’s industrial capabilities. Whilst this was true, it may seem that the German Colonel was trying to push an agenda, as Spain was seen as backward and underdeveloped by many Europeans (A popular French joke throughout the Twentieth century was that “Africa began at the Pyrenees”). Furthermore, von Thoma went on to criticize Verdeja’s role in the Agrupación’s repairs section. General Yoldi responded by defending Verdeja’s work and assured von Thoma that a commission would be created to assess the viability of the project. The commission, composed of two artillery colonels, provided positive feedback and Verdeja was granted an industrial unit in Zaragoza in which to build a prototype.

Félix Verdeja and his tank during the trials at San Gregorio on the 20th of January 1939. Source.

The Verdeja prototype

Work on the prototype, which became known as ‘the Verdeja prototype’, proceeded at an astonishing pace and the first was completed within two months, on the 10th of January 1939, using only scrap and components from other tanks. That same day, the vehicle was tested on the military training grounds of San Gregorio in Zaragoza in front of a commission led by Yoldi and high ranking infantry and artillery officers. The commission’s view of the prototype was very favorable, being especially impressed by the new tank’s mobility, armor, and the recently-developed suspension. Whilst these may not sound impressive when compared to developments elsewhere, it was by far the most modern tank produced in Spain. They also saw the possibility of creating versions of the vehicle which would only carry the two machine-guns and command versions. Moreover, they took the prototype to the next step, a second test, this time in front of Generalissimo Franco himself.

The Verdeja on its first set of tests at San Gregorio. This image shows the vehicle’s distinctive suspension and undercarriage. Source: Atlas Ilustrado de Vehículos Blindados en España
This second test, longer and more demanding than the previous one, took place ten days later, on the 20th of January 1939. The armor showed its strength by resisting penetration from multiple 7.92mm projectiles at distances of 100mm. So excited and impressed was Franco by what he saw that he gave his approval to the project there and then on the testing field.

Captain Félix Verdeja, General Luis Orgaz Yoldi and Generalisimo Franco discuss the intricacies of the former’s tank design. Source: Blindados Españoles en el Ejército de Franco (1936-1939)

The Prototype’s Design

The hull of the tank had a rectangular shape with a vertical rear and sides and an inclined front. All the armor of the vehicle was composed of 16mm sheets of steel. At the front of the tank, on the left, was the driver’s hatch and to its right an air-vent for the engine. The interior was divided down the middle into two sections with the left compartment for the driver and the right for the eight-cylinder Ford V-8 Model 48 engine with a feeble 85hp taken from a private car. The gearbox was an Aphon ‘FG-31’ 5AV.1R taken from a Panzer IA and was in the same compartment as the engine. The cylindrical turret, clearly inspired by the T-26, had doors on each side and a hatch on the roof. Inside, it had seats for the commander/gunner and the loader and ammunition for the machine-guns and the main gun, consisting of 64 magazines and 14 projectiles respectively. The other clips and 46 projectiles were found beneath the turret seats. Behind the turret, there were two 60 liter capacity fuel tanks. The Spanish-made 45mm gun was not ready in time for the first prototype, so a 45/46mm model 1932 with sights from a T-26B was used instead and the two parallel machine guns were German Dreyse MG-13’s from Panzer I’s. The armament could reach an impressive 72º of elevation, allowing its use against aircraft, though this was never tested and without adequate sights, it is improbable this would have been very effective.
As mentioned earlier, the Verdeja’s most innovative feature was its suspension consisting of eight elliptical springs connected to the main body through two rigid axes. The undercarriage composed of an eighteen-toothed-sprocket-wheel at the front, an idler wheel at the back, eight small bogey wheels divided into two quadruple transverse even levers and four return rollers at the top on each side. The tracks were made out of 97 290mm wide individual steel magnesium fused links. This undercarriage allowed the vehicle to cross difficult terrain with ease.

The Verdeja demonstrating its impressive gun elevation during trials in San Gregorio in January 1939. Source.

A new and improved Verdeja

Following the success of the January 1939 trials, Verdeja set out to make some modifications to his tank based on recommendations from the commission and his own ideas to give the vehicle more power and to create something more similar to his original concept.
To do so, the vehicle was to be lengthened and widened, and the vertical rear was to be inclined. The position of a new 12 cylinder Lincoln ‘Zephyr’ 120hp engine was to be switched with what was formerly the driver’s place. The intention was for an increase in overall armor, larger fuel and projectile capacity, and a new lower door-less frustoconical turret more similar to that of a Panzer I. Two prototypes of what would be the Verdeja No. 1 were planned, one made out of iron sheets for a speedy production and to be ready for testing as soon as possible and a second one with steel sheets as originally designed.
The production of these two prototypes was given a budget of 50,000 pesetas (7,659,961 pesetas in 2000 or €46,000/$55,200 in modern terms) in February 1939 and was moved to the newly-created Oficina Técnica y Taller Experimental de Carros de Combate (Technical Office and Tank Experimental Workshop) of the Talleres Mecánicos y Garaje RAG S.A. on Avenida Recalde, Bilbao, northern Spain, the region being chosen as it had experience in building the Trubia tanks for the Republican side and in the conversion of the Panzer I Breda’s for the Nationalists . The different tank parts were to be built by different companies of the Biscay region of which Bilbao was part, such as Altos Hornos de Vizcaya, Sociedad Española de Construcción Naval (SECN) and S.A. Echeverría among others.
However, problems arose as there was not enough money to build the second prototype nor to finish the first one. The project was, therefore, suspended and the unfinished prototype was sent to the Maestranza de Artillería fields in Madrid, which by this point, in mid-1939, with the Civil War finished, was in the hands of Franco.

Verdeja No. 1 vs T-26B

In May 1940, the project was resumed with 100,000 pesetas injected by the Estado Mayor Central with the aim of finishing the construction of the Verdeja No. 1 with the provision that it would be finished and ready for testing within three months. Unfortunately for Verdeja, his vehicle was missing some of the desired components, such as the Lincoln ‘Zephyr’ engine, so the underpowered Ford V-8 engine of the prototype was retained. By August, it was ready for trials and was painted with a three-tone green, earth and sand camouflage pattern. On the 20th of May 1940 it was taken to the Campo de Maniobras y Tiro del Polígono de Experiencias (training grounds and firing range) in Carabanchel, in the south of Madrid, to be tested in front of a commission made up of five representatives from the infantry, artillery and tank corps. The week-long tests, in which the vehicle travelled 500kms, took place in the Polígono de Experiencias and the nearby Alberche River. For comparison, the best tank available to the Spanish forces at the time, the T-26B (This designation was used for M1933, M1935 and M1936, but in this case, it was a T-26 M1935), was tested alongside it.

The Verdeja No. 1 and a T-26B parked together in May 1940. This photo shows the superior gun elevation on the Spanish-made vehicle. Source.
Both vehicles were subject to different tests and the results were divided into seventeen sections, each one given an importance coefficient between 1-3 and graded 0-10 with both values being multiplied to calculate the total points in each section and each section added up to calculate the tank’s final score [see table below]. Note – The T-26B got given a score of 5 in every section suggesting this was a base value to which to compare the Verdeja.

The Verdeja No. 1 scored 243 out of 410 points, 38 more than the T-26B and the commission found it generally satisfactory. It had managed to travel 500km without a break-down of any type but the water consumption by its cooling system was very high. This was an issue due to Spain’s dry climate, which can even be arid at times, and that water shortages would have been encountered on any medium to large scale military campaign. Its mobility was also impressive, crossing 1.9m wide trenches, depths of 0.65m in the River Alberche, slopes of up to 47° and going through brick walls 0.35m thick.
In a document drawn up by the commission, it was noted that several of the deficiencies of the vehicle were down to the Ford V-8 engine and that the Lincoln ‘Zephyr’ would have scored much higher. Other deficiencies were blamed on the poor materials used for its construction which, if the vehicle was to be mass-produced, would be avoided. The members of the commission were impressed by the tank’s tracks, the low vulnerability afforded by its squat silhouette, the improved armor and its trench crossing capabilities. Other factors which contributed to the commission’s positive response were the ability to fix breakdowns from the inside, the crew’s relative comfort, the comparatively low temperatures inside the vehicle, and the high elevation of the main armament. In addition, they made a series of recommendations which included: a higher elevation of the sprocket wheel for better obstacle clearance, the creation of sufficient space in the interior for a radio, making the hull wider by 6-8cm, elevating the front plate where the driver’s viewing port was by 5cm and increasing the lower belly armor from 7 to 10mm. The commission’s document concluded by giving the project their approval and authorizing all the assistance Verdeja needed to improve his vehicle with the recommendation for further tests to be carried out.
The modifications were completed in two months and the second round of testing took place in November in front of the same commission (bar one member) finishing on the 18th of November 1940. Several of the noted deficiencies had been corrected, including the high water consumption, mobility, and range, giving an 18.98 point increase when compared to the August tests [see table above].
On the 2nd of December 1940, Lieutenant General Carlos Martínez de Campos y Serrano, the Chief of Staff of the Army ordered the definitive model of the Verdeja No. 1 to be established and a program and a budget set for the production of 1000 vehicles in batches of 100. After consultation with Verdeja, a document outlining the procedures for the production of the tank was sent to the Minister of the Army at the beginning of January 1941. These included the purchase of one hundred Lincoln ‘Zephyr’ engines from Ford through its subsidiary Ford Motor Ibérica S.A. in Barcelona to be used in the Verdeja No. 1. The definitive blueprints were to be developed by March (though these would be delayed until July) and the work was to go to public tender and with contracts being awarded to the companies that would build the different components of the vehicle. The manufacture of the steel armor sheets was to take place in the Fabrica Nacional de Trubia and the infrastructure of the Trubia factory was to be improved.

First version of the prototype, showing the early turret type

Illustration of final Verdeja No. 1 Prototype by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet

Final Design

The hull of the tank had a trapezoidal shape made out of welded and riveted steel sheets with an inclination and curvature at the front and rear and vertical at the sides. The frontal glacis was 10mm thick at 12°, the front armor 25mm at 45°, the sides 15mm, the rear 15mm at 45°, the roof was 10mm and the belly 7mm.

The low silhouette of the Verdeja No. 1 can be clearly appreciated in this photo. Source.
The interior was divided into two sections, front and back. As in the original prototype, the front section was divided down the middle creating a further two sections. The right side housed the driver’s seat, the steering mechanism, and engine control. The driving mechanism consisted of the three classic pedals of any private car, two brake levers for the tracks, a gear lever and the various speed, oil, water, etc. gauges. The driver accessed his seat through a hatch on the top of the front, next to the periscope. The other side contained the engine and its power supply and cooling system, gearbox and access doors to the exterior and the right side. The rear section was below the turret where there was a 195-liter fuel tank and part of the vehicle’s ammunition.
The turret, which was 535mm high (0.535m), had 15mm armor at the front, and 15mm on the sides at 45°. The 10mm thick roof had a semi-circular hatch for the commander/gunner and loader. Inside, the main armament was the newly built Spanish 45/44mm Mark I gun made by S.A. Plasencia de las Armas which was based on the Soviet gun used on the T-26 and the Verdeja prototype. In trials it reached a maximum shooting range of 7,900 m, but was only considered effective at 1,500m. The gun’s intended sights were not ready in time, so some modified and made compatible from a Pak 35/36 were used, despite not being the same caliber. The two parallel MG-13 machine guns remained the same. Inside the turret and behind the gun, there were two suspended seats, the left one for the commander/gunner and the right-hand side one for the loader. Behind and below them, there was a mixture of 74 AP and HE projectiles, and directly below the seats, 2,500 machine-gun rounds.

The Verdeja No. 1 going over a ridge during trials. Note its curved frontal armor. Source: El Carro de Combate ‘Verdeja’
The planned Lincoln ‘Zephyr’ engine did not arrive in time either, so Ford V-8 engines were used instead, giving the vehicle maximum speeds of 45km/h, a fuel consumption of 0.89l/km and 13hp/t (the vehicle weighed 6.5t when fully loaded). This was slower than the speeds of 65-70km/h and 18.46hp/t it was thought that the ‘Zephyr’ would have provided. Even so, the vehicle was still quite fast, nimble and maneuverable. The suspension, undercarriage, and tracks were the same as those of the Verdeja prototype.

End of the Verdeja No. 1 project

The project faced many difficulties before being cut. Firstly, the continuing problems in securing the Lincoln ‘Zephyr’ engine. The team in charge of the Verdeja sought to secure an alternative engine and considered using the German Maybach HL 42 TRKM, HL 62 TRM or HL 120 TRM or the Italian SPA 15-TM-41 or Abm-1, but only officially enquired about the German ones.
By this point, in early 1941, the project could still count on enthusiastic and powerful backing, with laws being passed to aid the mass production of the tank. Between June and July, the Boletín Oficial del Estado No.193, which announced 10 million pesetas of investment in the construction of tractors and tanks, was passed. Some of this money was earmarked for tank production, involving the construction of a factory in two years and the creation of a corporation made out of one parent company and several subsidiaries which would build the different components for the Verdeja No. 1.

The Verdeja No. 1 going through walls during tests in Carabanchel in May 1940. Source.
Whilst the factory was supposedly under construction, the order for two pre-production Verdeja No. 1’s was submitted on the 7th of July 1941 and approved four days later. These two vehicles were to be made by ADASA Pinto as main contractor together with SECN, S.A. de Talleres de Deusto, Sociedad Espñola de Maquinaria Marelli, SAPA, Hutchinson SA and Sociedad Robert Bosh. Maybach HL 42 TRKM engines purchased from Germany for 5,644 Reichmarks (20,600 pesetas) to be delivered in two/three months to Irun, on the Spanish-French border were the intended propulsion. However, it is probable that the engines never arrived. Some sources claim otherwise and that they were used on the Verdeja No. 2, but that they were replaced by the Lincoln ‘Zephyr’ engine.
The creation of the corporation foreseen by Boletín Oficial del Estado No.193 did not take off. Most companies were reluctant to invest money in tank production as, given the precarious atmosphere of the Spanish economy and the country as a whole, it was not a feasible money-making venture.

The Verdeja No. 1 during test demonstrating its trench crossing capacities provided by its suspension and undercarriage. Source: Blindados Españoles en el Ejército de Franco (1936-1939)
ADASA suggested an alternative. They would lend their land, HQ, factory and machinery in Pinto, south of Madrid and would produce more than the two expected pre-production series tanks for further testing and evaluation over a period of eight to ten months, after which they undertook to produce 300 final series tanks. Unfortunately for Captain Verdeja, this did not come to fruition.

Legacy and Conclusion

By mid-1941, the Verdeja No. 1 had been made obsolete by developments outside of Spain’s borders in the ongoing European conflict. Captain Verdeja set out to update the model into what became the Verdeja No. 2 but, due to bureaucratic problems, economic and financial issues and a general loss of interest in building an indigenous tank, this project was also destined to fail.
The sole existing Verdeja No. 1 would be revisited in 1945, when it was converted into the Verdeja self-propelled gun prototype carrying a 75mm gun. This SPG can be considered as the only variant of the Verdeja No. 1 and can be found today in the Museo de Medios Acorazados (MUMA) in the military base of El Goloso, north of Madrid.

The Verdeja SPG as it currently stands in the MUMA. Source: Photo taken by the author.
The Verdeja No. 1 was more a victim of circumstances and bureaucratic problems than any flaws it might have had itself. Spain’s dire economic situation after a brutal Civil War that had divided the country down its spine, which was a culmination of decades of instability and radical changes, meant the country was devastated and there was no capital available for such an ambitious project. What is more, those initially interested saw the production of the Verdeja No. 1 as non-profitable and chose not to invest. From the very start, it had been opposed by those who claimed Verdeja and Spanish industrial capabilities would be unable to produce a tank of any kind. Verdeja, inexperienced as he was, had at least proved them wrong by building a tank that was better than any in the Spanish arsenal in almost every respect, having the same armament as the Soviet T-26 and German Panzer I combined, slightly superior armor and lighter, faster, more maneuverable and more efficient overall, even if not equipped with all his desired features, such as the Lincoln ‘Zephyr’ engine.
The Verdeja No. 1 always impressed Spanish commissioners during trials and, according to Spanish tank enthusiast and author of the most detailed book on the Verdeja project, Javier de Mazarrasa, this could have been the starting point for a family of indigenous tank designs that could have included SPG’s, engineer vehicles, troop transports and medium tanks. Not only that, the project could have given Spain military and industrial muscle. However, due to the priorities of Spanish officials being focused on re-building the war-torn country after the Civil War, and the great difficulties that that entailed, tank production paled into insignificance. The fact that the Civil War had finished and the remote likelihood that Spain would become directly involved in World War II may also have given rise to a view that the project was not as urgent as it might have been had the country been involved in conflict.
Furthermore, the Verdeja No. 1 did not attract any foreign interest, though this was never intended.
If the vehicle had entered service when intended, it would have been superior to anything in the Spanish arsenal. However, it must be noted that by mid-1940 and definitely 1941, the Verdeja No. 1 would have been outdated when compared to modern tank designs and had no place in WWII battlefields.

A series of blueprints of the Verdeja No. 1 noting its dimensions. These are not the original ones. Source.

Verdeja No. 1 specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	4.498 x 2.152 x 1.572 m (14.76 x 7.06 x 5.16 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	6.8 tons
Crew	3 (commander/gunner, loader, driver)
Propulsion	Ford V8 Model 48
Speed	44 km/h (27.34mph) maximum 25 km/h (15.5) cruise speed
Range	220 km (136.7 miles)
Armament	45/44 Mark I S.A. Plasencia de las Armas Dreyse MG-13 7.92mm
Armor	7-25 mm (0.27 – 0.98 in)
Total production	2 Prototypes

Links, Resources & Further Reading

Lucas Molina Franco and José M Manrique García, Blindados Españoles en el Ejército de Franco (1936-1939) (Valladolid: Galland Books, 2009)
Lucas Molina Franco and José M Manrique García, Blindados Alemanes en el Ejército de Franco (1936-1939) (Valladolid: Galland Books, 2008)
Francisco Marín and Josep M Mata, Atlas Ilustrado de Vehículos Blindados en España (Madrid: Susaeta)
Javier de Mazarrasa, El Carro de Combate ‘Verdeja’ (Barcelona: L Carbonell, 1988)
Los Carros de Combate Verdeja on worldofarmorv2.blogspot.com.es
Carro de Combate Verdeja – Prototipo on worldofarmorv2.blogspot.com.es
1939: Carro de combate ligero Verdeja nº 1 on historiaparanodormiranhell.blogspot.com.es
Verdeja on vehiculosblindadosdelaguerracivil.blogspot.com.es
El Carro de Combate Verdeja on diepanzer.blogspot.com.es

WW2 Spanish Armored Cars

Ferrol Armored Car

Nationalist Spain (1936-1937)
Armored Car – 4-5 Built

Improvised Armored Cars in the Spanish Civil War

When war broke out in Spain following the failed coup of Generals Emilio Mola and José Sanjurjo, neither side could field large numbers of armored fighting vehicles. There was a total of 74 armored vehicles throughout the whole country with the governmental forces of the Republic keeping hold of the vast majority of them (58) and the Rebels, (also known as the ‘Nationalists’), only having 16. These vehicles were not the most modern designs and included WWI relics such as the Schneider CA1 and Renault FT, several imaginative indigenous designs, such as the Trubia Serie A and Landesa tanks, and the most numerous vehicle, the Bilbao Modelo 1932 armored car.
To gain the upper hand during the confusing and uncertain first days of the war, each side armed civilian buses, cars, trucks and lorries to use as temporary armored vehicles until a better solution could be found.They were never intended for long-term use. Due to the blackish color given by the iron and other metallic plating, these vehicles quickly gained the nickname of ‘tiznaos’ (from the adjective tiznado – sooty).
The Republicans, who controlled most of the industrial areas, managed to build, with varying success, around 400 of these during the first year of the war, and the Nationalists developed their own models in areas under their control, such as Pamplona, Zaragoza, Valladolid, and Ferrol.
Because of the rushed nature of their manufacture and their poor design, these vehicles were prone to breakdowns and malfunctions, with some vehicles even breaking in half due to the extra weight of their armor of protective steel plates.
While they may not have been the most practical of vehicles, these armored cars had several functions: to transport supplies, weapons and ammunition to friendly troops; for troop and prisoner transport; to impress enemy troops and civilians and inspire allied troops and supporters. Given the unimpressive and uninspiring aspect of these vehicles this may come as a surprise to modern viewers, but, it must be remembered that few Spanish fighters during the Civil War, let alone the civilian population, had been exposed to modern standard tanks or armored vehicles of any kind and these large, noisy and rumbling metallic ‘beasts’ must have had a dramatic impact on all who encountered them.

Design

Following the electoral victory of the left-leaning Popular Front in the February 1936 elections, the political situation in Spain was tense. Foreseeing that these tensions would evolve into violent encounters, several military units across the country took matters into their own hands. Sometime between the months of March and April 1936, in the coastal and strategically important city of Ferrol (in the north of Galicia), the Regimento de Artillería de Costas No.2 (Coastal Artillery Regiment) transformed at least four of the regiments’ Hispano-Suiza 30/40 buses-transports into armored cars. As with many of the other improvised vehicles of the war, the vehicle was named after the town it was built in – Ferrol.

Ferrol No.4 with troops of the Regimento de Artillería de Costas nº2 outside said regiment’s barracks. Source: Blindados Españoles en el Ejército de Franco

Restored version of the Hispano-Suiza 30/40 bus from which the Ferrols were transformed. SOURCE
Unlike many of the other ‘tiznaos’, the Ferrols were built before the war meaning that more time was available to work on the vehicles, and the fact that they were built by qualified military personnel who knew what they were doing and not groups of militiamen, their design was well thought-out and the vehicles resembled modern armored cars, at least more so than other ‘tiznaos’.
As can be expected given the nature of their construction, all Ferrols have differences between them which vary from some models lacking headlights and/or front bumpers whilst others have them, to one example lacking a turret and machine gun. Details of the differences between vehicles will be addressed below. Generally, for all examples of this model, 6-8mm gray painted armored steel plating covered the original vehicle on all sides and a rotatable turret, inspired from the WWI Rolls-Royce Armored Car, was mounted on top with a Hotchkiss Model 1924 7mm (0.27 in) machine gun, which was quite possibly Spanish made. Each side of the vehicle had seven firing holes through which troops inside could fire their rifles, with an additional eight holes on both sides of the turret which could have also serve as a viewing port for the machine gunner. From front to back, the first hole could be found on the top end of the door which served as access for the crew and passengers.
In the front of the turret, 3 viewports could be found. The right one was the driver’s and one of the other ones to the left was for the commander. It can be assumed that the third viewpoint was for another crew member or passenger. Two medium-sized hatches on either side of the vehicle’s front allowed access to the motor for repairs and maintenance otherwise made impossible by the lack of a bonnet in the cladding. The front of the vehicle had two sets of ventilation grilles which were installed to prevent the motor from overheating.

Numbers made

There is an ongoing debate over the number of Ferrols converted. The established view is that there were at least four, but several, especially among the war-modelling community, claim that there was also a fifth, with some highly improbable speculation that a sixth was converted.
Three of the vehicles (Numbers 1*, 1, 3 and 4) are very easy to account for, as they had distinguishable features.
What the main historiography considered to be number 1 had a very different appearance to the rest as it lacked a turret, the front plate consisted of a single inclined metallic plate going from the top of the ventilation grilles to the beginning of the roof of the vehicle and the viewports were all at different heights and angles, unlike the other vehicles, where all three viewports were at the same height and angle.

What is usually considered to be the Ferrol No.1 crossing the bridge between Cabañas and Puentedeume in northern Galicia in July 1936. Note the lack of a turret and distinctive frontal armor plating. Source: Blindados Españoles en el Ejército de Franco
However, newer photographic evidence offered by the archives of the Museo Manuel Reimóndez Portela would suggest that the actual No.1 was more similar to the rest. Its distinctive features are a number 1 painted at the front of the vehicle, a radiator cap or hood ornament on top of the grilles and a circular hatch to access the engine rather than the quadrilocular or rectangular of other models. It also lacks a bumper, has forward lights and text (although faint) over the spider crab insignia. This leads to two options: a) What is usually considered No.1 should be considered as a prototype (1*) and the one in the image below as the actual No.1; or b) That although being built without a turret and fighting for the first few weeks and even months of the war in that configuration at some point in late 1936 or early 1937 a turret, forward lights and other substantial changes were made, though there is no strong evidence supporting these claims and the comparison of both photos does not point towards that direction.

The actual Ferrol No.1 with its distinctive features as the number 1 painted at the front of the vehicle, a radiator cap or hood ornament on top of the grilles and a circular hatch to access the engine rather than the cuadricular or rectangular of other models. This photo was taken in Villamanin (León) on the 22nd of July 1937. It has been recorded that at least two Ferrols fought in this area. SOURCE
Numbers 3 and 4 were photographed together at least four times, which is quite remarkable given that there are only ten known photos of these vehicles. They are easy to identify as there was a number 3 and 4 painted beneath the ventilation grilles. Other differences include both front and back wheels being different and No.3’s lack of a front bumper, which No.4 has.

Rendition of the Ferrol Armoured Car by Tanks Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet
Ferrols number 3 and 4 easily distinguishable because of the numbers 3 and 4 painted beneath the grilles outside Regimento de Artillería de Costas nº2 barracks. Other differences include both front and back wheels being different and No.3’s lack of a front bumper, which No.4 has. Source: Blindados Españoles en el Ejército de FrancoIdentifying No.2 and the potential No.5 is harder. The photographic evidence is not the clearest and details can be missed to the naked eye, leaving all work on the matter up to speculation.
Author’s Note: After having spent many hours inspecting all available images of the vehicles I have come to the conclusion that at least five vehicles were made. Small details, such as the frame where the mudguards originally sat, the elevation and inclination of different armored plates, the detailing on the spider crab insignia on the side of the vehicle or the peephole on the doors, in my opinion, differ substantially between vehicles leading me to believe more than four were made. I have provided all available photos of the armored car so the reader can make his judgment about the numbers made.

Ferrols number 3 and 4 outside the Pelayo barracks in Oviedo in October 1937 after the conclusion of the war in the north. Source: Blindados Españoles en el Ejército de Franco

Combat History and Performance

With the outbreak of hostilities in July 1936, the Ferrols were the only armored vehicles in Galicia, giving their owners, the Nationalists, an advantage. The first recorded use of these vehicles was on the 20th of July 1936 when they were used to transport grenades, a mortar and machine guns from the coastal artillery barracks to the troops of the No.35 ‘Mérida’ Infantry Regiment. The following day, at dawn, a number of the vehicles carried out similar functions carrying another mortar and ammunition to the Comandancia del Arsenal building and on the return journey, transported the dismissed Chief of the Arsenal to imprisonment. During these journeys, they were in action against elements of the navy loyal to the Republic. In the morning, the commander of the Regimento de Artillería de Costas No.2, Sánchez Esperante, used one of them to visit the officers of the newly proclaimed military government and after their conversation, the Ferrols were used to assault the Town Hall and the People’s House (a community center) which were still under governmental control. Despite intense fire from the defenders, these buildings were soon captured after the rebels threatened to fire the two Plasencia mod. 1870 8cm cannons the Ferrols were transporting against the Town Hall.

Another photo of the Ferrols number 3 and 4 (in the background) outside the Pelayo barracks in Oviedo in October 1937. SOURCE
On the 22nd of July 1936, the Ferrols patrolled the towns around Ferrol crushing any elements loyal to the government and one was sent in the attempted capture of the town of Puentedeume, less than 10 km (6 miles) south, which had a strategically important bridge, but they were unsuccessful due to the opposing forces and terrain. The following day a bigger force accompanied the lone Ferrol and captured the town. The next day (July 23rd), they were used for patrolling duties in the north of Galicia. During these early days, without any armored opposition or organized resistance, the Ferrols proved to be very effective and efficient vehicles.
In late October or November 1936, the Ferrols were split up and sent to different fronts in the North. At least two (most probably numbers 3 and 4), were sent to the Oviedo-Grado sector in Asturias with a foot artillery battery. The other two were sent to the La Robla-Matallana-La Vecilla sector on the Leon front. It is suggested that two Ferrols accompanying the first Galician troops sent to Asturias in the summer of 1936 were knocked out or left inoperative whilst covering troops attacking the town of Bolgues on the Trubia road. These claims, however, are probably false as there is no other recorded presence of the Ferrols until November 1936 and it is likely that the aforementioned vehicles were not Ferrols but other armored cars, very likely captured from the Republican forces.
By February 1937, two of the Ferrols (again, most probably numbers 3 and 4), were defending Oviedo from the Republican attack to take this key city. The crews of the vehicles had taken casualties in the previous months and they were now manned by a combined total of 15 men. They were accompanied by two Trubia tanks protecting the weapons factory-Campo de los Patos sector against the combined total of 40 Republican armored vehicles, though not all were deployed in the same sector as the Ferrols.

Front of the Ferrol No.3 somewhere in Oviedo with Jesús Evaristo Casariego, a Réquete (Carlist militiamen) officer. SOURCE

Fate and Conclusion

Having served for over a year until the conclusion of the war in the north in October 1937, some of the vehicles, at least numbers 3 and 4, could be found in Oviedo, whilst at least one remained in León.
By this point they had exhausted their useful life and with plentiful Italian CV.33/35 and German Pz.I tanks, they were rendered surplus to requirements. Their fate for the remainder of the war is unknown but it seems likely that they were used for some time for patrolling and policing duties before being broken up for scrap or being put back to use into their original pre-conversion role.
Thanks to their more thought-out and, therefore, studier design and production, the ‘Ferrols’ were able to outlive other improvised ‘tiznao’ designs of the early weeks and months of the war, but once modern mass-produced vehicles were available in large numbers and the limitations of the ‘tiznaos’ became increasingly apparent, it was clear that they had had their day.

Links, Resources & Further Reading

Artemio Mortera Pérez, Los Medios Blindados de la Guerra Civil Española. Teatro de Operaciones del Norte 36/37 (Valladolid: AF Editores, 2007)
Francisco Antonio Martín, Los Medios Blindados de Ruedas en España, un Siglo de Historia (Valladolid: Quirón, 2002)
José López Hermida, Los Días del Alzamiento en Ferrol
Lucas Molina Franco and José M Manrique García, Blindados Españoles en el Ejército de Franco (1936-1939) (Valladolid: Galland Books, 2009)
Curiosidades de los CC y blindados. Su historia y reseñas on www.portierramaryaire.com
Los Primeros Años de Hispano-Suiza on hispanosuiza.webcindario.com
Ferrol Armored Car images on vehiculosblindadosdelaguerracivil.blogspot.com.es
Ferrol Armored Car images on Galería Museo Manuel Reimóndez Portela

CZ-10/25E Alacrán

The Swedish Königstiger

Medium Tank M4A1 (76) Sherman in Ugandan Service

Improvised Armored Trucks of the Asturias Revolution

FIAT-Ansaldo CV35 L.f. ‘Lanzallamas compacto’

FIAT CV33/35 Breda

Carro de Combate de Infantería tipo 1937

Carro de Combate Ligero para Infanteria Modelo 1936

Blindado Schneider-Brillié

Trubia-Naval

Tractor Landesa

FIAT 3000 in Spanish Service

Modelo Trubia Serie A

TNCA Salinas

Carden-Loyd Mk.VI in Bolivian Service

Vickers Mark E in Bolivian Service

Cañón Autopropulsado de 75/40mm Verdeja

Verdeja No. 2

Verdeja No. 1

Ferrol Armored Car

Kingdom of Spain (1997-Present) Combat Engineer Vehicle – 38 Converted

M60s in Spain

Precedents

Development

Design and Equipment

Equipment

Excavator Arm

Dozer Blade

Winch

Anti-Mine Warfare

Interior Modifications

Defense

Service

Conclusion

Specifications

Sources

Kingdom of Sweden (1947-1951) Heavy Tank – 1 Tested

The Swedish Mission

Initial Testing and its Journey

Tests in Karlsborg

Final Fate

Origins

Conclusion

Sources

Republic of Uganda (1969-1979) Medium Tank – 12 Purchased

Context and History

The Israeli Connection

“Tankensteins” from Israel

Camouflage and Markings

Service History

Conclusion

Specifications

Sources

“Tank-It” Shirt

American M4 Sherman Tank – Tank Encyclopedia Support Shirt

Asturias Commune (1934) Improvised Armored Truck – At Least 6-7 Built

The Asturias Revolution of October 1934

The Plans for Armor

Design

Semi-blindado ‘Duro Felguera’

Blindado ‘Duro Felguera’

Blindado ‘El Aguila Negra’

Blindados ‘Oviedo’

Blindado ‘Mieres’

Unidentifiable Blindado

Operational Use

Conclusion

Sources

Kingdom of Italy/Nationalist Spain (1937-1939) Light Flamethrower Tank – 8 Converted

Italian Tanks and Flame-Throwing in the Spanish Civil War

Topolino gets a Flamethrower

Spot the Difference

Conclusion

Specifications

Links & Resources

Kingdom of Italy/Nationalist Spain (1937-1938) Light Tank/Tank Destroyer – 1 Built

The Need for a Bigger Gun

The Transformation

The Lesser of Two Evils

Further Testing

Kingdom of Spain (1997-Present)
Combat Engineer Vehicle – 38 Converted

Kingdom of Sweden (1947-1951)
Heavy Tank – 1 Tested

Republic of Uganda (1969-1979)
Medium Tank – 12 Purchased

Asturias Commune (1934)
Improvised Armored Truck – At Least 6-7 Built

Kingdom of Italy/Nationalist Spain (1937-1939)
Light Flamethrower Tank – 8 Converted

Kingdom of Italy/Nationalist Spain (1937-1938)
Light Tank/Tank Destroyer – 1 Built

Nationalist Spain (1937-1938)
Light Tank – 1 Prototype

Second Spanish Republic (1936)
Light Tank – Paper Project

France/Kingdom of Spain (1910-1915)
Armored Car – 2 Built

Second Spanish Republic/Autonomous Basque State (1936-1937)
Light Tank/Tractor – 12-45 Built (Light Tank), 2-3 Built (Tractor)

Second Spanish Republic (1932-1937)
Tractor/Light Tank – 13-14 Built (Tractor), 2-4 Built (Light Tank), 2-3 Converted From Tractor To Light Tank