Playing Catch-up

When talking about the status of tank building in various nations at the start of WW2, many tend to point to the Americans as the worst ones off. This is entirely incorrect. First of all, the American infantry and cavalry had a decent number of tanks, although not many medium ones. Second, these tanks were adapted for the American theatre of war and had exceptional mobility. Third, the Americans started the war with a well formed concept of what a tank should look like, which allowed them to quickly begin production of next generation tanks. In comparison, the British were doing very poorly, to the point where only their status as an island nation saved them from a catastrophe. This was the result of a crisis that began in the 1920s.

Aberdeen Feedback

 "May 24th, 1944

I direct to you the detailed official report of the US War Department on trials of our T-34 and KV-1 tanks and brief excerpts from the translation of the report. I ask for your comments on their contents.

People's Commissar of Foreign Trade, A. Mikoyan

Attachment:
Excerpts from the summary report on trials of Russian KV and T-34 tanks at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds

Reports from German press:
New Russian tanks are the standard of good design and were produced in stunningly short time. The most fearsome tank of the Red Army is the T-34. The effectiveness of its armament, good slope of the armour, and mobility make it a very dangerous opponent.

Reports from British press:
The Russians surpassed the Germans not only in production of tanks, but also in quality. The Russian T-34 tank is the only tank that the Germans fear. They consider the T-34 the most effective and best Russian tank they encountered.
The high maneuverability, good gun, and quality of armour of the T-34 are excellent, which makes it a favourite of Russian tank crews.
The armour is the only interesting aspect of the KV tank.

Kingmaker of American Tank Building

American tank history is strange in some ways. For instance, Creighton Abrams is the best known American tank ace, and few know about tankers who scored more tank kills than he did. The situation with American tank designers is even stranger. Compared to Soviet tank designers, they are like ghosts. The only well known names among them are John Walter Christie and perhaps Joseph Colby, director of the Tank-automotive Center and a key figure in American wartime tank building. Even many specialists would not recognize the name of the man who effectively created the American wartime tank. Harry Austin Knox was better known as a car designer. However, he was also a talented tank designer who had an effective monopoly on American tank chassis from 1935 to the mid-1940s.

Christie Progess

"New York

September 15th, 1930

Innokentiy Andreevich,

I consider it necessary to report to you on the progress of work on the Christie contract and my work here.

The work is in the following state. In addition to the progress described in my previous report (where I evaluated the completion as 40% at most) the following has been completed.

• The springs are assembled and installed.
• The gearbox is assembled.
• The bulkheads and joints are installed in the hull.
• The driver's port is cut.

By The Book

"Conversation between comrade Khalepskiy and Mr. Christie in comrade Gobar's office, April 21st, 1930

Christie: As I give you a draft of the contract that is copied from our contract with the American government, I ask you in the future to discuss any additions to the contract and clarifications with our attorney and company member Mr. Tiffany.

Khalepskiy: Is there a condition in your agreement with Poland prohibiting the sale of tanks to other European nations?

Christie Proposal

"April 9th, 1930

New York

A discussion between comrades Khalepskiy and Gobar with Mr. Christie

1. Mr. Christie arrived with his director and stated that on April 8th his board of directors had a meeting and made the official decision: "Christie Corp. is prepared to sell us two sample tanks of his design and provide technical aid for building tanks". At the same time, Christie Corp. established that they are willing to negotiate a commercial agreement and that permission from Washington is not needed.

Christie Negotiations

"Discussion between comrade Khalepskiy and Mr. Christie in comrade Petrov's office on April 18th, 1930 at 3 pm.

Christie: We had a board of directors meeting and the following proposal was arrived at: $15,000 monthly over the course of 4 months for the sale of 2 tractors worth $60,000

Khalepskiy: I consider that the price of $60,000 is high. I propose $50,000 with the following conditions of payment: 10% on signing, 15% after the materials are produced, 25% after assembly is finished, and 50% after trials and acceptance.

Buying Christies

"Report on the situation with Christie tanks in the USA
December 14th, 1931

I first visited Christie's workshop in early June of this year (after arriving from Detroit upon receipt of the first batch of components from Tikman). Subsequently, I met with Christie in his workshop monthly. I visited Christie several times in October before leaving for the USSR.

Situation with Christie's tank design:

When I first visited the workshop, Christie's design bureau composed of two men began to draw blueprints for the vehicle that is now in the USSR, as before this Christie only had assembly blueprints. These blueprints were being completed during my last visit before departure.

Christie's Payment

"June 15th, 1930

#15E/249s

Directorate of Mechanization and Motorization

RE: Christie tanks

Amtorg informs us by telegraph that the Christie company reports 75% completion and thus requests a payment of 15,000 American dollars to be transferred to New York by the end of June.

Our inspector, comrade Lebedev, determined that the order is only 20% complete and informed the Christie company that we refuse to pay $15,000 until the vehicles are 75% complete.

Shopping Trip

"To the Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR

Report

In accordance with your instructions #01924 issued on December 10th I present to you my ideas about buying tanks from abroad. These ideas were discussed with comrades Uborevich, Khalepskiy, and Berzin.

Video: Christie Tanks and BT-2

My newest video is up! This time I take a look at how Christie came up with his revolutionary suspension, what exactly made it so good, and how his designs came to influence Soviet tanks.

Christie Price List

"Minutes of the discussion between comrades Khalepskiy, Gobar, and mister Christie

1. Christie only produces one type of tank and wishes to elaborate on interest in "the type of tank that you produce for sale to the US Army and abroad".
2. No tanks are currently runners. The old one was taken apart, the new one is being assembled. The new one is similar to the old one with improvements.

The Polish Army's Phantom Reserves

In the early 1930s, Poland built the TK-S, a very good design based on the British Carden-Loyd Mk.VI tankette. A similar thing happened with light tanks. Polish tank builders designed the 7TP tank based on the Vickers Mk.E. The next step, the development of a fully domestic design, turned out to be too difficult for Polish industry. Attempts were made, but progress did not move past several prototypes. The Polish army entered WWII with armoured vehicles at the technology level of the late 1920s. This article discusses experimental designs that did not manage to enter service with the Polish army.

Combat Car T4: Christie Style

On March 25th, 1931, the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation and Bureau of Ordnance signed a contract to build five Christie M.1931 tanks, later expanded to seven. American infantry received three Convertible Medium Tanks T3 and cavalry received four Combat Cars T1. It seemed that the long struggle between Christie and the American military finally ended with Christie's victory, and a large order will follow the first batch of tanks any day now. However, history took a different path, and the Christie suspension was a dead end for the American tank building school. However, the evolution of American convertible drive designs led to several interesting vehicles, one of which was the Convertible Medium Tank M1, which was standardized for service.

Christie M1931

On November 19th, 1928, an unusual vehicle came out of Fort Meade in Maryland. It looked more like a race car than what it really was: a tank. The turret was absent, replaced with a Browning M1919A2 on a pintle mount. Another machinegun was installed in a sponson in the front of the hull. This was the Christie M.1928, an experimental vehicle built by John Walter Christie's new company, the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation. Christie called his brainchild "M.1940", implying that this was a design ahead of its time. The main feature of the tank was the independently sprung suspension, known as the Christie suspension today.

T2 Medium: Scaling Up

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

Choosing Concepts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wooden model of the Medium Tank M1924.

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

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

Bigger Copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road to Nowhere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original article by Yuri Pasholok.

Light Tank M22: Steel Locust

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

Christie's Last Chance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the Book

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

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

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

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

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

Light Tank T9, Pontiac concept.

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

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

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

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

Necessary Lightness

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

The tank was compact, but very reasonably laid out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limited Viability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Locust from the 6th Airborne Brigade.

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

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

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

IDF soldiers inspect a knocked out Locust, December 1948.

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

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

Original article by Yuri Pasholok.

See detailed photos of the M22 at the Bastogne Barracks museum here.

Britain's Christie

In the mid-1930s, the British military split up its tank into three classes. Light tanks retained their status, their goal was reconnaissance. A new class of infantry tanks had thick armour and low speed, and was called upon to escort infantry. Medium tanks were reclassified into cavalry (cruiser) tanks, whose job was to quickly move through the battlefield and perform raids through the enemy's rear. They were also tasked with fighting enemy tanks. To complete this task, they had to have high speed and powerful armament. The first fully fledged cruiser tank was the Cruiser Tank Mk.III.

Catching up to the Soviets

The early 1930s were a time of crisis for British tank building. The only tanks accepted into the army at this time were light tanks. As a result, these tanks were the core of the British armoured forces.

There was nothing to be proud of here. 4-5 ton tanks armed with a heavy machinegun at best were completely unsuitable for combat in Europe. As for medium tanks, they stagnated. The acceptance of the A7 Medium Tank that has been in development since 1929 did not lead to anything good. The first representative of the cruiser class was the A9, also known as Cruiser Tank Mk.I, developed by Vickers. This vehicle had a massive amount of problems, especially with reliability.

The cruiser class did not come from nothing. In 1936, during fall exercises of the Kiev Military District, Lieutenant-Colonel Gifford le Quesne Martel from the mechanization department of the Ministry of War was among the foreign observers. He was a notable figure in British tank building. For instance, the popularity of tankettes was his doing. He was very impressed by columns of Soviet convertible drive BT tanks. In his opinion, these tanks were the most suitable for modern war. The A7 tank was accepted into the army immediately after as the first cruiser tank, but it was obvious that this was a temporary measure. Another more maneuverable vehicle was needed.

Knowing that time moves quickly, the British engaged American tank designer John Walther Christie. Christie was not doing that well at the time. His tanks were passed over for production, and his ideas of flying tanks were only popular with the press, so the British proposal was accepted quickly. On October 3rd, 1936, an agreement was signed between the Wheel Track Layer Corporation and Morris Motor Company for the purchase of one tank. According to contract #89, 8000 Pounds Sterling were paid. The appearance of a new buyer caused such enthusiasm that Christie and his chief tester travelled to England along with their tank.

The tank that the British bought was very interesting in itself. Many authors, including Peter Chamberlain, claim that the M1932 flying tank was trialled, but the British actually tested a vehicle with a much more complex history, the M1931. This tank was the predecessor of the Christie T3 Medium Tank and the Christie T1 Combat Car. In June of 1932, Christie tried to sell it to the Bureau of Ordnance for $20,000. As trials of the vehicle resulted in a long list of defects that needed correcting, the deal fell through.

Christie left his tank in the courtyard of the Bureau of Ordnance building. A few months later, the tank was moved to storage, where it spent four years. After the British showed interest in Christie's tanks, the M1931 was quickly repaired and sent to England. The vehicle, indexed A13E1 with registration number T.2086, arrived with no turret. Documents listed it as a tractor. From fall 1936 to spring of 1937, the A13E1 underwent intense trials at a proving grounds near Aldershot, Hampshire county. In total, the tank travelled 1085 km, 523 of them off road. A turret was designed for the tank, and a model was made, but it was never built in metal.

Thanks to this new income, Christie created another flying tank, indexed M1937. This was more of a test chassis than a real tank, but this did not make it any less interesting. Unlike the A13E1, the M1937 was a fully tracked tank. Thanks to the Curtiss D-12 aircraft engine, with power reduced to 430 hp, the tank could go faster than the M1931 could on wheels. Aside from the candle spring, the suspension used a parallel shock absorber. This solution made the suspension significantly better, as it quickly reduced oscillations during acceleration and braking.

This new tank also interested the British. The M1937 crossed the Atlantic, and its trials began at the Farnborough airport. The tank achieved a maximum speed of 102.5 kph, which amazed the observers. However, Christie's dreams of selling the new tank and its patents were never fulfilled, as the requested sum of $320,000 was too great. Nevertheless, more money from the British allowed Christie to keep working on his flying tanks, sadly in futility.

English Method

In 1937, work started on the analogue to the Christie tank, indexed A13E2 Cruiser Tank. Engineers of the Morris Motor Company, turned into the multifaceted conglomerate Nuffield Mechanization & Aero in 1938, borrowed the suspension, engine, transmission, and cooling system from the Christie tank. Otherwise, the A13E2 was its own vehicle, significantly different from other tanks that descended from Christie's designs.

First, the British discarded the convertible drive. By the late 1930s, the lifespan of tracks surpassed 1000 km, and this took away one of the advantages of putting tanks on wheels. The maximum speed of this new tank was 50 kph, which was enough for a cruiser type tank.

Morris Motor Company engineers borrowed the idea of parallel shock absorbers from the M1937 tank. At the same time, they ignored another feature of the vehicle, slanted springs to reduce the height of the tank. In order to not overdo it with novelties, it was decided to leave the springs the same as they were on the M1931. The 12 cylinder V-shaped Liberty L-12 aircraft engine was left unchanged. The British set up domestic production, naming the new engine Nuffield-Liberty.

The design of the hull was radically changed. The Christie tank had a ram-like front, which increased the chances of ricochet at the cost of making installation of the idlers a pain. Breaking the idler axle was a common problem with these tanks. In addition, the hull of Christie's tanks was narrow, which limited the width of the turret ring.

British engineers designed a new hull that was half a meter longer and 10 cm wider than its American ancestor. The front of the hull retained a shape traditional for British tanks of the 1930s, similar to the A9E1 prototype. Installation of machinegun turrets was a trend at the time, but the A13E2 did not have any. The driver sat in the center in a special casemate that allowed him to have very good visibility. The rest of the hull was new as well, only the mufflers remained unchanged.

The tank received a large amount of hatches. This had a negative effect on the strength of the tank's armour, but it was only 14 mm thick, hardly enough to protect from even high caliber machinegun fire.

The turret had nothing in common with Christie's creations. Instead of a one-man turret that was already insufficient in 1932, engineers of the Morris Motor Company built a three-man one. Its design was similar to that of the A7 tank. Similar turrets were used on the Cruiser Tank Mk.I and Mk.II. The turret had a 40 mm 2-pounder gun and a Vickers machinegun, although the prototype only had mockups of the armament.

The A13E2 was ready by October 1937. Trials of the experimental vehicle, registration number T.2085, began that same month, and demonstrated the correctness of Martel's decision. The 14 ton vehicle with American roots could achieve a speed of 56 kph, almost reaching that of the 5 ton Light Tank Mk.VI.

However, there were some "growing pains". The tracks, which migrated from Christie's tank unchanged, caused some complaints. Their drawback was excessive wear of the tires. The result was a new tank, A13E3, registration number T.3642.

One of the novelties was a new small-linked track, which increased the lifespan of the road wheels. The maximum speed of the tank was limited to 48 kph. The A13E3 received real guns instead of mockups, which allowed for proper gunnery trials.

Arduous Pioneer

The A13E3 was accepted into service as Cruiser Tank Mk.III as a result of the trials. Nuffield Mechanization & Aero was tasked with its production, turning the company that dealt primarily with cars until the mid 1930s into one of the largest British tank makers. The company's tank branch only bloomed after the start of WWII, the order for tanks in 1938 was quite small. The British Ministry of War spent little on tanks compared to the Navy or Air Force.

The cost of British tanks is easy to estimate at the time: it ended up being about 1000 Pounds Sterling per ton, meaning that the 14 ton tank cost about 14,000 pounds. By the exchange rate of the time, this was about 150,000 Reichsmarks or 68,000 American dollars. To compare, the PzIII cost about 110,000 Reichsmarks and the Medium Tank M3 cost 55,000 dollars.

Production Cruiser Tank Mk.IIIs differed from the A13E3 slightly. The right side of the turret was equipped with a pair of smoke grenade launchers (mounts for them were were present since the A13E2) and the exhaust system was covered up.

The initial order for Mk.III tanks was only 65 units, registration numbers T.4385 through T.4449. The small volume of the order was due to an understanding that a tank with so little armour would not last long on the battlefield. Work started on an improved version, the Cruiser Tank Mk.IV. However, the successor didn't go much further in terms of armour.

Despite the Cruiser Tank Mk.III being a learning experience, it still saw combat. On September 1st, 1939, the British army only had 79 cruiser tanks of all types. Another 322 tanks were built before June of 1940, but it took time for these tanks to make it to the battlefield. As a result, when the Germans began their offensive through Belgium in May of 1940, the British sent everything they had to stop them. The British Expeditionary Force was equipped with 38 Cruiser Mk.III tanks, included into the 3rd and 5th Royal Tank Regiments, which in turn were a part of the 1st Heavy Tank Brigade of the 1st Tank Division. Later, the 3rd and 5th RTR were included in the 3rd Armoured Brigade.

The new tanks saw combat for the first time at Abbeville in late May of 1940. The effectiveness of the tanks was impacted by the fact that the 1st Tank Division commanded by Major-General Evans arrived in France only on May 15th, and several of the units were not entirely assembled. There were also other problems. The British tanks ran into the same problems as Soviet BT-2 and BT-5 tanks did: the Liberty engines were very picky, and tankers had to fight their own tanks as much as they did with the Germans.

The tank was fast, maneuverable, and had an excellent gun, but it was defenseless against German anti-tank guns. It can't be said that the Germans did not notice these new tanks at all, but they were unable to play a significant role in this battle. The tanks were last used to defend Dunkirk, and were abandoned there. The debut of the Cruiser Tank Mk.III was also the end of its combat career. There are rumours that some of these tanks were sent to North Africa, but they have not been confirmed.

Some tanks were recovered by the Germans in relatively decent condition. The tanks were indexed Kreuzer Panzerkampfwagen Mk.III 743(e), but there is no evidence that they were sent to either combat or training units. At the very least, one Kreuzer Panzerkampfwagen Mk.III 743(e) was sent to Kummersdorf for trials, where it was mobilized among other vehicles that the Germans sent into battle against the Red Army in April of 1945. The results of this desperate attempt were quite obvious.

Until recently, there were two preserved Cruiser Tanks Mk.III. One was in storage at the Atlantic Wall Museum in Pas-de-Calais, France. Sadly, it was not restored, and exposure to the hostile climate of Normandy completely finished off the English veteran. Its armour literally cracked, and its owners sold it for scrap several years ago.

As for the second Cruiser Tank Mk.III, it is not threatened by this fate. It is a representative of a very rare modification, the story of which is not yet fully known. Bovington is in possession of a Cruiser Tank Mk.III*, where the star means that the turret had spaced armour added. It is similar to the spaced armour of the Cruiser Tank Mk.IV, but slightly different. It is not known if all Cruiser Tank Mk.IIIs received this modification. It's possible that work did not progress past experiments, as there were only a couple of dozen tanks left by the summer of 1940.

Original article by Yuri Pasholok.

Christie's Victim

The 1920s were a dark time for tank builders worldwide. The rapidly changing role of tanks and a harsh cut in finances meant that less than a thousand tanks were built worldwide. The majority of these tanks were MS-1s, all while the Soviet Union was still reeling from WWI and the civil war. Britain saw the creation of the successful Medium Tank MkI and MkII, as well as tankettes, but a low budget was a significant hurdle. The French limited themselves to modernizations of the Renault FT, and these tanks, known as Renault NC, were built for export, instead of the French army. Germany quietly worked on their tanks. The US was the least lucky of all. Despite a wide program for new tanks, not a single vehicle designed in the 1920s in the United States was put into mass production.

Do It Yourself

After WWI, the American army obtained almost a thousand light 6 ton M1917 tanks and a hundred heavy Mk.VII International. The light tanks were the more important acquisition. The problem with it was that the Renault FT, the ancestor of the M1917, was built for the European theater of war. Its top speed was only 8 kph, and while a superior engine made the M1917 slightly faster, it was still inadequate for American needs.

In addition, tanks could travel a little over 100 kilometers before needing extensive repairs. They had to be transported to the battlefield on trucks. An attempt was made to solve the speed problem with the 100 hp Franklin 145 engine, which increased the speed to 14.5 kph. Further improvements were limited by the suspension. Only 7 tanks were modernized to the M1917A1 standard.

Seeing that the M1917 has little room to improve, the military put its bets on John Walter Christie. Sadly, the M1919 Medium Tank did not meet expectations. This tank that saw trials in April of 1921 was much more promising. It had a 6 pounder (57 mm) gun and could reach a speed of 20 kph on wheels, impressive for the time. A drawback was that its top speed on tracks was only 11 kph, and it only had a sprung suspension on the middle bogey. As a result, Christie altered the M1919, turning it into an SPG. The military tried to do something with this design until June of 1924, at which point it was obvious that the tank was a dead end. By time time, Christie had a falling out with the Bureau of Ordnance.

The Bureau saw that it had to make its own tank by the spring of 1922. According to the accepted norm, the 5 ton tank had to have a crew of two and be armed with a 37 mm gun and 7.62 mm machinegun. The armour had to be enough to protect it from rifle caliber armour piercing bullets. Its speed would be 19 kph and range 80 km. Nevertheless, work did not start until 1926. Until then, medium tanks were prioritized, with the expectation that once production was underway, light tanks would no longer be necessary. This cockiness was caused by early successes with the M1921 medium tank.

By early 1926, it was obvious that work on the M1921 stalled. On January 26th, 1926, the OCM recommended that a new tank be designed. Initially, work started at the Rock Island Arsenal. According to archives, it was initially supposed to have a classic layout with an engine in the rear. However, on September 1st, the department was moved to Fort Meade, Maryland, home of the Tank Department.

Harry Knox's Project

One man is worth mentioning, as he directly impacted what the new tank would look like. Harry Austin Knox is more known to automotive historians. For a quarter of a century, Knox successfully dealt in cars and trucks. Knox took up tanks in 1924, when the military had its row with Christie. Knox became the father of the new tank that was designed at Fort Meade.

He decided to discard the classic layout. The basis for his design would be the British Medium Tank Mk.I, which was initially considered a light tank. The drive wheels were in the rear, and the engine in the front. As a result, the tank was a lot shorter than the M1917, but the driver was unlikely to be very happy about this decision. The driveshaft went between his legs, and the driver was left almost spooning the engine. This also caused the tank to have a very long "nose", which negatively impacted the driver's visibility. The gearbox wasn't lonely either, as it acted as a mount for the driver's seat. The suspension was similar to a tractor's, but used skeletal tracks. The same tracks were designed for the Medium Tank Mk.I and were far superior to those of the M1917.

On September 26th, 1926, a technical committee reviewed both types of tanks and selected Harry Knox's design. The front engine resulted in better balance. By March 15th, 1927, the tank was at the stage where it was time to pick a contractor. James Cunningham & Son Co. won the tender. On one hand, the company had no prior military contracts, and its main product was light cars. On the other hand, Cunningham had serious industry experience: in 1916, it was one of the first to produce the V8 engine.

On April 12th, 1927, James Cunningham & Son Co. received a contract for the production of an experimental light tank. 120 days were allotted for this task. Work finished by August 1st, and on September 1st the newly indexed Light Tank T1 was shown at a demonstration in Rochester. At seven tons, it was heavier than the M1917, which only caused more problems with transporting the tank by trucks. The armour was even thinner than on the M1917 at less than 10 mm. This was not enough for an infantry support tank.

On the other hand, the engine was very impressive. The 110 hp V8 engine gave the tank an impressive power of 15.7 hp/ton. A powerful engine didn't help the M1917A1 due to its suspension, but this was not so with the T1. Its maximum speed was 28 kph, an impressive figure for the late 1920s. The experimental tank had a dummy turret platform and turret.

After trials at Aberdeen, the T1 tank was converted to the Cargo Carrier T1. Its trials also went well, and a green light was given to both the light tank and the cargo carrier. An order was made for 4 T1E1 tanks and 2 T1E1 cargo carriers. The fuel tanks were moved from inside the hull to containers above the tracks. In addition, the front section of the tank was shortened. The cylindrical turret got a 37 mm M1916 gun and a coaxial Browning M1919 machinegun.

Despite a series of drawbacks, the infantry was amazed by this new tank. Even before the T1E1 was built, Major General Robert Allen insisted that it be standardized under the index Light Tank M1. This index lasted from January 14th to March 30th, 1928. The Secretary of War cancelled the standardization, remarking that it would be prudent to first wait for performance data from trials.

In June of 1928, four T1E1 tanks were sent to Fort Meade for trials. Here, they were included in the 4th tank company along with M1917 tanks. Joint maneuvers proved that these tanks were superior to their predecessors.

Trials held in October of 1928 were even more impressive. Three tanks and two cargo carriers drove from Fort Meade to Gettysburg and back. The T1E1 achieved an average speed of 16 kph, unthinkable with the M1917. One T1E1 was sent to the Aberdeen proving grounds, where it travelled 3232 km over 57 days without serious breakdowns. This was a phenomenal result, as a M1917 tank would have fallen to pieces by then. It seemed that everything went smoothly and a contract for 200+ T1E1 tanks would soon follow.

Christie's Doombringer

Unexpected problems came up. On November 19th, 1928, an unusual vehicle set out from Fort Meade. It looked more like a race car than a tank. This vehicle was the Christie M.1928, an experimental tank made by Christie's new US Wheel Track Layer Corporation. The designer called his creation M.1940, implying that these tanks were the future. The main feature of the tank was an independent spring suspension, today known as Christie springs.

The route of the M.1928 repeated the route the T1E1s took a month earlier, but the result was vastly different. Christie's tank showed an average speed of 45 kph; the maximum speed on tracks was 68 kph, and on wheels 112 kph. This was a shock for the T1E1. The biggest problem was that Christie's tank didn't need trucks to transport it to the battlefield, and had a far superior range compared to its competitor.

Knox and Cunningham's tank paled in comparison. Mass production of the T1E1 was forgotten, especially since complaints about thin armour didn't go anywhere. In late November, a request was made for a modernized tank.

Playing Catch-up

Work on the T1E2 dragged on, and it only appeared at the Aberdeen proving grounds on June 3rd, 1929. Thickening the armour to 15 mm was not enough. The mass grew to 8.8 tons, and it was time to change the suspension. The tracks became an inch wider. The engine was upgraded to 132 hp, raising the effective power to 15 hp/ton and the maximum speed of 29 kph. These were good characteristics, but even the new T1E2 was not up to par with the Christie tank. On the other hand, Christie's design was more of a testbed, and the T1E2 was a complete tank. The new modification had a new turret with a 37 mm semi-automatic Browning gun.

Major General Allen insisted on standardization of the T1E2, but the Commander of the Land Forces Major General Summerall was against the idea. First of all, he received troubling news from infantry and cavalry representatives who were watching Christie's demonstrations. Second, the T1E2 was simply not the tank that Summerall wanted in his army. The tank was cursed with mechanical problems. The suspension was a big contributor, as the increase in mass made itself known. Strong vibrations made aiming and firing on the move difficult. Additionally, the idea of a front mounted engine was declared unsatisfactory.

A modernization of the second T1E1 prototype, known as the T1E3, attempted to resolve these problems. The new suspension had four bogeys, the first three with hydraulic suspensions, and the last one with a spring. The tank received an engine and armament equivalent to the T1E2. The maneuverability and smoothness increased, but it was too late. It was April of 1931, and already three months since Christie personally drove his M.1931 in front of numerous photographers and cameramen. The T1 family compared poorly.

The last chance for the T1 was abroad, especially due to the Great Depression that started in 1929 that dispelled all hopes of hundreds of tanks. This chance arrived in 1930, when a Soviet commission arrived in the United States, led by UMM chief I.A. Hhalepskiy. However, the deal failed, which Halepskiy recorded in his report, dated June 6th, 1930.

"According to the approved program, we were to buy samples and obtain technical assistance for the T-1, E-1, and Christie tanks.

The T-1 and E-1 tanks produced by Cunningham appear to be small tanks. The design of the T-1 and E-1 tanks is worse than the same type of tank we already bought from Vickers, namely their speed if 8 kph less, armour is ordinary, engine is water cooled (Vickers is air cooled), the final drives heat up, the track is so massive that it impedes required speed.

At the same time, the tanks cost 17.5 thousand roubles each, more than Vickers tanks. This is completely unacceptable financially. The company demands 50% up front and 50% on delivery, and demands that at least 50 tanks of one type be purchased. The company refuses to provide any kind of technical assistance or to let our engineers into their factories.

The aforementioned details make it impossible to purchase this type of tank."

What happened next is well known: the commission examined Christie's tank and ordered two vehicles, as well as the patents and a production license. Later, these tanks became the foundation for the BT-2 tank.

SPGs on the T1 chassis deserve a special mention. In 1928, one T1E1 cargo carrier was converted to a platform for a 107 mm (4.2 inch) mortar. A carrier on the T2 chassis, which used T1 components, proved superior. After trials of the chassis made as a laboratory for various suspension components, it was adapted as a carrier for the new 75 mm M1 howitzer.

The vehicle, created in 1930 and indexed T1 HMC, was superior to its light SPG predecessors. It weighed a little over 5 tons and was equipped with an 89 hp LaSalle engine. Its top speed reached 32 kph. Thanks to a superior suspension, its travel was smoother than the T1's. Trials showed that it was a perfectly suitable light gun carrier, superior to its tractor predecessors, but sadly, work did not continue past a prototype.

Original article by Yuri Pasholok.

Tank Quotas in 1931

"Minutes of the Revolutionary War Council meeting on changes to the tank program for 1931

May 8th, 1931

Present: comrades Voroshilov, Uborevich, Triandafilov, Martinovich, Halepskiy
Secretary: comrade Litunovskiy

1. T-27 Tankettes

Due to proficiency attained in mass T-27 manufacturing and discovery of excellent combat characteristics (mobility, off-road performance, possibility of using a 37 mm gun), the transition from the T-18 to the T-26, which shortens the requirements for small tanks by 65 vehicles, and a lack of selected medium tank, it is necessary to produce 200 additional tankettes in 1931. Accept comrade Martinovich's proposal to wait until the issues of producing T-26 tanks at the Bolshevik factory and hulls at the Podolsk factory are resolved before inquiring if factories can produce additional tankettes. MPS VSHKh should investigate this issue and report to the RVSS.

Consider comrade Martinovich's claim that VSNKh is preparing to gear up the Nizhniy Novgorod and 2nd automotive factories to produce no less than 15 thousand T-27 tankettes according to the government decision from February 20th, 1931.

2. T-26

T-26 orders are proceeding on time. Retain the previous order of 300 vehicles. Remind MPS VSNKh that, according to Bolshevik factory directors, the bottleneck of production is cast iron, and its reception is still not resolved. This threatens the timely delivery of T-26es.

3. T-18

Considering that the Motoviliha factory still hasn't mastered tank production, and the order for 75 T-18 tanks is delaying important artillery orders, cancel 65 T-18 tanks, leaving only the 10 tanks that have already been started. Send no more tank orders to Motoviliha.

4. Medium tank

1. T-24:
1. Retain the 1931 order for 80 T-24s with the corresponding amount of spare parts (mandatory).
2. Comrade Martinovich must immediately give HPZ this order and ensure that there is no extra produced, as we will not make any more of these vehicles.
2. TG:
1. Report to KO that the commission's decision on the TG medium tank cannot be realized in 1931, as the experimental prototype is still unfinished, and it is impossible to determine when it will be. As a result, there can be no standardized medium tank in 1931 for us to produce.
2. The Vickers 12-ton tank that we purchased must be meant for colonial forces (weak armour and armament), and does not measure up to our tank armament system.
3. Continue accelerated work on the TG experimental prototype. Take note of the schedule proposed by Leningrad region OGPU.
4. Ask permission to purchase the new 16-ton Vickers tank, of which we have been notified, which matches our requirements for armour, speed, and armament.
3. Christie tank:
1. Ask for permission to adopt the Christie tank into the mechanized forces as a high speed tank destroyer (BT).
2. Instruct comrades Martinovich and Halepskiy to calculate the maximum amount of BT tanks (existing type, with no changes) that can be produced this year at HPZ, considering that the T-24 order at that factory decreases by 220 units.
3. Simultaneously, instruct UMM to accelerate work on modernizing the Christie tank.

5. Heavy tank:

1. It is necessary to have at least a small number of heavy tanks in the RKKA.
2. UMM must discover information on heavy tanks in Italy, England, and, if possible, France, with the objective of buying such a tank, or at least blueprints.
3. Simultaneously, conduct independent work on such a tank.

6. On an engine factory for medium tanks

Ask the government to reverse its decision on February 20th, 1931, and allow construction of a factory for M-5 (Liberty) instead of the previously chosen M-6 (Hispano-Suiza).

UVVS chief Baranov must reserve 150 new M-5 engines from 1931 production and transfer them to comrade Halepskiy.

7. On armour

Report to the government that the task of cementing against armour piercing bullets is completed. The task of reducing the amount of ferrite alloys in the armour is also completed. Work on cementing steel against small caliber armour piercing shells continues. According to comrade Martinovich, a complete transfer to using cemented armour (Vibrak type) will happen in July 1931.

Keep in mind comrade Martinovich's statement that the required amount of firebrick to build 8 furnaces at the Izhor factory (for production of cemented armour) has been ordered on April 19th 1931 from abroad.

Comrades Martinovich and Halepskiy should ensure the fastest possible arrival of this order.

Chairman Voroshilov

Secretary Litunovskiy"

RGVA 4-14-414