Two Turrets from Leningrad

The creation of the two-turreted T-26 tank

The most famous Soviet tanks of the interbellum era at BT light tanks. Their high mobility, convertible drive feature, and a certain photogenic quality made them the best known Soviet tank series. One popular theory classified the BT tanks as "highway aggressor tanks" that indicated the offensive nature of the Red Army and popularized the idea that the BT tanks were the Red Army's main tanks. This is only an indicator of how wrong that theory is.

T-26 tanks armed with either only machine guns or both a cannon and a machine gun on parade in Moscow.

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.

Vickers Amphibious Tank Trials

 

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.

Pocket Fury

British tank building developed differently from other nations. For instance, the British built tanks in one weight category that had vastly different characteristics. It is no less interesting that the while the core of the British tank fleet was made up of light tanks, production of light tanks as a class ended in 1940. Although, the British later returned to the topic of light tanks. One light vehicle was designed and even released in small series at the end of the war. This is the Alecto I: an SPG that was too late for the war, but managed to serve in the British army nevertheless.

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.

Modernization, Polish Style

The 7TP, a Polish modernization of the Vickers Mk.E, was the pride of Polish tank building in the interwar period. Skilfully combining products of the Swiss Saurer company (who made the engine) and the Swedish Bofors company (who made the gun), Polish designers significantly improved the characteristics of the initial tank. The 7TP design also included a number of Polish creations, including the excellent Mk.IV periscope. Polish tanks fought German tanks as equals in the 1939 campaign, and many of them later served in the German army. A number of the tanks ended up in the USSR as trophies, where they were studied.

Little Tank, Great Success

Czech-made weapons were popular since the start of the 20th century. Skoda's artillery was in demand even outside of Austria-Hungary, which Czechia belonged to until 1918. Weapons exports continued after the formation of the First Czechoslovak Republic. As a rule, their excellent quality was accompanied by a very agreeable price.

Tanks joined cannons in the mid-1930s. Czechoslovakia managed to take second place in tank exports worldwide, coming up just behind Great Britain. The first and most popular export item was the Praga AH-IV tankette.

Multiturreted Independence

Towards the end of WWI, the French reached first place in the heavy tank development race. A little longer, and the FCM 2C would have seen combat. The French created the first breakthrough tank in the world, which combined powerful armament with armour that, at the time, could be considered shellproof. In addition, the French vehicle became the first multiturreted tank in the world, and its main turret was large enough for three men.

In Britain, the runner up trendsetter, took a different path in the creation of heavy tanks: improvement of the tried and true "rhombus" design. It was soon obvious that this path led to a dead end. The next British heavy tank, the A1E1 Independent, gained not just a turret, but five of them.

Praga LTL and Pzw 39: Tanks for Neutrals

In May of 1935, an Iranian commission signed a contract with CKD for light Praga TNH tanks. At the moment, these tanks did not exist in metal, but the Iranians saw the potential in this design. A prototype was demonstrated in September of that year. The Iranian commission was so impressed that the order was increased to 50 tanks on September 10th. For this time, this was a very respectable amount of tanks for the export market. It's not surprising that representatives from other nations came to Czechoslovakia to find inexpensive and high quality light tanks. CKD's engineers managed to satisfy their new customers, creating new tanks for Lithuania and Switzerland, known as the Praga LTL and Pzw 39.

Light Tanks T1E4 and T2E1: Experiments on an Ideal Platform

The idea of a light tank with a front engine that the American Ordnance Department insisted on was at a dead end by 1932. Trials of the Light Tank T1 family and later the Medium Tank T2 showed that the idea was unacceptable. Poor visibility, excessive mass, bad crew conditions, and, most importantly, the limits of further development, put an end to such tanks. Designers moved on to working on other tanks with different layouts. Harry Knox, the father of the front engine American tanks, did not abandon his idea, and kept looking for a place for his idea. Stooping down to plagiarism, he crossed his Light Tank T1E1 with the Vickers Mk.E, its overseas competitor. The resulting "hybrid" Light Tank T2E1 was not that bad.

Medium Tank Mk.III: Britain's Cerberus

By the middle of the 1920s, the British army received a new generation of medium tanks that served for a long time. The Medium Tank Mk.I and Medium Tank Mk.II became the first turreted medium tanks in the world. A good design and high reliability guaranteed a long life for these tanks, but by 1926, the British military was already thinking about their replacement. A Vickers design, the Medium Tank Mk.III, was suitable for the job. Even though the rather interesting design became the ancestor of a series of later tanks, including Soviet and German ones, its life in the British army was a difficult one.

Medium Tank Mk.II: Interbellum Long-Liver

The Light Tank Mk.I, later renamed to Medium Tank Mk.I, entered production in 1923 and left a notable mark in not only British tank building history, but tank building history in general. Its excellent maneuverability and armament for the time set a trend for the later part of the 1920s. Nevertheless, its lifespan was brief. Two years later, it was replaced by the most numerous tank of the 1920s: the Medium Tank Mk.II.

Vickers E: Bestselling Export

The late 1920s were a dark time for British tank building in general and the Vickers company in particular. Sir George Thomas Beckham, the company's chief designer, died on May 9th, 1928. Order for new tanks began to decrease. New designs, the A1E1 Independent and A6 Medium Tank, were unsuccessful. Meanwhile, Vickers received their first overseas order, selling a Medium Tank Mk.C to Japan. The next foreign sale was a Medium Tank Mk.D to Ireland, plus the Medium Tank Mk.II piqued the interest of some foreign buyers.

This pushed the company, united with Sir W.G. Armstrong Whitworth & Company into Vickers-Armstrong Limited in 1927, to work on creating tanks purely for export. The result of this work was the Vickers Mk.E, a tank that cemented its creators and the Vickers company in world tankbuilding history.

7TP: Polish Vickers

Polish armoured forces were pitted against the Panzerwaffe, one of the main instruments of German strategy. Even though battles in September of 1939 showed that the light 7TP tanks could resist German tanks on a technical level, but the numerical difference left no chances for Poland.

Medium Tank Mk.I: First of the Maneuver Tanks

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

New Player

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Light to Medium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worthy of Imitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original article by Yuri Pasholok.

Tendencies of British Tank Building

Barykov's report on his presence in England jumps back and forth between his assessment of British tanks as a whole and Straussler's tank in particular. This article will deal with the general assessment, and another will deal with the specific vehicle.

"Short report in addition to the report sent by the director of the Experimental Kirov Factory, Engineer N.V. Barykov, on the trip to England

During my presence in England, I inspected the following:

1. 4.5 ton Carden-Lloyd tank.
2. 8 ton Vickers tank.
3. Straussler tank.
4. Engines:
1. Armstrong-Siddeley 90 hp.
2. Blueprints for 180 and 350 hp engines from the same company.
3. S. Thomas engine.
4. Rudstopp ship diesel.
5. Perkins diesel.
6. AES engines.
5. Factories: AES, Armstrong-Siddeley, Porkino, a diesel factory in Coventry, a Ford factory.
6. Automotive factory in Olimpia, Milden-Hall airfield (during England-Austria flight).

After inspecting Vickers tanks, viewing video reels, and talking to engine manufacturers and engineer Straussler, it can be said that the following vehicles are used in the English army:

1. 4.5 ton tank with a 90 hp water cooled Meadows engine, with a maximum speed of 65 kph on a good English highway.
2. 8 ton Vickers tank with a 90 hp Armstrong-Siddeley engine, known to us.
3. 16 ton tank with a 180 hp Armstrong-Siddeley engine with a maximum speed of 45 kph, armed with a 37 mm gun and two machineguns.
4. 8 ton Vickers tank with one turret and a 120-130 hp Rolls-Royce engine, with a speed around 40-45 kph.

According to Captain Lloyd, this last vehicle is experimental, although work on it has been going on for 1.5 years. Lloyd said that the manufacturer wants to change the cooling system, remove the oil cooler, change the air intake system, and in general alter the prototype for another 1.5 years.

The suspension of the Vickers/Rolls-Royce vehicle is of interest, being the Vickers 6 ton suspension, but significantly more robust. The road wheels increased in size and are completely metallic, and the number of springs has increased to 14. Due to the Rolls-Royce engine, the vehicle is supposed to be simple and reliable. It would seem that some components still need work. During the trials I observed, the rim of an idler burst, which led to the track breaking off.

I already wrote that the engine is shifted to the side, and, due to this, a hatch can be made in the rear of the turret platform for the crew to exit through during a forced stop on the battlefield. 

Aside from the aforementioned vehicles, there is a tank with an air cooled 120 hp Armstrong-Siddeley engine. It is top secret and undergoing trials at the Woolwich arsenal. No characteristics of this vehicle are known. It cannot even be said if the vehicle has a convertible drive or travels on tracks only.

There is a heavy tank, a five turret Vickers, 32-35 tons, with a 350 hp engine. Judging by the engine factory, there is a very small number of these tanks.

...

Main tendencies in English tank-building:

1. The fight for reliability. This is achieved by maximal simplification of the design. As a rule, English vehicles run only on tracks. Inside the tanks, unlike in ours, there is a minimal amount of armament, ammunition, and various mechanisms. English tanks cannot be called universal.
2. Pursuit of high speeds, even at the cost of armour.
3. Presence of a power reserve in proportion to the weight of the vehicle. It appears that this rule only applies up to 16 tons.

The lack of many auxiliary components makes the tank roomy and comfortable for the driver and crew. I think that the question of equipping our tanks can be revisited with the objective of freeing them from unnecessary parts. 

...

Having visited the car show, I noticed that many vehicles had an engine in the rear. These chassis are ready for armouring. If the engine is in the rear, it is possible to place the crew, ammunition, and armament in the front.

Out of vehicles with front engines, the following are of interest:

• Citroen vehicle, completely original. Each of the four wheels has an independent suspension. This vehicle can drive over rough terrain while retaining horizontal hull positioning, which is important for firing on the move. This suspension can be used for armoured cars and tankettes. Straussler's armoured car includes all the elements of the Citroen car in its suspension. Additionally, the Citroen vehicle has a very low center of gravity, which makes it very stable. The car costs 450 Pound Sterling, and can serve as a prototype for developing a series of Citroen improvements domestically.
• The other two vehicles, Singer and Austin, solve the issue of hydraulically disengaging the main clutch and synchronized gearboxes, which can automatically change the gear of a vehicle depending on terrain. These vehicles are inexpensive, costing only 250 Pound Sterling apiece. Purchasing these vehicles could aid us in the solution of the problem of creating a reliable and simple gearbox for light tanks.
• The headlights on the Talbot car, with spiral light reflectors, are of interest. They can be used to drive in fog. The new type of jack is also interesting.

Experimentation

Each factory has a solid foundation for experimental work on the topics of improving existing vehicles and creating new ones. The experimental departments devote great attention to improving metalwork, improving casting, replacement of materials, etc. Much work is being done on improving the robustness of individual components. An example of this are the engine cylinders in the Armstrong-Siddeley 90 hp engine. Aside from these private design centers, there are state centers for experimental tank building, which are tasked with the creation of new secret prototypes, testing all new developments at tank factories, and representing the interests of the military directorate.

Printed December 19th, 1934

Director of the Experimental Kirov Factory Barykov"

From the V. Lehn Collection

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

Tank Shopping

"A note from the RKKA HQ Chief comrade Shaposhnikov to the People's Commissar of Military and Naval Affairs of the USSR and Chairman of the Revolutionary War Council of the USSR, K.E. Voroshilov on purchasing tanks abroad.

December 13th, 1929

According to your task #01924 from December 10th of this year, I propose these thoughts on purchasing tanks abroad. I discussed them with comrades Uborevich, Halepskiy, and Berezin.

1. Overall desires

It is desirable to buy prototypes, blueprints, and technical aid from one country. At the same time, investigate the possibility of buying 60-100 medium tanks.

If this is not possible, consider purchasing a tank in one country and technical aid in another. Buying a medium tank without blueprints or technical aid does not resolve the issue of building a medium tank.

2. Types of tanks and countries

Medium tank: The most desirable is the model 1927 Vickers tank with a convertible drive (England). In America, the 1940 Christie and Medium TS (model 1927), both with a convertible drive, or at least the latter with tracks only.

Small tanks: Purchase the American TE-1 convertible drive tank. It is desirable to purchase the Renault #27 tank in France and the two-person Carden-Lloyd tankette in England.

Large tanks: It is necessary to purchase the large Vickers tank in England. It is also desirable to purchase an all terrain tank destroyer with a speed of up to 30 kph and a powerful gun (at least 45 mm).

Aside from tanks, it is desirable to purchase at least one AA SPG and one six-wheel (three axle) armoured car.

When purchasing, pay attention to improved visibility systems, periscopes, and observation devices, as well as methods of maintaining accuracy when the tank is shaking (naval type gyroscopes).

3. Methods of purchase

It is impossible to determine methods of purchase precisely. Each case should be solved separately by comrade Berezin and his staff.

4. Staff

It is desirable to put Halepskiy in charge of the purchasing. With him, send a comrade from VSNKh, preferably Budnyak. In addition, one or two engineers. Halepskiy recommends comrade Topilov (VKP(b) member, UNM tank department chief), and comrade Begunov (VKP(b) member, member of the scientific-technical department of UNM).

RKKA HQ Chief, B. Shaposhnikov"

RGVA 31811-1-38

Kubinka

The Kubinka tank museum is home to not only a large number of rare (and sometimes unique) exhibits, but a large amount of them are fully equipped and in working order. This has been the goal of the museum since its inception. Here are the conclusions of a commission regarding some unique exhibits from April 1st, 1941.

"T-100 #810.

Condition:

1. The vehicle is completely unprepared for storage. All transmission, motor, turret, and electric components are covered in rust.
2. The vehicle is stored on pallets. Tracks and rims of road wheels are covered in rust.

Commission conclusions: perform technical inspection #3 and keep in the museum.

T-100Y #1352

Condition:

1. Fighting compartment, gun, engine, and transmission parts are covered in rust.
2.  The vehicle is not stored on pallets, and is not prepared for long term storage.

Commission conclusions: perform technical inspection #3 and transfer to the Artillery Directorate.

T-29

Condition:

1. The rubber tires on five road wheels have come off.
2. Most track links are damaged.
3. The left front frame is missing the roller nut.
4. The vehicle arrived from the factory recently, is completely painted, and in a satisfactory condition.

Commission conclusions: keep in the museum.

T-46

Condition:

1. The turret is not fully equipped. There are no ball mounts in the turret, protective cups for the PT-1, right turret hatch, gun port caps, gun mantlet, frame, or periscope glass.
2. The crew seats and electric turret motor are missing.
3. The vehicle arrived from the factory recently, is completely painted, and in a satisfactory condition.

Commission conclusions: re-equip the vehicle and keep in the museum.

T-111

Condition: 

1. The vehicle is fully equipped, arrived from the factory recently, is completely painted, and in a satisfactory condition.

Commission conclusions: keep in the museum.

SU-14 #23547

Condition:

1. Currently being repaired at the workshop, needs repairs for both side friction clutches, main friction clutch, and technical inspection #3. It is being prepared for trials.

Commission conclusions: return to Artillery Directorate upon completion of trials.

Ricardo #15200

Condition:

1. The right half-turret is in pieces, has been removed from its place and kept in the bay.
2. The gun is missing, and the gun carrier on the left is missing.
3. The artillery crew seats are missing.
4. The leather from seats and cushions in the driver's compartment is missing.
5. Both magnetos and all sparkplugs are missing, wires are torn throughout the vehicle.
6. The track has frozen into the ice, the vehicle is rusted inside and outside, and not painted.

Commission conclusions: re-equip the vehicle, correct defects, and keep in the museum.

Vickers 12-ton

Condition:

1. 4 sockets and ball mounts are missing from the fighting compartment.
2. The gun and mantlet are missing.
3. The lever cap for the engine grille is missing.
4. The vehicle was not placed on a pallet, the tracks have frozen into the ice. Oil is pooling under the engine.
5. The vehicle is clean and in a satisfactory condition.

Commission conclusion: re-equip the vehicle and keep in the museum."

CAMD RF 38-11355-12

The "Ricardo" vehicle mentioned is a British MkV, one of the initial exhibits at the museum. The sparkplugs from that tank were stolen in early 2000s and sold to a Western collector. Such a shame they weren't originals.

Here's the story of another exhibit. See if you can guess what it was.

"To the deputy chief of the Armoured and Motorized Forces HQ, Guards Major-General of the Tank Forces, comrade Markov

On the issue of: obtaining a transport for the transportation of the SU-380 to the NIBT proving grounds.

One 380 mm self-propelled howitzer on the Tiger-H hull was discovered at Kirchmeiser's factory (Germany). The deputy chief of the Armoured and Motorized Group of the Soviet Occupation Force in Germany, Guards Engineer-Colonel comrade Karpenko responded to the inquiry from the GBTU chief, stating that the SU-380 will be sent to the NIBT proving grounds after receiving transport.

Since it is imperative that the SPG be delivered to the proving grounds urgently, I ask for you to order the allotment of one railroad platform for the transport of the SU-380 to the NIBT proving grounds (Kubinka railroad station, West railroad).

USA BTU KA Chief, Major-General of the Tank Engineering Forces, Demyanenko"
CAMD RF 38-11369-709

The SPG in question, is, of course, the Sturmtiger.