World of Tanks History Section: Antitank Exotics

During WWI, no participating country quite figured out tanks. However, in the two post-war decades, military thinkers managed to develop many theories and tactics, but some doubt remained. Germany's success in Poland and France finally confirmed their usefulness beyond all doubt. As the popularity of tanks increased, so did the interest in anti-tank measures: guns, rifles, grenades, or more exotic methods.

Trap for a Tracked Beast

Soviet military inventor Bogdanenko proposed trapping tanks with tank traps that were very similar to a hunter's trap. The author's intent was to place the tanks in a checkerboard pattern in areas where the tanks might appear. When the tank drove up on the trap, it would clamp shut. Subsequent movement would tear or jam the track.

The military considered this idea worthy of attention. In the first half of 1941, at the GABTU research proving grounds, two types of traps were tested: with one and two joints. It seems that the very sight of the device caused some doubts among the testers, so it was decided to try them out on the lightest vehicles: T-40, T-26, and BT-7.

The trap with one joint was so small that it had to be placed directly in front of the track to test. The first victim was the 5.5 ton T-40. The trap snapped shut on the track and followed it until the first road wheel, which bent the trap. The rest of the road wheels rolled over it unharmed. The rear armour plate was the final obstacle. The trap, still clinging onto the track, smashed against it and fell apart.

The two-jointed brother of the device performed similarly and also failed to do any damage to the suspension.

Next, the 8 ton T-26 drove up to the stone road where the trials took place. The first trap was simply knocked over without even closing. The testers wrote down the same old phrase: "no damage to the tank's suspension". The result with the BT-7 tank (13 tons) was the same.

The wider two-jointed trap was fixed so it was hard to knock over. Even then, the lower front plate tilted the trap before it closed. After two identical results, the testers closed the trap manually on the track. The result was the same as with the T-40: the tank's road wheels smashed the trap open without any damage.

Since each trap took up 15-16 kg of good quality steel and that hiding such a huge device would be much more difficult than hiding a mine. The fate of such a dubious device was predictable.

Logs, Rails, and Blankets

While the USSR tried to mechanize the process of jamming up tracks, other countries just sent soldiers with crowbars. For example, Finnish soldier Toivo Ahtimo who fought in the Winter War recalls: "The techniques of fighting tanks that we were taught during peacetime were not very useful. The manuals said that you could stop a tank by shoving a log or crowbar in the suspension!"

Ahtimo witnessed an attempt to bring theory into practice. A soldier named Loimu tried to stop a Soviet tank with a crowbar. With a fearsome screech, the crowbar rotated around the track and fell out, causing no damage. Next Loimu tried a thick log. The log "turned into a heap of toothpicks that was enough to supply a company, and the tank kept driving along until it was blown up with a bundle of grenades."

Italian manuals proposed a similar tactic. The inventors of the tank, the British, approached the issue more thoughtfully.

In 1940, the British army hurriedly evacuated from Dunkirk, abandoning their vehicles. The British lost 840 anti-tank guns. Only 147 guns remained on the home islands, and so few shells remained that it was forbidden to train with them. Meanwhile, the Battle of Britain raged overhead and German tank landings were awaited any day, the same tanks that just defeated the best British and French divisions. Weapons were found for the regular army, but arming the militia was more complicated.

In August of 1940, Military Manual #42 "Tank: Search and Destroy" was published. Among other things, it recommended how to correctly assemble a tank hunter team.

According to the manual, the team consisted of 4 men, armed with a rail (it was unclear where this rail would come from), a blanket, a bucket of gasoline, and a box of matches. The team would lie in wait on a street where tanks were expected. Two team members were supposed to take the rail, one end of which was wrapped with the blanket, and ram it into the track to jam the drive wheel. The third member would douse the blanket in gasoline, and the fourth would throw a lit match.

In case there weren't any rails available, the alternative was this: "The soldier awaits on the second floor of a house with a hammer in one hand and a grenade in the other. When an enemy tank appears below, the soldier will jump out and hammer at the hatch. When the commander peeks out to see what could possibly be hammering, the soldier will hit him with the hammer, throw the grenade in the hatch, and slam it shut."

One can imagine the relief of the Home Guard when they didn't have to apply these instructions or similar ones in battle. It turned out that the most reliable anti-tank measures for England in 1940 were the heroism of its sailors and pilots.

Original article available here.

World of Tanks History Section: Tiger Armageddon at Lisow

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

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

Flexing Muscles

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

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

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

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

Tigers in the Mud

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

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

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

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

Fragment of the diagram of the battle.

Maleszowa, 23:30, January 12th: up to 15 enemy tanks with infantry.

Lisow, 9:00, January 13th: 2nd and 3rd company of the 61st TBr. 2 companies of motorized infantry. The enemy had 60 tanks, 30 APCs, regiment of infantry. North arrow: 10 tanks.

Slaughter at Lisow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original article available here.

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

One Armed Driver

"Award Order

1. Name: Khomenko, Ignat Stepanovich
2. Rank: Senior Sergeant
3. Position, unit: SU-122 mechanic-driver, 1817th SPG Regiment
   is nominated for the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.
4. Year of birth: 1914
5. Nationality: Ukrainian
6. Party affiliation: VKP(b) candidate
7. Participation in the Civil War and in subsequent action in defense of the USSR, Patriotic War (where, when): in the Patriotic War since August 1943
8. Wounds and concussions in the Patriotic War: deceased
9. In the Red Army since: 1941
10. Recruited by: Komsomolsk recruitment office, Komsomolsk-on-Amur
11. Prior awards: Order of the Red Star

Brief and specific description of personal heroism or achievements: A master of driving tanks and SPGs, Senior Sergeant I.S. Khomenko showed fearlessness, courage, bravery, heroism, and patriotism for his socialist Motherland and his people in battle for Gerasimovka and Russkaya Polyana.

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

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

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

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

CAMD RF 33-793756-51

Secondary Armament Boost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The mortar mount has several design flaws, which can be summarized as the following:

1. No mantlet has been designed for the mortar mount. The barrel of the mortar is also not armoured.
2. The mortar is easy to aim vertically and horizontally, but has no means of fixing its position. There is also no travel lock mechanism.
3. Putting the mount outside of the tank increases the area of weakened armour.

Conclusions: the installation of a mortar in T-34 and KV-1S tanks instead of a DT machinegun as proposed by the factory #455 design bureau is not reasonable, as neither the mortar nor grenade launcher can adequately fight enemy personnel.

Chief of the 3rd USA GBTU Department, Engineer-Lieutenant-Colonel Kovalev

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

CAMD RF 38-11369-116

The Lend Lease Act

Mauschen: Rat Race

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

100 Ton Mouse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questionable Innovation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the Song That Never Ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original article by Yuri Pasholok.

Mythical Tanks

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

Waffentrager auf E-100

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

GW Tiger (P)

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

E-50 Ausf. M

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

Jagdpanzer E-100

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

Jagdpanther II

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

VK 72.01 (K)

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

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

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

E-79 Schwartzwolf VK 66.01

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

E-100 Henschelturm/Adlerturm

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

Sturmgeschuetz 40 T-34

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

Flakpanzer T-34

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

Jagdpanzer E-50

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

15 cm Sturmgeschuetz E-75

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

Sturmgeschuetz Maus

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

Kampfwagenvernichter Ausf. F (E-100) Krokodil

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

Kampfwagenvernichter E-90

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

Geschuetzwagen E-100

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

Original article by Yuri Pasholok.

Half-size Track Problems

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

Half-sized track (early)

Half-sized track (late)

Unfortunately, this was not a great experiment.

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

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

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

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

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

Report on measures taken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAMD RF 38-11355-1700

Repair Issues

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

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

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

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

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

Slapfight in the Armoury

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

In connection with your questions on 37 mm guns produced by the NKV, I report the following.

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

All of the above points to the fact that the Technical Council members did not fully illustrate the drawbacks of OKB-16's gun and advantages of the OKB-15's gun, which we ask you to consider when making decisions regarding these two systems.

Hero of Socialist Labour, Shpitalniy"

CAMD RF 38-11355-697

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