The Großtraktor
In 1925, the Weapons Office produced conceptual requirements for a 16-ton vehicle with a top speed of 25mph, 14mm of armour and a turret mounted 75mm gun. Three firms responded and as early as 1926 these three German companies (Rheinmetall-Borsig, Daimler-Benz and Krupp) each produced a single prototype armed with a large 75-millimeter cannon (the Großtraktor, "large tractor", was so codenamed to veil the true purpose of the vehicle). Krupp and Rheinmetall-Borsig had a lengthy history of arms production while Daimler-Benz was an automobile manufacturer. None of these companies gave the project a high priority.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... tor-01.jpg
Krupp Grosstraktor I
The Großtraktor was designed as a heavy breakthrough vehicle. The prototype vehicles had differences; however what follows was true of at least one or more of the models. The main armament was the same short 7.5 cm gun initially used on the Panzer IV; with secondary armaments including multiple machine guns. The approximate weight was 16 tons. The engine was a six-cylinder engine, in the 250-260 hp range.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... Borsig.jpg
Rheinmetall-Borsig-Großtraktor
The following may have applied only to the Rheinmetall-Borsig and Krupp designs: a machine gun was placed at the rear of the tank, behind the turret; and the tank commander sat not in the turret, but in the hull to the right of the driver (Zaloga 13-14). The Großtraktor prototypes were constructed of mild steel and two were tested at the Kama testing facility near Kazan in the USSR, called by the Germans Panzertruppenschule Kama (Armoured Troops School Kama and used from 1926 to 1933).
One result of the experimentation in Kazan was that the German Army Motorization Department felt compelled to field two tank types corresponding to the Großtraktor and the Leichttraktor; codenamed the BW and ZW. The BW reference being for Battalionführerwagen, or the Battalion commander’s vehicle; which was intended to be a fire support vehicle. The BW was to accompany the ZW, the Zugführerwagen, or Section commander’s vehicle intended to act as the core battle tank (Zaloga 13-14). The work on the Großtraktor led to the Neubaufahrzeug, a similar heavy tank design. The prototypes were decommissioned in 1937; at least one ended up as a memorial to early armored regiments.
The Schlepper Self-propelled Guns
In 1927, the Germans designed two self-propelled guns based on fully tracked Hamomag tractors (commercial Hanomag tractors were already in use with the army). The first was the 3.7cm WD Schlepper 25PS, which was a lightly armored 25hp Hanomag WD tractor with a pedestal mounted 37mm PaK L/45 gun. The gun had a limited traverse of 30 degrees maximum. The vehicle also carried single machine gun for defence.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... PS-001.jpg
The 3.7cm WD Schlepper 25PS, which was a lightly armored 25hp Hanomag WD tractor with a pedestal mounted 37mm PaK L/45 gun.
The second was the 7.7cm WD Schlepper 50PS, which was a 50hp Hanomag WD tractor with a pedestal mounted 77mm K light gun. The gun had a full 360 degrees traverse.Both self-propelled guns were accepted into service with the German Army in 1927. Small numbers of vehicles were produced and used mainly for testing.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... r-50PS.jpg
The 7.7cm WD Schlepper 50PS, which was a 50hp Hanomag WD tractor with a pedestal mounted 77mm K light gun.
The Leichttraktor
The Leichttraktor (VK-31) was a German experimental tank, which, as part of its cover, was described as a light tractor, which translated in to German was “Leichttraktor”. Work started on the VK-31 two years after the heavy Grosstraktor. A request for tender for a tracked combat vehicle up to 12 tons in weight was released by the Reichswehr on March 28, 1928. Prototypes were to be constructed by 1930 and cost less than 50 000 Reichsmarks. The winner would receive an order for at least 17 tanks. The request was delivered to Daimler-Benz, Krupp, and Rheinmetall-Borsig in May of 1928. By that time, the weight requirement had been restricted to 7.5 tons. Additional requirements included 14 mm of front and side armour and a crew of 4. The armament of the VK-31 was to be a 37 mm KwKL/45 main gun and a 7.92 mm Dreyse machine gun. The crew of the VK 31 in both firms designs consisted of four people: the driver, commander, radio operator and loader.
The tank also had to have a radio to provide voice communication with a range of 2-3 km and a morse capability of up to 7 km. Chemical protection was also required, in case of a gas attack. Maximum highway speed was to be 25-30 kph (40 kph by some sources) and 20 kph off-road. A range of 150 km or 6 hours of continuous movement was specified. The tank also had to be able to ford water 0.6 m deep, a 1.5 m wide ditch and climb a 60% (31°) slope for up to 1 km at a minimum speed of 3 kmh. To improve cross-country performance, ground pressure should not exceed 0.5 kg/sq.m. The specification was approved on 19 July 1928.
Daimler-Benz refused to participate, leaving Krupp and Rheinmetall-Borsig in the competition. Both companies co-operated to develop a "Kleintraktor" (renamed "Leichttraktor", or light tractor) together, and their results were consequently very similar, with the engine at the front and a turret at the rear. Not having much experience with tank suspensions, Rheinmetall engineers used the tracks from an existing tractor. Each side had 12 road wheels, two wheels per bogey, one tension idler, and two support idlers, a front directing, and a rear leading wheel. In order to protect this system, a side screen was retained, with three openings to clean the mud out of the suspension. The hull was a combination of welded and bolted, with armoured steel 4-10 mm thick. The layout was inherited from a tractor. The front, which had the transmission, also housed a Daimler-Benz M36 engine, 36 hp in power. The middle part had the control compartment (the driver sat on the left side). The driver had a small rectangular turret with vision ports above his head.
Krupp engineers did not trust tractors and built their own chassis. Krupp's prototype vehicle was slightly longer and taller, which allowed two hatches on the side for entrance and evacuation. The Krupp tank had 6 small diameter road wheels per side, with a vertical spring suspension, grouped in two groups of three, with the front-most and rear-most wheels slightly larger than the others. There were also two idlers, a front directing, and a rear leading wheel. Rheinmetall was responsible for both turrets. All VK 31s had radio stations. Four prototypes with different armament, crew, weight, and suspension features were manufactured (numbers 37 & 38 by Krupp, and numbers 39 and 40 by Rheinmetall.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... all-01.jpg
Leichttraktor - Rheinmetall, Kama, 1929
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... _photo.jpg
Back view of the Leichttraktor (Rheinmetall), Kama, 1930
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... rior_a.jpg
Leichttraktor (Rheinmetall) interior, Kama, 1929
The four prototypes were shipped to the Soviet-German joint testing ground and tank training ground (known to the Germans as Panzertruppenschule Kama) near Kazan. The facility had been established under the terms of the Treaty of Rapallo - agreed to between the USSR and Germany in 1922 under conditions of high secrecy and security. The testing facility was used from 1926 throught to 1933 and was codenamed "Kama" (from a combination of the words Kazan and the surname of Reichswehr Oberstleutenant Malbrandt, who had been assigned to select the location for testing. The facility was consequently codenamed KaMa – for Kazan-Malbrandt). All four Leichttraktor (VK-31) prototypes were shipped to Kama where the Special Technical Commission (TEKO) created to exchange experience in the area of tank design and construction, began its work.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... krupp5.jpg
"Leichttraktor", Krupp, 1929
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... krupp1.jpg
"Leichttraktor", Krupp, 1929
By 1933, each prototype had traveled between 1,660 and 1,865 km. Soviet specialists agreed that these vehicles are not of any interest to the RKKA. However, Soviet engineers were interested in the suspension and the turret layout (particularly the coaxial machine gun), as well as the tanks' radios. German specialists were not impressed by the technical and tactical data either. Installing the engine in front of the tank to some extent saved the crew from death or injury in combat, but the thickness of the armor was obviously not enough, and could not keep out shells and larger caliber bullets. Further modernization and up-armouring was not possible without increasing weight, and reducing the already unimpressive mobility of the tanks. In addition, because of the shortcomings of the cooling system, the enginese frequently overheated and the durability the tracks was extremely low.
All four Leichttraktors were shipped back to Germany in 1933, when KaMa was closed down. In 1934, the tanks were moved to Munster for the winter. From 1935 to the start of WWII, they were used as training vehicles in Pultos. One source mentions that Rheinmetall won a production order of 289 vehicles around 1928 but that the order was subsequently cancelled as better lighter tank designs (the Kleintraktor, which would go on to be rather more well known as the Panzerkampfwagen I) came along; however, there is no source for this statement that 289 were ordered mentioned.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... a-1929.jpg
Leichttraktor, Kama, 1929
In 1933 another prototype light tank was built which could be classified as a self-propelled gun. Instead of a turret, a fixed PaK L / 45 caliber 37 mm (antitank variant) gun was installed with vertical guidance adjustment from -10 ° to + 30 °. The crew was reduced to three. It has been mentioned that this modification was a Rheinmetall prototype, but judging from the chassis it was a modification of a Krupp prototype. Unfortunately, the details of the tests of this machine are unknown.
The Neubaufahrzeug
As was mentioned in the post on British Tanks, during the 1920s and 1930s, a number of countries experimented with very large, multi-turreted tanks. The British built a single example of the Vickers A1E1 Independent in 1926. This inspired the Soviet T-35, which was built in limited numbers from 1933. Likewise, in Germany development of the Neubaufahrzeug (German for "new construction vehicle") started in 1933 when the then Reichswehr gave a contract for the development of a Großtraktor ("heavy tractor") to both Rheinmetall and Krupp. Großtraktor was a codename for the development of a heavy tank, Germany being still forbidden to develop tanks under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The Rheinmetall and Krupp designs resembled each other to a great extent, the main difference being the weapons placement. The original design had a main turret armed with a 75 mm KwK L/24 main gun and secondary 37 mm KwK L/45. Rheinmetall's design mounted the second gun above the 75 mm KwK L/24, while the Krupp design had it mounted next to the 75 mm KwK L/24. Both designs had a secondary turret mounted to the front and the rear of the main turret.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... fz-nr1.jpg
Neubaufahrzeug, german heavy tank of 1933
Rheinmetall's design was designated the PzKpfw NbFz V (PanzerKampfwagen NeubauFahrzeug V), and the Krupp design the PzKpfw NbFz VI. It was intended that these designs would fulfill the role of heavy tank in the armored forces, but the design proved to be too complex and unreliable for this role. Nevertheless, development continued in order for the nascent German military to gain experience with multi-turreted tanks. In 1934 Rheinmetall built two mild steel prototypes with a partially welded hull, both with their own turret design. Three more prototypes were built with proper armor and the Krupp turret in 1935 and 1936. The first prototype had the original Rheinmetall turret with tandem guns (the 37mm Tankkanone L/45 was installed over a 75mm KwK L/24), and a horse-shoe FuG turret antenna. The other four were given the Krupp turret (with coaxial guns).
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... arbour.jpg
Neubaufahrzeug in Norway, Olso harbor, 19 March 1940
The two secondary turret were mounted in a lozenge configuration, one on the front left and the other one the right rear. The driver's compartment was next to the front turret, with the main fighting compartment behind. There were two rear hatches for the original BMW engine (Type A), replaced with four hatches for the more powerful, gasoline Maybach HL 108 TR of 120rpm, both fed by a 457 liter capacity fuel tank. Transmission was with a crash gearbox, 5 speed forward, no reverse. The modified coil (leaf) spring suspension system was composed of a set of five paired road wheels bogies pivoted to Christie type torsion arms and two front single road wheels suspended independently (similar to the British A1E1 and Russian T28). They were protected by side skirts with mud chutes in échelon (under each return roller), with two access doors to the suspension. The Turrets were also provided with large, one piece side hatches for access. The commander's cupola was at the rear end of the turret. Provision for ammunition was 80 rounds for the main gun, 50 for the coaxial 37mm, and around 6000 for the two Mg.34 Mgs. Armour was no thicker than other Panzers of the time, - in other words it was just enough to provide minimal protection against infantry weapons, light AT guns and shrapnel.
Soon after delivery, the three late prototypes were extensively tested at the proving grounds at Putloss while the two earlier versions took part in army manoeuvers. However, by the end of 1936, it was decided to cancel all further development of the series, with priority being given to the construction of the light and medium Panzer I, II, II and IV. Nevertheless, they were displayed in propaganda events, shows and on newsreels, including the International Automobile Exposition in Berlin in 1939. They were deployed in Norway, being landed at Oslo harbour on 19 April, 19 1940 and taking part in local operations. Although handicapped by their slow speed, they were still an impressive sight, and by far the most heavily armed German tank ever fielded in operations, combining the firepower of a Panzer III and IV and two Panzer I's in a single package. This unit was later posted toAkershus Fortress (Oslo) in Norway in 1941 and their eventual fate is unclear, although they were captured in Norway by 1945 and apparently scrapped afterwards. The two others may have taken part in operations in Ukraine and Rumania.
The Panzerkampfwagen I
Soon after rising to power in Germany, Adolf Hitler approved the creation of Germany's first panzer divisions. Simplifying an earlier proposal, Guderian suggested the design of a main combat vehicle which would later be developed into the Panzer III, and a breakthrough tank, the Panzer IV. No existing design appealed to Guderian and so, as a stopgap, the German Army ordered a preliminary design for a vehicle with which to train German tank crews. This became the Panzer I, which was itended not just to train Germany's panzer troops, but to prepare Germany's industry for the mass production of tanks in the near future: a difficult engineering challenge for that time.
The Panzer I's design history can be traced back to 1932's Landwirtschaftlicher Schlepper (La S) (Agricultural Tractor) armored fighting vehicle. The La S was intended not just to train Germany's panzer troops, but to prepare Germany's industry for the mass production of tanks in the near future: a difficult engineering feat for the time. In July of 1932, Krupp revealed a prototype of the Landswerk Krupp A, or LKA, with a sloped front glacis plate and large central casemate, a design heavily influenced by the British Carden Loyd tankette. The tank was armed with two obsolescent 7.92-millimeter (.312 in) MG-13 Dreyse machine guns. Machine guns were known to be largely useless against even the lightest tank armor of the time, restricting the Panzer I to a training and anti-infantry role by design.
A mass-produced version of the LKA was designed by a joint team from Daimler-Benz, Henschel, Krupp, MAN, and Rheinmetall, exchanging the casemate for a rotating turret. This version was accepted into service after testing in 1934. Although these tanks were referred to as the La S and LKA well beyond the start of production, the official designation, assigned in 1938, was Panzerkampfwagen I Ausführung. A ('Model A' or, more accurately, 'Batch A'). The first fifteen tanks, produced between February and March 1934, did not include the rotating turret and were used for crew training. Following these, production was switched to the combat version of the tank.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... Kfz101.jpg
Panzerkampfwagen I Ausführung. A on display at the Deutsches Panzermuseum Munster, Germany
The Ausf. A was under-armored, with steel plate of only 13 millimeters (0.51 in) at its thickest. The tank had several design flaws, including suspension problems (which made the vehicle pitch at high velocities) and engine overheating. The driver was positioned inside the hull at the front and used conventional steering levers to control the tank, while the commander was positioned in the turret where he also acted as gunner. The two crewmen could communicate by means of a voice tube. Machine gun ammunition was stowed in five bins, containing numbers of 25-round magazines. Author Lucas Molina Franco suggests that 833 Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf. A tanks were built in total, while authors Bryan Perrett offers the number of 300 and Terry Gander 818 units.
Many of the problems in the Ausf. A were corrected with the introduction of the Ausf. B. The engine was replaced by the water-cooled, six-cylinder Maybach NL 38 TR, developing 98 horsepower (73 kW), and the gearbox was changed to a more reliable model. The larger engine required the extension of the vehicle's chassis by 40 cm (16 in), and this allowed the improvement of the tank's suspension, adding another bogie wheel and raising the tensioner. The tank's weight increased by 0.4 tons. Production of the Ausf. B began in August 1935 and finished in early 1937 - Franco writes that 840 were constructed but notes that only 675 of these were combat models, while Perrett suggests a total number of 1,500 (offsetting the low number of Ausf. A, he proposes) and Gander a total of 675.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... arade-.jpg
Panzerkampfwagen I on parade
Lessons learned from Panzerkampfwagen I provided the German designers and manufacturers with valuable experience in designing and producing next generation of new panzers that were soon to come. Although the Panzerkampfwagen I was not a superb combat tank, it proved to be an excellent training tank and most of the panzer crews would be trained on Panzerkampfwagen I's until the end of the war. The Germans also built the SdKfz 265 Panzerbefehlswagen – this was the German Army's first purpose-designed command tank, converted from the Panzer I Ausf B, and was the primary German command tank in service at the beginning of World War II - 200 of these were manufactured
The SdKfz 265 Panzerbefehlswagen
The SdKfz 265 Panzerbefehlswagen was the German Army's first purpose-designed command tank, and the primary German command tank in service at the beginning of World War II. Converted from the Panzer I Ausf. B, the SdKfz 265 was to see considerable action during the early years of the War. The SdKfz 265 was designed to fulfil a growing need within the German Army for a command tank, following the realization that the leaders of a massive panzer formation would themselves have to travel in a tank of some type. This vehicle would have to carry extra equipment and personnel to assist the field commander in his duties. In 1935 Krupp offered a command tank design based on the existing Panzer I Ausf B training tank chassis. The Ausf. B was a turretless chassis version of the Panzer I designed solely to train tank drivers, and lent itself easily to conversion into a command vehicle.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... _1-001.jpg
Panzerbefehlswagen
To increase space for a radio operator the rotating turret of the PzKpfw IB was eliminated and replaced with a larger fixed "box" superstructure. This allowed room for map boards, paperwork and a more powerful FuG6 radio transmitter in addition to the earlier FuG2 radio (Panzer I's had only FuG2 radio receivers). Despite these modifications the vehicle's interior remained small, a factor leading to its rapid replacement by conversions of larger tanks. The cramped quarters also made operation of the vehicle's single ball-mounted MG13 or MG34 machine gun virtually impossible. Because of this, most SdKfz 265 were also equipped with pistol ports, and many had their machine guns removed entirely. A large frame antenna was mounted to the hull of many early version SdKfz 265's. The antenna gave the upgraded radio transmitter units better range and reception.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... -i-b-6.jpg
Panzerbefehlswagen Panzer I Ausf. B Sd.Kfz. 265
Because it would be necessary for a command tank to keep up with the tanks under its command, the original 60 hp Krupp M305 gasoline engine of the Panzer I was replaced by the more powerful 100 hp Maybach NL38TR gasoline engine, resulting in a design that was 3 km/h faster, despite weighing 300 kg more than the Panzer I. Increased fuel capacity also gave the SdKfz 265 a range of 290 kilometres, nearly 160 kilometres further than the Panzer I. Despite its ungainly appearance, the SdKfz 265 was only 1.97 m high, only 25 cm taller than the original Panzer IB. About 190 SdKfz 265 Panzerbefehlswagen conversions were produced by Daimler-Benz between 1935 and 1937, and were produced at the same time as the Ausf B. Between 1935 and 1940 the SdKfz 265 Panzerbefehlswagen was the standard command tank of the German Panzer divisions. Each Panzer division contained sixteen tank companies, grouped into four battalions, two regiments or one brigade, for a total of twenty-three headquarters. Each headquarters would be issued at least one command tank.
At least four saw service in Spain in the Spanish Civil War.
The Panzerkampfwagen I and the Spanish Civil War
On 18 July 1936, Spain dissolved into civil war. After the chaos of the initial military coup and the subsequent uprising of the various leftist, anarchist and communist movements, two sides coalesced and began to consolidate their position—the Popular Front (the Republicans) and the Spanish Nationalists. In an early example of a proxy war, both sides quickly received support from other countries, most notably the Soviet Union (supporting the Republicans) and Germany & Italy (supporting the Nationalists); both sides saw, in addition to political gains, an opportunity to test their tactics and equipment.
The first shipment of foreign tanks, 50 Soviet T-26s, arrived on 15 October. The shipment was under the surveillance of Nazi Germany's Kriegsmarine and Germany immediately responded a few days later. The first 32 PzKpfw I' Ausf A's along with single a Kleiner Panzer Befehlswagen I arrived in October 1936. This first shipment was followed by four more shipments of Panzer I Ausf. B's and 4 Kleiner Panzer Befehlswagen I's for a total of 122 vehicles (different sources quote differing totals). The tanks saw service with the "Condor Legion" (within Major Wilhelm Ritter von Thoma’s Panzer Abteilung 88, also known as Abteilung Drohne). Pz.Abt.88 with its 3 companies was based at Cubas near Toledo, where German instructors trained Spanish tank crews,
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... -Spain.jpg
German PzKpfw I in Spain
The first tank battle of the Civil War ook place during the defence of Madrid in October 1936 when, in an attempt to stem the Nationalist tide and gain crucial time for Madrid's defence, Soviet armor was deployed south of the city under the command of Colonel Krivoshein before the end of October. At this time, several T-26 tanks under the command of Captain Paul Arman were thrown into a Republican counterattack directed towards the town of Torrejon de Velasco in an attempt to cut off the Nationalist advance north. Despite initial success, poor communication between the Soviet Republican armor and Spanish Republican infantry caused the isolation of Captain Arman's force and the subsequent destruction of a number of tanks. This battle also marked the first use of the molotov cocktail against tanks. Ritter von Thoma's Panzer I's fought for the Nationalists only days later on 30 October, and immediately experienced problems. As the Nationalist armor advanced, it was engaged by the Commune de Paris battalion, equipped with Soviet BA-10 armored cars. The 45-millimeter gun with which the BA-10 was armed was more than sufficient to knock out the poorly armored Panzer I's at ranges below 500 meters (550 yd).
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... NatT26.jpg
At one point, von Thoma offered up to 500 pesetas for each T-26 captured.
Although the Panzer I would participate in almost every major Nationalist offensive of the war, the Nationalist army began to deploy more and more captured T-26 tanks to offset their disadvantage in protection and firepower. At one point, von Thoma offered up to 500 pesetas for each T-26 captured. Although the Panzer I was initially able to knock out the T-26 at close range—150 meters (165 yd) or less—using an armor-piercing 7.92 millimeter bullets, the Republican tanks began to engage at ranges where they were immune to the machine guns of the Panzer I.
The Panzer I was upgraded in order to increase its lethality. On 8 August 1937, Generalísimo Francisco Franco expressed the need for a Panzer I armed with a 20-millimeter gun. Ultimately, the piece chosen was the Breda Model 1935, due to the simplicity of the design over competitors such as the German Flak 30. Furthermore, the 20 mm Breda was capable of penetrating 40 millimeters of armor at 250 meters (1.57 inches at 275 yd), which was more than sufficient to penetrate the frontal armor of the T-26. Prototypes were ready by September 1937 and an order was placed after successful results. The mounting of the Breda in the Panzer I required the original turret to be opened at the top and then extended. Four of these tanks were modified at the Armament Factory of Seville, but further production was canceled as it was decided sufficient numbers of Republican T-26 tanks had been captured to fulfill the Nationalist leadership's request for more lethal tanks. The Breda modification was not particularly liked by German crews, as the unprotected gap in the turret, designed to allow the tank's commander to aim, was found to be a dangerous weak point.
Overall, in the Spanish Civil War, the Panzerkampfwagen I tanks proved to be outclassed by Soviet T-26 and BT-5's provided to the "Republicans".
Finnish Volunteers in Spain and the Panzerkampfwagen I
In the early 1930's, as we have seen, the Finnish Army started planning for the creation and maintenance of a modern armoured force. While Paamaja (the Finnish Army's Supreme Headquarters) established a framework for the first large-scale Panssaari units, only limited guidance on tactical doctrine was provided. The staff of the early Panssaari units and of the Combined Arms Experimental Brigade were tasked with the development of detailed tactical doctrine for combined arms warfare from 1932 on. The Spanish Civil War provided a live test-bed for testing and evolution of this tactical doctrine on an ongoing basis over four years of continuous fighting.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... -Spain.jpg
Panzer I's of Pohjan Pohjat's Panssaaripataljoon participating in the Nationalist victory parade through Madrid
As has been mentioned, the Finnish Volunteer Brigade in Spain (Pohjan Pohjat) would include a Panssaripataljoona (Panzer Battalion). Initially, this Battalion was equipped with Italian-supplied CV33 and CV35 tanks, but would soon include a company of German-supplied Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf B's and later still numbers of captured Republican T-26's (and some Finnish tanks). Two SdKfz 265 Panzerbefehlswagen command tanks were also supplied by the Germans to the Finnish volunteers. Later in the Spanish Civil War, the Finnish Army would indirectly equip a small number of the volunteer Panssari troops with an assortment of Vicker's 6-ton tanks and Skoda LT34's. The Pohjan Pohjat volunteers would acquire a great deal of experience with these tank designs in combat over four years of fighting in the Civil War. The tanks themselves were evaluated for strengths, weaknesses and flaws, various modifications were tested out and combat doctrine and tactics evolved through trial, error and conscious experimentation.
The value of this experience for the Finnish Army cannot be overstated. Officers, NCO's and men were rotated through the volunteer unit, gaining experience for themselves and providing a pool of trained and experienced men built up over the four years of fighting that the volunteers participated in. Equipment, weapons and clothing were tested under battle, revealing many flaws. Tactics evolved rapidly in the maelstrom of war, with mistakes and improvements continuously documented, assessed and the results and reports fed back to Paamaja (the Finnish Army Supreme Headquarters) and to the Combined Arms Experimental Brigade where they were further evaluated. As a result, Finnish Army Doctrine continuously improved. The importance of "battle-training", logistics, maintenance and standardization was highlighted, as were the importance of good communications and the integrated command of all arms on the battlefield.
As a result of experience in Spain, the Finnish Army would come to place an even greater emphasis than it had been making on both tank and anti-tank warfare, in particular on the use of effective anti-tank guns and on the use of tanks and armoured vehicles in the breakthrough and exploitation phases of battle. Finnish Officers however expected any war with the USSR to include far more heavy artillery, tanks and aircraft than were available to the Republican forces in Spain. They reported that, realistically, the lack of training, equipment and mobility limited the Republican forces in comparison to the Red Army, but that comparisons could be made, in particular with the Republican attacks regardless of casualties. Particular attention was also paid to the interrogation of any captured Russian "advisors", a small number of whom fell into the hands of Pohjan Pohjat, who were ever eager to hold lengthy and informative "discussions" with the Russians.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 12/CV33.jpg
The ineffectiveness of the Italian Carro Veloce (Fast Tank) CV33 and CV35 tanks was rapidly identified. The CV33 was nothing more than a tankette, its armour was totally inadequate against infantry anti-tank weapons and the crew (of 2 men) suffered from the lack of spare parts. Other drawbacks were its slow speed (despite its light weight the CV never reached more than 45km/h), the fact that the starter mechanism was placed outside the vehicle. Due to its small size and vulnerability, Italian soldiers dubbed the CV33 the "sardine box" or "iron casket"
With regard to tank warfare, the Russian tanks often proved to be to well armoured for the light anti-tank weapons initially provided to Pohjan Pohjat, although the Bofors 37mm proved to be generally effective when correctly positioned and used. The deadly effectiveness of the Bofors 76mm AA gun in an anti-tank role was however emphasized and as a direct result, from 1937 on the Finnish Army made a major effort to build up the numbers of 76mm anti-tank guns in service with Infantry and Panssaari units in Finland. The ineffectiveness of the Italian CV33 and CV35 tanks was rapidly identified, with similar criticisms made of the German-supplied Panzerkampfwagen I's. They were too lightly armoured and their machineguns were ineffective against enemy tanks, which could engage them at ranges where they were immune to the machine guns of the Panzer I and the Italian CV's.
The Bofors 37mm-equipped LT34's and Vickers 6-ton tanks were reported as being far more effective, as were the captured Russian tanks, although again, the armour was soon identified as being too light and other design and reliability deficiencies were also highlighted. The importance of command tanks and of armoured carriers for supporting infantry and logistical supplies was also stressed (Pohjan Pohjat improvised a number of armoured carriers for infantry from captured Soviet armoured cars and tanks. Regarding logistics, Pohjan Pohjat rapidly pieced together logistics columns to support the tank units – after initial experiences running out of fuel, Eversti Hans Kalm, Pohjan Pohjat's commanding officer, would integrate logistics units into the armoured units, carrying up to a weeks worth of fuel, ammunition and food within the fighting units. There were many more such lessons taken back to Finland over the four years that the Finnish volunteer unit spent in Spain, each of them of value.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... Hans-1.jpg
Eversti Hans Kalm, Pohjan Pohjat's charismatic commanding officer and in the Winter War, CO of the 22nd Panssaaridivisoona
Among these lessons were the strategic locating of armour plate on the tank itself – extra armour on the front of the tank increased survivability while thinner armour could be used elsewhere. Sloped armour also added protection, while using welded armour was preferable to riveted or bolted armour (when the tank was hit, rivets and bolts had a tendency to break and ricochet around inside the hull to the detriment of the crew). Face-hardened steel also gave the crews (and the tank) an advantage. Good radio communication both between tanks, and between the tanks and supporting infantry, artillery and anti-tank guns was an essential to success. The importance of close-coordination between all arms. Leading from the front, where commanders were on top of the current tactical situation at all times. Speed of movement and flexibility in decision making. And much much more.
Pohjan Pohjat reports also emphasized the importance of using armour for flanking attacks rather than frontal assaults, emphasizing the war of maneuver and the need for armour, infantry, artillery and close air support to operate as a well-coordinated whole in order to gain the greatest effect whilst minimalizing casualties. In this, the importance of the Spanish Civil War experience of Pohjan Pohjat cannot be understated, providing the Finnish Army as it did with valuable insights into the art of war and into their equipment, weapons and tactics at both the small and large unit level. For the Finnish Army, the Spanish Civil War was a crucible in which tactical experimentation, existing and new weapons and improved training methods were forged into a new and far stronger alloy, an impenetrable shield on which the sword of the Red Army would shatter so disastrously in 1939/1940.
The Panzerkampfwagen II
In 1934, delays in the design and production of the Panzer III and Panzer IV medium tanks (covered next) were becoming apparent. The Panzer II came about in a German Ordnance Department requirement enacted in 1934, this time proposing a 10-ton light tank development with 20mm cannon and 7.92mm machine gun armament. As was the case in developing the Panzer I, it became common practice for the new Germany, now wholly under Hitler, to skirt the rules of the Versailles Treaty and develop its systems of war under various peaceful disguises such as farm equipment. As such, this new light tank design fell under the designation of "Landwirtschaftlicher Schlepper 100" (or "LaS 100") under the guise that it was a farm tractor.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... totype.jpg
PzKpfw II prototype - Krupp
Designs for a stopgap tank were solicited from Krupp, MAN, Henschel, and Daimler-Benz. The final design was based on the Panzer I, but larger, and with a turret mounting a 20 mm anti-tank gun. The Panzer II was designed before the experience of the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39 showed that shell-proof armor was required for tanks to survive on a modern battlefield. Prior to that, armor was designed to stop only machine gun fire and high explosive shell fragments. The Panzer II A, B, and C had 14 mm of slightly sloped homogenous steel armor on the sides, front, and back, with 10 mm of armor on the top and bottom. Many IIC were given increased armor in the front. Starting with the D model, the front armor was increased to 30 mm. The Model F had 35 mm front armour and 20 mm side armor. This amount of armor could be penetrated by a towed antitank weapons, such as the Soviet 45mm and French canon de 25 and canon de 47. The Panzer II was around 50% heavier than the I and added a 20 mm Solothurn cannon as main armament as well as increasing maximum armour to 30 mm. Production began in 1935, but it took another eighteen months for the first combat-ready tank to be delivered. By July 1937, the Panzer II was cleared and ready for production.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... ausf.a.jpg
PzKpfw II Ausf. a
Most tank versions of the Panzer II were armed with a 2 cm KwK 30 L/55 autocannon. Some later versions used the similar 2 cm KwK 38 L/55. This autocannon was based on the 2 cm FlaK 30 anti-aircraft gun, and was capable of firing at a rate of 600 rounds per minute (280 rounds per minute sustained) from 10-round magazines. A total of 180 shells were carried. The Panzer II also had a 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 machine gun mounted coaxially with the main gun. All production versions of the Panzer II were fitted with a 140 PS, gasoline-fuelled six-cylinder Maybach HL 62 TRM engine and ZF transmissions. Models A, B, and C had a top speed of 40 km/h (25 mph). Models D and E had a torsion bar suspension and a better transmission, giving a top road speed of 55 km/h (33 mph) but the cross country speed was much lower than previous models, so the Model F reverted to the previous leaf spring type suspension. All versions had a range of 200 km (120 mi).
The Panzer II had a crew of three men. The driver sat in the forward hull. The commander sat in a seat in the turret, and was responsible for aiming and firing the guns, while a loader/radio operator stood on the floor of the tank under the turret. Production began in 1935, but it took another eighteen months for the first combat-ready tank to be delivered. Some 1,856 were manufactured between 1935 and 1943 and by 1939, some 1,226 Panzer IIs were in use. While larger, better-armed and better-armoured than the Panzer I, the Panzer II was still a light training tank that could also be used in a reconnaissance or policing role as well as providing priceless training to tank crews. Underpowered, under-armored and lightly armed, the Panzer II experienced its hardships particularly against anti-tank weaponry at close ranges. Nevertheless, war was on the horizon so time was of the essence and the more lethal Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs were still being developed and would not be mass-produced in time for the coming battles.
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... ausf_C.jpg
PzKpfw II Ausf. C in France, May 1940
According to some sources, the Panzer II was also sent to Spain from 1937, where it proved more capable against infantry than the Panzer I, but no better when faced with capable anti-tank guns or other tanks. However, no Panzer II's were seen in Spain by the Finnish volunteers of Pohjan Pohjat.
The Finnish Army expressed interest in the Panzer II and indeed, in 1937 a small team evaluated the tank in Germany with a view to a possible purchase (as they evaluated other tanks from other countries). However, their assessment was that the tank was best suited to be used in a reconnaissance role and while it was comparable to other light tanks such as the Soviet T-26 and the French R-35 or H-35 (or indeed the Finnish Army's own Vickers 6-ton or Czech-manufactured LT34 tanks), the 20mm gun was too light to be effective. In light of early experience in the Spanish Civil War, the Panzer II's armour was also seen as being too thin and not offering any protection against anything other than rifle and machinegun bullets and shell fragments. However, all of this was a moot point as the Finnish team was advised that all Panzer II's being built were going straight to the German Army and an export sale to the Finns would not be considered. The Finn's thus saw no point in pursuing the matter further and no further approaches to the Germans were made with regard to this tank. At the time, with Czechoslovakia supplying Finland with tanks, no need was seen to attempt to push harder with the Germans.