Tag: Tanks

The Turtle Tank Evolves

In a recent article/video we looked at the proliferation of Russia’s unusual ‘Turtle Tanks’ which are protected by ad hoc, locally fabricated counter-FPV shells. Since then we’ve gotten a good look at several more Turtle Tanks and our first look at the driver’s point of view.

Footage, filmed on 27 April, of another Russian armoured assault into Krasnohorivka shows a column of four infantry fighting vehicles with what appear t o be counter-FPV shelters following a tank with a ‘cope cage’

On the 29 April, a Ukrainian Telegram channel posted a short video of a ‘Turtle Tank’ attack in the Bakhmut direction, noting that [machine translated]: “the equipment is stupidly scalded with metal, from 5 units it was possible to destroy a tank and an armored personnel carrier. A lot of FPV was spent on one tank. Everyone laughs at their construction of barns, but in fact they work like hell.” The tank appears to have a box like shelter with a sloped forward roof over its gun and glacis. As seen in earlier videos the tank is leading a column of armoured vehicles during the assault, clearing a path for them. It appears to detonate a mine with its mine plough and retreats.

At the start of May a pair of T-62s with hybrid counter-FPV shelters were seen in photos taken by a UAV, location unconfirmed. These images illustrate the blurring of the lines between ‘cope cage’ equipped tanks and the ‘turtle tanks’. Like the earlier turtle tanks they’re fitted with EW sets & KMT-6 mine ploughs but do not have shells made entirely from sheet metal. Instead, they appear to have used chainlink and gratings, one piece of which appears to have Kontakt (explosive reactive armour (ERA) mounted. One of the vehicles appears to have been used to transport supplies. One T-62 has broken tracks, the other top damage.

A hybrid combining elements of the Turtle Tank with that of earlier ‘cope cages’ (via social media)

Around the same time the Ukrainian 79th Air Assault Brigade shared video of Russian attacks near Novomykhailivka, in Donetsk, the footage included a brief clip of a ‘turtle tank’ with a small forward opening, camouflage over its shell frame and no sign of a mine plough or roller fitted. On 2 May, the 33rd Mechanized Brigade shared footage from thermal camera-equipped FPV drones showed a Russian tank being used to transport troops, the profile of the counter-FPV shelter is visible but the low definition of the thermal footage makes it difficult to analyse its construction. The vehicle, however, appears to be equipped with a mine plough and possibly an EW module.

Also on 2 May, Ukrainian drone fundraiser Teoyaomiquu shared a video of a Russian assault near Ivanivske which shows a pair of Russian armoured vehicles with counter-FPV shells, one of which deploys a smoke screen. The 1st Assault Battalion of the 5th Separate Assault Brigade also shared footage from the Russian assault showing the shell-equipped vehicles.

On the 5 May a short video was posted by a Russian combatant which showed an entirely enclosed MT-LB with steel plates surrounding the top of the vehicle and its wheels. It also has an additional mesh roof cover to add additional top protection. Two cutouts in the side and one in the front for the driver also have mesh covers to give some visibility. On the same day video of a destroyed BTR-MDM which had been encased in a counter-FPV shelter was shared, showing the rear of the vehicle enclosed.

An evolved Turtle Tank with added cages on its superstructure (via social media)

Perhaps the most striking evolution of the ‘Turtle Tank’ appeared on 5 May, a tank completely enclosed except for a small gap at the front. Protective grills made from cages completely cover the outer metal sheets of the counter-FPV shell. One Russian telegram channel likened it to a rolling ‘poultry farm’. The vehicle also has a KMT-7 mine roller. Additional video of the porcupine-like tank gives us the first look at what it is like driving one of these ‘turtle tanks’, with his hatch open the driver has an almost clear view ahead (apart from the solid awning above him and the partial grill cage protection to his front) but no view to the left or right front quarters of the tank.

A Turtle Tank driver using a camera feed to steer (via social media)

Several days later footage from inside what appears to be the same tank shows the driver steering by video monitor. The readout on the monitor suggests the video’s resolution is 4K H.265 but the field of view appears limited, with the camera seemingly positioned on the shell’s awning looking down between the KMT-7’s two rollers. The system used is from Russian automotive accessory company Eplutus and appears to be one of their rear view camera monitors.

Another piece of UAV footage shows another ‘turtle tank’ with a much boxier shell. It again has all of the major features seen in earlier examples: a sheet metal shell which encloses most of the top part of tank, a set of mine rollers and a EW jammer module on the roof. Some sources suggest the footage was filmed near Bilohorivka, in Luhansk. It’s unclear when the footage was filmed but the vehicle appears stationary with access grates to the tank’s rear deck left open.

The 7 May saw evidence of the proliferation of t he ‘turtle tank’ concept with Russian social media sharing photographs of a ‘Turtle Tank’ fabricated by the Russian 40th Naval Infantry Brigade, these indicate that the concept is continuing to proliferated, perhaps without any central influence. The tank is encased in a counter-FPV shelter made up of three large metal sheets, a poorly fabricated angled roof which slopes at the rear with a flat top and a wire mesh slopping front piece. Additionally on the floor there appears to be a chair curtain similar to those seen on other ‘turtle tanks’. The rear has an extended deck and appears to be enclosed. A skirt of Kontakt-1 ERA has been roughly added around the skirt. As with other Turtle Tanks the ‘V Turtle’ is equipped with what appears to be an RP-377 electronic warfare jammer. It also has a KMT-6 mine plough fitted. A large white V has been painted on the sides of the shell and Russian flag rings added to the barrel.

A Turtle Tank built by the 40th Naval Infantry Brigade (via social media)

On 10 May, footage of an FPV drone attacking an immobilised ‘turtle tank’ emerged. The tank is again enclosed by a counter-FPV shell and has a mine plough. The feed from the drone also suffers from some interference as it approaches the vehicle suggesting that an EW module may be present nearby, perhaps aboard the tank. However, it appears that a mine has damaged the tank’s tracks and the vehicle has been abandoned allowing an FPV to attack via an open rear hatch. The footage was reportedly filmed during the first day of the new Russian offensive towards Kharkiv. This again shows that not only is the concept proliferating but also that the ‘turtle tanks’ are still vulnerable to conventional anti-tank weapons like mines.

Also on the 10 May, the Russian military channel, Large Caliber Trouble, shared a photo of the porcupine turtle tank which had been damaged by FPV strikes showing the cage bars bent and some holes in the counter-FPV shell. The post claims that the tank was “attacked by 40 kamikazes, [but] thanks to electronic warfare, most of them fell and only 8 FPVs were able to cause damage.” The condition of the vehicle after the engagement is unknown. The suggestion that a large number of FPVs attacked the tank supports the earlier Ukrainian comments about ‘a lot of FPV [being] spent on one tank.’

A ‘turtle tank’ seen on the eastern front on the first day of the Russian Kharkiv offensive (via social media)

A key question is how can the Turtle Tanks be defeated? Basically just like any other tank can be: anti-tank guided missiles with tandem warheads, dense mines belts, direct hits by artillery, use of multiple FPV drones to damage and breach the shell with additional drones to exploit gaps made.

We will probably see further proliferation of the ‘turtle tanks’ in coming weeks but with time the Ukrainians will probably find ways to engage these protected tanks more effectively, as is so common in war there will probably be a continued evolution of measure and counter-measure.

Support Us: If you enjoyed this video and article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters – including early access to custom stickers and early access to videos! Thank you for your support!

Tsar Mangal: Return of the Turtle Tanks

Two weeks ago, we looked at a curious in-field adaptation carried out by a Russian unit operating near Krasnohorivka. A T-72 had been near totally enclosed by sheet metal to protect it from FPV drones. Various imagery showed the tank encased in a trapezoidal steel structure, giving the vehicle the look of a shed on tracks. Since then several other similar ‘turtle’ tanks have been seen in the field.

Ukrainian social media describes the vehicles as ‘turtle tanks’ (танку черепашці) or the ‘Blyatmobile’ while on Russian telegram channels the tanks are often referred to as ‘Tsar Mangal’ (Царь мангал) or Tsar’s BBQ/grill or some refer to them as ‘assault garages’ (штурмовых гаражей). To give it a more academic name it could be described as a counter-FPV shelter or shell. Generally speaking at the moment Ukraine is short on anti-tank guided missiles and artillery which would traditionally be used to combat armoured vehicles, over the past year Ukraine has held the advantage in FPV drone production and has come to rely on them when targeting Russian armour. It appears that these shelters have been fabricated in an effort to mitigate Ukraine’s use of FPVs offering an additional layer of physical protection, often alongside electronic warfare systems.

A day or so after I shared my initial video on the Turtle Tank more imagery of what was either another Turtle Tank or the first one rebuilt appeared online. The vehicle’s shell had a slightly different profile and notably mounted on top was an electronic warfare device to counter drones. Here’s a still from a UAV feed showing the vehicle:

A still from a UAV feed showing the ‘Mk2’ on the move (via social media)

Subsequently, on the 17 April, we got a better look at the Mk2 Turtle Tank. Unlike the first vehicle it appears to be constructed from corrugated sheet metal and is fully enclosed, preventing any traverse of the tank’s turret. It has been speculated that Russian engineers took a damaged tank which could not move its turret and built a breacher vehicle which could be used to lead assault columns. Like the first Turtle Tank, this iteration also has a KMT-6 mine plough fitted.

With a fully enclosed shell it is unclear if the Mk2 is being used for transporting troops or if its enclosed to protect its electronic warfare (EW) kit or perhaps both. What is clear is that it is being used as a mine clearance vehicle ahead of armoured assault columns. The shell would in theory give all around protection against drone attack. The footage of the vehicle, said to have been filmed on around 15 April, shows the vehicle on the move, it survives several near misses from artillery and it also shows the vehicle making a wrong turn probably due to is severely restricted visibility.

A side profile shot of the initial Turtle Tank (via social media)

On the 19 April, a Russian telegram channel shared a video showing several photographs of the construction of the initial Turtle Tank showing its inner framework. A week later on 25 April, Russian news outlet Izvestia shared footage of one of the tanks, again fitted with a mine plough, in action leading a column of vehicles in the Krasnohorivka sector. [The first footage of the operation appeared on Telegram on 24 April.] The vehicle is immobilised by what appears to be a mine blast with Russian sources suggesting it became stuck. Another video filmed by another drone shows the rear angle of the columns advance.

Izvestia’s report suggests that the tank was locally known as ‘Ferdinand’. Further footage shows the salvaging of ‘Ferdinand’ with another tank successfully towing it away. Here is another video showing another overwatch angle of salvage operation. Closer drone footage of the stricken tank shows that the red corrugated sheet metal shell has been covered in a camouflage net and there is also what appears to be an electronic warfare device mounted on the roof. The sides of the vehicle’s shell are less sloped and the front of the shell appears less enclosed than the second iteration of the tank.

In additional footage a new iteration of the improvised counter-FPV shelters appears with a ‘Turtle BMP’ [or BMP-Mangals / ‘Царь-Мангал’] seen in operation inside Krasnohorivka. What appears to be earlier footage shows both ‘Ferdinand’ and the ‘Turtle BMP’ moving by road in the Petrovs’kyi district. The Turtle BMP appears to be fitted with a mine plough.

A still from footage of a Turtle BMP on the move on the outskirts of Donetsk (via social media)

Also on the 25 April, two photographs of fabrication of another Turtle Tank were shared these show a frame of six supporting arches onto which steel plates have been welded, on top of this a mash screen has been attached adding another layer of spaced protection.

A short video of yet another variant shows a sheet metal shell with an enclosed rear that has a door and steps perhaps to allow passengers to debus. The front of the shell is much more open and there is no sign of any electronic warfare devices mounted on the shell. It’s unclear when or where the footage was filmed.

Another example of a Turtle Tank, no mine plough fitted (via social media)

Intriguingly, the concept of a counter-FPV shelter made from sheet metal appears to be proliferating with several images of another vehicle reportedly originating from the Chasiv Yar area to the north of Krasnohorivka where the first vehicles were seen. The shell appears to be made from corrugated metal sheets and unlike some of the earlier examples has been painted with a camouflage pattern. Unlike some of the other Turtle tanks this one does not appear to have a mine plough fitted and it has a curtain of chains to protect openings at the front and rear of the shell.

A Turtle Tank reportedly operating near Chasiv Yar (via social media)

From the available imagery it appears that the majority of the vehicles outfitted with a counter-FPV shell are also equipped with mine ploughs, further supporting the theory that they are being used a breacher vehicles. Some, however, appear to be optimised for transporting infantry.

It’s unclear if all of the Turtle Tanks are operated by the 5th Motorized Rifle Brigade but [as of 25 April] there may be early signs that the counter-FPV shelter concept may be proliferating to other sectors, and other units. While the vehicles may appear ridiculous they are proving at least somewhat effective in mitigating the threat of Ukrainian FPV drones though their shells offer little protection against anything else.

Update – 29/4/24:

Footage, filmed on 27 April, of another Russian armoured assault into Krasnohorivka shows a column of 4 infantry fighting vehicles with what appear to be counter-FPV shelters following a tank with a ‘cope cage’

A Ukrainian Telegram channel posted a short video of a ‘Turtle Tank’ attack in the “Bakhmut direction” noting that [machine translated] “the equipment is stupidly scalded with metal, from 5 units it was possible to destroy a tank and an armored personnel carrier. A lot of FPV was spent on one tank. Everyone laughs at their construction of barns, but in fact they work like hell.”

The tank appears to have a box like shelter with a sloped forward roof over its gun and glacis.

Update – 1/5/24:

Not quite ‘turtle tanks’: a pair of T-62s with hybrid counter-FPV shelters were seen in photos taken by a UAV, location unconfirmed. Like previous turtle tanks they’re fitted with EW sets & KMT-6 mine ploughs. But do not have shells made from corrugated sheet metal. Instead they have used chainlink and gratings (one piece of which appears to have Kontakt ERA mounted). One of the vehicles appears to have been used to transport supplies. One T-62 has broken tracks, the other top damage.

Update – 7/5/24: A ‘Turtle Tank’ fabricated by the Russian 40th Marine Brigade shows that the concept is continuing to proliferated, perhaps without any central influence.

Support Us: If you enjoyed this video and article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters – including early access to custom stickers and early access to videos! Thank you for your support!

Russian Blyatmobile – The Turtle Tank

The so-called ‘cope cage’ has been a thing since before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. With the proliferation of top attack munitions, drone dropped munitions and subsequently first person view (FPV) kamikaze munitions ways of protecting valuable armoured fighting vehicles were sought. This evolved as cages over the top of tanks’ turrets and later with some vehicles being near-fully enclosed by wire cages, sometimes with hanging chains.

A still from a Ukrainian overwatch drone feed showing the tank (via social media)

In early April Russian ‘engineers’ took the ‘cope cage’ to its next level, completely enclosing an entire tank in sheet metal. While this might look ridiculous the practice is a time-honoured one with the concept of spaced armour developing as early as the First World War, when the French augmented the Schneider CA1 with some forward armour panels. Spaced armour is intended to reduce the penetrating power of kinetic and explosive penetrators.

Damage to the outer, spaced, armour plates of a French CA1 tank (source)

At least one Russian tank, a T-72, has been seen near totally enclosed by sheet metal rather than a cage. Various imagery shows a tank encased in a trapezoidal steel structure, giving the vehicle the look of a shed on tracks. Ukrainian social media has seen the tank described as the ‘turtle tank’ (танку черепашці) or the ‘Blyatmobile’ while on Russian telegram channels the tanks is often referred to as ‘Tsar Mangal’ (Царь мангал) or Tsar’s BBQ/grill. The odd vehicle was first spotted during a recent attack on Ukrainian positions around Krasnohorivka, in Donetsk. It was seen in video posted on 8 April, from a Ukrainian overwatch drone, leading an attacking column of Russian armoured fighting vehicles delivering troops forward. It has been hypothesised that the sheet metal structure was built to protect troops riding on the tank’s hull. Notably the tank is also fitted with a KMT-6 mine plough.

A still from a video of the tank posted on a Russian telegram channel (via dobryi_russkyi)

While the turtle tank survived the operation during which it was first seen several days later it appears to have been destroyed by a Ukrainian artillery strike. Ukrainian overwatch and reconnaissance drones tracked the tank back to its base and the location was reportedly cross-referenced by a Ukrainian OSINT and geo-location team Cyber Boroshno, against open source video of it inside a warehouse posted by Russian sources.

In the video we can better see the construction of the tank’s shell. It appears there are 4 corner support columns holding up a frame work onto which the shell as been welded. At the front of the shell there is a white painted piece of shaped metal that looks it could be from the roof of a commercial panel van adds some aerodynamic finesse. It appears there may be an internal box with sheet metal of the sides of the shell providing a second layer at the rear on the tank’s engine deck. Perhaps a space for infantry dismounts.

The drone footage shared on 9 April showed the aftermath of the strike on the Russian armoured unit’s base with the battle damage assessment footage appearing to show the turtle tank in the wreckage of the building.

Ukrainian ISR UAV footage claimed to be of the turtle tank after an artillery strike (via CyberBoroshno)

The armour shell constructed by Russian engineers likely offered some protection against FPV drones but at the cost of the crew’s ability to observe its surroundings, the ability to traverse its gun and likely its mobility.

The turtle tank may look ridiculous but it is a prime example of in-field adaptation and evolution of concepts around how to protect vehicles. The cope cage, which first emerged in Syria, have become more and more mainstream with both Russia and Ukraine employing them, who knows perhaps the armour shell of the turtle tank may indicate a future direction of development which might eventually become less ad-hoc and ludicrous looking.

Update 16/04/24:

Russian ‘engineers’ in the Krasnohorivka area appear to have either rebuilt or built another ‘turtle tank’ with a slightly different profile and an electronic warfare device mounted on top to counter drones. Stills from a UAV feed:

Update 17/04/24: A better look at the Turtle Tank Mk2. It appears to be constructed from corrugated sheet metal and is fully enclosed, preventing any traverse of the tank’s turret. It has been speculated that Russian engineers took a damaged tank which could not move its turret and built a breacher vehicle. This later was iteration of the Turtle Tank also has a mine plough like the first.

It’s unclear if the Mk2 is a construction on another tank or the shell rebuilt on the same vehicle following damage. With a fully enclosed shell it seems unlikely that the vehicle is being used for transporting troops instead it appears to be enclosed to protect its EW kit and act as a mine clearance vehicle ahead of armoured columns. The shell would in theory give all around protection against drone attack. The footage of the vehicle, said to have been filmed on around 15 April, shows the vehicle on the move, it survive several near misses from artillery it also shows the vehicle making a wrong turn probably due to is severely restricted visibility.

Support Us: If you enjoyed this video and article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters – including early access to custom stickers and early access to videos! Thank you for your support!

Russia & Ukraine’s Adapted MT-LBs

The MT-LB tracked artillery tractor has become one of the most recognisable armoured vehicles of the war in Ukraine. These versatile vehicles are used by both sides in huge numbers and while first introduced in the 1970s they continue to be used as both armoured personnel carriers and also as the platform for a plethora of weapon systems ranging from rocket pods to auto-cannons to MT-12 anti-tank guns.

In this article/video we’ll look at two specific MT-LB adaptations; one Russian, one Ukrainian.

Russian MT-LB adaptation with a 2M-3 turret which was first seen in March 2023 (via Social Media)

Russia’s Turreted MT-LB

In March 2023, a number of photographs and videos emerged of Russian MT-LBs which had been fitted with a large turret complex over the rear portion of the vehicle. The turrets are naval 2M-3s which mount a pair of 25mm 110-PM autocannons. The first images surfaced at the beginning of March. The strikingly ugly turret quickly led to ridicule on social media and numerous memes mocking the vehicle. Between the 8 and 10 March a series of short videos showing the turret-adapted MT-LBs on the move. One video showed several vehicles in a yard with a large crane, perhaps suggesting they had been off-loaded. The person filming the video notes that the unusual turrets and were apparently ‘sent for defence’. The footage features at least five turreted-MT-LBs, one appearing to also have an adapted front commander’s turret.

Another clip, shared around 10 March, shows a transport train with numerous vehicles loaded, including some Russian Military Police vans. Two (possibly four) of the adapted MT-LBs can be seen. Similarly, another clip showing the vehicles in transit through an urban area features one perhaps two adapted-MT-LBs.

Other examples of Russian MT-LB adaptations with 2M-3 turrets (via Social Media)

Since the early spring there have been no sightings of the vehicles but in late May a video and several photos were shared featuring a Russian combatant riding in the turret of one of the adapted MT-LBs, the anti-aircraft style style sight can be seen in the video and one of the photographs.

Russia is likely making use of turrets that have been in storage since the vessels they were mounted on were decommissioned. Their is probably still an ample supply of ammunition for the 25mm autocannons. The mount has -12° to +85° elevation and 360° rotation giving it a good field of fire for use against ground targets.

Just what role Russia envisioned for the turreted MT-LBs is still unclear. They could be used in direct fire roles perhaps as support guns which can help plug gaps in defensive lines with suppressive fire. Or perhaps as mobile anti-aircraft vehicles for taking on drones but their limited manual targeting would mean they would struggle to be a match for even slow moving drones. Other potential uses might be as assault guns or as a more heavily armed vehicle for internal security duties protecting supply lines from Ukrainian partisans.

Ukrainian MT-LBu adaptation with a KPV heavy machine gun remote weapon system (via Social Media)

Ukraine’s MT-LB Refits

While many of both sides’ MT-LB adaptations have focused on simply mounting a weapon system to the rear deck or where the commander’s original PKT mount was, a recent Ukrainian refit has gone much further. A video was shared by a Ukrainian MT-LB crewmember which showed six vehicles all refit to a similar configuration. It appears that additional armour has been added to the sides and rear of the vehicle in an effort to provide additional protection to the lightly armoured MT-LB. [Correction: the vehicle has 7 road-wheels indicating the adaptation is likely based on an MT-LBu variant. These have been described as BMP-1LBs.] The vehicles also have new storage baskets, smoke-grenade launchers and a new remote weapon mount controlled from inside the MT-LB. A photograph of the front of the mount shows that it mounts a single 14.5x114mm KPVT machine gun, remotely fired and aimed using an electro-optics module positioned to the left side of the gun. The weapon and optics are protected by a curved gun shield, the cuts in the shield suggest that the weapon’s range of elevation is considerable.

Russian MT-LB adaptation with twin DShk mount on the original PKT turret (via Social Media)

These vehicles are are just two examples of MT-LBs in Ukraine adapted with ad-hoc weapon mounts. There are dozens of other examples of up-gunned MT-LBs deployed by both sides. Other commonly seen adaptations include fitting ZU-23-2 anti-aircaft mounts to MT-LBs

In February 2023, Ukrainian troops shared a video of a Russian MT-LB captured near Vuhledar, which had been fitted with a 2M-7 naval turret mounting a pair of 14.5mm KPV heavy machine guns. Similar vehicles appeared in photographs showing several MT-LBs with ad-hoc adaptations which included one vehicle with the same, as well as other vehicles with other dual and single gun mounts. One can be seen mounted with a single DShK on a tall, exposed pintle mount.

In May, an MT-LB was sighted with a twin DShK mount. Similarly, another MT-LB fitted with a twin DShK mount on top of the existing PKT turret was shared on 10 June, it had also been adapted by adding track and boxes as appliqué armour. Also in June, a photograph of a pair of MT-LBs equipped with A-22 140mm multiple rocket launch systems was shared on Telegram.

With Ukraine forming new brigades and both sides suffering considerable armoured vehicle losses the ubiquitous MT-LB, while lightly armoured, offers one of the best available platforms for mounting additional or role-specific weapons.

Support Us: If you enjoyed this video and article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters – including early access to custom stickers and early access to videos! Thank you for your support!

Supercut: Ukrainian Farmers Stealing Russian Tanks

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in late February large quantities of vehicles and equipment have been captured or destroyed on both sides. Fighting a war in the social media age means we have an unprecedented amount of first hand footage and of course from this memes are going to evolve. Almost as soon as the war began videos of Ukrainian farmers towing Russian vehicles began to be shared on telegram, tiktok and instagram. Often salvaging abandoned equipment the videos soon made unlikely heroes of Ukraine’s farmers. So much so they’ve been commemorated not just by Saint Javelin merchandise but also an official stamp from the Ukrainian post office.

I’ve collected quite a few videos of the farmers in action over the last few months and Rob Lee over on twitter has been keeping a running thread too. So here’s a supercut of videos showing Ukrainian farmers towing away everything from trucks to Grad launchers to T-80 tanks!

Support Us: If you enjoyed this video and article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters – including early access to custom stickers and early access to videos! Thank you for your support!

Bibliography:

Famous for towing captured Russian tanks, Ukrainian farmers step up for war effort, CBC News, (source)

Winning design in Ukraine’s second design contest features tractor and tank, Linn’s Stamp News, (source)

Ukraine Celebrates Its Tank-Towing Farmers, VOA, (source)

Ukraine’s New & Improved Home Made Self-Propelled Gun

Back in August we took a look at an improvised vehicle built by Ukrainian troops near Mykolaiv. It paired an MT-LB tracked armoured fighting vehicle with an MT-12 100mm anti-tank gun. Now engineers from Ukrtransgaz – Ukraine’s state-owned gas pipeline company, have taken that concept and developed an improved version of the home made self-propelled gun.

On Monday 26 September, Ukrtransgaz shared a post on their facebook page about the new vehicle saying:

“Our colleagues were approached by the soldiers of the TpO [Territorial Defence Forces] detachment with a request for the manufacture of such an installation. The idea of ​​combining an armored personnel carrier and a cannon into an improvised self-propelled gun was borrowed from the Mykolaiv military, which in August produced and successfully tested the first such installation in battle. So they decided to “improve” the trophy Russian MT-LB with the Ukrainian Rapira for their own needs.”

Ukrtransgaz noted that the vehicle took a team of six engineers two weeks to construct. Beneath the facebook post the company also shared a short, sadly low resolution, video of the vehicle being tested. TAB reached out to Ukrtransgaz for a better version of the footage but sadly they didn’t have one available.

The team behind the gun had assistance from an unnamed ‘specialized university’ who helped increase the gun’s elevation, which is normally capped at +20°, and in theory increase the gun’s range. It’s unclear which ammunition is being used with Ukraine’s MT-12s, whether it’s APFSDS or HEAT.

The company states that the vehicle is ready for operations and has successfully passed tests on the range, ready to be deployed. They also note that the team intends to manufacture at least two more such self-propelled guns.

Examining the Ukrtransgaz SPG we can see that the roof of the MT-LB has again been cut back but the the mounting of the gun is slightly higher and armour protection has been built up around the sides for the gun crew. From the footage shared we can see that theres room for around six troops to sit in the rear of the vehicle. Unlike the earlier Mykolaiv-built vehicle there does not appear to be the pair of hydraulic supports to stabilise the vehicle when firing.

Update 15/12/22: A video from the Ukrainian government’s United24 project showcased a further example of the homemade MT-LB mounted anti-tank gun vehicles. This time mounting the older T-12 100mm anti-tank gun, the T-12 is the predecessor to the MT-12 and uses the same family of ammunition. The vehicle seen in the video is on operations around Bakhmut, acting as a self-propelled gun. It lacks the armour shield to protect the gun crew seen on earlier examples of the homemade MT-LB based vehicles but it does have the supporting struts at the rear of the vehicle.

Update 23/12/22: Another interesting undated video of one of Ukraine’s MT-LBs with a 100-mm gun MT-12 mounted. Note the movement of the vehicle on firing, this example has the support struts at the rear of the vehicle, to minimise this and remove the need to re-lay the gun, but they have not been deployed. Unlike the version seen in the 15 December update this version utilises the MT-12s original gun shield but does not have additional protection added.

If you enjoyed this video and article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters – including custom stickers and early access to videos! Thank you for your support!

A Look Inside A Heavily Damaged M3 Grant

I recently attended the We Have Ways of Making You Talk podcast’s history festival and one of the most striking things on display was a very rusty, heavily damaged M3 Grant! 

The tank, T24193, was one of the first M3 Grants to arrive in Britain in 1941. It was used for cross country and gunnery trials before later in the war it was used as a range target. The owner was kind enough to share some photographs of the tank before it was salvaged.

The tank was salvaged from Pirbright Ranges in Surrey in 2003 and restored mechanically but its external damage is going to be retained as a visual display of its history as a range target. According to the tank’s owner the M3 was used to test captured German Panzerfaust and Panzershreks and has approximately 100 10mm diameter holes from Panzershreks and nearly 400 12-13mm diameter wholes from Panzerfausts fired at the tank. There also appears to be larger holes, perhaps some HESH round damage and lots of small arms strikes or spalling marks.

Here are some photos of the tank:

I would love to read the report on that testing to see what they were trying to find out – a possible research project for the future. The Panzerfaust (capable of penetrating up to 200mm) and Panzershreks (capable of penetrating up to 160mm) definitely penetrated the M3 Grant’s 2 inch frontal and 1.5 inch side armour. 

With the tank on display I couldn’t resist getting some video of it, the surreal sight of light coming through both sides of the tank’s hull becomes sobering when you consider that Allied tanks faced the weapons which made the holes, in actual combat.

If you enjoyed this video and article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters – including custom stickers and early access to videos! Thank you for your support!

Walkaround: Bovington Tank Museum Vehicle Conservation Centre

A couple of months ago I had the pleasure of being able to take a stroll around the Vehicle Conservation Centre at the Tank Museum at Bovington.

The VCC was built in 2013 to ensure the vehicles not on display were stored undercover and there are some real treasures in there including rare tanks from the First World War onwards.

Thank you to the Tank Museum for letting me take a walk around the VCC. Can’t wait to visit the museum again!  Check out their website here.

If you enjoyed this video and article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters – including custom stickers and early access to videos! Thank you for your support!

Beutepanzern

During the First World War Germany struggled to produce its own tanks, with no more than 20 A7Vs being built, instead the Imperial German Army made liberal use of captured allied tanks. In my recent video looking at the British No.44 anti-tank rifle grenade I briefly touched on German use of capture tanks or ‘Beutepanzern’.

The German Army form ed its first Heavy Tank Detachments in late 1917, three of these were equipped with German-built A7V, but the rest were eventually armed with captured British MkIVs. Many of the British tanks were captured following the Battle of Cambrai. Little was changed on MkIVs except for armament with German quick-firing 57mm Maxim-Nordenfelt guns and MG08 machine guns replacing the British 6 pdrs and .303 chambered machine guns for ease of logistics. Though some Lewis Guns pressed into German service were reportedly used aboard the captured tanks.

A Beute MkIV in the field

In this footage from a German newsreel, we see some of the British tanks captured at Cambrai, as well as German soldiers examining the tank and demonstrating how it works. Finally the Kaiser watches a demonstration of the captured vehicle during a visit to the front.   

German workshops converted most captured machine gun-only armed ‘female’ MkIVs into gun and machine gun armed ‘males’. They also added a 13mm T-Gewehr anti-tank rifle in place of their British tank’s forward Lewis machine gun. Some also had one of their sponson guns replaced with a T-Gewehr. An escape hatch was also added to the tank’s cupola-roof. Externally the Beutepanzern were simply painted with Iron Crosses (Eisernes Kreuz) for recognition purposes. Repair workshops were set up to repair and salvage captured British tanks including one near Charleroi (Bayerischer Armee-Kraftwagen-Park Nr. 20).

A Beute MkIV in the field

In terms of doctrine the use of tanks didn’t fit well with the Stormtrooper tactics used in 1918. The slow and cumbersome tanks weren’t ideal for keeping up with the rapidly moving stormtroopers but the tanks did see action throughout 1918. The captured tanks first saw action in March 1918, during Operation Michael, Germany’s Spring Offensive and later during the Hundred Days Offensive. The use of the Beutepanzern also lead to the unique situation – and the first instance of it happening in history – where the same type of tank engaged one another. MkIVs reportedly clashed near Mont Neuve Farm during the second Battle of Cambrai in October 1918.

Alongside battle losses the reliability of the Beute MkIVs also meant attrition of the captured vehicles was high. By September 1918 most of the German Army’s tank detachments had lost all of their vehicles.

Bavarian Army Motor Vehicle Park No. 20 (Bundesarchiv)

The British MkIV was the most commonly used captured vehicle, although a small number of Whippet Light Tanks were captured as well as were various types of French tanks. Several MkIVs appear to have also been used during Germany’s internal strife in 1919.  

While the use of captured tanks was far from ideal, the familiarisation with MkIVs did lead to them to influence German design thinking and a rhomboid layout was used on the A7V-U which was being developed at the end of the war.

If you enjoyed this video and article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters – including custom stickers and early access to videos! Thank you for your support!

Bibliography:

Beute Mark IV, Landships, P. Kempf, (source)

Beutepanzern, Weapons and Warfare, (source)

British Steel, Iron Cross, Britain at War, (source)

Beute-Tanks, R. Strasheim, (2011)

Britain’s First Anti-Tank Weapon

The British Army’s first dedicated anti-tank weapon was a rifle grenade. The No.44 Rifle Grenade was developed towards the end of the First World War to take on the emerging threat of German tanks.

A British officer firing a No.3 Mk2 Rifle Grenade (IWM)

The No.44 could be fired from a Short Magazine Lee-Enfield MkIII rifle, the British had developed a plethora of rod and cup discharger based rifle grenades but the No.44 was the first specifically designed with tanks in mind. 

By 1918 the German Army had responded to the threat of British and French tanks by developing their own, the A7V, albeit in small numbers, and by fielding captured allied tanks. 

The A7V was a leviathan at over 3.3m tall and more than 30 tons. It would be crewed by at least 18 men. It was decided that the infantryman needed an effective means of taking on tanks.

A German A7V (US National Archive)

Sources suggest that the grenades were developed by the by the Royal Engineers Experimental Station with input from the Tank Corps. The No.44 was largely based on the earlier No.24 rifle grenade. The British Army had been using rifle grenades with rods since February 1915 with the No.2 rifle grenade. 

No.44 Anti-Tank Grenade (IWM)

A myriad of grenade designs were developed during the war with dozens of designs entering service between 1915 and 1918. Eventually the British Army moved away from using rodded rifle grenades, because of the implications of barrel wear from the friction of the rods, and focused on discharger cup based designs. The No.44’s spiritual descendent, the No.68, introduced in 1940, would follow this trend and be fired from the same discharger cup used by to fire No.36 grenades fitted with a gas check.    

The No.44 grenade itself is made up of a pair of pressed tin plate pieces which make up the top and bottom of the bomb with a rolled sheet of tin making up the central body. The parts were soldered together with a filling plug also soldered into the top of the grenade. The grenade itself contained either Amatol 80/20 or Amatol 83/17 explosive, sources suggest about 11.5 ounces. While externally it may resemble later shaped charges, it was not, the explosive filled the space around the central detonator assembly.

Sectional diagram No.44 Anti-Tank Grenade

The ignition system was essentially a .297/230 cartridge case and a detonator. On firing a release socket moved to allow the retaining bolts to release the striker (or needle pellet) it had been retaining. The striker was then simply held back from the detonator by a spring. When the grenade struck its target inertia cause the striker to over come and compress the spring, allowing the striker to ignite the detonator and set off the grenade’s main filling. Given mass of the bomb and the type of detonator used the No.44 was probably intended for use at very short ranges.

Soldiers firing rod rifle grenades (IWM)

To use the grenade the firer would remove the wire fastening around the grenade to free the canvas vane. This would also allow access to the safety pin. The top plug could be undone and the detonator inserted. The rod was then slid down the muzzle of the user’s rifle. The safety pin could then be removed. A blank cartridge would be loaded into the rifle and when the trigger was pulled the was grenade launched by the gases from the cartridge pushing the rod out of the barrel. The No.44’s flight would be stabilised by the canvas skirt or vane.    

There’s no mention of the grenades in the British Army’s Small Arms Committee Minutes so its development must have been documented elsewhere. It does, however, appear in the List of Changes and is known to have been issued from April 1918 onwards but further primary research is needed to find out more about its development, designers and testing.

No.44 Anti-Tank Grenade (Matthew Moss)

The No.44 remained in service into the inter-war period but does not appear in any of the post-war Small Arms Training manuals. Several were published during this period, the first in 1924 and a second in 1931 – the No.44 appears in neither of them. The final pre-war Small Arms Training pamphlet on grenades, published in 1937, is confined to just the No.36 grenade. According to Ian Skennerton’s book on British grenades there were no No.44s remaining in stores by April 1931 and it was declared obsolete. 

Sources disagree on the number of No.44s manufactured with some suggesting just under 100,000 while others suggest between 125,000 and 150,000. According to Skennerton 9,800 were issued between April and November 1918. A very small amount when compared to the hundreds of thousands of other, more widely used grenades held in stores at the end of the war.  

The German A7Vs were first deployed in March 1918, but only saw their first action the following month. With only 20 A7Vs built and the design proving relatively impractical the Allies had little to fear from German tank attacks. Sadly, there are no readily available records of the No.44’s use or its effectiveness.

British solider firing a cup discharger rifle grenade (IWM)

The A7V’s armour consisted of 5 to 30mm of steel plate depending on location on the tank. This steel plate was not hardened which may have increased the No.44’s effectiveness against it. It may be that the No.44 would have had to have been fired at close range and strike a vulnerable point on the attacking vehicle to have the most effect.

While not the only anti-tank grenade to be developed during the period, the French also developed several rifle grenades, and not as famous as the German T-Gewehr, it does represent Britain’s first dedicated infantry anti-tank weapon. 

If you enjoyed this video and article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters – including custom stickers and early access to videos! Thank you for your support!

Bibliography:

An Introduction To British Grenades, I.D. Skennerton, (1988)

British Grenade Rifle No. 44 Anti-Tank, AmmunitionPages, (source)

Grenade, Rifle No 44 A.T. (Anti Tank), Imperial War Museum, (source)

Grenade, Rifle, No 44 Anti-Tank (Sectioned), Imperial War Museum, (source)

British No.24 Mk.II Rod Grenade, Inert-Ord.net, (source)

Men Against Tank, J. Weeks, (1975)